Posts with the tag Hillary Clinton

She's a WHAT...?!

Ali M Latifi — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:45:57 EDT

Check out this clip of a commentator on CNN stating its okay to call United States Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton a bitch because her personality somehow suits the definition.

Anti-American Sentiments

Nick — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:51:18 EDT

Anti-American Sentiments

The phrase "anti-American sentiments" is and has been ubiquitous in the mainstream media ever since clips of Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have surfaced and been circulated on cable news and the internet. His statements have been branded as anti-American. It seems to me that the phrase is very loaded and complex, but not entirely clear. It deserves dissection and reflection.

What does it mean exactly? Is it an objective or a subjective idea? America is not only a place, but a conceptual being, ever-changing and dynamic. It represents many ideas and people. It would be nice if the media discussed its meaning, but that may be too much to ask of them. Think about what it means to you. For the purposes of this article, it means simply what the words say (and the negative connotations inherent in them): opposed or against America.

Is that what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is? Opposed to America? Why doesn't he get the hell out of here then? Maybe, he is not actually "anti-American." Who can be sure? However, he is certainly critical of the American government's actions and has made it known in a very inflammatory way that has made it very easy to make the leap to the label anti-American. In spite of this swift mental transition, if one considers the greatness of our constitution, they will remember that it is the right to denounce and disagree with the actions carried out by our government that helps form the foundation of our democracy. If we could not or did not, then we would probably have a monarchy. Yet, thankfully we get to recognize, speak about, and attempt to fix past mistakes and injustices.

Despite the fact Wright has the right to voice criticisms of former and present U.S. actions--no matter how rabble-rousing they may seem--we should also discuss the huge response that he has elicited. It seems that people are afraid of him and feel a strong responsibility to denounce his words. What is behind this fear?

Could it be that people fear a revolution in America's African-American community? Are people afraid that Wright, an influential pastor in the United Church of Christ, is spewing anti-American sermons to countless congregations, inciting impassioned rhetoric that eventually will rally the masses of African-American parishioners to fight against America?

Could it be? Does he have such power? Is he dangerous? The media, the GOP, and Hillary all have an interest in having you (or in Hillary's case, the superdelegates) consider the idea (tune in!), but this notion is completely ridiculous. All the same, he is anti-American so he is opposed to America.

However, fearing Wright is irrational. Alas, it is very easy and many people disturbed, angry, afraid, or outraged.

Be that as it may, we should not fear Wright, because, first of all, he is extreme and paranoid, stating that the U.S. government had a plan to spread HIV among African-Americans. Most people in America find this absurd and therefore he will discredit himself. Second of all, U.S. foreign policy should be criticized. If it weren't we'd be lacking a major characteristic of a free and open society and we wouldn't have constructive discussions about the decisions we make abroad (discussions that are sorely needed).

People might say that I am giving the incendiary pastor a free pass. Maybe I am. But in all fairness, we are paying increasingly more attention to what a Christian pastor is saying about America than what our lame duck president does with the remainder of his time in office, or perhaps more importantly, what our megalomaniacal vice president is doing.

Therefore, yes, I am saying that what Wright has said is not a relatively huge deal. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still not getting anywhere with Iran, still in a recession, and we are in the midst of electing our next president. The words of one ex-Marine former pastor are not in the forefront of my mind.

Notwithstanding, if we are going to be preoccupied with Wright's angry oratory, then we may want to try to figure out why someone, who believed in America so much that they gave up their college deferment to serve in the marines and subsequently on Lyndon Johnson's medical team, has altered his beliefs and is now so passionately resentful of his country.

Limbaugh's Latest Slut-Shaming

Annika — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:37:01 EDT

I can always count on Rush Limbaugh for a healthy dose of slut-shaming rhetoric, and his commentary on Hillary Clinton's candidacy is no exception.

Yesterday on his radio show, Limbaugh argued that "feminists and women" feel they're owed a Clinton II presidency. I'll let him speak for himself (emphasis mine):

These women have paid their dues. They've been married two or three times; they've had two or three abortions; they've done everything that feminism asked them to do. They have cut men out of their lives; they have devoted themselves to causes and careers. And this -- the candidacy of Hillary Clinton -- is the culmination of all of these women's efforts. And if it gets stolen from them, in their minds -- not actually stolen, but if the country or if the Democrat [sic] Party rejects this wonderfully great, lying woman in exchange for a rookie, radical black guy who can't tell the time of day, they are going to be so miffed. They are going to be so upset.

Right. Because feminism is all about having abortions, eschewing men and getting a bunch of divorces. Looks like I've been slacking.

Click here for more of Limbaugh's enlightened pontification.

Isn't Reverend Wright, like, right?

Jerell Blakeley — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:09:16 EDT

Right now, I am up watching Newt Gingrinch and Sean Hannity pontificate and get their panties all bunched up about Dr. Jeremiah Wright's commentary about America. With "righteous" indignation, the two, and others of their ilk, are lambasting Obama for his supposed black separatist/nationalist pastor for divisive racist rhetoric. As I watch this assault and Obama's reaction to it, I am deeply saddened in several ways. In this note, I want to explore those points.

The faux outrage exhibited by the media is in response to several "Anti-American" comments made by Dr. Wright. The media then spins a dubious web, saying that Dr. Wright's "racist" comments make Obama a racist by proxy.

Obama, the snarling racist? The idea would be laughable if it were not for the sinister forces pushing it. His whole political being has been one of the political blank slate. He has artfully crafted himself as the anti Sharpton/Jackson. He, and the nascent black political generation that he represents (Fenty, Patrick, Booker) are all supposed to be post racialist politicians that are black, but not 'Marion Barry' black. You know, the kind that make white people feel all good in the inside and say '"Gee, I'm not racist. Not only do I have black friends, I even voted for one!" Now these type of "New Negro" leaders have there own issues, but I'll address them later. The issue at hand is that this episode illustrates vividly that black people and most certainly Obama aren't making race an issue in this campaign. That dubious honor goes to the white people.

Yes, white people. On one hand, white liberals who both consciously and subconsciously look at Obama as a savior that will absolve them of the sins of their fathers and wash them of the stain of race, that 'monster' that is always in the room that they wish would just go away. On the other hand, white conservatives are scared shitless about the possibility of a black man ascending to this nation's highest political office. I can almost smell the putrid mix of jealously, fear, and disgust that is shared by Hillary Clinton and the commentators of Fox News. They have dragged up every accusation they can thing of that will remind white voters that Barack is 'black': drugs, not taking responsibility for his actions as Hillary noted in a debate, not ready, should wait his turn, is like Jesse Jackson, is a Muslim. All of these asperations have not borne fruit and so they have searched some more and feel they have hit the jackpot. Obama pastor says mean things about white people and America. However, let's look at these radical 'comments'. Closer analysis reveals them to be only controversial in the utter truth that reside in them.

Comment 1 : The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

We can agree to disagree about the government having a hand in funneling drugs into inner cities. However, the America that has the policy of building bigger jails, three-strike laws, killing innocent people, treating citizens as less than human and America acting like it is God? Damn that America on all of these marks.

Comment 2: We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.

This is true. We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have nuked far more than the thousands in NYC and the Pentagon. Outside of a few people, America never batted an eye. Instead, we celebrated the end of WWII and did not give two shits about the thousands of innocent lives we took.

Comment 3: We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

Ever head of blowback? They don't "hate us for our freedom' as George Bush so stupidly said. One reason of why they hate us because we are in their backyard.

Comment 4: It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons.

Well Barack wasn't born white, rich, and privileged. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her, never had to worry about being pulled over, and wasn't raised by a single mother. In addition, I never thought that Hillary had to worry about being called a nigger and her humanity was never questioned.

Well now that the legitimacy and accuracy of Dr. Wright is asserted, we can move on determining what this attack really is. It is nothing but a neo 'Southern Strategy' that is being brewed up by the American conservative establishment and is tacitly endorsed by the Clinton campaign. It doesn't have a hill of beans to do with Obama being a racist. It has everything to do with making sure that Obama doesn't get anywhere near that White House, except as a guest.

I am not necessarily angry with the conservative establishment for appealing to racial sentiments to win. You don't get angry with a rooster that crows or a dog that barks. That is just what they do! However, I am mad at somebody and that somebody is Barack. This episode shows the spinelessness of Obama and his lack of political heart. To see Obama slither away from a man who he has known for sometime and a man that bought Obama to God is sickening. It shows the highest order of political cowardice in how he is caving to the Gingrich's and Hannity's of the world by denouncing a man whose prolific career has touched the lives of thousands of black people in a positive way. If Obama is going to cave in this easily to the rantings of a few political zealots who are taking Dr. Wright's comments out of context, then how is he going to fight for you when the going gets tough? To throw his pastor of over 20 years under the bus like that shows Obama for the punk ass politician he really is.

The title of Obama's best-selling autobiography 'The Audacity of Hope' was actually taken from one of Dr. Wright's sermons. However, it ain't about hope, it's about votes. Obama is catering to the political right, instead of being right. I can't get down like that and neither should you.

Silda Spitzer--Strong or Sad?

Brittany S — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:25:18 EDT

Before anyone else jumps on the millions of ways to poke fun, or analyze rather, the situation about Eliot Spitzer and his ring of prostitution, I decided to take a stab at it. Truthfully, I do not know much about Eliot Spitzer, or prostitution for that matter, and my initial reaction was actually to the other woman in Spitzer’s life: his wife.

Upon seeing the photograph of the married couple together at this afternoon’s press conference, I can’t help but wonder whether I would have the strength to stand by my husband in that situation. On the other hand, a better question to ask might be whether this action demonstrates strength at all. Is standing by your husband after he cheats and commits a crime in one foul swoop loyalty or weakness? After all, this is not the first time that America has seen this occur; it goes without saying that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton experienced quite a similar situation a few years back.

I suppose in the end that Silda is simply trying to put on a brave face for the world, and I commend her for having the courage to get on stage with her husband today. However, I only hope she thoroughly evaluates the situation once the initial scandal makes it way out of the press—and that she comes to a better decision.

What Time magazine leaves out of its youth vote coverage

Rob Anderson — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:40:59 EST

Critics of young Americans like to argue that we are too wrapped up in ourselves to care about politics, that we're too busy obsessing over our Facebook profiles to get up out of our seats and attend a political rally or vote. David Von Drehle's article in Time magazine should help those critics finally put that tired old stereotype to rest. Today’s young people do care about politics, but despite increased youth voting in 2004 and 2006, politicians still acted like we didn’t matter. No one really reached out and asked us for our support. But, as Von Drehle points out, Illinois Senator Barack Obama did in the run up to the 2008 primaries, and young people responded.

There's no doubt that Obama has lit a fire under young Americans, but it would be a mistake to view young people's interest in Obama solely as a response to his personal narrative. As Von Drehle correctly points out, Obama's success has as much to do with his organization and strategy as it has to do with his message:

Obama's support among youth is not just a matter of mood; it is a product of effort and organization, of finding his supporters and getting them to the polls. … Obama's outreach to students didn't spring from some starry-eyed principle. It started as a specific element of his early strategy in Iowa. The first-in-the-nation caucuses allow 17-year-olds to vote if they are going to turn 18 before the general election, which means most high school seniors are eligible. To win those kids, Obama did something unusual in politics: he made them a genuine priority. After his rallies in towns across the state, he met backstage with student leaders from the area — a privilege most campaigns reserve for local VIPs and fund raisers.

So when it comes down to it, young people today aren't really lazy or indifferent; we're just human. In general, people don't get excited about politics (or anything else) unless they know their voices are valued, that they can actually make a difference. Early in his campaign, Obama bet that if he told us we matter, we'd be more likely to support his candidacy. And his bet paid off.

Hillary Is Just A Girl, Just A Girl in the World

Matt Zeitlin — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:23:45 EST

If you want a nice anecdote for how Clinton is appealing to gender solidarity, search for "Just a Gir l" on Youtube; the first result is the clip from the New Hampshire Democratic debate where Clinton talked about how her low likability ratings "hurts her feelings" and Obama subsequently quipped "you're likable enough." The video was put up by the Clinton campaign on YouTube, and they presumably paid for the top spot.

So, is Clinton trying to appeal to women born between 1977 and 1982 who really liked Clueless and Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion? The song, incidentally, is both awesome and a very effective statement for the Clinton campaign. Here are some lyrics:

Oh...I've had it up to here!
Oh...am I making myself clear?
I'm just a girl
I'm just a girl in the world...
That's all that you'll let me be!
I'm just a girl, living in captivity
Your rule of thumb
Makes me worry some

I'm just a girl, what's my destiny?
What I've succumbed to Is making me numb
I'm just a girl, my apologies
What I've become is so burdensome
I'm just a girl, lucky me
Twiddle-dum there's no comparison

Unfortunately, I don't expect Barack Obama to buy video placement on searches for "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud."

It's Been A While...

Chelsea Toy — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:31:37 EST

I have been gone for quite a while because I have been studying the rain forests of Borneo. The last month has left me with a few conclusions:

1. A lot of people in Malaysia (in fact, the vast majority of taxi drivers that I spoke with) think that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2008 and are happy about that.

2. Palm oil - a new green fuel - is just as damaging to the rain forests as logging.

3. Leeches are my least favorite life form.

4. George W. Bush is just as hated in Malaysia, a country not at all in the EU, not at all liberal, and not at all in line with Al Qaeda, as he is anywhere else in the world. As one cab driver put it, "He just likes to fight too much. The world doesn't like war."

5. Bako National Park in Sarawak is the most beautiful place on Earth.

What's the point of this post? I don't know; I just can't sleep.

Big Times Fumble On Gender And Race

Justin Elliott — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:40 EST

I can't decide whether this passage, from a Patrick Healy/Adam Nagourney story on Hillary Clinton and the so-called gender card, is the result of shoddy editing or a laughable assumption on the part of the authors:

In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.

Right, as if the virtually total domination of presidential politics by white men for the past 200+ years suggests that race and sex have been absent from that domain. Rather than completely and overwhelmingly present. Unbelievable.

Condensation by editors often drains nuance from writers' copy, but this seems way beyond that. Thoughts?

Hillary Clinton Implies Sexual Orientation is a Choice: How Important are GLBT Issues in 2008?

Eli Corp — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:15:59 EDT

During last night's debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about whether she would read a book to 2nd Grade Children about same-sex couples. In her reply she said something which caught my attention, and when I re-watched the debate I heard exactly what she was saying.

Clinton said: "I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children with the many differences that are in the world, and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation."

Was Hillary Clinton implying that sexual orientation is a choice, and therefore is something that can be changed? Perhaps she mispoke, but the comment was certainly not taken out of context, so what exactly did she mean when she said that we should "respect other people and the choices that other people make" in regard to sexual orientation?

Hillary Snags Another Endorsement

Justin Elliott — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:01:15 EDT

First it was Bill Kristol:

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, sounded more effusive. "Obama," he said, "is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world."

Now, it’s David Brooks’ turn. OK, so it’s not quite an endorsement — but Brooks can hardly repress his affection for Hillary:

Holbrooke: Iraq Is Worse Than Vietnam

Justin Elliott — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:04:26 EDT

It’s not the first time he’s said it, but former UN Ambassador and current Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Richard Holbrooke laid out his views on Iraq in the starkest terms in an interview published today in the Brown Daily Herald:

Hillary: "Raise Your Kids Like I Raised Chelsea." But Should You?

Zach Marks — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:10:47 EDT

Hillary Clinton was in the house - the Center for American Progress - to discuss the early education bill she is introducing with Bob Casey. She gave a compelling speech about why universal pre-K is so badly needed and impressed me by backing up rhetoric with facts and a touching anecdote or two.

The Time is Now for Universal Health Care

Eugene Resnick — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:53:28 EDT

Last night, at a theater in Washington DC, I saw Michael Moore's "Sicko". I left the theater with a sense of enthusiasm and passion for an issue that was dear to my heart but never was something I would write about. But now, this has changed.

It was an outrage to see the stories of these innocent people suffering under a system that doesn't want to care for people. Of course I knew that all these things were occurring but when they are placed with true-life stories it really struck a chord with me.

How is it that we, the United States of America, with all our glory and grandeur, all the hype about the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the stories of opportunity, equality, and justice under the law, all about community and how we all care about each other, all the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the words of Emma Lazarus uttering "Give me your tired, your weak, your huddle masses yearning to breath free," cannot provide decent health care for 1/6 of our population at all, and probably another 1/2 to 2/3 with insufficient health care? I dont understand how we think we are the best. Who are these 25-30% of the population who always poll in saying that we are on the right direction, or that we dont need universal health care? I just dont understand Americans. What is it about this country that says one things on the surface but does something completely different. Where are our family values? Family values of care, nurturance, community, and respect.

How is it that all of Western Europe and many Latin American countries offer free health care for all? For goodness sake, the country that we for decades have loathed, Cuba, has one of the best health care systems in the world! I dont understand how this is possible. We always talk about how its socialism, communism, state control, the terror! Our allies, Britain, France, all these nations offer free health care. As a consequence, they have a much higher life expectancy, they have lower rates of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, cancer, etc etc etc etc. It is a cultural problem. Michael Moore was right. The problem is that in America, its all about me. In Europe, its all about us. This Jeffersonian ideal, which has been central to America for centuries, the American dream is individualism. Individualism is a good thing in a way. But we have taken it to a huge extreme. But where are the politicians answering the desires of the people. People in this country want universal health care - over 75%. Yet again I dont understand who those 25% are. The richest 1%, fine. The richest 5% fine. Corporate CEO's, stock holders, businessmen, executives, political officials, entrepreneurs, fine. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not encompass 25% of this country by any measure at all. Who are these people with an ideology that is completely against their own self-interest.

The culprit is this whole idea of big government vs small government. Republicans and conservatives have done a good job of scaring people away from the idea of an efficient government for and by the people. They have deliberately constructed a message that says, we want to get elected to make government smaller, so that it doesnt interfere in your lives. Its all a deception unfortunately. During the Hillary Clinton health care reform crisis of the 1990s, Republicans charged she wanted to socialize medicine. Whats next, they asked? A command economy and a hammer and sickle replacing the stars on the American flag? Fear won. Yet it is 2007 and we are the only industrialized nation with no universal health care plan.

I will digress and say for a moment that our lack of a universal health care system directly impacts every aspect of society. Its plain and simple. Because of this broken system, our people die, spend large sums of money on medicines, and create a pill-popping culture. Have a headache? Go to CVS. Have a soar throat? Go to CVS. OVer the counter medications are the new American candies. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians dont nearly consume as much medicine as we do. Think about it. No universal health care = no doctor to see because you cant afford one = over the counter medication alternative with no prescription necessary = more money for drug companies. Why do we have grossely obese people in the millions in this country. That is downright disgusting and we are completely to blame. Look at our diets. Look at our eating habits and working habits. Its a deeper cultural problem not just a systemic one.

How do we find it acceptable that people do not have money for treatment and die? What kind of country is this? Shame on this country. Universal health care should be a right not a privilege. A country is better off if the people are healthy and strong, we all know that, so why dont we take care of our most needed. Is it a racial issue? I doubt it considering most of the people in Moore's movie were white. Then what is the problem? It is completely disgusting that we don't provide adequate health care for 9/11 workers. These people and many like them should be at political speeches, conventions, debates, and on primetime news telling their stories and educating the public on this issue. It is a pressing issue. They should be put on stage at the Democratic National Convention next year to tell their stories. Unbelievable. How can we let someone die of cancer because their insurance company denied them money for chemotherapy. How is that not murder? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Republicans talk so much about being "pro-life" and that "every life is unique and special." Why don't they actually adhere to that stance? Ridiculous.

By looking at Britain, we can see that the government cares about the health and well-being of its citizens. Why dont we? Why do we let drug companies do this? Who are these people voting for Republicans and some Democrats who continue to pander to these companies?Who are these people? I can assure you they dont know a thing about the issue. We are the most depressed country in the West. No wonder the drug companies want to keep it that way. I am surprised our collective body hasnt grown immune to these drugs already. Drugs should not be nearly as expensive as they are in this country yet we allow it.

Thank goodness we have reached a political consensus in this country where all the Democrats agree on this issue. The Republicans will go down in defeat on this issue yet why do people still vote for people like this? How, I just dont understand. I really want to know who those 30% opposition faction is in every poll.

Are people opposed to using their taxdollars to fund other people's health care? Dont they understand that it works both ways. You pay into the system a fraction, but you get back a huge reward. Same goes for free education.

It is time we have a universal health care plan. Lets actually join the rest of the highly industrialized world and live up to our status as a superpower.

An Emerging Progressive Majority? The Impending Progressive Revolution in America and the Massive Political Realignment Ahead

Eugene Resnick — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:32:55 EDT

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.

Bloomberg: The Answer To Our Prayers, Or The Next Ralph Nader?

Eli Corp — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:35:09 EDT

With only six months before the first Caucus in Iowa, the race for the Democratic and Republican nomination is in full swing, but there could be one more name added to the list of potential candidates, a third party candidate. Could a third party Independent candidate really sweep in and bring an end to the two-party domination of politics as we know it?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

Dana Goldstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:28:36 EDT

Via Garance Franke-Ruta: You must check out this video of the Clintons from 1992.

Forbes '08 Tracker - better than impartial polls

singhm — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:39:36 EDT

Now, the media doesn't even have to pretend to be impartial. It can be pretty openly sexist - or at least, that's what popped into my head when I first stumbled upon Forbes mag's "08 Tracker" which, paired with E-Poll Market Research, claims to know which candidates are the "most aggressive" or "most trustworthy" or "most handsome." (Can women even be considered for that last category? Ladies, I think I'd kick someone who called me handsome, no?)

Anyway, what I love love love is that Clinton got "most aggressive." Forbes, the magazine of the business world, of course must reserve the word aggressive for a woman who is trying to make some barriers in a man's world. As a former business school student, it's frustrating to continually see women have to take a backseat (unless, of course, they need to hire a couple of women to save face and put someone on their website on the diversity page) or risk being called "too aggressive." I remember two of my peers, one male and one female, having the exact same characteristics. Raising their hands in class every 2 minutes, taking the lead on all their projects, and generally being "that kid." Any guesses on who got away with it, and labeled an all-star, and which one got the tag of annoying and whiny?

Just sayin. It's not easy being a woman in a man's world (especially when that world is business or politics... thank Forbes for reminding me of that).

Street Theater: Rev. Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping

persiancowboy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:45:52 EDT

The following video shows another way activists can use direct action and street theater to raise social consciousness about an issue. This would educate the community about an important issue and at the same time it could be very entertaining. Creative ideas such as a street theater will raise the chances of getting media coverage. According to a viewer,

While companies like Starbucks homogenize our neighborhoods the protest offers something unusual and stimulates thought. Some feel Starbucks offers convenience but this convenience requires the suffering of people, usually far away. Art shines a light on issues that the average person, dropping their three bucks for a cup of coffee, doesn't generally contemplate.

Take That, Grover Norquist

Dana Goldstein — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:32:18 EST

Good news from a New York Times/CBS News poll this morning. Sixty percent of Americans -- including 62 percent of independents -- would be willing to pay more taxes to guarantee universal health coverage. But according to the poll, only 36 percent of Americans have confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to deliver health care reform this time around, and about half are unsure about John Edwards’ idea to require employers to either pay for health insurance or pay into a general fund to provide government coverage. And get this: A full 80 percent think health care is a more important priority than continuing the Bush tax cuts!

Edwards’ statement that he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year to pay for universal health coverage was greeted as apostasy, but now here’s some hard evidence that the era of “tax” as a dirty word might be drawing to a close. Sure, Americans like to imagine that they’ll be rich enough someday to benefit from these regressive tax policies. But after six years of Bush, the country has a clear and weary-eyed view of what the de-funding of government looks like. And they don’t like what they see.

Cross-posted at TAPPED.