So we have another "controversy" over statements made by a big wig in one of the Democratic presidential candidates campaigns. (Please note that I have not seen the video so I don't know how it actually game off and have only seen edited quotes so I do acknowledge that sometimes things don't come out as well as they seemed when we formed the thought in our head.) This time it's Geraldine Ferraro saying that Obama's race is partially responsible for him being in this position. And him and his campaign have flipped out about it. My question is: Why is everyone so afraid of the truth? And why are they acting like it's a bad thing to acknowledge it?
Considering the fact that in South Carolina Obama spent a good chunk of time playing to the more religious part of the African-American community (not the overall Democratic religious community at large [at least that's how all the media showed it]) it's a little disingenuous and less than honest of him to now be all offended at the notion that his race has anything to do with the tightness of this primary run. The fact that when people look at both him and Hillary they see something vastly different than what we've had before is a huge part of this years nomination. It's why people who haven't participated before are getting out there and voting. It's why the youth of American are excited about this years potential candidates.
America is suppose to be a country where our differences are celebrated. Where those differences are what makes a strong and great nation. At least that's what we are taught when we're young. And that is what the idealists among us believe about this country. It is the uniting of all our differences that is a big part of Obama's platform. Denying the differences doesn't help bring us together. So why is he acting like his race has nothing to do with his success in this process? No one is saying it is the only reason he is where he is, whether it be in the Senate or as the current leader for the nomination. You must be able to acknowledge the differences to accept them.
Until now when people have looked at the front runners for either party during the nominating process all they've seen are generally old (with a few exceptions) white men. And they are normally very well off white men. (Let's face it no poor or lower middle class person would stand a chance at the moment.) But, this year we have a white woman and an African-American man duking it out for the Democratic nomination. So lets all just accept and admit the truth, things are this tight because of gender and race.
I really don't know how things would be if this was Edwards and Obama or Edwards and Hillary. I doubt it would be as tight with either of those two versions of nominees but, I honestly don't know which one would be ahead in either version.
However, if you took the three of them and made them into the same thing. Whether that be making them all women or all men of one race, you'd be looking at a primary where I believe Edwards would be ahead. The reason I say that is that his age would be younger than that of Hillary while his experience would be more than Obama.
Obama said that Hillary would be offended if someone said she's where she is because of her gender. If they said that, that was the only reason she was where she is yes she might be offended. But, I highly doubt she'd deny that her gender plays some part in her success. So lets just be honest for a minute. If Obama was white his speech at the convention in 2004 probably wouldn't have been as powerful. And people would just see another white guy saying the same things now.
I for one am extremely proud as an American, as a Democrat, and as a woman that this year we have two very viable candidates that are not white men. I am proud that we are showing the country and the world that the American dream of being anything you want is actually true. That neither your race nor your gender will keep you from having a real chance at being President. I do not think we should in anyway deny the truth. We should embrace the truth because once you do, that is when it truly becomes a non factor.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
An Open Letter To The Democratic Party
To the Democratic Party:
Shame on you. I love you and what you stand and fight for most of the time. I know we are in desperate need of change in this country but, I still must say shame on you.
The reason I say this is because of you acting like big babies stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Just because they moved their primaries up is no reason to act like brats. The states should be allowed to have their primaries whenever they want from January 1st of and election year until the convention.
It is sad the hypocracy we are showing in the party over this. In 2002 thousands of voters were left out in the cold in Florida. Their votes didn't count or counted for the wrong person because of an old voting system that didn't line up right. The cry went out from our party that all votes must count. That no voter should be disinfranchised in the process. Unfortuantely we couldn't stop that from happening then.
In 2004 one of our big things was again all votes counting and no one being disinfranchised. We got more people out to the polls to make sure people knew how the machines worked. As well as making sure there was no other funny business going on. This was a good thing. Unfortunately we again lost that election but, I felt we made a good showing to the American people that we were the party that really believed in getting every vote to count. Making sure everyone who wanted to vote and was eligible to vote did in fact get to vote.
And now much to my dismay here we are in 2008 not counting votes and disinfranchising voters during the nominating process. I fear this may damage our turnout number come November in those states. Their voices weren't heard the first time around this year why should they waste their time in voting come November? So what if they moved up their primaries...get over it.
And why are they the only states being punished? California moved up it's primary but, you didn't take away their delegates. It's not to hard to figure out that you would never do that. Even if California had moved their primary up to be at the same time as the Iowa cacus you wouldn't strip them of their delegates. And the simple reason you wouldn't do that is because they have so many delegates.
Colorado moved up their cacus and you didn't strip them of their delegates. Again not hard to figure out why. One the national convention is in Denver. We couldn't slight the host state by taking away their delegates. Two we wouldn't want to do anything that would assure us of losing Colorado come November. Sure they may only have a handful of electoral votes but, this election could come down to the small states. And with a major battle for both a Congressional and Senate seat looming they are a major player for the Democrats hopes of winning back the White House.
So I beg of you to reconsider this stupid decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Give them back and divide them up between Hillary and Barack. Since she did stay on the ticket in Michigan give Hillary one or two more delegates there and then in Florida give them the delegates however they would normally be split. And either let John Edwards give his delegates to one of them or divide his delegates up evenly.
Please change this decision and go back to being the party that wants every vote to count.
Shame on you. I love you and what you stand and fight for most of the time. I know we are in desperate need of change in this country but, I still must say shame on you.
The reason I say this is because of you acting like big babies stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Just because they moved their primaries up is no reason to act like brats. The states should be allowed to have their primaries whenever they want from January 1st of and election year until the convention.
It is sad the hypocracy we are showing in the party over this. In 2002 thousands of voters were left out in the cold in Florida. Their votes didn't count or counted for the wrong person because of an old voting system that didn't line up right. The cry went out from our party that all votes must count. That no voter should be disinfranchised in the process. Unfortuantely we couldn't stop that from happening then.
In 2004 one of our big things was again all votes counting and no one being disinfranchised. We got more people out to the polls to make sure people knew how the machines worked. As well as making sure there was no other funny business going on. This was a good thing. Unfortunately we again lost that election but, I felt we made a good showing to the American people that we were the party that really believed in getting every vote to count. Making sure everyone who wanted to vote and was eligible to vote did in fact get to vote.
And now much to my dismay here we are in 2008 not counting votes and disinfranchising voters during the nominating process. I fear this may damage our turnout number come November in those states. Their voices weren't heard the first time around this year why should they waste their time in voting come November? So what if they moved up their primaries...get over it.
And why are they the only states being punished? California moved up it's primary but, you didn't take away their delegates. It's not to hard to figure out that you would never do that. Even if California had moved their primary up to be at the same time as the Iowa cacus you wouldn't strip them of their delegates. And the simple reason you wouldn't do that is because they have so many delegates.
Colorado moved up their cacus and you didn't strip them of their delegates. Again not hard to figure out why. One the national convention is in Denver. We couldn't slight the host state by taking away their delegates. Two we wouldn't want to do anything that would assure us of losing Colorado come November. Sure they may only have a handful of electoral votes but, this election could come down to the small states. And with a major battle for both a Congressional and Senate seat looming they are a major player for the Democrats hopes of winning back the White House.
So I beg of you to reconsider this stupid decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Give them back and divide them up between Hillary and Barack. Since she did stay on the ticket in Michigan give Hillary one or two more delegates there and then in Florida give them the delegates however they would normally be split. And either let John Edwards give his delegates to one of them or divide his delegates up evenly.
Please change this decision and go back to being the party that wants every vote to count.
I Wasn't Complaining So I Don't Have To
So yesterday I left a comment on a friends blog that wasn't really intended to come off as defending Hillary. At least that wasn't the conscious intent behind it. That did end up being how it was and the person left a comment back. I enjoyed reading his response too my comment. Until I got to the point where he said that I should have backed up my words and passion by going to the cacus for her. All I have to say to that is Bite Me.
I don't really care that he voted for Barack in his states primary. And I don't really care that Barack won my state. I wasn't complaining in anyway about the turn out last night in any state. So I don't need to be told to get out and go to the cacus. Had I been complaining then yes that comment would have been warranted. Because you don't get to complain about how elections turn out if you aren't doing your part in them. But, again I wasn't complaining so I don't need to be told to participate in something.
Again I don't care which won of them wins the nomination. Yes I am pulling for Hillary. However, I have said since 2004 that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have not wavered from that and I have now been proven right. All that remains to be seen now is who will be the Vice Presidential nominee. I think there's a good chance it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket but, you never know. Whoever, gets the nomination might ask Edwards to join them or go with someone completely unexpected.
Also there's an actual reason for not going to the cacus. While the process is interesting I don't find it to be a fair process for the people. I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold. They are always at night so they leave a lot of people out. If you work nights you are out of luck. If you have to be out of town for work or some other reason, sorry no participating in the nominating process for you. And I've never liked the fact that Colorado doesn't allow independents to participate in the process. When Colorado goes to a more fair process then maybe I'll consider participating in the nominating process even if I don't care who wins.
I don't really care that he voted for Barack in his states primary. And I don't really care that Barack won my state. I wasn't complaining in anyway about the turn out last night in any state. So I don't need to be told to get out and go to the cacus. Had I been complaining then yes that comment would have been warranted. Because you don't get to complain about how elections turn out if you aren't doing your part in them. But, again I wasn't complaining so I don't need to be told to participate in something.
Again I don't care which won of them wins the nomination. Yes I am pulling for Hillary. However, I have said since 2004 that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have not wavered from that and I have now been proven right. All that remains to be seen now is who will be the Vice Presidential nominee. I think there's a good chance it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket but, you never know. Whoever, gets the nomination might ask Edwards to join them or go with someone completely unexpected.
Also there's an actual reason for not going to the cacus. While the process is interesting I don't find it to be a fair process for the people. I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold. They are always at night so they leave a lot of people out. If you work nights you are out of luck. If you have to be out of town for work or some other reason, sorry no participating in the nominating process for you. And I've never liked the fact that Colorado doesn't allow independents to participate in the process. When Colorado goes to a more fair process then maybe I'll consider participating in the nominating process even if I don't care who wins.
Friday, February 1, 2008
They'll Need Help
Everyone always likes to focus on what the Presidential nominees say they will do in office. It's great to know what the candidates hope to achieve. Of course then they get in office and they don't achieve those things fast enough or at all and everyone starts calling them liars. They get accused of saying whatever they needed to say to get elected. What people like to ignore is that they can't do it alone.
Yes the President can influence policy. He or She can let it be known the things they would like to see changed or fixed. Things like health care, immigartion reform, social security, education reform, and so on. Again the thing is they can't do it alone.
The Predisent can't just say I want this change or this much money for something and that's that. They need Congress and the Senate to help them. The bills and budgets that achieve the goals they set forth. In short they need Congressmen/Congresswomen and Senators that have similar goals so they can achieve the things they set forth during their campaigns.
Unfortunately sometimes those Congress-people and Senators are more concerned with re-election than the well being of the country and its citizens. They may think (or even know) that something will really help but, they know that their constituents don't know all the facts and won't like them voting for a certain bill. So instead of voting for something that will ultimately be good they vote against it to help keep their job. This is a shame.
So when you go to the polls this November to vote for a new President remember to pay just as much attention (if not more) to the other people you try to send to Washington. Whoever the next President is will need people with similar goals to bring about any real change. We need people who are serious about working together to help the country.
Change is never achieved by just one person.
Yes the President can influence policy. He or She can let it be known the things they would like to see changed or fixed. Things like health care, immigartion reform, social security, education reform, and so on. Again the thing is they can't do it alone.
The Predisent can't just say I want this change or this much money for something and that's that. They need Congress and the Senate to help them. The bills and budgets that achieve the goals they set forth. In short they need Congressmen/Congresswomen and Senators that have similar goals so they can achieve the things they set forth during their campaigns.
Unfortunately sometimes those Congress-people and Senators are more concerned with re-election than the well being of the country and its citizens. They may think (or even know) that something will really help but, they know that their constituents don't know all the facts and won't like them voting for a certain bill. So instead of voting for something that will ultimately be good they vote against it to help keep their job. This is a shame.
So when you go to the polls this November to vote for a new President remember to pay just as much attention (if not more) to the other people you try to send to Washington. Whoever the next President is will need people with similar goals to bring about any real change. We need people who are serious about working together to help the country.
Change is never achieved by just one person.
Down To 2
So the Democratic candidates are down to just two. I have to say I was a bit surprised John Edwards didn't hang in there through Super Tuesday. The upside of him dropping out is that Hillary and Barack are more focused on establishing stronger stances on the issues rather than attacking each other.
I have to say previously I wasn't real confident in Obama because it seemed like all the sound bites I was hearing were his standards or attacks on Hillary. After watching some of the debate last night I feel much more positive about him since I got a clearer picture of his issues and ideas for change. However, I'm still a Hillary supporter. Some of that is because I know the influence she had on her husbands Presidency so I know that with a lot of the same views there's a lot of good she can bring about. Some of it is also that I am a woman and I feel there's a lot of things (espeically in health care) that are overlooked for woman. I feel in those area's Hillary can greatly impact for the better the future for the woman of this country both yound and old.
That doesn't mean that I think Barack wouldn't advance certain things for woman I just think Hillary would fight harder for it. And at the sametime there are things that Barack would probably fight harder for. That's just how it is with politics. Who you are and where you come from will always influence the level you will fight at for different things.
Whether it's a Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket I still think the Democrats offer the best chance for real change. This is because you're getting a vastly different view than what the Republicans offer. All the Republicans ever have to offer are older rich white men. We are most likely going to over a ticket of a woman and a racial minority. Yes she is an older woman but, a woman none the less.
I think if America is serious about change they have to look at the difference in the views automatically brought to the table by the Democratic ticket. A Republican ticket that will be made up of people who clearly have no desire to break from the Bush Administration policies will only bring about more hardship for this country and it's citizens. Perhaps what they have to offer will become more clear when it gets down to just two candidates for them and it certainly will become more clear once the candidate is chosen. However, I don't really see them offering any real change or anything that will actually help fix things in America.
I have to say previously I wasn't real confident in Obama because it seemed like all the sound bites I was hearing were his standards or attacks on Hillary. After watching some of the debate last night I feel much more positive about him since I got a clearer picture of his issues and ideas for change. However, I'm still a Hillary supporter. Some of that is because I know the influence she had on her husbands Presidency so I know that with a lot of the same views there's a lot of good she can bring about. Some of it is also that I am a woman and I feel there's a lot of things (espeically in health care) that are overlooked for woman. I feel in those area's Hillary can greatly impact for the better the future for the woman of this country both yound and old.
That doesn't mean that I think Barack wouldn't advance certain things for woman I just think Hillary would fight harder for it. And at the sametime there are things that Barack would probably fight harder for. That's just how it is with politics. Who you are and where you come from will always influence the level you will fight at for different things.
Whether it's a Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket I still think the Democrats offer the best chance for real change. This is because you're getting a vastly different view than what the Republicans offer. All the Republicans ever have to offer are older rich white men. We are most likely going to over a ticket of a woman and a racial minority. Yes she is an older woman but, a woman none the less.
I think if America is serious about change they have to look at the difference in the views automatically brought to the table by the Democratic ticket. A Republican ticket that will be made up of people who clearly have no desire to break from the Bush Administration policies will only bring about more hardship for this country and it's citizens. Perhaps what they have to offer will become more clear when it gets down to just two candidates for them and it certainly will become more clear once the candidate is chosen. However, I don't really see them offering any real change or anything that will actually help fix things in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)