BuggBlog

Reasons to be bitter

Though I'm a little late to the game after this weekend's latest "gaffe," I'm up to play. Because if after eight years of Bush you're not bitter, then you're not paying attention.

My reasons to be bitter:

• The repeal of habeas corpus.
• The war in Iraq.
• The neglected war in Afghanistan.
• Unrestrained government spending that would make LBJ blush.
• The use of my life and the lives of my friends as political footballs to drum up votes.
• Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.
• The abridgment of our civil rights in the name of the so-called Drug War.
• Hillary Clinton's nebulous relationship with the truth.
• Only one more season of Battlestar Galactica.

And the list goes on and on.

Full court press

Following up on its attention-grabbing antics of last week when it ran a blank stretch of space on its front page to emphasize the Obama campaign's decision not to do an interview with the paper, the Philadelphia Gay News continues its campaign this week with the front page with the complaint that it's been "1,529 days" since Obama interviewed with the "local gay press."

The complaint last week in a PGN editorial was  that "It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community." Now that the Advocate has snagged an interview with him, the PGN complaint has shifted, essentially, to kvetching that Barack Obama won't interview with me!

PGN publisher Mark Segal, in a press release this morning highlighted four "questions of importance to the LGBT community of Pennsylvania":

1. Why has he not spoken with local gay media in 1529 days?

2. Why has he accepted only two interviews with gay media since 2004?

3. Why interview only with gay media when in damage control now that the national LGBT press is urging you to talk to us, not at us?

4.  Finally, with all due respect Senator, you've now avoided answering the single most important question which PGN readers must ask. The LGBT community of Pennsylvania wants to know your stand on the anti gay marriage state constitutional legislation currently before the Pennsylvania Senate.

You know, when three of your four "important" questions are essentially re-phrased versions of Barack Obama won't interview with me! then there's a bit of a substance problem to the complaint. The idea that we don't know anything about Obama's positions on GLBT issues -- or, conversely, that we now have some special insight into the mind of Hillary Clinton because she interviewed with PGN or Kevin Naff at the Blade -- is a non-starter because the positions have been spelled out, they've been discussed in public events, and they've been covered in press both mainstream and niche. And if you're a reporter who wants to know a candidate's position on a particular issue -- say, a Pennsylvania anti-marriage amendment -- you call the campaign office, ask them, and report the response (or non-response).

Tempest? Meet the teapot.

A renaissance of fair

The Washington Post reports today from Indiana, where the political mechanics of the state -- next door to Obama's Illinois stronghold, but a political apparatus aligned with the Clinton machine -- make for a close race. Writes Anne E. Kornblut:

Something unusual appears to be developing in the Democratic presidential race in this state: a fair fight.

What on earth does that mean? That primaries in states where demographics are favorable to one candidate or the other are unfair? That voters who pay attention and weigh their options early in the process are being unfair compared to those undecided voters who tune in during the final moments? That a state only counts if the press gets to write breathless "too close to call" stories? That the previous primaries and caucuses that put Barack Obama in the lead were somehow unfair to Hillary Clinton?

Honestly, I've written stuff like this before for the magazine: A lead that just sounds so good you miss the fact that it's fundamentally senseless. Usually a fellow editor or writer saves me from myself. Too bad someone at the Post didn't do that for Kornblut here.

Hillary's diplomatic (mis)adventures

The funniest thing of late to come out of the interminable Democratic campaign:

Having a campaign aide explain that what Clinton was actually talking about was "fire in the hillside around the area" is a particularly nice touch.

By this standard, I could claim that my flights into National Airport during 1996 were harrowing experiences due to all the gun violence in Southeast D.C. -- I just ran with my head down till I dove into a cab, then threw myself to the sticky floor and prayed I'd make it home safely.

Why is this still going on, again?

Naked self interest, democracy, it's all the same thing

If Hillary Clinton had cared so passionately about the democratic voting rights of Michiganders and Floridians, she would have done something about it long before those states ran their front-loaded, illegal primaries in defiance of party rules. Instead, she chose to have her campaign issue press statements supporting the DNC decision, lauding the special position of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process, and pledging not to campaign in those states. Now, naturally, she's so very concerned with Michigan and Florida as she attempts to conjure some scenario by which she nabs the nomination.

I'm not even going to get into the nonsense that's been spewing from her on this issue over the past few weeks -- well, other than to say that if you consider the ability to tell big, whopping lies with a straight face and steady voice to be a prerequisite for occupying the White House, then Clinton is your candidate -- but it's important to remember that while citizens should have the right to vote in a democracy, a democracy doesn't mean you get do-overs.

Clinton's push for a mulligan distracts from the fact that there are many people responsible for this clusterfuck:

First, the candidates -- all of them, but Clinton, Barack Obama and other top-tier candidates in particular -- should have been vocal and active in opposing the draconian punishment the DNC imposed on the states for violating primary schedule rules, and supported some alternate plan that would allow a vote, campaigning and some measure of representation in the process.

Second, the DNC and the Florida and Michigan parties for all the obvious reasons. Should've been this, should've been that. Politicians in those states wanted to play as big boys in the process and they got burned for it. They should have thought twice about playing a game of chicken with their constituents' votes.

Which leads to the third and, I think, most important cog in this blame machine: the people of Michigan and Florida. You sat back and let your legislatures, elected representatives and party elders get you into this mess. Democracy means that you get a vote. Democracy also means you should be paying attention to what your government does, particularly on such a high-profile and well-covered issue as this one. You didn't do that, so you don't get to go twice because you realize you screwed up. That leaves you with one very democratic option -- in the next election use your vote against the people who got you into this mess in the first place.

Political truths and consequences

So I decided to take the weekend off from jotting down any thoughts or rants about the ongoing Clinton and Obama contretemps because, frankly, I needed to take a bit of a breather. The last time I found myself both politically and emotionally involved in a campaign was way back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was making his first run. And although he had the fortune of being president during a period when the good times went rolling, by the time 1996 came 'round, the luster had worn off -- and soon after had progressed into deep, deep tarnish.

In 2000, I reluctantly voted for Gore -- an odd feeling given how much I'd liked him since back during his 1998 run. But post-Clinton, Gore seemed unable to tease the good from the bad in his own administration, so instead washed his hands of the whole damn thing to run a Shrum-tastic populist campaign that in defeat set us down the path we're on today. I voted for him because he was not George W. Bush, a good enough practical reason, but not one that elevated my soul or anything.

Then in 2004 we got John Kerry who, basically, was a jerk. How big of a jerk? He was able to make Mary Cheney likable by giving one of the most bumbling attack lines of the campaign-- "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian... ." But, again, he wasn't George W. Bush and that was enough.

Now we're back to the start of the circle, with Hillary Clinton running a jaw-dropping campaign in which she smears her opponent with the label "Ken Starr tactics," attempts to cheat by changing pre-determined rules in her favor,  naming herself and McCain as the only candidates qualified to be commander-in-chief (as if), and offering the vice-president slot to her competitor who inconveniently happens to be in the lead.  Not to mention proving her executive leadership skills with a campaign staff riven by infighting, unable to plan for a full election cycle and displaying the fiscal wisdom and restraint of an 11-year-old in a video game store.