Defending the Establishment

When this primary season started, I was dead-set against voting for Hillary Clinton because I believed that she was corrupt.  I thought that even if she was effective, all the progress would be for naught if a scandal erupted.  It could discredit the progressive cause for at least two election cycles and possibly more.  I wasn't quite feeling the Bern, but he seemed promising.  I have now done a pretty dramatic 180 on Hillary, and I guess a less dramatic -90 on Bernie Sanders.

After looking into the past scandals involving the Clintons, I found that they were all pretty much engineered by Republicans.  Given how much Republicans hate them and how much they've been investigated, I now really doubt that the Clintons are really corrupt or that there is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

With that out of the way, I am more supportive of Hillary for president.  She is a believer and practitioner of incremental change.  Sanders is a proponent of a "political revolution."  I certainly ascribe more to her theory change, particularly for the presidency while Congress is still dominated by Republicans and the Tea Party.  I expand on this train of thought in an essay, where I use examples from my professional field of responsible investing.

Dreaming of Incremental Change




The one thing that really still bothers me about Hillary is that she is too much of an interventionist on foreign policy.  This is where I often diverge with liberals because they usually want to go in to every conflict and support every rebel and of course posture at China!  I don't really think she's a neocon, though, but rather she is in line with the foreign policy elite in the US.  She seems like the classic bleeding heart liberal, actually.  I hope that after working with Obama and Biden that her views have moderated.  With that said, maybe it's more important that the foreign policy elite's views moderate.

Frustrated with Hillary and Bernie and Progressives

Sent this to the Hillary campaign.  I'll send a similar one to Sanders as well, but it's really not his fault if Hillary can't make the case for herself and Democrats.

Why isn't the campaign steering the conversation towards how we're going to get Republicans out of office?  Hillary just keeps tacking left.   That's great and all, but we all know that the real reason behind the erosion of the social safety net in the US is because of the rise of the extreme right!  Attacking Democrats is a waste of time not to mention resources.  Please, talk about political strategy!  And about the virtues of level-headedness a la Obama.  He has been consistently promoting the message of resisting over-reactions since his campaign in '08.  Surely, this temperament has helped Hillary with some legislation or political battle as well.  If Hillary can't sell this message, we're screwed and the Koch brothers win.

Message to the Hillary Clinton Campaign

I almost can't believe I'm getting involved given my strong opposition to her '08 campaign.  At any rate, I decided to send her campaign a message about what I think they should do.

Hi,

I can't say that I'm a very strong supporter, but I can see that Hillary Clinton is not doing as well as she should at communicating her message and strengths.  I wanted to share two suggestions to the campaign.

1. You've probably heard this one before, but voters (including myself) still really don't have a good sense of what Hillary is driven by.  What is her conceptual framework for how the economy works, how government works, the problems and solutions?  What is the theory of change?  People wouldn't necessarily expect the end game to materialize, but we all would like to know what it is.

2. Do NOT go on a full-on attack on Sanders.  Instead, start talking about management strategies and really get into the weeds.  People love that crap a la. the Checklist Manifesto, Getting Things Done, 6 Omega, etc.  Talk about how you run an effective meeting, how to manage an ineffective meeting run by someone else, how important it is to be in control of agenda-setting, etc.

Modern Sexism

Many people consider Hillary's loss a manifestation of sexism. I think there has been sexism against Hillary, but I think the media and the public has also been racist.

The debate is between those like Modo and Judith Warner

Hillary could have made a great speech about sexism just as Obama made a great speech about race. She sort of started to in her concession speech, but it wasn't really a very deep analysis, hence the masses and pundits are duking it out for themselves. Everyone is saying "this is the state of sexism," "no, this is." For example, is "Sex in the City" actually a show about female empowerment or just reinforcing sexism in American society? "Sex in the City" is not singularly about feminism or about perpetuating sexism. It is a show that reflects the values of modern women, although not necessarily about reality. Personally, I think neither "Sex in the City" nor Hillary losing the nomination are women's biggest problems. At this point, most barriers to women are cultural and societal, not officially sanctioned. Women are often their own worst enemy and give themselves and other women a harder time than men even do. This is nowhere more obvious than in middle school and high school, when girls feel pressured to look good but not admit to being good at math. Truly overcoming sexism has to be about raising girls to respect themselves and be ambitious. Benchmarks such as having a higher percentage of female CEO's are more of a breakthrough than electing a female President.

Clinton Concedes!

Wow



Actually pretty gracious concession. I think Obama makes everyone make good speeches.

Clinton Bows Out?

NYT article

Whoooo

And I just want to be on the record saying that there is no way Obama can choose her as Vice President, and he shouldn't. The political feng shui is just not right. There is too much dissonance. This might seem counterintuitive since you would think that his supporters and her supporters would just vote democrat, and it would be a landslide against McCain. Fortunately, politics is more nuanced than that.

Most obviously, Hillary would undercut Obama's message of change. Hillary ran a very conventional wisdom campaign, but not only that, she is a conventional political animal. She is a Washington insider and she welcomes money from lobbyists. How can Obama be sincere about changing the way politics is done if he has Hillary as a Veep? Her as Veep would damage Obama's credibility and cast doubt on his way of doing things if he can't even stand up to the Clintons.

Also, there are problems with Bill Clinton. Taking Hillary Clinton as Veep would mean Bill Clinton would be a second Veep. Plus, the Clintons think Obama is naive. They are also senior to him in the party. If you don't think that will be a problem, you are really naive. They will not agree on how to run the campaign, they will not stay on message, and even if they win, they will not be able to govern.

It is just a bad dream.

Hillary and Monsanto

This post is relevant to one of the classes I'm taking this term, Regulation of Chemicals, Radiation & Biotechnology. A blogger did a lot of research on Monsanto and their connection to the Clintons. She is not a scientist, but her research hits a lot of themes that we talked about in class, and my professors certainly share in their disdain of the Clintons.

Clinton the Neocon

In case it wasn't abundantly clear to you, Hillary Clinton is a neocon.

Clinton made the statement about Iran on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Not long after Obama weighed in Sunday on Clinton's remark, she was asked if she stood by her statement on ABC's "This Week."

She stuck with her message, saying warnings of "massive retaliation" are needed to keep the Islamic republic in check.

Obama, addressing Clinton's statement about Iran, said, "We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."

Israel is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond "forcefully and appropriately" to any attack, Obama said Sunday.

"But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush," he said. "And this kind of language is not helpful."

"When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach," Obama said.

Clinton is Crazy

On Tuesday, Clinton said something about obliterating Iran. On its face, you could say that well, she said we could obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel, which is completely reasonable! The problem is that it gets people in the mode of thinking about Iran as an enemy.

For all your readers who falsely equate Hillary Clinton's genocidal threat as a measured response to the alleged remarks of Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad, I say: Ahmadinejad has NEVER said that Iran would or should "wipe Israel off the map". This is a lie, a deliberate mistranslation and a myth that is being perpetuated, without anyone checking its veracity. I am Iranian and know what he said and it is not this. Ahmadinejad - like many others - is opposed to a Zionist and ethnicity-based state, especially at the expense of the native inhabitants, who are the Palestinians. What he wants is, in effect, a 'regime change', which he later explained was of the type that happened in the USSR, which disappeared from the map, without war. His interviews are on YouTube. Before you believe these lies that your media are telling you think: Iran is against Israel because of Palesitinians. Any Iranian hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, would also "wipe out" the Palestinians, who are living cheek by jowl with the Israelis, off the map, plus Islam's second holiest place, Jerusalem. Think, people and look at a map before believing everything that Fox tells you!

Hillary's FactHub: Source of All Amazingly Well Written and Credible, Factual Information

Memo!

Memo one of her campaign people posted in response to Obama camp.

Ok, so maybe she has a little bit of real merit in Northern Ireland and a little bit more in Kosovo. Her explanations for Bosnia, China, and Rwanda are not at all strong arguments.

Republicans For Hillary

Barack won Mississippi today, but Republicans broke for Hillary in record numbers. They were about 13% of the vote, and they voted for Hillary 85%. In other primaries, Republicans have tended to favor Barack. Sabotage anyone? And to those who say "so what, it's not illegal," democracy only works if people vote for who they actually prefer.

On the other hand, they really may prefer Clinton because they're racist. But that doesn't really make things any better now does it.

be afraid

hillary exaggerates about experience (surprise!)

memo put out by Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department, adviser to Obama campaign

I'm Upset

Clinton is pushing this idea that she would choose Obama as her running mate. Obama rightly explained himself and why she chose to say that. Obviously, she's trying to marginalize him, trying to make herself seem like she thinks she's going to win but be a nice winner and let Obama get VP. But she's running these ads that say Obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief. What the hell is she doing? Anyone that's paying attention should figure it out that she's just milking people. She's not serious. Obama is still clear in his goals. He doesn't want to play the game, he's going to defend himself when he gets attacked, but he's not going to lose his mind like Clinton has. And if he was losing, he'd get it and move on. He wouldn't be such a crazy fiend that Clinton has become, solely interested in winning and losing sight of our ultimate goals.

And all of these attacks on Obama will be bad overall for Democratic reforms. McCain could easily say, if indeed Obama did win the nomination, that even Senator Clinton thinks these bad things about Obama. It's not just the Republicans anymore. An attack on Obama has much more validity when both McCain and Clinton agree to it. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?! All in self-interest. GRRRRR!!!

Political Commentary

Ok, I am pissed.

It is really sad the way that Clinton is dragging the dialog into the ditch. I really hope that people understand that this is why people are not interested in "politics." It's not that they're not interested in these problems that the country faces. It's just that look at what politics has been reduced to! Well, then who are going to be the next leaders and organizers? You need the best and the brightest young people to be interested in running your country! OBVIOUSLY!!!

I know everyone's been trying to give the Obama campaign advice, and I just want to put out there that the most inspiring things that Obama says is when he redefines our priorities. He did it a lot in the speeches in the beginning of the campaign when he made the policy speeches. It's the stuff when he says why education is so important, not just for upward mobility but for the future of the American economy, why bottom up organizing is so important, etc. I think the campaign should redefine patriotism and seriously redefine what it means to have experience.

Patriotism is not about being proud no matter what your country does. It's about loving your country and being willing to work to make it better.

Experience is important. But it's the experience of knowing how deal with people, knowing how to listen, and get things done that really counts. It's about the experience of growing up poor, and being where you are because of getting a good education. It's the experience of knowing how to motivate other people and rally people to your side. That's something Clinton can never say she has had experience doing. Clinton says she's a fighter. Well, of course we all want a fighter. But what we don't want is a bully.

Obama needs to keep talking about political theory. He needs to keep going with the rhetoric. I know the campaign has gotten a little sidetracked since the other side has been saying "he's all talk." Well, that's his strength, and that's what we need because Americans, especially Democrats, have seriously gotten sidetracked and need to reprioritize.

I watched some old episodes of the West Wing recently, and there was a character running for president named Santos, and he was a lot like Barack. He came from a humble background and talked about the importance of education and was against fighting dirty. He was just like Barack. I was like, this guy is a liberal's dream candidate. And now he's here, and liberals are like, oh I don't know, he's not experienced enough. He's not tough enough. Come on liberals!!!!! What the hell?!?! Seriously. Republicans probably think this is hilarious.

democracy

email from my dad

Last few days watching Hilary and Obama has actually made me think of that old struggle for democracy in Taiwan. Many people devoted their whole life to the cause and sacrificed personally so much. It took a few decades for their cause to prevail. But when the time comes, the voters said thank you and voted for others, Their war was won, their role was over, they were ushered to the side as the whole society moved on and the young never saw their sacrifice. Some exited nicely, others have been bitter. Clinton is a tremendous fighter, a younger one in the tail end of the generation who fought very hard to push the woman's movement. Expecting to watch her also be swept away by the younger generation, I actually had a lot of sympathy (although never fond of her brutal style). What a surprise she actually survived for now, at least glimpsing from the web news while I am awaiting the flight here.

----------------------------------------------------------

also, on the bus last night, probably 70% of the riders were hispanic, 20% black, the rest white and asian. there was an argument between a drunk black guy and a hispanic guy, that ended with the black guy yelling something about 'all you people living 20 people in one house go get green cards or go get back on the boat' before getting off the bus. the hispanic guy then commented that black **'s like that were why clinton won the (hispanic) vote in texas and ohio, and most of the riders seemed to agree. so much for getting over racial tensions.

Clinton wins, sure, but not without turning Obama's words against him.

Politics as usual!

And non-democrats we should be afraid of. Jews!! No, not really. But I hate how they're super anal about Israel and they're really rich so they have a lot of influence in politics.

Civil Libertarian

article comparing obama and clinton on civil liberties.

Clinton Clinton Clinton

Sucks, says Frank Rich from the New York Times

Clinton... Such a Plagiarizer

If you haven't heard yet, Clinton attacked Obama for plagiarizing because he used Deval Patrick's words, but Deval Patrick is Obama's national co-chair, and he told Obama he could use his words. And Patrick knows that it's not about the words, it's about the ideas and the point of the words. Anyways, it's not like Clinton doesn't recycle old ideas: click me! However memorable her closing statement, it's an age-old line of thought. No one can "claim" it because it's an idea. And Hillary isn't amazingly special because she managed to say that in her closing.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I read that Daily Kos article, and if anyone understands the significance of that article, then everyone would be in support of Obama.

Citizen Journalist

comparison of legislative accomplishments of clinton vs. obama