Cards, the playing in politics of

When Palin was running for VP, the right accused the left of playing the gender card when we criticized her frightening lack of knowledge or experience. They played the gender card on then-Senator Clinton mere months before when she was fighting for the Democratic nomination. They also did this every single time she ran for an office or her husband ran for an office, because they believe that a woman should be at home taking care of the kids, not going out being ambitious or pursuing a career.

They accuse the left of playing the race card against Herman Cain (apparently we're "attacking" him because we're "afraid" of a "strong black conservative"), but we know all too well how they used and are still using the race card against President Obama. Herman Cain does not have the knowledge, the intellectual curiosity, or the gravitas to become the leader of the free world. Black Americans who support Obama are somehow "brainwashed" into supporting his "liberal agenda", whereas black-Americans who support the Republicans are self-sufficient and independent in their thinking.

Toss the damn cards.

Minorities within minorities.

I'm a PC person. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Sims 3 fan. Make of it what you will.
I'm a woman. Make of it what you will.
I'm Chinese. Make of it what you will.
I'm an environmentalist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Democrat. Make of it what you will.
I'm a progressive. Make of it what you will.
I'm an atheist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a dreamer. Make of it what you will.
I'm overweight. Make of it what you will.

Patronized. Ridiculed. Scorned. Threatened. Shunned. Oppressed. Ignored.

Put down for being proud...outspoken...wanting fair and equal treatment...or even existing.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I am (or, I used to be, as you'll see in a bit) a lurker at Daily Kos. There was one member who posted positive Obama diaries on a regular basis, because she felt that the site was becoming overtly hostile to the President. Recently, she was so fed up with the nasty atmosphere of the site, that she quit posting to it altogether to start her own blog, in which she intends to post more such positive diaries about the President. A friend of hers on Daily Kos posted a diary announcing the creation of the blog, and its intended purpose. The comments section of that diary made me so disgusted, I could spit. Many of the members made derisive and scornful comments against the diarist, the member who left the site, all former members who left the site out due to increasing hostility toward the President, etc.

People like her--who share her mindset--are being shut out of the conversation, in DK and in other sites like it, because they dare to focus on the President's accomplishments rather than his failures. Obama's critics on the left love to screech about how he failed to include a public option in the healthcare bill, how he hasn't yet repealed DADT and DOMA, how the financial regulation legislation is a joke, how he's going to cave to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, extending the deadline for ceasing combat in Afghanistan, etc. Someone mentions all the promises he has kept, and the immediate positive impact of his first two most significant achievements, and that person is called an "Obamabot", or worse. The critics righteously proclaim that Obama ought to be primaried in 2012, or that he should resign, a la Nixon; those of us who recognize that the loss of the White House in 2012 would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, can hardly make an argument for keeping him without confronting a barrage of spiteful comments.

The critics have made it clear that no healthcare bill would have been better than the one that got passed...I'm sure that the people who benefited from it would argue that they wouldn't have been able to wait another 10 or 20 years for another attempt at passing better healthcare legislation.

These people so drawn in by his promises of change, that they failed to realize that history has proven that systemic changes almost never happen overnight, nevermind without any flaws? Why did they raise their hopes so high, even while knowing that those same hopes would come crashing down upon hitting the ceiling known as "reality"?

Us pragmatic (when did this get a bad connotation?) progressives, who have the same ideals as other progressives but believe in a different approach to achieving them, don't get any respect. We're "spineless", "cowards", "sellouts", "centrists", etc. Since when did trying to get things done a step at a time become the tactic of cowards? In that same logic, babies ought to be born able to solve Fermat's Last Theorem and run marathons in four hours. An analogy I like to use is that Obama was expected to erect a 120-story skyscraper in six months, and the progressive purity police (PPP) were so disappointed when he was only able to finish the six-story basement carpark, that they want to fire him and hire another contractor--because, y'know, if it's possible, then...why can't you do it NOW? AND with no mistakes?

This demand for ideological purity from elected officials is what's causing an enormous rift among the Republican Party right now. Teabaggers demand that their candidates run on a platform of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-"taxation without representation", anti-separation-of-church-and-state, anti-immigration, anti-government-on-their-backs, anti-everything-Obama, etc. Many moderate Republican candidates lost in primaries because the teabaggers were on a mission of purification. And the critics of Obama on the left want to primary him, supposedly on principle...the Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of a civil war on the left, just as we have been watching with glee as the GOP fights the Tea Party.

Miserable fools.

Some of Obama's most vehement critics are from the left. Deeply mistrusting and cynical from decades of observing American politics, they are always inclined to assume the worst intentions from Obama's actions and words. Even if, under his watch, health care reform has gone further than ever before in history, those critics will simply say that he should have done more and put the needs of the American public by the wayside from the very beginning. Why do those miserable fools still observe politics if they expect that no good will come from it? More importantly, why do they seek to make the optimists miserable like they are?

What's so different between those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum? Not much. These left-wing critics are no better than the radical right-wing critics of Republican politicians. The latter may consider a Republican, who is already considered to be a conservative by the mainstream public, to not be conservative enough. The recent election in NY's 23rd congressional district is a prime example of how the right fringe showed its displeasure at the nomination of a moderate candidate: it nominated its own candidate because it didn't consider the GOP candidate to be "conservative enough".

By the way, they lost that election. Consider what would happen if these threats by purist Democrats to primary Blue Dogs and even President Obama himself were to come to fruition in 2010 and 2012. The media and the GOP would have a field day with the "Democratic Party is fractured" meme, and the GOP would almost certainly benefit electorally. Republicans could win back both the House and the Senate, and possibly even the White House, if the Democrats are disorganized and fighting amongst themselves. They'd create an even greater mess for the next Democratic president to clean up, and inevitably, his critics from his own party will claim he's not doing everything exactly to their liking.

The Democratic Party's inclusive, "big tent" philosophy naturally results in a base that is diverse in age, skin color, background, and experiences; it's a double-edged sword, and Democrats will always be somewhat handicapped by their diversity. The Party leadership must place great emphasis on the "common, shared human experiences" theme, because now the conservatives and the progressives are feeling absolutely no love for one another. Obama, naturally, is in the crossfire, receiving blows from both sides.

He is treated like a child in a family with two highly-demanding parents; I've been around families like this, especially within the Chinese community. You know how those families are. The parents force their children to practice their musical instruments for hours a day, and expect them to excel in academics. Straight-A report cards and top scores on standardized tests are not even cause for praise. Oh no, they must go above and beyond--win all the science and math fairs, skip grades, gain entrance into the most prestigious colleges in the nation (with full scholarships, no less). Obama's stuck in the same rut--he can't please his base, no matter how hard he tries. His critics say that all his accomplishments so far (and there are quite a few) are par for the course, and that any Democratic president would have achieved them; they claim he hasn't lived up to his slogan of "change we need". Never mind that he's ten months into his first term, and that his major promises are also the ones that take the longest to achieve.

Granted, most of these parents are products of their upbringings and environments; in China, for example, the competition is extremely fierce among secondary school students, because China has too many students and too little space in colleges and universities. The parents, if they were immigrants, had probably come to America in search for a better life, and want their children to be better. I'm going to go ahead and say that most of Obama's critics simply wish for him to live up to his promises and bring about real change so that all present and future Americans may benefit, just like those parents wish for their children to have better lives than they had. As for some of them, though, I can't help but think that they are either so cynical and jaded that they expect no less than for him to betray his party, or that they have never liked or trusted him for some reason.

All politicians make promises during their campaigns; how quickly they can fulfill them is difficult for them or anyone else to predict. If they had told the truth and said that they can't promise they will give everyone's pet issue their full attention in their first year in office, would anyone vote for them? My argument is that we should believe those promises, but not expect our politicians to act on all of them immediately, and not expect them to have our number-one issues as their top priorities right away. Some people set themselves up to be extremely disappointed, but why do that when we know better? I swear they are like parents who are so cynical that they expect their teenage children to do drugs, imbibe alcohol, and hang out with the bad crowd even if none of them are actually involved in those activities. Add to that the parents' not believing their children even when they are telling the truth. It's sad that it had to come to this.

What bothers me the most is that the latter tend to like to spread their misery around. They go to Obama photodiaries or other positive Obama diaries and post comments that are intended to disrupt the stream of mostly positive responses and chastise the other commenters for being naive, stupid idol-worshippers who were blind to all his (supposedly) true loyalties and allegiances that they (think they) know him to have. Like they are in his inner circle, or could tap into his thought processes and discover his true intentions.

He ought to be criticized when necessary, but some of his critics are truly taking it too far and attacking his character, assuming the worst intentions, and bullying those who still support him. Do they really think they are helping the cause by attacking the President this way? Do they really think primarying him is a good, noble action against a supposedly corrupt politician? Do they really expect him to fulfill all his promises at an inhuman pace, circumventing the obstacles of the media, his opponents, and all the delays in the legislative process? Who is really naive here?

I am so sick of many of the progressive activists in the Democratic Party, and I agree with most of their platforms. Public option, to them, has become (with some reluctance, because they actually want Single Payer) their Holy Grail. It "goes under the bus" or "dies" when the President fails to mention it at a town hall meeting, or when he expresses openness to another method. They go ballistic when he says "health insurance reform" instead of "health care reform", even though health insurance is in the most urgent need of reform if we're ever going to see actual progress in improving health care. They vehemently condemn the President and the Secretary of HHS when she says that Obama does not see the public option as essential to the bill. Anyone who says that public option is not everything and the only thing that matters, is a traitor in their eyes.

I know health care is a deeply personal issue which regularly stirs up strong emotions in anyone who has had a terrible experience dealing with callous, greedy insurance companies and the obscene costs of medical treatment, but does the debate really have to come to the point in which people from our side begin to behave disturbingly like those right-wing extremists in the Republican Party? We have all seen what could happen if people let their emotions overcome their reason.

To them, now, Obama is a sellout. He's pledged his allegiance to corporations and profits over the American people, and he should expect no support from the left flank of his own party in 2012 when he runs for re-election. He broke his promises, and he is not the "Change We Need", but "More of the Same". Why isn't he prosecuting Bush, Cheney, and all those who violated the Constitution to permit the torture of detainees? Why hasn't he already repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Why hasn't he already gotten us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and for that matter, why hasn't he single-handedly cured AIDS and cancer, eliminated poverty and infectious disease, ended nuclear proliferation, and stopped global warming? Aren't we expecting a little too much, too soon from one man to whom we've pinned so many of our greatest hopes? Hasn't he said that the real power to bring about change lies in the people, that they should hold his feet to the fire? Well, instead of moaning about the "death" of the public option, lashing out when it feels threatened, and writing about its woes, why don't they spend the time actually calling and emailing those politicians like they implore us to do, it seems, every single day?

I'm voting Republican because...

...cognitive dissonance is such a wonderful feeling, isn't it?
...my values are not the same as yours; in fact, they are superior.
...my responsibility is to my own interests only, and not my fellow Americans.
...the poor, sick, and disabled deserve neither my tax money nor my valuable attention.
...a guy whose middle name is "Hussein" has to be one of them evil Muslims who hate our freedom.
...waving flags, chanting "USA!", and singing patriotic songs demonstrates our superior patriotism.
...the war in Iraq must be won at any and all cost; to pull out now would be to surrender to the forces of evil!
...you're on your own, so shut up and quit expecting me to help you because it's not MY problem you are lazy and keep getting sick.

The Republican Party is a cult. Just like Scientology.

Obama/Biden '08/'12!

The moral depravity of the Republican Party is horrifying...how can so many Americans allow themselves to be fooled so many times that this country has become a laughingstock of the entire world? The string-pullers in the GOP are playing us for idiots, and it's worked because many of us REFUSE to think for ourselves or to think critically about our future.

We're better than this. McCain/Palin is Bush/Cheney III, plain and simple. They are different individuals, yes, and it's true that they may have bucked the Party line occasionally in the past. It doesn't make them, however, true "mavericks" like they claim. The evidence for the similarity between the two pairs is out there to be examined, and it's easy to find--if you're willing to look. The fact that Sarah Palin has more media exposure than Obama should have no bearing on whether she deserves your vote. The fact that she is a woman and that Obama did not choose Hillary Clinton as his running-mate should have no bearing on whether she deserves your vote. The election of the President of the United States is not American Idol--it's infinitely more than some superficial popularity contest, and it's exceedingly dangerous to treat what could be the most important election in our lifetimes as such.

For those who want to sit out: it's your choice, certainly, whether or not you want to vote. You may think that your one vote won't matter, but millions of people think this way. Millions of votes can make a world of difference in an election like the coming Presidential election, which is bound to be close (and shouldn't even be remotely close). The outcome of the election will affect you one way or another, and your vote is an investment into your future. Don't let the past discourage you.

Cynicism hurts everyone, though it's a natural fallout from 8 bleak years of Bush/Cheney. The U.S. can't afford any more cynicism from its voters--cynicism gets people elected who will perpetuate that cynicism through their heinous acts. It's a vicious cycle. It's defeatist. Our country and the world can no longer afford for anyone to be apathetic and self-defeating.

Why take the easy route and just refuse to vote? Why take the easy route and just believe everything you're told without a sliver of doubt? Why take the easy route and vote just for your own self-interest? Would you do something so willingly even if it would result in harm to yourself, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your community, and indeed everyone else on the planet?

Haven't people--shouldn't people come to your aid when you're down and can't get back up? Without each other, we can accomplish but little. Are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?

Heed Obama's message of hope and brother/sisterhood, and elect him the President. A strong nation is a nation unified.

Okay, so...

Obama/Biden '08 wasn't exactly the "dream ticket" I (and no doubt many others) were hoping for back in primary season. It was Clinton/Obama '08, and it would have been a landslide.

It would have been the most historic major party ticket by lightyears, with the first serious female presidential candidate and the first serious black vice presidential candidate on the same Democratic ticket. People were so inspired by Hillary that many switched parties to vote for her or ignored their party affiliations to vote for her. People were so inspired by Obama that his speeches sent chills down their spines and made many cry. Imagine the sheer magnitude of the effect that ticket would have had on the American voters in November.

The reality now is that Hillary is NOT on the ticket, and a fair number of Hillary supporters are disillusioned or even angry. Women feel as if she had been shafted, and Palin's nomination is drawing some away. It's not that Biden is a poor VP choice; that's far from the truth. He appeals to the working-class whites and has more years of foreign policy experience than Palin has been in politics (correct me if I'm wrong).

We can't keep dreaming about what could have been and forgetting about the urgent fight happening now. The fact is, Obama/Biden is the necessary choice. Former Hillary supporters who say they are switching tickets are making a fatal mistake by choosing McCain/Palin solely on the basis of there being a woman on the ticket; these two, if elected, will enact policies which will shaft all women and bring further ruin to the U.S. economy and reputation. Making a rash decision based on raw, bitter emotional wounds will bring much larger, more devastating wounds in the long term, so it's essential that we give up the hurt and disappointment like Hillary and Bill implore us to do and fight for our common future.

Historical significance

So Senator Barack Obama has officially become the Democratic Party's nominee for the 2008 presidential election. There is so much historical significance in the dates of the convention and in the candidates (Hillary and Obama) themselves.

Obama:

• He will be the first black President in the history of the United States if he wins in November.
• His age and inexperience have been points of debate, but he will have a chance to reassure voters later today in his acceptance speech.
• The most recent polls have shown him and McCain in an incredibly tight race.
• He chose Biden no doubt to appeal to the voters who voted for Hillary, among whom many are blue-collar whites.
  

JFK:

• He was the first Catholic president.
• Voters were wary of his age and inexperience, but he reassured them in his acceptance speech.
• The Kennedy/Johnson ticket won by a hair.
• The choice of LBJ as VP was intended to appeal to southern whites as well.
  

----

Aug. 26, 1929: With the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, women won the right to vote in the U.S. In 2008, Hillary was close to becoming the first female presidential candidate of a major political party, putting those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling.

Aug. 27: LBJ's 100th birthday. He fought for and helped pass legislation on such issues as civil rights, healthcare for all Americans, improved education, restraint in foreign policy, and environmental conservation. All of these issues are still relevant today. He also increased American involvement in what was to become an unpopular war (Vietnam); there's the highly unpopular Iraq War II today which most Americans want the next president to end.

Aug. 28, 1963: MLK Jr. gave his historic "I Have a Dream" speech on the National Mall. Obama will give his acceptance speech today, 45 years later; his nomination is seen by some as the culmination of the efforts of so many leaders of the Civil Rights movement, including King. Obama himself had worked as a community organizer in south Chicago, where many poor African-American families reside.

Aug. 29: 3rd anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall in New Orleans. Many attribute the dearth of federal aid by the Bush Administration to the fact that the most greatly affected were low-income blacks.

----

Also, Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday is in February of 2009, just a few weeks after the inauguration of the next president. If Obama wins, the significance of that will be incredible. Both are/were tall, lanky men from Illinois, hardened by difficult circumstances in childhood, and both are/were hardworking and intelligent. Lincoln helped free the slaves, and no doubt because of that, Obama is able to run for the nation's highest office today.

----

Bill's right. History is on Obama's side. What a year 2008 has been!

Some commenters on the Internet should leave their computers.

To the wonderful examples of humankind that are some of the People.com commenters:

• Get a life. You surely have better things to do with your time than to sneak around on entertainment websites just so you can post insulting comments about a public figure you happen to hate.
  
• Do you know Hillary/any random celebrity whom you dislike beyond what's presented in public? Didn't think so. Before you make any snap judgments about or heave personal insults at anyone, learn something about him/her. Before she went into politics, Hillary worked her ass off on behalf of women and children while working at all-male prestigious law firms. Bill was a Rhodes Scholar who had a less-than-ideal family situation, but still managed to stay on his feet and succeed. Did you bother to learn all that before you touched your keyboard?
  
• They are human beings, like you (though I have my doubts about you). Don't think for a second that they don't go through the same crap in their lives as we do. They worry about finances, pay taxes, raise children...just like you.
  
• Even the people we despise may say something or do something which would ultimately benefit us. Assuming that nothing good can come out of your enemies is doing yourself a disfavor.
  
• You try being constantly under national and international scrutiny. Chances are you won't like it, but if you're like Ann Coulter, you'd feel right at home basking in the glow of attention (even if it's almost 100% negative).
• Did you graduate from one of the top business/law schools in the country? Did you persevere at your work until you reached a position of prestige at your law firm/company? Did you publicly advocate unpopular positions or little-known issues? Did you run or help to run a country? Didn't think so. So don't assume you understand.
  
• You can't deny that Chelsea Clinton and Cate Edwards turned out to be fine, intelligent, well-adjusted, successful young women, no matter how evil you perceive their parents to be. Their parents must have done something right--how shocking!
  

To conclude: If you've got nothing useful or positive to say, just shut the hell up. It helps unclog the Internet.