The Beginning of Hope or the End of It

31 10 2008

“Right now, in America, we are living in the center of a potential paradigm shift. A definite, burgeoning movement. A time of Hope. With the upcoming elections, we could redefine America’s standing in the world by enacting foreign policy that is based on the universal understanding that we are all interconnected. That the rape of an eight-year-old-girl in Congo is akin to the rape of an eight-year-old girl in Chicago or Phoenix. We use the words and slogans “Never again” and “Not on our watch”, but right now thousands are being displaced, raped, murdered in Eastern DRC.”

There are policies that Barack Obama and I do not see eye to eye on. I have serious reservations about a few of his decisions, and I continue to hold a political torch for Hillary Clinton.

However.

I believe that Barack Obama will do more for the people of Congo than John McCain will.

I believe that Barack Obama will do more for women’s rights in the U.S. than John McCain will.

I believe that an administration under Barack Obama will listen to issues of the poorest American people more than under John McCain.

I believe that Barack Obama will show more diplomacy, both at home and abroad, than John McCain.

I believe that Barack Obama will support scientific research more than John McCain.

I believe that Barack Obama will inspire other leaders better than John McCain.

For all these reasons, I believe that Barack Obama will make a better U.S. president than John McCain.

I will be stepping into the gym of my local high school this Tuesday at 6 am, where I will state my name, show some ID, and make a few choices that will change the course of history for my country and the world. The biggest assholes in the history of America will be the people who, on Wednesday, wake up and realize that they were registered to vote and just didn’t.

 
Read the Article by Eve Ensler at HuffingtonPost

Advertisements

Actions

Information

11 responses

31 10 2008
Enough Said

By Tim Reid, The Times of London

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

There will always be fringe people who think their candidate could fly if he/she really wanted to. John Stewart addressed this very issue weeks ago, stating that one of the worst things you could do is build up a candidate so that, if elected, they have no where to go but down . That’s what’s happened here.

My opinion stands that, for the issues I’ve addressed, Barack Obama will do *more* than John McCain will.

31 10 2008
2008voter

This is very telling posting and it explains a lot about Obamania
The key word here is ” i believe” it does not sound too rational to me , sounds more like a religious statement than rational political decision.
This is the diffidence:
You “believe” in the “leader” in the “chosen one”. Therefore de-facto you idolize the guy . Instead of thinking rationally you “hope” for a ” change” .
Those who follows McCain see all his weaknesses and rationally vote for him as for better employee, better manager.
I do not need a ” leader” I am a self sustainable person and need no ideological guidelines of any kind.
Only a weak person and not rationally self-sufficient person would need a ” leader” and they tend to form cults like Obama’s personality cult. It was like this in Russia in the beginning of 20th century in Chine in 50s and now it is here. Believers versus rational people .

31 10 2008
2008voter

By the way speaking of believing instead of knowing , please educate yourselves :Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa. Washington Post ( hardly right wing media) The key word here is “Quietly” no cult dram beats involved
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

Btw, have the courtesy to link to articles you reference:

by Tim Reid, The Times of London: “Barack Obama lays plans to deaden expectation after election victory”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

“You “believe” in the “leader” in the “chosen one”. Therefore de-facto you idolize the guy”

I do not idolize Obama, as the rest of this blog should make clear, as should my statement, and it’s implied political struggle, about Hillary Clinton. Plus that’s not good logic.

” Instead of thinking rationally you “hope” for a ” change” .”
Change is inevitable because Bush will not be President. The degree and type of change are debatable, and my opinion is that Obama will commit to more changes in the government that I support.

“Believers versus rational people .”
I think you’re confusing me with a rabid Christian Conservative.

“I do not need a ” leader” I am a self sustainable person and need no ideological guidelines of any kind.”
If you’re all for anarchy that’s cool – go vote for the Anarchist Party.

“Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa.”
Good, wonderful, great – glad to hear it. Maybe McCain would triple it, too. I still think, and feel, and work under the assumption that, and believe, that Obama will do more than McCain would if given the chance.

The idea that anyone can “know” what either candidate will do, or would do *more* than the other, is preposterous. There is no way to measure what President McCain will do in one parallel universe while President Obama is in another. We have working assumptions, evidence, conclusions, and hypotheticals. There are no guarantees, but I am more willing to take a chance on one than the other – as is everyone who votes. Voting, no matter who you vote for, was also a central theme of this post.

I didn’t say I was voting for Obama, I said I think he’d be a better president. It is a subtle yet important distinction.

But, thanks for taking the time to troll.

31 10 2008
sfokc6125

Campaign promises often wilt after the election. Tax-cut promises are a frequent casualty.

By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton’s speed record. It wasn’t until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.

There’s another similarity. Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama both promised to raise taxes, too, but only on “the wealthy.” And both proceeded to widen the definition of “wealthy” to encompass more and more taxpayers.

During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.

Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.”

(Column continues below)

At first, Clinton maintained that only those earning over $100,000 would pay more under his revised tax plan. But The Heritage Foundation noted it would hit far more broadly, raising taxes for individuals making $25,000 and couples making $32,000. The Los Angeles Times headline echoed that finding: “Clinton Threshold on Tax Bite Dips to $30,000 Incomes.”

Fast forward to now. Even before the election, Obama is downsizing his tax promises. First he advertised that nobody would pay higher taxes unless they earned over $250,000 a year. Now his TV ads say the threshold is $200,000. And in campaign remarks in Pennsylvania, running mate Joe Biden lowered it again, to $150,000.

It all parallels the gradual tax plan changes Bill Clinton started making shortly before his election. Then, after his election, the gradual changes turned into dramatic transformation.

As the New York Times noted in February 1993, “… beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction.”

On Feb. 15, 1993, just weeks after he was inaugurated, Clinton completed the course change in a national TV address, telling the nation, “I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t.”

His excuse was two-fold. First, he “hadn’t realized” just how bad the deficit was. Second, he believed the people wanted the new spending he had proposed during his campaign.

Clinton sought to defuse the political damage by promising to hit “the wealthy” harder. His Feb. 6, 1993, radio address told the nation he would “get rid of windfalls for the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of the American people to make a contribution,” and that, “We’re going to ask the most from those who have got the most and gave the least during the past dozen years.”

Clinton blamed Washington politicians – prior presidents in particular – for supposedly concealing just how bad the federal deficit was, thereby justifying his reneging on his campaign promises.

In 2008, our deficit is far worse and Obama’s spending pledges are far greater than Clinton’s. Only someone who has been locked in a cave is unaware that this year’s deficit spending is approaching a trillion dollars.

This is no proof that Obama will renege, Clinton-style. But his recent adjustments in describing whose taxes will go up certainly are not reassuring.

Obama also is using a looser definition of wealth than Clinton did. The $200,000 threshold that Clinton applied in 1992 equates to $311,000 today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama’s most-recent $200,000 threshold is the same as a $128,255 income would have been in 1992.

The week before Bill Clinton was inaugurated, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., observed, “This week has been rather the clatter of campaign promises being tossed out the window.”

Those who fear that this year’s campaign promises will also be thrown out the window should keep their eyes wide open and be ready to dodge whatever might fall on their heads

31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

What Clinton did for women’s rights and minority rights in his first term is unparalled in either term of G. W. Bush.

If the next four years under Obama promised to be as *bad* as the first four years of Clinton’s presidency, I would welcome Obama with open arms and a grin the size of our national debt.

31 10 2008
31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

by Gerard Baker, The Times of London: “America isn’t about to become liberal heaven”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article5050705.ece

“Of course none of this is to deny that Americans will be voting for change on Tuesday. After the past eight years who could possibly blame them? But I sense that the change they want is for a welcome period of competence and decency. They would rather have a government that works than a new paradigm for the organisation of American society, a radical redistribution of income and wealth or a dramatically expanded public sector. And they certainly won’t be voting for a “can’t we all just get along?” foreign policy that subjugates US national security to the negotiated outcomes of debates in the UN Security Council.

What’s more, I suspect Mr Obama is easily clever enough to know that this will not be his mandate either. The real test of a President Obama’s political skills will be his ability to recognise the limitations placed on him by what is still a deeply conservative country, and his willingness to stand up to those in his party who will be impatiently pressing him to go much farther.”

31 10 2008
RallyGrrrl

“In 2001 Ayres told the New York Times he is sorry they did not do more!”

Oh for the sake of Pete:
He stated that he meant he hadn’t done “more” to stop the Vietnam War. The agenda of trying to stop a war you consider unjust is a noble endeavor, even if your method of doing so is violent.

Killing people because they’re Negros – not a noble endeavor, no matter what your method is.

I love that people make comparisons between The Weather Underground and the KKK – it makes the closet racists easier to identify.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: