• on a comment on Obama punches back over 5 years ago

    Actually, I meant the LBJ who passed Medicare and was fearless in purusing the Civil Rights Act. The anti-death penalty LBJ etc.

    I had hopes for Obama, they've been pretty much crushed, although I can't think of anyone who ran who would be much better, but I did think he would have a stronger voice, especially with a Democratic House and Senate than he does.  He just caves.

  • comment on a post Obama punches back over 5 years ago

    What an amazing wimp our president seems to be turning out to be.  

    Where is Lyndon Johnson when you need him?

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti cle/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9 A44C480

  • Two vicious acts equal justice?

  • No actually I think Obama clears that table, and I don't think it's a good idea because she fills his lacks.  I simply don't see that he lacks anything she has.  That was not my perspective.  

    She simply is very good, very smart, very able to communicate what she needs to, and with a terrific sense of priorities.  

  • Many, many, many people saw this coming.  I saw this coming.  It's just the folks with the power did  not.  It's been obvious for years we were on the verge of this.

    It would be a good thing if the person selected to be Treasury Sec. was one of the seers, not one of the folks with the blinders.

  • No, she would probably do a perfectly good job.  BUT, I think there are women in the pipeline who deserve consideration first.  It's not as if she is the only one out there, and I don't see that she possesses anything that should accelerate her rise, any special traits of intelligence or ability above the usual competent congressperson.  

    I'm not sure that out of all the available women (and I absolutely think it should be a woman) she has been picked, except for the telegenic thing.

    This is not sexist, but perhaps influenced by my own age (60) and desire to see women who have been fighting for this for a longer time, get the prize.

  • comment on a post NYT: Hillary Clinton To Accept Secretary of State over 5 years ago

    I think she is going to be magnificent, both in pressing those issues that have always been meaningful to her, privately, and publicly carrying out the foreign policy of this administration.  

    I admire the sacrifice she is making, because I do believe it is one, of her Senate seat for the uncertainty (career uncertainty) involved in taking a Cabinet post.  I believe she has put the interests of the country above her own.

  • Actually her district has normally been implaccably GOP (I think that wingnut turd Gerry Solomon had it for years before Sweeney) and it would have been an easy victory for Sweeney (another turd) except he turned out to be a monster and a lush, unavoidably so.  It was one of the most amazing political and personal meltdowns I've ever witnessed, and yes, Gillibrand was a bright and personable candidate.

    If you look at my mea culpa, I don't just see her as a pretty face, but her positions are not eexactly what I want, and I think, although she is qualified, that is not the reason she would be selected.

  • Actually I will amend that last sentence after rereading the other names in consideration; she is probably the best on that list.  I think there are other women candidates out there in the state, however, who are better.  

    She is good, I went back and looked over some of her stands on the issues.  I just am familiar with some NY female politicians who have been in this for longer and who are equally good and equally smart and are not being considered because they are older and more grizzled.

  • I like Gillibrand but she has only just been elected to her second term in Congress.  

    I would rather see someone (preferably a women) who has paid her dues.

    The upset victory against Sweeney was because he was involved in a wife abuse scandal, otherwise he was a shoo-in for that seat.

    I live across the border, in  Western Mass, and I believe nominating her would be real slap in the face to others with long political careers.  She is just not that good, just very pretty, very charming, okay, but not great, on the issues.  

  • comment on a post I got the response I needed! Thank you! over 5 years ago

    If there is any enduring and consistent value in the Democratic party, it is to support working men and women, and to that end, fully support and encourage unions and fully reject anti-union activity.  

    If you cannot support unionization this is the wrong party for you.

  • If the playing field has to be inclined towards employers or employees, corporations or unions, I would much rather see it be inclined to those who start out disadvantaged; the workers not the owners.

    The process of unionizing needs to be made as intrusion free and simple as possible.  Unionized workers just do so much better than nonunionized.

  • comment on a post CNN: Eric Holder Tapped As Attorney General over 5 years ago

    I'm extremely happy that finally an AG has been chosen who opposes the death penalty, and unequivocally opposes torture.  

  • Yuh, entangled in busywork right now and was trying to put this stuff together in a more coherent longer form, but yeah.

  • comment on a post All The Things That Women Are Interested In. over 5 years ago

    Underlying all of this is the problem that we do this kind of defining because our presidents have been male, period.  I don't care if the president's spouse talks nothing but closet space, but I do care that that comes from a male spouse as well as a female.  The problem is not how the wife of a leader is seen, I really would not care if the husband or wife was seen that way.  The problem is that it is only the guy in power and the female spouse.  The problem is that we still live in a time where we address the genders totally differently.

    On the blogs, the problem is that either you have frantic "Hillary was the only women for president" blogs, you have, "Hey, we got Obama elected so what's your problem ladies" blogs, but we have very few (I can't find any) addressing the fact that men's attitudes define how women are seen, that the number of women in power is miniscule, that the value assigned to any given activity of life is rated higher the further it gets from the activities of domestic life, etc.

    I'm tired of all this.  You work for change and then you get this crappy smugness from the new powers that be, and the underlying issues of gender equality and respect continue to remain unaddressed.


Advertise Blogads