Tag Archives: John McCain

Link: “McCain campaign: Republicans have double Democratic cash”

McCain campaign: Republicans have double Democratic cash

And this is exactly why Obama had to opt-out of public financing.

Hey, speaking of money, anyone hear what McCain’s economic advisor, Phil Gramm, said about Americans recently?  I’m thinking I don’t need to link to that one (although the media coverage has been a bit sparse for what it deserved)…

Cheers,
Charlie

Advertisements

A Letter to Those Clinton Supporters Who are Threatening to Vote McCain

Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November

While I’m not as quick to blame it on racism, Tim Wise makes a very strong and eloquent case for why it’s insane for Clinton supporters to threaten to vote McCain, and because of this insanity, why it’s hard to blame it on anything other than racism.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate–Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line–and yet, apparently can’t bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal–this sudden line in the proverbial sand–other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year–and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point–but can’t bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you’ve supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

He raises a lot of good points, even outside of the racism discussion.

Cheers,
Charlie

Clinton Supporters: Please Explain Why You Think Obama Is Sexist

Ferraro suggests she may not vote for Obama

A big part of this campaign that has deeply troubled me is complaints of sexism from a not-too-small contingent.  I have struggled to understand this in regards to complaints that the media has been harder on Clinton because she’s a woman, but I’ve come to terms with it.  However, in relation to charges of sexism to things like asking Clinton to drop out, I am completely baffled.  But there is one charge that I have never understood, and that’s the charge that Obama has been sexist in any way shape or form.  In the link above, Ferraro says that Obama has been “extremely sexist” in running his campaign.  Now, we can argue until we’re blue in the face just how sexist “sweetie” is, but is that really all we have as evidence of this?  What, really, has he done that can be easily classified as “sexist”?

On another, yet related, note, it is rather senseless to not vote Obama in the General election because of these perceived slights.  Just imagine the damage that would be done to gender equality by McCain and the Republicans should he be voted into office instead of Obama.  And remember this more than anything, we’re one Supreme Court Judge away from overturning Roe v. Wade.  That’s on top of a lot of other equality issues that the Court will likely go the wrong way on.  And surely, gender equality will not get any better under continued Republican rule, but very well can, and I’d submit will, improve under an Obama Presidency.

Cheers,
Charlie

There Isn’t As Big a Rift in the Democratic Party as Some Want You to Believe

You know, there is a rift in the Democratic Party, but certainly not anything that cannot be minimized come November, especially if Clinton ever starts reconciliation.  According to a new Quinnipiac University poll:

Both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

So while the media does its best to make it seem like there’s a gigantic rift in the Party that can’t be fixed (and to some extent, so does Clinton), the truth is quite the opposite.

Cheers,
Charlie

Whose Supporters Won’t Vote in November?

A comment posted in The Fray by Lulabelle:

If Obama’s voters didn’t support Clinton, they would most likely stay home. If Clinton’s supporters didn’t support Obama, they would be more likely to vote for McCain. They may be more centrist, and they are the demographics most likely to vote, based on past experience. So which eventuality if worse for the Democrats in November? In the end, for the record, if Clinton is the nominee, I think the vast majority of Obama’s supporters will come around — particularly African-Americans, who know the Clintons’ hearts (better than most white people do) and know there’s not a racist bone in either of their bodies. The Clinton Administration record — not just their words — is unbelievably strong for people of color — indeed, for all minorities.

The following is a bit rambly, but bear with me:

I very much disagree.  If Clinton is the nominee, the independents, the young voters, and likely the African-Americans will, at minimum, stay home.  This is even more salient when one considers that the superdelegates would have to overturn the pledged delegates, which would inevitably lead to strong resentment amongst these groups.

On the other hand, it would be irrational for Clinton supporters to not support Obama.  Clinton and Obama do share similar policy positions, but the major difference here is that he would have won fairly.  We’re talking about entrenched Democrats here.

The polls are misleading on this point.  Clinton supporters tend to be entrenched Democrats.  Both sides are currently bitter (yeah, I said “bitter”) over the campaign.  However, once everything is settled, sooner rather than later hopefully, it’ll become clear that Republican opposition is far more important than being bitter over their candidate losing.  If Obama wins, he will have done so fair and square.  Clinton supporters have little reason to complain.  If Clinton wins, however, it will have to be done through the superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates.  Obama supporters, who are to a far lesser extent entrenched Democrats.  It’s all the more reason for them not to vote for Clinton in November.  For Clinton supporters, who tend to be entrenched Democrats, will not vote for McCain.  They will vote for Obama.

Furthermore, the polls to which Lulabelle refers do not ask the proper question.  They ask who such people would vote for if their candidate didn’t win, there was no “not vote” option.  As such, Obama supports picked Clinton in far more numbers than is probably true.

Clearly the Democrats do not want to lose the independents, the young, and the African-Americans, but this will happen if Obama loses unfairly.  This is especially the case with African-Americans, who will undoubtedly view a superdelegate overturn as ratifying the racism in the process.

If Obama wins, it was a fair result.  So while Obama supporters not only have Clinton’s dirty politics, her self-interest over those of the party, and the willingness to do anything to win no matter what rules she breaks as reason not to vote for her come November, they would also have the nomination stolen from them by the Superdelegates.  Clinton supporters, on the other hand, have… have… what?  That he’s “inexperienced”?  The difference-in-experience debate aside, even if it were true, it’s crazy to choose a person with a completely opposite ideology, as McCain, as President simply because that person is more experienced, especially when Obama would be surrounded by extremely qualified cabinet members and advisors.  It wasn’t Bush’s inexperience that caused his disastrous presidency, it was his ideology.  

Because of a lack of a rational reason for Clinton supporters to vote McCain in the general instead of Obama, and it would be irrational and foolish for Clinton supporters to not vote for him.  If Clinton wins, it will be a fair result, and it is more than rational for Obama supporters to not vote for Clinton.  Finally, independents and the young have been drawn to Obama not just for his policies, but for his promise of a change in tone in politics.  Clinton does not offer that.

Cheers,
Charlie

Bill Clinton: Younger Voters More Easily Fooled Than Older Voters

In case you missed it, Bill Clinton believes that younger voters are dumb.  As well as, apparently, anyone who supports Obama.  Brilliant, Bill, brilliant, especially since this means that you think more than half your party is unintelligent.

 

Funny, and Clinton backer John Murtha said today that McCain was too old.  I guess there’s a limit then.

 

Cheers,

Charlie

The End of the Democratic Race and a Return to Republican Opposition

Since I haven’t posted for some time, I feel the need to weigh in quickly.  As I posited before, even in this weblog’s previous location, I think I’ve grown tired and used to the Clinton antics.  So much so that nothing Hillary does really gets me up in arms.  Obviously, I was wrong in that previous post, but not so anymore.  Even the Bosnia lying nonsense only got a quick YouTube link and nothing else.  It may also be because I think she’s truly out of the race.

 

It’s looking good for Obama, and I just can’t wait to see Clinton finally concede (if that’ll ever happen).  There’s basically no way for her to take the nomination, and the random absurd arguments we get daily don’t draw my ire so much anymore.

 

Anyway, that said, I want the weblog to turn back a bit into what it was originally about.  It wasn’t solely about being pro-Obama/Anti-Clinton.  It was more about my general view of politics, it had a much wider focus. 

 

As such, this will be the first of many posts that start to talk about other things (not that I’ll stop completely with Obama/Clinton/McCain). 

 

Not that I’m actually going to talk much about other things.  It’s Friday night, so this will be exceptionally quick.  One of my main themes from this weblog used to be the violence the Jr. Bush administration has inflicted on the Constitution, and very recently Dahlia Lithwick from Slate has written a great article on the administration’s reliance on lawyer-hacks (I’m a lawyer myself, so this was quite apropos) misusing legal writing in order to come out with completely twisted, yet oddly defensible, positions on torture, foreign policy, etc. 

 

Yoo Talkin’ to Me?

“Plausible deniability, and other reasons why warfare by midlevel legal memoranda is a really bad idea.”

 

Cheers,

Charlie