While I'm a Kentucky boy through heritage and experience, by an accident of the draft and the Vietnam war, I was actually born in California. Given today's big pro-marriage rights ruling, and Schwarzenegger's decision to uphold the court's decision, I'm tempted to claim native-son status from the state.
Wow. Everyone should bask while they can. This is a big, big deal.
Just caught Lisa Caputo's shot about Hillary not being the type of person sipping "white wine" with the elite, and it just makes it even clearer that these people must go. Sooner rather than later.
Or, as Andrew says, "God, I hate the Clintons."
We really do deserve better, you know.
So Howard Dean's on MSNBC telling me how superdelegates are just ordinary people with a vote. Really? The superdelegates actually have two votes, and one of those votes counts more than the other. That ain't ordinary people, and don't try 'n tell me different cuz I'm onto you, Howard.
I was kind of planning to write a post on why even though rising gas taxes are having a negative effect on many aspects of my elite life -- they increase the money I have to pay to distribute Metro Weekly, they increase the money I have spend on food for my catering business, they put a huge burden on my family members in Kentucky and Indiana who drive more than 50 miles to and from work each way every day -- but frankly, I can't get motivated because the Clinton campaign is simply too depressing in its willingness to ask the American voter, "How big a check do you want for your vote?"
Obviously, I'm against the gas tax holiday for similar reasons as basically every living economist. But I'm just finding myself more and more depressed about the possible outcome of this entire election cycle and the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to believe that America as a nation is all about the lowest common denominator. I'm hoping that voters -- including my Hoosier family -- who are actually hurting from the current economic situation will resist Clinton call to naked, short-term self interest and cast their vote for a needed change in the way our political system is structured. I like to think they will.
It would be nice to be proved right, for once.
Via Andrew, a Kentucky Democrat voices an opinion to The New Yorker on Clinton v. Obama:
"I really don't want an African-American as President ... I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did ... There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people," - a Clinton supporter in Eastern Kentucky, to George Packer of the New Yorker.
I'm not sure what's sadder, the attitude represented by the thinking or the fact that my home state seems determined to be as embarrassing as possible these days. Perhaps I could take refuge in that I'm only half-Kentuckian if you look solely at my paternal lineage.
Unfortunately, my maternal lineage is in Indiana, and Hoosiers have their own problems lately.
In a strange day of political developments, I'm struck by the reaction to the far more minor eruption in North Carolina where Gov. Mike Easley made his endorsement of Hillary Clinton more newsworthy by tossing out the loaded word "pansy."
But what strikes me more than the utterance itself is the blog posts and e-mails I've been watching that defend Hillary's defender because "pansy" isn't really an anti-gay term, or because Easley's just a humor-impaired old straight guy, or because "OMG, I didn't even know 'pansy' was a gay insult!" And, no surprise, some gay Obama supporters have been pushing the story, while some gay Clinton supporters have been pretending it's no big deal. Both of which are useless pursuits.
Anyone who votes against Clinton solely for this Easley flap probably shouldn't be voting anyway because it kind of indicates a lack of any sort of critical thought about either candidate; the same goes for anyone who votes against Obama because of Rev. Wright or some other supposed "surrogate." There are far bigger issues at stake, and far better arguments for both candidates.
But. But, but, but.
As a 40 year old gay guy with strong memories of how homosexuals were verbally degraded in my rural Kentucky hometown -- faggot, queer, pansy, homo, etc. -- and even stronger memories of those words and others being used against me in college and beyond, the dismissal by some of a pretty nasty little word strikes me as a pretty egregious case of granting an exception for political purposes. I've watched the gay community over the past few years rear itself up with righteous dudgeon over the use of the word "gay" by pre-teens. Yet the 50-something Democratic governor of a southern state gets a pass with a wink and nod? Isn't he the one who should know better? Isn't he the one we should be holding accountable?
Maybe we should come up with a list of words that are acceptable and those that are not. "Pansy" = okay. "Faggot" = off limits. "Cocksucker" = depends on the context.
The idea that Clinton should have reacted immediately and cast Easley aside to give some soul-stirring speech denouncing the history of the word pansy is, frankly, silly. But the idea that we as a community should react with no more than a laugh and a wave of the hand is disheartening.
I generally spend a fair amount of time reading "conservative" web sites, mostly just to keep up with what's going on, etc. But as of late I've taken a breather, given that the Democratic race seems to have driven the right wing to out-and-out insanity. That and the pope's visit proved that Katherine Jean Lopez really could get stupider.
But I cruised by tonight, curious to see what was up in winger-land after Obama denounced Wright today. Right at the top was this excrescence from Kate O'Beirne, under the title "October Suprise?":
An interview with Jeremiah Wright during which he recounts past conversations with Barack Obama about the young aspiring politician's views on race and whites and his mixed feelings about his country. i.e. Don't Democrats have to sweat out this angry, arrogant wild card who could destroy the Obama campaign at will?
If they're this unhinged and desperate in April, imagine what they'll be like come September. It's going to be a long, long summer, whether or not Hillary pulls off her heist.
It's been a long day on deadline, so I'm going to settle in for a little relaxing session of Rock Band before I get too deep into the final day of the campaign to be president of Pennsylvania. But I did just catch Hillary on CNN asking why, with his enormous fundraising advantage and lead in votes, Obama "hasn't been able to close the deal?"
Oh, good lord. It does get stupider by the day. But I'll bite. Why couldn't Clinton, with her huge, experienced machinery and out-of-the-gate fundraising edge, close the nomination by Super Tuesday, the way she had planned to from the start?
Add that to her husband Bill claiming that he didn't say Obama's campaign played the race card when there's an audio tape of a radio interview in which he claimed Obama's campaign played the race card and I just wonder why it is that we're still having to have this debate. Do we really want this dynamic duo back in the White House?
I'm exhausted already just thinking about it.
Watching Hillary Clinton defend her previous pro-McCain commander-in-chief comments to Keith Olbermann and once again witnessing her easy ability to elide the truth -- okay, flat-out frickin' lie -- makes it ever more impossible for me to vote for her.
Update: She laughs at the mention of Richard Mellon Scaife? The man who propagated the myth that she had Vince Foster killed? She thinks that's humorous? Jesus frickin' Christ. She must, must go.
Recent Comments