Hey Howard Dean!

Just sent a message that is ostensibly to Howard Dean. Here's what I told him (or whichever aide ends up reading my message).

We have a candidate who is ahead in delegates, ahead in state contests won, and ahead in the popular vote. Sen. Clinton does have every right to stay in the race, but she does not have the right to claim that it's for the good of the Democratic party. Take a look at Sen. Clinton's website. She's doing so poorly that she doesn't even list any of her election standings on her front page. Or anywhere that I could find. Campaigns can be forgiven for hiding a lot of things, but hiding the reality of her standings from her own promoters?

McCain cannot be beaten on toughness or experience by anyone in this campaign, because nothing they can say will compete with a "When I was in Vietnam..." story. End of line. He can be beaten on the wisdom of his policies, on his disdain for huge sweeping demographics in this country. The only person running who can defeat him on that territory is Senator Obama, and the votes are showing it. When will the Democratic party figure that out?

Share your thoughts, too.

As far as I'm concerned, this is all there is to it. Clinton, as of tonight, is listing her Pennsylvania win as a turn in the tide. She's depending on this one state to stay in a race that she cannot win. Huckabee didn't even take this long to learn his lesson.

Obamarama!

Barack Obama is Not Jesus

Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of "coming to Obama" in the same way born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."

But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart. And even if he is elected, in no way will that show that somehow we have "gotten beyond" race.

The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can"? Such a movement becomes a cult or personality rather than engine for social justice and political transformation. And personality cults can be a huge turnoff to those who are not already drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is part of an effort on my part to figure out why people are against Obama because he's just too damned charismatic. I think I have a better idea now, though I honestly still find myself agreeing with one of the comments on this entry.

I can appreciate the concerns expressed, but feel that you're making some hasty conclusions based on a very small sample. There will be passionate supporters on both sides. That you have not seen the same kind of reactions from HRC supporters doesn't mean they're not out there (and judging from the more vituperative tone coming out of the blogosphere from HRC supporters, I can see why euphoria over her candidacy is not coming through). Second, consider the age factor. Obama has attracted a veritable army of young supporters whose tendencies to emote or place their support in a messianic context is far more likely than older supporters. But don't discount the existence of a large number of older supporters for Obama as well, who I suspect are a bit more calculated in their support.

With respect to discussing the issues, I think asking young supporters with little life or political experience to represent to the democratic electorate the nuances between Clinton's and Obama's positions is asking for trouble. I have to believe the same is true in Clinton's campaign. Overall votes will win the election, but the candidates' most articulate supporters will be the core of the grass roots information campaign to attract voters.

At an Obama rally in Nevada last month I had to chuckle at the number of teen volunteers on hand who were fairly clueless about the event itself. Billed as a town hall, I wanted to find out the format for submitting questions. None of the teens I spoke with could say. I don't see that as a blot on the Obama campaign, but a function of accepting help whereever on can get it and not asking more of the youngsters than they can take on.

As to whether Obama supporters will rally to the democratic nomineee, I guess that's a genuine concern, but is a bit moot at this stage. If Clinton gets the nomination it will be her job to unify the party and motivate the base. It's not a fair criticism of Obama's campaign to suggest that his supporters won't back HRC down the road.

Thanks for voting today!

Dems in '08!!! -GMan08

So my general opinion is this: There are people in all political parties who'll support a candidate without really knowing what they're doing. However, no Obama supporter I've spoken to (and this means basically all of my classmates) are supporting him just because he's pretty and speaks well. I for one checked out what he's done in his Senate terms and previous employment, etc. before I even watched him speak. I can't even watch television in my house; I had to go out of my way to find youtube videos of him speaking after I'd already decided I preferred him.

So quit painting all Obama supporters as the same kind of plodding lazy sheep every other campaign has within its supporter-base. Check Huckabee's folk, HRC's folk, Ron Paul's folk, Romney's folk, McCain's folk. There are always people who haven't done their homework.

But honest to fuck, people, do you really think that none of us knows any better? Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to check eBay for fragments of Obama's clothing to use as medicinal cures.

im in mah womb killin ur babehz

What the Huck?

The world is much stupider than I think it is. I require daily reminders of this, though it really ought to be a given by now.

Today, Governor Mike Huckabee is scheduled to travel to Georgia to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. There he plans to join Georgia Right to Life to lend his support, as well as the focus of the national media, to HR 536. This legislation, also called the Human Life Amendment, is a state constitutional amendment that reclassifies the most effective and popular forms of contraception as abortion. The goal of the amendment is to create a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade while also defining life as beginning at fertilization. The anti-abortion movement believes that hormonal contraception (the pill, the patch, the depo shot, the nuva ring, the IUD) can destroy a fertilized egg. By setting in law the assertion -- the unproveable assertion -- that life begins at the moment of fertilization, the most common forms of contraception become abortion.

(snip)

That's why, for many pro-life leaders, Huckabee's support of their anti-contraception campaigns makes him the real deal. Randy Alcorn, author of Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? (Alcorn's answer: yes) earned a spot on Huckabee's Faith and Family Values Coalition beside others who are deeply opposed to contraception.

Huckabee is not the only candidate wooing the anti-contraception base. Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachussetts, vetoed a contraception bill claiming the emergency contraception was an "abortive" drug. The McCain campaign boasts he has always opposed funding of family planning programs. Neither of these two frontrunners have embraced the anti-contraception rhethoric and strategy as fully as Huckabee, however. When Huckabee describes himself as "consistently pro-life" this is what he means. If only the majority of pro-life voters who overwhelmingly support contraception understood that.

AAAAGHGGDHGSDFGDSGBDFGFDGD

There. I feel that about sums it up.

WHOSE IDEA WAS THIS

This is the best thing that has ever happened.

Y'know how Huckabee had that endorsement from Chuck Norris? HE AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' MAN!

I was in hysterics for a good few minutes. I couldn't speak or move or do anything but cry and laugh.

Edit: Twenty minutes later and I'm still chuckling. I changed my mind. I love politics.

Iowa and the Poles of Protestantism

Iowa and the Poles of Protestantism (by Diana Butler Bass)

Now that the people of Iowa have chosen Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama as their nominees for president, pundits will spend much of the next few days (until New Hampshire at least) analyzing the results. Many will note religion as an important factor—especially as evangelicals turned out largely for Huckabee.

But evangelicals are not the only religion story from Iowa. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama represent something much more profound in American politics and religion. With Huckabee as a Southern Baptist and Obama as a member of the United Church of Christ, the two men symbolize the poles of Protestantism, the divided soul of America's majority religion.

Good to see that the left is attempting to break the conservative monopoly on religion. This was one of the notable things about this election from the start: the left is getting religion involved.

Enter no conflict against fanatics unless you can defuse them. Oppose a religion with another religion only if your proofs (miracles) are irrefutable or if you can mesh in a way that the fanatics accept you as god-inspired.
--Missionaria Protectiva, Primary Teaching

I think Obama's got a good shot at defusing the fanatics we're dealing with these days. Edwards has changed his tune drastically in the last few years building up to this election, and I think that the people he's trying to pander to right now are going to realize that's all he's doing. They need more than that from a candidate, and Edwards is so clearly insincere that hopefully his target constituency will realize it. Hillary's the same deal.

Unlike many folk, I'm not really all that worried about Huckabee getting the Iowa top spot. If I were going to pick a candidate who was most clearly insane and unelectable, that's the one I'd choose. I mean, heck. This is why people cross party lines to vote in each other's primaries: to get people like Huckabee the nomination because he'll be easier to tear down later.

This is particularly true if he's facing up against someone like Obama. A real bona fide fringe whacko only has a couple of things working in his favor. One is a clear monopoly on Good Godfearing American Protestantism. If he's up against Obama (who according to this article represents an equally old and powerful strain of American Protestantism), Obama will have this weapon at his disposal as well. That's how you defuse fanatics.

Without being able to invoke the status of "Only Good Christian Candidate," Huckabee will have to fall back on sense. He'll have to prove somehow that what he wants will work better than what Obama wants. The real question at that point becomes "work better for WHAT?"

Well, Huckabee seems to be in the crowd actively working toward the Rapture. What this means for the rest of us is that Huckabee wants to end the world as we know it. Repeat that so that you know you're really absorbing it. End the world. I don't want that to be the goal of my next President. In fact, I'd be happier with anybody who didn't want to end the world. Rapturists are not concerned with making this world a better place. Got it?

So how does Obama answer the question "better for what?" Better for women's quality of life. Better for racial/ethnic minorities' quality of life. Better for religious minorities' quality of life. Check his voting record--I posted it here--and see for yourself. Looks a hell of a lot better than "end the world ASAP," doesn't it?