Hey World,
He may be down, but he is not out. Ron Paul appeared on CNN's American Morning today to talk about the current state of political affairs and to promote his new book The Revolution: A Manifesto. He says certain candidates talk about making changes but aren't specific about what changes need to be made (A jab at Obama, perhaps?. Paul says there should be a new party entitled the "Republicrats" (lol. This man slays me!). His main point is that Washington should focus on fixing the economy by balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and also, lest we forget, bring the troops home. You've got to give it to the man. He is not giving up.
Be sure to digg the digg.com submission where I got the inspiration to write this post from: Ron Paul on CNN: GOP Can't Shut Me Out.
Or if you're too lazy to Digg, then just watch the Youtube clip:
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Is Hillary's Tactics Ruining the Democratic Party?
Hey World,
I just checked out an interesting article from The Washington Post on how some people within the Democratic Party think that Hillary Clinton isn't playing fair. They say that Clinton is positioning herself to be the poster child for white working class voters, while alienating Black voters in the process. These Black voters include some who had, according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn, supported Hillary's husband Bill Clinton when he was running for President. Clyburn also suggests that Hillary is trying to make Obama "unelectable" so she can run in 2012. This article has implications of the Democratic Party being divided over race, and there are also issues raised as to how far Clinton will go to outshine Obama.
I feel that the issue stems from how politics can divide a political party. I'm no political history buff, but it seems like it's been the first time in awhile at least that a party has two strong candidates vying for a nomination. It seems like usually, the majority of the party supports one candidate.
I am also not sure if I agree with Clyburn's statements. I feel like he is the Kanye West in this case, where instead of George Bush it's "Hillary Clinton doesn't care about Black people." I haven't seen proof that Clinton prefer's White voters over Black ones. Maybe that makes me naive, or maybe that makes me a person who isn't trying to jump into conclusions.
What do you all think?
I just checked out an interesting article from The Washington Post on how some people within the Democratic Party think that Hillary Clinton isn't playing fair. They say that Clinton is positioning herself to be the poster child for white working class voters, while alienating Black voters in the process. These Black voters include some who had, according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn, supported Hillary's husband Bill Clinton when he was running for President. Clyburn also suggests that Hillary is trying to make Obama "unelectable" so she can run in 2012. This article has implications of the Democratic Party being divided over race, and there are also issues raised as to how far Clinton will go to outshine Obama.
I feel that the issue stems from how politics can divide a political party. I'm no political history buff, but it seems like it's been the first time in awhile at least that a party has two strong candidates vying for a nomination. It seems like usually, the majority of the party supports one candidate.
I am also not sure if I agree with Clyburn's statements. I feel like he is the Kanye West in this case, where instead of George Bush it's "Hillary Clinton doesn't care about Black people." I haven't seen proof that Clinton prefer's White voters over Black ones. Maybe that makes me naive, or maybe that makes me a person who isn't trying to jump into conclusions.
What do you all think?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Is Nora Ephron Right?
Hey World,
Today is the day, the Pennsylvania Democratic Primaries. Of course, many know why today is so important, so I am going to analyze the day in another perspective.
A few days ago, Nora Ephron wrote a piece in The Huffington Post called White Men. She says that it stinks that we only have two choices for candidates, and because of this, Pennsylvania voters have to choose based on gender or race. Ephron says, "This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men." She implies that it is ironic that white men would have to choose to vote between a woman and a Black person.
Ephron does have an interesting point that I had never thought of before, at least not deeply. She says that it is the first time in history that white male voters will have to choose one of two candidates who are totally different from them. Usually, this is not the case. Ephron says: "...these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son..."
Before the primaries, some have speculated that Hillary Clinton will take Pennsylvania over Barack Obama. Ephron is suggesting, though, that if Clinton takes the state, it means that racist white males prefer a woman over a Black person. Perhaps Ephron is right about this and the rest of her argument, but is she generalizing a bit too much? I mean, I don't have any statistics regarding the numbers of White male Pennsylvania voters, but they are certainly not the only ones voting today, even though they may be the majority of voters. And even if Clinton takes the state, is it due to racist White males, or is it racist White females? And if white people vote Clinton over Obama, is it due to racism? Would we call it "reverse racism" if Obama was in Clinton's place and Black voters voted for him?
Geez, John McCain must be happy that he does not have to deal with this crap!
Today is the day, the Pennsylvania Democratic Primaries. Of course, many know why today is so important, so I am going to analyze the day in another perspective.
A few days ago, Nora Ephron wrote a piece in The Huffington Post called White Men. She says that it stinks that we only have two choices for candidates, and because of this, Pennsylvania voters have to choose based on gender or race. Ephron says, "This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men." She implies that it is ironic that white men would have to choose to vote between a woman and a Black person.
Ephron does have an interesting point that I had never thought of before, at least not deeply. She says that it is the first time in history that white male voters will have to choose one of two candidates who are totally different from them. Usually, this is not the case. Ephron says: "...these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son..."
Before the primaries, some have speculated that Hillary Clinton will take Pennsylvania over Barack Obama. Ephron is suggesting, though, that if Clinton takes the state, it means that racist white males prefer a woman over a Black person. Perhaps Ephron is right about this and the rest of her argument, but is she generalizing a bit too much? I mean, I don't have any statistics regarding the numbers of White male Pennsylvania voters, but they are certainly not the only ones voting today, even though they may be the majority of voters. And even if Clinton takes the state, is it due to racist White males, or is it racist White females? And if white people vote Clinton over Obama, is it due to racism? Would we call it "reverse racism" if Obama was in Clinton's place and Black voters voted for him?
Geez, John McCain must be happy that he does not have to deal with this crap!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Should We Be Offended by Obama's Comments?
Hey World,
I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't all that offended by Obama's comments. I mean, I am not from a small-town. At a California fund-raiser, Obama said this in referring to Pennsylvanians without jobs:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
On one hand, I could see where Obama was coming from. To me, he is implying that working-class folks tend to be religious, into gun culture, and they hate immigrants and trading with other countries. From my experience, some people who fit Obama's description are this way, but a middle-class or an upper-class person could be religious, trigger-happy, and xenophobic too.
I think that Obama may have been generalizing. It is a shame because Obama portrays himself as a representer of the everyman regardless of class, but of course there are those who will kick a person when he is down. CNN says Hillary Clinton was "taken aback" by Obama's statements, and John McCain said the comments were "elitist." Clinton and McCain are just happy no one is ragging on them. Clinton, especially, must be relieved that people have stopped talking about the Bosnia thing for awhile.
Even Obama admits that he didn't explain himself well, but it is true that people often turn to other sources when they are "bitter" or desperate. I'm not as sure about guns, but people often turn to religion. Also, Obama there are many points in history where working-class Americans hold anti-immigrant sentiments after losing their jobs.
Geez, give the man a break! And while you do, check out this Youtube video of Obama explaining his comments:
I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't all that offended by Obama's comments. I mean, I am not from a small-town. At a California fund-raiser, Obama said this in referring to Pennsylvanians without jobs:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
On one hand, I could see where Obama was coming from. To me, he is implying that working-class folks tend to be religious, into gun culture, and they hate immigrants and trading with other countries. From my experience, some people who fit Obama's description are this way, but a middle-class or an upper-class person could be religious, trigger-happy, and xenophobic too.
I think that Obama may have been generalizing. It is a shame because Obama portrays himself as a representer of the everyman regardless of class, but of course there are those who will kick a person when he is down. CNN says Hillary Clinton was "taken aback" by Obama's statements, and John McCain said the comments were "elitist." Clinton and McCain are just happy no one is ragging on them. Clinton, especially, must be relieved that people have stopped talking about the Bosnia thing for awhile.
Even Obama admits that he didn't explain himself well, but it is true that people often turn to other sources when they are "bitter" or desperate. I'm not as sure about guns, but people often turn to religion. Also, Obama there are many points in history where working-class Americans hold anti-immigrant sentiments after losing their jobs.
Geez, give the man a break! And while you do, check out this Youtube video of Obama explaining his comments:
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Rumor Has It ...
Hey World,
Yesterday I happened to be watching New York City's local FOX television affiliate, and I saw a report saying that there is a rumor that Condoleeza Rice is interested in being a running mate alongside John McCain. Apparently, it is really only a rumor. McCain says that the rumor is news to him, and Rice hasn't said anything publicly about it. It's the kind of rumor that is intriguing even though it's not true. What if Rice ran for the general elections with McCain? And what if they had won. Then for the Republican right wing, this would be a good look. They would have a person in the White House who covers both minorities, namely Blacks and women, and at the same time have a person who will keep their conservative interests in mind. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Here is an article on the whole thing, and check out some commentary on it too:
Yesterday I happened to be watching New York City's local FOX television affiliate, and I saw a report saying that there is a rumor that Condoleeza Rice is interested in being a running mate alongside John McCain. Apparently, it is really only a rumor. McCain says that the rumor is news to him, and Rice hasn't said anything publicly about it. It's the kind of rumor that is intriguing even though it's not true. What if Rice ran for the general elections with McCain? And what if they had won. Then for the Republican right wing, this would be a good look. They would have a person in the White House who covers both minorities, namely Blacks and women, and at the same time have a person who will keep their conservative interests in mind. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Here is an article on the whole thing, and check out some commentary on it too:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
