Was Last Night's Vote a Vote Against the War?
Michael Moore seems to think so.
Hillary thinks she lost because Iowa voters can't fathom a woman in charge. Indeed, they've never elected a woman governor, senator, or US Representative.
Or did Iowa voters go for Obama and Edwards because, in the words of my co-workers, "those guys are just more likable"?
As a strong-willed and opinionated woman, I hate to hear such comments made about Senator Clinton. I asked my co-workers to do some soul-searching.
"If Hillary had a penis, would you be all right with her resolve and ambition? Are you turned off by *her* or are you turned off because she's not a traditional female serving in a traditional role? So many times, the qualities we respect in a man, make a woman, with those same qualities, a bitch."
I hope John Edwards leaps ahead and becomes our nominee. If not him, then Barack Obama. Senator Obama represents positive change as well, although his accepting a great deal of money from the health care industry is troublesome.
If Obama and Edwards give way to a Clinton win, I'm okay with that, too. She was behind a great many of her husband's successes and would do a better job for our middle class than Huck, Mitt and Rudy combined.
I'm just wondering what we can learn from last night, if anything at all.
posted by kate @ 6:35 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Anyone who can't fathom a woman in charge has never been married. Obama, Hillary or Edwards would all be fine presidents. This should be an interesting ride.
What can we learn?
That there are 49 more states left to vote.
I try not to judge a movie by the opening credits.
I don't know if it's a strict as vote for/vote against the war, but it certainly gives credence to the idea that voters are upset with big name Dems at the moment and they're going to have just as much 'splanin to do as Republicans if they want to make it to the White House.
For the most part, the Dems were put into power for one reason: end the Iraq war. 1.5 years on and we're still there. Voters really do notice stuff like this. The fact that both Edwards and Clinton are talking up their experience over Obama hurts them because voters then say, "Well, if you have so much experience, then that means you must be responsible for not getting us out of Iraq like we wanted."
Experience is a double edged sword. Sure, it means that their first years would be potentially smoother than Obama's, but it also means they've got a whole lot more to answer for.
Are we really all still paying attention to Michael Moore, the serial liar (oh, I'm sorry, Oscar winning documentarian)? Yikes.
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly: all shrill pundits willing to mangle the truth to make a point (which may or may not have actual truth in it). Their tactics are the same; the only real difference between them is what they say they think is true. I'll still take Franken and Moore over the other two- not because I like their tactics, but because I like their choice of targets.
That's an honest response. But I don't think it's intellectually right. Franken is an ideologue, but he's smart and he used to be funny. When he bends the truth to serve his cause, more often than not there's a chunk of reality behind what he says. Good for him. Have at it.
Moore just makes things up, period. We went to war in Afghanistan to build a huge oil pipeline through the country, to mention just one of his movies' blatant falsehoods.
Righties need to call out the Coulters of the world, and Lefties need to do the same wih Moore. Coulter doesn't get much respect in the mainstream culture, with only some rabid righties still singing her praises. But Moore ... he still commands respect, garners genuflecting, softball interviews and praise from the left. Lefties invite him to sit with them at Dem conventions (Jimmy Carter) and give him Oscars for documentaries which have heaping helpings of fiction in them. You can complain about US health care all you want, and there's plenty to complain about, but bringing patients to Cuba ("Sicko") for treatment simply negates your credibility.
Barack doesn't have the experience, it makes me entirely uncomfortable. If it's not Hillary, it needs to be Edwards.
It was a vote against Hillary because it has become obvious to even the members of the public that she isn't much more than a power-hungry asshole. It has nothing to do with her gender, or gender roles in society, or even her particular political positions. It was because she scares people with how much she craves power and seeks to obtain it an ANY cost.
Post a Comment
<< Home