Monthly Archives: February 2008

Universal Health Care or Mandatory Health Care?

There’s something that has been bugging me for quite a while now.  Ever since Massachusetts passed its “Universal Health Care” plan (and now picked up by Clinton), that is.  And the issue is this.  Since when did “Universal Health Care” become “Mandatory Health Care”?  When I, and I would believe most liberals, think of Universal Health Care, we think of a system whereby our tax dollars are used to fund health care for everyone.

 

The reason for the need of Universal Health Care is to make it available to those who want health coverage, but cannot afford it.  Mandating people get health care does not solve this problem.  It’s tantamount to “solving” homelessness by mandating that people get housing.  I fully admit that should everyone get health care, costs would go down some extent.  However, that does not outweigh the harm it would cause to those who cannot afford the insurance.

 

If we want Universal Health Care, let’s do it.  Let’s not mess around with mandates, but actually put into place a system whereby the government provides the health care funding. 

 

Cheers,

Charlie

Advertisements

Am I Still Desensitized to Clinton’s Negative Campaign?

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on being desensitized to Clinton’s antics.  They just became too repetitive, and too tiring to care about.  Every single one was as pointless and negative as the previous.  As such, of late I’ve taken a bit of a hiatus from writing about them.

But, oh my, has she upped the ante in the last few days.  It seems like every day she’s making outrageous claims, and each one is more outrageous than the previous.  I’ve still avoided writing about it.  And I will still.

However, one thing does need to be said.  I am truly struggling about what to do should Clinton win the nomination.  This looks exceedingly improbably since she basically has to win both Texas and Ohio by large margins.  As I write this post, as Obama has done with pretty much every state in which the people are given time to learn about him, he has closed the gap in Ohio, and is now slightly ahead in Texas.  Given that we still have a while until March 4, it should tighten up even more, if not go in Obama’s direction.  As such, it looks like Clinton doesn’t really stand a chance.

But my point is this, if she does win the election, her antics over the last few weeks has made it even harder to vote for her should she win the nomination.  In fact, ignoring Supreme Court nominations, I would be much more comfortable with a McCain Presidency than a Hillary Clinton Presidency.  She’s just too dirty and too absurd.  And let’s get this straight, I’m a liberal through-and-through, but I absolutely don’t want to vote for Clinton, especially given her campaign.  I’m starting to understand why Republicans hate her so much.

But then I have to figure in the Supreme Court.  Stevens is old, and while he might try to stay on the Court, who knows what will happen with his health.  I can stand four years of a McCain Presidency far easier than four years of a Clinton Presidency, but the Supreme Court has far more reaching effects than just four years. 

And there’s my dilemma.  It looks like I’m not going to have to deal with it, it looks like Obama will win, but Democrats, please keep this in mind.  If me, a liberal, is completely turned-off by Clinton, so much so that I might not vote for her, what does that say about independent voters?  Or even a lot of other Democratic voters?

Cheers,
Charlie

The Media Isn’t Against Clinton, Reality Is

Clinton campaign takes aim at press over coverage 

Again?!  Seriously?

The reason there’s a difference is because when Clinton attacks Obama, it’s usually a very cheap shot, and often completely untrue.  When Obama “attacks” (and I’m using the “attack” word here loosely.  A more appropriate word is “distinguish”), it’s usually true and not a cheap shot. 

Take a look at the latest complaints from the campaigns about each other.  Clinton complained about Obama being a liar and practicing dirty politics by him pointing out reasonable differences in policy (which were true).  Obama complains about the Clinton campaign trying to perpetuate the myth that Obama is Muslim (assuming the Clinton camp is responsible for the photo.  They did take a long time to deny sending it out today, and originally didn’t deny it.  They should have at least said it was wrong for the photo to be exploited in this way, but instead they took it as an opportunity to slam Obama).  Honestly, the media hasn’t done nearly enough to point out how negative of a campaign Hillary is running. 

Luckily, it appears America is figuring that out on their own.

Cheers,

Charlie

Texas Debate: Obama’s Response About Actions and Not Words

Nailed it.

 

Cheers,

Charlie

The First Original Post For This Transferred Weblog: A Copout

I find it necessary that I have a original post for the new weblog.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to say too much tonight (although, Clinton’s 527 group definitely deserves a rant), and I also didn’t yet witness tonight’s Democratic debate (will do so tomorrow, actually).  As such, I don’t have much to write about.  It’s kind of a problem, eh?  Well, here’s my solution: show a picture of the debate, and then comment on it.

 

February 21st Debate

 

Luckily, this picture really does say it all about the last few weeks of the campaign.  Clinton, trying her hardest to win at all costs, rants about whatever she possibly can, whether it be legitimate criticisms, but more likely last ditch rants.  Obama, with a tired and annoyed look on his face, thinking to himself, “There she goes again.  Seriously people, do you see what I’m dealing with?”

See, a “new” post?  Yay!

Cheers,

Charlie

Another Slate.com Link! Another Obama Post!

This Post Originally Appeared on February 19, 2008 at www.xanga.com/rumpusgoopus

Hey!  You know what this weblog needs, don’t you?  More stuff on Obama!  In fact, it needs more links to Slate.com!  It basically has had none of those in the past couple months!

 

Okay, so I’ve been actually very focused on the feminist response to the respective campaigns for a few weeks, but I’ve never written about it here for fear of being seen as a misogynist, sexist white male as apparently all Obama supporters are (sexist and misogynist, that is).  I came extremely close to commenting on the Huffington Post editorial titled “Patriarchy: 1000, Clinton: 0” after Obama’s sweep, but I refrained.  I refrained even though when I told my wife the name of the article, she laughed and thought that it was a headline of the kind you would find on The Onion.  And yet, even though females I know found the editorial to be rather abhorrent, I still didn’t comment. 

 

And finally, after all this time, I finally have decided: I’m still not going to comment.  It’s actually probably a mistake for me to not express my actual feelings regarding this issue since it’s much easier to read into what I think, but I’ll simply say this.  Slate.com’s “XX Factor” blog has usually supplied the appropriate feminist commentary on the election.  As such, I will rely on them in general, and a recent post in specific, to express my ideas on the election in regards to feminism.

 

Obama’s Sexist Dog Whistle

Barack Obama brought up Hillary Clinton’s period! “I understand that Senator Clinton periodically,” (See? He said it!) “when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” Clearly, he was saying his rival ought to look into hormone replacement therapy…

Make sure to click on the link and read the entire post, and also check out the rest of the blog.  And, with that, I shall leave to rest many rants I’ve held in my head in regards to this topic.

Cheers,
“I Swear I Don’t Hate Women” Charlie

Much Ado About Nothing And My Ado About Something

 This Post Originally Appeared on February 18, 2008 at www.xanga.com/rumpusgoopus

I had a very long spiel prepared today in response to yet another last-ditch mud-slinging effort from the Clinton campaign on Obama’s “plagiarism,” which, since the person he plagiarized essentially is a writer for him, isn’t plagiarism at all (not to mention Obama’s two books and the entirety of almost all of his speeches except the few lines Clinton points to were penned by Obama)…

 

Okay, that just devolved into the rant, albeit the very short version.

 

Anyway, the charge is so absurd, and so common of the Clinton campaign that even bothering to write a whole post about it is just repetitive and unnecessary.  Instead, I shall link to a story that shows the media finally picking up on the sentiments of most people who don’t want to see a Republican as President in the next term.

Sadly, it’s only a CNN.com Ticker Post: Cafferty: Clinton allies question reliance on superdelegates

Now, it’s clear I’m an Obama supporter.  However, if Clinton does get the most pledged delegates by the end of the campaign, I’m willing to accept her as the Democratic nominee.  I find it incredibly misguided and foolish to vote her as the nominee, but I am very much convinced that if the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, many, many people will become disenfranchised, and McCain will surely win.

Don’t get me wrong, I still believe Obama can win the election should he lose the pledged delegates and the superdelegates overturn, but I couldn’t help but agree that it would be unfair for him to get the nomination.  And also don’t get me wrong on this, I really, really, really don’t want to vote for Clinton in the general election. 

Should she legitimately win the nomination (and if MI and FL are allowed to change the outcome, it’s anything but legitimate), I might still vote for her.  I would hate it, but there’s a possibility (but what does this say about independent voters?  Not good for Clinton).  If she won it with superdelegates overturning the will of the people, I can’t say that I will.  And believe me, Clinton argues that given time she can persuade me, well, I’m anything but persuaded now.

That said, it’s looking like Obama just might wrap up the pledged delegates, as he should.  The question is whether the superdelegates are dumb enough to destroy their chances in the election by overturning the outcome.  I’ve seen Democrats do very stupid things politically, but I don’t think they’d make a mistake such as this.

Cheers,
Charlie