unbound @ seema.org

Friday, November 13, 2009

LotD the second

Palin Book Fact Check. Shouldn't be surprising she plays fast and loose with facts. It'd be nice if she could go away and take Carrie Prejean with her.

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 8:08 PM |

Thursday, July 23, 2009


I'm really, really glad Bush and Cheney are gone, and especially Cheney. Back in 2000, I thought he'd be the voice of reason, the experience to shepherd Bush through the presidency, but by 2008, I was convinced he was nothing short of the boogey man, albeit with a man-size safe and a cunning ability to make his own house "disappear" from Google maps. That being said, Time has a fascinating article on Bush and Cheney's final days in the White House. It's almost like Bush had finally come out from under Cheney's thumb, but it was too late; the damage was done.

But the fight over the [Libby] pardon was also a prelude to the difficult questions about justice and national security inherited by the Obama Administration: How closely should the nation examine the actions of government officials who took steps — legal or possibly illegal — to defend the nation's security during the war on terrorism? The Libby investigation, which began nearly six years ago, went to the heart of whether the Bush Administration misled the public in making its case to invade Iraq. But other Bush-era policies are still coming under legal scrutiny. Who, for example, should be held accountable in one of the darkest corners of the war on terrorism — the interrogators who may have tortured detainees? Or the men who conceived and crafted the policies that led to those secret sessions in the first place? How far back — and how high up the chain of command — should these inquiries go?

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 10:28 PM |

Thursday, January 22, 2009


So I haven't been able to blog because I'm getting old (I did get older recently) and cannot remember my password for blogger. I can't remember my password, because it's the same as one of my email accounts, which I recently changed the password for, because someone -- SOMEONE OUT THERE -- is using my email address for their own. Which is so bizarre to me because clearly they are looking for a job and are getting responses to their job search IN MY EMAIL ACCOUNT. Not to mention, they're getting invited to all the cool parties, and they're also traveling a lot, mostly from Detroit to other parts of the country, and usually on Northwest. I know this because they keep sending their boarding pass to my email account. They also have an interest in law school because someone I started getting missives on study groups and LSAT preps; when I emailed back to get off the list, the response from the law school was that I had requested to be put on the list, and they sent me my email as proof.

This is not a recent phenomena, but one that has been going on since fall. At first I just thought it was a typo, but no, someone out there really is using my email account. They're not doing it intentionally; I think they honestly think that my email address is their email address. And the crazy thing is, they can't read their email, they're not getting their email. You'd think when they didn't get the information about law school or their boarding pass, they'd catch on that they didn't have the right email address. But I'm starting to think the user of my email address is a couple of crayons short of a full box or simply doesn't care.

Anyway, it's getting annoying but there's nothing I can do about it. I've RSVP'd back to a couple of parties saying, "Thanks, but you have the wrong email address." This must have paid off though. Recently, Crayon Box has been trying to reset the password to my account. I know this because I keep getting the "Reset password" emails in one of my other email boxes. So clearly they keep trying to get in but can't. I got me some strong passwords.

Anyway, all this to say that I couldn't remember my password to blog because I've got to keep a step ahead of Crayon Box... but if I could blogged, I would have let out a big hip hip hooray on January 20! I'm keeping my hopes high for Obama, but understand that no matter what some might think, he doesn't walk on water, and he's inherited a mess of gigantic proportions. I don't envy him. Not one minute. I bet he's wishing he'd read the job description more closely, don't you?

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 10:57 PM |

Friday, January 02, 2009

The end of an error

Jan. 20, 2009. Good riddance. Bob Hebert adds up the damage.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 9:34 AM |

Tuesday, December 30, 2008


As the year draws to a close, it's always good to get a retrospective on things that made our jaws drop. I especially liked the article on "Dumbest Moments in Business 2008," especially the part when the auto CEOs returned to Washington DC in hybrids. What's that they say about first impressions again? Zzzzz....

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 12:30 PM |

Saturday, November 08, 2008


Anyone else miss the election? It's like Tuesday night happened and now it's like, okay, what next? No more stupid remarks? No more wardrobe issues? No more "he said, she said"? Whatever will all the pundits do? And more importantly, will we ever see the CNN hologram again? I suppose January is the next moment of excitement...

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 6:03 PM |

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Where in the world is Africa?

Labels: , , ,

0 comments | 9:44 PM |

Monday, October 27, 2008


Still having a problem with Obama and still contemplating writing Hillary in. At the same time, I'm just awed at the sentiment of "blue" sweeping the country. It's like we've gone far enough to the right in the last eight disastrous years and people have had enough. I'm not going to take an Obama victory for granted; I've been disappointed before. But I am looking forward to election night more than usual. It'll be awesome if for the first time in 10 years, I actually vote for someone -- anyone -- who wins.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 8:45 PM |

Thursday, October 09, 2008

This One is voting for That One

I have decided, in the aftermath of Monday night's debate, to vote for Obama and for the first time since Hillary lost the primary, I'm 100 percent certain of my decision. I've been swaying back and forth, but I was dismayed by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, who is way too conservative and inexperienced, and I've been stunned by McCain's recent behavior on the campaign. His decision to "suspend" his campaign to go back to Washington to push the bailout, which then failed, just seemed nothing short of a stunt and ill-advised. It didn't work for me. But the deciding moment was in the debate, when I felt McCain spent more time attacking Obama than telling me what he was going to do as president.

See, here's the deal. As far as I can tell, the economy is in shambles, we're fighting two unwinnable wars, health care is becoming more expensive, and social security needs some kind of reform. These are the issues that matter to me. I don't care that McCain was involved in the Keating scandal. I don't care that Obama attended a fund raiser held by a reformed domestic terrorist 13 years ago when said terror attacks occurred when Obama was 8. That's the past, and I don't see how either of these two "guilt by association" issues help me or any other American *today*.

I picked Obama because he seems less erratic than McCain, and unlike McCain, Obama occasionally did give a concrete answer at Monday's debate. Obama seemed to get it, unlike McCain who spent all his time (weirdly) wandering around the stage. And honestly, I'm a little horrified at some of these rallies that are going on where attendees are yelling "Kill [Obama]!" and "Down boy!" and that McCain and Palin do nothing to stifle their supporters' comments. It's really very disgusting and I can't believe we're seeing this in America, today, and that two candidates for the two highest offices in the lands are saying, by their silence, that it's okay.

I'm not saying either of these candidates are perfect, but I really though McCain would not resort to such mud-slinging.* I had a lot of respect for him just a few months ago because I did think after what happened to him in 2000 -- a definite victim of the Karl Rove attack machine -- that he would be more dignified. But no. And without concrete answers to anything, and Palin's nonsensical answers and clear lack of experience, it's impossible for me to even think anymore of voting for McCain.

Obama it is.

Not that Obama is blameless on the negative ad side, but only 34 percent of his ads last week were negative, while McCain's were nearly 100 percent. This tells me more about McCain than it does about Obama. Overall, the negative ad split is 73 percent McCain and 61 percent Obama. .

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 11:24 PM |

Friday, September 12, 2008


Factcheck.org -- good source to check to see who is really telling the truth and who's not during this election season. Though I don't hold out much hope -- people still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

Labels: , , ,

0 comments | 1:04 PM |

Saturday, September 06, 2008


A visitor from another planet who dropped in on the Republican campaign at this point would very likely assume that the presidential nominee was a guy who had spent his life as a prisoner of war until he was released just in time to pick Sarah Palin for vice president.


He’s been a military man or a senator for virtually all of his adult life, and listening to him talk, you get the definite impression that the two great threats of the 21st century are Islamic extremism and the appropriations committee.

Link: McCain's Grizzly Problem.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 4:50 PM |

Monday, September 01, 2008

Um... Wow?

Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant. As of 40 minutes ago.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 11:44 AM |


Ironically, right after I wrote my pro-choice statement (below), I stumbled across a couple of entries at the liberal blog, Daily Kos about Sarah Palin and whether this baby is even hers. I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but the pictures are kind of telling...

Sarah Palin is NOT the mother

BabyGate: Explosive New Details

I did think it was weird when I heard the story about Palin flying from Texas to Alaska to give birth after her water broke because I thought once that happened, you had to get the baby out. Having never had a baby before, I figured maybe I was mistaken and a woman who had had four would know what she was doing. Or maybe the incident had been exagerrated and her water didn't really break or whatever. All sorts of stuff. Anyway, consume this theory with a grain of salt as all items from political blogs must be; I'm assuming if this was really a cover-up and Palin's daughter Sarah is really the mother, it will eventually all come out. Too many people in the know to keep it quiet for long, and I'm sure the McCain campaign vetted her properly as well.

So weird. So Desperate Housewives.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 10:40 AM |

Pro choice

There's been some "interesting" comments in liberal circles about Sarah Palin and her decision to have a baby with a Down's Syndrome at her age. Some of the comments have been a little... well, they're the type of comments that give all of us pro-choicers a bad name. Those of you who know me know I'm very pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that I think that abortion is the answer or the right thing to do. Personally, I follow the Hillary school of thought, the one that got her ridiculed way back when, but abortion should be legal, safe, and most of all rare. There are ways to accomplish the last -- education, contraception, better access to health care and support systems, adoption, etc -- but there are times when there is no choice for any number of reasons and that's where I believe the option of legal and safe needs to come into play.

I don't think we can all quite have a looking glass into why women (and men and families) make the choices they make. We don't know individual circumstances or philosophies or issues. We have no idea what leads to the decision to abort a pregnancy. It's never quite so simple as opponents would like to think, and outlawing abortion, mho, isn't going to lead to the ultimate goal of a rare practice.

Sarah Palin made the right decision for her family, for herself. She walked the talk, and she made a choice. And that's really what pro-choice is all about. There shouldn't be any judgment about her decision, either positive or negative; it is what it is. It's key to remember what is right for one person isn't necessarily right for another and unless we're intimately involved in all aspects and are ready to shoulder whatever duty comes when we get our way, I think it's best to let people make the decisions that are best for them -- especially when that decision doesn't affect me or you personally. That's what being pro-choice is all about. It's not pro-abortion, like people would like to make one think, it's about letting people make decisions. And hopefully, as we become a more supportive and educated society, those decisions will start to fall on the rare side of the spectrum.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 10:17 AM |

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


I watched Hillary's speech tonight and really, really, really wished I was watching her accept the nomination instead. I've been torn since she stopped her campaign and conceded to Obama. On the one hand, I haven't really changed my mind about Obama, but on the other hand, I don't think I could bring myself to vote for McCain. I've contemplated voting for McCain, trying to find if there is anything we agree on, and with one exception -- McCain's stance on torture -- there's really nothing he stands for that will cause me to switch party allegiance. Right now, I'd like to write Hillary in on the ballot, since pigs will probably fly before Obama wins my state, so that could be a good compromise, but there's something to be said about being well-behaved and loyal and recognizing that there's nothing gained from petulant actions.

Hillary made good point in her speech when she asked why we were "in it." The campaign wasn't about her, but it was about America, and what we see as the key issues facing the country. I had more faith in Hillary's ability to develop a universal health care plan, for example, but I know McCain won't do it at all, so that leaves Obama as the candidate who is more likely to take actions on the issues I believe in strongly. For those of you Hillary supporters thinking of voting for McCain instead of Obama, remember that we have a Supreme Court that's one justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, and that the international situation is tenuous; that we need universal health care and alternative energy policies, gay rights and women's rights, that we need to do something about the two wars started (and hopefully, not start anymore), and that at the end of the day, the Republicans have turned this country into a big mess. McCain isn't going to be the one able to mop it up since he'll continue the same policies implemented by the Bush administration and look where that got us.

I'm having a hard time accepting Obama, and I'm not thrilled at all about Biden, but at the end of the day, I'm a Democrat, and I don't want to see another Republican in the White House. As a Red State dweller, my vote doesn't necessarily count for electoral votes, but maybe as a statement on unity, I can bring myself to check the box next to Obama's name. We'll see. I'm still not ready to remove the Hillary sign from my car and replace it with Obama paraphernalia. Maybe when I can do that, I can take the next step in voting for him. Baby steps...

Labels: , , ,

0 comments | 10:28 PM |

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Hearts and Hopes

Even though it was expected and inevitable, it was still very hard to watch Hillary Clinton suspend her campaign today.


0 comments | 4:14 PM |

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The gasoline tax holiday

I've seen mention of a gasoline tax holiday here and there, and seriously, it's one of the lamest political moves ever. Today, taxes over all make up 13 percent of a gallon of gasoline; crude itself is 72 percent. Back in January of 2000, taxes (federal, local and state) made up 32.1 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline and crude was 47.1 percent. The world price for crude back in January of 2000 was between $23 and $25. In April of 2008, the price has ranged between $103.46 to $118.53/barrel (ignore the hijinks during the day -- it's the closing price that matters). In January of 2000, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.50.

If you look at January of 2000, we paid approximately 48 cents per gallon in taxes. Average price in April of 2008 is $3.50, and we pay approximately 45.5 cents per gallon in overall taxes. Federal taxes -- which is what the gasoline tax holiday is all about -- are 18.4 cents* per gallon so the rest of the 45.5 cents goes to local and state taxes. You slice out the 18.4 cents and you drop the price of gasoline to around $3.32 for about 3 minutes, because the fundamental problem still remains -- the price of crude is what's going up, not the taxes which are a fixed cost (not to mention it would be politically unpopular to raise taxes on gasoline, even though personally, I think it might be a smart idea).

The proposed federal gas tax holiday would go from Memorial Day to Labor Day, which is approximately four months. Indulge me and pretend for a moment that the price of crude doesn't go up during the driving season. So someone like me with a fuel-efficient vehicle and a 10-gallon tank who fills up four times a month would save somewhere around $30 for the duration of the gas tax holiday. I can save that much by just eliminating two dinners out a month or heck, just waking up early enough so I don't take the toll road to work. And note from the exercise above -- it's the price of crude that's causing the pain, not the taxes. And crude's going to keep on going up and up unless we change our behavior, and that's not going to happen at all.

The taxes go to a highway fund that helps with road construction. When you have no funds, you have no road construction. When you have no road construction, you lose jobs. We don't want to lose jobs so we have to make up that shortfall *somewhere* and guess where the money comes from? Ding ding ding if you guessed China or some other foreign entity. The US is so deep in debt right now that China et al essentially owns our collective butt and that doesn't help with the value of the dollar.

So, in a nutshell, the gas tax holiday is stupid because:

1. In the grand scheme of things, most drivers won't be saving that much money to make a significant difference in their economic situation

2. Reducing the price of gasoline through government intervention will not change behaviors; instead, a reduction will influence people to drive *more*, thus driving up the price once again, essentially negating whatever savings might have been gained through the gas tax holiday

3. The US has to borrow money to finance this hare-brain scheme, which means we, as a nation, we're even deeper in debt and while I'm no economist, I'm pretty sure that doesn't help with the weak US dollar

I want to point out that crude is priced in dollars and for every 10 percent decrease in the value of the dollar, crude rises $4. I haven't figured out the exact way our debt figures into the devaluation of the dollar -- I only know how it impacts my daily life. What we need is a stronger dollar, less consumption on our parts, and then maybe we'll see a meaningful impact in the price of fuel. But the gas tax holiday, now that's just stupid pandering by politicians -- including *my* candidate -- who really want to be president.

Taxes on diesel are approximately 24.4 cents, so if you're driving a diesel vehicle you'll save around $40 for the gas tax holiday

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 8:41 PM |

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Listen up, Texas

Here's the deal -- it feels *damn* good to be relevant for the first time since LBJ. It feels so awesome to know that on March 4, the primary matters, the voters matter, and Democrats can come out of hiding. It feels so good to see all the Hillary signs, and even the Obama ones. It means it's a good time to be a Democrat. That's the first part, the awesome part of the deal -- being relevant in Texas again.

The second part, that's not the so awesome part. That's the part where some of you are choosing Obama. Obama with his minuscule experience, his health care plan that doesn't cover everyone, and his inane idea to bomb Pakistan to get bin Laden. We've already suffered through amateur hour in the White House for the last 7 years; Texas, do we really want to go through that again?

There's not much daylight between the two. You cut through the rhetoric and you see two candidates who are remarkably the same -- talented, accomplished, passionate. It's great that we have such a choice. But don't vote for Obama because he's not Clinton. Don't vote for Obama because you find yourself drifting away on his words (because God knows, I do find him memorizing). Don't vote for Obama because you think the idea of hope is the only thing that can get America through. Don't vote for Obama because he was right about Iraq at a time when he didn't have the obligation to make a decision about Iraq. These are all words and promises. You have a better choice, Texas, so choose it.

Choose someone who has 35 years of experience, who knows world leaders by name and has visited parts of the world currently in trouble. Pick someone who has made health care a personal crusade and who is going to promote what is core liberal value -- universal health care for everyone. Pick someone who is more pragmatic, who has been (surprisingly) able to work with some of the most conservative members of congress and get legislation passed. Pick someone who isn't new, shiny, and isn't the world's great orator. Pick someone who is going to roll up her sleeves and get to work for us on day one.

Think hard about who you're voting for on Tuesday. Think about the difference between words and actions. Think about what means to have less than four years of experience at the national level and compare that to 35 years. Experience means something. We've already gone seven years with a "change candidate" and a "uniter not a divider" candidate. Let's not do that again.

So on Tuesday, Texas, make the right choice and vote and caucus for Hillary Clinton.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 7:34 PM |

Sunday, February 17, 2008

I was there

What a trip to finally see Bill Clinton in person. It was super cold and late, but so worth it. Plus, it was nice to see just how much support Hillary has. When I was walking back to my car with my Hillary rally sign, cars were honking support. It was great.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 9:52 PM |

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Super duper

The bad thing about being a grown-up is I won't see how this Tuesday plays out. I no longer have the ability to stay awake much later than 10 pm, and even my first 10 minutes of the Daily Show are a hard fight to stay awake. The good news is, tomorrow I'll find out first thing in the morning how it all turns out. Amazing, I've watched more of the endless (read: dull) coverage of Super Tuesday than I did the Super Bowl, which didn't even register on my radar (I watched Masterpiece Theater on PBS).

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 9:47 PM |

Monday, February 04, 2008

LotD the second

Thought you were going to be politics free this evening, didn't you? Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and so I wanted to point all of y'all to Stanley Fish's All You Need Is Hate, an intriguing commentary on the Hillary!Hate.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 8:42 PM |

Sunday, February 03, 2008


I got a call from the Obama campaign today. I guess John Kerry must have sold them my information. I didn't really hear what they had to say after the "We're so excited about Obama's chances going into Super Tuesday. Aren't you?" And I started my spiel about being so glad and proud that the Democrats had such good candidates this year but for now, I was supporting Hillary Clinton. The only response was dial tone.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 10:45 PM |

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Grrrrl power

So I tuned into the Democratic debate tonight and man, what a civilized affair it was. Utterly respectful, dignified, and wow, they stuck to the issues without taking a swipe at each other. It's almost like Clinton and Obama watched yesterday's mean fest between McCain and Romney and said, "Okay, let them eat each other; we're going to show America something else and that's how we -- the Democrats -- are going to win back the White House." While there wasn't a lot of fireworks -- I'm curious to see how the Today show spins this tomorrow morning -- there was lots of policy, and some humor but Clinton got the best line of the night when she pointed out it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush; it'll take a Clinton to clean up after this one. All in all, Obama was charming and more policy-oriented than usual, but I think the night went to Hillary.

A friend, who is a Republican, pointed out that the niceness might just be a front for something else. Edwards, my friend speculated, might be playing kingmaker, and setting up Clinton to get the nomination with Obama as vice-president. That ticket would be different, historic, but most of all, electable and unbeatable if McCain is the nominee. Edwards, the broker of this deal, would get a position as attorney general or Supreme Court justice. It's an interesting theory, so we'll see how it all shakes up. The Republican -- who started to sway towards Hillary after tonight's debate -- predicts Senator Clinton will be the nominee come Wednesday. If this conspiracy theory is indeed true, it would explain the niceness, the politeness, the "we both believe" comments, but most of all, Clinton's telling remark at the end of the debate when she said "We will have a unified Democratic party [in November]." What's a better way to unite all three main parts of the Democratic party than to put everyone in power in one way or another?

Labels: ,

0 comments | 9:24 PM |

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

You say tomato, I say tomahto

I just finished watching the Republicans' debate and it was not as entertaining as I hoped it would be. Huckabee didn't say much and Ron Paul got one passionate speech in about Iraq. McCain and Romney were just painful to watch -- maybe because there was just SO much of them and I rapidly lost interest in anything they had to say. It was more interesting to see how long Anderson Cooper would let them drone on compared to how many times he cut Paul and Huckabee off in mid-sentence. Bah.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 8:39 PM |

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Sunshine state

Rumor has it that Giuliani is expected to drop out of the race and endorse McCain. Which is rather a relief. The more I read about Giuliani the man, the less I liked him. All we needed was another arrogant volatile guy in the White House with his hand on the red button to get things riled up again. And McCain, whom I could *almost* vote for if he weren't a social conservative, is an upstanding guy. Given this recent development, and *if* I had a horse in this race, I'd throw my support behind McCain. There's something about Romney that's just... I can't put my finger on it, but I find him a bit like a Ken-doll -- all artifice, all gloss and sheen. He's the Republican version of Edwards in that way.

I am still torn on the Democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, still not sure I can bring myself to vote for him. My vote here in extremely Red State doesn't matter anyway, but I'd like to vote for someone I like and could trust to do the job from day one. I don't think Obama is that person so I can't vote for him. Right now, my fall back -- since I'm not going to vote for a Republican nominee, not even McCain -- is to write-in someone and that person is probably going to be Dennis Kucinich, just because of all the candidates, he's the one who espouses most of what I believe in and want for this country. Of course, all this is speculation and as we get closer to November, this could all change to something else as I learn more about the candidates.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 9:46 PM |

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Hooray for Hillary!

I stayed up until 10:30 pm last night watching CNN falling all over itself to figure out just what the heck was going on in New Hampshire. I kept watching those percentages and thinking, "So close, too close." Any minute, I was expecting Obama to suddenly come from behind and win the primary. But no, luck held, all the pundits were wrong (bad pundits!), and amazingly, Hillary won the first primary* of the season.

Of course everyone points to her 'crying' moment, though I've watched the video several times and I don't actually see her crying as much as her voice cracks for just a second. I didn't see it as contrived, I didn't see it as weakness. I saw it as a moment when you realize you're very close to losing everything you've spent 35 years working for, that you've given everything you can, and somehow it's still not enough because people find you 'unlikeable'. I've admired Hillary ever since she emerged on the national stage back in 1992, but that moment -- along with her performance in the debate, that spark of anger and passion, the sense of humor -- really solidified my admiration for her.

I really do believe Hillary is a better candidate than Obama. Obama is a dignified man with a great presence and beautiful poetry. But he's got so little experience on the global stage that despite his pretty words, I'm afraid he's not going to know what to do when. I think he's a great candidate who'll do great things for the US. I just think his turn is 8 years from now.

I'm also starting (scarily) to really like Huckabee. I think some of his ideas are weird, if not downright idiotic (quarantining AIDS patients? REALLY?), but he's a likable guy, dignified, has done some interesting anti-Conservative things, and with a gift for oratory. This last trait he has in common with Obama. It's no wonder people are attracted to these two candidates. They can inspire and speak with passion that we've been missing -- and didn't know we were missing -- for the past eight years.

* Not to split hairs, but Iowa was a caucus.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 10:01 PM |

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Iowa, Iowa

Clearly, I'm not happy with the Iowa results. I don't like Obama, even though 4 years ago I raved about him (but that was when I thought he was a good orator and senator, not as PRESIDENT!). I don't think Obama and Hillary would team up. I'm iffy on Edwards -- I just can't buy the guy as a populist. I'm really hoping Hillary wins NH, because if she doesn't, it's going to be Obama for President and I don't think the guy has enough experience. I mean, W had only a few years of experience as well and look where that got us.

Right now, if Obama is the candidate, I'd have to figure out how I'd vote in the election. I live in Very Red State, so it doesn't really matter if I write-in a candidate -- Dennis Kucinich, for instance -- or vote Republican. Mitt Romney I'm not sure about -- he's like the Republican version of Edwards, except you can buy Mitt Romney as a Country Club Republican, the very constituency he's trying to serve. I think if I voted Republican, it'd be for Ron Paul. I don't agree with most of his views, but he wants to end the war in Iraq, and that's good enough for me.

We'll see what NH brings.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 2:54 PM |

Thursday, August 16, 2007

No time machine

I was watching "The Daily Show" last night and also a few nights ago, when Bill Kristol was on. Jon Stewart was pounding both Kristol and last night's guest, Stephen F. Hayes, pretty hard on the Iraq War, but what I especially liked about yesterday's conversation is that Stewart actually brought up the issue of patriotism and if you're against the war, somehow you're a traitor and hurting morale. The full transcript of yesterday's show is over here or you can always watch it on Comedy Central if you'd like (I personally find their media player horrible).

Here's the thing. The supporters of the war have framed it so elegantly in black and white. Black and white is easy, it doesn't require nuance. It's either A or it's B. There's no in between and you don't have to hurt your head with shades of gray. Easy, easy. So if you're against the war, then you want the terrorists to win and if you want a plan of action, then you're supporting the terrorists. If you want the troops to come home becaus standing between two sides intent on killing each other isn't a long-term viable strategy then you're a defeatist. Add it all up together and somehow you're unAmerican and unpatriotic, which all adds up to the 't' word: Traitor.

See, the conservatives have gotten really good at the name calling. They've gotten good at framing the debate and setting up the sides. They've got a huge grassroots support system on radio and internet and all they do is pick at you little by little until suddenly it's tiresome to bang your head up against "YOU MAKE NO FREAKING SENSE AND YOU HAVEN'T IN YEARS" brickwall.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if the antiwar people are defeatist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, or Benedict Arnold. Those are just adjectives, they don't mean a dang thing. It's the conservatives who got us into the freaking mess and they don't seem like they have a plan to get us out. That's why they get so upset when we ask questions. That's why they don't believe in accountability. 'Stay the course' wasn't a winning strategy for the first George Bush, but apparently old habits die hard. Maybe it's time we reframe the debate from the antiwar side: "We made a mistake, we want to fix it in the best possible way for America, and how can we do that in a way that minimizes casualities -- civilian and military, Iraqi and American -- in the best possible way?"

Rhetoric is easy, but it's not a solution. So while I'm leaning very strongly towards Hillary Clinton, honestly, I'd vote for the first person who puts forward a strategy that makes sense, is actionable, but more importantly, doesn't involve playground-style name calling.

Labels: , , , ,

0 comments | 9:04 PM |

Monday, June 18, 2007

Makes no cents

Phooey on Senator Obama, who has lost my support (tepid as it was) for the primary season (is it over yet?). I'd been shifting between Obama and Hilary Clinton for some time now and have been leaning more towards Clinton, but this latest memo of his smearing Indian Americans just about killed any pre-nomination support I might have had for him. I have no idea what he (or someone in his campaign) was thinking. In my non-scientific research, Indian Americans are well-off, educated, are leaders in a variety of fields, but more importantly, they vote Democrat. A lot. Maybe Indian Americans aren't a huge population so Obama wasn't worried about ticking us off, but still... Incredibly stupid and so now the next time the Obama campaign calls me looking for a donation, I'll remind them that I'm an Indian American and they don't seem to want MY support. My checkbook is CLOSED.

The worst part is though, if he gets the Democratic nod, I've got no choice but to support him. Of course, I can vote, just not give money. Grrr. IDIOT.

Labels: ,

0 comments | 8:27 PM |

Monday, January 22, 2007


I meant to say this yesterday but Blogger was acting up, but my guess is that John Edwards will secure the Democratic nomination. He's not the front runner right now, but he'll probably be chosen on 'electability' versus Obama and Clinton. I've been reading some comments on Clinton and I've been aghast by some of the things people have been saying, like one person called her 'unladylike' for wanting power and someone else called her the not-so-nice 'c' word and someone else said something to the effect of "if she can't keep her husband in line, how is she supposed to be president?" Puh-lease. I won't deny that I'm completely in Hillary's camp. I wasn't a couple days ago, but now I am. She is a smart, independent woman who has won respect on both sides of the aisle and has worked hard during her time in Congress. She deserves the respect all of the other candidates receive (ha!).

And for something completely jaw-dropping, read Howard Kurtz's article about Obama's schooling at a 'madrassa' at age 6. Apparently FOX News was all over this story, even though the allegations were thinly sourced and completely irrelevent; CNN has debunked the story here, though I'm pretty sure people will say it's just the liberal media covering up for their own. I don't have a high opinion of FOX News, which despite calling itself "fair and balanced" is decidedly not so, but I did think they'd do better than pick up a single source story from a newspaper and report on it without confirming it.

Sometimes I can't believe I share a country with these people.

Labels: , ,

0 comments | 8:36 PM |

Older Entries