Earl Ofari Hutchinson has been the most upfront political commentator in the 20008 presidential campaign. Ofari has never been caught up in the en masse media swoon for Barack Obama. Even during the most trying days of the Democratic primary, Ofari chose not to join the chorus of media pundits doing their best to force Hillary Clinton out of the race. Yes, that would have been consistent with Obama’s tactics in Illinois – force your opponents out of the race so you can walk to the finish line and claim your prize. Google Alice Palmer.
Most recently, Ofari offers his analysis of the second presidential debate and although he goes into detail; whereas, I simply yawned, he and I were obviously on the same page. I just couldn’t shake off my boredom long enough to write up the performance of our two mediocre candidates for the highest position in the nation. Honestly, couldn’t America have done better?
Ofari spells it out:
“OK, we now know for the umpteenth time that Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will cut taxes, provide affordable health care to everyone, drill for more oil, expand nuclear power use, end global warming, rein in the Wall Street fast buck artists, take out Osama Bin Laden, and end the war in Iraq either by withdrawal or victory. And yes we know that both have had a tough family upbringing, and therefore they know what working people have to go through.
“These themes have been rehashed and reworked so many times that we can recite them in our sleep. But what we don't know and certainly haven't heard in the debates is what Obama and McCain will do about failing urban public schools, the HIV-AIDS pandemic, their view of the death penalty, the drug crisis, how they'll combat hate crimes, shore up crumbling and deteriorating urban transportation systems, and what type of judges they will appoint to the federal judiciary and to the Supreme Court.”
Read more.
Welcome to Katalusis for progressive views on politics, religion, environmental issues, and popular culture. (Photo of the Mississippi River from the University Club in St. Paul, MN.)
Showing posts with label presidential campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential campaign. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Gallup Poll: Potential Effect of Race in Presidential Contest Neutralized
Gallup reports fascinating results from a recent poll that attempts to determine the potential impact of race in the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Frank Newport reports:
“While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.
“At the same time, 6% of voters say John McCain's race will make them less likely to vote for him, with 7% saying it makes them more likely to vote for him, leading to the same basic conclusion: McCain's race, like Obama's, is on balance neither a plus nor a minus.
‘These conclusions are based on eight dimensions potentially affecting the vote for both candidates. The dimensions were included in Gallup's Oct. 3-5 poll, and analyzed overall by Gallup's Jeff Jones.”
Read more.
Frank Newport reports:
“While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.
“At the same time, 6% of voters say John McCain's race will make them less likely to vote for him, with 7% saying it makes them more likely to vote for him, leading to the same basic conclusion: McCain's race, like Obama's, is on balance neither a plus nor a minus.
‘These conclusions are based on eight dimensions potentially affecting the vote for both candidates. The dimensions were included in Gallup's Oct. 3-5 poll, and analyzed overall by Gallup's Jeff Jones.”
Read more.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Campaign Ads: Comparing McCain’s Lies to Obama’s Lies
I hate to bring up the Democratic primary again, but a column by the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus comparing the egregiousness of John McCain’s lies to those of Barack Obama’s in the general election race reminded me of how Obama’s leftwing supporters scoured the archives of the 1990s for rightwing smears of Hillary Clinton. Finding all the dirt they needed, the Obamaphiles went all out in their attempts to destroy Clinton by portraying her as an untrustworthy politician who would do anything to win.
Now get this: according to Marcus, Obama’s recent ads have descended to McCain’s “scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air,” and she concludes: “To Democrats who worry about whether their nominee is willing to do whatever it takes to win: You can calm down.”
Way to go fellas!
To read Marcus' column in its entirety, go here.
Now get this: according to Marcus, Obama’s recent ads have descended to McCain’s “scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air,” and she concludes: “To Democrats who worry about whether their nominee is willing to do whatever it takes to win: You can calm down.”
Way to go fellas!
To read Marcus' column in its entirety, go here.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wow! You Could’ve Had a Clinton ’08! (video)
LadyBoomerNYC has a couple of must-see videos and commentary reminding us that Hillary Clinton was way ahead of the Wall Street meltdown this week. Clinton explains in the ABC video that she called for a summit gathering some months ago as she had seen this coming for the past two years. Also, watch how deftly Clinton, always the professional, sticks to the issues and avoids getting personal in discussing the differences between the Democratic and Republican tickets. Keep in mind the media would just love for Clinton and Palin to start tearing one another to shreds – as if that’s what the United States needs at a time when we’re fighting two wars and trying to get our bearings in the midst of a global financial crisis.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama Distorts the Facts: The Record Shows McCain is No Bush Clone
Since last June when I left the Democratic Party to register as non-affiliated, I’ve been learning to view Democrats and Republicans a little more objectively and in the process, I’ve found myself actually moving toward the vision Barack Obama articulated in his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. Reading his well-crafted speech from a teleprompter (Obama currently has a 3-member speech-writing team supplemented by JFK’s former speechwriter, Ted Soreson), Sen. Obama reminded us that we are not the red states of America, or the blue states of America, we are the United States of America.
It’s been quite a transition for a former lifetime - extremely partisan - Democrat to reach the point at which I routinely attempt to make necessary judgments on the basis of merit rather than the latest partisan attack. That’s not always easy to do. For example, Barack Obama – in contrast to his bi-partisan vision - has based his campaign against John McCain primarily on convincing voters that McCain is a clone of George W. Bush. As a result of the Obama campaign’s repeated distortion of the facts, I was surprised by John Lott, Jr.’s piece in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Lott thoroughly debunks Obama’s charge that a McCain presidency would mean the same as a third Bush term.
Lott writes:
‘“This week Obama has begun a constant refrain that there is ‘not a dime worth of difference’ between Bush's and McCain's views. It is a consistent theme of Democratic pundits on talk shows.
“Is this the same McCain who drove Republicans nuts on campaign finance, the environment, taxes, torture, immigration and more? Where has McCain not crossed swords with his own party?
“As it's being used, the 90 percent figure, from Congressional Quarterly, is nonsensical. As Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman explained, ‘The vast majority of those votes are procedural, and virtually every member of Congress votes with his or her leadership on procedural motions.’
“Obama might want to be a little careful with these attacks, as the same measure has him voting with Democrats 97 percent of the time.
“Fortunately, a number of organizations on the left and right provide useful evaluations on how congressmen and senators vote each year. These conservative and liberal groups pick the votes they care about most and figure out how often lawmakers match up with their positions.
“Well-known organizations that rank congressional voting include the American Conservative Union on the right, Americans for Democratic Action on the left, and the nonpartisan National Journal in the middle. The League of Conservation Voters also ranks politicians from an environmentalist position.”
Based on evidence from the above sources, Lott concludes:
“In contrast to the very liberal ratings given to Obama, the interest groups find that there are about as many senators to McCain's right as there are to his left. This might not endear him to many conservatives or liberals. But it is a real distortion to claim he is a Bush clone.”
To read Lott’s piece in its entirety, go here.
It’s been quite a transition for a former lifetime - extremely partisan - Democrat to reach the point at which I routinely attempt to make necessary judgments on the basis of merit rather than the latest partisan attack. That’s not always easy to do. For example, Barack Obama – in contrast to his bi-partisan vision - has based his campaign against John McCain primarily on convincing voters that McCain is a clone of George W. Bush. As a result of the Obama campaign’s repeated distortion of the facts, I was surprised by John Lott, Jr.’s piece in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Lott thoroughly debunks Obama’s charge that a McCain presidency would mean the same as a third Bush term.
Lott writes:
‘“This week Obama has begun a constant refrain that there is ‘not a dime worth of difference’ between Bush's and McCain's views. It is a consistent theme of Democratic pundits on talk shows.
“Is this the same McCain who drove Republicans nuts on campaign finance, the environment, taxes, torture, immigration and more? Where has McCain not crossed swords with his own party?
“As it's being used, the 90 percent figure, from Congressional Quarterly, is nonsensical. As Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman explained, ‘The vast majority of those votes are procedural, and virtually every member of Congress votes with his or her leadership on procedural motions.’
“Obama might want to be a little careful with these attacks, as the same measure has him voting with Democrats 97 percent of the time.
“Fortunately, a number of organizations on the left and right provide useful evaluations on how congressmen and senators vote each year. These conservative and liberal groups pick the votes they care about most and figure out how often lawmakers match up with their positions.
“Well-known organizations that rank congressional voting include the American Conservative Union on the right, Americans for Democratic Action on the left, and the nonpartisan National Journal in the middle. The League of Conservation Voters also ranks politicians from an environmentalist position.”
Based on evidence from the above sources, Lott concludes:
“In contrast to the very liberal ratings given to Obama, the interest groups find that there are about as many senators to McCain's right as there are to his left. This might not endear him to many conservatives or liberals. But it is a real distortion to claim he is a Bush clone.”
To read Lott’s piece in its entirety, go here.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Left-Wing Feminist Assault on Sarah Palin – It’s Not Pretty!
I was talking politics with my neighbor minutes ago; Dave and I are both former Democrats, now rebelling against the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils in November; heck, we’re even considering voting for Ralph Nader. “But seriously,” Dave said, “the Democratic party needs to get rid of its leadership. They pushed aside the better qualified candidate (that would be Hillary) in order to put their guy (that would be Barack) in place.”
Yep. That’s exactly what the Democratic Party did, and can you blame me for laughing when two-gun Sarah Palin spits in their collective eye, and the McCain ticket surges ahead in the polls?
Speaking of Sarah, my well-educated liberal friends who have been swooning – fainting at times - over Barack Obama since they heard his first rousing motivational “yes-we-can” speech are pleading with those of us who continue to refuse to get in line. They’re telling us that Barack, not Sarah, is the candidate who is truly for women’s rights; Sarah, they say, is no feminist.
Cathy Young addresses that issue in her article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin.
Young writes:
“Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
‘“On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a ‘Christian Stepford Wife’ and a ‘Republican blow-up doll.’ Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, ‘Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.’
“You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
‘“In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a ‘supermom’ whose supporters ‘think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself.’ In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that ‘she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K.’
‘“This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having ‘an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles.’ Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.
‘“Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than ‘First Dude’ Todd Palin?
‘“Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is ‘subordinate to a great man.’ Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?”’
Read more.
Yep. That’s exactly what the Democratic Party did, and can you blame me for laughing when two-gun Sarah Palin spits in their collective eye, and the McCain ticket surges ahead in the polls?
Speaking of Sarah, my well-educated liberal friends who have been swooning – fainting at times - over Barack Obama since they heard his first rousing motivational “yes-we-can” speech are pleading with those of us who continue to refuse to get in line. They’re telling us that Barack, not Sarah, is the candidate who is truly for women’s rights; Sarah, they say, is no feminist.
Cathy Young addresses that issue in her article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin.
Young writes:
“Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
‘“On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a ‘Christian Stepford Wife’ and a ‘Republican blow-up doll.’ Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, ‘Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.’
“You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
‘“In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a ‘supermom’ whose supporters ‘think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself.’ In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that ‘she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K.’
‘“This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having ‘an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles.’ Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.
‘“Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than ‘First Dude’ Todd Palin?
‘“Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is ‘subordinate to a great man.’ Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?”’
Read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)