Friday afternoon with Hillary in San Diego

I went to Cox Arena at San Diego State University yesterday afternoon, and heard Hillary Clinton speak to a large and enthusiastic crowd. The arena holds 12,000 and they had it partitioned in half, and that half was full. I really regret forgetting my camera because I would LOVE to have a shot of that line to get into the arena. Now I know what a queue of 6,000 people looks like!

I was amused to walk into the arena and hear a recording of Bon Jovi singing "who says you can't go back..." since that's what Clinton would love to do.

She was introduced (at length since she was about an hour late) by a long line of California politicos who've endorsed her campaign including LA Mayor Antonio Villarigosa, Senator Christine Kehoe, Assembly Member Mary Sala, Senator Denise Ducheny, and Speaker Fabian Nunez. Marti Emerald, former Channel 10 troubleshooting reporter and current candidate in the 7th City Council district also joined in on the Hillary love fest, as did SDSU President Steven Weber.

Finally Clinton arrived and gave what I assume is a version of her stump speech, though she definitely knew her crowd and addressed issues such as the rising cost of attending college, and stopping the Bush "War on Science", in part by increasing funding for science and research. She got big cheers when she talked about increasing funding for Pell Grants, stopping predatory lending for student loans, taking the student loan program back to a direct loan system, and greatly expanding student loan forgiveness for students who seek careers in public service.

Promising to end No Child Left Behind also got a huge ovation, as did her claim that she will start drawing down troops in Iraq within 60 days of her inauguration.

She also spoke of encouraging technological and scientific innovation and creating good paying, green collar jobs to strengthen the middle class.

It was a good, strong, well-received speech. The only thing that made me cringe a little bit was when she talked about immigration, which of course is a big issue here in SoCal. It wasn't so much that she was wrong in what she said, but I think the crazed tone of the anti-immigration debate has made it really difficult to talk about it in rational terms. She thankfully did mention the ridiculousness of some of the debate, such as the idea that we could actually round up everyone who's here without proper documentation and just ship them home. She also acknowledged that much of the problem with regard to immigrants from Mexico is that they're fleeing due to economic desperation, and the US is in a position to have some influence on the strength of the Mexican economy. Of course, she never mentioned NAFTA or the border fence, but overall, it was obvious she was doing a balancing act, and seemed to be struggling to strike the right tone. I wish the Democrats could find a strong, rational voice on immigration, but for now they all seem to be trying to address the issue AND not rile up the whackos. She, and others, need to find the right frame for the issue and use it, because I've not seen that happen yet.

So all in all, I'm glad I went to see her. Since Edwards bowed out and left me candidate-free, I've been leaning toward voting for Obama next Tuesday, but I really would not object to a Clinton presidency. Even with the problems I have with her stand on the war in Iraq and a few other issues, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be light years better than where we're at right now. Any of the Democratic candidates would provide a huge positive change by improving our standing in the world, and shoring up our struggling economy.

By the way, the eight anti-Clinton demonstrators outside the venue used the world bitch quite freely on their signs. That alone almost makes me want to vote for her. Even if she's not my candidate, I just completely detest the tone of the anti-Hillary contingent. I'm glad I saw her in person because I can now confirm she absolutely does not have horns or a pointy tail. You'd never know that by just listening to the bile of the Hillary haters.

Please stop helping

One of the responsibilities of my job is that I'm the buyer for my department. Much of my career has been somehow connected to procurement. I know how to buy things. Just stand back when I go shopping, because I am an expert.

On Friday, I had to go to Home Depot to purchase some power tools. I knew exactly what I needed, down to the manufacturer item number. My husband and I were out, so we went in together. Now, I do love my husband very much, and I know he means well, but sometimes he feels the need to "help" where help is not warranted. Home Depot seems to bring that out in him. He thinks it's part of his domain as a man, I suppose. No offense intended, guys, but ..... ladies, you know what I'm talking about.

When we were in the parking lot, he grabbed one of those big carts you'd use if you were going to buy something very large like gigantic power tools or sheets of plywood. I told him to get a basket, but no...we were going to need the BIG cart.

Ok, fine.

We went inside, I walked to the shelf that had the tools I needed, and he said...no no no....they're over here. I followed. They were not over there. Honey, stop helping. I went back to the first shelf, picked up all the tools, set them on the end of his hunormous cart, we paid and left.

As I've watched Bill Clinton over the past few days leading into the South Carolina primary, I can't help but think of that trip to Home Depot, and according to CNN, his comments have had a negative effect on Hillary's campaign.

Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards.


Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the last three days — when news reports heavily covered the former president's heightened criticisms of Obama. Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton.

As a presidential candidate, I'd like Hillary to show in no uncertain terms, that this is her campaign. She's the focus here. Even if Bill did no more than anyother candidates spouse, the media will hone in on him more than they do on Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama, just because of who he is. Seems to me that should be considered into the political calculus. His assist is a positive UNTIL it becomes overbearing and intrusive and you start to forget who the real candidate is, then it becomes a negative.

Bill, honey, please stop helping.

Considering second choices

I'm afraid that unless there is a dramatic change on Super Tuesday, my favored presidential candidate will be out of the running, and I'll be forced to pick between Obama and Clinton. I was afraid Edwards wouldn't be able to compete with the self-fulfilling prophecy of the media that seems to be enamored with the idea of a horse race between the two current front runners. I really thought Edwards would look stronger in South Carolina and Nevada, but it seems that it's not to be.

He's still getting my primary vote, but it appears I may have to pick someone else in November. I am not wildly thrilled with either option, but they're worthy of consideration. I still need to be won over by someone. I do find both of them to be likable, intelligent, and generally on the right side of most issues, and I will most likely vote for whichever one of them makes it to the dance in November.

I know what I'd be getting with Clinton. Her presidency would bring wiser heads to Washington again, after eight very long years of slowly sinking in the sands of ignorance and belligerence. Obama, I don't know as well, but he would also bring a large measure of sanity back to DC too. I've got to give both of them that.

As I've been thinking about the presidential race, I waver back and forth in weighing the Clinton and Obama options. For now, it's a toss-up.

Last week, a short video clip sprang up on the web of Obama in an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette Journal, that had some of the blogosphere is a tizzy, and at first glance, I was a bit tizzified myself.

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

At first glance, I was really bothered by his comments, but I refrained from commenting out of a sense of unease with the video. Something was off about it, and the comments seemed to be taken out of context. After taking some time to look at the original video the clip was taken from, I think I was right. The clip shows one minute out of a forty minute interview, and it is taken out of context....just enough that it sounds like he's praising Reagan and dissing Clinton when he was really talking about the American people's unease with the status quo, and how some times are ripe for change. He was talking about when the American people are in the mood to embrace change, out of a sense or perception of dissatisfaction with the way things are in the nation or in Washington. He was talking about the zeitgeist of the nation, not the policies of Ronald Reagan. The clip leaves out his comment that JFK's election was another of those times in modern American presidential history.

He does say the Republican party has been the party of ideas, but he never says they were good ideas. In fact he infers that they were not.

He's talking about the ability to reach people with a promise of change. No matter what you think of Ronald Reagan, and I am most assuredly not a Reagan worshiper, you have to admit that his persona and his promise of a new day played a large part in him winning the White House. He never says Reagan delivered on his promises; only that he promised "morning in America". He's talking about the campaign, and not about Reagan's presidency. He's saying something more nuanced that isn't captured in the excerpt. Unfortunately, nuance is NOT the word of the day.

I suspect either the Clinton campaign, some one associated with the campaign, or a Clinton supporter made that clip, put it on YouTube and promoted it just enough in the right places to make it go viral.

Not that I'm cynical or anything....

It's just another moment in what will probably be an ongoing process of considering my second choices.

And pardon me for being about four days out of the news cycle on this, but I wanted to look at the original video. Sometimes it just takes a little time to tease out the whole story.

Digby vs The He-Man Women Haters Club

Darla Digby has recently been kicking down the clubhouse door over the sniggering, sophomoric sexism of the cable news talking heads when they're talking about Senator Clinton.

When women say they support Hillary it's because they are irrationally supporting someone because of their gender. When men say they won't support Hillary it's because "she gives off the feeling that she despises them." If you even bring up the fact that there are men out there who will refuse to vote for any woman, you attacked for allegedly saying that men aren't decent people. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Carlson believes that women shouldn't be allowed to vote if they like the idea that a woman may become president and vote for her partially on that basis, but it's not irrational for (white) men vote against a woman because they irrationally feel she "despises them.

Binga.

Hillary is hovering around number four on my list of Democratic favorites, which breaks my heart because the idea of a women smashing that particular glass ceiling is something I truly hope to see in my lifetime. I believe she just might do it, and I'll vote for her if she is the nominee, but I realllllly wanted to love the first viable female candidate. Despite the fact that I don't feel the Hilary love, I absolutely hate listening to what passes for informed discourse whenever she's the subject of conversation. Why yes, it does make the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

It's like having everyone assume that the "normal" state of being in this world is male and this strange idea of appealing to women is some sort of illegitimate pander to an extreme, fringe interest group.

Between the inherent sexism, the trivialization of her as a serious candidate, the constant media pandering to the lowest denominator, and Tucker Carlson's irrational castration anxiety, this is going to be a very long presidential campaign season.

In unrelated Hillary news, The Left Coaster has a very interesting report on her actual voting record. Eriposte compares her corporate contributions to her Progressive Punch scores which show she may not be as much of a "corporatist" as some might want you to believe. You can see for yourself if she walks the walk or not. I do still note her unfortunately low scores on war and peace, civil liberties, and human rights. Those issues are high on my scale of importance, which explains why she's low on my list of favs.

Is America Ready for a Black or Woman President?

That's the question asked at the 7/28/07 panel discussion at the San Diego Democratic Women's Club meeting. The panel included:

Stewart A. Alexander; presidential candidate, Peace and Freedom Party
Francine Busby; Political Consultant
Sheila Jackson; San Diego Board of Education
Geoff Barrett; Vote Hope PAC/Obama campaign
Dr. Isidro Ortiz; Chicano/Chicana Studies SDSU
Al Villamora; President of Filipino American Community Empowerment (PACE)

I'll admit that the question alone makes me cringe, and it's more than a bit pathetic that we're still asking that when 42 (-ish) other nations have already had female leaders, but the sad truth is, we have Issues in this country with regard to race and gender that still need to be addressed.

Discussed at the meeting were studies claiming that 90% of respondents answer yes to the question, "would you support a female president" however when the question is slightly altered to "would you vote for a female president" that number drops to around 60%. The numbers are similar if you substitute African-American for the word female.

There have been other studies where a large percentage say they'd personally vote for a female or African American for office, but when you ask them if America would elect them the number drops again to around 60%. The concern with that is that people are possibly answering for themselves by saying what is "socially acceptable" but not sharing their true feelings. It's a common problem in obtaining accurate results from surveys.

(This issue was discussed at the SDDCWC without mention of sources, but for more info here's one link to a story on related poll results: MSNBC/Newsweek story/polling results.)

It's hard to say how Americans will vote with these variables thrown into the mix. and and it's probably going to boil down to Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. The groups who are the strongest Hillary supporters are young women and single women; two groups with traditionally low voter turnout. When polled, 79% of minority voters believe Hillary is qualified to be president and 54% say Obama is qualified.

Do you think Newt was right this morning? Are we going to have a Clinton/Obama ticket? It could happen, and I think from an electability perspective, that would be a strong combo. It'll bring out the ugliest of the ugly in the campaigns, that's for sure, but it's a potentially winning pair.

Turn out, turn out, turn out. If the Republicans can find common ground between the Christian right, big business, and neo-cons, Democrats should certainly be able to find common ground between women and racial minorities since we all have faced the same struggle to be taken seriously in this country. There is great untapped potential and a fabulous opportunity.

So is America ready for a Black or Woman President?

Not only are we ready, but we NEED non-traditional candidates now. What we're ready for is leadership, New leadership. The old, experienced leadership has gotten us into a world of hurt over the last few years. It's time for change, and change is opportunity.

Speaking less generally and about my own feelings, I have to admit to wishing the first truly viable female candidate was someone other than Hillary. I'm not in agreement with her on several important issues, and I am way beyond disappointed with the road she took in regard to the Iraq conflict. I'll support her if she's the candidate in the general election though, and I'll work hard to get the presidency out of the hands of this current sick version of the Republican party. If you want to help work toward that goal too, contact your local Democratic Party office, and tell them you want to help get out the vote in your precinct. Be a precinct volunteer. Be the grassiest of grassroots activists by working with your neighbors and your community to Get Out The Vote.

Personally, I'm thinking precinct parties, and wondering if that wouldn't be a more efficient way to reach a large number of people in my 'hood. Maybe I can't personally make big change in Washington DC, but I can sure has heck get my neighbors out to a party.

I'll get back to you on that.

P.S. to my many friends that are as disgusted with the Democratic Party as they are with the Republican Party and have already decided not to vote for either: check out Stewart Alexander's candidacy for the Peace and Freedom Party. The P&F Party are the American version of Social Democrats, and Alexander came across to me as a sincere man with a progressive vision and many ideas worth exploring.

in today's female anatomy news...

Thank god for the WaPo. Otherwise, how else would be know that Hillary Clinton has breasts. Yes, I know. What a shock. Who'da thought?

Does anyone else read that and say to themselves, maybe the U.S. isn't ready for a woman president afterall since we're obviously a nation of 12 year old boys? Issues? The stinking war? Impeachment? The tanking economy? Who cares? Hillary has boobs!

The timely subject of next Saturday's San Diego Democratic Women's Club meeting will be "Is American ready for a Black/Woman President?" The meeting will be held on Saturday, July 28th, 10:00 am – Noon. with a panel presentation by Stewart Alexander; Peace and Freedom Party Candidate, Geoff Barrett; Obama Campaign, Francine Busby; Political Consultant, Dr. Isidro Ortiz; Chicana/o Studies SDSU, and Pat Washington; President, SDDWC. The meeting and panel discussion will be held at the Weingart City Heights Library/Community Room, 3795 Fairmount Ave., San Diego 92105. For more information contact Pat Washington at Themorgangirl@aol.com.

I'm quite sure the San Diego Democratic Women's Club can take this subject to a higer level than that WaPo article did.