Lucky White Girl

What is terrorism? Bill Ayers, Sarah Palin and the Politics of Fear

Bill Ayers is finally speaking out.  He's been interviewed recently by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! and Teri Gross on Fresh Air.  Now he has a great Op-Ed in today's New York Times.  I can understand why he didn't want anything to do with the media during the election but I'm glad he's out there now to provide us, finally, with a truthful response to Sarah Palin's outlandish charges of "domestic terrorism".

By now you should know that the facts are that, unlike the U.S. government, Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground never killed or harmed anyone during the Vietnam War and never intended to.  Their goal was to call attention to the atrocities being committed in our names.  They committed destruction of property, yes, and I can understand that that is, to some, a crime (albeit a relatively minor one).  Their method was imperfect but their only real mistake was immaturity and naivety, not immorality.

It's worth thinking about the insidious innuendos behind Palin's use of the Bill Ayers bogeyman during the election and why such fear tactics were, rightly, rejected by the majority in this country. 

There's something grossly deranged about a society that can so easily get so many of its people to value inanimate objects over animate ones. 

They won't call it that of course but what else is it when the destruction of property in the U.S. elicits more outrage than mass killings in far off countries?  The U.S. government and its allies in the south killed millions of people during the war in Vietnam.  Sarah Palin in all her "outrage" over "terrorism", however, had nothing to say about that.  It was the guy who blew up desks and trash cans in offices who was the real terrorist. 

Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. were attracted to Sarah Palin's chirpy fascism during the campaign.  That should not be surprising.  People are often distracted, at least temporarily, by superficial "beauty".  But most of us have seen enough movies to know that when someone so readily plays people's basest fears and insecurities to their own advantage, they're usually cast in the role of the villain and you know they're going to lose in the end.

As Bill Ayers said, "Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again"

How much influence does the President really have?

A lot of people are asking whether Obama is really going to change Washington or if Washington will change him.  Here are some of my thoughts on that:

The Presidency is bigger than any one person; it's just one part -albeit a very powerful part-- of the "filty rotten stinking system" (as Dorothy Day called it) in which we live.  Which is why nothing short of a real old-fashioned revolution (i.e. from-the-ground-up movement to overthrow the current government) will ever really bring about fundamental change in this country. 

[Make no mistake: despite my enthusiasm for the Obama administration I (still) believe that.  It's what my conscience demands.  I cannot give 100% support for a system that results in such huge economic disparities between the haves and the have-nots (such as we have not seen in this country since the 1920s), locks up such a large percentage of its population (primarily black men), and continues to attack and invade other sovereign nations (talk about a "rogue state"!).  This system is immoral, corrupt and dangerous to the majority of the world's people.  Indeed, it should be overthrown.]

That said, I think that the past eight years have showed us just how much influence (for better or worse) an individual President can indeed have.  Putting G.W. behind the wheel was probably the most disastrous decision the people of this country have made in a hundred years (longer?).  He nearly crashed us and it's going to take some time (and lots of money) to undo the damage.  Obama can be as influential as Bush was just hopefully in a positive way instead of a negative way.

So do I think Obama will change Washington or will Washington change him? Yes. I do (think both).

Beautiful Day

I think last night was the happiest day of my life.  Being home with friends in Gainesville meant the world to me!  My face hurt from smiling so much.  I'm dehydrated from crying so much and I'm utterly exhausted from going on about 5 hours of sleep.  But I got to watch history being made with my friends at my side at the Hippodrome theater downtown.  The place was packed and everyone was shouting and laughing and whooping it up and after it was clear Obama was going to be our next president strangers hugged strangers and people literally danced in the street.  My friend Sand and I sat on the floor in front of one of the TV screens and watched Obama's acceptance speech with our arms around each other and tears in our eyes. Afterwards a crowd gathered on the corner of Main Street and University Ave waving Obama signs and cheering.  It reminded me of something a police officier once said about Gainesville celebrations: "our main objective is to keep people out of the trees and off the lamp posts".  The crowd was still there more two hours later.  We finally left a bit after 2 in the morning.

It's the dawn of a new era.  We have much work to do.

I gotta go catch a plane.  More later!  Congratulations everyone!  We all did a great job!

A crack appears in the wall of Empire

I've never seen people waiting in lines several hours long for EARLY voting.  1/3 of the electorate have already voted (including me --I waited about 45 minutes in Volusia County).  It just goes to show that when people with integrity run for public office, when it's not politics-as-usual, the people of this country do still believe in democracy and are excited about it.

I'm in Gainesville at my friend Chris' house and woke up this morning to a note from him saying he "wondered how people felt the morning this country elected Kennedy to the Presidency".  Excitement is in the air all over today.  Last night watching him Live on TV I teared up thinking this man is our next president.  He doesn't have to be the most radical progressive out there, it's STILL a significant blow to my jaded view of the country I live in and I can't think of anything I'd rather have radically reformulated than that image of a country ruled by powerful white men with no thought for anything other than their own position.

Things are going to change in this country.  We're going to push back --waaaay back-- the threat from the radical right to make women's bodies the property of men, denying women the right to make such personal decisions for themselves as whether or not to have a baby.  We're going to stop coddling the rich at the expense of the poor, put the brakes on the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots, have a slightly fairer tax plan.  We're going to stop catering to corporations who eat workers up and spew out the remains in pursuit of ever increasing profit margins.  We're going to enforce labor and environmental protection laws and the names of federal administrations are no longer going to seem so ironic.

Maybe we're going to do all this.   But maybe not.  There's a crack in the wall we can see light through, the possibility is there, if Obama is elected and Democrats get a majority of the Senate.  But we're not there yet.  The Democrats could help us do all this but they won't unless we hold their feet to the fire after the election.

So go out and vote today but then don't think it's over.  We can take back our country but this election is just the beginning.  The real work starts January 20th.

Middle class McCain supporters are voting against their own economic interests

Whew, I knocked on about 40 doors this afternoon campaigning for Obama in a middle class neighborhood in central Florida. There were lots of McCain signs out; this is a conservative little town and that apparently was a conservative little neighborhood.  Which is odd because it wasn't a wealthy neighborhood: small, modest houses, lots of late model cars in driveways.  Not people who looked like they made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.  Unless they do, Obama's tax plan would benefit them way more than McCain's would.  And yet they are voting for McCain.  Why?

George Lakoff, author of Don't think of an Elephant, would say it's because the Republicans are good at framing their party platform in terms of values that people identify with that they've convinced them the Democrats are against: Family, Religion, Freedom.  Democrats are doing well this year for a variety of reasons but one of them is that they've heard Lakoff and have successfully countered that argument.  Democrats were obviously never against any of those things in the first place but now they're re-framing the debate.  This election is about Economic Responsibility, Community, Unity, Hope and, of course, Change.  Those are the values resonating with people this year and that's why Obama's going to win next Tuesday.

But still.  I'm amazed that some non-rich people support McCain.  Eight years of Bush's economic policies have devastated this country.  Greenspan has admitted deregulation may not have been such a great idea.  I heard today that the jobless rate might go as high as 8.5% soon.  People who had their retirement funds in 401K plans right now are screwed (great idea, eh? convince people that they don't need pensions but should instead gamble on the stock market for their retirement!)  Experts are talking long term recession and still --still!-- some people are thinking yeah, let's keep doing what we're doing!?  I don't get it.

Ok, so some people are always going to vote against their own economic interests no matter what. Maybe for the same reason poor people buy lottery tickets.  They're about as likely to ever be rich enough to benefit from Republicans' fiscal policies as they are to hit the jackpot but there's always the hope.  Joe the Plumber (who apparently doesn't make more than $250K/yr) hopes that some day he will be rich and when that day comes he wants to pay lower taxes.  hmmm...

I can understand when I pass a McMansion with a McCain/Palin sign out front but I don't understand when I see McCain signs in yards of people in the middle to lower economic classes.  Maybe they don't know...? 

Mysteries of middle class voters supporting McCain

Whew, I knocked on about 40 doors this afternoon campaigning for Obama in a middle class neighborhood in central Florida. There were lots of McCain signs out; this is a conservative little town and that apparently was a conservative little neighborhood.  Which is odd because it wasn't a wealthy neighborhood: small, modest houses, lots of late model cars in driveways.  Not people who looked like they made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.  Unless they do, Obama's tax plan would benefit them way more than McCain's would.  And yet they are voting for McCain.  Why?

George Lakoff, author of Don't think of an Elephant, would say it's because the Republicans are good at framing their party platform in terms of values that people identify with that they've convinced them the Democrats are against: Family, Religion, Freedom.  Democrats are doing well this year for a variety of reasons but one of them is that they've heard Lakoff and have learned how to frame their platform in terms of valuest.   This election is about Responsibility, Community, Unity, Hope and, of course, Change.  Those are the values resonating with people this year and that's why Obama's going to win next Tuesday.

But still.  I'm amazed that some non-rich people support McCain.  Eight years of Bush's economic policies have devastated this country.  Greenspan has admitted deregulation may not have been such a great idea.  I heard today that the jobless rate might go as high as 8.5% soon.  People who had their retirement funds in 401K plans right now are screwed (btw, aren't 401K plans a great idea -- convince people that they don't need pensions but should instead gamble on the stock market for their retirement!)  Experts are talking long term recession and still --still!-- some people are thinking yeah, let's keep doing what we're doing!?  I don't get it.

Ok, so some people are always going to vote against their own economic interests no matter what. Maybe for the same reason poor people buy lottery tickets.  They're about as likely to ever be rich enough to benefit from Republicans' fiscal policies as they are to hit the jackpot but there's always the hope.  Joe the Plumber (who apparently doesn't make more than $250K/yr) hopes that some day he will be rich and when that day comes he wants to pay lower taxes.  hmmm...

I can understand when I pass a McMansion with a McCain/Palin sign out front but I don't understand when I see McCain signs in yards of people in the middle to lower economic classes. 

Explanation anyone?

Obama and the capital gains tax

I encountered a new scare tactic that the Republicans are using to frighten rich people about how much that crazy black radical's going to raise their taxes.  It involves the capital gains tax.  I learned a lot while researching it so I thought I'd share in case any of you come up against this. 

The capital gains tax is just what it says: a tax on whatever capital (profit) you gain during the tax year.  (This should tell you right away it's mostly a rich people thing.) Say you have some stock you bought at $1 per share and in 2008 you sold that stock for $21 per share.  Your capital gain/profit is $20 per share.  NOTE: It doesn't apply until you sell it.  It also applies to other things like real estate and such (although I think it doesn't apply to your homestead just investment properties --again, it's mostly for those wealthy enough to have investment properties, not your average Joe working at Wal-Mart.)

Before we go any further I should point out the obvious: Not many people are taking in a lot of capital GAINS right now.  Most people have capital LOSSES at the moment (just take a look at your 401K lately) so all this is moot.  But nonetheless...

The rumor goes like this: The current capital gains tax is 15%.  McCain wants to cut it 7.5%.  Obama wants to raise it to 28%.  Obama is a radical socialist!

Well here's the truth: The capital gains tax rate varies based on a variety of factors: how long you've had the asset that you sold and what income bracket you fall in.  If you fall into one of the lower income brackets say, in the "10% or 15% federal tax brackets (for tax year 2004, up to about $58K for married filing jointly, and less for others)" the tax rate is 5%.  If you're already quite wealthy though, and you make a lot of profit that year "Long-term gains are taxed at 15% if you fall in one of the higher income-tax brackets (e.g., 25%, 28%, and so on). [Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-cap-gains-rates.html].  So the Republican's argument is clearly aimed at the tax rate for capital gains for the wealthy, not for everyone who has capital gains.

But let's put this all in perspective.  It turns out that actually the rate on capital gains for the upper class was 20% throughout the 1990s.  Democrat Bill Clinton LOWERED it from its previous level of 28% which that radical socialist Ronald Reagan instituted in the Tax Reform Law of 1986.  Sorta blows up everything you thought you knew about Democrats and Republicans doesn't it?   It turns out that in this case it's McCain who's the radical who wants to lower this tax for the very rich to unprecedented levels.  The man would bankrupt the country. My, my, how it all comes into perspective now!

But I digress.  So how did this tax get to its current level of 15%?  Bush cut it down that far in 2003 to benefit his wealthy campaign donors so 15% is more an aberration than the norm.  But that's not all, this rate has a sunset provision set to expire in 2011 unless Congress renews it (not likely with the Republicans out of power).  So in 2011 the rate's going back up to 20% anyway even if Obama does nothing.  Hopefully though we won't have to wait that long.  Our government is 4 trillion dollars in debt thanks to Bush; they need the money.  Obama will hopefully raise the rate back up to where it belongs long before 2011.

What's the upshot of all this?  Even the well-off hardly have much to fear from an Obama presidency.  We're quite far from socialism here.

To even be worried about the capital gains tax at this moment when the economy's in the tank is and most people are losing money not gaining it, is just one more example of how out of touch Republicans are.

Putting on the historical blinders

Well, McCain has finally agreed to tone down the screeching rhetoric of his campaign and return to substantive issues (wonder if Sarah Palin will get that memo?). 

He's even gone so far as to correct some white people at his "town hall meetings" railing against that "Muslim" and shouting "kill him, kill him".  This is a long overdue and definitely welcome change in tone from the Republican side. 

I'm glad that Representative John Lewis (D-GA) spoke out over the weekend and warned, in his wise way, about the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric.  The man knows what he's talking about; his political consciousness was forged in the fire of the civil rights movement.  What amazes me is that he got criticized for drawing on the lessons of that era (the right is saying that by doing so he compared McCain to George Wallace-- another man who used powerful rhetoric to incite people's basest instincts).  That criticism irked me.  Attacking Mr Lewis is a classic case of attacking the messenger.  Why else were they quicker to jump on Lewis for calling McCain out on his inflammatory rhetoric than they were to criticize McCain or his supporters for the undercurrent of racism running through their campaign? 

Furthermore, the premise of their criticism is itself problematic.  Criticize someone for making a historical comparison?  Here's why that bothers me: it's a denial of the old saying about those who don't learn from history being doomed to repeat it.  It's true and that's why conservatives avoid encouraging people to draw historical connections. 

Spin usually can only last so long.  It might be socially acceptable to hate X group of people today but 20 years from now?  There's no controlling the rationality and perspective that comes with the passage of time.  Eventually even people who couldn't see the ugliness of historical events as they happen, can usually see it decades later (which is why we so often erect monuments to past mistakes while contemporaneously committing the same mistake).  Given that, the only thing they can hope for is to get you to see absolutely no connection between contemporary events and anything that ever happened in our past.  Everything is isolated and has no connection with anything else.  Only if you can look at the world in this way, does the conservative viewpoint make any sense at all. 

All I can say is well, good luck with that.  I'll keep looking at the big picture.

Getting ready to watch the debate and was reminded that I haven't posted anything for the last debate.  Even the hilarious Sarah Palin debate flowchart.  I've been overwhelmed and discouraged lately and needed to take a little break.  Hopefully will be back soon.  Enjoy tonight's debate y'all!

Should I fear for my country?

I watched Obama's interview on Face the Nation yesterday and thought it was quite reasonable and good.  I didn't think anything more of it until this morning when I read an email from my mom.  

The email was a bald-faced lie about a completely made up "interview" Obama supposedly did on another Sunday talk show in which he "said" some outrageous quote meant to scare people.  I couldn't believe it!  The author just made the whole thing up from beginning to end and people like my mother bought it hook, line and sinker because it seems like something that "crazy Muslim radical" would say!

I told her that the thing was a complete farce and then pleaded with her: "Mom, this election is important, could you at least TRY to get the facts?"  

I can respect someone voting for McCain because they're wealthy and he would lower taxes for rich people or because they support the war in Iraq but to vote for him based on outright lies about Obama, that just deserves no respect at all.  That deserves pity.

If this is how some people get their "information" (or more accurately misinformation) then I truly fear for our country but honestly, after my day of canvassing in Virginia last Saturday, I sincerely believe that my parents are part of a small outlying faction of fanatical wingnuts and most voters are acting more responsibly/rationally this year. 

On a personal note, it does make me sad and worried for my folks.  I don't want to have delusional far-right extremist parents!  Conventional, conservative, small town Republicans I can live with and understand and even respect.  Delusional wing-nuts spreading outright lies and misinformation, is another matter.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the article on Snopes.com debunking the email hoax.  It's not even a new one.  It's from a year ago. sigh.

UPDATE: Maybe I shouldn't worry so much.  Apparently it's not just my mom.  The Republican party generally is being wracked by reactionary fear politics.  See this article in the Politico.

I did this! You can too!

I just went out and went door to door in Virginia asking people to vote for Obama.  It was exhilarating.  I'm going try to do it every weekend from now until I go back home to Florida and then I'm gonna do it in Florida.  Hey, if I can do this, ANYone can do it.  Here's a video about how easy it is to go door to door in your own neighborhood.  Don't wait for someone to call you.  Get out there and GET INVOLVED!

Trust me, you'll feel great about participating in this historic campaign.  We can do it!!

Who is John McCain?

A former fan of John McCain and author of a book about him (Citizen McCain) now has second thoughts.  Elizabeth Drew has an article in Politico this morning.  I'm especially interested in the character of political candidates --integrity matters with me-- so I found what she had to say about McCain's character especially interesting:

[Political analysts] still believe that McCain won the nomination not because he gave himself over to the base but as a result of a process of elimination of inferior candidates who divided up the conservative vote, as these observers had predicted. (These people insisted on anonymity because McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory and a vindictive streak.)

I had already concluded that that there was a disturbingly erratic side of McCain’s nature. There’s a certain lack of seriousness in him. And he does not appear to be a reflective man, or very interested in domestic issues. One cannot imagine him ruminating late into the night about, say, how to educate and train Americans for the new global and technological challenges. (emphasis added).

There was a time when I thought McCain was a different kind of Republican.  No more.  At first I thought his choice of Sarah Palin was just a pathetic and ultimately ineffective ploy to lure women voters.  Now the more I hear Palin (who can see Russia from her house!) try to talk about foreign policy and imagine her "learning on the job" and experimenting with international politics in a nuclear age, I'm thinking the choice shows more than desperation --it shows a dangerous recklessness.  As Ms Drew concludes:

McCain’s recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition [for the presidency]– has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.

Indeed he's certainly not. 

What price revolution?

Here is a good international perspective on the U.S. election from the Guardian this morning.

Note this paragraph especially:

For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline".

I've thought the U.S. has been in a historical decline for at least a decade (maybe two) and, objectively speaking (as opposed to speaking out of my own self-interest which would obviously benefit from continued U.S. dominance), I can't see that the decline of the United States would make much difference for the world as a whole. 

We'd fall into a period of hyper-violence (not to imply we don't have hyper-violence now but I'm thinking more widespread and far-reaching) as other countries battled to take over the #1 spot on the world stage (China, Iran, who else? Russia possibly?) but for most of the world's people, would they be any worse off?  I doubt it.  A change in the oppressor, that's all.  And a very bloody transition.

So is it moral of me to want Obama to win because I think he could hold off or even reverse that decline?  I don't know.  Obama's policies are well thought-out, level-headed, wise.  Maybe I harbor a secret hope that perhaps, just perhaps, the tide of U.S. imperialism will recede just a fraction under the leadership of a statesman like Obama.

It's not fair, the suffering that U.S. policies both foreign and domestic have meted out to the world's poor.  It's not fair that we are the only remaining superpower.  It would be arrogant of me to want us to remain a superpower.  I don't want us to be a superpower.  I don't want any country to be a superpower. 

But if the global hierarchy were turned on its head now, it'd be a very long time before the violence receded and stability returned and a lot of people would suffer in the interim.  And even after it was all over, there's no guarantee that the end result would be any better for most people on the planet than the current structure is now. 

People are suffering now.  The world needs salvation now.  I want a revolution as much as anyone but how we get there makes all the difference in the world.  We need Obama to gently, compassionately push us back from the brink and create a better world for all of us.  We need him now.

McCain: Wealthy and Clueless

I don't know about you but...

Wake up call.

Democrats, listen up.  This is serious.  If you have any shred of faith left in this country you'll shake yourselves out of complacency and get out there and win this election.  Michael Moore will tell you how:

"For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women's rights and pro-choice. They don't like war. They want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal health-care system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: They support the death penalty.

So how come the Dems keep losing elections?  Moore's got some good advice but I've heard another commentator (sorry forget who) provide a more pop-psychology-like answer.  He described it as a case of party-wide Stockholm syndrome: after years of being held hostage by Republicans the Dem's started identifying with their captors, mistaking the Republican/big business interests for their own. 

What they need is an injection of backbone.  They need confidence.  So read that quote from Moore up there again and commit it to memory because you know from personal experience it's all true.  People really are liberal.  It's okay to say it: Compassion is cool. Not acting like an asshole on the world stage, that's cool too.  Going back to being the aw-shucks down home good-guy Jimmy Stewart of the world instead of cold-gun-gripping-dead hand of Charlton Heston --that's about as cool as it gets.

Take the Georgia-Russia conflict for example.  Do you want someone who sees the world like this guy, who once said that he "looked into Putin's eyes [and] saw three letters a 'K' a 'G' and a 'B'," [insert eyeroll here] McCain's reaction to the Russia-Georgia crisis. 

Or like this guy (Obama's reaction):

Obama called on the international community to condemn Russia’s actions and to pursue an end to the conflict.

"There should also be a United Nations mediator to address this crisis, and the United States should fully support this effort. We should also convene other international forums to condemn this aggression,” he said.

Despite describing the conflict a “turning point” in the relationship between Russia and the West, Obama appealed for talks with the Putin government as well as “friendship with the Russian people.”

McCain's response is to fan the flames.  Way to go, man.  You think that's what leadership is?  C'mon now!  People have seen enough good movies to know that's not what heroes do.  Real heroes practice moderation and restraint.  To quote another Democrat (who should've followed his own advice more often) real heroes are grownups who resolve their conflicts with "words not weapons".

I don't know about you but I don't want someone who continues to pick fights with every country who happens to not agree with us.  I'm sick of it.  And I think the majority of the people in this country are sick of it too.  I want someone who can WORK with the global community not bully it into submission.  I want a grown-up in the White House.

Once again Paul Krugman speaks for me!

Paul Krugman's column today is exactly what I was talking about in the post below.  I think Obama will win.  And I think he'll change things.  The question is how much.  I also think that however much he does change things, compared to Bush, this country will look a thousand times better than it does today.

The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn't too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country's direction. And that's mainly up to Mr. Obama.

Dumbing down the message

My mom forwards me lots of spam, even though I've repeatedly asked her not to do this, and of course they are the kind of messages that you've all seen: lots of cheap, cheezy graphics, an over-abundance of exclamation points and almost always WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS!!!!   Since I can't stop her from sending them (short of blocking her entirely which I don't want to do because every now and then she does write me an actual email) I've decided to start using these emails to be my window to the underbelly of American conservatism.

It's a very scary world indeed.

The Washington Post has an article today that offers some insight into this world.  These are the people who believe Obama is "a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance".  (If only it were so! lol... Let me assure you, dear Conservatives that Obama is hardly so radical).   

But it got me thinking: why don't we try to create the same kind of obnoxious emails like this?  They obviously work (get people's attention).  Would it feel too much like we're sinking to the lowest common demoninator?

We could make ours not just different in content but qualitatively different.  Their emails never give a source for the information cited.  Ours would.  Their emails often contain statements that just aren't true.  Ours would not. The thing is to make them short, written at an elementary school level and appeal to the over 50 crowd (read: use lots of animated GIFs, pictures of babies and cute cuddly animals and flashing fonts).  I think it might work.  What do you think?

Can you say "dis-i-lusion-ment"?

No time now to tell you how much this disappoints/angers me and I don't have time to take his freakin' badge off my sidebar but I am heartbroken over the actions of Mr. Obama lately.  I really thought he was different.  I thought he was principled.  I was wrong.  He's just another politician, doing politics-as-usual and things will not be radically different when he's President. 

Here are some links to some of things I'm referring to:

He disagrees with Supreme Court ruling limiting death penalty to homicide cases only.

He voted for the sweeping counterintelligence surveillance law known as FISA.

And he supported overturning the DC gun ban (exactly what this city needs: more guns, more shootings, more violence! hooray!)

Fucking sell-out.

I want my donation back please.

Black. Feminist. President!

No time yet to write much of a post about Obama winning the nomination but that's okay because I'm sure there's lots of stuff out there.  I'll just say that as the campaign progressed I got more and more relieved that Hillary wasn't going to be the nominee.  I think Obama is the better feminist and that Hillary time and again, because of her gender, felt forced to prove her toughness/manliness by following the hawkish actions of others in Congress (I mean her vote to invade Iraq and her vote to declare Iran's military a terrorist organization).  Those are hugely irresponsible votes and I think they cost her the nomination amongst people like me.  An article by Meghan O'Rourke in Slate.com had the same take: "Her problem wasn't that she was a feminist. Her problem was that she wasn't feminist enough".  I feel like I've said this until I'm blue in the face.  Feminism is not merely a matter of putting a female face on the current power structure.  Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice were not feminists.  Feminism is about deconstructing the current power structure and building a new more egalitarian, more democratic one.  Hillary Clinton is not a feminist.  I believe Barack Obama is.  I think that If Obama wins in November, the first black President of the United States will also be the first feminist President of the United States.  And that makes me deeply, deeply proud of my country.

We are the ones

Breaking my long blog-fast to share this with you

Pew Research Finds Fewer Voters Identify as Republicans

They wouldn't dare... would they?

Democrats fear superdelegates could overrule voters:

"The problem is [if] people perceive that voters have not made the decision -- instead, insiders have made the decision -- then all of these new people who are being attracted to the process, particularly the young people who are voting for the first time, will feel disenfranchised or in some way alienated," he said.

Hell yes, I would feel disenfranchised!  I've been saying there's no way the Dems can flub the election this time with support for the war at an all time low, the Republicans divided over multiple weak candidates...etc.  but now I think there is one way they could screw up and throw this election which should be a cakewalk for them and that's if they were to do such a thing as this!  They wouldn't dare... would they?

MoveOn.org endorses Obama!

Good for them!

The Florida primaries

So I temporarily switched my party affiliation from Green to Democrat just so I could vote in the primaries for the first time EVER (I never thought much enough of a Democratic candidate before to care who their nominee was) and what do they do?  They get penalized for moving up the primary date and lose all their delegates!  LOL...   So Florida has no say in who the Democratic nominee is. 

But I have to do something because this is the first time a truly progressive candidate has a shot at the White House.  THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN MY LIFETIME! Here in DC I walk past the White House sometimes and wonder what it would be like to not feel ashamed of who lives there representing us to the rest of the world.  I wonder what it'd be like to actually be proud of the President of the United States.  I never thought Obama would actually compete with the Clinton dynasty but when he won in Iowa I started to feel something I never felt before.  It's not just rhetoric.  Maybe after eight years of Bush people are ready for change.  There is hope.  Now he's won in South Carolina and momentum is building.  Let's keep it up!
 
If you're a Democrat in Florida your vote for who the Democratic nominee should be won't count.  So do something else.  I've pledge to help fundraise instead and this is my appeal.  Listen.  I've never donated money to a presidential candidate before but now I'll tell you all that I gave Obama $250! (wow, I know! I was shocked too!) but that's how much I believe in this.  I'd give more if I could.  Because we can do this.  Really.  Obama is as good as Bush was bad.  (well, maybe not quite; Bush was pretty bad and Obama would have to be Mother Theresa to compare but you know what I mean!)  I tell you all this because I want to encourage you to do the same if you agree. 

If you click this link you can donate to his campaign and it'll count towards my fundraising goal of $1000.

Si, se puede!  Yes, we can!