jrtom: (Default)
and has some amusing and cogent things to say about jocks and nerds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW7OPByRGDY
jrtom: (Default)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEyLuiVkdd-f1RM5wnoR0kF4WbvgD94FHP480

...threatening?

...feces-smearing?

...mock-lynching?

*sigh*

For those that suggested that anti-woman prejudice was responsible for Obama's victory over Senator Clinton in the primaries: maybe that hurt her more than anti-black prejudice hurt Obama. I doubt it, but it's possible; it's a complex issue, and certainly members of both groups have been discriminated against.

But, while I may be wrong, somehow I doubt that women everywhere would have been attacked, or harassed (at least in the same way), for voting for Clinton in the general election, had she won the nomination.
jrtom: (Default)
We're not done, of course.

We actually have really just started.

But I am optimistic in that we have elected a smart, pragmatic, phlegmatic individual who appears to share most of my priorities, and at least some of my principles.

If Obama actually survives his Presidency, I think we might actually see some significant positive changes in how we conduct our foreign policy, satisfy and manage our energy needs, handle our national finances, and provide health care.

Good luck, President-elect Obama--and let us know what we will need to do to help.
jrtom: (Default)
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/546

Especially interesting given Obama's background as a community organizer. I wonder how much he had to do with the specific form that this organization has taken?
jrtom: (Default)
I'm looking to have some conversations about the upcoming elections. (The US Presidential elections, primarily, although if there's anyone that wants to talk about WA Congressional or state-level elections, that's fine too.)

The reason why I'm putting this out there: )

Let's talk.
jrtom: (Default)
http://bsalert.com/news/2310/Jimmy_Carters_Proposed_Energy_Policy_In_1977.html

I've been saying that I've been looking forward to Obama being president (*crosses fingers*), in part because it would be nice to have an adult in the position.

I'd managed to forget that we already had one of those recently, and we didn't listen to him. *sigh*

(This doesn't change my mind. But it makes me a bit less optimistic.)
jrtom: (Default)
...and it is herself:

from http://rivka.livejournal.com/426444.html, quoting this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."


I actually don't think that Clinton meant to equate "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans". Honestly, I think she stumbled and meant to say something semantically equivalent to "blue-collar whites". I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't actually believe, even in her heart of hearts, that Obama's supporters are primarily either overeducated (*cough*Wellesley/Yale*cough*) or black (or that blacks are neither working nor hard-working).

(I _am_ annoyed at the fact that she keeps bringing race back into this as part of an argument about electability--even though there's little real data to suggest that blue-collar white voters are unwilling to vote for Obama: saying "they didn't vote for him now running against me, so they won't if he's running against McCain" is a hard case to make, and I don't think she's made it. But that's a separate issue.)

Here's the funny thing: I think that the only person that can save her right now is...Obama. And I think that he should.

He could basically stand up and say "You know, I'm sure that she meant to say "blue-collar white voters". And then go on to both (a) debunk this statement, once again, and (b) decry this sort of race-based analysis. This would give him another opportunity to present himself as presidential...and to start reaching out to her partisans.

This wouldn't give Clinton any advantage (calling attention to her error won't help her, even if he forgives her and makes it clear that he believes it was a stumble rather than a miscalculation), and could be a really impressive political judo move on his part.
jrtom: (Default)
This is a fascinating exploration and comparison of Nixon and Reagan, and their analogues (true and false) to the current Democratic candidates. (No points awarded for guessing which one is which ahead of time.)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/7/17115/19484/791/508728
jrtom: (Default)
I've been really annoyed recently by the abuse of the phrase "mathematically impossible" in the popular press to describe the likelihood of either of the following:

(a) either candidate gaining the support of at least 2025 delegates (pledged or super)...
(b) Senator Clinton gaining the support of more pledged delegates than Senator Obama...

...by the time the primaries are over (but before the convention).

In short: neither of these are "impossible". Highly unlikely, maybe. But calling it "mathematically impossible" is simply ridiculous.

math geeking )
jrtom: (Default)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story

...[Obama] had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides.


That's...impressive. Not many people I know go to that much trouble to make sure that they understand all sides of an issue before taking a stand on it, and I'm not aware of any politicians that behave so.

Of course the author of this article is biased...but if even half of what he says is accurate, he's got the potential to be a kickass President, by my standards at least.
jrtom: (Default)
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

Apparently he was quoting someone else, although it's hard to know where that quote left off and his own words began again.

Anyone got a link to the sermon in which Wright said "God damn America?"

(My personal take on this is that Wright is getting a lot of flak for what is primarily what one might call "preaching while black". That is to say, there really are a lot of extant injustices being done to blacks, and historically there have been many, many more...so one can hardly blame them for being pissed off about it. Not to say that I agree with everything he says, or consider his comments to be constructive...but I don't necessarily condemn him, either.)
jrtom: (Default)
Wow.

link to YouTube video of speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Reading this speech almost brought tears to my eyes.

Tears of a different sort--disbelief, rage--may be found in some of the comments to the WSJ's posting of this transcript:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/?mod=googlenews_wsj

As the man says, his candidacy--even his Presidency, should he achieve it, which I now fervently hope--won't solve this problem. As some of those comments clearly demonstrate.

But _damn_, I admire his straightforward approach to actually hauling this out in the open.
jrtom: (Default)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that

(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination

(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)

(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.

Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.

I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)
jrtom: (Default)
Because, you know, talk is cheap and all that.

But, damn:

http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/jefferson-jackson-day-dinner/

It may be rhetoric, but it's at least rhetoric that I'm happy to be hearing right about now.

Profile

jrtom: (Default)
jrtom

May 2011

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
1516 1718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 20 July 2017 16:30
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios