Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Welcome 08

Happy New Years

Like zillions of other bloggers, I couldn't let this day go without a visit to the Sprouseart blog. Before I get into any serious blogging however, I have to state how uncanny it is that while I sit here in our little place on the Delaware shore, outside the weather is wonderfully sunny with a crisp blue sky and an air temperature of a rather balmy 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Uncanny, really. You know, mid-Atlantic coast, Winter, January.

(photo © stellaretriever)

I was curious as to what the norm temperature for Jan. 1st is here in this part of Delaware (the nation's second smallest state). I went to my new favorite weather spot, www.wunderground.com, where I discovered that the average high for this area on this day is 45 degrees and the low 26. That means that usually on this date in this area, the temperature normally hovers somewhere between those two numbers.

Today must be a weather oddity, but a welcome one for myself. It was so lovely that I even had the front door open. However, that changed not long after a repulsive, massive, black fly entered my home making a b-line to the kitchen followed by an obnoxious, whiny, blood-sucking mosquito making a b-line to my right ankle. But, for the brief amount of time that I had had the door open, it was lovely. I sat quietly in my chair, closed my eyes, and took in the gentle breeze that comes our way courtesy of the Atlantic just about a mile up the road (it worked wonders for the sinister hangover that I awoke with this morning after, my body's retribution for a wild New Year's Eve party at our friend Michael's lovely home). The neighbor across the street was wordlessly washing his car. The only sound from the process were the soft splish-splash of his foam covered sponge entering in and out of a bucket of water. In some tree nearby a bird was chirping out a sweet tiny song. It was mixed with the distant sound of a laughing children mixed with the playful yip yap of some far away dog. It was, in fact, a lovely way to begin the new year. Sitting quietly, eyes closed, and just listening...

Now, I received a comment from my wonderful friend of 25 years, Kathryn, about one of my earlier posts regarding Obama.
Now, normally, I share the same stance as the astute Iowan who placed this sign upon their door...

But, Kathryn is a dear friend, and I want to respond to some of her valid points, in my own way..

Kathryn states:

"I think Obama has more experience "watching houses" than you are giving him credit for"

My response:

Really? I just don't see this. Obama hasn't even finished out his first term as a US Senator (though to be fair he did serve one term as a Illinois State Senator representing the 13th District in the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park in Chicago from 1996 - 02). In my opinion, that's just not good footing to begin a presidential bid. He also ran for the Senator ship unopposed for the majority of the race until the Republicans sent in Keyes, which, was frankly only done so as a token candidate with no chance in hell of wining. Here's an excerpt from a posting on www.democrats.org

In 2000 Obama was advised by fellow Democratic state senator, Donne Trotter (one of the good guys), to run against incumbent Democratic US Representative Bobby Rush (one of the questionable guys). Obama, despite a sizeable chunk of out-of-district financing, was thoroughly trounced in the primaries.

In the 2004 Senate contest, one-term Republican incumbent Peter Fitzgerald announced he would not seek re-election. The seat was to be challenged on the Democratic side by multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull (the odds on favorite), Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, and State Senator Obama. Hull's campaign stalled due to accusations of domestic abuse. Hynes bored folks to tears and his financing was questioned. Obama won the nomination. After gaining his party's nomination Republican Jack Ryan was forced to drop out of the race when unproven sexual allegations were made public. The Republicans bussed in Allen Keyes so the seat would not go unopposed, but to no avail.

I believe this bit of history is worth bringing up because Obama has only faced one serious challenge in his political career, against Rush. All the rest have been gimmies. Obama has run a successful campaign so far, but he has by no means had his feet put to the fire. Someone needs to do it soon to see how he reacts.

So, in my opinion, not only do I find that posting completely valid on terms of him running a winnable election, I also truly believe that serving one term as a state Senator and being in the middle of his tenure as a US Senatorship gives him enough experience to take on the massive challenges facing this country right now. Compare any unbiased biographies of Clinton and Obama and hands down Clinton's years of experience being in the political arena ( 12 hands on years as first lady of Arkansa, 8 hands on years as First Lady of the country, and her tenure as a US Senator from New York) outweighs Obama's by far.

Kathryn states:

"I don't see the passive aggressive either. He simply says this is the time for him to run. Being a parent, I get where he is coming from. We have made some decisions like that in our own lives - OK I have not run for president... But we have done things that have been very disruptive to our life and our children’s life knowing that for us it was now or never."

My response:

Frankly, I think you have misinterpreted this. There is a big difference between - this is the time to run - and - if you don't vote for me, then I'll never run again. Now, I saw him in at least 3 interviews after his wife initially made that remark (passive/aggressive) and when asked whether he really wouldn't do so, he coyly avoided the answer ( passive/aggressive, and in my opinion, really an immature move, something that someone with more experience wouldn't have gone with). Plus, it's important to realize that all of this items are controlled by the candidates campaign team themselves. Michelle Obama made the comment in an upcoming edition of Vanity Fair magazine. All of these moves are calculated. It's the response that they're never sure about until it occurs. I think that the underlying message here was "now or never" but not in a nice way, more like a spoiled kid way, and frankly, I think it backfired on them, as you can see that they certainly aren't working the comment now just a few short days later.

Kathryn states:

"As to the Clinton's, frankly the country could do without the divisive drama they seem to attract. I know plenty of pain in the ass republicans who say they could get behind Obama. Isn't that what our country needs -somebody we can all look to again to LEAD? Maybe the right approach is to get rid of all of the "experience" and get people in government who will actually fix the problems instead of stir up the water some more."

My response:

I'm really surprised by this. First, in my opinion the "divisive drama" that you refer to is almost always stirred up by angry right wing republicans and the conservative media. Also, have you forgotten how wonderful things were under the Clinton administration? I don't know about you, but when THEY were in charge of the country, I was making quite a bit of steady money, I had great health insurance, I actually had some substantial savings and was able to think about retirement plans, drove a nice car powered by affordable gas and lived in a lovely home in a major city in the US where I never worried about being blown up when I would get on the metro. I have none of those things in my life now. Not a one. Should I continue with the words BALANCED BUDGET? How about strong (now undone) environmental protection laws? A more balanced Supreme Court? You imply that Clinton "will stir up the water some more"? Where is that coming from? I respectively suggest that you do some research into what great things really occurred in this country the last time the Clintons were in the White House and then rethink your response. Also, it's important to remember that Hilary wasn't just a pretty face picking out dinner china and trying on hats, she was one of the most hands on First Lady ever. You see, my whole issue with Obama is about experience. So when I read about it possibly being the time to "get rid of all of the "experience" and get people in government who will actually fix the problems" I cringe. I wouldn't ever even think about boarding a passenger jet piloted by someone with no flying experience, so why would I ever even think that I would want someone with no experience running this country at such a desperate time?!

Now when I read that you know several "pain in the ass republicans who say they could get behind Obama" I've heard talk from and have seen just as many whose mouth waters at the idea of there being a Democratic presidential candidate who happens to be an African-American with the name of Barack Hussein Obama simply because they think it's the only way they could get another Republican in the White House. Now, I don't feel that way and I don't like that way of thinking either, but unfortunately, but there are many. many folks out there ready to pounce upon that, and trust me, they will, if he becomes the candidate. Republicans are scared at the idea of Clinton, because she knows the game and knows it well. Again - experience. Also, they have been under so much scrutiny over the years by the Republican hate machine that there simply are no more dark corners to shine lights on any longer. And even if they did manage to find something or the other, the Clinton's would know exactly how to deal with it. They're like teflon, and that's exactly what we need in the White House. Again, the republicans know this and they do not want her to be the candidate. So, the next time you hear these pain in the ass repugnantcans, mention their desire to get behind Obama, you may want to consider their motivation. I think they see him as new juicy meat that they can't wait to get their teeth into. Obama has never had to deal with anything like that, Hillary has done so many times, and she still keeps wining ( she would have never been able to have won her US Senator seat, twice mind you, without republican support).

So, there is my wordy diatribe on why I am supporting Hillary Clinton, to me, it's all about proven experience. I think if more people sat down and calmly without bias went over all of the history of the candidates, they would find Clinton the absolute best candidate in the running by far. Anti-Hillary democrats need to ask themselves quite honestly what exactly is it about here that they are basing their dislike in. It's surprising how so many can't come up with a decent answer based in fact.

On that not, let me be clear that I don't dislike Obama at all, and will whole-heartedly support him if he becomes the candidate simply because we can not afford to have another one of these in the White House....

But I won't feel very confidant about it and that disillusions me greatly. I honestly don't think that he is ready for the job yet. In 8 years, absolutely, but now, the way things are? No, send the neophytes back to school and bring in the pros, because we're going to need them.

Now, major hugs and kisses, and buckets of my never ending love to you and yours Kat and my sincerest wish for a happy, healthy, peaceful and successful new year. In fact, I want to wish that to all of my readers out there. All 12 of you. Or maybe 9. I don't know.

By the way, only 80 more days to the first day of Spring.

photo © sante.boschianpest

1 comment:

Kathryn said...

OK OK Already! I like Hillary for all of the reasons you do! Whew! And my life was great under the Clintons. I just hated the way the republicans tried to rip them apart the whole time he was in office. The time and energy not to mention the money trying to destroy them was outrageous! There were bigger things to be worrying about than who gave who a blow job. I would simply like to see the overwhelming majority of the country really get behind an administration again. He seems like the only possibility for that to happen.

I don't know Michael, maybe I am still naïve at 40 years old, I just don't think them saying "This is the time" was a cold, calculating, political move. I think that statement got blown out of proportion. I see an honest man who in my estimation is smart and currently unaffected by the Washington bullshit and am willing to consider him as a refreshing alternative. And as to his experience, his resume is nothing to sneeze at.

I feel passionate about Bush leaving and outside of Bill Richardson (who makes me believe anyone can make it in politics), like most of my options on the democratic ticket. All that said - go get em Micheal. Hugs and Kisses to you and yours in the New Year.