racism is now equal to not voting obama.
according to the latest poll breakdown in california, you are now more likely a racist if you are a/an :
* woman
* hispanic/asian/any other race
* gay/lesbian/transgendered
* non-college graduate
* middle class american who makes less than 100k
* democrat
* non-independent
* catholic
* 45 and older
* union member
* lives in the city, more so if a big city
* politically moderate
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
not asking the right questions
Much of Obama's support is derived from claims that his record as a STATE legistlator. Many of his supporters take his claim at face value that he can work in NATIONAL political arena even though he barely served for 1 year before deciding to run for president. First of all, do we really believe that he truely understand the deep interests at work on the national level such that he can work to bridge that deep divide created by the Bush's bully pulpit administration? We can only look at his prior experiences in the state level to see what actually happened on contentious issues. Obama boasts of his bipartisan work on two issues - and the NYT written articles about what actually happened.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/interesting-obama-history/?s...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp=&ore...
We see that his bipartisanship leadership is just very poor comprosmise to the special interest. How is that better? People who think that he can make politics work differently don't understand how negotiations actually work in politics. Perhaps he doesn't even know how it works in National politics because he hadn't the experiences yet. So why is it that we just accept his claims without scrutiny? I agree that when a candidate has never been tested, he can speak to his ideals much more truthefully. If I were a politician, I can speak to my hopes and ideals with a lot of passion too, but I know that once I am placed in the reality of world, these special interest will require skills that deal with politics as usual.
Obama has a better record about not saying things directly that could damage himself. He is not willing to stand up for any issue strongly and take heat for them. On contentious issues, he votes present. He doesn't have a record on abortion because he voted Present on every abortion legislation in the Illinois legislature. He voted present on the Kyle Liberman admendment but then come back and say he *would have* voted against it. That is NOT what we want from our leaders. We need leaders that can demostrate strong convictions and be able to stand up for people that need strong advocates and make americans make difficult decisions about reality without engaging them in false hope based on rhetoric and no track record.
On the national town hall Hillary hosted on Feb 5, she talked about LGBT issues. That is a lot of visibility for an issue that does not need to be for many people. This is why I support Hillary. Watch it here:
http://townhall.hillaryclinton.com/
Obama is just another politician like everyone else, he is flawed like everyone else.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=438
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=436
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=449
Obama is more of the same - not different. He is trying to get elected by talking up his personality and avoid the issues. That's the way Bush got elected. Change is when the American voters looking deeper into a candidate and make decisions about the issues. Only you can change politics by focusing on the issues.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/interesting-obama-history/?s...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp=&ore...
We see that his bipartisanship leadership is just very poor comprosmise to the special interest. How is that better? People who think that he can make politics work differently don't understand how negotiations actually work in politics. Perhaps he doesn't even know how it works in National politics because he hadn't the experiences yet. So why is it that we just accept his claims without scrutiny? I agree that when a candidate has never been tested, he can speak to his ideals much more truthefully. If I were a politician, I can speak to my hopes and ideals with a lot of passion too, but I know that once I am placed in the reality of world, these special interest will require skills that deal with politics as usual.
Obama has a better record about not saying things directly that could damage himself. He is not willing to stand up for any issue strongly and take heat for them. On contentious issues, he votes present. He doesn't have a record on abortion because he voted Present on every abortion legislation in the Illinois legislature. He voted present on the Kyle Liberman admendment but then come back and say he *would have* voted against it. That is NOT what we want from our leaders. We need leaders that can demostrate strong convictions and be able to stand up for people that need strong advocates and make americans make difficult decisions about reality without engaging them in false hope based on rhetoric and no track record.
On the national town hall Hillary hosted on Feb 5, she talked about LGBT issues. That is a lot of visibility for an issue that does not need to be for many people. This is why I support Hillary. Watch it here:
http://townhall.hillaryclinton.com/
Obama is just another politician like everyone else, he is flawed like everyone else.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=438
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=436
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=449
Obama is more of the same - not different. He is trying to get elected by talking up his personality and avoid the issues. That's the way Bush got elected. Change is when the American voters looking deeper into a candidate and make decisions about the issues. Only you can change politics by focusing on the issues.
Friday, February 8, 2008
...closet racists
i am SO annoyed by recent discussions of why less educated, latino, asian people don't vote for obama. they essentially narrow it down to these people being racists. Obama supporters think that since their candidate is the best candidate at addressing those issues and their candidate is near perfection, any reason to not vote for him is due to the voter's flaws, i.e. racism; or if they are a women, it is because they are sexist.
COME ON! people are just trying to vote the issues and being as race blind and gender blind while doing so. what you project and accuse people of have more to say about youself than others.
COME ON! people are just trying to vote the issues and being as race blind and gender blind while doing so. what you project and accuse people of have more to say about youself than others.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
DELUSIONAL...
... because they have been swept by his beautiful words and are now heading into a state of hysteria.
They are like mindless massess before a cult leader, whose words take them to a state of nirvana based on irrational bliss. They have become like fans before a rock star, or devout believers before their messiah.
The reality is that politics are a reflection of human nature. Obama, despite all his talents cannot change human nature -- especially of those who are immune to his preaching. If his message is so great, why are his supporters filled with such hate for Clintons? If his message is to unite, why have we become more divided as his candidacy gains momentum? Is he more the same or just delivering more self-serving promises of a change in the way politics is done?
Please call me cynical, I'd so much rather be that than delusional.
The only way to bring about bipartisanship is to focus on the issues. The change we need in our campaigns is for the voting public to vote on the issues, not on political theory of bipartisanship or their popularity. How do we hold someone accountable for fullfilling his campaign promise of bipartisanship? And say if he did, how do we hold him accountable to the desired results to the issues we face? Why should we confine our leaders in their way of delivering those results by making bipartisanship a bigger priority than the issues?
It is also rediculous that we have a movement for 'bipartisanship'. The fact that it is even being compared with other historical movements like the civil rights movement is downright insulting to our intelligence as a nation.
Ask yourselves: Hope for what? Change for what? 'Yes we can' what? Creating a movement on these fanciful words will at somepoint hit the wall of reality.
They are like mindless massess before a cult leader, whose words take them to a state of nirvana based on irrational bliss. They have become like fans before a rock star, or devout believers before their messiah.
The reality is that politics are a reflection of human nature. Obama, despite all his talents cannot change human nature -- especially of those who are immune to his preaching. If his message is so great, why are his supporters filled with such hate for Clintons? If his message is to unite, why have we become more divided as his candidacy gains momentum? Is he more the same or just delivering more self-serving promises of a change in the way politics is done?
Please call me cynical, I'd so much rather be that than delusional.
The only way to bring about bipartisanship is to focus on the issues. The change we need in our campaigns is for the voting public to vote on the issues, not on political theory of bipartisanship or their popularity. How do we hold someone accountable for fullfilling his campaign promise of bipartisanship? And say if he did, how do we hold him accountable to the desired results to the issues we face? Why should we confine our leaders in their way of delivering those results by making bipartisanship a bigger priority than the issues?
It is also rediculous that we have a movement for 'bipartisanship'. The fact that it is even being compared with other historical movements like the civil rights movement is downright insulting to our intelligence as a nation.
Ask yourselves: Hope for what? Change for what? 'Yes we can' what? Creating a movement on these fanciful words will at somepoint hit the wall of reality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)