Bjorn Tipling

Hillary Clinton made this promise to potential voters:

“There are a lot of people who wanted to end this election before you had a chance to vote,” she said, with her husband at her side. “I’m ready to go to bat for you if you’ll come out and vote for me.”

What a disingenuous sentence. This is one of many reasons that explain why I support Obama over Hillary Clinton. That sentence right there. It has nothing to do with gender or race. What in the hell is she promising? Let’s examine it.

A) People want to disenfranchise your vote.
B) Vote for me.
C) I will then make sure your vote counts.

She might as well just say “Your vote only counts if you vote for me”. It is the message she has conveyed this entire election when after courting Iowa and Wisconsin, and the people that walked in ice cold weather to vote for her, she didn’t even thank them. It is the message she conveyed when she argued that caucus states do not matter. If things went her way the only states that should be counted, are the states that voted for her.

I wasn’t lying when I said I would begin to respond to the stupid arguments made on political blogs. Red state may close its comments to think-a-likes, but I can respond right here.

In a post named “Barack Obama is Either Stupid or Willfully Ignorant“, Redstate author “Erick” makes the following argument:

Barack Obama is either stupid or willfully ignorant because he thinks that Iran doesn’t pose the same threat the Soviet Union once raised.

Erick then points out a loose connection between Iran and Hezbollah’s 1983 attack on US Marines in Lebanon.

The bombing by Hezbollah resulted in a tragic loss of US servicemen lives. However the use of an inexpensive carbomb by an organization that probably has less trained men than the Rhode Island National Guard hardly qualifies it to be a threat comparable to the level of an international superpower with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, millions of professional soldiers, advanced military technology and winner of the space race. It certainly does not warrant the use of qualifiers like ’stupid’ and ‘willfully ignorant’ which are a product of the authors irrational anger and not a consequence of critical logic.

You sir, Mr. ‘Erick’, fail. You fail on so many levels that your keyboard license ought to be revoked.

That is all.

For a while now, I have been following political blogs. I am left of center ideologically but I like to read different points of view. I am especially interested in conservative blogs. I find that I already agree with many of the things that are said in liberal blogs, and it feels a little too much like everyone agreeing with one another without considering alternative opinions. Sometimes conservative blogs have a point. Lately though, more often than not their arguments make little sense. While I am no Cicero, I think you do not have to be very smart to see that many of the arguments on conservative blogs lack fundamental logical structure. Liberal blogs probably also have this problem, and if I see it I will call it out. Some of worst blogs are Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Red State. The unfair and untruthful attacks made on politicians I prefer upsets me. The manner in which my ideology is attacked upsets me.

Why do I care? I have noticed an interesting phenomenon on news meme trackers such as memeorandum and blogrunner. Meme trackers follow popular topics and their discussion across blogs and news sites. What I have noticed is that there is little overlap among ideologically differentiated blogs in discussions. For example, a news topic that causes an uproar on the right and is discussed to the point that it makes it to the top of a memetracker is often only discussed by conservative blogs. The same occurs for popular topics on the left. Conservative and liberal blogs don’t seem to acknowledge each others existence. Sometimes when a popular issue is discussed by both conservative and liberal blogs, there is no cross reference. The ideological gap is never crossed, and these sites never debate each other. Points are never refuted, arguments are never examined.

I think this is a bad thing. These blogs only respond to arguments made by politicians and TV pundits and old media, such as newspapers and television networks. One consequence of this is that blogs, looking to gain influence in politics and achieving some success at it, are implicitly acknowledging that their own medium is not significant enough to respond to. The other consequence is that, much like on conservative radio shows, arguments are made without any controls for validity, accuracy, logic. Unlike conservative radio shows, however, the arguments are in print. Because they are in print, these arguments can be examined and rebutted.

I may choose to participate in taking in an in-depth look at what I think are terrible arguments. In the past I have made some political posts in favor of Obama. There will probably be more political posts in the future. Some of the current audience for this blog may not want to read what I will write in the future. I may also begin to increase the amount of posts I publish. Some of the places where my blog is being tracked, such as code4lib and netlamers, might want to look at whether or not they want to continue to follow me. It wont hurt my feelings if anyone unsubscribes. I feel that in the past I have limited what I have been willing to say because of concerns for those that read my blog.

I am not going to ‘hold back’ anymore. I have a lot I want to say and respond to.

Paul Krugman recently wrote about economic rescue plans from the three presidential contenders McCain, Obama, and Clinton. He had this interesting sentence in there:

“Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies.“

I’ve been thinking about this since he wrote it. It’s silly right, kind of funny?

I gave it much thought. Yes, ridiculous, eating an infant, I’ve gone of the deep end. Clearly my opinion of Hillary Clinton is absurd.

Let’s entertain my fancy. Imagine in August, just before the convention in some dark room the final small group of undecided super-delegates gather along with our esteemed senator from New York in secrecy. They bring her to a table with a defenseless baby, and they offer her their votes if she eats the tiny newborn.

Guaranteed the Democratic party nomination, right there, served on a silver platter. What would my imaginary and twisted version of Clinton do now?

Not eat the baby and lose? This cute little thing? She’s shocked obviously. This isn’t right, but who would believe her? The delegates have all sworn to deny the indecent proposal. What if she just killed it without eating she suggested jokingly, and nervous, not really committing but hinting at a serious willingness. I mean what’s a baby when the country is at stake? She doesn’t even know the parents, or the newborn’s name.

What else would go through the mind this supremely evil version of my imaginary Clinton? Would she be revolted at the thought of having to eat the baby, or be horrified for the sake of the baby’s safety? She asks if maybe she could torture a puppy instead? She’s told no. It’s baby eating time; these faceless, secretive delegates want nothing less.

Maybe at this point my evil version Hillary would try a hint of emotion to see if should get one of the people around her to break from the rest. You know, maybe try a tear or two.

It’s absurd. And it took me thinking this scenario through and writing it down to see how absurd it was. Hillary Clinton isn’t evil. Ambitious? Yes. But is she a bad person? Forget the eating infants silliness, but consider the question. I think the answer is no.

I experienced some kind of breakthrough. I find her ‘antics’ throughout this primary distasteful and I find it hard to reconcile this with what I think is a well respected person, liked by many. My overall opinion of her seems to be tainted by irrationality. I can’t form a conclusion about her because I no longer can trust my intuition.

That Krugman thinks highly of her adds to my conundrum. I can’t just blindly resent anyone who backs her. Why can’t this primary be over already. I’m tired of it.

I’ve always respected Krugman, and his positive opinion of Hillary has been ad odds with my own. I’ve veered between disliking him and considering his opinion.

Photo Source

I am not a fair-weather supporter. I gave serious consideration to who I support and why. I didn’t decide who I support based on a tv commercial and I didn’t base my support on some comments about a debate. I based my decision on who the candidates are as people. I considered where they came from, I considered what they’ve done with their lives. I considered their ability to lead. I congratulate Hillary Clinton on her success today, but I continue to support Barack Obama. I know he would make a great president. I think all three top candidates would make good presidents, so all in all, I’m not unhappy with our future.

I’m sure pretty soon I’ll start writing about something else other than the election. Just this has been consuming my attention. I have been reading, and contributing a little, to comment threads on the New York Time’s political blog, and also I’ve been reading comments others have left on Salon, and on the LA Times, and other places. One thing has really stood out for me:

It’s really bitter out there right now.

And obviously, I haven’t been exactly neutral. It’s led to some self-reflection. About a year ago, actually more than a year now, 2006, is when I began supporting Obama. I liked what he had to say, I think I liked Hillary Clinton ok too, but I just seemed to gravitate toward Obama. I bought an Obama bumper sticker sometime in May of last year. Someone peeled half of it off when I parked on the street. A sign of things to come I suppose. But anyhow, at that time, my support for Obama felt very positive. I saw his candiacy in a very good light. I didn’t feel guilty for saying he inspired me, something if you say now someone or other will mention kool-aid. It’s off limits to say the i word, you don’t want someone to think you’re part of a cult.

So things have changed. I don’t feel positive anymore. I think I’m very disappointed. I think it was silly and naive for me to think that if people would give him a chance they would see what a great president Obama would make. I thought that is what happened in Iowa. But that’s not what happened. Once he became known, everyone didn’t embrace him. About half of us were revolted and clinged to their candidate, which is ok. The meanness isn’t. Maybe, with the way the election went this weekend with all these wins for Obama, things are changing, but I’m not sure. The comments I have read about my candidate, that he’s sleasy and manipulative, that he’s lying, that he’s pulled the race card, that he’s been subversive and underhanded, have left me dumbfounded. I have really tried to step out side of myself and see if I could see those things in Obama too, but I haven’t been able to.

But yet, I don’t feel the same anymore. I don’t think it is Obama’s fault. I don’t want to place blame on anyone else. I’m probably partly responsible, because I have felt so repulsed by Clinton’s campaign.

It just sucks. This thing has turned bitter and ugly and nasty and I’m tired of it.

You know what else bothers me about Hillary Clinton? She doesn’t give concession speeches. She just pretends nothing happened. When Obama lost in New Hampshire he gave a great concession speech, the one that’s been named the ‘Yes We Can’ speech that will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas turned into a music video that has been viewed over two million times on YouTube. The speech itself has been viewed over 300,000 times. 300,000 times for a speech. Hillary Clinton lost three states in a sweep to Obama today, will she even mention it?

I really want to vote for her if she wins the nomination. I want to vote for her for our future, and for my daughter. But man, she is making it really tough for me. I may not vote for anyone this November…

UPDATE:

From the NYTIMES

Mrs. Clinton said nothing about the day’s results as she spoke to a cheering crowd at the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner shortly after Mr. Obama was named the winner of the Nebraska and Washington caucuses.

Her campaign argued that Mr. Obama had greatly outspent her on television advertisements in all three states.

You know what, I’m tired of this. I’m tired of her. I’m not voting for her if she wins the nomination. I’ll write in Obama or Gore or something.

He’s beating Hillary Clinton by pledged delegates, by states, and still it doesn’t seem like people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Every one of his wins is spinned into insignficance. Every time he defeats Clinton, there’s some excuse that takes shape in the media, and they’re still waiting for Hillary to come out on top. So tell me, you’re going to discount Iowa? Ok. South Carolina? Sure. Georgia, yeah it’s just one more state. How about Washington, Kansas, Illinois, Colorado Nebraska, Idaho, Lousiana, Delaware, Missouri, Alabama, Alaska, Conneticut, Minnesota, and Utah. Somebody out there got some kind of lame excuse why they don’t matter too? The US is more than just New York and California. And Obama won a share of delegates in those states too. Time to stop doubting. Polls put him over McCain.

Right now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are at a point where both have a solid base of supporters. It’s split the Democratic party in half, so to speak (many independents vote for Obama). The thing to do now for one of them to win, is to appeal to other’s base of supporters enough to get a majority. Obama is doing that by getting endorsements from prominent politicans that appeal to Clinton’s base. Clinton however is turning just about everything Obama says into some kind of skewed half truth, At every point she’s diminishing Obama and his accomplishments in the primary race thus far. Considering how passionate Obama’s base is, I don’t see how that’s going to get her to break out from just her supporters.

Obama is more likely to draw in Clinton’s base, than vice versa.

But still everyone expects Hillary to win. I don’t get it. What will it take?

You know what’s funny? I don’t really dislike any of the Republican front-runners. I probably wouldn’t have liked Rudy. If Gorge Allen hadn’t used a racial slur to let us all know how racist he is, he’d probably be the front-runner right now, and I’d probably be very unhappy with the idea of him winning the election. I mean I’d probably not vote for them, but they don’t make me angry. When Romney or McCain say something ‘conservative’ it makes me chuckle a little, because I think they’re just pandering to the right for the nomination.

You know what else is funny is reading conservative blogs talk about their party’s nominees with confusion and dispair. Even conservative talk radio isn’t happy. It kind of makes me happy.

Sometimes, even to me, it seems like I’m less an Obama fan, and more just anti-Clinton. That’s not true. Even when I thought positively of Clinton I was for Obama. The man just inspires me to imagine a great America. But you know it doesn’t take much for me to root for a candidate, just two qualifiers:

Liberal values
Positive attitude

That’s Obama in a nutshell. That’s also Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and many of the others. Clinton - maybe the first, but definitely she strikes out on the last. As further evidence of her treachery: She’s trying to have the Michigan and Flordia votes reinstated! And look at this ridiculous explanation:

I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.

What? It’s all about her! She doesn’t care about the people in Flordia or Michigan, you think she’d try to have them reinstated if she had lost Michigan? Her name was the only one on the ballot? You think she’s honest? You think those were real tears in New Hampshire? You think she is going to think of you and not herself when she is president? Why did The New York Times endorse her? WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE VOTING FOR HER???!!!!

STOP IT!