Lastly Primary

Ugh.  How do I get myself caught up in these primary rehashes?  I hear something I disagree with and simply cannot resist saying something .  Today, it was the "Hillary won the popular vote" thing, and it got my hackles up.  My response is always, "yeah, right, not a soul in Michigan would have voted for Obama if they could". Well, I was set straight.

Of course the Rules Committee convened, and of course they decided to give Obama the "uncommitted" vote, and of course they gave each state half the delegates.  No one was completely happy, but the rules have been accepted by most, and here we are.  By accepting the compromise, yes, Hillary won the popular vote.  In this, I was wrong.  

Now, I have to say something. But I swear this will be my last comment on the primaries.  One question I asked repeatedly in the Spring of our Discontent is why-oh-why did Hillary say that Michigan would count for nothing before the Iowa caucuses, and then find religion on Michigan only after she started losing.  To me the answer is pretty apparent, but I'd be happy to hear something that's a little more flattering than my guess.  If anyone has something better, here's your chance, because, as I said, after this, I will never touch the primaries on this site again.

So, OK, rules. If we are to get anywhere, we need to accept a few things. This means that caucuses do count, just like they did when no one was complaining about them in the previous ten or so cycles. This means that the rulings of the Rules Committee stand.  Hillary accepted it, Obama accepted it, the media accepted it, Washington accepted, the public accepted it. Therefore, yes, the resolution by the Rules Committee to our screwy process is this: Hillary won the popular vote; Obama won the delegates; and Obama will be the nominee.

So, now what? Everyone has a choice. They can undermine the candidacy of Obama by repeating tired arguments from the primary and repeating talking points of the McCain campaign, or they can work towards a Democratic presidency and a Democratic majority in Congress.  Because I happen to care about the environment, war, and rights, I know where I stand.

I'm looking forward to this week.  Obama goes on a little vacation, and we get to hear a lot more from Hillary. Then, in a few weeks, we get to hear great speeches from Bill, Hillary, and Obama.  And, then in November, we get to see how all of them worked together and handed McCain's ass to him. Nice.  Looking forward already feels better than looking back.

OK. Getting-It-Off-My-Chest/Train-Of-Thought rambling, over and out.

There's more...

Sexism - How did it affect the primary? Sub-title: Am I just stupid?

Disclaimer: I have been known to post satirical diaries. This is not one of them.

It is impossible to turn around without someone throwing sexism into a conversation about the election process. Hardly any diary slips by on this blog without someone bringing it up. It doesn't matter if the diary is about flying kites, somehow, someway, someone will work it into the conversation. It is inevitable.

Sexism is a real problem in our society. It is worse in some societies and better in some others, but better or worse, it is an almost universal problem that should be combated by all of us.

There was obvious sexism on display during the primaries. Two egregious examples that come to mind are the Hillary nutcracker (wincingly funny, while at the same time completely offensive) and the two idiots who appeared at a Clinton event and proceeded to shout, "Iron my shirt!" at Hillary until they were escorted from the event.

There's more...

Vetting the Veep's. Just a thought.

First. To MeganLocke and others who read this diary:

Hope you had a great weekend and Happy Monday!

Yes, I know, I'm supposed to be fishing. I should be on the beach but I made the mistake of listening to the Sunday "spin cycle". Then I read comments to my post here at myDD.

One pissed me off and the other got me thinking and well...

I was reading another diary about picking the Vice Presidential candidates. You may see the first part of this diary in the comment section elsewhere in myDD. I'm greatful to MeganLocke for reminding me of the subjective part of picking a VP. Her reminder caused me to reexamine my own thoughts of the process. This diary, that started out as a comment, is a result. This is a comparison between two women for the office of VP. They are Gov. Sebeliius of Kansas and Sen. Clinton of New York.

On the point of choosing a VP, I like the fact that reasonable people can peacefully disagree. Nice.

With Sen. Obama's recent shift to a campaign that looks more and more like a Sen. Clinton primary? To skip over Sen. Clinton for a 2nd tier option? He'd have to hate the woman's guts to skip her now. How do you explain it?

Before you read my opinion after the bump, there's something I'd like for you to consider.

You see something troubles me. There's this undercurrent arguement that I find troubling for the Gov of Kansas or any woman running for political office. This is the argument that Sen.Clinton is too qualified for the office of Vice President but Gov.Sebelius in not. But, hey no worries, they're both women aren't they; they must be interchangeable. The reasoning is that the office of VP is nothing more than a do nothing job. The thought is that any idiot can do it. It seems that this is the reason why it would be okay to nominate the unknown Gov. of Kansas. She wouldn't be doing anything anyway. Doesn't matter what her qualifications are because, again, any idiot can do it. It doesn't seem to be important what skills she brings to an administration. As long as she knows her "place" and  is not someone who'd out shine Sen. Obama? She is considered highly qualified. Oh and if she can bring in Ohio all the better.

(Sounds like how they used to arrange marriages for Old World kings and queens. Give me your dowry(votes) and then go back to exile in that cold castle(vp office) far, far away. You've served your function. Well unless the VP was required to birth an heir. There would be one obligatory night of sex and a beheading if you don't produce a future king. Lucky VP.)

What does this say about the VP selection process? What does that say about the Gov.? What does that say about Sen. Obama and his views on women in governent? What does that say about the future of women in general in the White House?

Doesn't do anything for either Sen.Clinton or Gov. Sebelius does it. This arguement doesn't do anything for Sen. Obama either. There is a danger of him looking petty and yes weak. Don't get me wrong folks. I'd love the idea of having more than one highly qualified woman to chose from. The more qualified women candidates the better the future for women in general. But saying that Sen. Clinton is too qualified and Gov. Sebelius doesn't have to be because the VP job is a do nothing job? To me, it looks less like picking a qualified candidate. Looks more like trying to get around picking the qualified person who is a woman to pick anyone else as long as they know "their place" and don't out shine the man.

There has to be a compelling reason to skip the highly qualified candidate other than, "Well I just don't like her." or "Well let's pick another woman, any woman, as long as she's not as strong as the guy. After all any idiot can do that job. Not a problem if she's less qualified." You can't do that in the "real world" folks. It wouldn't pass Human Resources. I believe it is considered an unfair hiring practice. As a matter of fact, it would probably trigger a lawsuit. It has in my state. In that case, it was a matter of race not gender. My understanding though is that race and gender would have been equal in status. In this case it was an issue of passing over the qualified candidate because they did or did not want to hire someone because of their race NOT their qualifications. Insert gender for race? Looks like the same arguement to me.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

For me? I'm looking at the folks who ran in the presidential primary first. These people would be the first tier candidates. They have national support and actual dollars spent in the primary to promote their name and issues. Democrats then put confidence in these people by voting for them. The governor of Kansas doesn't have these qualifications. The Senator from New York does.

Regardless of their gender.

I kind of thought that was the point of equality.

Again I'd really love to have your opinion.

Regards from an old feminist RedNeck from the Deep South,

12 dogs

Oh and there's more after the bump.

There's more...

Happy 4th of July

Just wanted to wish everyone a happy weekend.

At the end of the day, no matter what our differences, there is one thing we all have in common. We are all Americans.

Happy and safe holiday.

What a good day to celebrate.

12 dogs and a blog

There's more...

Lessons learned, perhaps painfully, from our primary?

This is more of a discussion thread than a full on diary, because I want to hear from both Clinton and Obama supporters (as well as Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel, and anyone else's supporters- hell, our new Republican members are welcome to chime in).

But I'm curious- now that the furor from the primary is dying down, what does everything think?  Did it help?  Did it hurt?  Did the attacks get so nasty as to hurt our chances, or were we just vetting our candidate?

I was looking through old Kos diaries today, and found something that sent me dumbstruck that I wanted to share from June 27, 2007- nearly one year ago:

People have pointed out the value in vetting our own and I don't have a problem with honst questions.

What I do have a problem with are the diaries that get posted that are nothing more than hit-pieces full of hearsay, innuendo and outright lies.

The purpose of this diary is to urge people to post information about their candidate without attacking the others.  

Take a look at my diaries from last week (linked above).  Not once do I mention the other candidates.

Not once.

And here's some food for thought...

Geekesque notes below that it was one of our own who hung the pair of flip-flops around Kerry's neck in the primaries.  I hope people remember that lurking goopers read these diaries and if we keep this shit up, we're only giving them ammo to use against our nominee (whoever s/he may turn out to be) in the general election.

Wise words- but what surprised me is that they came from none other than Alegre, who quickly changed her tune as most know.  What do you think- was she right?

There's more...


Advertise Blogads