Hereby defined as a woman giving those that need it a swift kick in the rearend. We don't rock the vote, rock the cradle, or even out the playing field: we come to show them how it's done.
After
speaking with my friends as they left the prison, they were thrilled
with the outcome and deeply grateful for the overwhelming support from
the community. The parole board received over 300 letters opposing
Peyer's parole request and they were bolstered by the support of the
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who sat in on the hearing. While
it's a huge emotional strain to have to revisit this brutal murder
every four years so that they can put a face on this tragedy for the
parole board, they are so grateful that Peyer was again denied the
opportunity to walk free. As someone who has followed this case for 21
years and who has seen the love and kindness the Knott family has to
offer, I couldn't be happier about the decision the parole board made
today. Thank you for your part in this, whether you sent letters or
just sent out the intent to keep him behind bars. Oreet (Cara's
sister-in-law) will be writing up a thank you when she gets home and
gets some rest. She's asked me to share it here and I'll do so as soon
as it comes through. But for now, know that you made a difference and
we're all so grateful for you.
The primaries are finally going to swing into my state, along with several others, next Tuesday. I thought by now I'd have come to some decision. I thought I would have heard something that told me definitively that Candidate X was superior to Candidate Y, or that perhaps someone other than Hillary could survive the Republican mean machine to come.
But what I have been hearing in the last couple of weeks has been more disheartening than anything else. Although comments flying back and forth between the Clinton and Obama camps, as well as from their supporters, have generated slew of side discussions (some good, some damaging) about race and gender, I propose that everyone is missing the point.
Personally, I don't care which barrier is more important, or has been more destructive over time, or which one should be broken first. From my admittedly privileged position as a working, white, woman, I'm just thrilled that we might really make progress in one of these areas if not both of them, and I'm thrilled that the Democrats are the ones opening these doors. But really, all of this is secondary.
The occasion of President Bush's final State of the Union address serves as a reminder that all the rhetoric in the world is not going to fix the damage that has been done to our nation in the past seven years. Bush will leave us with a world more dangerous than it should be, more dangerous than it might have been if we had stuck to our pursuit of democracy (and bin Laden) in Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq.
Now we have a world that is menaced by an emboldened Iran, threats from Hamas and Hizbollah who have only gotten stronger since Bush took office, and an al Queada that grows in dark places like a multi-headed hydra. Don't let the notion that we haven't been attacked here since 9/11 fool you. There were eight years between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second one. This is an organization that plans, and waits.
In addition, our go-it-alone stance, has left us literally standing alone. A recent request to NATO for additional help in Afghanistan was refused, resulting in even more of our Marines being sent into the region. The military is stretched to the point of accepting more and more recruits without so much as a high school diploma. This is our volunteer army?
Clearly we need to consider that our security might be dependent on more than just military might. Surge or no surge, there has been little progress in Iraq where it counts. Only diplomacy will secure any permanent stability on that front, and there has been no movement and very little effort in that arena.
We are also facing an era of diminished economic influence around the world. What will it mean for the United States to operate in this kind of multi-polar world where throwing our weight around has a far less of an impact on our leaner, nimbler competitors?
And what of our own competitiveness? Where is the emphasis on science and innovation? Where are our research dollars going? Are we solving problems in disease prevention and enviromental resources like alternative energies and potable water, or are we developing monstrous and defective attack helicopters that cost a lot of money and cost soldiers' their lives?
The petty bickering over race and gender must stop. In the face of all these other challenges, to focus too much on this smacks of small-mindedness. After the last seven years, that's the last thing we need in our new President.
Earlier this month, U.S. Supreme Court justices debated about lethal injection as a method of execution for capital punishment and whether it is adequately humane. The issue is not whether capital punishment should be applied, but how. Those making a case to change the method for lethal injection (the most commonly used method in the U.S.) argue that it can be unbearably painful, and thus violates the Constitution by imposing "cruel and unusual punishment."
Currently a combination of three drugs is used and when administered correctly, supporters say it should be painless and humane. But advocates for changing the method claim that the margin for human error is relatively high. They suggest using a single drug instead (the same strong barbiturate used when putting down animals).
The expectation is that the Supreme Court should make a ruling by summertime, and all capital punishment executions nationwide have been deferred until that time.
Lethal injection is the method used in 35 of the 36 states that impose the death penalty. Nebraska allows electrocution instead. (In December, Omaha Senator Ernie Chambers’ bill to overturn the death penalty in Nebraska was defeated.)
Capital punishment invariably comes up during election time, and with good reason. I don’t think the end of any human life should be taken lightly. I believe whole-heartedly in the separation of church and state. I believe in God. I believe that it is the right of no human being to take another life. I just do not think it’s for us to decide. I do not support the death penalty and I hope to see it abolished as quickly as possible.
I encourage you to think about this important issue and take your candidate to task on it before you make your vote, come election time. You can get more information from the Death Penalty Information Center, a non-profit organization that provides information on issues concerning capital punishment.
I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about Obama and the Clintons. Interesting perspective. He was saying that Hilary trying to lose South Carolina so she could blame black people. Of course, she assumed, Obama would get the black vote. She went to campaign out East but left Bill behind to badmouth Obama in South Carolina.
Limbaugh was talking about the Clintons/Democrats showing their true colors by pulling out the race card and forcing Obama to talk about race, and then blaming him for pulling out the race card. He was sarcastic in stating that of course Black people would vote for Obama. O’Reilly said the same thing without irony.
I know black people that will support Obama for that sole reason. Well, maybe not; ideologically, they’re aligned with him, so that helps. Then I have a conservative friend that is torn between Huckabee and Obama, and the only reason I can see that she would support Obama is that he is black. I might add, educated, accomplished, young, and black.
All these things are happening in the shadow of Dr. Martin Luther King jr.’s birthday. I have attitude with boiling that whole man down to his dream, but I guess that’s an easy way to get a handle on the man. A good way to sum up what he stood for. I glanced at a local newspaper recently where they asked the man on the street how they think we are doing in terms of the dream. All the people said something along the lines of ‘the dream is still alive, but it’s fading. . .we have a long way to go.’
I listened to a local radio program where the host and his guest were happily proclaiming Obama’s presidential run as evidence of King’s dream coming to fruition. They both qualified their enthusiasm with statements like ‘we have a long way to go,’ or ‘It’s a shame in 2008 that we’re still talking about the first possible black president.’
I would rather say it’s a shame that Obama would be the first one to make a viable run for the white house. Because I can’t support him. If we are talking about Martin Luther King Jr., how would he view this current state of events? Would he wholeheartedly support this articulate young Senator from Illinois solely on the color of his skin, or the content of his character? Would he happily endorse this man who is using gospel artists like Donnie McClurkin to further his campaign, while simultaneously disagreeing with this artist's stance on homosexuality? Would King support a candidate that supports the killing of innocent pre-born children, or conducting research on them? Is this candidacy King’s dream come true, or rather a nightmare?
They’ve come, and gone, and I’m glad. The Iowa caucuses that is. The more it gets
analyzed, the more I wonder how long the caucus/primary system will even remain
in place. Antiquated? Of course it is, someday somebody will figure
out something else I think. Perhaps
about the same time they figure out how to make a Presidential election a popular vote
only and completely eliminate the Electoral College vote.
These are not things keeping me awake at night, though. I’m a fairly insignificant cog in the
political machine. And as a Libertarian,
someone blissfully in the “middle”, I put it to my blog readers on caucus day
to tell me where to go. (I also
explained Iowa’s
status as a very “purple” state as are highly unpredictable, our Democrats tend
to be very liberal and our Republicans very conservative with a healthy dose of
Independents and surging Libertarian base)
For those who are interested (and some of you may have
already left this post), I did a little journalism from the trenches…just for
you guys! Video Flip style.
First, in Iowa,
the caucus day was never intended to be a litmus test for candidate
viability. Never. It was supposed to be a day where political
parties could carry on about the business of local politics. Get their Democratic and Republican ducks in
a row, so to speak. About three decades
back, give or take, it vaulted to this event in which to test the waters for Presidential candidates.
With this development, the Republicans changed the format of
their caucus to reflect a need for a more efficient system. They have a secret balloting of one person/one vote.
The Democrats are still old school. It’s public. You stand with your candidate and there are several rounds of
determining viability. It’s very
interactive. And I’m not analyzing that
one party has it better than the other, I’m simply stating that the contrast is
there.
Thus, my blog readers voted to send me to the Democratic
caucus as it sounded more interesting. I
took my video camera.
The results in our precinct were similar to the state
results. Obama way out in front, Edwards
and Clinton neck and neck with Edwards edging out Clinton. I aligned myself with the “Uncommitted” group and tried to watch and
learn as much as possible. It was an
educational and fascinating process and I’m glad to have participated and
observed when I had the chance as who knows when and if the caucus/primary
system may change or be eliminated yet in my lifetime.
Here is the video I took, not at all professional or “slick”
or very good, I was trying not to be overly obvious about it either, many
people seemed a little freaked about being on film and I didn’t want to upset
anybody.
In this first video blurb, the chair is explaining that, since viability numbers had been determined according to the total headcount, people are given half an hour to align themselves by candidate. In our case, 36 people would have to be standing for a candidate in order for that candidate to be "viable" and receive any delegates to convention.
In this next clip, one of the guys helping has canvassed the room and gotten a headcount of each group. In the Democratic caucus, there's aren't machines or anything even remotely complex - you are simply counted with your peers as in support of a candidate. So I get a sneak peek from him as to how the initial headcount has broken down.
In this clip, the Chair is announcing the first round of numbers to the group. It is determined at this time that Richardson is 9 short and, even with the four of us who were standing in the Uncommitted group, he would not have enough to become viable unless people bailed from Edwards, Clinton or Obama. Which, of course, did not happen and Richardson did not receive any delegates in our ward.
I do have a few other clips of video footage on the same account if you're interested. I was hoping to talk to someone supporting every candidate and that didn't work out. And, once the Richardson people realigned themselves, Edwards gained the most of that group with Obama gaining a few and I don't think that any went to Clinton.
Anyway, this post was just intended to be an inside view I hope that my enthusiasm for the process comes across because, it is what it is and I hoped to learn and educate myself about it. If you want to bash Iowa's placement in the system, you are barking up the wrong tree, because trust me, I have no influence with anyone to change it! :)
There's a radio station in Boston that is rather enamored of that old Fleetwood Mac song. And every time I hear it I think of Bill Clinton. Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow was the theme song of his first presidential campaign and it reflected a time of coming promise.
I still remember my journal entry the night he won his first election. I was so hopeful about what could be accomplished after years of Reagan/Bush, an era which had dominated my high school and college years. An era of recession, folding farms, closing factories, and the rise of yuppie materialism. I was thinking we could snap out of the weird doldrums in which our country seemed to be stuck, in spite of having won the Gulf War and having outspent the Soviets to their death. I had no way of gauging the gathering storm of hatred, determined to end Clinton's presidency by any means possible, and keep him from accomplishing anything. The years were far more difficult than I imagined, the bitterness so unhealthy.
And yet, things were accomplished. Republicans and traditional liberals were not always happy about it, but things got done. The budget was balanced, the economy improved, innovation prevailed, trade agreements were set, and welfare reformed, sort of. I found that in spite of all his flaws, Clinton had three main strengths - he could incorporate the best ideas from anybody around him and implement them, and he could see that commerce had a role to play in improving people's lives, and even in the tough times, he could inspire people to try to solve problems. Those days, especially in hindsight, look pretty good to me.
It's no secret that I admire Hillary. Whether or not I ultimately vote for her in our primary, I admire her for following the path that she has, whenever it was that she started down this road. I admire her for believing that a woman can be President, and believing she might be that woman. It's got to be hard to do what she does in the public eye, and if she wins she'll likely be the most scrutinized person on Earth, and given her history, everyone will be looking for her to make a mistake.
I think the perspectives of Barak Obama and John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, are valuable. I think they would all make good leaders in different ways, I could vote for any of them. I wish that we would continue to hear the ideas of all of them long after the election. But, since she was first on the national stage as First Lady, Hillary Clinton has embodied qualities that we need, right now, and that have long been a part of our national character. Again and again, she has faced adversity, she has shown resilience, and she has persevered, often to come back even stronger. She shows much of the pragmatism her husband had. She's a survivor.
There are tons of domestic issues that need attending to, we address them frequently here at The Soccer Mom Vote. But our foreign policy over the last six or seven years has been a disaster. It has started to affect our domestic well being as instability-driven high oil prices ripple through the economy. I think it may get worse before it gets better, no matter who becomes President. Resilience and perseverance is exactly what will be called for, from the nation and its leader.
I don't think that Hillary as President will be the third term of Bill Clinton. Too much has changed in the intervening years. The world is a different and, in many ways, much scarier place. We really can't go back, we can only go on.
This morning as I was watching the news in a Denver hotel room, Senator Clinton was predicted to be about 14 percentage points behind Barak Obama in the polls. By the time my flight home touched down in Boston, the flight attendant announced the local time, the weather, and the fact that Hillary Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.
As I got in my car to go home, a New Hampshire radio station was playing Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow.
Recent Comments