Sara at Diotima is criticizing NOW:
Sara then asks what my opinion is. (Although she also says something about the “feminist-on-the-street,” and you know, I don’t think I’m really very “street.”)
First, if NOW thinks that sexism and racism are the reason that Moseley Braun’s campaign has been ignored by the press, then that alone is an excellent reason for NOW to endorse Moseley Braun. Resistance to sexism and racism is, I think most feminists would agree, self-evidently a good course of action to take. Some might object that Moseley Braun “can’t win” – to which NOW could justly reply, only resisting sexism and racism when you’re guaranteed to win is called “cowardice.”
Secondly, what harm is done by endorsing Moseley Braun? Again, critics will say that no one should ever endorse a candidate who “can’t win,” but I disagree.
There is a time, I think, for progressives, leftists and liberals – including progressive feminists – to band together and concentrate on knocking Bush out of the White House. That time is later, after a candidate (hopefully one who is at least marginally acceptable to progressives and feminists) has been selected by Democratic voters. Meanwhile, however, it’s perfectly appropriate to vote our dreams and principles. Maybe later it’ll make sense to vote for something else, but if you can’t vote – and endorse – your dreams in a primary, then when on earth can you?
Third, on what I’d consider mainstream feminist issues – pro-choice, pro-child-care, pro-helping-poor-mothers-and-children, etc etc – Moseley Braun is as good or better than any of the other candidates running. Purely on the issues, she’s a reasonable choice. (Personally, I prefer Kucinich – who is all that, plus stronger on labor issues – but Kucinich’s recent flip-flop into the pro-choice camp is a legitimate reason for NOW and other feminist orgs to resist his campaign).
Finally, I think that it’s fine if NOW prefers Moseley-Braun in part because she’s a woman and because she’s black.
Isn’t that racist and sexist?
No, it isn’t. Having a preference for women of color without regard to their political views would be sexist and racist, but it’s clear that NOW wouldn’t have endorsed Moseley Braun if NOW didn’t agree with Braun’s politics.
But why should NOW consider Moseley Bruan’s race and sex at all? Because a non-racist, non-sexist government should include all sexes and races at every level. To date, 0% of American presidents have been women and 0% have been non-white. All else being more-or-less equal among the candidates, I’d prefer the non-white, non-male candidate – simply because we’d be a better country if the presidency wasn’t a white-male-only office.
As Moseley Braun has said, it’s time to rip the “men only” sign off the oval office’s door. She’s the only candidate whose election will accomplish that. If NOW wants to endorse her for that reason (as well as for her stands on the issues), that seems fine to me.
Which is why (despite what I’ve said in the past) I’m now leaning towards voting for Moseley Braun, rather than for Kucinich, in the primaries..
I recently watched a town meeting or something with the Democratic candidates, and since then I’ve really liked Moseley-Braun. Whereas before that I considered myself on the fence between Dean and Kucinich, in said town meeting was particularly invigorating, and didn’t match Moseley-Braun’s intelligent, well-thought out comments. Although all were preferable to Gephardt’s “When Bush says jump, I ask how high” approach, or Lieberman’s “Those damn liberal Republicans are too left wing” approach. But especially after reading this post, I think it’s enough to push me more firmly into the Moseley-Braun camp.
amp, when you said that kucinich is “all that,” i thought you were pretty “street.”
All good arguments. But there’s an overseas question to be addressed, IMO. A Matt Yglesias thread had a recent comment from Abiola Lapite, a right-wing Nigerian resident in Europe, who’s angry but pretty honest. He angrily condemned CMB for her intimacy with Abacha (?), and mentioned friends and family of his whom Abacha’s men had killed. An aunt in a wheelchair was thrown out of a window.
I’d think googling “Moseley-Braun and Abacha” would turn up information pro and con. But if this were my candidate, I’d feel it needed weighing.
Endorsing Mosely-Braun at this juncture also gives NOW the opportunity for publicity twice. By all indications, CMB won’t go the distance in the nominations sweepstakes, and when she leaves NOW will then have another chance to endorse a candidate.
Wow, N, how Machiavellan.
NOW is not a perfect organization, but I’m glad to see them take responsibility for shaping the tone of political debate by endorsing Ms. Moseley-Braun. It’s not enough for anyone to say, especially at this juncture, that any candidate simply “can’t win” out of one side of her mouth while extolling the virtues of democracy out the other. Either we actively work to shape the world where a woman like Moseley-Braun CAN be taken seriously and CAN win, or we do not. In the latter case, our democracy becomes nothing more than a sad, sick joke, public debate and voter ideology (or lack of same) are relegated to the status of weather patterns (you can’t shape it, so dress appropriately or stay indoors, you pathetic insignifigant worms) and the pre-election season becomes nothing more than an all-pale-male beauty pageant.
No thanks.
The irony of feminists, in particular, writing off Mosely-Braun because they’re scared of looking “divisive” or “silly” or what have you should not be lost on anyone with half a brain. Where exactly would feminism be if our foremothers had put their fears of looking bad to the public at large ahead of their desire for positive change ? Why in blazes is contemptable passivity, in the form of who is “electable/can win,” the only thing that seems to pass for action these days ?
I’m glad one group of mainstream feminists, at least, is not content to let Moseley-Braun twist in the wind for the sake of “electability.”
Excellently stated Amy. I think this whole thing of passing up candidates who are “unelectable” really highlights a bigger problem which is the complete lack of trust in our democratic system. This was only compounded by the fact that we can name all five people who put Bush into office. But if we just give up on it, and go along with all the games, then there won’t ever be hope for change.
All true, and valuable, but it doesn’t address Nigeria.
Clearly I’m a GOP troll.
Ah, last night we were discussing how the system should work to be more streamlined. Instead of going through this whole internecine struggle that is called the “primary”, why not just set a start date and an end date for fundraising. At the end date, whoever has the most money gets the nomination and all other candidates are required to shift their “warchest” to the winner. Saves time, saves money and, most of all, doesn’t allow a party to destroy it’s own candidates before the general election.
And maybe we don’t need a general “election” either. All party/independents running fer prez just have the first Tues in Nov. as the end date for fundraising and whoever has the most gets to be prez for the next four years. It’s just so nice and neat and saves a whole lot of federal dollars in matching funds.
John, I do think the Nigeria thing is a legitimate question, but it’s one that I haven’t yet had time and inclination to research; hence no answer to it yet.
I don’t think anyone here is denying that it could be a legitimate question, or calling you a GOP troll for bringing it up.
John, those questions have been answered. Braun was grilled about her trips to Nigeria during her confirmation hearing for the ambassadorship. As Jesse Jackson, Jr. said, she answered those questions with grace and candor.
If you rely on googling “Abacha and `Moseley Braun'” you will undoubtedly come across smears, innuendos, and half-truths. The reasons for that may or may not be clear to you. Let me put it this way, if you wanted her Senate seat, who would rather campaign against, Sani Abacha or Carol Moseley Braun? Just add money and stir.
The truth is she was not intimate with Abacha. She met the man twice, once when she was introduced, and once at a funeral. You may read that her campaign manager worked for Abacha, but that is also a distortion, as he worked for a firm that had done pr work for the Nigerian government. To me that doesn’t constitute intimacy or anything like it. The notion that she condoned human rights abuses is preposterous. She supported the same set of sanctions favored by President Clinton. Perhaps that’s enough to raise doubts in your mind, but, as I said, she answered those questions before her congressional colleagues, and you can read her responses to questions from the press, such as on Meet the Press, The NewsHour, or in Essence magazine.
What more is there to say?
shawn, I first heard about this when Abiola Lapite brought it up. He was vehement. I don’t know that his account excludes yours, since I really know nothing about this. Thank you for offering some data. My position coincides with Ampersand’s in his most recent comment.
“Meanwhile, however, it’s perfectly appropriate to vote our dreams and principles. Maybe later it’ll make sense to vote for something else, but if you can’t vote – and endorse – your dreams in a primary, then when on earth can you”
I’ll never understand the notion of voting as some sort of life affirming act. Anyone looking for fulfillment of their “dreams and principles” in the voting booth is desperately searching in the wrong place. The concept of voting, democracy, etc… is a big deal that should inspire all those participate. However, the practical application of elections and voting should never be confused with a religious experience. I look for inspiration in a good book, a piece of artwork or an act of human kindness, not when I vote.
Cynical practicality may not be a poetic stance, but to search for deeper meaning in a process almost completely devoid any nuance or depth is futile.
I reiterate my relief that Riffing’s modus operandi was not that of feminism’s founders. Nor that of the founders of the Civil Rights movement, and so on, and so on. It’s a piss-poor way to lead a movement for change just as it was then.
I guess it’s easy to laud the shit out of those people once they’re safely dead and sanctified, but too hard to do it when they’re alive and personally getting in your oh-so “realstic” face. Real democracy is not about some new-Age idea of “affirmation,” despite the opinions of the Riffings in this country, is not all about warm fuzzies. It’s about constantly questioning what is accepted as normal, not being afraid to piss off people or shake them up. It’s about not being afraid to be called a fool at best or a troublemaker/threat at worst. That’s what challenging assumptions is all about. If it were just about going with the flow, what would be the point ?
Besides, why is it not a call for “affirmation” at its worst when we are exhorted in the name of practicality to all get in line behind yet another White Male Moderate ? It seems almost downright Orwellian to claim that only those who have the temerity to buck the status quo in public are the ones calling for “affirmation.” Never mind: Rhetorical question. (rolleyes)
Thanks to Raznor, at least, I don’t have to spend every waking moment on the ‘Net feeling like I’m just spitting in the wind. I have a feeling that as the election approaches, however, I’m going to have to spend less and less time here just out of a sense of self-preservation. To switch on Fox or crack open *WSJ* and see even the most timid sputters of liberalism damned as a sign of the End Times is bad enough. Seeing well-meaning liberals and Progressives so cowed after 20-odd years of Reaganistic policies and punditry that they constantly demean their own best instincts and practices BEFORE the Right even gets around to it… Well, it just makes me want to crawl into a deep pit and hibernate there until the whole sorry election business is over. :(
Speaking of Ms. Moseley Braun, did anyone catch the Democratic Debate in New Mexico?
Yup. I thought it was Kucinich and Gephardt’s show (I’m a Kerry supporter). The rest pretty much tied, except Lieberman took positions that will definitely alienate Dems, and two people took huge great swings at Dean: Lieberman and Kucinich. Lieberman was met with stunned silence – he said Dean’s insistence on US rights for any country we traded with was “stunning” and would devastate jobs, and Dean said he didn’t mean US standards, he meant world standards. Lieberman said he could endorse Dean’s change of position. Media take on this will be interesting, but Lieberman got no applause. Kucinich tackled Dean on his budget, saying it was nonsense and ending “Hello?”, and he got laughter and cheers. All very interesting. About half did the Spanish bit, including Dean, Lieberman, Kucinich, and Edwards. Gephardt was on fire, I’ve never seen him like that. It was nice. He kept repeating “miserable failure.” Moseley-Braun was fine, and she had a great bit about Hispanic women making 56 cents on the dollar: “You can’t use 56 cents to buy a dollar loaf of bread.” She made that a top priority, which I’ve not heard from anyone else. There’s a good reason to support her. Pretty much each had one great idea, and collectively they trashed Bush. I like the nine-person tag team. Sharpton couldn’t make it.
John, aha. That name rings some bells (is that a nom de guerre?). I found this Mr. Abiola’s blog, and his comments regarding Braun on Matthew Yglesias’ blog, which you posted at too. From his other views, this Mr. Abiola sounds like he has many ideological reasons for opposing Braun, quite apart from his seething hatred (which may have personal roots, and in the grand scheme of things be understandable, if peevish, as misplaced anger is a common enough phenomenon in such cases). Anyway, I think the ridiculousness of his accusations speaks for itself. For the contrary view, check out the confirmation hearings from 1999, which you can find via thomas. Sen. Helms railed against her, and Fitzgerald joined him in opposing her nomination. Many senators spoke on her behalf, and in the end they decided 96 to 2 that these and other criticisms were without merit (with the abstainers indicating they would have voted to confirm.)
Since we are unlikely to get a fair election in 2004, waiting until the primaries like this was still a functional democracy is self-destructive. Supporting minor candidates is noble, but foolhardy, under the coup-conditions we are living in. We need the STRONGEST crossover candidate we can find: and that is Howard Dean, preferably with Clark as VP (though I would be happier with someone like Barbara Boxer…Clark is of course a much stronger pick given the war hysteria). Feminism is not shooting oneself in the foot.
“Feminism is not shooting oneself in the foot.”
Ah. I see. It’s about shooting other feminists, or at least gagging them and shoving them into the nearest closet until the more-or-less-democracy gets done annointing the nearest more-or-less non-Neanderthal White male ex-General. Thanks for straightening me out, Brother. No, really, I mean it.
(Let’s see… shovel, tarp, bottled water, alarm clock, protein bars… yep, I’m all set. See you all sometime in January 2005 !!)
Paul = a Dean supporter who calls supporting minor candidates is noble and foolhardy. This is ironic because I remember how until Dean raised $6,000,000 or something in the second quarter he was considered a minor candidate. So, the question is, when did supporting Dean stop being foolhardy?
Who cares, Raznor ? Dean has White skin and a penis, so shut up !!!
I envy and respect those who still get excited about politicians – especially national politicians – even if I believe their energies and emotions are wasted when they are focused on fringe, no-chance candidates.
The stakes are very high in the next election, and “cynical pragmatists” like me are beginning to get concerned that the democrats might blow it again. So, all the heartfelt, sincere blather about no-chance candidates combined with the simmering hostility to the inevitable democratic nomination of an affluent white male is extremely distressing. The system sucks, and it will not get any better before November 2004. In fact, it is likely to get much worse. To play the game without a clear understanding of the rules (or lack there of) is either naïve, negligent or both.
Amy, your choice in 2004 will be George Bush and a white man democrat (with a penis). What will you do? Vote green? Not vote? Or, fall in line and vote for the democrat? I’m thinking end-game, and wonder why so many people are still preoccupied with the introductions. My sincere wish is that the current pre-primary circus is just healthy party politics that will work to simultaneously select a consensus nominee for 2004 as well as to re-establish democratic priorities as democratic priorities, but who knows. The democrats lost an election they barely won, and should have won by a landside. It can’t get any more pathetic than that (can it?).
I used to think that any democrat was on average marginally better than any republican. After the last 3 years, the republicans have done more to crystallize the identity of the democratic party and my affinity to it than the democrats have been able to do in the last 40 years. Now, the margin between any democrat (even the dreadful Lieberman) and any republican is so huge, that I will be content (as well as satisfied and relieved) no matter whom the democrats choose as long as they don’t lose again.
The sad thing, is, Riffing, that your– er, riff on this election is only a ramped-up version of the same spiel I’ve been hearing prior to elections my whole life. I’m glad it’s still so fresh and resonant for you, but it stopped being that for me a long time ago. Also, I’m really tired of the armies of so-called progressives who are really anxious to go to Heaven but not anxious to venture even an inch out on the proverbial limb (much less to die). This is what (as Amp among others put it) the “back-of-the-bus” attitude employed against people like Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, and –to a lesser extent– Kucinich and whomever gets the Green nod this time amounts to. At least to me. Scrape away the veneer of hip cynicism and insistence that one person “can’t make a difference” except in the same pre-digested way, with the same pre-digested rhetoric that has always kept us all miserable and stifled in the fold. The same rhetoric that requires whole groups of people who are needed at voting time don’t actually have any right to see someone who looks like them in the driver’s seat. Scrape away the insistence –yet again !– that we’d like to do something meaningful and different and important because but we have to wait because it’s JUST NOT TIME YET !!! Yawn. Sorry. Tired of it. Won’t play any more. It’s never going to be “the right time” for people like you, Riffing. You will always pay lip service to the people who’ve taken huge risks, yet you will not take even the smallest of risks yourself. That’s your privilege. Go hang out with the cool kids on what looks like the winning team. It’s easier than actually thinking about how pyrrhic a victory headed by someone like Lieberman would be, I suppose. Me, I’ll pass. I’d rather look like a fool to millions like you than feel like one to myself every time I look in the mirror. You can call it “affirmation” or whatever thinly-veiled insult you’d like to. I call it using the only vote I’ve got as it was meant to be used. Cheers.
shawn: yes, as I noted at the outset, Abiola Lapite is right-wing. CMB would never be his candidate. Perhaps you can say that without describing as “peevish” a person who had several family members killed by Abacha.
You ask about someone’s nom de guerre, “shawn.” That’s a fair question. John Isbell is my real name, since birth. AFAIK Abiola Lapite is his real name, but you can click on his link and ask him directly. I’ve had several arguments with him, and he’s honest. I always value that trait.
Amy, if you’ve been hearing the same spiel forever, perhaps the spiel is accurate – except the part about some day you’ll have your chance. My POV is that our process of electing candidates to national office will always suck. It will not get any better, and it was never any better than it is today. If a coin comes up heads 10 times in row, it’s most likely a 2-headed coin. That’s the deal. People and movements do matter, but not usually in a national election.
The irony is we’re pretty much on the same side, but we’re both just dealing with a really shitty situation in our own way. I say let’s rip the band-aid off on get on with nominating the most electable democrat. That’s what they’re going to try and do anyway, might as well as get it over with. Your approach is noble yet futile (from a general election POV), but it works for you.
Lastly, let me make it perfectly clear I can’t stand Lieberman, but if he runs for the senate again, I’ll most likely have to vote for him (I’m from CT) unless someone can seriously challenge him in a primary (unlikely, but with my help who knows?).
Fuck ‘em all, but fuck bush more. Cheers (and I promise no more tortured analogies tonight).
Errr… no, I don’t think that the spiel is acurate at all. My parents had me convinced as a young girl that the whole world would go up in a nuclear fireball the instant Reagan was elected. (Come to think of it, Johnson did an ad campaign that foretold the same thing if Goldwater were elected.) It didn’t happen. Terrible things can happen at the hands of bad men, and they do. But to boil it all down to, “Vote for anyone against Shrub OR WE’LL ALL DIE !!!” is a hopeless oversimplification. Truth is, if the Democratic Party had had two vertebre to rub together, Shrub would have been nowhere as destructive as he has been these last three years. If they’d had an entire spine, he probably would never have made it into office.
Also, spare me the coin-toss analogy. I don’t believe in games of luck as metaphors for the democratic process. All such an anology does is excuse everyone whose supposed to be participating in the process from taking any responsibility whatsoever for their actions. It’s that attitude, as much as the evil of any individual candidate’s worldview, that’s the problem. Because it lets he with the worst worldview determine the rules of the “game,” even when he officially loses a “match” or two.
Life ain’t a dress rehearsal. Democracy is not a game of chance.
“Democracy is not a game of chance.”
Neither is flipping a two-headed coin.
“Truth is, if the Democratic Party had had two vertebre to rub together, Shrub would have been nowhere as destructive as he has been these last three years. If they’d had an entire spine, he probably would never have made it into office.”
No argument here.
“”Vote for anyone against Shrub OR WE’LL ALL DIE !!!” is a hopeless oversimplification.”
True, we probably won’t all die but some people will die as a result (just not a bunch of liberal whiners who post to esoteric blogs late at night).
“I don’t believe in games of luck as metaphors for the democratic process.”
Neither do I, nor do I believe in the romanticized, patriotic myth of democracy often espoused by true-believers.
“All such an anology does is excuse everyone whose supposed to be participating in the process from taking any responsibility whatsoever for their actions. It’s that attitude, as much as the evil of any individual candidate’s worldview, that’s the problem.”
I get it, if your not part of my solution your part of the problem, and you’re also aiding the evildoers (sounds familiar). What a load of crap.
Since we are unlikely to get a fair election in 2004, waiting until the primaries like this was still a functional democracy is self-destructive.
I, um, I hate to point this out, but… If we’re “unlikely to get a fair election” then how would having Mr. Dean as the Democratic canidate make any difference? Unfair elections means that the election is rigged. If the election is rigged, then that means that the opposition cannot win.
Personally, I think the whole spiel about the election being rigged is mostly blown out of proportion, but I cannot understand the logic that says that, somehow, Mr. Dean would overcome a rigged system in a way that no other canidate could.
Supporting minor candidates is noble, but foolhardy
You know, Mr. Dean hasn’t been the front-runner canidate for very long. Despite the way things may look like through the modem jack, no one’s really paid all that much attention to Mr. Dean until recently. For a long time, he was a minor canidate.
under the coup-conditions we are living in.
Coup-conditions? This is a joke, right? There have been a lot of lost jobs, yes, and we did get ourselves into a war that was wrong and is insistent upon proving itself to be such, but “coup-conditions”? I think the only coup that would be justifiable right now would be some sort of half-assed “pre-emptive” coup.
I’m only going to say this once, so I’ll put it in bold: Bush is not Hitler. Neo-conservatives are not Nazis. Yes, there are proto-fascist traits among modern conservative rhetoric (as David Neiwert has done an excellent job of discussing) but, really, that “proto” is there for a reason.
We need the STRONGEST crossover candidate we can find: and that is Howard Dean, preferably with Clark as VP (though I would be happier with someone like Barbara Boxer…Clark is of course a much stronger pick given the war hysteria).
Er, how about that coup hysteria?
Ahem. Sorry, that was not called for.
Still, though, what makes you so sure that Mr. Dean is Mr. Electible? He’s done well in a few polls, gotten some news coverage, and raised a lot of money. He’s also not looked so great on television, alienated every person who did support the war (and they weren’t all dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, you know?), and managed to not answer a single question in the Democratic debates. Really, where does that guy stand on anything except that he doesn’t like Bush, isn’t a liberal, and opposed the war?
Feminism is not shooting oneself in the foot.
Thank you for pointing this out to us. Neither is feminism, or liberalism, or Democratic ideals, about telling people that they don’t have a chance unless they go with Mr. Most-Likely-to-Succeed.
By the logic that we have to vote for a person because he (always he, you notice that?) looks right and would be a good “cross-over” canidate and stands in the right place on enough of the issues, the progressive movement would not have ever gotten anywhere. Canidate who supported equal rights for women and minorities or who thought that unions were a good idea or who thought that maybe building a nuclear arsenal wasn’t such a hot idea afterall–no persons supporting these ideas would have been elected at the time that they were because, well, they weren’t strong enough “cross-over” canidates.
Democrats don’t need Republican votes to win. They need Green and Independent and Not-Previously-Voting votes. The majority of the country agrees with liberal ideals (at least, that’s what the polls say), so why nominate a centrist canidate?
Look at it this way: if Al Gore had brought in the majority of Green votes in the 2000 elections (by, you know, being more liberal which would have turned on more Greens than it turned off Blues) the Supreme Court would never have had to select a President.
Amy, if you’ve been hearing the same spiel forever, perhaps the spiel is accurate – except the part about some day you’ll have your chance.
So your logic is this: because everyone says it, it must be true? Thanks for clearing that up. Does this even need to be refuted?
My POV is that our process of electing candidates to national office will always suck.
What, exactly, do you mean by a “national election” and how is it substantially different from an election for a Congressional Representative or a State Governer? Last I looked, there were non-white, non-male Representatives, Senators, Governers, and so forth. Presumably they were at some point “fringe” canidates, and yet, they were elected.
It will not get any better, and it was never any better than it is today. If a coin comes up heads 10 times in row, it’s most likely a 2-headed coin. That’s the deal.
So, because it’s always been a certain way, it will always be that way? Hm, curious that, since the United States is hardly what it was fifty, or even fifteen, years ago, and it hasn’t changed for the worse. Coloured people can now vote, women can vote, children are not employed in sweat shops, and these changes were all overseen by Executive Officers who let them happen and encouraged them to happen.
Speaking of those ten heads-up coin tosses, though: nine tosses back was President Kennedy, and twelve tosses back was President F.D. Roosevelt. Progressives, both.
People and movements do matter, but not usually in a national election.
Issues are defined by movements (would abortion be an issue without the women’s rights movement?) and canidates are elected by people, so I hardly see how those two things (people and movements) don’t matter in a “national election.”
The irony is we’re pretty much on the same side, but we’re both just dealing with a really shitty situation in our own way. I say let’s rip the band-aid off on get on with nominating the most electable democrat.
I address electability in my previous post, but let me reiterate: a Democratic canidate does not need to appeal to Republicans, but does need to appeal to liberals. The majority of the country is already on the side of the progressive movement (again, going by polls).
Tell me this though: how many people who would potentially vote Democrat would not vote Democrat if the canidate were a woman? How many would change their vote if said woman were black? How many would change their vote if said woman supported a progressive agenda? I bet the number of votes lost wouldn’t be enough to mitigate the number of votes gained. (Of course, I have no statistical backing for that, but it’s a hypothetical situation: there is no statistical backing.)
Let me put it to you another way: how many people would not vote for the Democratic party and would instead vote for Mr. Bush if Ms. Moseley Braun were the Democratic nominee? Not many, so why settle for getting the “most electable” canidate in there when the most electable canidate would, unnecessarily, be a centrist?
That’s what they’re going to try and do anyway, might as well as get it over with. Your approach is noble yet futile (from a general election POV), but it works for you.
Lastly, let me make it perfectly clear I can’t stand Lieberman, but if he runs for the senate again, I’ll most likely have to vote for him (I’m from CT) unless someone can seriously challenge him in a primary (unlikely, but with my help who knows?).
Lastly, let me make it perfectly clear: I can’t stand the majority of the centrist canidates running for the Democratic nomination right now, but if one of them gets the nomination I’ll most likely have to vote for him unless one of the more progressive canidates can seriously challenge him in the primary (unlikely, but with my help, who knows?).
It irks me to see folks explaining who you have to support. People should support whoever they darn well please. Then we all vote, and after the primaries, most of us will support whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be. It’s really not that complicated. To anyone who backs ANY of the nine candidates: more power to you! That’s why there are nine of them, and we have free will. We can discuss the merits of each candidate without telling people not to support them. I’ve seen a lot of that in this campaign.
Thanks for taking over, PinkDream. I’d been up since 3:15 AM Friday and really had to go to sleep. Although the end of your second post gets a little confusing because of the quotes. I actually suspect there are some people (perhaps many) who wouldn’t vote for CMB merely because she’s Black and Female, but the point I was trying to make to Riffing in my gummy-eyed, sleep-deprived way is that no one should settle for that as legitimate grounds for dismissing a candidate. To see any Democrat, when the party has long relied on women and Blacks to shore up its base in close elections, simply roll over for this alleged truism without troubling themselves about it breaks my heart. To see someone lapse into cynicism and lame analogies about coin-tosses, to brag that it’s not worth his/her time and energy to try and contest such an onerous “truth” because they’ve already got someone nicely packaged and ready to go… Well, you’re right. The best that America is only exists, as you point out, because all kinds of people were unafraid to contest such “truths.” That people like Riffing can write this history off as mere “romanticism” just to let themselves and their party off the hook just depresses and exasperates the fuck out of me. :(
And, yeah, reversals of fortune in election years can happen suddenly. No one knew who Dean was six months ago, and six months from now, someone else might well have muscled to the front of the line and consigned him again to obscurity. There’s just no way to know at the moment, and he remains, to me, a strange choice for everyone to be pinning their hopes on so damn soon.
John, on honesty, communication, grief and rage:
I don’t think I’m the one to talk to Abiola about his personal feelings. Shouldn’t that be obvious?
You vouch for his honesty, because he shares a point of contact? Because he expresses his opinions and emotions? Yet, when it comes to Carol Moseley Braun, he says many things which are patently untrue. To me that’s not the sign of a reflexive viewpoint, one that is genuinely self-aware.
Abiola also fails to disclose exactly what his stakes in Nigerian politics are, who his family is, and what faction they represent. I wouldn’t think to gainsay your assertion that he would be willing to disclose that about himself, but that’s not something I want to discuss with him. I pointed to his name because it is partisan, not because I doubt his integrity. (“Abiola” happens to be a nickname we gave our cat, “Abby,” for political reasons: It’s not unusual to give and take names in order to send political messages. No slur or innuendo should be inferred from my question.)
You seem to have accepted at least some of his opinions as valid, but again I urge you and others interested in the issue you raised here to reread his statements, and to consult the public record.
As to peevishness, a characterization which I hedged because I recognize it as my own opinion, let me make it clear that what I find peevish is spewing invective and making overthetop statements against a person who by any objective assessment is not the cause of one’s suffering. As I indicated, grief and rage and misplaced anger are understandable in my view (as is poltical opposition, of course), but expressing them in the way Abiola does is childish. IMHO.
BTW my name is indeed Shawn, Shawn Lindsay. If you really want to contact me, it’s not terribly difficult. I live on the palouse and have a local isp. I also have a yahoo account which you could probably find if you were so inclined. Besides being averse to spam, the reason I post the url to Carol’s site is because I believe that it is most pertinent to Amp’s discussion.
I believe Abiola Lapite is honest based on those arguments over the months in which he has radically, even heatedly opposed my views and then admitted his error when I presented him with data. Some online commenters do that. He may be mistaken without being dishonest, he has been before and admitted it. I’m not quite sure what you mean by sharing a point of contact.
Being Nigerian, and having family murdered, it seems safe to conclude that Abiola Lapite belonged to that fraction of the Nigerian population that did not share in Abacha’s rather bloody dictatorship. That is, as you state, by definition a partisan position: those Nigerians not in power under Abacha belonged to the party not in power. It was quite large. That much seems certain. Beyond that, we can certainly speculate as to the real source of Abiola Lapite’s anti-Abacha bias, it’s a free country and he’s not in this thread to stop us.
I guess I’ll limit myself to that.
Sorry about the missing italics at the end of my second post.
Anyway, Amy S. makes a good point: why the hell are so many people throwing their lots at the feet of Mr. Dean, anyway? His popularity is based on the anti-Bush stuff he keeps spouting, but how does that make him anything near the saviour canidate that people make him out to be?
Are there any Dean supporters on this blog who can answer that?
Incidentally, John Isbell, I’d like to hear your reasons for supporting Kerry. If you’d post them here, or e-mail them to me, or just point me to a site that sums it up well, I’d be greatly appreciative.
Of course, this same offer applies to anyone who has settled on a canidate.
I think part of the fact that Dean is so popular has to do with all the other candidates (especially Lieberman) saying that Dean is “too liberal to win”. So despite the fact that he’s a moderate who happens to oppose the war suddenly he becomes the saviour for progressives and left-leaning Democrats, so I guess that didn’t work out.
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing