NOW:53211:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
50°
H 52° L 36°
Cloudy | 9MPH

How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the 'Bama

    So here's the deal.  I love Hillary.  That's a polarizing statement, I know.  I also know that Hillary can be a polarizing figure. Though I feel that she is routinely maligned in the media and by politicos, and commonly the butt of sexist attitudes (overt or institutional), I can understand why some people dislike her.  The sad fact is that most of the complaints against her are complaints that could easily be levied against any other--dare I say it--male candidate. She's bossy? She's self-righteous? Claims credit or exaggerates her role in world/political affairs? Gets her facts wrong?  I don't know why it is that we've treated her differently than every other male candidate that's running for office.  George W. Bush is notoriously stubborn in staying on point and sticking to his agenda.  The role of the politician in society is to claim credit for his / her accomplishments.  Misspoke?  Misstates?  Happens to the best--and the worst--of them.  Nary a pundit blinked when John McCain needed Joe Lieberman to correct him that Iran was not supplying aid to Al Qaeda in Iraq, a mistake he repeated a few days later.

      Further, I have to say this:  there is no reason why America cannot or should not accept a woman president.  Many democracies have had women leaders.  And my favorite example is Israel.  Regardless of your opinions  of the middle east conflict, if Israel, a nation under constant threat, war, and terrorist attacks on home turf, can have a woman in charge, then why not America?  Why not us? 

Read more

Reverend WRONG?

Sigh.  I thought things were going to change for the better, one way or another.  Hillary won in Pennsylvania.  For the first time in years, I made a political donation and became one of contributors to her $10 million post Pennsylvania cash influx.  Days after posting an article about how I was coming to terms with Obama, I was ready for my second wind.  Or third.  Or whatever.  And actually, briefly, I felt the race might become reinvigorated.

Then the media had to go and screw it all up.   Damn media.  They had to cover Reverend Wright's speech at the NAACP event.  Now, of course Wright had to be there, which didn't really help.  But the media, for some reason, thought his speech was newsworthy.  Perhaps it was noteworthy, in that it would give the man some well-deserved voice, and an opportunity to clear things up.  But that's not how it worked out.  See, I have a theory about Wright.   I call him an active-passive-aggressive.  Passive aggressive because he acts in a manner that suggests he's not within the fray, but causes spiked reactions.  Active passive aggressive because he relished the opportunity to take the center stage.  I agree with Obama that the Reverend's comments and actions have helped create a distraction; and that he is attention-seeking.  This is unfortunate because the venerable NAACP gave Wright an opportunity to be square with Obama.  And Jesus.  And, to a large extent, Wright blew it.

Read more

Page Tools