This letter of mine was just published in the San Jose Mercury News today:
GOP pals falling for Palin's pitch
Our Republican friends are "smitten" with Sarah Palin. One might even call her a celebrity. My father-in-law giddily says "she's just great," and he buys the argument that she has more executive experience than the other three combined. Nils Sedwick (Letters, Sept.9) says he wants her as governor of California because "Alaska has no sales tax, no individual income tax, and gave each resident a $1,200 rebate last year."
It seems to me that Alaska is obviously not your typical state. They live off oil. Good for them, but maybe we'd be better off with a governor from a more "challenging" state like, say, Texas. Oh wait, we've tried that, haven't we?
Remember when John McCain offered his wife up for that beauty contest in South Dakota? (The one that was described as usually turning into a topless event.) Well, now he picks Sarah Palin, a runner up in Miss Alaska. This guy has an attitude toward women that we don't need in the White House. Throw in the fact of his first failed marriage and all the stuff about dumping his "disfigured" wife, and now this teenage pregnancy stuff. Look at that compared to what we've seen in the Obama and Biden families. After we've had "family values" thrown in our face by Republicans for so long, it's time to take that issue back as ours (along with the flag and patriotism).
Of course, what worries me is that these shouldn't be huge issues. On the one hand it's only fair to throw them back at Republicans, but on the other, these aren't really big Presidential issues, are they? I would hope we've moved beyond all this, but unfortunately not. In one sense, the Palin pick brings abortion back to the forefront. Must we keep fighting this battle? I guess so. This woman even believes global warming is not man made. It is unfortunate that we must fight battles that should have been settled by now.
I am so thankful that we have such intelligent and capable men as Barack Obama and Joe Biden to make the case to the American people.
For all his tough talk, George Bush is no kind of man at all. A man of true character would admit his mistake and take action to do something about it. It would take a real man to say that we underestimated how hard Iraq would be. It would take a real man to admit his economic policies are failures, and then show real leadership in addressing the real problems affecting Americans. A real man would say we've waited too long to believe what scientists were saying about climate change, and immediate and serious action is required. (By the way, when I use the term "man," that's not a great word. I believe strongly that a woman has the ability, even more so, to have this quality I'm trying to describe.)
Now we get McCain who is not offering us very much at all. If I'm hearing him right, our problems in Iraq and with the economy aren't really that bad, and everything will be great with the minor variations that he offers from the Bush way.
Bush is the President and he's just given up. Does anyone else look at him and see him thinking, "I can't wait to get outta here!" McCain has the nerve to say Obama is naive and doesn't understand the complexities of what we face. Is he kidding?!?!?! Is it any surprise that the world is opening its arms to Obama? He gets criticized for being popular in Europe like that's nothing. I don't know how many times he has to prove himself as a true leader, but I'm confident he'll pass any "test" thrown at him.
When I was a young teen my Grandpa tried to tease me, "I saw you with a little black girl." I don't know what he thought when my reaction was something like shrugging my shoulders. He was from a different world. Instead of it being a tease, I was more like, "I wish that was true." Being a young male I was interested in ALL girls!
When my daughter was a young teen, a friend asked her, "would your parents let you date a black boy?" She said something like, "Yes, why not?" The friend said, "I thought your parents would be strict." My daughter was amazed, "strict? what does that have to do with it?"
Attitudes are sure slow to change, but things ARE changing. Time moves on, and interracial couples are "no big deal" for many of us. Here in California, you would drive yourself insane if it bothered you. I wish I could get everyone to "free their minds." Race is such a ridiculous thing to waste your energy thinking about.
I watched John McCain's "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand." All I can say is:
WE DON'T CARE IF THE SURGE WORKED, AND WHO SUPPORTED IT OR NOT, WE STILL WANT OUT!
PUTTING TOGETHER WHAT YOU SAY ARE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS TO MAKE THE CASE THAT OBAMA IS JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN DOES NOTHING TO SAY YOU'RE BETTER!
My opinion is McCain doesn't have much of a case to make. He criticizes Obama for wanting to cut war funding and then not voting to do it. Huh? It makes perfect sense not to want to make the troops suffer. It just points out what a colossal mess we are in. There is a huge difference between trying to end this thing in a good way and just saying everything is OK because this war was a good idea to begin with. So what if the surge "worked"? At what cost? Military families have suffered and continue to suffer. Little kids need their fathers and mothers. Now even Iraqis want a timetable for us getting out, but McCain WANTS to stay if they want us there or not. My question is, where do we go from here? McCain just wants to "win." What does that even mean?
The flavor of the week in the press is Barack has no sense of humor. Maybe after having a President and administration that IS a joke, we need to get serious.
The New Yorker cover was titled "The Politics of Fear" but from what I understand, there was no article actually about that. It would be a very worthwhile subject for the media to address. It would be responsible to say, "Here is the truth. Now make up your mind." It is irresponsible to say "Here are a bunch of lies. We hope you get that it's a joke." The press is powerful, and I wish they were our partner in reclaiming the true values of American democracy.
This all started with the people of Iowa educating themselves and taking their responsibility very seriously. At the risk of sounding "elitist," I said at the time that caucuses are not a bad idea as people who take it seriously should have a big voice. Contrast that with the voter I saw interviewed in Ohio, who said something like, "I didn't want to vote for a woman or a black. I guess I'll vote for Obama although the Muslim thing bothers me."
In 2000 and 2004 we were only one state away from winning the presidency. Both Al Gore and John Kerry are superb individuals who would have been outstanding Presidents. In one way, George Bush has done us a favor by showing us how bad the Republican view of the world is. It is too bad all of us have had to suffer, but this campaign needs to be about the gap between rich and poor and our standing in the world.
Lately, the word on the street is that Obama is, after all, just another politician. This seems to have become a reason to shift to what we know is bad for us. Why is it that Republicans have been able to define the Democratic candidate?
Here's some hope for us all. Although it's overshadowed by the primary race, Obama 2008 is really a lot like Clinton 1992. All we have to do is overcome racism, a very nasty thing, but it will be a beautiful thing when we do.
My friends and family said Clinton was better because a black could never win. I thought that was so ridiculous. I was very encouraged at Barack's success. The New Yorker cover shows us so much about America. Putting those images out there allows people to feel OK about their deepest illogical fears. It is irresponsible for the New Yorker to do this. Journalism has an obligation to elevate the debate, not drag it down.
There is now a tide going that we have to tear Obama down. Together, our society is fearful of change. Why?!?! We've seen it over and over again. The press builds someone up and then tears them down. Lots of people seem to be pleased to accept "Oh look, he's just a politician just like everyone else. I feel better now. There really is no hope."
Why are we afraid of our own ability to bring about change? How do we combat what's going on in the collective American mind?
I was a big supporter of Hillary's right to stay in the campaign. It was a wonderful thing to see the campaign in the news every single day. I truly wish either Obama or Clinton had pulled away so it wasn't so close. If Hillary had run an honest, positive campaign and had won, that would have been OK with me. She chose to run against Obama, even aligning herself with McCain on many occasions. As a man, I know I can't fully understand, but I consider myself to be as feminist as a man can be. I was raised by a single mom (although like Obama, I don't want to overstate it, we weren't that bad off), I married a strong woman and am proud of raising my daughter to be a strong woman also. I happen to live in an area once considered "the feminist capital of the world" in terms of elected officials, and believe strongly that that is a good thing. I resent the idea that Hillary is a victim of sexism. That has nothing to do with the feelings I have about her.
At the beginning, I liked all the Democratic candidates, especially Richardson and Edwards. My feelings about Hillary started when the press anointed her as inevitable and the way she handled that. That's what strikes me as funny about the complaints later about the mainstream press. As time went on, she gave me more reasons not to support her. Ignoring the complexities of Florida and Michigan was a big one. To call it a simple case of denying votes was just plain dishonest.
I could go on, but that's all history now. What really bothers me is the independent run and voting for McCain talk. I have never voted for the eventual Democratic nominee in the primary except for when Carter and Clinton were up for reelection. That's the way the system works. We pick the candidate closest to our own views, but there is a good chance they won't be the nominee. Does that mean I sit it out or complain loudly? My core principles are too strong for that.
The two-party system (not even in the constitution) isn't great, but it's what we've got. As long as we do, voting for a third party candidate will never make sense.
I strongly support the causes that Hillary supports. She currently supports Barack Obama. John McCain does not support the causes that Hillary supports. To continue to talk about Hillary's candidacy is showing disrespect for the millions of Obama voters, even while asking for respect for Hillary's voters. (We won't talk about who got more votes. Let's at least be honest and admit that could be argued either way.)
I have to admit I'm still confused, and at the same time realize that most Americans didn't care. It is absolutely scary that many seem willing to compromise the constitution for the sake of security. It is a deep question, and unfortunately most people take that attitude of if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry. We've already seen 9/11 give us an excuse to have the closest thing we've ever had to a dictatorship. I don't understand why Obama voted for it, especially since he would have been in good company (Kerry, Clinton, Dodd, etc.) in voting against it. On the other hand, 69 voted for it, not exactly a close vote where it matters. Why did so many vote for it? What was the reasoning on both sides? I'm curious, as many things I've read made it clear this is a dangerous bill. What am I missing? Other than online, this received frustratingly little attention. I looked at the vote and saw McCain didn't vote at all. Why is there no mention of that anywhere?
