Hillary Rodham Clinton's quest for the Democratic nomination appears doomed, and I can't say she didn't deserve it after voting for the Iran war resolution (an act that proves she didn't learn anything from her vote to invade Iraq). Still, one can't help but feel sad about the message this sends to women.
Obama has said that surgical strikes against Pakistan and Iran may be necessary. Sounds like Obama hates the darkies also eh?
ReplyDeleteedward,
ReplyDeleteadmit it, you think that surgical strikes are weak. Is this the quote?
'[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'
"He added, '[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over',"
(googled it)
If it were'nt so tragicaly true, this topic would be great fun to take jabs at.
ReplyDeletePakistan has been far more of a threat to American interests than Iraq...Attacking Iran would be a massive blunder...one worthy of the History Channel.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea of second class taxes, but taxation with representation is the essential component of a democratic society, Ted. This is why African Americans often struggled to be included in World War II...to demonstrate that they're part of this country.
If you're not taxed by your government, it's easy for someone in leadership to say you have no right to speak about the course the nation takes.
We are divesting our stake in the country, just as we become serfs to neo-feudalism.
Oh, and: Great cartoon, though.
ReplyDeleteI think it's sad that Hillary Clinton was such a lousy candidate.
ReplyDeleteI think it's sad that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are such lousy candidates.
ReplyDeleteNo, not lousy: disappointing. And I don't give two hoots about the sex or pigmentation of either. Nothing in the Constitution says the President is required to be a role model. If he or she is one, fine and dandy. But it's pure gravy.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith Thucydides: It is easy to endure defeat in democratic elections, because losers can think they have been defeated by nobodies.
Why does Hillary's loss send a bad message to women?
ReplyDeleteWomen have been inheriting power by way of family connection for thousands of years. Hillary is not doing anything novel. She's trying to retrace ground already well covered by rulers like Pharoh Hatshepsut or Queen Elizabeth I.
The most positive message Hillary could send women is that you can do anything your husband has already done. I'd hope we're beyond that.
Yeah, the only thing sad about the whole Hillary debacle is that this is the best woman "we" can put forward as a candidate. What's scary is how far she got with her vanity candidacy. She's currently reduced to making veiled threats against Barack by referring to RFK being assassinated in June. I didn't hate "The Clintons" until being exposed to the better half for the past year. Sure, her Supreme Court picks would be better than McCain's...probably. She'd also speed up the country's decline into a corporate fiefdom, possibly faster than any serious candidate still running. I knew she'd be trouble when I saw Hillary for NY Senate bumper stickers in the freakin' Bay Area (CA) in 2000. What's truly sad is how obviously desperate women are to "cling" to anyone, on the basis of anatomy. Yes, we're long overdue for a female president. Let's find one!
ReplyDeleteIf Hillary were winning and you substitute a black kid, does the cartoon still work?
ReplyDeletePlease explain why or why not.
Identity Politician--
ReplyDeleteYes.
Why did you ask such an obvious question? Do you honestly believe the answer is no?
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith WSG: To everybody’s prejudice I know a thing or two.
This cartoon is off the mark. The message her quest for the democratic nomination gives women is that you can be president provided you're a good candidate and don't stoop to any level to get what you want.
ReplyDeleteHillary made the mistake of running a traditional Democratic primary campaign, focusing on true-blue states and swing/battleground states - the majority of which she has won. Obama, by contrast, has won mostly caucus states which are solidly red anyhow, and won't make for any Democratic electoral college wins once the general election rolls around. His claim that he can make red states "competitive" is a red herring: making a state competitive is not the same as winning a state. When one examines the electoral college maps between Clinton and Obama and which states each has won, the picture looks grim for an Obama general election candidacy and his inflated delegate count does not accurately reflect how weak he is as a candidate. The Democratic Party, fearing the "racist" canard will install him as the nominee anyhow (and why shouldn't they fear it - the "racist" smear worked on Clinton and got African-American voters to "fall in line" for Obama).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I fully support Hillary Clinton taking this fight all the way to the convention. Obama trails in the popular vote, loses essential Democratic states and battleground states at an alarming rate by a frightening margin and is willing to disenfranchise voters outright (Florida and Michigan) or deny the importance of key Democratic voting blocks (working class, women, etc.). This man does not deserve to be nominated, much less does he deserve the keys to the White House. One can not win with just the votes of African-Americans and college liberals - Obama is an arrogant fool for not reaching out to the groups where his support is the weakest. Writing off the remaining primaries (a token visit each to West Virginia and Kentucky - give me a break!) will cost him dearly - and rightly so!
If you're not taxed by your government, it's easy for someone in leadership to say you have no right to speak about the course the nation takes.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Its like the flip side of "no taxation w/o representation".
I don't get it, though. No one has any say over the course of the nation, I'm told. (Mayhew, Douglas Arnold). National legislation is rare. There have only been like 4 examples of good national policy in the last 40 years! (base closure is the only one I can think of.)
The rest of it is individual pork hand outs, usually at the expense of good national policy.
A#2 Were Queen E. and that Egyptian Hottie...H elected to office? And Jana, who gets paid more for the same work. A black man or a woman?
ReplyDeleteChrist, I'm sick of hearing the phrase "popular vote" and the word "disenfranchisement". Neither applies in the case of the Democratic Party nomination. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties. They set their own rules. They pick their own candidates, with or without the help of the unwashed masses. Hillary Clinton is a slimy charlatan for even bringing it up, much less hammering it day after day. The popular vote is meaningless. Not all states have primaries. Nominees are chosen by delegates. We don't even live in a true democracy, which I've known since at least high school and prefer in some ways. Pre-Bush, I thought a parliamentary democracy would be superior but the thought of him being able to dissolve Congress/Parliament at will makes my hair turn white. Anyways, it's time for the people who are so devoid of critical thought that they support someone like Hillary to shut up and take their medicine. She can't do it unless she totally subverts your precious democracy. Give it up. And for informational purposes, I'm no Obamatron. I think Howard Dean should have given it another shot, and if not him, then Edwards or Richardson. Any one of them would be far superior to Obama, but He's who we're stuck with so let's make the best of it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Identity Politics! I knew you'd screw things up eventually.
Signed,
Another liberal little-l libertarian without a representative voice anywhere, as far as I can tell.
Angelo, I can't really take credit for the no representation without taxation, that was actually our dear own "Uncle Tom" Friedman, the king of decade-old bandwagons.
ReplyDeleteI think that the obsessive push for lower taxes goes hand-in-hand with congressional pork barreling. Our government, and the wealth of our nation, is just being slimed away. This is what 'democracies' invariably descend to, where a short-term thinking and uneducated (on what really matters) population starts voting itself indulgences and bankrupts The State.
"Vote for me and I'll give you a $500 tax rebate check"...remember that? Bush 2000, and then he did it again this year. Every thoughtful person knows these things don't really do anything, and they encourage us to not look at the fiscal crisis.
The fiscal crisis of the state is not just the United States, it is almost all liberal democracies that are left.
Taking ownership over government means being willing to personally sacrifice for it, fund it, and devote more time to it than just ranting over beers and casting a vote. I want to make it clear that I am not pointing fingers at individuals and I'm no less guilty than anyone else. That's the whole problem; as individuals, we can only do what is in our power to do at the time. We live in an Iron Cage.
Mmmmmm.....Memorial Day Weekend baseball & fireworks....mmmmmm....
Charles--
ReplyDeleteIf we had a parliamentary democracy we wouldn't have George Bush in the White House. Al Gore would have formed a coalition government with the Greens in 2000.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith WSG: Every boy and every gal / who’s born into the world alive, / is either a little liberAL / or else a little conservaTIVE.