Why? He drives me crazy, because in my view, he represents the worst of America: morally dubious because he covertly backs torture; socially suspect because he favors the rich and ignores the poor; economically unsound because he's a borrow-and-spend profligate who's made America the world's biggest debtor nation; politically twisted because he's ideologically and religiously driven instead of practically minded; and personally abhorrent because he does not appear to be a man of any culture, smears his opponents underhandedly, and wears that smug, self-entitled, rich-boy smirk...and it's a shame that someone who represents the worst should be up there representing ALL of us.
In the eyes of the world, Bush makes me ashamed of being an American. I would like the world, and me, to be proud of America again. I bash him to help ensure that his like will never get to such a high position again. I think he is spoiling the path for his like already, thank God (at 38%, his job approval rating is lower than Clinton's during the Lewinsky scandal). It's not a matter of party politics either: think how different America would've been if a Republican like McCain had been president instead of the Incompetent Chimp. All politics is not only local; it's personal. To me, Bush is a secretive, withholding, lying, warmongering guy with no empathy for the underdog - typically MALE.
Increasingly, my blog is going to turn its politics into another direction: pushing Hillary for president. Not because of politics either, but because of who she is. Of course, she's a very shrewd political operator and opportunist of the first water, yet I could give a shit that the left will call her a sell-out and the right a dangerous liberal. What she is, is an efficient, hard-working Senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee with distinction. I guess you could call her a Christian centrist with progressive values who supports our troops -- or something.
But her politics is not why I want her to be president. I want her to be president for one reason only: because she's a woman. She is the anti-patriarch: the Good Mom vs. the Bush Bad Dad who blows the family's money on irresponsible mad schemes.
I believe the oppression of women is still, and has always been, the #1 problem in the world, because it's this problem that causes the other #1 problem in the world: poverty. If women weren't oppressed, poverty would begin to vanish.
So my blog will be pushing Hillary simply because she is a woman. If the leader of the world were a woman, things would change in fundamental ways we cannot yet foresee. Germany, the #3 economic power after the US and Japan, is getting a woman leader, Angela Merkel. I believe that with Hillary and Angela on top, things will change massively for women.
A huge psychological shift is bound to occur in sexist Arabia and Africa, for example -- among both women and men. Sexist attitudes will simply not be viable with two women leading the world. It will be impossible for any man to run down women, or to make women feel or be inferior. And it will be impossible for women not to strive for all they can be, whatever their menfolk might say. There it will be for all to see: two women in charge of America and Europe, and hence, in charge of the world. I don't know what the position of women in China is, but I don't see them represented in the top leadership, and it will change their men for having to deal with the two power women of the West, too.
This is what the world needs most now. This is bigger than American politics. This is world politics; world history. This will be a culmination of the most important struggle on earth ever, the struggle for gender equality and women's rights. And so I hope you will join me in seeing the world-historical importance of getting Hillary elected to become president of the US, and devote your bloggings and conversation and whatever you can muster, to this Biggest of All Political Causes.
Hillary for President: it will change the world for good more than anything else currently attainable. It can happen, it must happen, it will happen. We owe it to half the human race, to all our born and unborn daughters. And you can do your bit. So do it.
I agree with you completely, but prepare for virulent attacks not only from those who never made it out of the 5th century, but the Chimp Cheerleaders as well.
I have asserted for years that no woman could possibly fuck up national or world affairs any worse than millions of years of men already have, and recent events in New Orleans have proved my point. Is Blanco a lousy governor? Probably. But she's no worse than any man that's ever occupied the office.
Women (Barbara Bush, Smirk's mom, aside) tend to have more empathy with the unfortunate, yet be well aware of those trying to pull the wool over their eyes with excuses ... because they have already been thru the same crap with their kids & they've heard it all already. The Women In Charge I know (Nursing Heads of Staff, one woman Army Officer, one Mother Superior of a Catholic religious order) are kindly but tough. They know when to give hard luck sufferers a break, & when to break those trying to get away with something. They work collectively much better than men - teamwork. How ironic. Men tend to first set up a pecker order - who's in charge; women tend to set goals & worry about aggrandizement & public credit later. They're nowhere near as ego-driven as men. That alone should be a major plus in favor of any woman.
And hormones have nothing to do with it. I know far more 'moody' men who are hell to work with than I do women, and I should know: I've spent most of my life working in male-dominated fields. I'd rather have a woman boss any day. They're far more reasonable & easier to work with. I've never had to stroke any woman's ego, play 'yas, boss' to prop up her authority, or make her feel important. I have with each and every male I've worked for, NO exceptions. Not to mention the macho shithead games & politics men like to play, with their subordinates & each other, manifesting itself as aggression in various forms.
I'm sure women who run things have drawbacks as a group, but off the top of my head I can't think of any that are worse than what men have demonstrated for the past several thousand years.
In push for a woman to be president solely because she is a woman you particpating in a patriarchial society just as much as sexist men. Voting for someone entirely because of their sex is just as devoid of logic as not voting for someone because of their sex.
The feminst movement, when it doesn't have its head up its ass, is attempting to create a society based on merit. Where people succeed on their abilities not race, sex, or orientation.
If you're supporting Hillary just because she's a woman, are you also supporting Harriet Miers just because she's a woman? Are you willing to support any female candidate for public office no matter her political views? Somehow I think not. Surely you're supporting Hillary not just because she's a woman but because you also like her politics.
I will have to admit error & state I probably wouldn't vote for someone just because they were female; but if they were (in my mind) closely qualified, it would definitely tilt the balance. No ... I'll back down on this to a degree & say I prefer qualified over other criteria; however, the way things are currently, non-whites & females get very few chances to acquire the same qualifications as white males. Look at the current congress: hundreds of people, and only a handful of women, and 1 black. Is anyone going to seriously tell me there ARE no intelligent, educated women or minorities out there? That out of 51% of the population, no one is qualified to sit in congress?
It's not lack of qualifications; it's lack of support both by the behind-the-scene powers that run everything (conspiracy theory!) & the MSM owned by them who have the unbridled opportunity to slant everything to their goals.
Yes, I made the 'mighty white' comment; I had meant it as sarcasm, meaning 'well isn't it nice of you to stoop to our humble level', because that's what I'd been told it meant. I seem to have been mistaken. No offense for my ignorance was intended.
A racist - not that I know of, but then I actually think everyone is a racist to some degree no matter how hard they try not to be; but I do value American lives (of any color) over non-Americans, when it comes to war, yes. If I remember correctly, the issue was US troops vs muslims abroad. Guilty as charged.
Religous people who insist on pushing their beliefs on others, absolutely, altho hate requires more energy than they're worth; call it disdain & disgust.
I don't lie to anybody knowingly, so I won't insult your intelligence or mine by trying to claim some of my best friends are black, as I don't know many black people very well, altho I work with quite a few & like them as well as I like anybody else.
Don't know if you'll believe me, but there it is. And yeah, anyone who deserves it I'll say nice things about; I've even said nice stuff about Al Barger & Dave Nalle!
Well, im not backing hillary for pres, even though if she got the nomination i would most definitly suppost her for president. However i dont like the republican-light stance on the war, i know itsa tough position for her to be in, i questioned the intelligence from the start of the whole thing with no reason to do so other than may distain for the man, but i was right, an there were people out there saying as much, Bliz, Ritter, Wilson. I like her stance on abortion, keep it legal try to make it rare but her video game stance is stupid, as someone who as played all sort of video games throughout my life and someone who know the idustry and how they are produced i think its rediculus to go after them on what tey put in the games for content. why dont they do that for cartoons. cartoons where initially made for adults but were more well responed to by kids. Now there are cartoons that are pretty much made just for adults agian, should they not be made because a child might find them intreging, besides the only kids that really find those "violent" game intreging are the ones who are old enough to know that its not reality and its just a game not to mention right from wrong. So i guess my early pick for 08 is Al Gore, he had the forsight to see the internet comming and what could be done with it and if he were in office today at least the fbi would be able to get email, might be handy in this war on terror, not to mention his clear agenda of moving us tword energy independence and clean industry, without destroying the enviroment and making the economy work within these boundires. I guess i just have to convince him to run, but im a geek and hes a geek and i think he represents me best.
I'd be cool with Condi Rice, too, even though I don't like her pro-war stance. Not that she's a neocon, or a theocon. If it were Hillary vs. Condi, I would be in pol heaven, knowing that a woman will be president of the US. For the same reason, I'm with Harriet Miers because she's a woman. There is so little representation of women, they've got to be quite horrible, say, like Phyllis Shafly, before I can be against them. I also happen to like Hillary's politics -- or lack of it, she's so centrist, Christ knows what she stands for, besides sweet reason -- so I'm doubly on her side. But it's her being a woman, with the political cred and power and charisma to run for prez, that puts me behind her. Women like that don't come along every day, and the further they go, the more they open the way for other women. It's shocking that in the US, certainly the best place on earth to be a woman, we have so few women Senators, CEOs, etc. The poor women of the world -- a billion or more -- need to see women up there in power positions, so their men can get out of their way and let them be all they can be. Affirmative action is what it is. Having Hillary as president is simply the best thing that can happen for the women of the world, and since it's actually attainable, we should all get together now to make sure it happens in 2008.
My concern with Hillary is her lack of connection to working people. She lamented about 'money laying around doing nothing' that could be used to finance UHC. The money she was refering to was 401k accounts that people are counting on to retire. To me this is every bit as bad as congress using SS funds for their pet projects. This total disconnect is as offensive to me as someone saying 'mighty white of you' and not realizing they are offending black people.
This is cache, read story here