6
POPSHillary's Own Sexism
Although there is a lot of talk about sexism, and how it is to blame for Hillary's defeat, I think people are barking up the wrong tree. Obama never campaigned against Hillary on the basis that as a woman she would be "unelectable" because conservative "swing voters" would never elect a woman. On the other hand, she did make that case against Obama on account of his race. In fact, nobody ever questioned Hillary's ability to lead the country, as a woman or otherwise. The should have: her foreign policy is scary and ignorant. But the most sexist person in the race was Hillary herself. Her campaign, with the pant-suits and tough guy attitude (especially on Iran) seemed to reflect her own belief that if a woman was going to win, she had to convince people that she was "one of the guys." I think almost anyone who would vote for Obama would also vote for a woman - if it was the right woman. What I'm not willing to do is vote for any woman simply for the sake of making history.
5
POPSThe Way the Race Card Plays... For all the (disturbing) talk about how being black is bad for the Democratic party, nobody seems to be noticing that it also has its good sides. I mean, people worry about Obama's abilty to capture the working class white vote, but why doesn't anyone worry about Hillary's (rapidly diminishing) ability to capture the black vote? After all, by campaigning on the idea that a black man can't represent America, isn't she destroying her ability to get the black vote? (Not to mention white votes, like mine, that are really frightened by that kind of rhetoric?) What I love about an Obama McCain election is that it scrambles the map. Some blue states would definitely prefer McCain, while some red states are certainly leaning towards Obama. At last, we have a chance to break down America's polarization.
11
POPSThe New Face of Racism: Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton may well be the youngest living Dixiecrat. Basically, her campaign strategy has come down to this: 1. There are lots of Americans who would vote against a person based on the color of his skin. (I bet you can't guess which color they "aren't quite ready for"!) 2. These people are so important to the Democratic Party that we should on no account offend their delicate sensibilities by fielding an, ehm, colored candidate. 3. By virtue of her being white, she has the key character trait that appeals to the DNC base, which is the ability to pander to the much vaunted "Racist Redneck" demographic. Are her values in line with the Democratic Party? They certainly don't represent me! In fact, I would prefer it if racists didn't vote for the candidate I support. After all, nobody is looking for the David Duke endorsement!
4
POPSThe Problem With Communism: From Monty Python to Nepal In my opinion, the global failure of Communism can be attributed more or less directly to the fact that Communists have a unique propensity for murdering each other. Almost all communist thinkers of any note were inevitably murdered, executed, or exiled to some frozen hinterland by their fellow communists. I am hard pressed to think of any other ideological movement that so consistently kills all it's most talented proponents. It is striking, the extent to which these dogmatic idealists are themselves fatally venal, intolerant, capricious, and transparently greedy. It is too bad to see this sort of thing still going on, and threatening the fragile new Nepali government. What is more, it is shocking that in the 21st Century there are still those who are naive enough to subscribe to such an ideology. I have to admit, while I think I can understand terrorists, I don't know if I'll ever figure out Communists. Therefore, I resort to the Life of Brian for further analysis.
3
POPSIn Defense of Caucusing I am disappointed that nobody is making the obvious counterpoint to all of Hillary's sour grapes over the caucuses. As I see it, caucuses represent one of the best functions of democracy. Why? Because it entails community dialog. I think more voting should be done like this. If I vote privately, I don't have to think about what I'm doing, or its repercussions on the community, and I don't need to justify my decision. As a result, voting by ballot often becomes a selfish, isolated and disconnected experience. In a caucus you discuss your position with your friends and neighbors and, drawing on that communal wisdom, reach a consensus. Imagine if all voting were conducted this way? We would be a much more conscientious nation as a whole. However, this is specifically ill-suited to Hillary's "I'm right, to hell with you" vision of leadership. Perhaps she is losing caucuses because it is hard to justify voting for her. Anyway, Democracy always works better with free pizza!
5
POPSRalph Nader: Clueless Egomanica Ralph Nader represents everything that is indulgent, self-congratulatory, and ultimately ineffective about our nation's activist community. He is busy implicitly comparing himself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. while he is woefully short on valuable political analysis. Obama hits the nail on the head here: Nader doesn't actually understand politics. Anyone who thought Gore and Bush were the same ought to be feeling pretty sheepish after over 6 years of uninterrupted warfare on multiple fronts, economic crisis, financial collapse, and rapacious Nero-esque indulgence from the Bush administration. Nader couldn't have been more wrong. There is nobody quite like George W. Bush! (Thank goodness!)
0
POPSSeattle's Byzantine Primary System There are good reasons why our primary is seldom, and probably shouldn't be relevant. First, is because Washington State is largely full of people who are willfully out of touch with national trends. We're independent, and most often not interested in following the rest of the nation. Something that is taken for granted as conventional wisdom in Seattle's overwhelmingly liberal voting public would be highly controversial elsewhere. That's why we elect the nation's most radical congressman by margins of up to 80%. In Republican areas Washingtonians are no different - we all love crazy people who make no attempt to moderate their ideals. (Me included, I must confess.) The second reason we shouldn't matter is that our primary system is so complex, redundant and useless it could only have been developed by Microsoft's web developers. (More on this in comments...)
20
POPSREALITY CHECK! There is a frightening new global trend of denial... Europeans think that they don't need to limit fishing... Car companies don't think they need to improve fuel economy standards... Bush thinks he can increase spending and cut taxes at the same time... Jingoists think we are winning the war in Iraq... Democrats think Hillary Clinton has enough experience to win an election... Polluters think that Global Warming won't really happen... Evangelicals think Jesus is coming back soon... Fundamentalists think they can win the war against modernity... The truth is: we're stuck with this world. The rules DO apply. No free passes. You have to face the music sometime. We must choose realism over comfortable delusion. Unfortunately, for now, wistful thinking will rule the day until we let it all collapse around us. Then we'll stand there scratching our heads saying: How could this happen?
1
POPSThe Question of the South Now, I would like to disagree with the author (Matt Bai) on two points... First: He argues that the loss of the South for the Democrats was due to desegregation, which is no doubt party true. But if that's the case, what does he mean when he says Democrats have to run a candidate who "resonates in the south..." As I see it, the Democrats are already suffering from a retreat in their values. Pandering to isolationist extremists still absorbed in racism and a antebellum culture of violence is not the way to win the country, its a way to lose your credibility. On the other hand, I think Mr. Bai stereotypes the South as most Northerners have, by presuming that it is and always has been a land of Bible-belt anti-government racists and redneck gun nuts. The truth is the South is not nearly so monolithic as pundits portray it. Southerners are not as backwards, not as ignorant, and not as conservative as most political analysts think. The Democrats need to Awaken the Radical So
1
POPSA Positive Political Process Frank Rich, in an op-ed I don't feel like clipping (too glib), declared the GOP Platform to be Dead on Arrival. I beg to differ. Although McCain had a dark period of pandering, he seems to be back to saying what he thinks, and playing clean. He's the Boy Scout of Electoral Politics, and he's got my respect. (Not something I give out often to candidates.) But the really interesting thing is that Huckabee, who was always a nice guy, seems to have become more insightful and philosophical as the campaign goes on. His observations on political process I thought were exactly what America should be. We'll put him on my "provisional respect" list. Although his last bizarre bit about the Confederate flag will probably cost him the Hootie and the Blowfish vote, I'd bet they were already going to vote for Hillary anyway. Now if only the losers like Thompson and Giuliani will take a hint: sharpen up, start thinking, or drop out.
4
POPSThe Middle Swings Left this Year I was discussing this with Kmcolo, and this seems to bear out some of my hunch. It would appear that the Republican Party is polarizing in the primaries, rather than gaining strength as it did in the past. It would appear that only the core party faithfull are turning out for the primaries. This is especially striking in Michigan, because there was no functional Democratic primary. (Their delegates got suspended) This should bring up independent numbers voting GOP since it was pretty much that or stay home. Given this, it looks like the independents in Michigan are pretty squarely waiting to vote for the ultimate Democrat nominee. Romney, Huckabee and Ron Paul are all riding high on a wave of pessimism that drives away normal voters and leaves only extremists.
1
POPSPutting Huckabee in Perspective: Understanding Caucuses Although various people have come up with various interpretations of the Huckabee (almost all of which reinforce the positions they held to begin with...) they have all overlooked one critical element: This was a caucus primary! What does this mean? It means that, a certain number of people who woke up that morning had decided already that they were going to support a republican but they didn't know who. They then went to the caucuses, and talked with their neighbors for an afternoon, and slowly, the candidates with less support were eliminated in favor of those with more. Like an endless series of run-off elections, with your friends and neighbors acting as cheer leaders, it finally comes down to one. This means that Huckabee had the most zealous and energetic adherents among the voters so conservative that they defacto caucus for the GOP. While most moderates are swinging behind Obama, it seems like Huckabee is simply cashing in on the influence of the fringe in primaries.
5
POPSHugo Chavez walks the walk. The only other politician I've seen who really does act on their beliefs was Pepe Figures in Costa Rica. Consider this: even Paul Wellstone ran for another term! I gotta say, Chavez must have some REALLY strong beliefs, because when you are the defacto dictator of America's largest oil-producer, it's gotta be a tough blow to have to give it all up. Looking to the future, we'll soon see if Putin has the cojones grandes of Senor Chavez, or just the frijoles pequeñas of a petty dictator. I'm betting on the beans.
3
POPSWho is Gorby Shilling For Now? Gorbachev, former Soviet strongman (and believe me, I miss being able to use that phrase!) has launched his second career as a shill for Pizza Hut, Louis Vuitton, and Vladimir Putin, which may well be the holy trinity of the new rich in the "New Russia." Still, with his editorial on "what a responsible leader" Putin is, it seems like he's pushing real hard to jump the gun. After all, Putin has only said he's going to resign as president, he hasn't actually done it yet. In all my experience in dealing with former KGB guys ;) I've learned to believe something when I see it, and even then, only maybe. Anyway, this is a really funny election. There is nobody running. Most of the ones who openly expressed interest in being the next President of Russia are either dead or in prison! The rest know how to take a hint. So what happens if Putin doesn't become president, but nobody else does either? Will the leadership then fall on this new position for Putin: "Father of the Country"?
4
POPSPat Robertson's Endorsement: Blessing or Curse? Leave it to national politics to turn a normal guy into Crazy McGee. Giuliani is campaigning so hard to the Republican fringe that he seems to be sabotaging the traits that might have made him appealing in a general election. On the other hand, think about what Pat Robertson is saying: "the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" W*$# the F@&#!!!! Now imagine if a liberal candidate got endorsed by a national figure who talked about the "Blood lust of Christian Colonialism and Capitalist Neo-Fascism." That would pretty much be the end of the trail for that campaign. It is horrific that someone who could say something like this is actually thought of as an important endorsement. How many people seriously think like that? Are we really that ignorant and angry? Why would anyone be proud to be endorsed by someone who sounds increasingly apocalyptic, paranoid, and deranged?
13
POPSEdwards has a point: Hillary is Wrong Edwards raises a very good point, something Democrats have an amazing capacity to over look. In 2000 the Democrats ran Al Gore, and he wasn't able to generate enough enthusiasm to secure the white house. In 2004 they ran John Kerry as the "Bush-beater" candidate, and he didn't generate enough enthusiasm to even make people bother noticing the blatant fraud in the election. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Stevenson were no better. The democrats have run an outstanding array of losers since the mid point of the 20th century. As long as Hilary Clinton remains an establishment candidate with no clear ideological positions and delicately structured plans that only go half way, she won't be winning anything. Also, seriously, if the election came down to Hillary (Bomb Iran) v. Guliani (BOMB IRAN) then we would be looking at a contest where the Daisy Girl add would be considered positive PR!
4
POPSDivorce, French Style Wow, leave it to the French: the first presidential divorce comes on the day of a general strike. I have so say I'm a bit confused: were they just waiting until he was in office to divorce? I mean, before the election she'd already said that she had absolutely no interest in living in the Presidential mansion.
3
POPSCut, but Not Run for Gordon Brown Cut yes, Run no. It seems like a peculiarly British form of democracy that holds elections at the leisure of the elected officials. And isn't it in bad taste to dodge an election right as you are pushing a controversial agenda? Way to wuss out of an election Gordy. You just got my "Political Pansy of the Week" Award. Turns out he's just another spineless New-Labor nerd.
16
POPSNothing Lasts Forever, Not Even Belgium Belgium: the country where other European countries go to fight their apocalyptic wars. Flemish: Somehow not quite Dutch, but only they can tell the difference. Waffles: Yum. Endives: Not as boring as lettuce. White asparagus: whiter than regular asparagus, I guess. Eels in garlic sauce: okay, now that's taking it a bit too far... Yes, for those who thought you could take things for granted, and who just assumed that such a stalwart pillar of modern nationhood as Belgium would be around forever: prepare for extreme-right xenophobic "Flemish" nationalist Filip (Philip to those filthy Wallonians) Dewinter to rock your world: "It's 'bye-bye Belgium' time!" Indeed, it is a sad day for humanity, and a bitter personal defeat for me, being as I had long argued that Chocolate and Beer were in fact enough to keep a nation of feuding and indistinguishable ethnic groups together. Guess I can't be right all the time!
2
POPSWhy the GOP Gerrymanders Better It should be an important question: why the GOP plays the political game of controlling our country better than the Democrats. One reason that occurs to me is elitism. These days the Grand Old Party is heavily entrenched in the milieu of the elite, or as Bush calls them, "his base." When placed in the uppermost echelons of any social body, it is easy to develop a distorted sense of entitlement. This mentality of elitism and entitlement is inherently resistant to the chaos of democracy and seeks to establish a predictable order in the system. Thus as long as there has been democracy in America, there have been those seeking to diminish it. Elbridge Gerry, for whom gerrymandering is named was a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence. In the end, the question is not about left and right, or Democrat and Republican. The question is who has critical momentum at this point? The forces of order of the forces of reform?
6
POPSIslam, Turkey, and Why We Should Be Worried... By "Centers of Evil" General Buyukanit is referring to the likely future president of his country, as well as the majority of their parliament. Now I know that calling a President evil has become kinda banal lately for most Americans, but I think this guy sounds like he means business. (Although what 'evil' means to a secularist is up for grabs, I guess!) What will the US do? On the one hand we might fall into the old pattern of supporting a military coup over an inconvenient democratic election. (We've done it before... a lot!) This would just re-confirm for the rest of the world their belief that America is anti-democratic and imperialistic. It would send a disastrous message to the Afghans and Iraqis, forever damaging our ability to convince them that we are not invaders. What is more, it would confirm for many that the US is anti-Islamic. But on the other hand, does anyone have the political stones to embrace and protect an Islamic Democracy?
6
POPSWith friends like Putin, who needs Ahmadinejad? Vladimir Putin is one of the scariest men in politics, and with an election approaching, things are about to get a whole lot scarier. Anyone who thinks that Iran or North Korea are the greatest threats world peace and stability needs to take a look closer to the Urals. I'm worried that all our presidential candidates will be building their Middle Eastern resume when the next crisis they are going to face will come from Russia first.
6
POPSUS Men earning less than their Dad's did. "There is clearly some story here that productivity gains are not trickling down to the median family," said John Morton, a co-author of the study and the managing director of economic policy initiatives at the Pew Charitable Trusts. The study's authors, who plan to examine relative mobility, or the ability of Americans to move up or or down in social strata, said their report shows the canonical belief in an American meritocracy may be unraveling. "The expectation that each generation will do better than their parents has become a fundamental part of what we call 'The American Dream,'" said Morton. "But this new analysis suggests this bedrock belief may be shifting under our feet."
13
POPSFred Thompson Shakes Up the GOP Primary So, from the conservatives I talk to, here and elsewhere, I get the impression that Fred Thompson would really energize the GOP. The Republicans aren't running as disciplined of a process as they usually do, so it seems this could shake up a rather sloppy field. Who do you think stands to lose the most from F. Thompson's candidacy? Who do you think stands to gain the most? (I see a boost for Tommy Thompson, riding a wave of twin Thompson confusion...)
3
POPSObservations on Democracy & Despotism: Thai Mai Rak Thai! Once again, we see a leader use democracy to gain autocratic power. We see a man claim to love his country but instead use his power only for his own beniffit. How can we improve a democratic system in a practical way so that it will be less subject to these kind of manipulations.
3
POPSIraq is more than just an election issue! At this point we really should be asking ourselves: what is the real objective of the Bush administration? Is he actually trying to win the war? Or simply trying to keep it going until he is out of office? Isn't the troop surge perfect evidence of this? The new strategy amounts to nothing more than simply committing more men and material to the problem without a significant re-evaluation of our overall strategy, or its shortcomings. Unfortunately, the impractical Democrat bill on spending, and their quick retreat from that position also seems to suggest that many Democrats think that an ongoing war in Iraq might be a convenient election issue next year. I will vote for no candidate who plays politics while people's lives are on the line.
9
POPSTears for the future... You know I hate to admit it, but it's true. Obama may be a "rock star" (although he's no Jim Morrison) and he may be a great guy (although he's no Bobby Kennedy) I have to agree: on the hard issues, he hasn't shown us that he has what it takes. This was exactly the failure of Royale (Sego) in France. The sad thing is that, although it took me years of college and field research to do it the hard way, I estimate that with the resources of a national politician, and about $25,000,000 it would only take about three or four months of intensive study to come up to speed on the relevant facts of Islamic "terrorism" and the situation in Iraq, both military and civilian. Why is it that I some how feel that quite a few of the people on Clipmarks are more qualified to lead the country than any of the people currently running? (Both left and right!) Come to think of it, why aren't any of you guys running? How long will it be before we get an erudite, informed and passionate leader?
1
POPSOn Appeasement and Democracy This poll represents a very interesting trend. It would appear to signify a major shift in the prevailing ideological winds of the American Right. It eerily echoes the concerns heard on the left during the 2004 Primary, where in candidates perceived as "Radical" (Howard Dean) were eventually pushed to the back, while John Kerry was eventually nominated because people thought "he could beat Bush." They myth of the middle was a strategy Republicans exploited for years, frightening Democrats out of taking a stand by demanding moderation. The truth is elections are governed by passion. (Perhaps this is why so few Senators win the Presidency.) A candidate who stands up passionately for what their party believes will win. When they pick a candidate with the other party in mind, how can they expect to generate the kind of energy that they need to win? By picking a candidate who they don't agree with just because they think Democrats will vote for them, the Republicans have already lost.
Newest Clips
see Newest Clips
7
Latest Pops
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Tags
Print
Save
Turn on live update