![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
election non-surprise
I'm kind of sad that John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race.
He wasn't going to win (on first ballot at the convention), I don't
think, but he has enough of a following that it seems like he could
have influenced the front-runners had he stayed in. On the other hand,
he was probably drawing more votes from Obama than from
Hillary ("sleaze as usual"), so if it helps Obama win the nomination
it won't be all bad. He hasn't made a formal endorsement,
but this might count. Still, if the Dems don't slap Hillary
down hard and soon, they risk blowing the election, either by
nominating a slick divisive candidate or by doing too much dirty
campaigning before rejecting her.
(I'm not for Obama, but I'm against Hillary. I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.)
Did anyone else catch the complaint from the NH chapter of NOW? (It was in the news yesterday or the day before.) They complained that Kennedy "betrayed women" by not endorsing Hillary. Earth to NOW: you are doing harm to your candidate if your entire platform is "she's a she". Not that I mind, but I'm just sayin'.
no subject
Absolutely, positively correct. And I think many people would be surprised to learn that there's no requirement for a two-party system. I have a sad hunch a lot of people think it's in the Constitution.
My feeling is that the reasons why we're stuck in a two-party system is that the two parties do everything they can to maintain this status quo. Both have figured out a fundamental truth:
It's better to be in last place in a two-party system than it is to be in third place in a five-party system.
Guaranteed a "no worse than second place finish under any circumstances," both parties do all they can to perpetuate the system and cut off alternative parties before they can become a threat.
no subject
no subject
NOW is a victim of its own success. Having successfully raised awareness of women's political issues, they now incite a backlash by overplaying their hand. And if they don't even have the backbone to criticize Bill Clinton for his womanizing, then they have failed even at their core mission.
no subject
Once a group becomes successful (er, powerful), they tend to overlook how they got there (as you said, failing their core mission). This is not only NOW, but all the big interest groups.
More parties, we need more parties (political, that is :).
no subject
It would be hypocritical for me to say no, given as I'm not a Democrat either. :-) (Though I might temporarily register in whichever party seems more relevant for the primary.)
National NOW did try to back away from NH NOW's statements, but it's kind of too little too late. As you said, they've lost their way.
no subject
What NOW fails to realize is that many of us would be happy to vote for a woman for President if it's a particular person we respect. If it were Jodi Rell (R-CT) or Kathleen Sibelius (D-KS) or Diane Feinstein (D-CA) I'd be happy to vote for "the woman" But this is Hilary Clinton we're talking about; she wouldn't have the name recognition she had if not for her husband being the President of the United States and, regardless of what you thought of his policies, somewhat of a slimeball.
no subject
I'll probably register for the Democratic race unless something surprising happens before I have to decide. "Surprising" would be on the scale of Huckabee making a big come-back. (I think he's the only candidate who scares me more than Hillary, though many displease me.)
no subject
I'm like you, and not necessarily for Obama, but I don't like Hillary much. I wish Kucinich wouldl have had a chance....
no subject
Re the NOW quote: the feminist movement will really have accomplished something when voters consider a female candidate entirely on the basis of her platform, record, and character, not on the basis of her gender. NOW's comment represents a step back, not a step forward.
no subject
NOW: exactly right. It's why I am generally offended by "women's this" and "women's that", or voting by body parts like they advocate. People in previous generations worked hard to get women taken seriously, and now I'm supposed to favor something (a candidate, an event, a book, whatever) just because it's by or about women? That's every bit as sexist as the sexism they allegedly seek to defeat. And it's even worse when it's patronizing, which it often is.
I haven't really noticed the Obama camp playing the race card much, but you can't read a newspaper without seeing the Hillary camp playing the gender card. Yuck.
no subject
Also, certain candidates who are running to affect only one issue are boring to interview, because they only talk about that one issue. My gf gets a magazine for medical students. It asked candidates their views on improving healthcare in the US. Tom Tancredo's answer was: kicking out illegal immigrants will free up health care money for Americans.
no subject
1) Well, yes, he's a class act like that.
2) He wouldn't dare: he's biracial with his African parent (father) a recent immigrant, not a descendant of slaves. When he first came on the national scene, the first big controversy was among African-Americans as to whether he was really a brother -- whether he was Black enough -- to be embraced as one of their own. By playing the race card he only stands to lose by reopening that controversy.
no subject