Austin Democratic Primary debate
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threeplusfireI'm watching, and Hilary just said something that flabbergasted me. she said she has represented America for 15 years in various ways. Now, I understand she did make important moves as the First Lady. She promoted women's rights, universal health care and shelter for refugees of the Balkan wars. But, being the wife of the President is *not* the same thing as being an elected representative serving constituents in my mind. WTF? I understand Clinton was a very active First Lady and worked to be more than a figurehead. But she was not an elected official with the same responsibilities and obligations. I don't want to denigrate her contributions at all. But I do think it was a wacky thing to say, especially given the attacks she faced in her first Senate campaign.
I sort of hate the debates in a way. Especially when Hilary totally ignores a question from James Ramos of Univision to talk about health care instead. If we were in UIL debate competition, she's get the smack hard for a bullshit move like that. Additionally, it is just not respectful. Or when Hilary and Obama keep trying to interrupt each other. It's all terribly polite, but irksome. It is sort of funny to watch the faces they make at each other.
This is a hard vote for me. There are things about both candidates that I like. It's exciting to think the Democrats have a huge opportunity to shift the color and gender politics of our country. I love Obama's stances on just about everything with the glaring exception of gay marriage. It makes me want to scream 'Seperate but equal!' at him, that he would give all the benefits but deny the name of marriage and its place. I like Clinton's ideas about universal health care, about fighting for as much as possible. But I resent and mistrust her statements that we need to 'wake up' and 'get real' about this election.
All issues aside, to me at least, this primary can be boiled down to two very simple choices about political style. Do we want to fight within the system, to take the currently running rivers of influence and cash and use them to our advantage, do we address our future with a certain grim pragmatism? Or do we want to fight from outside, do we want to claw and kick and scratch out a new way of politics and address our future with great hopes and dreams unfettered by our years of cynicism? There's much to be said for both approaches.
Given the politics of fear in the past eight years, I can only vote for hope.
I sort of hate the debates in a way. Especially when Hilary totally ignores a question from James Ramos of Univision to talk about health care instead. If we were in UIL debate competition, she's get the smack hard for a bullshit move like that. Additionally, it is just not respectful. Or when Hilary and Obama keep trying to interrupt each other. It's all terribly polite, but irksome. It is sort of funny to watch the faces they make at each other.
This is a hard vote for me. There are things about both candidates that I like. It's exciting to think the Democrats have a huge opportunity to shift the color and gender politics of our country. I love Obama's stances on just about everything with the glaring exception of gay marriage. It makes me want to scream 'Seperate but equal!' at him, that he would give all the benefits but deny the name of marriage and its place. I like Clinton's ideas about universal health care, about fighting for as much as possible. But I resent and mistrust her statements that we need to 'wake up' and 'get real' about this election.
All issues aside, to me at least, this primary can be boiled down to two very simple choices about political style. Do we want to fight within the system, to take the currently running rivers of influence and cash and use them to our advantage, do we address our future with a certain grim pragmatism? Or do we want to fight from outside, do we want to claw and kick and scratch out a new way of politics and address our future with great hopes and dreams unfettered by our years of cynicism? There's much to be said for both approaches.
Given the politics of fear in the past eight years, I can only vote for hope.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 03:32 am (UTC)All politicians lie, often just by virtue of trying to present a simple message ost Americans can understand.
She has verbal and physical tics though, that in a friend, a person on the street, an employer, would ake me say "she's lying." She also has ticks that tell me she doesn't believe what she's saying. Both unnerves me.
Also, her husband getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky? Doesn't prove she can handle hardship. I am offended. Personal betrayal is personal life. Being president is more than personal. I'm not sure she gets that.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 03:36 am (UTC)The one thing that strikes me about the primaries is that the usual campaign promises really ring hollow to me. These people are already involved in Congress, and most of them have the influence to make strides towards these things NOW. How is being President, where they are technically farther away from the ability to make laws, supposed to help?
It also really bothers me that there seems to be a lot of people favoring Obama just because he's a smooth talker. I'm sure a charming president would be a good thing, but voting for someone on that quality alone...well, it just screams of folly. Note, I'm not saying that would be your reason for considering Obama : )
As for gay marriage, I think the simple solution is to remove marriage as a legal term. Civil union would be the legal contract that marriage currently has, and marriage itself would be the religious ceremony that generally takes place in a church. It's a lot harder to argue against something being corrupting or whatever when it's just a legal agreement without the religious baggage.
I have to admit that I'm entirely too cynical and jaded to believe that either party is capable of making positive changes to the general state of politics at this point. I think our only chances toward that end are a strong independent candidate that manages to get the 15% of the popular vote required to tap into the federal campaign fund, or for the internet to remove the need for a party entirely. As long as our system is based on party in power/party not in power, it doesn't really matter which one is on which side.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 03:42 pm (UTC)Basically, this is what I think it's going to come down to for me. The two candidates are not that different in platform. Yeah, there are some important small differences, but they're still both just Democrats. Likewise, neither of them actually has the ability to create the changes they advocate. That power lies first with us as the electorate, and we've done a piss poor job of electing people capable of change, and secondly with Congress, and our Congress is currently too busy fighting about who's right to do anything useful. So since I see no difference big enough to make my decision, I'm going with the guy who inspires people and seems to be able to unite. What I think obama can do that Hillary can't is inspire us, as a community, to work for the change we want to see. If he can be even marginally successful, then I think we'll be more willing to elect more people like him and that's when we'll actually see the change he's talking about.
Campaigns are all about rhetoric and smooth talk. The candidates have no business promising anything because the system is designed to prevent them from delivering, and that's why this year I'm not making my final decisions based on what legislation they say they can pass. I think what we have to do is realize that, then pick the vision we think is best and do the leg work to achieve it. That means volunteering for campaigns and in the community and finally not tolerating the status quo any more. We'll continue to get Bushes and Hillary Clintons until kingdom come if we continue to allow them to be successful.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 04:10 pm (UTC)The cynic says to vote Hilary because she is an insider and has been for quite some time, so she knows how to operate and has more connections.
The optimist like Obama's call for change and wants to be a part of that fight for change.
As has been stated before, both are quite close on their stances on many issues so I am ok with either being elected, it all boils down as to whether or not you think the government can be changed, or if you are fine with the system as it is.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 06:45 pm (UTC)She sat on the board of directors at Wal-Mart for 6 years, and pretends to have amnesia about it. I have never once heard any evidence that she pushed them on unions, fair labor, or other practices. The law firm she worked for in Little Rock was well-known for representing corporations in union-busting tactics.
Why nobody (journalists, Obama) brings this into the discussion, I have no idea. But it stinks to high hell of the kind of corporate back-scratching that most bothers me about American politics right now.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 11:12 pm (UTC)I've watched half a century worth of presidents now, and based on that experience, every time, gimme the policy wonk over the visionaries. I want someone who knows where all the handles are, what each of them does, and who to tell to go pull them.
Jack Kennedy was a visionary. Lyndon Johnson got bills passed. Which one had the more lasting PRACTICAL effect? (Please note "practical." I'm not talking about "let's think of how wonderful we could make the world be if . . ." I'm talking about "all right, what can we actually GET DONE with what we've got, here and now?")
no subject
Date: 2008-02-27 04:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-27 06:26 pm (UTC)