So, after due consideration of whether I can support the Democratic Party any more, I have decided that I cannot. It has nothing to do with my views changing on many things. But it does have to do with its candidates.
Months ago, before anyone had considered it, I wrote an article suggesting that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket made sense and should happen. It was February, before Super-Tuesday if I remember correctly. The Obama supporters vociferously attacked the idea, and their major arguments were similary to those of today's critics. The Clinton supporters said "Why not?".
In Gentlemen's Agreement, a "reporter pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred." The movie, starring Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire and John Garfield, was a major effort to call the United States and the world to the plight of Jews even in the United States.
We are over sixty years from Gentlemen's Agreement, from which some say John Garfield, who was Jewish, died of a heart attack, Elia Kazan was blacklisted, and Gregory Peck went on to crusade through the movies against unholy alliances that would have a minority crushed through subtle and overt attacks based on race, religion and general ignorance.
For the first time in Democratic Party history, we can completely wipe out the wishes of Democratic Party voters in two states. We already brag about how we fooled the system and got Obama more delegates in states he did not win. Like Nevada. He has also obtained more delegates than were awarded in the original caucus votes in many states. Well done everyone! Good way to win! Without even needing the will of the caucus voters!
But now we can do even better than getting more delegates for Obama in states that went for Hillary Clinton! Victory by using the caucus mechanics is not as good or substantial as taking away all of a state's voters by claiming that the rules tell us we have to do so!
It is a planned part of the assault on McCain to stress his age, as if someone in his seventies cannot run the country. Conveniently overlooked is Reagan, but we know that Obama fancies himself to be in the mold of Reagan. So who cares that Reagan was in his late seventies when he left office and that nothing was made of age?
We have a war hero here who was abused as a prisoner for five years, and we have no idea what his problems happen to be. We know McCain had cancer. So what if it were skin cancer. Such cancer generally is a sign of age. And age and experience is what we have run against in the primaries and those so-called caucuses and are still running against.
In this, one of the most interesting of election years, the media has done its best to destroy journalistic fairness in favor of unrelenting and unbelievable bias against Hillary Clinton and favoring Barack Obama. We have to tip our hats off to the following rogues gallery of relentlessly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton media.
The American Historical Review's April 2007 issue includes an excellent article entitled What's Left? Popular Political Participation in Postwar Europe. Author Belinda Davis notes that many works in progress and now published have begun to consider the ways in which major governmental change has occurred in Europe since World War II, including whether the change agents are or were merely democracy at work or actual revolutionaries.
Taking a cue from the Davis article, this article explores what these issues mean when considering Obama.
Recommended by Political Center
- John Edwards' speech was one of the most sexist, condescending, patronizing speeches I have ever heard in my life...477 comments 4 Recs
Political Center's Tags
- No current results.
Political Center's Blogroll
- No current results.