(Disclaimer, I am not loyal to any party, in fact I think the 2 party system is one of Americas biggest problems. I am a patriot, not a party loyalist. But the democratic party is on the verge of something important.)
The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.
Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.
Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.
Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.
The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.
I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.
There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.
Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.
Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.
I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.
Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.
One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.
Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.
Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.
In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.
Obama on War
Clinton on War
PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
02/12/2008 12:17 #43295
How The Election is Saving Our DemocracyCategory: political
02/07/2008 00:37 #43224
Campaigns Candidates and LettermanCategory: politics
Holly crap, I just found a video of Hillary Clinton on Dave Letterman''s show, from like 2 days ago,
And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.
Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.
One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.
Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.
____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.
PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________
And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.
Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.
One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.
Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.
____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.
PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________
02/05/2008 17:55 #43195
VotingCategory: politics
Time to share voting stories,
I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.
I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.
Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.
PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?
I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.
I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.
Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.
PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?
drew - 02/05/08 21:53
I share your polling place, but I was #34
I share your polling place, but I was #34
joshua - 02/05/08 20:08
PS - Don't feel bad, most Americans haven't heard of Rhode Island so I think your spellcheck is off the hook. And I don't mean that in the "off the heezy" sense.
PS - Don't feel bad, most Americans haven't heard of Rhode Island so I think your spellcheck is off the hook. And I don't mean that in the "off the heezy" sense.
dcoffee - 02/05/08 20:07
Another bonus about voting in a Democratic primary, the electoral votes are NOT winner take all. So if one candidate gets 56% of the vote, they also get 56% of the electoral votes, wow imagine that, what a crazy idea. Not like the general election where the person with the most votes gets the whole state. Republicans still do winner take all though, sorry guys.
Another bonus about voting in a Democratic primary, the electoral votes are NOT winner take all. So if one candidate gets 56% of the vote, they also get 56% of the electoral votes, wow imagine that, what a crazy idea. Not like the general election where the person with the most votes gets the whole state. Republicans still do winner take all though, sorry guys.
janelle - 02/05/08 18:24
Yeah, I heard on the radio that several polling places have been relocated and people don't know where to go. That's kind of shady.
Yeah, I heard on the radio that several polling places have been relocated and people don't know where to go. That's kind of shady.
joshua - 02/05/08 18:12
My first polling place was the fire station on Rhode Island. I wonder why they thought it was incredibly important to relocate me.
My first polling place was the fire station on Rhode Island. I wonder why they thought it was incredibly important to relocate me.
02/05/2008 00:25 #43185
My Obama EndorsementCategory: politics
Obama, Clinton, and The Election
Why Vote:
This is the first time I'm voting in a primary. I have always been registered as a Green, but I switched to Democrat just for this primary election. The government has not been serving the people. We have been taken advantage of by those with power and money, and the government let it happen.
I'm tired of politicians who don't stand up and challenge the corrupt system in Washington. Many people are fed up and that's why we don't vote. The politicians don't represent us, they represent corporations and the people who fund their campaigns.
But in the end, they need our vote. We still hold that power over the government. Sometimes candidates aren't that different. It's usually down to two, which is not much of a choice for a democracy. But sometimes you get a candidate with vision, leadership and the will to rock the boat. I think there are big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why Obama
One thing about Obama, he gets young people out to vote in record numbers. We need to stop letting Washington run itself, and realize our power to determine our own future. Social Security, Healthcare, Student Loans, Job Security, the Environment, we have a lot of work to do. My generation is starting to realize that politics affects our lives, now we need to have the confidence to go and change politics.
On the Iraq War, Obama has been right from the beginning. In 2002, it was very unpopular to speak negatively about Bush, and despite the risk, Obama spoke publicly and candidly in opposition to the war. Solid judgment led him to speak out and put his career on the line to oppose a policy doomed to failure.
The problem with politicians, is that they have a hidden agenda. They are thinking of campaign contributions instead of doing what is right for the public. They think that deceiving the voters, and obeying wealthy corporate interests, will get them elected. Obama however, believes in honesty, democracy, and openness.
Obama relies more on voters and small donations, than he does on corporate contributions. He doesn't have to promise as many favors to his corporate connections. Clinton is part of the old system, the system that got us here. Sure nobody's perfect, and any democrat would be better than a republican, but I want this president to make real changes. Not just changes in policy, but changes in the Washington system of secrecy, power, and corruption.
My issues are Campaign Finance, the Electoral System, Inequality, Poverty, Diplomatic Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Political Corruption, crumbling cities and infrastructure, and our loss of community. I think these issues are best handled by a political outsider with confidence, vision, and a working class background, who can lead.
I liked a lot of the democratic candidates. Our election system forces us to narrow it down before we even get a chance to vote, and that's a problem. There are more than two types of people in this country. And we should be able to rank our choices so that there are no more 'spoiler' candidates who 'steal votes'. Here we are again with two, but if we vote for Obama now the decision in November will really mean something. And voter turnout will be record breaking.
If there is any election where you don't have a candidate you believe in, show up and vote third party as a protest. Voting third party is a strong statement, staying home is not.
I am a skeptic, who believes in Barack Obama, I think he is a good candidate who is very different than Clinton and the past 30 years of problems in this country. And I think it's so important to vote and participate, that I wrote this letter, and urging you to go out and participate.
Thanks
Here's Obama on the War, starting in 2002
more Obama Videos on YouTube
Why Vote:
This is the first time I'm voting in a primary. I have always been registered as a Green, but I switched to Democrat just for this primary election. The government has not been serving the people. We have been taken advantage of by those with power and money, and the government let it happen.
I'm tired of politicians who don't stand up and challenge the corrupt system in Washington. Many people are fed up and that's why we don't vote. The politicians don't represent us, they represent corporations and the people who fund their campaigns.
But in the end, they need our vote. We still hold that power over the government. Sometimes candidates aren't that different. It's usually down to two, which is not much of a choice for a democracy. But sometimes you get a candidate with vision, leadership and the will to rock the boat. I think there are big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why Obama
One thing about Obama, he gets young people out to vote in record numbers. We need to stop letting Washington run itself, and realize our power to determine our own future. Social Security, Healthcare, Student Loans, Job Security, the Environment, we have a lot of work to do. My generation is starting to realize that politics affects our lives, now we need to have the confidence to go and change politics.
On the Iraq War, Obama has been right from the beginning. In 2002, it was very unpopular to speak negatively about Bush, and despite the risk, Obama spoke publicly and candidly in opposition to the war. Solid judgment led him to speak out and put his career on the line to oppose a policy doomed to failure.
The problem with politicians, is that they have a hidden agenda. They are thinking of campaign contributions instead of doing what is right for the public. They think that deceiving the voters, and obeying wealthy corporate interests, will get them elected. Obama however, believes in honesty, democracy, and openness.
Obama relies more on voters and small donations, than he does on corporate contributions. He doesn't have to promise as many favors to his corporate connections. Clinton is part of the old system, the system that got us here. Sure nobody's perfect, and any democrat would be better than a republican, but I want this president to make real changes. Not just changes in policy, but changes in the Washington system of secrecy, power, and corruption.
My issues are Campaign Finance, the Electoral System, Inequality, Poverty, Diplomatic Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Political Corruption, crumbling cities and infrastructure, and our loss of community. I think these issues are best handled by a political outsider with confidence, vision, and a working class background, who can lead.
I liked a lot of the democratic candidates. Our election system forces us to narrow it down before we even get a chance to vote, and that's a problem. There are more than two types of people in this country. And we should be able to rank our choices so that there are no more 'spoiler' candidates who 'steal votes'. Here we are again with two, but if we vote for Obama now the decision in November will really mean something. And voter turnout will be record breaking.
If there is any election where you don't have a candidate you believe in, show up and vote third party as a protest. Voting third party is a strong statement, staying home is not.
I am a skeptic, who believes in Barack Obama, I think he is a good candidate who is very different than Clinton and the past 30 years of problems in this country. And I think it's so important to vote and participate, that I wrote this letter, and urging you to go out and participate.
Thanks
Here's Obama on the War, starting in 2002
more Obama Videos on YouTube
mrdeadlier - 02/05/08 12:49
I voted for Paul today since I lean more towards the Republican side of things, but I'm pretty sure Obama has my vote in November if he ends up against McCain or Romney.
I voted for Paul today since I lean more towards the Republican side of things, but I'm pretty sure Obama has my vote in November if he ends up against McCain or Romney.
01/16/2008 11:10 #42910
Clinton beats 'none of the above' barelyCategory: politics
There was a primary in Michigan Yesterday. Republicans chose Romney, and Democrats chose Clinton. But unlike Romney who is fighting for his life to stay viable by winning something, Clinton had no serious opposition. For some reason Michigan doesn't get any electoral votes in the Democratic primary this year, so few of the other democrats bothered to get on the ballot. Kucinich got about 4% of the vote.
But mostly, this primary was Hillary vs 'Not Hillary'. And that actually made the results pretty interesting. Hillary won by 15%, meaning about 40% of people would rather vote for 'Nobody' than vote for Hillary.
According to this election and the exit polls Hillary's supporters are people who are over 45, uneducated, poor, white, and female. The biggest difference was among blacks 70% voted for anybody but Hillary, the next biggest difference was among people under 30.
You can read a brief analysis here
and see the exit polls here
If Hillary is the nominee, I am worried that we might end up with another Republican in the whitehouse. She will inspire the Republicans to come out and vote against her, and the Democrats won't bother voting at all.
The Democrats fail because they don't get people up off the couch. People don't vote because they don't see anyone worth supporting. They don't trust either of the 2 politicians in the presidential race. They don't think anything will change. Democrats and Republicans are part of the same corrupt system, and their campaign promises are a bunch of crap. So why bother to vote.
Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and the republicans are supposed to be the party of the wealthy. But the people don't vote, cause the democrats sound like republicans. And the republicans do vote, because they are protecting their assets. Meanwhile the candidates are just rephrasing the same BS and trying to be a better salesman to those ambiguous people who haven't made up their mind yet.
If a candidate stood up for the middle class, and spoke honestly, there would be no contest. We need someone honest and confident who can stand up for single-payer healthcare. And when someone shouts 'socialized medicine', tell them to take their HMO and shove it, because there's no such thing, and they are trying to scare you with bogymen.
Democrats usually try to steal voters from the republicans, by acting like republicans. The presidential race is usually a competition for the middle. Instead Democrats should inspire people to get off the couch, go to the voting booth, and demand to have their voices heard.
Clinton is not that candidate. If she gets the nomination, November will be too close to call, most Americans will stay home, and I will be voting for a third party again.
I'd like to see an Obama Edwards ticket, with Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd, as secretary of something in the cabinet.
I am excited by Obama. he gets young people to vote, and he gets record numbers of people out to the polls, and because he has that popular support he doesen't need to sell out to make money for his campaign as much as other people.
I'm a registered Democrat this year, and I will be voting in the primary on February 5th. This is my way of pretending we have a runoff election. Depending on the nomination, I might go back to being Green real quick.
But mostly, this primary was Hillary vs 'Not Hillary'. And that actually made the results pretty interesting. Hillary won by 15%, meaning about 40% of people would rather vote for 'Nobody' than vote for Hillary.
According to this election and the exit polls Hillary's supporters are people who are over 45, uneducated, poor, white, and female. The biggest difference was among blacks 70% voted for anybody but Hillary, the next biggest difference was among people under 30.
You can read a brief analysis here
and see the exit polls here
If Hillary is the nominee, I am worried that we might end up with another Republican in the whitehouse. She will inspire the Republicans to come out and vote against her, and the Democrats won't bother voting at all.
The Democrats fail because they don't get people up off the couch. People don't vote because they don't see anyone worth supporting. They don't trust either of the 2 politicians in the presidential race. They don't think anything will change. Democrats and Republicans are part of the same corrupt system, and their campaign promises are a bunch of crap. So why bother to vote.
Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and the republicans are supposed to be the party of the wealthy. But the people don't vote, cause the democrats sound like republicans. And the republicans do vote, because they are protecting their assets. Meanwhile the candidates are just rephrasing the same BS and trying to be a better salesman to those ambiguous people who haven't made up their mind yet.
If a candidate stood up for the middle class, and spoke honestly, there would be no contest. We need someone honest and confident who can stand up for single-payer healthcare. And when someone shouts 'socialized medicine', tell them to take their HMO and shove it, because there's no such thing, and they are trying to scare you with bogymen.
Democrats usually try to steal voters from the republicans, by acting like republicans. The presidential race is usually a competition for the middle. Instead Democrats should inspire people to get off the couch, go to the voting booth, and demand to have their voices heard.
Clinton is not that candidate. If she gets the nomination, November will be too close to call, most Americans will stay home, and I will be voting for a third party again.
I'd like to see an Obama Edwards ticket, with Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd, as secretary of something in the cabinet.
I am excited by Obama. he gets young people to vote, and he gets record numbers of people out to the polls, and because he has that popular support he doesen't need to sell out to make money for his campaign as much as other people.
I'm a registered Democrat this year, and I will be voting in the primary on February 5th. This is my way of pretending we have a runoff election. Depending on the nomination, I might go back to being Green real quick.
jason - 01/16/08 21:33
The reason why Michigan had no delegates up for grabs is because they dared to move their primary date up previous to Super Tuesday, against the wishes of the DLC.
There are too many thoughts to go one by one, but suffice it to say I agree with some, disagree with some. One thing I do want to talk about is the poor, which will just have to come in journal form.
The reason why Michigan had no delegates up for grabs is because they dared to move their primary date up previous to Super Tuesday, against the wishes of the DLC.
There are too many thoughts to go one by one, but suffice it to say I agree with some, disagree with some. One thing I do want to talk about is the poor, which will just have to come in journal form.
metalpeter - 01/16/08 18:04
I have heard somewhere "the republican party is the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats is the party of no ideas". I do find that is true a lot of the time. One thing you have to give to the republicans is they are much better at the political process. i don't think we will ever have some address "The Middle Class". The reason is that as much as a good idea that it is, there won't be a middle class person running for office. It takes so much money to run for office that you have to be rich or have rich backers. If you where middle class and had those rich backers then you would owe them stuff when you got into office so there isn't much of a way for you to reform anything. Not to mention If you tried during your campain all your backers would leave. The way people run for office needs to change so more qualified people can run. I don't think it will happen. I think that there is this elitism that politicans want for them selves. Hey if any hero can run then there is no job security and also if the local union leader can run then you lose your power over the people.
I have heard somewhere "the republican party is the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats is the party of no ideas". I do find that is true a lot of the time. One thing you have to give to the republicans is they are much better at the political process. i don't think we will ever have some address "The Middle Class". The reason is that as much as a good idea that it is, there won't be a middle class person running for office. It takes so much money to run for office that you have to be rich or have rich backers. If you where middle class and had those rich backers then you would owe them stuff when you got into office so there isn't much of a way for you to reform anything. Not to mention If you tried during your campain all your backers would leave. The way people run for office needs to change so more qualified people can run. I don't think it will happen. I think that there is this elitism that politicans want for them selves. Hey if any hero can run then there is no job security and also if the local union leader can run then you lose your power over the people.
joshua - 01/16/08 15:01
I have to admit it frosts me when I hear people say that poor people voting for the GOP is "voting against their best interests." As if low taxes, strong national defense and keeping America's best interest in mind with our foreign policies have no place in determining who to vote for. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement when you get right down to it. Democrats have long taken the poor vote for granted - its an utter fallacy to suggest that the party of the poor is the Democratic Party when for the past 35 years the Democrats have largely IGNORED the poor on the federal level. The Dems have loooooonnnngg been eating their lunch from food made back in FDR's days.
As for the inheritance tax - that is not the government's money and never was, pure and simple. The inheritance tax is simply robbing Peter to give to Paul - at least theoretically. Ultimately the government will do whatever it wants with the money, which is why the whole thing is an utter scam. The idea that its a crime to be rich, and therefore when you die you have to give away 40% of your estate to artificially create some sort of social equivalence is silly to me.
Finally, w/respect to the primaries. Romney won in a state he spent time in as a kid when his dad was Governor. I would have been surprised had he not won. At this point, and things may change so I may have to revise this statement - if Hillary wins the nomination the Republicans will keep the White House, and if Obama wins the nomination he'll go through and take it all in November. AFAIC its as simple as that. If Obama were wise enough to pick Joe Biden as a running mate that might tip the scale for me in his favor. I don't like any of the GOP candidates really.
I have to admit it frosts me when I hear people say that poor people voting for the GOP is "voting against their best interests." As if low taxes, strong national defense and keeping America's best interest in mind with our foreign policies have no place in determining who to vote for. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement when you get right down to it. Democrats have long taken the poor vote for granted - its an utter fallacy to suggest that the party of the poor is the Democratic Party when for the past 35 years the Democrats have largely IGNORED the poor on the federal level. The Dems have loooooonnnngg been eating their lunch from food made back in FDR's days.
As for the inheritance tax - that is not the government's money and never was, pure and simple. The inheritance tax is simply robbing Peter to give to Paul - at least theoretically. Ultimately the government will do whatever it wants with the money, which is why the whole thing is an utter scam. The idea that its a crime to be rich, and therefore when you die you have to give away 40% of your estate to artificially create some sort of social equivalence is silly to me.
Finally, w/respect to the primaries. Romney won in a state he spent time in as a kid when his dad was Governor. I would have been surprised had he not won. At this point, and things may change so I may have to revise this statement - if Hillary wins the nomination the Republicans will keep the White House, and if Obama wins the nomination he'll go through and take it all in November. AFAIC its as simple as that. If Obama were wise enough to pick Joe Biden as a running mate that might tip the scale for me in his favor. I don't like any of the GOP candidates really.
dcoffee - 01/16/08 13:08
You're right that a lot of people vote for the GOP, and many of them are poor. But those people are voting against their best interests.
I'm amazed that Republicans can call the inheritance tax the "Death Tax" and get poor blue collar people to rally against it. Like they're about to inherit a 2 million dollar estate, anything less is not taxed at all.
And they swallow their $300 check from Bush's tax cut, while the wealthy pack away millions.
Personally I'm sick of hearing about taxes. "It's not the government's money, it's my money" well if you're making $300 per week, you're probably paying more for health insurance, than you are paying in taxes. And the top 1% in this country are getting more loopholes and tax breaks than you can count.
Republicans are the party of big business, they use wedge issues to get wider support, but their policies are for the wealthy elite. Democrats, have been going along with it, and that's their biggest problem.
You're right that a lot of people vote for the GOP, and many of them are poor. But those people are voting against their best interests.
I'm amazed that Republicans can call the inheritance tax the "Death Tax" and get poor blue collar people to rally against it. Like they're about to inherit a 2 million dollar estate, anything less is not taxed at all.
And they swallow their $300 check from Bush's tax cut, while the wealthy pack away millions.
Personally I'm sick of hearing about taxes. "It's not the government's money, it's my money" well if you're making $300 per week, you're probably paying more for health insurance, than you are paying in taxes. And the top 1% in this country are getting more loopholes and tax breaks than you can count.
Republicans are the party of big business, they use wedge issues to get wider support, but their policies are for the wealthy elite. Democrats, have been going along with it, and that's their biggest problem.
james - 01/16/08 12:20
It is also important to note that Clinton did not campaign in Michigan, as as no one will in Florida. So, no one had any reason to go out and vote democrat. So, Clinton's victory there was nothing but a publicly funded opinion poll with a ginormous margin of error.
If it hurt anyone it was John McCain. Democrats and independents should have forgot about the Dem primary and gone out to vote for their GOP flavor of choice, which should have been McCain. Instead, Romney beat the snot out of McCain in a state McCain handily won in 2000.
Keep tuned for the now three ring circus in the GOP primary.
It is also important to note that Clinton did not campaign in Michigan, as as no one will in Florida. So, no one had any reason to go out and vote democrat. So, Clinton's victory there was nothing but a publicly funded opinion poll with a ginormous margin of error.
If it hurt anyone it was John McCain. Democrats and independents should have forgot about the Dem primary and gone out to vote for their GOP flavor of choice, which should have been McCain. Instead, Romney beat the snot out of McCain in a state McCain handily won in 2000.
Keep tuned for the now three ring circus in the GOP primary.
zobar - 01/16/08 12:16
Edwards & Obama explicitly pulled out of the Michigan race because of this early-primary kerfuffle. Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up without permission and will lose all their Democratic delegates and half their Republican delegates at the conventions (South Carolina has also lost half its Republican delegates). Edwards & Obama are spending their money where it will matter in a material way, letting Clinton, Kucinich, and Uncommitted vie for the moral victory in Michigan and Florida.
- Z
Edwards & Obama explicitly pulled out of the Michigan race because of this early-primary kerfuffle. Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up without permission and will lose all their Democratic delegates and half their Republican delegates at the conventions (South Carolina has also lost half its Republican delegates). Edwards & Obama are spending their money where it will matter in a material way, letting Clinton, Kucinich, and Uncommitted vie for the moral victory in Michigan and Florida.
- Z
james - 01/16/08 12:09
ya, I would disagree with your assessment of who votes for who. The poorest states in the country (Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc) and those with the least corporate interest (Kansas, Nebraska, etc) overwhelmingly vote for the GOP.
And Clinton is not a Republican and she will bring people out to vote for her in droves. Look at Iowa and New Hampshire. Both had record turn out. It is as likely that people will come out in November for her as they have in January.
Edwards wont be Obama or Clinton's VP pick either. Clinton would gain way more with Obama as her VP and Obama needs someone with defence experience. Biden is more likely to get on Obama's ticket than Edwards.
ya, I would disagree with your assessment of who votes for who. The poorest states in the country (Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc) and those with the least corporate interest (Kansas, Nebraska, etc) overwhelmingly vote for the GOP.
And Clinton is not a Republican and she will bring people out to vote for her in droves. Look at Iowa and New Hampshire. Both had record turn out. It is as likely that people will come out in November for her as they have in January.
Edwards wont be Obama or Clinton's VP pick either. Clinton would gain way more with Obama as her VP and Obama needs someone with defence experience. Biden is more likely to get on Obama's ticket than Edwards.
jason - 01/16/08 11:37
"Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and the republicans are supposed to be the party of the wealthy."
I guess it depends on who you call "wealthy" I suppose.
"Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and the republicans are supposed to be the party of the wealthy."
I guess it depends on who you call "wealthy" I suppose.
Cool, DCoffee. To be fair to you, I haven't been able to view the Obama video yet. I'll do that later on. Now, it may or may not make me feel better about his sincerity, (I really don't trust politicians) but I think there is still room for "Yeah, it's easy to say it without putting your vote down" - although let me make this very clear, it is still preferable to what the others do, which is to pretty much absolve themselves of all guilt and responsibility.
Me, I'm easy to lie to. Just ask my exes. *drums*
I'll be watching you buddy!! =) Your skepticism has always been healthy, and so I hope you keep it up. I think we all want a new brand of politician, and Obama represents a very exciting possibility, even if I don't agree with the guy on X, Y or Z policy. It's really easy to get excited, and it isn't my intention to discourage that, only to reinforce the point that politicians lie easier than they breathe, so the skepticism should always stay strong.
Jason, always love your comments. I know you usually check out my sources and such, but I think you didn't watch the video before writing, not that it will change your mind, but the Obama video has excerpts from back to 2002, and you can tell me if you think he was speaking from his heart or just politicking. His statements could have been transcripts of mine from the students for peace meetings back in Fredonia. He did vote to fund the war, and I think that is politicking (probably smart politicking to deal with John McCain on national security), but that does not make him a hypocrite (see his statements in the video),
I know it seems like I'm giving him a blank check, but I am a skeptical person, and I know that campaign season is full of empty promises. I'll be watching his ass, and if he screws around I'll be out of the democratic party again. But I think, if he is elected he will continue to involve the public, he will respect the facts, and disregard ideological pipe-dreams, unlike the current whitehouse occupier.
Hey there, another interesting post.
First of all, I don't think it's any kind of surprise that The Nation is endorsing Obama. He's definitely the most Liberal of all the viable candidates. If Kucinich had a shot in hell, and had say Hillary's numbers, they would be backing him. They LOVE his ass. Maybe it's me just being cynical, but I don't really trust the press (especially partisan rags of any kind) to be any more honest than the politicians. I just don't.
I remember 2002 very clearly indeed, my friend, and it is definitely "easy" for a politician (that's exactly what he is) who didn't actually have to put their name to a vote to claim the moral high ground. It may or may not come from the heart. He is first and foremost a politician, and he would be an idiot to not take advantage of how Hillary, etc. are flaming hypocrites (who, by the way, inexplicably still to this day get off scot free with their shitty excuses for their war votes).
I don't even really think it's cynical to point that stuff out. If you don't agree you need to have a counter argument. The guy has voted to fund the war in the past, which outs him as at least a part time enabler, if not a full blown hypocrite himself, depending on your level of ideological purity in terms of being anti war. I agree he has plenty of promise, and could be the kind of politician we all hope for - and I hope he is sincere - but please don't give him your trust cheaply.