6.05.2008
Have you chosen your VP yet? I have.
Now you can participate! New site, along the lines of March Madness but more fun, lets you pick from groups of two your pick for VP, and then advances on preselected dates based on popularity of participants. Totally unscientific, but interesting. Visit VP Madness. A corollary to my polls on the Left.
6.04.2008
Why, Obama? Why?
Why didn't you listen to me, Barack? I said there was a reason I soured on Hillary. I liked her initially. I was hoping she'd be President. But then she went and heavily courted the Israeli vote in order to win the New York Senate seat. She even apologized for greeting Arafat's wife in the traditional manner. I was disgusted by such racism, and so decided at that point long ago to not support her. She could have advocated a neutral position on Israel and Palestine, continuing to be an honest broker, and able to argue that both sides need to be defended and supported. There are plenty of Arabs and Muslims in New York City as well. But she didn't do this. She went way over to the extreme, like nearly every other American politician.
Now, today, Obama, you started down the same slippery slope. I didn't even fully have a chance to get excited about you're winning the nomination. These weren't the words you expressed in Audacity of Hope. There you expressed something more equitable, at least, more equitable than we commonly see in American politicians. But today you spoke of an unending Jewish nation of Israel, and an undivided Israeli Jerusalem forever. You actually supported a racist state. I'm not here saying Israel is inherently racist. But rather, you supported the idea that Israel should be made of one race or religion only.
Yes, you are to be commended for speaking of the need for a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. But you missed an opportunity to speak of one state, uniting different factions, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, where the rights of everyone are guaranteed and protected. Isn't that what you talk about constantly here in the US? Why not speak of that in Palestine and Israel as well? Why not speak of the need for both sides to act justly, to speak against terrorism and also against Israeli apartheid?
I know you need to get elected, and so you need to speak in moderated terms. I don't expect miracles from you; I know you probably aren't going to be as equitable on this issue as most people are outside the U.S. But you could have taken that opportunity to strive for justice, and speak of being a good friend to Israel by calling Israel to act justly. Today I was disappointed.
Now, today, Obama, you started down the same slippery slope. I didn't even fully have a chance to get excited about you're winning the nomination. These weren't the words you expressed in Audacity of Hope. There you expressed something more equitable, at least, more equitable than we commonly see in American politicians. But today you spoke of an unending Jewish nation of Israel, and an undivided Israeli Jerusalem forever. You actually supported a racist state. I'm not here saying Israel is inherently racist. But rather, you supported the idea that Israel should be made of one race or religion only.
Yes, you are to be commended for speaking of the need for a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. But you missed an opportunity to speak of one state, uniting different factions, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, where the rights of everyone are guaranteed and protected. Isn't that what you talk about constantly here in the US? Why not speak of that in Palestine and Israel as well? Why not speak of the need for both sides to act justly, to speak against terrorism and also against Israeli apartheid?
I know you need to get elected, and so you need to speak in moderated terms. I don't expect miracles from you; I know you probably aren't going to be as equitable on this issue as most people are outside the U.S. But you could have taken that opportunity to strive for justice, and speak of being a good friend to Israel by calling Israel to act justly. Today I was disappointed.
6.03.2008
Let every vote count.
Lately, Hillary has been stating, many times, that she has won the popular vote. She makes this assertion by including Florida (where she campaigned against party rules but Obama didn't), including Michigan (where she was on the ballot but Obama wasn't), and not including four caucus states, where the popular vote was estimated but never officially reported. Hillary has even run ads in South Dakota making the specious claim that she won the popular vote- and from the most recent polls, has managed to fool the voters there as well.
That a candidate can win a caucus state with no official popular vote reported highlights the difficulty in trying to argue that the popular vote is important. Rather, in agreement with Hillary Clinton (of October, 2007), the popular vote doesn't matter- it's the delegates. When you have a caucus state, there's a range of individuals voting for delegates at the precinct level, and then a range of delegates at every level representing the next level up. It's the system we run by- a system not guaranteed in any way constitutionally. The Supreme Court has regularly upheld that primary and caucus votes are private party votes, and so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, on that level.
There is a certain irony that, if Michigan and Florida had waited, considering the extended primary season, their vote would have mattered a good deal more, even ignoring being seated as full delegations. For that matter, Puerto Rico could have been more of a deciding factor if they had stuck with their original June 7th date, rounding off the primaries, in a cheaper caucus. There has been regularly a fear that states won't get their dues, so they act on that fear, and lose out on the reward they would otherwise have gained.
But still, I want my vote to count. If I'm in a state that followed the rules of the private party, that didn't try to jump ahead and steal the thunder of another state, I feel my vote ought to count.
But I'm in one of those four caucus states that Hillary would exclude in order to maintain that she won the primary vote. I'm in Washington. So I ask. How dare you, Ms. Clinton, try to strip me of my voting rights within the party? How dare you suggest that my vote doesn't matter? You tell the superdelegates that you have won the popular vote, only on the back of my disenfrachisement. My state didn't jump the gun. We obeyed party rules. And yet you have the audacity to suggest that how we voted, and the vast numbers of us who voted, don't matter? What makes you think we would even consider voting for you in 2016?
That a candidate can win a caucus state with no official popular vote reported highlights the difficulty in trying to argue that the popular vote is important. Rather, in agreement with Hillary Clinton (of October, 2007), the popular vote doesn't matter- it's the delegates. When you have a caucus state, there's a range of individuals voting for delegates at the precinct level, and then a range of delegates at every level representing the next level up. It's the system we run by- a system not guaranteed in any way constitutionally. The Supreme Court has regularly upheld that primary and caucus votes are private party votes, and so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, on that level.
There is a certain irony that, if Michigan and Florida had waited, considering the extended primary season, their vote would have mattered a good deal more, even ignoring being seated as full delegations. For that matter, Puerto Rico could have been more of a deciding factor if they had stuck with their original June 7th date, rounding off the primaries, in a cheaper caucus. There has been regularly a fear that states won't get their dues, so they act on that fear, and lose out on the reward they would otherwise have gained.
But still, I want my vote to count. If I'm in a state that followed the rules of the private party, that didn't try to jump ahead and steal the thunder of another state, I feel my vote ought to count.
But I'm in one of those four caucus states that Hillary would exclude in order to maintain that she won the primary vote. I'm in Washington. So I ask. How dare you, Ms. Clinton, try to strip me of my voting rights within the party? How dare you suggest that my vote doesn't matter? You tell the superdelegates that you have won the popular vote, only on the back of my disenfrachisement. My state didn't jump the gun. We obeyed party rules. And yet you have the audacity to suggest that how we voted, and the vast numbers of us who voted, don't matter? What makes you think we would even consider voting for you in 2016?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)