I've been thinking about what to write regarding the VP Debate...and it's this:
Joe Biden is the Man.
He had me at "inflection point" (see his speech in Wooster Ohio, logged in a previous entry). But after the VP debate, I love him even more. I love that he's fired up, that he's so passionate and informed about the issues, I love that he's a real person with just one house and an average middle-class income.
I love him for sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act and single-handedly doing more for women's rights than just about anyone else in politics. I love that he, a former stutterer, does not let that bring him down in the slightest bit. Hey, I've been known to stutter and stammer too. My mouth doesn't work as fast as my brain.
But mostly I love him for speaking out for ME during the debate. He called Palin out on healthcare, he called her out on Cheney, he called her out on being a parent and understanding family issues, he called her out on that MAVERICK crap, he called her out on all the things that I was yelling at the TV screen for him to do. He did it nicely, but he did it with passion and zeal and did NOT LET HER GET AWAY WITH THAT BULLSHIT.
Sarah Hepola wrote in Friday's Salon about what he did, and how she felt about it, and she expresses herself much better than I do, so I'll just include this excerpt and call it a day:
I'm no pundit and don't pretend to be, so all I can tell you is how I experienced the debate (on a couch, with beer and Vietnamese food and an open laptop, sitting beside my friend Bryan). I thought Sarah Palin began well -- good eye contact, strong body language, that devilishly clever "Can I call you Joe?" -- but as the debate wore on, I was struck more and more by how Biden was puncturing her shtick. Sarah Palin kept lobbing her zingers, and a few of them might have struck, but every time she aimed for his heart, Biden just laughed. A good-natured laugh -- not forced but an easygoing, amiable laugh that proved just how game he was for this battle, how native this environment was and how thick his skin had become. And it yanked away a little bit of her power each and every time. She went from a forceful presence to a foolish scold. Maybe I'm overstating the imbalance. But I swear she was starting to get nervous and pissed toward the end, pulling out desperate moves, like that stupid wink. Have you ever tried to discipline someone and then had them laugh in your face? It's maddening. Palin may be a pit bull, but last night, Biden was holding the leash.
I watched the debate on CNN, which has replaced its regular annoying scroll across the bottom of the screen with a special annoying scroll -- a real-time graph that charts the reactions of certain undecided groups: In this case, undecided voters in Ohio, divided by gender. Depending on your viewpoint, this is either fascinating or infuriating -- for me, it is a little of both.
At first, the division by gender struck me as ham-fisted, but I must admit it was a terrific prism by which to view the debate (to what extent it is correct, or indicative of any larger trend, I cannot say). From the beginning, Biden scored high with women and Palin was flailing. There were some exceptions to this trend, of course, but if you are interested in an overall snapshot I would have to say: Women buy Biden, and they are leaving Palin on the shelf.
This reflects my experience, and so it feels true. In a nutshell: I believe him, and I think she is full of shit. My God, my heart was pounding when Biden spoke about the loss of his wife and child -- an eloquent, moving moment that, as Joan Walsh pointed out today, was one of the key exchanges of the debate.
"Joe Biden!" my friend Bryan said after that speech.
"I know," I said.
"Joe Fucking Biden."
"I know!"
"Are you in love with him?" he asked.
"A little bit."
"What is it about him?"
I had to think on this. His face was a bit orange from the makeup. He has a bald spot, bushy eyebrows. Not my type, really. "That man is made of testosterone and decency and strong verbs."
Bryan considered this. "He might be."
I don't know what Joe Biden is made of, exactly. (I suspect a doctor would disagree with my diagnosis.) But what I know is that he is well spoken and confident and had the decency not to correct Palin when she made amateur blunders (calling David McKiernan "General McClellan," for instance). But he still refused to take her bullshit.
When Biden unleashed his righteous anger on Dick Cheney -- "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president in American history" -- you could practically hear the stadium roar. And if you were watching that graph on the bottom of the CNN screen unfold its little narrative, you saw a spike in both genders' reactions. (Bryan took a picture of the screen at that moment, which is displayed above.)
I have complained on this blog about the frustration I feel when people talk about how Palin is hot. And so as I explain how I feel about Biden -- swoony, sweaty, Joe Fucking Biden! -- I have to check myself. To what extent is this a base physical response, a girlie crush indicative of nothing substantive and perhaps even somewhat embarrassing? Maybe. Possibly. Probably. At least a little bit.
But to what extent is it the euphoria of watching a man with real command of facts, details and history? The gratification of agreeing with the person at the microphone when you feel as though you have been robbed of a voice? The satisfaction of watching Biden knock Palin down -- not like an animal, but like a gentleman and a scholar? To what extent is it my throbbing boner (pardon the expression) for gentlemen and scholars? As one of my friends said this morning, he played the romantic hero. And I know it might sound weird, but as I watched him last night one word kept popping into my head, and that word was: virile.
Now, I have a soft spot for Barack O'Boyfriend as well. He's smart as a whip, he's good-looking, and that smooth, smooth deep voice. Yummy. But I think I have a new crush, and it's Joe F. Biden.
The only thing more unbearable than Sarah Palin's non-responses to Katie's questions is her speaking voice. Ye gods, she really speaks like that? All screechy and droppin' Gs left and right. Every time she said "tawkin'", I cringed. Check out Katie's face during the interview...she's so badass here. I love it.
Here's Part II. If you want to really cringe, skip ahead to 3:39 where Palin starts tawkin' about Russia.
Oh man, I can't wait to see the VP Debate. Biden just released an 8-page document partially listing all of the foreign leaders he's met with, and Palin? Well, bless her heart, she just got her first passport last year. Poor thing, she can barely manage to put together a coherent sentence in English half the time, and the rest of the time, not at all. She's WORSE than Bush as far as just blurting out nonsense, if that's even possible. Yep, this debate is going to be good. If she shows up, that is.
Here are the transcripts of both parts of the interview. They read even worse than they sound.
(CBS) When CBS News anchor Katie Couric sat down for an exclusive interview with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin Wednesday, she focused on the economy - but also addressed reports that the lobbying firm of Sen. John McCain's campaign manager received payments from the controversial mortgage giant Freddie Mac until last month. Couric asked for her reaction to that.
Sarah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.
Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?
Palin: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.
Next, Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt - and whether she supports it.
Palin: I'm all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal.
Couric: Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?
Palin: He's got the track record of the leadership qualities and the pragmatism that's needed at a crisis time like this.
Couric: But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.
Palin: I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it? (Laura says: WTF? What does that even mean?)
Couric: If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another Great Depression?
Palin: Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on. Not necessarily this, as it's been proposed, has to pass or we're going to find ourselves in another Great Depression. But, there has got to be action - bipartisan effort - Congress not pointing fingers at one another but finding the solution to this, taking action, and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.
Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?
Palin: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing - whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.
Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?
Palin: I have not.
Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?
Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.
Couric: By consumers, you're saying?
Palin: Consumers - and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric (AKA KATIE BADASS!): I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you. (Laura says: WTF? WEAK!)
PART II
Katie Couric: As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?
Sarah Palin: I see the United States as being a force for good in the world. And as Ronald Reagan used to talk about, America being the beacon of light and hope for those who are seeking democratic values and tolerance and freedom. I see our country being able to represent those things that can be looked to … as that leadership, that light needed across the world.
Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.
Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world. (Laura says: WTF? Whose parents *ask* them to go travel the world, or provide funding for it? Because all of the backpackers I've met worked 1-2 jobs in order to make their trips.)
No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums (um, that would be media, Sarah)that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.
Couric: Gov. Palin, you've had a very busy week. And you're meeting with many world leaders. You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan. I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan. But that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq. Why do you believe additional troops, U.S. troops, will solve the problem there?
Palin: Because we can't afford to lose in Afghanistan, as we cannot afford to lose in Iraq, either, these central fronts on the war on terror. And I asked President Karzai, "Is that what you are seeking, also? That strategy that has worked in Iraq that John McCain had pushed for, more troops? A counterinsurgency strategy?" And he said, "yes." And he also showed great appreciation for what America and American troops are providing in his country.
Couric: The United States is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al Qaeda within its borders?
Palin: I don't believe that new President Zardari has that mission at all. But no, the Pakistani people also, they want freedom. They want democratic values to be allowed in their country, also. They understand the dangers of terrorists having a stronghold in regions of their country, also. And I believe that they, too, want to rid not only their country, but the world, of violent Islamic terrorists.
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state. (Laura says: Wait, where is Russia again? Is it *right there*?)
Couric: When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?
Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world. (Laura says: WTF? That is the least specific answer ever.)
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …
Palin: It's dangerous.
Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?
Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies (Laura says: Like McCain did with Spain? Go back two posts...) and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.
Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.
Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …
Couric: But you said never second guess them.
(Laura says: Oopsie!)
Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world (Laura says: of the RAPTURE), those are the good guys.
Some interesting videos for you to watch, try to watch them in the order presented....
First off, we have John McCain. A Spanish reporter asks him if he, as President, will consider meeting with the Spanish leader, Zapatero, and if he will invite him to the White House. It's a pretty basic, easy question, considering that Spain is our NATO ally, supported us in Iraq, etc. There's absolutely no reason *not* to meet with Zapatero, right?
Or maybe you would prefer the animated version of his interview. It's every bit as shocking, but there's a whole lot more comic relief.
Next off, we have Joe Biden. Please be sure to note how spot-on his comments are. There is no time left for America to keep fucking up. The clock is at five minutes to midnight already. Tell 'em, Joe....
When he mentioned the "inflection" point, I almost swooned. I heart this man.
"Just imagine a country that believes in science again"....oh, sweet music to my ears!
Are you still with me? OK, one more video, if you have the stamina. This one is Barack Obama, covering the main points of his Plan, and yes people, he has a Plan. Unlike, ahem...John McCain.
And if you would like to know the fine details, you are welcome to read the full text of the plan on his website. Details aplenty there. I think a few points could be better, specifically healthcare reform. I want universal health care for all Americans. I want a complete overhaul of the current system, which isn't too likely to happen.
Obama's solution is still drastically better than McCain's, which would actually tax you on the healthcare benefits provided by your employer (if you are lucky enough to receive them) without changing anything else about the system. Same old crappy system, now costing you *more* money! Sweet!
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
"The American Promise"
Democratic National Convention
August 28, 2008
Denver, Colorado
As prepared for delivery
----
To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;
With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.
.
Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest - a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.
To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia - I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.
Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.
It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.
That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.
We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.
Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.
These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.
America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.
This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.
This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.
We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.
Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."
Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.
The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.
Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?
It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.
You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.
We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.
We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.
The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.
Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.
In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.
And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.
What is that promise?
It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
America, now is not the time for small plans.
Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.
Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.
Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.
Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.
And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.
Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.
And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.
And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.
For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.
That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.
We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.
As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.
I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.
These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.
But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.
So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.
You make a big election about small things.
And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.
I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.
But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.
For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
America, this is one of those moments.
I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.
And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.
This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.
UPDATE: I am NOT REALLY VOTING REPUBLICAN! I almost gave my mom a heart attack with this subject line before she actually watched the video. Rest assured, I never have, am not going to now, and likely will NEVER vote Republican. Just watch the video, people.
I'm saddened, but not surprised to hear that John Edwards has dropped out of the presidential primary race. John, I am really going to miss you, and I hope you find a position of power and activism in the new administration. Whoever wins, they would be a fool not to include you.
Which, by the way, rumor has it that Hillary Clinton has been in close contact with Edwards since his decision, but Barack Obama...not so much. Except suddenly this morning there is word (from Bob Novak, gag me) that he might be promised the Attorney General position in an Obama administration.
I'm just not liking Obama, despite the recent slew of Kennedy endorsements from Teddy and Caroline. RFK Jr. and other prominent Kennedys are supporting Clinton, so eh....as far as that goes I'll take the advice of Environmentalist RFK Jr. over Uncle Teddy.
I still have concerns about Hillary Clinton, but what it comes down to is this....her policies are more progressive. Barack Obama's policies seem very Republicrat. Economic stimulus? Tax cuts instead of a WPA-style job creation program, and very little direct help for the poor and needy. Not much support for alternative energy. No universal health care coverage.
I just don't get why people think that he is automatically the next most progressive candidate after Edwards. Because he's half black? Does blackness connote progressive politics? Hmmm, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Kwame Kilpatrick and Marion Barry come to mind. So no. Race alone means nothing. Plus hello, he's half white too. BFD. Hillary's not automatically the next most progressive candidate because she's a woman, she is progressive because of her POLICIES.
On a totally unrelated superficial note...boo hoo, I was really hoping for President Sexy Handsome. As teapartys_over wrote at Jezebel.com:
Now I have to deal w/ the Obama/Clinton question next week - I was thinking I'd avoid it by voting for Edwards - a long shot, but I loved his policies and attitude about the lobbyists owning our government. I really believed he'd ride into congress on Jan 20 in some faggy Village People cowboy outfit, brush aside his beautiful hair, and tell Congress their health insurance would be cut off pronto if they couldn't figure it out for the rest of us...and, scene.
For real! Except that I never thought JE has been even remotely faggy. He's well-groomed and handsome. If that's enough to make a man homosexual, well then, my husband is a fag too. Except of course, he's not.
By the way, I never knew that I was riding the cutting edge with this year's hot new accessory, but apparently I am. Nice to know that I can still keep up with trends, without even trying. In my current sleep-deprived state (one sick, coughing, complaining, bedwetter and one teething daredevil), I need to feel as stylish as possible. Every little bit helps, you know?
My dear husband was kind enough to send me a link to a fairly enlightening article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times, comparing the presidential candidates' economic policies and proposals. You know, like...if the economy takes a nosedive as it has been predicted to do, what will these folks do to get us out?
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
Yep, Edwards IS definitely the Idea Man, and he's the one to thank for coming up with actual solutions for the others to copy.
I don't need any candidate who tilts right, sorry Barack. Enough is enough. I want a PROGRESSIVE president who will kick some ass, and if it's not going to be Edwards, then Hillary has my vote. Not Barack.
Not that I'm complaining about the wealth of good Democratic candidates or anything, but I am totally paralyzed with indecision right now.
Last week I was sure that I was going to vote for John Edwards. Yesterday I was swinging towards Hillary. Today, I'm feeling Obama-ish. All three seem pretty great, especially compared to the Current Resident aka Chimpface Motherfucker aka Satan's Tool.
Should I just vote on who is most likely to beat the Republican contender? Who has the most crossover appeal? What about Hilary's gender, or Barack's race, or John's good looks? Will they work for, or against, or not even factor in?
I dig Hill, but that vote on Iraq does stick in my craw, I'll admit it. I was furious with her at the time. At least John came clean on his vote.
Then again, that 2-for-1 Clinton deal is kind of tempting. I do like bargains. And really, I LIKE Hillary. She spoke at my university commencement and she was outstanding. Apart from some lovey-dovey moments with Republicans and that Iraq vote, I don't have much against her, and plenty for.
What was with all the "crying" business? I watched the video and she wasn't *even* crying. She choked up for a MOMENT. I'm so disgusted by the media attention to a SINGLE MOMENT OF EMOTION. Disgusted, I tell you. Disgusted. And then you get people saying that she didn't cry about 9/11, and blaming her for that. Give me a break.
Did George Bush cry over 9/11? I'll bet Dick Cheney doesn't cry when if he loses a puppy blood-drinking contest, sad though he might be. I feel like voting for Hillary just out of spite, because I'm so pissed off about the bullshit misogynist damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't media freakouts over non-issues. Her cleavage! Her teardrop! Her haircut! Her wrinkle!
Now Barack...Barack is exciting, and funny, and a skilled writer. No shortage of good ideas overall, but his policies seem pretty vague. He *could* be a uniter, not a divider, but to achieve what exactly? Does he have the experience to pull this off without blowing it? What about international diplomacy? Hope is great, but I don't know exactly what he is going to do to make wishes a reality. Too many questions. I should skim his book at least, I suppose.
John Edwards has it going on, in my book. The man tells it like it is. He is addressing issues dead-on that no one else dares touch - hello, CORPORATE GREED. He has less funding for his campaign because he does not accept corporate or PAC donations. He sees that this is a fight of "Lord of the Rings" proportions. Good vs. Evil showdown time. But does not selling out make it impossible to compete? Can we win primaries without the financial backing of Hillary and Barack, in other words...corporate special interests?
I love Elizabeth Edwards too. She's another 2-for-1 deal, and how heartbreaking it is that she may not have much more time. She's spending her last days on this, it's *that* important to them. OK? You can't call John Edwards fake, that's for damn sure.
I guess I need to really sit down and pore over the candidates' stances on the issues in detail and see if something jumps out at me.
Who are you voting for, and why that candidate over the others? Go on, sway me one way or the other. And dude, if you say Huckabee....well, read this for a good summary of THAT guy. Jesus Christ indeed.
Hmmm, I just read an article on Salon: Why I'm Still Not For Hillary Clinton. Honestly, that article did not sway me, but one of the letters in response did. I'll paste it below:
Like Frances Kissling, I am also a John Edwards supporter. He has the most detailed plan and makes clear how he would benefit women, children, and families. Unlike Kissling, Obama is not my second choice. Hillary Clinton is. Allow me to explain why.
John Edwards, like Clinton has disavowed his vote for the war. He did so more clearly and he did so earlier. However, I believe that all the Democratic candidates still viable will get us out of the war as soon as possible. I would like Edwards to have more foreign policy experience, but I believe he would do exactly what he says. I think Obama would also get us out of Iraq but I do not like some of the statements he has made on Pakistan. I think they show a sort of cowboy sensibility. Richardson is no longer viable. (I wouldn't be surprised to see him as the VP candidate.) I absolutely believe that, barring the recently dropped out Joe Biden, that Hillary Clinton is absolutely the best candidate bar none to lead us out of Iraq while still providing a safe exit for our troops. Do you wonder why working class and lower class voters in NH voted overwhelmingly for Clinton? Those aren't rich boys and girls dying over there. The military is peopled with men and women who often joined up to increase their economic opportunities as well as to servie their nation. It isn't enough to just shut it down. Early last year I read at Salon Hillary's tentative plan to take us out of Iraq. She was talking not only about exiting but how to exit. What route? We might need more cooperation from Turkey. How to get out with our weapons and equipment rather to leave them for someone who might turn them against us. I was impressed, impressed, impressed.
However, given the fact that I think we will get out of Iraq, period, I turn to John Edwards whose detailed social justice plan just sings to me. Edwards would do things like work to make sure that women, who make less money than men and who are more likely to spend time out of the job market for their children, have an improved access to better Social Security benefits.
Where is Barack Obama on that issue?
John Edwards would raise the minimum wage to $9.50, lift many numbers of poor women from abject poverty?
Where is Barack Obama on that issue?
In John Edwards plan is this bulleted statement: "Help families caring for their parents by expanding access to home health care, creating more choices for long-term care and offering respite care to provide caregivers a break." John Edwards understands how bad the second shift can really be when you are forced to choose between your children and your job or between your aging parent and your job. He understands that people cannot work 24-seven caretaking family members with no break that respite care would provide. Don't think this will ever be your problem? I have one word for you: Alzheimer's. Anyone out there with parents over 60?
Where is Barack Obama on that issue?
Both John Edwards' and Hillary's health care plan would cover everyone. Obama ran a bogus type scare campaign in Iowa alleging to college students that they would not have to have insurance and thus avoid a slight premium. What is bogus? Under Edward's and Hillary's plans, they both project that people with low incomes -- such as students -- would have to pay little to be covered.
Where was Barack Obama on that? Out to lunch! Or maybe he was just hoping.
Have you ever met a college student who is missing his arms and legs because he got into a car with a driver who'd had to much too drink? You think he might need medical care? Ya think?
I want to hope, but I know what I know. Obama uses Republican talking points, he is not clear on what he would do to protect Social Security, he has no more experience than Edwards, and I fear his non-partisan stance, which might lull conservatives, would lead him to make worse compromises with them than Hillary Clinton would ever make.
On foreign policy: Hillary's the gal.
On domestic policy: Edwards' is the guy and the true progressive.
And Obama? He's hoping.
OK, so the line that made me think was this:
However, given the fact that I think we will get out of Iraq, period, I turn to John Edwards whose detailed social justice plan just sings to me.
Edwards would do things like work to make sure that women, who make less money than men and who are more likely to spend time out of the job market for their children, have an improved access to better Social Security benefits.
Where is Barack Obama on that issue?
Yeah, where IS Barack Obama on that issue? I'm just not sure. And that's why I think I'm going with Edwards...because he addresses the fact that there are scary times ahead, the fight of our lives, and tells us what he plans to do about it. Whether he can push his agenda through is another issue, but at least I know what he AIMS for, and that compromise is NOT one of his goals.
Barack, I'm just not sure. The vague smiley-face hope talk just rubs me the wrong way. It reminds me of "Don't Worry, Be Happy" and can't we all just get along? Well, it would be nice if we could, but there are pressing issues in our countr that have come to a huge and horrific head and need addressing NOW. Edwards' plan does sing to me too, I'll admit it. That's a perfect word for it. It is absolute music to my ears hear someone speaking the truth as he does.
I'll think some more, of course...but in my gut I'm pretty sure I'm going with Edwards.
Yes, you have a full 24-hour period tomorrow in which you can do your share to help create world peace, and have fun at the same time. What's not to like about that?
Oh, it's also the Winter Solstice...the shortest day of the year. That's right, from here on out the days only get longer. There's plenty to like about that, too.
But wait, there's more!
My Cooking Collective is making Chili Con Carne and White River Sour Cream Cornbread, so guess what we're having for dinner tomorrow night? Yum.
Now that the Democrats have taken back the Congress and 51+ percent of America finally has a voice in government again, I think it's time to seriously let fly. So at the risk of sounding contentious in this all-too-genuine era (several days) of bipartisanship, here now is a roll call of people who must officially shut the f*** up.
1) Republican trolls who wrap up their anonymous and incomprehensible criticisms of progressives with the phrase, "and that's why your party never wins," need to shut the f*** up.
2) The cowards who so easily disregard our liberties by shrugging off the president's illegal wiretapping; the cowards who shrug off the Military Commissions Act and the death of habeas corpus; and the cowards who shrug off torture with the phrases, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about," or, "You can't [blank] if you're dead," ought to shut the f*** up.
3) Anyone who still believes that global warming is a myth? Shut the f*** up.
4) Rush Limbaugh must shut the f*** up. On second thought, strike that. The more we see Violet Beauregard flapping his arms and mocking Parkinson's patients, the better off the rest of the nation will be.
5) In Ann Coulter's latest column, he wondered when the Democrats would be fitting Senator-Elect Jon Tester with a "leotard." Speaking of tards, Mr. Coulter needs to shut the f*** up. And this order stands for anyone who claims Senator-Elect Tester is a "conservative Democrat." He could very well be the face of the New Progressive Democrat and one of the most genuine lawmakers elected Tuesday. Prediction: if he isn't already, Tester will quickly become a rock star in this party.
6) I think it was Bill Maher who mentioned this but it stands repeating here: neocons who have made multiple rosy predictions about Iraq need to shut the f*** up and are forthwith banned from making any more predictions.
7) Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other homophobes who use the "San Francisco Liberal" label for Speaker-Elect Pelosi must... you know. We all understand that it's right-wing code language meaning "homo-values." If that's what you mean, just say it. That is, unless you're not man enough.
8) If you still believe that Karl Rove is a genius, wizard, architect or anything short of overrated, you must shut the f*** up. One popular vote loss, one win, one near loss to a disorganized opponent and one outright loss means one thing and one thing only: mediocrity. Racking up this kind of record by means of dirty tricks, race-baiting and questioning the patriotism of decorated war veterans makes Rove a mediocre hack at best.
9) Ed Gillespie, the man who's just a neck with a mouth, is officially ordered for the last time to shut the f*** up.
10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference Wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.
"And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories."
"This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate."
"...we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday."
"...and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills."
"We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes."
11) And finally... Mr. President. Saying that you're going to work with Congress and compromise for the sake of the nation doesn't mean shoving your unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Act and your bellicose anti-U.N. U.N. ambassador through a lame duck session. So if you don't really intend to be bipartisan, then shut the f*** up. You pride yourself on letting people know exactly where you stand and, despite the fact that you routinely stand on dangerous principles, there's at least some cold comfort in knowing what you're up to. But it's clear that that President Bush is long gone -- replaced by a man who can't even be honest with his own base about things like the Iraq War, subsequently leaving his allies alone, confused and scrambling to assuage the anger of an increasingly hostile constituency. This last part? Keep it up, thank you.
And that's the roll call. I've spent the last several days not only breathing in the sweet aroma of real-life governmental checks and balances, but I've also been evaluating where we go from here. Clearly Speaker-Elect Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the daunting task of working with the White House to not only push through vital pieces of legislation, but they also must do so in a way that doesn't raze their chances for further pickups in 2008. It goes without saying that any misstep in the face of this Republican Party (and its media lapdogs) could spell disaster. So they have to play nice in some ways, but you and I are best served by remaining on the attack and never hesitating to tell those who deserve it to shut the f*** up.
------
UPDATE: I've been told that Joe McCarthy was the first to use the "Democrat [sic] Party" misnomer. However, its use became much more pervasive when Gingrich and Luntz practically made it mandatory in the ranks of the GOP.
Rumsfeld's resignation was just announced by our stuttering Chief A-Hole.
OK, I MUST be dreaming. No one pinch me though, I don't want to wake up from this.
Or maybe we ALL just woke up from the American nightmare of the past six years?
Good lord, I just caught George Bush saying, "But then again, what do I know?" Yeah George, what DO you know? SHOULDN'T you know?
And there's all this talk of the Baker/Hamilton Commission. How did I miss THAT commission? Must go find out more about them and what they do.
Oh, he just tripped over pronouncing "ideology", and is now berating the interviewer for asking a question about policy.
But you know, instead of feeling deep despair over this kind of thing, I just don't care as much now. You're going down, asshat. You and your hideous ilk.
More good news for all of us...yesterday California's Senate approved a landmark anti-global warming plan that will impose broad caps on its greenhouse-gas emissions. This legislation marks a clear break with the federal government. Backers hope it will become a national model.
California has led the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through its renewable energy policies and a 2004 law reducing tailpipe emissions from vehicles.
Ten other states are poised to enact California's auto rule, while more than 20 states have required utilities to eventually generate some power from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.
For once, the Senate, Assembly AND the Governator worked together to come up with an excellent piece of legislation. Right on.
Republicans blasted the bill, saying the bill would have little effect and make California an expensive place to do business. "This bill is the road to economic ruin for California," said Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth.
Ugh, idiots. yeah, obviously no one wants to live or work in California. Our real estate prices reflect that. Our economy reflects that. If you want to leave and go off to Arizona or Kansas or Bangladesh, have at it, I say. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Cali is climbing back on TOP! THIS is the place to be!
Republicrat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who helped assemble the plan, called Wednesday's agreement "an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues."
Good work Maria. You're doing a good job as the power behind the throne. Whether or not Arnold's just doing this for re-election brownie points or not, it's still a good thing.
Not incompetent, but definitely a bad public speaker....
What was UP with the latest Bush press conference? Well, Job Stewart does a nice job of dissecting it over at the Daily Show.
No, no, Bush is certainly not incompetent, but it does seem like he's possibly the worst public speaker in the history of presidential press conferences. Not only that, but he can't even keep his stories straight.
"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" he questions one reporter. "Nothing!"
Um...yeah.
Why is he so rude? Why does he seem so bi-freakin'-polar? Why does he keep saying "nucular"? Hasn't someone TOLD him how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly by now?
I'm saddened, but not surprised to hear that John Edwards has dropped out of the presidential primary race. John, I am really going to miss you, and I hope you find a position of power and activism in the new administration. Whoever wins, they would be a fool not to include you.
On a totally unrelated superficial note...boo hoo, I was really hoping for President Sexy Handsome. As teapartys_over wrote at Jezebel.com:
