Well, I knew it would happen--Democrats have devolved into politics as usual. Instead of staying "above the fray" they try to play a game of which they know nothing. I laughed out loud this morning when I heard Barack Obama make the comment about lipstick and the pig. I've heard the expression before, but you can't tell me Palin's recent comment about the pitbull didn't inspire its use yesterday. It was funny, it got a laugh line--but I think it was a huge mistake. I don' t know why this is the case, but for some reason Democrats are not as good at being nasty as Republicans. For some reason it makes them look foolish. I'd like to think it's because it doesn't come naturally to them. I am not optimistic about this election. As soon as it became clear that Barack Obama had secured the nomination, I felt a sinking feeling. It's not that I think he would do a bad job as president--it's just that ---well the cynic in me saw all the excitement about this message of hope and change--(and saw those as empty words) and said, "well, there goes the election." I have little faith in my fellow citizens and even less in our politicians.
Yesterday afternoon I spent some time watching Democracy Now!'s coverage of the conventions of the two parties. The reporters from DN! spent some time harrassing politicians and a lot of time covering the protesters outside. I was particularly touched by the coverage of IVAW (Iraq Veterens Against the War). They had drafted a letter to each candidate with three demands: get out of Iraq, provide healthcare and education benefits to the veterans, and provide reparations to the Iraqi people. At the Democratic National Convention, Rage Against the Machine played a free concert after which the demonstrators marched (in formation) four miles to the convention center. They were greeted by the police in full riot gear. Here are the words of one member.
Well, I just—actually, I think it’s a communication thing. If we could get them to come out here, I believe they would be fine with having us read that letter. You know? They’d be just fine. If somebody can get the word in there, I’m sure there are a lot of good Americans in there that would be not OK with the idea that they’re about to arrest a bunch of Iraq vets if we don’t go home. This is my home. This is my home.
Here is what one former marine said to his fellow protesters:
The police of the City of Denver have given the dispersal order to the protesters in the rear of the formation. We’re told that if that order is given three times, they have authorization to shoot teargas into the crowd. And Iraq Veterans Against the War will be standing here in formation awaiting further response from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.
Shooting teargas, or a threat of it, or threatening to disperse while we exercise our First Amendment rights to peacefully gather—and I emphasize peacefully—is a disgrace.
These veterans fought too hard to come back here and be ignored, as we have been for the last seven years by this same administration. To be ignored again by the would-be savior of America, his antiwar rhetoric—to be ignored again is a disgrace.
These words and those of several others brought tears to my eyes. Despite the fact that Barack Obama ran his primary campaign on the message that he was against the war from the beginning and he would call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, he would not agree to meet with these men. Finally, after the stand-off, the veteran's liason from the Obama campaign came out to receive the letter. He told the protesters that he would "get back to them." Well I don't need to tell you that he did not get back to them. The letter was not read on the convention floor, and who knows if it made it past the circular file on the way back into the convention. If ending the war hadn't been such a big part of the primary campaign, I would say, "yeah, ok, politicians can't meet with all special interest protest groups." Here was a group of people that could potentially be the most ardent supporters of Obama, and they are ignored. That doesn't spell hope or change to me.
I'm not saying that McCain is better. I would have to get a brain transplant before I made even a hint of a suggestion to vote for the swine/pitbull ticket--I am just experiencing the same deja vu I experience about every four years.
3 comments:
Hi Ms. China,
I know the purpose of your blog is to start discussion, so I'm joining in on this one.
Obama's campaign has been very benign, in my opinion. His comment about lipstick on a pig was not directed at Palin at all. What, because she also used the word "lipstick" recently, he must have been attacking her? Do people seriously think he's referring to her as swine? Or that she's the lipstick and McCain's the pig? Come on. It's a commonly used saying. If you watch a the clip of that speech (URL below), he was obviously saying that the McCain White House would be a continuation of the Bush White House. If you use the word "lipstick," you're being sexist??? I don't get it. The whole thing of McCain demanding an apology was absolutely ridiculous!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-lipstick-on-a-pig-v_n_125253.html
Obama's attacks have been focused on McCain's policy ideas. He absolutely should call attention to the deficiencies in McCain's platform. Is that getting into the fray? Ok then! It is imperative to inform the public about the ways in which our environment, economy, and foreign relations would continue to suffer under McCain.
Also, I've been impressed by the way Obama has repeatedly praised McCain's character and service record. Plus, he continually called for his party to leave Palin's personal/family life out of it.
I don't really understand why Obama's promise of hope and change is empty to you. Don't you think things will be different (i.e., changed) if he's elected? Certainly everything will be better than it is now (i.e., hope for the future).
It would be naive to think that any politician will deliver on all of their promises when they get into office, but Obama's senate record suggests that he would act favorably on issues that are very important now, such as the environment, education, and tax reform.
It does suck that the Denver police were threatening to shoot tear gas into the IVAW protest. However, it looks like the IVAW group itself is calling the DNC convention a success because two of their members were allowed to enter the convention and meet with Obama's head of Veteran's affairs. Obama hardly ignored them. I think it's too strong to say that. His campaign did get back to the protesters to bring two of them inside. Plus, Obama wasn't running the DNC--I mean, they weren't allowed to read the letter, but is that really his fault?
http://ivaw.org/node/4084
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-protest28-2008aug28,0,2351344.story
As an aside, NPR had a hilarious segment on All Things Considered the other day about the whole lipstick controversy.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288
Hey Steph,
Thanks for commenting--you bring up some good points.
First though--the pig thing. Did you hear about Sara Palin's joke about the pitbull and the liptick? and the rest of the jokes about lipstick and george bush, lipstick and dick cheney, etc? I am willing to bet you did. I am willing to bet the Obama campaign heard them, too. There are many other ways he could have made the comment about the McCain policies--like --"you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" or even "a monkey in silks is still a monkey". His speech writers chose that line to recall Sara Palin's line--and twist it. No, he's not calling her a pig--but I give them a little more credit--it wasn't an "off the cuff" remark--it was a speech. Someone made a decision to talk about lipstick--and I think--again, if it were the republicans doing it--nobody would have thought anything of it. They would have called it clever. And don't get me wrong--like I said--I LOVED the line. I just think the dems don't have the balls to pull it off. That's what I mean about getting into the fray.
Secondly, about the promise of change. I wish I could say that everything going wrong right now was George Bush's fault. I really do. He's a terrible president. Iraq--bad move--but there were more folks calling for that than just George Bush--more than even just the republicans. If I said that it was all george bush's fault than I would also have to say that the recession of the late 70's was Jimmy Carter's fault. I don't think he was an idiot and I'm not willing to blame him for the bad economy--or to give Ronald Reagan as much credit as is given him for being such a "great leader" to bring us out of it. The problem is --we live in a system that works from the bottom up--but we have a top-down mentality. Is my life going to be much different under a McCain vs Obama presidency? Probably not. What really matters is who gets into the local offices and who gets into the house and Senate. Will the rest of the world see us differently--well that I can say probably so--but if you look around the world, all these countries that I thought were so lucky to have liberal governments are now electing--Bushian-style leaders (Canada, France, Italy to name a few). Unfortunately, we are still a massive force in the world. See my earlier post on the primary for more of my rant on "change". Before Obama said he wanted a time table for Iraq--now his advisors (I recognize its not him) are saying a time table would be foolish. He picked Joe Biden--during the primaries Biden was the one candidate that was pretty adamant about NOT pulling out of Iraq --and the one that was pulling for use of force over diplomacy in other countries. Obama says he's going to reach across the aisle--and he says he's going to get all these liberal policies passed--how? Is he going to drug the house and senate? To me, his record in the Illinois Senate shows that he will reach across the aisle--and he will do so contrary to what he says he is going to do. Look at his promise to accept public financing--well not when its not convenient for him. They all do it.
I have never trusted McCain--even in his former run against Bush--but I do have to admit that he has done some pretty moderate things as a republican (mccain/finegold etc). Palin is --well --I think she's an idiot. His choice of Palin is kind of like Obama's choice of -Biden --contrary to how they said they wanted people to see them.
And yeah, IVAW called it a victory--but if you notice, the story on the website was written while the protest was still going on--the IVAW folks were allowed inside the "perimeter" of the convention--they gave the letter to carter--and waited for a response. No response was given. No follow-up story was written.
I guess I see them--if I was Obama--I would see that group as exactly the kind of organization that was making my point for me. A bunch of guys & gals that served in the military--that went over there and saw first hand--and now is saying its crap. I would think those people would be exactly the kind of people I would want inside any rally or convention I had.
But other than that--I'm just a cynic.
Hi Rita,
You're right. There's really no debating the fact that the president doesn't hold all of the country's power and, therefore, isn't solely responsible when things go wrong (in most cases). Obviously though the president does have more power than any one person, and with this power, s/he can be at least a catalyst for change in many cases if unable to bring about the change alone. Obama will be more able to keep his promise of change if we win back the Senate. Clinton benefitted from a Democratic Congress (while it lasted briefly). That's why we need to get up to 60 Dems in the Senate with this election!
As an aside, NM is one of the open seats, and I'm very optimistic about our candidate, Tom Udall. Apparently he's up about 15% in the polls right now against the uber-conservative Steve Pearce.
I'm not so sure that our system is necessarily bottom up. It seems to me that both top-down and bottom-up forces are at work and are needed for some issues. For example, top-down regulation, like cap and trade permits, higher mpg, and emissions standards, is absolutely necessary if we hope to curb climate change. And in this case, bottom-up solutions, like local and grassroots efforts to make communities more bike-friendly and personal energy conservation, are also absolutely necessary.
Sorry I didn't fully research the IVAW story. I didn't realize that they had written that story during the convention and hadn't posted a follow up. It is unfortunate that Obama didn't listen to such an important group. You're right, they should've been heard, and it would've been a great opportunity.
Ok, I think we need to let sleeping pigs lie. Besides, it doesn't really matter who you vote for, right? Is there any chance your state won't go to McCain?
By the way, I love the monkey in silks line. The image just cracks me up. I've never heard it before, but now I'm certainly going to try to slip it into conversation whenever I can.
Post a Comment