Busytown: Yes he can (or: Is McCain able?)
51 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
my opinion of McCain will take a serious nosedrive if he starts singing from that hymnbook
Funny you should mention singing.
<><
-
Or you pick the rat-bastard you'd rather have down the hall where their potential for trouble-making is limited. About the only reason I can see for Eisenhower selecting Richard Nixon.
And then when it was his turn, Nixon picked Spiro Agnew.
This was a ratchet effect which could only go on for so long, until you get...oh.
-
Graeme, thanks for the break down of the remaining primaries.
-
Meanwhile, if CNN's Virginia exit poll pans out...
It largely has ... and CNN has called Maryland for Obama and McCain, with 0% of the votes counted :-)
-
Classic, now her deputy campaign manager's fallen on his sword too. It's starting to look like a chessboard nearing the endgame.
-
It largely has ... and CNN has called Maryland for Obama and McCain, with 0% of the votes counted :-)
Damn, who do I call in Atlanta for the Lotto numbers. :)
-
-
It hardly matters in any case. No vote... even though the eventual winner of the US election will happily declare herself to be the leader of the free world.
I know, what's up with that. If they truly are the "leaders of the free world" then you think they'd give all of us a say, eh? Now there's a thought. Global vote for the President of the USA and leader of the free world.
-
On the GLBT issues discussed on the previous page of this thread:
I am in contact with a few US lesbian feminists, most of whom are pretty critical of both Obama and Clinton. They tend to say neither would fix the broken state of US politics, as they are both backed by powerful corporate and/or militaristic interests that dominate the current system. These lesbian feminists further to the left than either of the leading Dem presidential candidates. Some decided to vote for Obama, some Clinton, (most because it came down to a choice between these 2), but many prefer Kucinich, many others prefer Edwards, and 1 or 2 prefer the Greens.
I was looking out for Clinton and Obama's positions on GLBT issues. As I saw it, Clinton made stronger statements in support of GLBT issues, and earlier than Obama. I know Bill backed down on GLBT issues under conservative pressures during his presidency. But, would Obama be any different? I can't see how he can both unite opposing forces and make a strong stand on potentially divisive issues like some GLBT ones. As HRC says, differences won't go away after a president is chosen and many issues require negotiation.
On her website it's stated that Clinton is for repeal of Don't ask don't tell. I've also read many criticisms of Obama for shifting his positions on several similar issues depending on his audience and the context.
-
That's fascinating, Carolyn. Makes me want to find out where Obama - and his fairly evangelical church -- stands on the GLBT issues.
I wonder if Hillary will get a chance to clear her good name in this area, since the name "Clinton" is attached to two explicitly homophobic pieces of legislation. The horribly titled Defence of Marriage Act was signed into law by a President who wasn't exactly defensive about his own damn marriage. And it was entirely of a (craven, gay-bashing) piece with the "compromise" that created Don't Ask Don't Tell -- aka Don't Get Me Started on the impact on military linguists and translators, among others.
You nailed that one, Craig (are you off the naughty step yet?):
when we're seeing desperately needed Farsi translators being discharged under this policy it's not merely obnoxious, but an active threat to national (and international) security.
More details about that effect here and, somewhat tragicomically, here.
Whoever wins the nomination should repeal both of these embarrassing, divisive, cynical civil rights violations. But they'd have to win the election to do that. And remembering how the mere spectre of (gasp) gay marriage was so effectively deployed as a wedge issue in 2004 and 2006, I can understand their reluctance to discuss these issues at length in the campaign.
I deplore it, but I can understand it.
-
OK, here is our man Obama having a bet both ways in 2006, when Colorado Republican Senator Wayne Allard was wheeling out the perennial, but so-far ill-fated, Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution for the third time (yes, the mother-flippin' US Constitution! Founding document, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, votes for women, civil rights, etc etc -- oh except for gay people).
Said Obama:
"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."
As indeed they always have been, except when they've been ruled unconstitutional. Hence the battle over the constitutional amendment, a would-be pre-emptive strike against the gay equivalent of Loving v. Virginia.
Admittedly Obama's statement doesn't seem quite so heinous if you read the entire speech he made opposing the amendment. But that retreat into "states' rights" is an intriguing tactic, especially since it's traditionally been the realm of conservatives who want to preserve dodgy local traditions like, say, segregation.
On the other hand, "states' rights" works fairly well for things like medicinal marijuana, the death penalty, assisted suicide. If by "works fairly well" you mean "makes possible major practical variations while still leaving gaping holes in the question of federal jurisdiction over individuals acting within the laws of their state."
It's all very confusing.
-
Yeah, sometimes the state rights thing is just a complete dodge on the part of federal politicians - I believe in this, but if I say it I'll be crucified by the electorate - but on other times it's a way to get around the federal government and get some good things happening at least in a few states.
I think it's one of the reasons I don't like a federation not having more control. Being gay/non-white/an immigrant/female can be a completely different experience from one state to the other. Don't get me started on how two crimes in different states can lead to death in one and 20 years in prison in the other.
Feels wrong for these things to be decided by what side of a line you fall on, when you can't even see the line.
-
Krugman has some interesting observations on the dyamics of the campaign.
-
I think it's one of the reasons I don't like a federation not having more control. Being gay/non-white/an immigrant/female can be a completely different experience from one state to the other
Hum... there might be one or two gay couples legally married in the Commonwealth of Mass. who are pleased a certain consitutional ammendment (which was even opposed by principled conservatives like Bob Barr, no friend of teh gayz) died a death.
-
Craig... absolutely they will be pleased, and thats great for them.... but what about others in different states who cant achieve that same happiness?
The whole shtick about "human rights" is that they apply to all... with no preference or discrimination...
The categories we often think about that shouldnt be discriminated against are along the lines of sex / religion / race / and now sexual orientation.... but surely rights should also apply regardless of which state you live in?
-
Yes. It's entirely likely of course, that if it was pushed up to the federal level, that no one would have gay marriage anywhere in the States. In the short term that's worse, but I do wonder if the current situation creates 'gay silos' - states or cities which have more liberal laws, and if live outside of them, you're a bit screwed sorry.
I wonder if, in the long term, making it a federal issue will eventually win it country-wide. Or lose it? At least politicans would have to face up to it, and having politicians on both sides of the issue front up and say what they believe... got to be a good thing, unpleasant as it might get.
But for all the talk of equal under the law, citizens of the United States etc, clearly that's not the case. The place you live can mean you're more/less discriminated against under law, and the more such things are left to the states, the more that's going to happen.
-
My older boy is a confirmed Obama fan, and ventured the other day that "African American people are just smarter at the job than women."
If only Cleopatra Jones were running!
Because I'm far too busy and important to do my own research, can someone please tell me what the likelihood of Clinton taking Obama for VP or vice versa is, depending on who wins the nomination?
When asked that question the candidates gave the following responses:
Clinton: "A Snowballs Chance In Hell"
Obama: "When Pigs Fly"When told of the other candidates response, each candidate further responded:
Clinton: "Is that a sexist slur?"
Obama: "Is that an ethnic slur?"</sound of foghorn>
Okay, well, ... I thought this cartoon was kind of funny.
-
I think a Clinton-Obama (or vise-versa) ticket would be fantastic.... and hopefully neither's ego is too big to accept 2nd place (but there's a lot of doubt over that)...
But neither of them can admit it before they've lost....
If you really want to win, and voters are closely split... if you admit you could settle for second, the voters will no longer have huge issues wondering which way to go.... you'll just become a self fulfilling prophesy and get 2nd by admitting you''d take it.
Once you're the 'loser' VP could well be attractive... but while you're in the running for winning, you cant possibly admit it...
-
From the NY Times:
With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.
Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.
...
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. They said the Democratic Party’s rules, which award delegates relatively evenly among the candidates based on the proportion of the vote they receive, would require her to win by huge margins in those states to match Mr. Obama in delegates won through voting.
Interesting times.
-
...pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
This is a little misleading. The issue would have to be put before the rules committee who would then make a decision. It's not in defiance of any rules to do that - that's just what people can do. It's an appeals process.
As far as I can gather Clinton will not have to put this forward - the Florida Dems will do that. It's tricky, they bucked the rules and paid a price - no delegates - but then gaining the wroth of 1.7 million voters in Florida may be a high price as well.
There's quite a good backgrounder on Obama's stance on the Iraq war here. He's been a bit more nuanced on this than his speeches often indicate.
-
So McCain doesn't vote against the waterboarding ban. Seriously, wtf? I had thought this would be his one red line.
-
So McCain doesn't vote against the waterboarding ban.
don't rely on Sullivan's interpretation - have a read of what McCain actually says which is at the bottom of the post. His view is that torure is already illegal under current statutes. (which is what many critics of Bush have been saying). He wants current legislation which bans torture to be interpreted and enforced they way it was intended. There's little point in having new legislation if that isn't going to be adhered to either.
he's got a point and he is definitely not arguing for torture. He could still have voted for this new legisation but his reasons for not voting for it have merit.
-
Right, but on the other hand if put to vote one should support it, even if one agrees with McCain - even if the vote is just a symbolic gesture
-
I would have voted for it but McCain has particular reasons not to which don't include support for torture.
The Harvard Human Rights Journal has a critique of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which McCain sponsored and which is the basis for McCain's argument that torture is already illegal.
Section 1003 explicitly states that no government agency can use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The article pints out how an administration can get round this (which is what happened).
So McCain has a point - apply existing legislation as it was intended.
-
This may be the latest response to a topic (since the previous last post) so far on PA. But what the hey, here's the gist of what I wrote to Anjum/stargazer in relation to Obama's expedient response to rumours that he swore an oath on the Quran:
Anjum wrote: "you get the sense that he is a little ashamed of his past and would rather de-emphasise it."
I don't entirely agree, at least with the first part. He is in a difficult position. As a previous commentator on Stargazer suggests, it's possible the US just isn't ready for a black president. I was talking with some American acquaintances recently and they think he has no show of winning, because there are just too many 'middle Americans' whom could not abide a black leading their country. So I think he needs to be cut a little slack on this sort of thing. I don't think he's ashamed of his past, but he doesn't, during an election, want to emphasise aspects of his past and private life that may play into the hands of those that would focus on and overstate them for easy political gain.
I prefer his understandable "de-emphasis" to Hillary's rebranding herself a down home beer-swilling boar shooting hog-tying good ol' girl. I half expect her to start finishing her speeches with "Yee-Ha!"
Post your response…
This topic is closed.