Thursday, January 31, 2008
my primary vote
I've had a lot of people asking me who I'm voting for in next week's Arizona Presidential Preference Primary Election. Ever since Bill Richardson proved himself too inept at basic progressive messages to deserve my continued support, I've been uncommitted. I'm not bowled over by Hillary Clinton. I like her well enough, she's incredibly brilliant and, when not under the often-inexplicable tight controls of her advisers and consultants, is actually very warm and caring. She may not be a liberal lion, but I'm voting for her anyway.
A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there's always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out.
I'm looking for a fighter. I'm a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn't just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come.
Here's my major beef with Obama: his "post-partisan" message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; "post-partisan" just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama's message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good.
He talks a good game sometimes, but then he talks about elevating the discourse as though Democrats are the ones playing dirty tricks and dragging their opponents through the mud. There's just no comparison, and Senator Obama is sending mixed messages - at best - to Joe and Jane Everyguy. He may cause previously unengaged people to vote Democratic, but his rhetoric does nothing to sustain that partisan identification. This is the politics of personality, not the politics of possibility.
This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway.
Let's not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider". Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama's message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won't fight back when he's attacked because he's so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We've seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we've seen little evidence that he's willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald).
I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she's attacked, she'll fight back, hard and fast. She won't cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs.
In other words, Obama supporters don't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a "post-partisan" campaign.
This is a primary competition, after all. Where's my red meat?
With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.
A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there's always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out.
I'm looking for a fighter. I'm a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn't just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come.
Here's my major beef with Obama: his "post-partisan" message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; "post-partisan" just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama's message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good.
He talks a good game sometimes, but then he talks about elevating the discourse as though Democrats are the ones playing dirty tricks and dragging their opponents through the mud. There's just no comparison, and Senator Obama is sending mixed messages - at best - to Joe and Jane Everyguy. He may cause previously unengaged people to vote Democratic, but his rhetoric does nothing to sustain that partisan identification. This is the politics of personality, not the politics of possibility.
This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway.
Let's not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider". Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama's message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won't fight back when he's attacked because he's so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We've seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we've seen little evidence that he's willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald).
I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she's attacked, she'll fight back, hard and fast. She won't cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs.
In other words, Obama supporters don't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a "post-partisan" campaign.
This is a primary competition, after all. Where's my red meat?
With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic brand, Hillary Clinton, Pres-08
Thursday, August 23, 2007
of course she's going to run
In case you haven't heard, a new poll released a few days ago showed that Janet Napolitano leads John McCain by 11 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup for his Senate seat in 2010.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
Labels: AZ-Sen, Democratic brand, Janet Napolitano, John McCain, Pres-08
Thursday, August 16, 2007
don't be an idgit
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
red herring
I've had this post brewing for some time, but only felt inspired to write it after watching some of the Logo/HRC debate and reading some of the coverage of it.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
Labels: challenge, change, civil rights, equality, fear, history, human rights, LGBT, opening to grace, Pres-08, social justice, yoga
Thursday, August 09, 2007
pres-08: not too proud to admit when i'm wrong
I no longer support Bill Richardson for President.
Despite his lengthy resume and respectable public service, the man is not fit to be President of the United States.
My faith in his candidacy faltered during an early debate, when he cited Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice. Justice White wrote a dissent in Roe v. Wade and was joined by eventual Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
One major faux pas was perhaps excusable, but tonight Bill Richardson swallowed his foot up to the knee when he repeatedly insisted on his belief that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" in the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Democratic debate.
I know it's rather anathema for me to say this on a progressive blog, but domestic issues are far more important to me than ending the Iraq war. Don't misunderstand, the war has been a perilous, unwarranted folly that I believe must be brought to a swift conclusion. It's just not the issue on which I'm going to base my vote.
Healthcare, education, jobs and civil rights are all far more important to me because they impact my everyday life. I don't have friends or family members currently serving, and I don't begrudge one bit those who do and for whom the war is the #1 issue. For them, Bill Richardson might still be a viable candidate based on his UN experience and his promise to end the war the day he is inaugurated.
But for me, if you don't get issues as simple as reproductive justice or full equality, you can never have my full support. Hell, even Giuliani is better on these issues than Richardson (well, OK, not quite).
So I hereby rescind and renounce my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson for President and move myself firmly back into the Undecided column.
John Edwards is saying many of the right things (except for an awkward performance tonight), and I was willing to give Chris Dodd a closer look until he didn't show for tonight's debate.
Rest assured I will update this space with additional thoughts or an endorsement as the process moves forward, especially now that it's looking more likely that the caucuses and primaries could start as early as this December. Yikes!
Despite his lengthy resume and respectable public service, the man is not fit to be President of the United States.
My faith in his candidacy faltered during an early debate, when he cited Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice. Justice White wrote a dissent in Roe v. Wade and was joined by eventual Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
One major faux pas was perhaps excusable, but tonight Bill Richardson swallowed his foot up to the knee when he repeatedly insisted on his belief that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" in the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Democratic debate.
I know it's rather anathema for me to say this on a progressive blog, but domestic issues are far more important to me than ending the Iraq war. Don't misunderstand, the war has been a perilous, unwarranted folly that I believe must be brought to a swift conclusion. It's just not the issue on which I'm going to base my vote.
Healthcare, education, jobs and civil rights are all far more important to me because they impact my everyday life. I don't have friends or family members currently serving, and I don't begrudge one bit those who do and for whom the war is the #1 issue. For them, Bill Richardson might still be a viable candidate based on his UN experience and his promise to end the war the day he is inaugurated.
But for me, if you don't get issues as simple as reproductive justice or full equality, you can never have my full support. Hell, even Giuliani is better on these issues than Richardson (well, OK, not quite).
So I hereby rescind and renounce my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson for President and move myself firmly back into the Undecided column.
John Edwards is saying many of the right things (except for an awkward performance tonight), and I was willing to give Chris Dodd a closer look until he didn't show for tonight's debate.
Rest assured I will update this space with additional thoughts or an endorsement as the process moves forward, especially now that it's looking more likely that the caucuses and primaries could start as early as this December. Yikes!
Labels: Bill Richardson, civil rights, equality, LGBT, Pres-08, Roe, social justice
Thursday, April 12, 2007
richardson's website worries
I've touched on this on some previous posts - Bill Richardson's website for his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President. I'm supporting Richardson because I feel he's the absolute best prepared candidate (of either party) to lead this country out of the woods we've been wandering around for the past six years. It's a good thing that preparation doesn't hinge on an internet presence.
First of all, take a look at the URL's for most of the Dem candidates:
One of the first rules of having a successful web presence is having a web address that's simple and easy to remember, or one that you assume people would intuitively type into the address bar without having to Google it. When I first looked for information about Governor Richardson online, I typed in "www.billrichardson.com" into the address bar, only to get directed to an unregistered domain. "Richardsonfor president.com" is not intuitive. I had a science teacher in eighth grade who loved to remind us to KISS - keep it simple, stupid. Governor Richardson's internet team definitely missed the boat on that one.
I'd also be concerned that the campaign hasn't bought that domain name. As the Governor starts to catch fire, it will be incredibly easy for his opponents to buy the guy's domain name right out from under him and fill it with misleading or inaccurate information. I seem to remember somebody did the same thing to George W. Bush when he was running for re-election a few years ago.
I also have a problem with the website's blog, which does not allow comments. One of the reasons Howard Dean became so popular four years ago was because his campaign leveraged emerging technology to help build a sense of community and facilitate his supporters connecting with each other. Blog for America and MeetUp were key components of that campaign. The other leading Democratic candidates understand this. Why doesn't Governor Richardson?
Mark my words (I love getting dramatic like this), if Bill Richardson has any intention of moving up out of the second tier, he must leverage established and emerging internet technologies so we, his supporters, can start building the kind of grassroots communities absolutely vital to his success. I've already e-mailed the campaign with that suggestion, but never received a response.
Come on, Gov, get smart with your online campaign!
First of all, take a look at the URL's for most of the Dem candidates:
www.BarackObama.com
www.JohnEdwards.com
www.Kucinich.us
www.RichardsonForPresident.com
www.HillaryClinton.com
www.JoeBiden.com
www.ChrisDodd.com
One of the first rules of having a successful web presence is having a web address that's simple and easy to remember, or one that you assume people would intuitively type into the address bar without having to Google it. When I first looked for information about Governor Richardson online, I typed in "www.billrichardson.com" into the address bar, only to get directed to an unregistered domain. "Richardsonfor president.com" is not intuitive. I had a science teacher in eighth grade who loved to remind us to KISS - keep it simple, stupid. Governor Richardson's internet team definitely missed the boat on that one.
I'd also be concerned that the campaign hasn't bought that domain name. As the Governor starts to catch fire, it will be incredibly easy for his opponents to buy the guy's domain name right out from under him and fill it with misleading or inaccurate information. I seem to remember somebody did the same thing to George W. Bush when he was running for re-election a few years ago.
I also have a problem with the website's blog, which does not allow comments. One of the reasons Howard Dean became so popular four years ago was because his campaign leveraged emerging technology to help build a sense of community and facilitate his supporters connecting with each other. Blog for America and MeetUp were key components of that campaign. The other leading Democratic candidates understand this. Why doesn't Governor Richardson?
Mark my words (I love getting dramatic like this), if Bill Richardson has any intention of moving up out of the second tier, he must leverage established and emerging internet technologies so we, his supporters, can start building the kind of grassroots communities absolutely vital to his success. I've already e-mailed the campaign with that suggestion, but never received a response.
Come on, Gov, get smart with your online campaign!
Labels: Bill Richardson, Pres-08, social networking, success, web developers
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
here's a thought
Instead of all this stupid, useless hand-wringing about whether America is "ready" for a woman or minority President (whatever that means), how about going out and voting for the candidate you feel best represents your positions and values?
Labels: Pres-08
Thursday, March 29, 2007
bill richardson on the daily show
In case you missed it last night:
This is the guy with the experience and the temperament take it all the way, repair the damage done by the current "administration" and restore America's reputation in the world. Please help spread the word.
This is the guy with the experience and the temperament take it all the way, repair the damage done by the current "administration" and restore America's reputation in the world. Please help spread the word.
Labels: Bill Richardson, Pres-08
Sunday, March 18, 2007
i knew this would happen
I get a lot of good-natured ribbing from friends and strangers alike for my stalwart refusal to join MySpace and lend credibility (which they earn through sheer volume of subscribers) to a web presence owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, the same parent company that started and owns the Fox "News" Channel.
MySpace is well on its way to becoming just another arm of the vast right-wing noise machine that the right has been building for the past 40 years. To wit: today it was announced that MySpace is launching a "politics channel" ahead of the 2008 Presidential elections.
MySpace claims it will offer profiles of five candidates from each party. I am happy to take bets on those profiles being skewed to a flattering light for the Republicans while making the Democrats each look like the second coming of Stalin.
So if it's just the same to you, I will continue my boycott of this element of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire.
MySpace is well on its way to becoming just another arm of the vast right-wing noise machine that the right has been building for the past 40 years. To wit: today it was announced that MySpace is launching a "politics channel" ahead of the 2008 Presidential elections.
MySpace claims it will offer profiles of five candidates from each party. I am happy to take bets on those profiles being skewed to a flattering light for the Republicans while making the Democrats each look like the second coming of Stalin.
So if it's just the same to you, I will continue my boycott of this element of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire.
Labels: personal, Pres-08, Rupert Murdoch's evil empire, social networking
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
does richardson want it enough?
I've been pretty up front about my support of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for President. I have concerns, however, that either he doesn't want it enough or that his advisers are totally ineffectual. I counted at least three major missed opportunities in the last 7 days alone.
First, his campaign makes the tone-deaf commitment to participate in the now-canceled Fox "news" Nevada debate, when most of the other campaigns wouldn't commit after the kerfuffle started gaining traction and Edwards said he would forgo it. Richardson did eventually reverse course and join Edwards in saying no to Fox, the only two candidates to do so, but Richardson's announcement only came hours before word of the debate's cancellation became official. Rather than using that coincidence as an opportunity to hail his decision as the final nail in the coffin of Fox's quest for legitimacy, Richardson's campaign remained silent.
Then there are the online possibilities still not capitalized on. His campaign website has a blog that is pretty sterile and not at all interactive. He could have a great opportunity to build up some strong grassroots support and to strengthen his campaign through the feedback of his ardent supporters, but instead he has only a one-way blog on which his staff post glowing (sometimes ridiculously over-the-top) stories about the Governor with no comments section at all. Building community means building grassroots support (and a strong, vibrant donor base!).
I also receive e-mails from the Edwards campaign, and for all my misgivings about a one-term Senator being qualified for the post, I admit I've been impressed with his leadership on a number of issues. Edwards was the first of the 2008 Dem field to call for Alberto Gonzales' resignation, and he sent an e-mail today about how his campaign will be "carbon-neutral" and environmentally friendly. In doing so, he called upon his opponents to do the same. These are both issues that Richardson could have and should have staked out a leadership position on instead of waiting for Edwards to claim the top berth.
Look, I believe Bill Richardson is the most qualified person to be the next President of the United States. Because I can't say it enough (and his campaign shouldn't stop saying it either), the guy is a former Member of the House of Representatives, a former U.N. Ambassador, a former Secretary of Energy (where's his carbon-neutral pledge?), and the current Governor of a Southwestern state, a position to which he was just re-elected in a landslide and a region that is likely to play a pivotal role come November 2008. This is not a time for on-the-job training; just look at the disaster that is the last guy the American people put into that office with precious little prior relevant experience (hint: he's still "serving" - not time, yet, unfortunately).
Yes, I appreciate that John Edwards is on these issues like Ann Coulter on any man who can stand to look at her even sideways, but come on. Of course he's going to get to claim "first!" on a lot of these things; it's not like he has a state to run or a Senate to vote in anymore. The guy's got a lot of free time on his hands to be a professional campaigner. That may be great for the long road to the White House, but I'm not convinced it's such great preparation for what comes once you're there.
That said, I'd be happy with any of the top or second tier candidates on the Democratic side. I'm glad I don't have to worry much about fringe candidates like Biden, Kucinich and Gravel.
So bottom line: Richardson is the right choice at the right time, but I just wish he'd start acting like he knew it. I'm waiting to donate until I see some smarter moves from his campaign.
First, his campaign makes the tone-deaf commitment to participate in the now-canceled Fox "news" Nevada debate, when most of the other campaigns wouldn't commit after the kerfuffle started gaining traction and Edwards said he would forgo it. Richardson did eventually reverse course and join Edwards in saying no to Fox, the only two candidates to do so, but Richardson's announcement only came hours before word of the debate's cancellation became official. Rather than using that coincidence as an opportunity to hail his decision as the final nail in the coffin of Fox's quest for legitimacy, Richardson's campaign remained silent.
Then there are the online possibilities still not capitalized on. His campaign website has a blog that is pretty sterile and not at all interactive. He could have a great opportunity to build up some strong grassroots support and to strengthen his campaign through the feedback of his ardent supporters, but instead he has only a one-way blog on which his staff post glowing (sometimes ridiculously over-the-top) stories about the Governor with no comments section at all. Building community means building grassroots support (and a strong, vibrant donor base!).
I also receive e-mails from the Edwards campaign, and for all my misgivings about a one-term Senator being qualified for the post, I admit I've been impressed with his leadership on a number of issues. Edwards was the first of the 2008 Dem field to call for Alberto Gonzales' resignation, and he sent an e-mail today about how his campaign will be "carbon-neutral" and environmentally friendly. In doing so, he called upon his opponents to do the same. These are both issues that Richardson could have and should have staked out a leadership position on instead of waiting for Edwards to claim the top berth.
Look, I believe Bill Richardson is the most qualified person to be the next President of the United States. Because I can't say it enough (and his campaign shouldn't stop saying it either), the guy is a former Member of the House of Representatives, a former U.N. Ambassador, a former Secretary of Energy (where's his carbon-neutral pledge?), and the current Governor of a Southwestern state, a position to which he was just re-elected in a landslide and a region that is likely to play a pivotal role come November 2008. This is not a time for on-the-job training; just look at the disaster that is the last guy the American people put into that office with precious little prior relevant experience (hint: he's still "serving" - not time, yet, unfortunately).
Yes, I appreciate that John Edwards is on these issues like Ann Coulter on any man who can stand to look at her even sideways, but come on. Of course he's going to get to claim "first!" on a lot of these things; it's not like he has a state to run or a Senate to vote in anymore. The guy's got a lot of free time on his hands to be a professional campaigner. That may be great for the long road to the White House, but I'm not convinced it's such great preparation for what comes once you're there.
That said, I'd be happy with any of the top or second tier candidates on the Democratic side. I'm glad I don't have to worry much about fringe candidates like Biden, Kucinich and Gravel.
So bottom line: Richardson is the right choice at the right time, but I just wish he'd start acting like he knew it. I'm waiting to donate until I see some smarter moves from his campaign.
Labels: Bill Richardson, Pres-08, primaries
Saturday, February 17, 2007
richardson proves he can compete
(Hat tip to Breaking Blue for the good link)
New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson raised a whopping $2 million in one night of fundraising. The guy's a former Congressman, former UN Ambassador, and former Energy Secretary. Oh, and he was just re-elected to his second term in NM. How long before the mainstream media begins inanely asking if America is ready for its first Latino President?
I mean, if Matt Santos can do it, why not Bill Richardson?
New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson raised a whopping $2 million in one night of fundraising. The guy's a former Congressman, former UN Ambassador, and former Energy Secretary. Oh, and he was just re-elected to his second term in NM. How long before the mainstream media begins inanely asking if America is ready for its first Latino President?
I mean, if Matt Santos can do it, why not Bill Richardson?
Labels: Bill Richardson, Pres-08
Saturday, February 10, 2007
open thread
Because I know you're all just clamoring to know what's on my mind and leave your own comments...
Update, 4:42 PM: I meant to mention this when I wrote the original post, but Leonard Clark, the Iraq War veteran who tried to mount a primary challenge to Jim Pederson for the Senate nomination last year, is working on filing a petition to recall Senator Double-Talk himself. Cliff Schecter's original post mentions that there's no legal mechanism for recalling an elected federal official. Based on a cursory glance at state laws, this does not appear to be true, as Arizona law does apparently provide for the recall of any elected official: see these three statutes (that last one in particular specifies that members of Congress are included among those who may be recalled). If I read the law correctly, Clark would need to get signatures from a number of registered Arizona voters equal to 25% of the number of total votes cast in last year's Senate election for all candidates for the recall to make the ballot at the next statewide consolidated election. The recall would be an almost vertical uphill battle, but it sure could put a dent in the ole Double-Talk Express.
- Everybody sing along..."When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, 'what should I be? Should I be pretty? Should I be smart? Here's what she said to me...'"
- I may have a slight Target problem, but I can quit any time I want. Really.
- For what it's worth 10 months before a single vote will be cast, I'm supporting black horse candidate and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for President. His resume is more comprehensive and impressive than any of the other candidates - former member of Congress, former Secretary of Energy, former UN Ambassador and now Governor of a rapidly growing state in the mountain west. I got behind Howard Dean five years ago because of his experience and record as Governor of Vermont.
Also, the last time a Democratic member of Congress won the Presidency, we were at the start of the Cold War and career options for women were limited to nurse, actress, teacher, model, ballet dancer and airline hostess(see item 1 above). Not a reason to vote for Richardson above the others in itself, but history can be instructive. - I can definitely feel the difference when I go to yoga class versus when I don't. I went last night and this morning and I feel better than I have most of the rest of the week when I didn't get to go. So who's joining me tomorrow or next week?
- I'm still house hunting, and very little of what's on Craig's List or in the papers meets my needs. Who wants to go riding around town with me hunting For Rent signs?
- V-Day Tucson 2007 is next Friday and Saturday at the Fox Tucson Theatre. Publicity has been less than visible this year, so please consider purchasing tickets (available through the Fox's website or at various retailers around town). It's for a good cause and some really deserving people are being recognized for their work at intermission on the 16th.
Please note, I no longer manage the V-Day Tucson website, so comments about the layout and/or outdated content can be directed to this year's organizer. - I meant to post before Progressive Lobby Day at the Arizona legislature on Tuesday but didn't get around to it. I have to say I was pretty impressed, having participated in my share of lobby days back in Albany. Giving credit where it's due, AHRF did a hell of a job herding the progressive cats. We were also graced by the presence of a number of legislators from both parties, demonstrating that our common causes may not be as hopeless as we're sometimes led to believe. Thanks to those legislators who broke bread with us, and especially Senator Aboud for introducing our group, which filled the Senate gallery, from the floor.
- Are these not the cutest shoes ever? They're totally mine come next payday.
- My dear sister wins a prize for correctly guessing (or remembering!) who Ilene Graff is, without the assistance of IMDB. I don't know just what that prize is yet, but kudos to you, Deb!
- Speaking of both my musical sibling and fellow IC alums, don't forget to tune into "Grease: You're The One That I Want" tomorrow night (NBC, 7/6c) and vote for Kevin Greene to win the role of Danny in the latest Broadway revival. I'm going to tune in despite the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a guest judge.
- A childhood dream come true.
- Speaking of movies I intend to see when they come out...
- And finally, since I'm on the topic of movies, the SHORTBUS DVD comes out on March 13.
Update, 4:42 PM: I meant to mention this when I wrote the original post, but Leonard Clark, the Iraq War veteran who tried to mount a primary challenge to Jim Pederson for the Senate nomination last year, is working on filing a petition to recall Senator Double-Talk himself. Cliff Schecter's original post mentions that there's no legal mechanism for recalling an elected federal official. Based on a cursory glance at state laws, this does not appear to be true, as Arizona law does apparently provide for the recall of any elected official: see these three statutes (that last one in particular specifies that members of Congress are included among those who may be recalled). If I read the law correctly, Clark would need to get signatures from a number of registered Arizona voters equal to 25% of the number of total votes cast in last year's Senate election for all candidates for the recall to make the ballot at the next statewide consolidated election. The recall would be an almost vertical uphill battle, but it sure could put a dent in the ole Double-Talk Express.
Labels: alumni, AZ Legislature, Bill Richardson, gift giving, Ithaca College, moving, musicals, personal, Pres-08, Progressive Lobby Day, self-care, social justice, Target, V-Day, women's rights, yoga
Thursday, November 16, 2006
the fields get crowded
Former Bush Health and Human Services Secretary and Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson is throwing his hat into the ring of potential 2008 Republican candidates for President.
Reason for voting for him:
He's spot on with that assessment. Health care is the major domestic issue for me, and on this point I could not agree more.
Reasons for voting against him:
Incompetent governance seems to be the hallmark of the modern Republican party, and Secretary Thompson, if you'll pardon the health pun, is not immune. He may understand the issue, but his track record doesn't demonstrate that he is able to effectively address it.
And don't even get me started with McFaker.
Reason for voting for him:
More than 90 percent of spending on health care — roughly 16 percent of the gross national product — is for treating disease, while only about 8 percent is spent on prevention, Thompson said.
“To me that’s just backwards,” he said. “I want to try and transpose that.”
He's spot on with that assessment. Health care is the major domestic issue for me, and on this point I could not agree more.
Reasons for voting against him:
His tenure as HHS secretary was marked by anthrax attacks, a flu vaccine shortage and passage of the Medicare prescription law.
Incompetent governance seems to be the hallmark of the modern Republican party, and Secretary Thompson, if you'll pardon the health pun, is not immune. He may understand the issue, but his track record doesn't demonstrate that he is able to effectively address it.
And don't even get me started with McFaker.
Labels: Pres-08, primaries, Republicans
