three (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
threeplusfire) wrote2008-02-21 08:33 pm
threeplusfire) wrote2008-02-21 08:33 pm
Austin Democratic Primary debate
I'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.
no subject
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