Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann (D), who, during his race for AG in 2006 named Eliot Spitzer as his role model, has refused twice to acquiesce to multiple calls to step down in the wake of admitting last week that he had a romantic relationship with his former scheduler (Dann is married with three children) and firing two of his top aides.

As a result of this refusal, the Ohio Democratic Party has made their intentions to force Dann out extremely clear. From the Columbus Dispatch:

The Ohio Democratic Party, which strongly backed Dann’s come-from-behind campaign in 2006, is preparing to sever its ties with Dann. Chairman Chris Redfern said he expects the party’s executive committee to rescind its 2006 endorsement of Dann when it meets Saturday, which Redfern said would make Dann an independent officeholder. Democrats also are prepared to lead the impeachment drive, Redfern said.

“Pending Saturday’s events, he’ll be holding office as an independent who was elected as a Democrat,” Redfern said. “We will distance ourselves both figuratively and literally from Marc Dann until he makes the right decision, which is to step down.”

Ohio Daily Blog reports that one of Dann’s hometown papers says that the Ohio House Democratic Caucus had a conference call this afternoon and will begin impeachment proceedings tomorrow if Dann doesn’t step down tonight.

Plunderbund writes about the removal of information about Dann from the ODP website and also has a video of Gov. Strickland in which he says that they’ll use “whatever action is necessary” to remove Dann.

Pho writes about the legal provisions related to replacing Dann.

This article from ePluribus Media includes most of the key information from today and last week, but the situation is developing minute by minute, as it has been all day today. And it’s been exhausting.

I’m somewhat restricted from saying too much (code words on my blog entries are “mmmumbble mummmble damn packing tape”) because my SO is in the same law firm as an attorney whom Dann has asked to help clean up the AG’s office. Although it’s a voluntary role, and I’ve been told my right to express myself is being respected, I don’t feel comfortable writing about this situation in as an unbridled manner as I might.

I can say that I’ve had off the record conversations with the Ohio Democratic Party stating my intense upsetment about the hostile work environment that came to exist in the AG’s office and my belief that it must not be tolerated, not only because of the women who were subordinates but for the sake of the entire 1400 person “law office” that is an AG’s office.

Obviously, I wasn’t and still am not the only one saying that this is an intolerable situation that demands dramatic and obvious attention.

But as a Democrat in Ohio, who wanted to believe in Marc Dann, even when I wasn’t the most certain, it’s also just a very very, as another Democrat expressed to me, profoundly sad experience.

If you liked Reagan, the odds are you don’t think McCain is too old to be president. And if you liked Reagan, the reason he gave for opposing a bill that would ensure women equal pay for equal work might even make sense to you. Here’s McCain, ‘reasoning’:

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.” (AP)

You know what, I don’t even know where to start with this. For one thing, I can’t believe this is even an issue in the 21st Century. For another, it’s hard to type when your hands are shaking with fury.

Read the rest of this entry »

Programming others to do one’s will, or else…
When I first trained in my field, veterans from Korea and those coming back from Nam who’d been POWs, had often suffered extensive efforts by the enemy… to rearrange their impulses, instincts and attitudes. At that time too, deprogramming had become a watchword, and thus we studied deeply the psychological effects of vulnerable human beings being ‘programmed’ by others

…Actual brain changes appeared to take place, deleterious ones that undercut the victim’s confidence and certainty about selfhood… and psychological changes, such as, feelings of helplessness, inability to think for oneself clearly and quickly. These and more, appeared to issue from experiencing untoward pressures and torments meant to destroy the core person.

Thus, whether crude or sophisticated the enemy attempted to cover over and subvert the soldiers’ true selves, by:
–using punishments erratically,
–withholding of food and other subsistances,
–restricting movement, and access to the outer world, to like-kind colleagues who shared a desire to be free
–and to also, reward via pathetic means, erratically also… as one soldier I worked with had been given a rat’s leg, raw, as a reward for agreeing to be beaten by the enemy in order to save a badly battered fellow soldier from being beaten to death.

That kind of ‘reward’ of ‘poisonous love’ can seem a moment of light… but only to those entirely degraded, those whose core self has been stolen away.

The good news is that the core self can, with care and time, be restored. And the work to do so is noble and worthy.

Yet… though we can notice that some aspects of a deleterious cult are also held by highly disciplined groups and service groups….

we can also note the difference between a group that is straight arrow, and one that is destructive … in the latter, the creative spirit is not free, and the person is
–not free to leave,
–not free to learn beyond the leader’s knowings,
–not free to change,
–not free to question or to create,
–not free to be compensated,
–not free to create sub-groups,
and that the ‘contact’ or agreement to become part of the cult was made without fair reasoning
–by virtue of being born into the cult as a baby,
–or being seduced into it during a time of travail,
–or being drawn in by insecurity, ill health, lostness, a seeking of intense meaning and dense ‘unusual’ experiences,
–or wanting very deeply to belong and be loved but without adequate fore-discernment,
–and other kinds of tender vulnerabilities that are found particularly in the young, the naïve, the unworldly,
the hopeful, the weary, the good hearted, those who feel called to serve…

…including some who
–hope for a free ride, who are themselves exploitative,
–those who have been in some hurtful way disenfranchised by their parents or a great love,
–those who have been already denuded of the core self by some previous person or association,
– those who want to attain importance/protection by being attached to someone or something their see as very shiny,
– those who are passive-dependent as personalities (want to be taken care of and told what to do and not have to think/feel anxiety),
– those in the manic swing of bi-polar disorder who will be thrilled, fawning and radiant acolytes …for as long as their mania lasts
–those caught in an over-idealizing complex as either part of a garden variety neurosis, or as a feature of borderline personality disorder….

Vulnerability to joining up and defending a destructive cult is not a matter of intelligence. IQ is not a factor for pledging. Vulnerability to ‘hyper-belong’ is often caused by absence of experience, lack of discernment, and a good deal of disappointment and/or distrust of/with the world ‘out there.’

Here is a shortlist of how to go about it, were one to try to ‘build’ a negative cult… keeping in mind that the destructiveness of such comes from de-personalizing human beings, by stripping them of freedom to choose to follow one’s own pathway without being exiled, to force, to threaten shunning and exile, to keep a soul from learning deeply and broadly in the world as well as within the community, to shame and humiliate, and to even strike or deprive of necessities, in order to garner ‘perfect’ obedience. In a phrase: Absolute CONTROL over others’ thoughts, feelings, bodies, development, social, spiritual, and economic functions.

–Set oneself up as inspired by God or the equivalent
–Claim Revelation
–Take on one’s own version of being the wise old man (omniscient father,) or the great mother (endless maternalism)
–Remove all finances from devotees or require huge amounts of money from them in order to remain part of the group
–Isolate the group on a parcel of land, set far away or difficult to access by car or on foot.
–Change the diet to an eccentric one, healthy or not
–Regiment living quarters, reduce decoration, games and toys and material goods to bare bones or nothing
–Deprive sleep, despite the fact that different people have different Read the rest of this entry »

Via Media Matters:

During the March 31 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist repeatedly mocked Sen. Barack Obama’s bowling performance — which Scarborough called “dainty” — at a March 29 campaign stop at Pleasant Valley Lanes in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Deriding Obama’s score, he said: “You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man.” Scarborough added, “You get 150, you’re a man, or a good woman,” to which Geist replied, “Out of my president, I want a 150, at least.”

Later in the show, after NBC political analyst Harold Ford Jr. said that Obama’s bowling showed a “humble” and “human” side to him, Scarborough replied, “A very human side? A prissy side.”

Right, because bowling is the true test not just of a president but of a man.

(And because all-American guys like Scarborough (Chris Matthews is another one) want a president on whom they can have a full-out man-crush.)

Note the language here. Obama was “dainty” and “prissy,” and certainly not “a man.” In other words, he was feminine. More to the point, he was gay. This is the language of the right, the “denigration of the female” (as my friend LindaBeth put it in a brilliant post a couple of months ago on the use of the word “pussy”).

The right uses it to denigrate its political opponents, and they are using it, and will continue to use it, against Obama. The race card will be played, too — and, make no mistake about it, appeals to racism still work — but race as a political weapon is problematic and can only be used covertly, directed at specific audiences under the radar of the mainstream media. Sexism is another matter, especially sexism tinged with homophobia, which is what Scarborough’s comments were all about. (Note that scoring a 150 makes you either a man or a good woman. This is how sexists like Scarborough view women, with utter condescension: a good woman is just an average man.)
Read the rest of this entry »

…AND THE LIGHT OF A REVEALING ROLE MODEL:

John F. Kennedy was correct about life and politics when he famously said, “Life isn’t fair.” Not only is politics unfair, it may be the least fair part of life. In many election years, if we had blue-ribbon selection panels charged with considering only the qualifications and likely performance of potential presidents, governors, and senators, the list of winners would likely be quite different from the ones actually elected by the voters. But that’s not the way democracy works, and people learn to live with their mistakes–and maybe even learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Part of politics’ unfairness is also the constant criticism that cascades down upon each candidate from every conceivable direction. Yet the critics are often wrong.

MORE

It is a sad story…typical of incidents that are not uncommon in some Pakistani cities/towns, as well as in some parts of India, especially northern India (and Delhi in particular). To read the first-hand account of sexual harassment narrated by a young woman/writer in the blog the Pakistan Spectator please click here…

Shockingly, many incidents of harassment take place in full public view. Many times the police is are silent spectators and least helpful (something to do with lack of proper sensitization/training on the subject and cultural reasons).

It is not that the leaders in the two countries are not aware of this shocking state of affairs. But even in their own minds this subject seems to be low down in their list of priorities. Did someone say we recently celebrated “International Year of the Woman”???? The media reports such incidents (one wonders whether only to titillate their audience). Their seems to be no concerted effort to create public awareness on this issue.

There have been incidents in India when the culprits were resoundingly thrashed or even lynched. The public is increasingly taking the law in its hands because the state machinery is not doing enough to check the growing menace.

Another dimension that deserves attention is the fact the before the partition of India into two in 1947, Indian and Pakistani cities (and big towns) had areas informally earmarked where prostitution was socially accepted. The logic was that it was better that the “drain flowed in one known part of the city”. Now with the sweeping ban on prostitution “the drain has begun to flow in different parts of the cities.”

The word “nigger” is bleeped out in television broadcasts (at least it was in a clip shown on a cable news show I saw the other day).

The word “bitch” is used routinely in television shows now, often as a laugh line.

Not meaning to pull a Ferraro, but does this reflect something about our culture that we refuse to face honestly?

—

Cross-posted to Random Fate.

Have Democrats - and Europeans - become too comfortable with the inevitability of a Democratic President in 2008? Financial Times Deutschland columnist Thomas Klau writes in part, ‘The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel. … The reproach so often repeated by Obama - that McCain offers only a sequel of the failed politics of George W. Bush - misses the point: McCain has contradicted Bush’s policies so often, that no one can embody calls for change the way he does.’

By Thomas Klau

Translated by Julian Jacob

March 6, 2008

Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)

The saga goes on - the epochal battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Once again, the voters have resisted the pressure of the media, which was so quick to choose a favorite candidate.

In the U.S., people love quick results and clear statistics and a fast declaration of winners and losers. But Americans also appreciate the courage of those who don’t give up. Hillary Clinton has fought on after being written off and has gone on the attack when many were urging her to clear the field for Barack Obama. On Tuesday [Mar. 4] , the voters didn’t abandon her.

The senator’s tenacity and her steadfastness in times of great stress could be her best argument, if in Denver in July it comes down to drawing party delegates to her side. Clinton will need arguments because despite her victory yesterday, the numbers continue to speak against her. In terms of the number of delegates, Obama is out in front and will be almost impossible to catch - the arithmetic and dynamics of the approaching primary dates work in his advantage.

Now the battle for the Democratic nomination will become harder and perhaps dirtier. Clinton’s revitalized election team will make every effort to keep the Illinois senator on the defensive. Obama’s squeaky-clean image will suffer if for the first time, the press keeps its klieg lights on the senator’s more problematic contacts. It is here that he is vulnerable to attack. He’s member of a Black church congregation in Chicago, the leader of which has maintained contacts with Black racists. And the corruption trial against a former Obama supporter, building contractor Tony Rezko, is imminent.

DEEP-SEATED PARTY CRISES

With the withdrawal of Mike Huckabee, the Republican primary battle has ended with the formal selection of John McCain. The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel.

Politically, Clinton and Obama are conventional Democrats, located in the middle-left of their own party. But McCain is the first Republican presidential candidate in many years who has ascended in spite of the resistance of the culture warriors - that aggressive nationalistic wing of the Party. Unlike the leading figures of the present U.S. government, his TV is not tuned to Fox News - the propaganda channel of the right - but MSNBC - and anyone who knows the United States understand how much that says.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections

Rather than signaling the onset of a post-racial society, does Obama’s success herald the dawn of a new American ‘ethnopolitics’? Mirko Lauer of the Peruvian newspaper La Republica writes, ‘Governor Kenneth Blackwell, an Ohio politician who has won many victories said in 2006: ‘We’re at a historic moment, and in a position to win nominations and break stereotypes.’ He’s implying that it’s precisely Blackness that is beginning to win elections.’ Lauer goes on to point out, ‘the real change in U.S. politics will be an extension of ethnopolitics as long practiced by Whites to their own advantage.’

By Mirko Lauer.

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

February 28, 2008

Peru - La Republica - Original Article (Spanish)

As Barack Obama inches closer to the Democratic nomination (this morning’s betting gives him an 82 percent chance), the question of whether a Black candidate can win a United States presidential election comes into sharper focus. Hillary Clinton’s people, believe it or not, have begun to disseminate photos of Obama in ethnic garb, something between African and Muslim.

[Editor’s Note: In the photo (right), Senator Obama donned the garb of a Somali elder during a visit near the Somali border, on diplomatic mission to Kenya in 2006.]

The Blacks now constitute 11 percent of the electorate, and it’s unlikely that they’ll all vote for Obama. Among other reasons, this is because people of color are very diverse in terms of class, culture, ideology and political affiliation. There are Blacks for Hillary, and some are even with Republicans. If Obama wins the nomination, in this regard he may end up quite alone.

Strangely, in the tea leaves of the moment, it’s not the White vote that is perceived as the biggest stumbling block for Obama, but the Latino vote. Indeed, Latinos have a very competitive relationship with African-Americans, have a political agenda of their own, and a distrust for progressivism common to nearly all immigrants.

The progressive analysis posits that this election is very different in terms of race and gender. The idea is that many voters will be willing to elect a Black or a woman solely on the basis of political image or the merit of their proposals. Yet this same electorate has consistently elected conservatives of all kinds.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.

Last March 4th, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, arms linked with civil rights leaders, were reenacting the 1965 march in Selma, united in declaring their debt to the non-violence of Martin Luther King. Today, they are at the precipice of divisions that could be suicidal for their party in November.

In Obama’s grasp for the nomination and Clinton’s last stand in Texas and Ohio, identity politics are threatening to tear the Democrats apart–accusations against him of Farrakhan sympathies to unnerve Jewish voters, paired with countercharges that the Clinton campaign is fueling them by distributing a photo of Obama in Muslim garb. Voters are being targeted by race, gender, ethnicity, economic status and any other demographic that could prejudice them.

Read more.

As WORLDMEETS.US regularly demonstrates, the U.S. election race is dazzling the rest of the planet. The U.S. correspondent for Portugal’s Jornal de Negocios finds America’s capacity to remake itself after the ‘reactionary’ George W. Bush to be ‘remarkable.’ Leonel Moura writes in part, ‘Just as in the person of George Bush, America has given us one of the most reactionary presidents ever; it now electrifies the planet with the possibility of electing a woman or a Black … For those familiar with American society - which is very advanced technologically and rather backward in terms of moralism - nothing could be more revolutionary than seeing a Black man in the White House - a house that has always belonged to the White man.’ He goes on to observe, ‘this society, rather savage in its pursuit of capitalism, also has the capacity for absolutely remarkable regeneration.’

By Leonel Moura

Translated By Brandi Miller

February 27, 2008

Portugal - Jornal de Negocios - Original Article (Portuguese)

Just as in the person of George Bush, America has given us one of the most reactionary presidents ever; it now electrifies the planet with the possibility of electing a woman or a Black. A fact that just about everyone would have labeled a subversive fantasy just a few years ago is now a matter of great excitement in the world at large and in the United States, where there is talk of nothing else.

This is not to be taken lightly. For those familiar with American society - which is very advanced technologically and rather backward in terms of moralism - nothing could be more revolutionary than seeing a Black man in the White House - a house that has always belonged to the White man. And yet they are increasingly supportive of this scenario.
Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s Republican Party (as opposed to the Big Tent GOP of the Goldwater-Rockefeller era) has welcomed blacks with open arms — as long as they use the back door on their way to the kitchen or maid’s quarters — and has been only somewhat less unfriendly to women.

So the possibility that John McCain will be facing an African-American or a woman in the November election is scaring the bejeebers out of party bigs, who have launched a secret operation to try to determine how far they can go in attacking either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Before I go any further, please note that this is not a satire like my Saga of the Cedars. And pause to consider the extraordinary fact that one of the two major political parties in America has become so extreme that it has to take steps to try to immunize itself against what it sees as inevitable charges of racism or sexism.

And marvel that the secret operation is not meant to sensitize the party faithful, let alone draw in black and woman voters, but to gauge how to best attack Obama or Clinton.

Jack Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee, is one of the few prominent Republicans to speak out about the GOP’s raving intolerance.

Kemp tells The Politico that:

“You can’t run against Barack Obama the way you could run against Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry.

“Being an African American at the top of the ticket, if he makes it, is such a great statement about the country. Obviously you have to be sensitive to issues that affect urban America. . . . You have to be careful.”

More here. And here for a sneak peek at what the Republican attacks might be like if it’s Obama.

I’ll be discussing this post with Jazz Shaw and the Lady Logician on Midstream Radio this afternoon from 1:30-2 p.m. Eastern Time. Click here to listen and participate.

This week’s debate pushed front and center the question of whether the Democratic Party can do what it did in 1960, nominate an inspiring young leader paired with a Washington veteran in the workings of government.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson persuaded voters that they could open a New Frontier with the first Catholic president in American history. This year, the Democrats can offer a ticket with two firsts. (More about that here.)

In tone and substance, the debate in Austin suggested that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton together can restore the damage that George W. Bush has done to the American body politic and that John McCain might only prolong.

Their policy differences were invisible to the naked eye, and they ended up with the kind of hearty handshake that could be repeated to seal their designation as the 2008 ticket at the Democratic convention in August.

For Obama, it would be a demonstration of his claim that he can bring people together. On her part, it would take character for Hillary Clinton to accept the vice-presidency after leading in the presidential polls for more than a year.

But voters are rendering a different judgment now, and when the Texas and Ohio primaries are over, Obama should look back at how JFK in 1960 insured that his party ended eight years of Republican rule by teaming up with his opponent for the nomination.

If the ticket won, Hillary Clinton in 2016 would still be younger than John McCain is now.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Some people are beginning to listen to what Sen. Obama says rather than how he says it:

While some bloggers (including our own T-Steel) discuss whether Obama’s statement:

I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal

is sexist or not, others say he’s plagiarizing from Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick:

The New York Times: An Obama Refrain Bears Echoes of a Governor’s Speeches

If you were the president of Liberia, one of the world’s poorest nations but one founded by manumitted American slaves, what would you ask the leader of the free world when he dropped in on you for a state visit? The editorial board of Liberian newspaper The Analyst has more than a few suggestions. According to this open letter, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf must seek not millions, but billions in additional aid, and that he must “tell President Bush that the condition of this nation is worse by far than it was in 1959, when Vice President Richard Milhouse Nixon commented on Liberia’s shocking underdevelopment.” Furthermore, President Bush must be prevailed upon to, “issue an order creating a special relationship with the United States, that recognizes Liberia as a key ally based on the historic ties between our nations - which are on a par with regions like Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

“Demonstrate the extent of Liberia’s downtrodden stature, so that friendly nations consider helping to accelerate its growth and development in terms of billions rather than millions.”

EDITORIAL February 14, 2008 Liberia - The Analyst - Original Article (English)
Your Excellency,
The word has gone forth that your foreign contacts are about to bear major fruit. You will soon host the holder of the world’s highest office, President George Walker Bush of the United States of America. Read the rest of this entry »

According to Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left, the remarks by Senator Obama about Senator Clinton, in the video below, are sexist:

For those that can’t see the video, here is the meat:

I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.

- Senator Barack Obama, February 15, 2008

I’m trying to understand how. I’ve routinely said “feeling down” to men. In fact, when I was coaching high school football, one of my popular phrases was, “You come to practice feeling down, I’m going to lift you up with work!”. According to many in the blogosphere and MSM, the Clinton Campaign is down to the Obama Campaign in different ways:

1. Down in delegates.
2. Down in money raised.
3. Down in momentum.

So how is Senator Obama’s comment sexist? I’m asking this honestly without a shred of snark or sarcasm. Because if it is, I guess I’m sexist for saying “feeling down” to my wife and two daughters. And I’ve never been accused of sexism and I never engage in sexism. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Tennessee State Senator Doug Henry’s lamentation about the state of rape law wins him my “Creeper of the Day” award.

First the Obama campaign successfully shut down any resistance from the Clintons by succeeding in getting them tagged in the Clinton-loathing media as ‘racist’ or, at least, ‘racist-like‘.  (i.e., racist if you ignore the actual meaning of the word ‘racist,’ plus all known facts about Clinton and ignore common sense and the plain meaning of her remark.)

Once the obstreperous pit bull Bill Clinton was muzzled (as I concede he needed to be), Obama’s campaign proceeded to—how shall I put this?—creatively reframe Hillary’s health care package, his own relationship to corporate money, and Hillary’s stance on various issues.  Not only did Obama not step in to prevent his supporters’ use of right-wing style slur tactics against Hillary, but his wife went on Good Morning America to say that she just wasn’t all that sure that she’d be able to bring herself to support Hillary if Hillary got the nomination.  Yep, that’s what she said.  And that’s how the ‘Clinton rules‘ work:  one rule for Bill and Hillary, another for whoever is on the opposite side of the fence.  FOR NOW.

Then Obama’s impassioned supporters jumped into the fray.  Look under any Hillary-friendly or Obama-skeptical blog post by a fellow Dem and you’ll find them there in the comments, getting the drift but missing the point and snapping like crocodiles at any question about the appropriateness of making Obama our candidate before we’ve had more time to get to know him or the media, more time to vet him. 

Do you wonder, as I do, how people got the idea that this relative newcomer to national politics has the credentials, experience, and other requisites for cleaning up after George W. Bush?  Saying so is a sure recipe, as I’ve found, for getting called a fool,  a moron, an idiot, amoral, brain-washed, a Hillary shill, a tool of the Clinton establishment, and  a tool.

Read the rest of this entry »

As has already been well-established, the level of global interest in America’s 2008 presidential race is unprecedented. In this analysis from Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, Tomasz Lis sums up the revolutionary nature of this year’s candidates this way, “Obama has undoubtedly already revolutionalized American politics, and if he wins in November it may presage revolution on a global scale. … Even if Hillary doesn’t win, it won’t be because of her sex. So here again we are facing a revolution in the once testosterone-driven world of American politics. … A John McCain victory would also be a breakthrough: A politician who speaks his mind openly and, seemingly naively, supports an absolutely unpopular war, could become a President!”

By Tomasz Lis

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

February 7, 2008

Poland - Gazeta Wyborcza - Original Article (Polish)

After seven years of the George Bush administration, the United States has lost quite a bit of its sex appeal. But thanks to American politics and a fascinating presidential campaign, it is quickly regaining it. However it ends, the campaign has already shown that this time around, rules that have been in force for upwards of 230 years will soon be broken. It’s still a long way to the finish line, but one can already say that this campaign is eliminating the most obstinate barriers: those of skin color, sex and party doctrine. America wants a change, but a great change has already occurred.

Here we are dealing with a great horse race during which candidates have plenty of difficult obstacles to overcome. But the most treacherous have already been crossed. This campaign is like a beacon of hope for non-whites, women, and for those who took entering into one’s seventies as a signal to retire into an often unwanted withdrawal from active life.

In his Super Tuesday speech, Senator Barack Obama suggested with great conviction that “our time has come.” That remains to be seen, but Obama has undoubtedly already revolutionalized American politics, and if he wins in November it may presage revolution on a global scale.

America has had young presidents before (such as Theodore Roosevelt or John Kennedy) and inexperienced presidents (like Kennedy and Jimmy Carter), but it has never has a Black candidate, and a young, relatively inexperienced one to boot, who lacks the support of his own party establishment and had such a good chance of winning. It seems that someone who can embody CHANGE can actually bring change just by just trying.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign may give hope to many women, even those who consider Mrs. Clinton an embodiment of aggressive feminism.
Read the rest of this entry »

I posted this on January 8th for the New Hampshire primary; it bears repeating:

THINK, People! This is not supposed to be romantic. We are not electing a handsome President to take us on dates and haunt our dreams but rather a sober Chief Executive to make decisions affecting our personal and national future for decades to come. I want maturity and experience, not youth and beauty!

If we elect the political equivalent of a White Knight or a Beauty Queen, I fear for our future.

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!