tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post7638710823462679393..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: Surface and DepthAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-50827708368169771102008-08-30T11:47:00.000-07:002008-08-30T11:47:00.000-07:00Kaya, here is the explanation you request:Many peo...Kaya, here is the explanation you request:<BR/><BR/>Many people are upset at Obama and the DNC, for a variety of reasons. I am upset at Obama and the DNC for the following two reasons:<BR/><BR/>(1) Hillary was the target of truly misogynistic attacks by the media throughout the campaign. Not only did the DNC and Obama do nothing to defend her against these attacks, they themselves piled on (e.g. Obama's "tea parties" comments, his "you're likeable enough" comment, his "claws coming out" comment, his "periodically feeling down" comment, his "sweetie" comment).<BR/><BR/>(2) To many of us, Obama represents the unrepentantly elitist wing of the Democratic party. Obama has pulled together a coalition among African Americans and the intellectual intelligentsia "Whole Food Nation" wing of the Democratic party, that is - the wing of the party that doesn't actually feed from the trough of Democratic policies but instead enjoys talking about saving whales off the coast of Japan at their weekly socialite cocktail parties. This was epitomized by Obama's comments (in a posh SF neighborhood to boot!) about working class white voters not voting for him because they "cling to guns, religion, and antipathy towards people who are not like themselves."<BR/><BR/>The above two facts have combined to clearly tell me something: the Democratic party is moving away from its roots in two key respects - (a) they're no longer giving a shit about the working poor the way they should (note - patronizingly telling the working poor what's good for them, rather than listening to them as equals instead of rubes, is *not* the same as truly caring about the issues of the working poor); and (b) it's now evident that the Democratic party only pays lip service to women's issues and sexism. When it comes down to crunch time, the DNC and Obama do not stand up for women. I have no doubt that Obama will defend the individual women close to him (Michelle and his daughters), but it is also clear that he will not do so by enacting policies that benefit women in general (including poor working class white Appalachian women).<BR/><BR/>So, the Democratic party is now straying from its roots, the only roots I care about. Seeing the Democratic party stray from it's core values I am left with a strategic decision: <BR/><BR/><B>What should I do in order to force the Democratic party back towards two of its core values: fighting for women and the working poor?</B><BR/><BR/>If I vote for Obama, what will that do? It will only convince Obama and the DNC that they can screw over women and the working poor without retribution. While this may be healthy for the Democratic party, it will not be helpful to the above two core issues I am most concerned about. And let it be clear, I am loyal to these ISSUES, not necessarily the Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>So, instead, I have decided to punish the Democratic party by not voting for Obama. The only remaining question for me was what to do? Write in Hillary or just stay at home?<BR/><BR/>Then .... McCain picked Palin. Yes, it's a ploy to get my vote. Yes, Palin is antithetical to many of the political positions I believe in. But you see, Obama and the DNC have also been proving that they are, in actual practice, pretty antithetical to the two core issues I believe in as well (women's issues and the working poor). So now, Obama and the Repubs are no longer as chasmically far apart as they used to be.<BR/><BR/>Your usual retort? But the Repubs are pro-life and Obama/DNC is pro-choice!!!<BR/><BR/>Kaya - this line of attack no longer holds any sway with people like me. This primary has shed the truth on the abortion issue for me. I now understand, TRULY understand, that Obama and the DNC don't give a flying fuck about the abortion issue, except insofar as to use it as a political bludgeon to keep a particular demographic of women voters in line. This is, of course, precisely how the Repubs use the abortion issue. <BR/><BR/>What's the difference? The difference is that the Repubs never betrayed me because they never even claimed to be on my side of the abortion issue. So now, to me, they are both the same. <BR/><BR/>Now, I don't give a shit what either party SAYS it thinks about women's issues. Instead, my new calculus will be based on the ACTIONS of each party. This time around I've watched Obama and the DNC just stand by (and actually participate) while one of the greatest female leaders of our time was torn down with sexist language. On the other side, what do I see? I see McCain picking Palin. Fine - she's pro-life, but she's a woman with five kids. I believe she's innately more in touch with women's issues than Obama ever has been or ever will be.<BR/><BR/>So in the end Kaya, here's what my vote for McCain says:<BR/><BR/>"Hey DNC, you want me back in 2012? Well then stop being sexist and classist assholes and maybe we can get along again down the road."<BR/><BR/>I cannot think of a better way to use my vote for the good of women and the working poor.Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-89986851048744855242008-08-30T11:32:00.000-07:002008-08-30T11:32:00.000-07:00There was something important missing from Obama's...There was something important missing from Obama's speech: An overall theme and, still, a positive reason for his presidency.<BR/><BR/>There was no "New Deal." No "New Frontier." No "Bridge to the 21st Century". Not even a "Thousand Points of Light" or "Compassionate Conservatism" expressed in specific, new policies like "No Child Left Behind" and "The Faith Based Initiative."<BR/><BR/>While watching it, I liked the speech -- but when it was over I realized I still didn't have an answer to what an Obama (as opposed to a generic Democratic) presidency would look like, or why Obama wants to be President. He didn't tell me how his presidency would differ, for instance, from Bill Clinton's -- or Hillary Clinton's, or Joe Biden's, or Dodd if they, instead of Obama, had won the nomination.<BR/><BR/>He ran through the bases; reassured us that he is a Democrat -- with a commitment to the laundry list of basic issues Democrats have long fought for and favored; health care, more teachers, more cops, protecting workers rights and social security, working for greater access to higher education, pay equity, equality, etc.,etc. He made a nod to reassuring us that he respected, rather than dismissed, the Clinton legacy. He took it to the Republicans and made a negative case for "change" -- and an argument for why McCain would not be change but "more of the same" disasterous policies the country can not afford. And he did it eloquently.<BR/><BR/>But he did not paint a picture of -- his positive, inspiring vision of -- the future America needs, deserves, will be challenged and helped to achieve, in new and specific ways, by his administration. Nor did he tell us why (other than repairing and returning to better times before the damage inflicted by Bush) these times call for, and allow for, persuing such a vision.<BR/><BR/>This speech answered questions the media and critics inside and outside the party had been asking. But it didn't ask any new or important questions or inspire his audience to ask new questions about how the future should be, or provide any answers to how we can move into, meet the challenges of, that new, inspiring future.<BR/><BR/>I have begun to suspect the Obama campaign is fighting the last campaign. From Kerry's loss they learned that one must REACT -- quickly and forcibly. But in the process, they forgot that one must lead, positively and imaginatively.<BR/><BR/>As corny as "Bridge to the 21st Century" and all those other famous campaign themes of the past may seem, themes, supported by specific, new policies, play a vital role in making a candidacy about "us," rather than the candidate. About the country's needs and future, rather than a particular politician's ambitions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619473857225991847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-53392744310873878722008-08-30T09:19:00.000-07:002008-08-30T09:19:00.000-07:00hey everyone: long time since i've posted...i just...hey everyone: long time since i've posted...i just have two coments:<BR/><BR/>1) i'm surprised that a number of the commenters, and that you yourself, anglachel, did not actually watch the speech. it seems to me that even if watching the speech in no way changed your opinion, it would strengthen your argument. it also seems to me that this election is fairly high-stakes, and we kind of owe it to ourselves and each other to pay as much attention to it as possible, even if some of the speakers "give us the hives." i'm not a fan of john mccain, but i still watch his speeches so that i can at least know that my reaction to him is based on HIM, and not on others' opinions of him. <BR/><BR/>2) to chinaberry turtle and others who say mccains rather obvious ploy is working on them, i'd really like to know why. when i first heard mccain had picked palin, my instinct was to be insulted: palin is inexperienced, extremely conservative, anti-choice (not to mention anti-polar bear!), and pro death penalty. by expecting hillary supporters to vote for a ticket with palin on it, mccain seems to be saying that he thinks clinton and palin are comparable politicians, which is a huge insult to hillary. he also seems to be saying that he thinks hillary's supporters voted for her only because she was a woman, and not because she was the best candidate. which, again, is insulting. <BR/><BR/>i'm at a loss as to why more people aren't outraged about that. and if you have an explanation, i would really love to hear it.kayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859799569933035875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-44024041082641305772008-08-29T21:29:00.000-07:002008-08-29T21:29:00.000-07:00As always, you have nailed the ideological drama. ...As always, you have nailed the ideological drama. And as always, I would offer... not a demur, really, but a complementary frame -- a subtext... or simply a different door through which to enter the same room.<BR/><BR/>That door has two parts (a Dutch door?). The first has to do with the evolution of these collective organisms we call political parties. Like anything in nature or society, they aren't absolute; they're dynamic. The Republican Party isn't inherently evil, any more than the Democratic Party is inherently good. All of us here happen to believe the Democrats are right, and the Republicans wrong -- but many of us here are also old enough to remember that it was a Democrat, a prototypically non-Stevensonian Democrat (LBJ), who plunged us into the horror of Vietnam. <BR/><BR/>Pendulums swing, and I choose to be hopeful that the Dems are back on the upswing -- though it will be imperfectly manifest in this cycle. As bornagaindem says above, when Obama loses the election that couldn't be lost, the post-Vietnam/anti-power strain of the Party should finally be purged. And the grown-ups who retake control of the Party will have a nice clear field to play on, because the Republican Party is d-doornail-dead for a generation. (Indeed, if McCain is smart, once next week's theater is over, he will run hard against Bush. He can do so, because Obama has left the door open for him to do so.)<BR/><BR/>Howard Dean did some very valuable work in this final stage of the past pendulum swing, as a candidate, and with his 50-state strategy -- helping (along with the Netroots) to reshape a basket case into a healthy Congressional party. But that work is done, and these people (Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Reid et al.) cannot get us past Pisgah. <BR/><BR/>Bill and Hillary were always anomalies in the modern Democratic Party, because they wanted power. The Party is struggling to get back to the point where that mindset is once more in charge -- as it was from FDR to LBJ, and as it has been for the GOP since then. Our dreams of making it back up to that plateau this year have been dashed. But that doesn't mean we're not on the right side of (the next stage of American political) history.<BR/><BR/>Part two: I think the emotions at work here aren't simply those of the Democrats, but also those of the Millenials. To me, four compelling feelings have animated the rise of the Obama phenomenon. <BR/>The first is the hatred of the Clintons by the parts of the Party that reject power and power-seekers per se -- which (very roughly) translates to your Stevensonians vs. Jacksonians. The second is the misogyny that has always been there, and that Hillary's candidacy awakened into full-throated roar. The third is the dreams of African-Americans, and all those who share their desire to complete Dr. King's dream. And the fourth -- and most relevant to this (overlong) comment's point -- is the desire of young people today to get their parents off the stage, already. All of Obama's "new politics" gornish is, imo, a coded version of this conflict of generations. (When Lewis Feuer's book on the topic came out in 1969, all of us young'uns were righteously outraged. Of course, that was then, and this is now.)<BR/><BR/>To me, these emotional strains in the dialectic of these ideas/institutions/trajectories help explain the feelings involved. And they also, to me, parse my love for Bill and especially Hillary. Like you, I am in awe of their intelligence, vision and maturity.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01543557291381143262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-70092544159593517972008-08-29T18:11:00.000-07:002008-08-29T18:11:00.000-07:00I agree with one of the earlier commenters that wh...I agree with one of the earlier commenters that while McCain's pick of Palin may be a ploy, it's a very effective ploy. He's won my vote. He's done more to win my vote than Obama has. While I may still call myself a Clinton Democrat, it's a sad fact there will be no Clinton on the ballot, and I am not keen on wasting my vote. <BR/><BR/>As to the Clintons, I feel they have been diminished through their self-abasement at the convention. All the good things in their speeches aside, it was painful for me to watch them praise and endorse a candidate whom they clearly do not consider qualified for the job, and who clearly does not share their priorities or their passion for improving the lives of American citizens. Next to the proud, self-confident Sarah Palin who clearly enjoys McCain's genuine respect and admiration (compare them on stage, next to each other, to Hillary and Barack, and you'll see what I mean), Hillary Clinton seems like a spent, humiliated wreck. Hillary's congratulations to Palin today had a wrenching air of wistfulness. And this is not the first time this was done to her. She has already once subordinated her political ambitions, to her husband. This time she's had to do this again, and on behalf of someone truly undeserving. I don't even want to know what she's going through right now, just watching her was unbearable enough.Mike J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04909010285141564251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-68832541616613678222008-08-29T14:05:00.000-07:002008-08-29T14:05:00.000-07:00I want to address the speech. I haven't listened t...I want to address the speech. I haven't listened to it, because this hate monger gives me the hives. But I read many rave reviews of the speech.<BR/><BR/>As one review says "the sheer majesty of Obama's speech, the confidence he exuded, the promises he made." The problem is that is a description of a bad speech. No one need majesty in a speech; you look for depth, succinct expression, crystallizing of complex issues. Details should be left to the party platform and were needed only because Obama was selling fog for 18 months. <BR/><BR/>What is missing, and it's not an omission, is comparison to Hillary's and Bill's speeches. The reason is obvious: you don't compare a Nobel prise winner to a high school student.<BR/><BR/>I apologize, but I still fail to understand the Stevensonian division. For me, the gang now in control of the Democratic party: Pelosi, Reid, Dean and, of course, Obama have given up on all the central issues of the Democratic party, as the post states. American progressives were always foreign policy lefties. Unions, the poor, and other central issues were never there concern.<BR/><BR/>We, thus, have an unholy marriage of Whole Food progressives and a bunch of political whores who will gladly provide services to the Republican. There really is no Democratic party anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-58559593120260622022008-08-29T14:03:00.000-07:002008-08-29T14:03:00.000-07:00You have put into perfect perspective what the Rep...You have put into perfect perspective what the Republican party is all about and why the country is in the mess it is today. My major objection to Obama was I absolutely couldn't stand him saying the gridlock in Washington was the fault of both parties. That was complete bollox. I couldn't understand why democrats weren't screaming bloody murder every time he said that. There are indeed red states and blue states but only the red states seem to realize that this is a bloody war we are in. The problem with this primary was that the insiders in Washington (and I mean the democratic insiders) still hate the Clintons. They hated them from the moment they entered the city. The party needs to fundamentally change in order to fix this and I think we are going to need Obama to lose and lose badly to do it. Then every one of the reach across the aisle crowd can be purged. I only worry that the Clintons will be blamed for the loss anyway. That is what the Clintons concession speeches were all about, positioning themselves for the inevitable loss. <BR/><BR/>PS Brilliant move by McCain on picking Palin- 1)sucks all the talk away from Obama's big night and 2) gives McCain the perfect foil to talk about the experience thing. Who cares if the VP is relatively inexperienced that is not the president but what if the president himself is the inexperienced one? Then sir you have a problem.bornagaindemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11117727379617757861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-86304129306087295832008-08-29T13:16:00.000-07:002008-08-29T13:16:00.000-07:00pm317 - in other words, wimpy, don't fight for wha...pm317 - <BR/><BR/><I>in other words, wimpy, don't fight for what you want(if they first know what it is) party.</I><BR/><BR/> This reminded me of what Patton Oswalt said on <I>Lewis Black's Root of All Evil: Red States vs. Blue States</I>, something to the effect that Blue Staters feel guilty not only about what they want, but <I>even about being blue staters in the first place</I>. If Obama continues to act that way, he's doomed in the GE.SergeiRostovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16813604140056417609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-79926959591749918922008-08-29T12:26:00.000-07:002008-08-29T12:26:00.000-07:00Well, for myself, Obama's speech just became compl...Well, for myself, Obama's speech just became completely moot. McCain picked Palin as VP and she praised the history of strong women trying to break the glass ceiling, giving kudos to Ferraro and Hillary.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's a ploy by the Republicans to get my vote. Well, guess what Obama - IT'S WORKING!!!! I'm WAY WAY WAY beyond being scared back into the Democratic camp this election season by invoking the scary "R" word.<BR/><BR/>For the first time in my life I might actually vote Republican. Un-freaking-believable, but there it is. It all could have been so different if that jerk would have just picked Hillary as VP.Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-79513088049535183872008-08-29T10:52:00.000-07:002008-08-29T10:52:00.000-07:00Great post, Anglachel. I came to the same conclusi...Great post, Anglachel. I came to <A HREF="http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/the-speech/" REL="nofollow">the same conclusion that you did</A>: In spite of the good start, he just couldn't resist slipping back into his tired, old, can't-we-all-get-along schtick, when what we <I>really</I> need is a champion for all things Democrat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-84793662945737871202008-08-29T10:47:00.000-07:002008-08-29T10:47:00.000-07:00I thought it was a good speech, considering Obama ...I thought it was a good speech, considering Obama was giving it.<BR/><BR/>I think McCain picking Palin for her gender is a big mistake. Sure rubs me the wrong way.<BR/><BR/>It does show, however, that someone has been paying attention to women. Probably Karl Rove.No Blood for Hubrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380206118683017717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-55719446356252602492008-08-29T08:02:00.000-07:002008-08-29T08:02:00.000-07:00another superb little essay in which appears this...another superb little essay in which appears this superb paragraph-<BR/><BR/>"For 40 years, since 1968, the American political landscape has been dominated by the most compact, fanatical, ideologically radical party in the West today. They have brutalized their opponents and despoiled the nation. The crises of our nation (vs. some rather pedestrian political screw ups) have been caused by this group that simply does not agree that we should be a democratic nation. This is not "gridlock" - this is political survival. They have over-reached and now is the time to seize a political opportunity."<BR/><BR/>i would only add a plea to make that 1958, or even 1948, with the "who lost china" rhetoric, the mccarthy and john birch society era, the succeeding hysterics about south asia that drove eisenhower, kennedy and johnson's foreign policy, and the giant shadow of the soviet boogie man - never as strong as the right loved to make it appear to be, but invoked, and invoked, and invoked again.<BR/><BR/>the american right-wing is the "enemy within", by far the most malevolent and destructive foe the united states of america, as birthed in the late 18th century, faces.<BR/><BR/>no foreign force has ever been or will be as dangerous to our future.orionATLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18052116776071979616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-90165004945344596052008-08-29T07:15:00.000-07:002008-08-29T07:15:00.000-07:00Execellant analysis of not only the speech but the...Execellant analysis of not only the speech but the problems with the current Party leaders and the mistakes they continue to make. If there ever was a time to draw the partisan divide it is now.This country is living in the swamp created by Republican policy and no one understands that better than the Clintons.<BR/><BR/>It is a lazy and igorant public that allows itself to be lied to by the press and the Republican opposition into believing that they are anything less than warriors for the people.show mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083761336244657868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-52370170287807102832008-08-29T07:05:00.000-07:002008-08-29T07:05:00.000-07:00Mylq has it right. What got me over and over was t...Mylq has it right. What got me over and over was the willingness of the dem leadership to fold over the mere threat of a filibuster. The repugs should have been made to filibuster every time -- and the democrats should have stood up for something, say, not giving immunity for breaking the FISA laws.arf isherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09430671135894904186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-80632199663564364922008-08-29T06:54:00.000-07:002008-08-29T06:54:00.000-07:00Thanks, Anglachel. I did not listen to the speech ...Thanks, Anglachel. I did not listen to the speech except to check the pageantry a bit. This is post-partisan, not red, not blue Democrat lite spectacle; in other words, wimpy, don't fight for what you want(if they first know what it is) party. This comes out as a lack of seriousness and urgency about what they can do given this tremendous opportunity and privilege. Most campaigns get caught up with winning and the low-level tactical maneuvers with their boiler plate talking points but rarely ever think about what a gift they are given if they win. This is where they differ from the Clintons, IMO. The Clintons were also in an exceptional circumstance of having gone through that path once, they could fully utilize their 20/20 hindsight. Sure they like the power but I also firmly believe that they are devoted public servants intent on doing good with the given privilege -- much better than the current cast of buffoons on both sides of the aisle. Only two smart winners in the whole wide Democratic party?pm317https://www.blogger.com/profile/01817747111612402845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-26315569642348760262008-08-29T05:34:00.000-07:002008-08-29T05:34:00.000-07:00While reading your [as usual] excellent analysis t...While reading your [as usual] excellent analysis the thought came to me that the Clintons are masters at chess, while most other Democrats have convinced themselves they are superior because they have finally proven they can play pretty good checkers.harpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010306770924393097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-18444187463932783692008-08-29T04:32:00.000-07:002008-08-29T04:32:00.000-07:00The whole pagent reached a peak of hubris last nig...The whole pagent reached a peak of hubris last night as he shamelessly stole Hillary's stump speech without any attribution.<BR/><BR/>Most grating was when he said that "it isn't about me, it's about you." The same point in nearly the same words said by Hillary only 2 nights ago.gendergappershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607028861861443195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-71539166197543405582008-08-29T04:26:00.000-07:002008-08-29T04:26:00.000-07:00Your post has clarified what has happened in this ...Your post has clarified what has happened in this primary and why so many Democrats opposed the Clintons. It's that, appeasement is easier. The Clintons have a clearly defined vision and set of principles to which they doggedly adhere. This causes intense, almost violent reaction from the right resulting in what's commonly referred to as "Clinton fatigue". I think that people aren't tired of the Clintons, but rather weary of reaction from the right. What a tragedy. It seems many people would prefer to compromise their principles and core beliefs in favor of a smoother ride.janicenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07204151543028630803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-39253946081642244382008-08-29T01:21:00.000-07:002008-08-29T01:21:00.000-07:00The Democratic party should have spent the last tw...The Democratic party should have spent the last two years setting the stage for a huge FDR/New Deal sized victory.<BR/><BR/>At every opportunity they should have introduced bills on a wide range of popular issues, like ending the war, universal health care and global warming. They should have done this with the full knowledge the bills would never pass.<BR/><BR/>They should have forced the GOP to use parlimentary rules to block those bills, filibuster them, and/or vote against them. They should have forced Bush to veto any bill that made it out of Congress.<BR/><BR/>This whould have created a record to show the difference between the parties, and they could then offer those defeated bills as a proposed agenda similar to Gingrich's "Contract on America" for the Democratic nominee and Congressional candidates to run on.<BR/><BR/>Instead, they amended FISA and kept funding the war. They didn't give the voters any reason to support the Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>It makes you wonder whose side the Democratic leadership is on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com