Down but not totally out

The title of this post could reference Hillary Clinton, but I'll save her for a bit later. I'm the one who has been down -- with some kind of bug that would not go away. Not a normal cold. Not the flu. But something that brought about fever, swollen glands, scratchy sore throat, lung congestion -- and would not go away on its own. I'd think I was getting better only to feel the symptoms coming on again.

Finally the fever came back and the swollen glands made my face balloon, so I gave up and last Thursday went off to the doctor who didn't have a clue, but sent me to get X-rays for possible pneumonia (negative), prescribed an antibiotic, and set up an appointment for me with an eye, ear and throat specialist. That appointment is for two and a half weeks from now. Sheesh. I sure as heck hope I'm not feeling like this in two and a half weeks. The antibiotic seems to be helping and I think I can drag myself back to work tomorrow.

Sitting in the waiting area of the X-ray clinic, I happened to overhear three nurses at the desk discussing the presidential race. They were all white middle-aged women and they were all for Hillary and adamantly so. One of them stated rather loudly that if Hillary wasn't the nominee, she'd be voting for McCain. The others nodded in agreement. Here in front of me was living evidence of what exit polling and pundits have been blathering about for weeks -- Hillary's base support.

If I'd felt at all well, I might have spoken up and tried to get them to consider how awful it would be to vote in McSame for president. And yet, I kind of know what they are feeling. Once again, women are supposed to be nice and step back so that the men can take the leading roles. The saddest thing of all is that there are really no great prospects on the horizon for women -- other than Hillary -- to step forward and vie for the prize. A very depressing NYT article mentions a couple of women here and there, but confirms that the pickings are slim and the road is still very difficult for women to gain power in government.

It would be great if Obama picked a woman for VP. But the chances of that happening are slim to none, because that would "weaken" the ticket in the eyes of all the male pundits, politicians and bloggocrats. If he really wants to convince me that he's the candidate for change and for a new form of politics, he would ignore the conventional wisdom. What do you want to bet he goes for a white male southern conservative democrat to balance the ticket?

I'm going to vote for Obama, no doubt about that. But if he wants my active support, then he needs to think long and carefully about what to do about women of a certain age who feel the glass ceiling smashing down our hopes once again. If he doesn't pick a woman VP, he could take up some of Hillary's core issues, especially health care, and take a more progressive stance that meets the needs of working people.

The numbers keep going up - post election notes

I began writing this post last night only to be dumped by the weather -- both my Internet and cable TV connections went down about 10 PM, most likely due to the ice storm that hit our state. So I enjoyed an old fashioned election night via listening to WAKR AM's Larry States.

Last night at this time, the counter in the right hand column of this blog had not yet reached half a trillion dollars. Today it has gone beyond that -- amazing how fast a billion dollars can be spent by our insane governmental "leaders." This is what I had written before the power went off:

Not talking about the election returns this evening, but the numbers of dollars spent on the useless War in Iraq. You can see them ticking away to the right of this post. We are fast approaching 500 billion dollars. That's half a trillion not spent on health care, education, low-income housing, science research, developing green technologies and so on.

Soon after I began this blog, I found the counter you see embedded here and at that time it was around 350 billion. But dollars wasted isn't the worst aspect of this war. It's the loss of life and not only soldier lives. Every Iraqi death creates more potential terrorists among the survivors. No wonder McCain feels the need to stay there for 100 years.

Woke up this morning to find that Hillary had taken 3 out of 4 states, doing extremely well in Ohio. I wasn't surprised. Most people I had talked to were voting for her, although they also expressed admiration for Barack Obama. Many folks continue to want both of them on the ticket.

In local news, we are thrilled that Issue 8 passed and that public transportation will not be diminished in Akron.

Saddest election story is the defeat of Louise Heydorn for county council. Full disclosure -- Louise is a colleague of mine. I can attest that she is an outstanding leader: bright, collaborative, science-minded and a diligent worker. She has been the only Republican on Summit County's council for many years and had been working to develop green initiatives for our county.

She was defeated by John Widowfield, a conservative endorsed by the local Republican party. I wonder if Heydorn was hurt by Independents and Republicans crossing over to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. I hope she picks herself up and runs again in the future -- come join the Democrats, Louise! We need women of your character and intelligence to represent us.

Hillary in Akron

Some pics from yesterday's rally. My Olympus Stylus didn't really pull this one off. Or rather, I didn't do a good job with it. The best shots were outdoors, but even those were terribly out of focus for the most part.

Inside, conditions defeated me. Every time I tried to take a picture, I had to wait for dozens of hands holding cameras aloft to shift and part until I could get off a shot. I noticed that some cameras were getting really nice close-up shots, but mine doesn't have the capability.













Enough of my photographic travails. The rally was full of females of all ages with a hard core group of "Husbands for Hillary" in tow. An old codger next to me said he was there to find out about Hillary's health care plan. "Kucinich was the one who had the real thing," he said to me. I agreed with him whole-heartedly.

I was listening in a detached analytical way to Hillary's stump speech for most of it, until she got to getting rid of No Child Left Behind and then I let out a big cheer. Ditto to ending the war in Iraq. I thought she did a nice job of laying out her points. She was clear and concise, and had a few tender moments with a tale of a young woman who lost her baby and her life due to lack of health care availability in a county in southern Ohio.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have obviously studied the campaign rhetoric of their colleague, the junior senator from Ohio. We heard about fare trade instead of free trade and bringing jobs back to Ohio. One little request please, dear candidates -- make sure those jobs don't involve polluting the air, water, or soil.

I've taken some unscientific polls among people I know and trust here in Akron, Ohio. Women are going for Hillary in a big way. But so are some men, including one tonight who gave an impassioned impromptu speech for Hillary at the end of a local theatre group's meeting. I think he gave me the final push toward marking her ballot tomorrow. That and the following picture from the rally.












So who am I voting for tomorrow? I am going with my gender demographic. If anybody has a problem with that, then I ask them if they have a problem with 80% plus African Americans going for Obama. Because I don't have a problem with it. They are proud to at last be represented at the highest level. As are these young girls to finally see a woman competing for the ultimate leadership role.

And further more, if Obama wins the nomination, I won't have a problem supporting him. I understand the great excitement within the black community surrounding his candidacy. I feel the same way about Hillary's.

They both have flaws, and they both have strengths. They'd make a great team, but they'd have to get over a lot of ego for that to happen. So may the best person win and may we all pull together to defeat the Republicans at every level in the fall.

Don't forget to vote tomorrow, and if you are living in Summit County, please vote for Issue 8 to maintain the current level of public metro bus service for our citizens. That may be the most important of all your votes.

Half way through the debate...

And I still want them both on the ticket. I like the focus on the policies and the plans to implement them. I like the tone of civility between the two -- they'd make a fantastic ticket. The longer the "debate" goes on, the closer Clinton and Obama appear to be on all the issues.

Wolf Blitzer is trying to stir things up as we go into the Iraq portion of the debate, but fails miserably. Both candidates are taking the arguments to the Republicans and getting strong audience responses.

As far as Hillary's vote for the war, yes -- she shouldn't have done it but she explains it in depth. It leads to a broader question that no one has answered -- is it a good thing to use the threat of force in negotiating? These are the moments when I think about Kucinich's plan for a Department of Peace at the cabinet level. It seems to me that threats generally lead to lines being drawn and bombs bursting in air.

Almost reaching the end, and the question arises of a "dream ticket" with both of them on it. I'm still rooting for it at the end of this debate.

Thank you NH for providing some balance

What fun watching the media types scrambling to figure out that beating up on a woman for stupid things can lead people to turn out to vote.

Women are going for Hillary in a major way in NH.

Maybe I'll get my dream ticket after all!

To see rankings based upon progressive views, you can go to Progressive Punch to find that Hillary Clinton is ranked at 29, which is two positions higher than Ted Kennedy. Barack Obama is 43, one below Claire McCaskill, Our own Sherrod Brown ranks 6 -- go Sherrod!

Meanwhile, it is loads of fun watching the media pundits get slapped in the face by the women of New Hampshire. Those bad media boys totally can't handle tears. Don't they know real men aren't ashamed to show their emotions. Neither are real women. Emotions are part of what makes us human.

Media Uber-dumping

The headlines are all about Hillary in tears. Well I watched the video footage expecting to see tears dripping down a face and instead, I saw Hillary showing her human side. Hey, isn't that what everybody has been clamoring for? We don't want to see the policy wonk robot woman.

Even Keith Olbermann was dumping on her for so-called crying. Tear her apart for her vote on Iraq and for any other policy, vote or position. But all the nastiness directed at her for having the wrong emotions or too many emotions or not enough emotion is unnecessary.

The Iowa caucus vote gave the media it's big story and now the sell is on. I like Obama a lot. But I'd rather see him win without the press providing such a big push. Suck it in and provide some balance, please.

Caucus Racing

Hey, how come only the people of Iowa and a few other odd states get to caucus? Sounds like it could be fun, getting together on a cold January night for two hours with members of one's own political party to debate and stand up for the party's presidential candidate.

On the Democratic side, I'll take any of them, and really want all of them to contribute to the upcoming Democratic administration. So I charge them to kiss and make up quickly after a winner is sorted out, then all unite to defeat whatever bizzaro Republican is left standing.

The Republicans are looking like a freak show, with the party fragmented and despised by a good many people who once voted for them. They've made awful messes that will take a lot of creative solutions in order to clean up. It will take enormous cooperation and determined action to return to a collective viewpoint rather than the imperial one so ruthlessly implemented by Cheney, Rove, Bush Inc.

So go Dems! I'm still hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket. The US needs a huge public relations makeover, and that ticket would speak volumes to the rest of the world as well as to those of us in the US who would like to see a different gender/ethnicity providing leadership for a change. And since we've been on a long extended swing to the right, we need to go back through the center on the way to the progressive left. For purposes of balance and seeking some kind of equilibrium. Eight years of Hillary should do that, and then 8 more of Obama who will have the time to gain experience on the international stage as VP.

That's my primary outcome fantasy at the moment -- what's yours?

From Hil to Vil and back again

When Hillary announced her run for president, a call for blog postings went forth from her campaign web site. I sent in one that wondered out loud if Hillary could set her own policy apart from her husband's center right pro-business/rich people who are friends with Bill position. That post was not selected as the winning entry, however what I did get was inclusion on her email fund-raising list. Over the months, my email box has been full of missives from various power women, leading politicians, that icky James Carville, and of course, hubby Bill is forever emailing me.

Today, I get one from Hillary and it so appalls me, I must break my reticence to address her candidacy. Truth is, there has been a small part of me that roots for her because she is a woman. I wanted to think that she'd bring a more collaborative approach to problem solving than all those men. Yes, I know -- my gender stereotyping is showing.

But today's email from Hil to Vil is enough to shake me out of my gender-partisan views.

Dear Village,

Running for president means asking a lot of people to put their faith in you -- and putting your faith in a lot of people.

Sorry, Hil -- I never put my faith in politicians or anybody else for that matter. "Faith" is certitude of truth, even when there is no evidence. I was raised without faith, which means that I weigh the evidence and then establish the odds. To base a decision upon anything else would be foolish. I see you have been having some problems with people you supposedly put "your faith in" to run your campaign effectively. The world is taking notice that all is not what it should be in Hillary Land.

You've never let me down, and my promise to you has always been this: if you put your faith in me, I will fight for you every day when I'm president.

This clearly is addressed to another Village, as I have let you down time and time again, ignoring your fund-raising appeals. I will not be seduced by your husband's appeals, either!

When I get to the White House, I'll end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

Why should I believe you? You and the other Democrats haven't done anything in the senate or the house that would indicate a passionate interest in stopping the Bush regime dead in its tracks. And you conveniently didn't say when you'd bring the troops home or how many of them you are going to leave there.

I'll stop the cowboy diplomacy and Bush's war on science. I'll reverse the attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program. From day one, I'll be fighting for you, because America needs a clean and decisive break from seven years of George Bush.

You haven't yet convinced me that you would break the cycle of American bullying around the globe. You might have to prove you have "the balls" enough to drop some bombs into some land filled with enemies of the American way of life.

Not one of the Republican candidates is capable of making that happen. They're all promising four more years of the same failed policies.

I'll grant you that. The Republican candidates certainly make the case for devolution.

They see Bush's failure in Iraq and want to continue it. They see failure of leadership on the economy and want to repeat it. They see his assault on civil liberties and the disgraces of Guantanamo and want to carry them on.

They want power and control, as do you. The problem is figuring out if there is anyone who can be given all that and actually do some good for the common people. You have pretty much stuck with the Republican bashing, which got you lots of mileage, building up your campaign chest and lengthy roster of endorsements.

We need a candidate who can beat them. Will you put your faith in me today...

No, Hil. I will not put something I don't know how to muster into your hands.

and make a contribution so I can take on the Republicans in 2008?

[Contribution link deleted.]

There's a couple more paragraphs exhorting me to have faith in Hil's ability to fight for me against the Evil Empire of Republicans, ending in one more Contribute Here link. Like I'd skip the first one and reconsider at the end.

I may have to end up voting for you in a general election, but don't ever assume that I will blindly believe that you are always going to "fight for me." And of this moment in the time line marching forward to primaries, I am not at all keen on voting for you.

Calling Dr Hillcare

Remember when Hillary was demonized for her first health plan back during the era of Bill Clinton? The image of her as Dr Hillcare is a relic from those days. I found this doll at the Goodwill a few months ago and thought it might become a useful prop at some point. So I splurged and paid ten bucks for it. Looking it up online, I find that it is a collectible item, and was originally designed to be a draft stopper to be placed -- legs spread wide open -- at the bottom of doors. It was packaged with anti-Hillary propaganda and is now worth $70. Wow -- my first investment property!

The doll represents how the far the right wing will go to destroy someone they perceive as a threat to the status quo -- rich people getting richer at the expense of all of us regular working folks. It also says a great deal about right wing attitudes toward women, especially women with intelligence and access to power.

I don't think anybody would disagree that Hillary's first round of fighting for health care was a pivotal moment in her career. She could have given up then and there -- instead she chose to seek actual power rather than that granted through her husband. I've been waiting to hear what her new health care plan would entail. Today was the big launch day and tomorrow, Hillary will be giving a web cast on her plan. You can go here to read a summery of the plan and to register for the live web event.

At lunch I checked my Faithless (Atheist and Agnostic) Group email and found a posting from one of our members about Hillary Clinton's newly revealed health plan. He was outraged. In his words, "This isn't universal health care, this is mandatory health insurance. Health insurance is not health care. Millions of people who have insurance aren't getting the health care they require because the insurance companies decide what gets covered. And this nation values the private sanctity of the insurance companies more than health care. "

Well that got my dander up, but then I got home from work and turned on the TV. Tucker Carlson was having an apoplectic fit about Hillary's American Health Choices Plan (PDF file). He was having a hard time with the "mandatory" part of it, claiming that it was his right as an American to have a choice not to choose to have a health plan and that when he had his first child and he was young and without a lot of money, he chose not to have insurance. Good thing that his kid didn't have unexpected problems at birth. Guess Tucker weighed the odds and decided to take a risk with his kid's life.

If Tucker is that outraged at Hillary's plan, maybe it isn't so bad. Another from our Faithless group pointed out that Hillary's plan sounds very similar to Edwards' and Obama's and furthermore makes this very excellent point: "But if she really expanded Medicare and the federal employee plan so that anyone not already covered by their employer could join -- for a reasonable price -- that really would be reform."

And: "Of course, one might guess that if there were a decent federal program, most employers would stop offering health plans and pretty soon everybody except rich people would be on the government plan and we'd basically have socialized medicine like other civilized countries. But offering both is a way to move in that direction without explicitly saying so, and while allowing the rich foot-draggers to keep their private plans if they want to."

I've downloaded the new Clinton plan and will try to read it and make some notes for further comments. I hope some energetic Netizen puts out a nonpartisan comparison chart showing all the details in each Democratic candidate's health plans so we can see if there is much of a difference. And I am particularly interested in what all my readers are thinking about all this. As always, your comments are welcome!

No Hillary Dissing Here

It's all the rage -- diss Hillary and force her into public humiliation. She must confess her sin of voting for the Iraq War before a large segment of the blogosphere will consider her a worthy candidate, let alone vote for her. Kos attempts to put her in her place here. He compares her to Dick Cheney!

The problem is that Hillary refuses to grovel. In politics, groveling is a display of weakness. As a woman fighting to be the first of her gender to win the presidency, she is damned either way, but much more so if perceived to be "weak."

I am not happy that she voted to allow Bush to have his Iraq adventure (now disaster). It was a pragmatic political decision and it rubs my idealistic self the wrong way. However, she has responded to the changing situation and says she will end the war when elected. I rather like it that she's found a way of stating her case that doesn't involve a load of wallowing in humiliation. She put it this way in an AP interview:

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

The responsibility Clinton said she accepts was helping clear the way for Bush's path in Iraq. "I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."

This is not good enough for Kos and many other liberal pundits and bloggers. They want to bring this woman down. How many times am I going to hear from male voters, "I"m voting for the best candidate -- and gender will have nothing to do with it."

Gender has everything to do with it when it comes to Hillary. In order to compete in a male-dominated profession (politics), she has found it expedient to show toughness. She has also played up her centrist persona and tried to avoid the dreaded "lefty" label. Would she be in this strong position so early in the pre-primary race if she had taken the far left, anti-war stance?

She voted against making flag burning a constitutional amendment, but joined with a Republican to offer a bill to make it a federal crime. This absolutely outraged me when it went down. Now I'm seeing it as yet another one of Hillary's very clever moves to avoid the left-wing label. She is critiqued for too much nuancing, as opposed to George W Bush who wouldn't know a nuance if it hit him in the face:

"That careful, deliberate style impresses some Democrats but irritates and deflates many others: She tends to tweak her views and her rhetorical nuances to position herself in the center of most issues, leaving an uninspired impression for some."

Edwards, the darling of the netroots, is fading fast as Obama climbs the charts. Hillary is on top, much to the dismay of many. She's the top runner here in Ohio, according to this Quinnipiac poll. And here, in a collection of many polls, Hillary is seen to be running away from the pack.

We know the Right is going to send the attack dogs full force. I rather think Hillary will do better against them than Kerry did. She sticks to the issues and to proposed policies, which is going over very well with the voters.

Let me be clear here -- I could live happily with an Obama presidency, or Edwards, Gore, Kucinich and so on down the line. Anybody the Dems send up is better than the Bush mistake we've been living with for 6 years. However, I'm going to admit upfront to a secret thrill that Hillary is leading the pack. She's smart and she's determined, and I have no doubt she will actively run things, and run them well once elected president.

I just hope she takes one big risk and picks Obama for her running mate. I think it would be a heckuva ticket and would steamroll over any Republican opponent.