Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

  • Hillary Emotes

    In a performance worthy of Oscar Sunday, at a campaign rally in Providence, RI, Hillary Clinton mocked Barack Obama for his "immature and unrealistic" promises of hope and change.

  • Ralph Nader Announces Presidential Run

    Consumer advocate Ralph Nader who is seen widely by the Democratic Party as the man who tilted the balance toward George Bush in the  Bush vs Gore 2000 fiasco, has thrown his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential race.  The already interesting contest on the Democratic side, now threatens to become even more interesting. Or, will this be one time too many for Nader? Will his dedicated base ignore him this time?  (Nader’s campaign website here)

    WASHINGTON — Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

    Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

    "You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

    "In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC’s "Meet the Press."

    Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.

    Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida. Nader vociferously disputes the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush.

  • Blow Hot, Blow Cold

    Was last Thursday’s debate in Texas Hillary Clinton’s swan song? 

    To her longtime friends, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sounds unusually philosophical on the phone these days. She rarely uses phrases like “when I’m president” anymore. Somber at times, determined at others, she talks to aides and confidants about the importance of focusing on a good day’s work. No drapes are being measured in her mind’s eye, they say.  …

    ….. “We talked recently and she sounded totally resolute, totally in it until the end, and in typical style she just isn’t getting into regrets,” said Susan Thomases, an old friend of Mrs. Clinton and a former aide to Mr. Clinton. “Hillary is not a fatalistic person — this is no woe-is-me woman.”

    Mrs. Clinton has, though, increasingly sought to keep her fate in perspective. In her debate in Texas on Thursday with Mr. Obama, she delivered what some viewers saw as a valedictory — but what she said was a simple expression from the heart — when she spoke warmly about the race and her rival.

    “I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” she said. “And you know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.”

    She found herself explaining on Friday that the remark was not meant as some sort of farewell. Yet to some friends, she is in fact acting differently; to others, the situation has become simply heartbreaking. When Mr. Clinton said last week that his wife had to win in Texas and Ohio, it was not only the first public admission by a senior member of her circle that her candidacy was on the line, it was also a moment that deepened the feeling of shock felt by some of her supporters.

    So, is Clinton signalling her departure from the Democratic race?  Hard to believe if you heard her in Ohio today.

    CINCINNATI — Hillary Rodham Clinton angrily accused her Democratic rival Saturday of deliberately misrepresenting her positions on NAFTA and health care in mass mailings to voters, adding, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

    Clutching two of Obama campaign mailings in her hand for emphasis, the former first lady said, "enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook."

    Obama defended the mailings as accurate and rejected Clinton’s complaint as a political ploy. He said that despite her current criticism of NAFTA, she supported the trade agreement when it passed during her husband’s administration.

    "You can’t be for something and take credit for an administration … and then when you run for president say that you didn’t really mean what you said way back then. It doesn’t work like that," he said to cheers at a rally in Akron.

    The long distance clash erupted as the two Democrats campaigned separately across Ohio, one of two big states with primaries on March 4.

    Clinton’s frustration was evident as she criticized Obama in unusually strong terms _ a few days after ending a nationally televised debate by saying she was "honored to be here with" him in a historic race between a black man and a woman.

    She said by his actions, Obama was giving "aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America."

    "Meet me in Ohio," she said. "Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." The two are scheduled to debate next Tuesday in Cleveland.

  • Take Action

    I am writing this as a follow up to Sujatha’s post below.  Readers can leave a note of protest against such inhumane and unethical treatment of animals here.  Also, if you wish, please make a donation to the Humane Society to help with the campaign against cruelty to all animals, including factory farmed animals used for meat, milk and eggs.

  • The Meat of the Matter (Sujatha)

    Canimals61
    A recall of 143 million pounds of beef, one of the largest in U.S. history was made recently, affecting thousands of school districts supplied by a California plant under the National School Lunch program. This stemmed from an undercover investigation of practices at the plant, complete with a disturbing video shot of animals being forced into the chutes, even when they were sick and unable to walk in.

    Wrangler isn’t an ordinary slaughterhouse worker. He is an
    undercover investigator for the Humane Society of the United States,
    who got a job at the Westland plant and filmed the abuses with a hidden
    camera. "There wasn’t a formal strategy or anything like that," he
    says. "You’re there just doing the job, and this stuff is just
    happening all around you." On Jan. 30, the Humane Society broadcast
    excerpts of the video on its Web site.
    The next day, the United Stated Department of Agriculture suspended
    Westland Meat Co. as a supplier to the National School Lunch Program. A
    few days later, USDA pulled its inspectors from the plant and shut down the plant, pending further investigation. The acts of animal cruelty have led to the arrest of two meatpacking workers by Chino police.

    More than two weeks after Wrangler’s video caused a sensation online, the USDA issued the largest beef recall
    in the history of the United States: 143 million pounds of beef
    products, most of which has already been consumed. About 40 percent of
    that meat went to the National School Lunch Program and other federal
    nutrition programs. Amazingly, all of the abuses occurred with USDA
    inspectors on the premises. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said he
    was "dismayed at the inhumane handling of cattle" at the plant.

    The school district my children attend was among the many listed as having received the recalled meat cases, and while the authorities assure us that the recalled meat has been off the lunch menus since the start of February, there are still anecdotes of some kid or the other having stomach problems after eating meat at lunch. Who knows whether the un-recalled products are any safer or more humanely harvested than the recalled batch? We will probably never find out.

    A recent book that I read, "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin, who is autistic, brought fascinating insights into the behavior of animals, as ‘autistic savants’ of sorts. She is also an industry expert on the design of humane slaughter house facilities, and is even invoked in a Feb 3, 2008 Westland letter promising more investigation into the cattle abuse:

    During 2007,
    we had 17 third party audits of our operation to confirm that we meet the statutorily
    mandated humane handling and food safety standards. In addition we have
    conducted 12 internal audits by our own personnel to ensure that such standards
    are met. We also, conduct weekly humane handling audits based on standards set
    forth in the American Meat Institute’s (AMI), Recommended Animal Handling
    Guidelines and Audit Guide 2007 Edition, which was authored by Dr. Temple
    Grandin, a world renowned expert of humane handling practices. Complete
    documentation of this activity has been made available to the USDA
    investigation team currently at our plant.

    What problems have been rectified by the recall of meat that have been largely consumed by now? Will it really save unwary consumers from eating problem meat? It seems more like a case of bolting the stables after the horses have run away, similar to the situation with declaring clone-derived meat safe for human consumption after the offspring of clones had already entered the food-chain.


  • Four Letter “F” Words

    The Clinton campaign is crying foul and whining that the Democratic Party’s rules for deciding the presidential nominee are not fair.  Mind you, Hillary and her operational crew are not questioning the fairness of the rules in abstract but only as they apply to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which many now fear will fail unless she wins big in Texas and Ohio.  With chances of blow out victories fading, the Clintonistas are energetically moving to change the rules in the middle of the game. Of course the scary thing is that they may succeed and Hillary may still win! Don’t count the Clintons out till the last dog dies.

    George Will and David Broder have the details in the Washington Post.

  • Fidel Castro Steps Down

    Fidel Castro, one of the world’s longest ruling political leaders, has resigned from his position as the president of Cuba.  Although he will no longer be president, Castro will remain active in Cuba’s communist party.  The question that remains is if the silly attitude of the US government towards Cuba will change now that Castro is no longer in power.

    CastroMEXICO CITY : Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness. The announcement was made in a letter to the nation written by Mr. Castro and published early Tuesday morning on the Web site of Granma, the official publication of the Cuban Communist Party.

    The resignation ends one of the longest tenures as one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world.

    In late July 2006, Mr. Castro, who is 81, handed over power temporarily to his brother, Raul Castro, 76, and a few younger cabinet ministers, after an acute infection in his colon forced him to undergo emergency surgery. Despite numerous operations, he has never fully recovered but has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.

    Now, just days before the national assembly is to meet to select a new head of state, Mr. Castro resigned permanently, and signaled his willingness to let a younger generation assume power. He said his failing health made it impossible to return as president.

    "I will not aspire to neither will I accept – I repeat, I will not aspire to neither will I accept the position of President of the Council of State and Commander in chief," he wrote in the letter.

    The full report here.

  • Clintonisms

    The media outlets are abuzz with the news of Barack Obama’s supposed "plagiarism."  Last Saturday in Wisconsin, Obama delivered a speech where he defended the "power of words" using the words of his good buddy Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Both Obama and Patrick dismissed the brouhaha by claiming that the two talk all the time and Patrick had advised Obama to use parts of his own gubernatorial campaign speech to counter  Hillary Clinton’s charge that Obama is all talk and no substance. Most commentators agree that Obama’s speech doesn’t amount to plagiarism but that he should have mentioned Patrick as his source.  When Obama pointed out that Hillary herself has lifted his slogans (journalists point to others like John Edwards, Pat Buchanan and her ever reliable crutch, Bill Clinton) in recent weeks, Clinton campaign adviser Howard Wolfson retorted that it was okay for Hillary to do it because she is not running on the strength of her rhetorical skills, while Senator Obama is!

    In the last couple of weeks I have come across numerous articles which illustrate the Clintons’ (Bill and Hillary) amazing prowess for explaining and exploiting every situation and outcome to their own advantage. I am posting some choice Clintonisms here so you don’t have to plow through the entire articles.  The problem for the Clintons this time around may be that the American public is now trained to read and anticipate the Clinton thought process – we can tell what the meaning of "is" is.

    Bill Clinton after Obama’s victory in the Maine, Nebraska, N. Dakota, Colorado, Washington and other "white" states:  (Remember that Bill C. had compared Obama to Jesse Jackson after he won in South Carolina. He tried to make up for that with an attempt at humor.)

    Former President Bill Clinton today downplayed the significance of his wife’s losses in Maine, Nebraska and Washington over the weekend, noting that just as being half-black helped Sen. Barack Obama win in the south, “his white half gives him the edge in primarily Anglo-American states.”

    “Obama gets to play both sides of the race card,” said Mr. Clinton, “I told you he won South Carolina because he’s black, like Jesse Jackson. So, to be consistent, I’d have to say he won Maine because he’s white like Michael Dukakis.”

    Both Bill and Hillary Clinton slamming Obama: (note the brilliant escape hatch of deniability)

    With metronomic regularity — the rhythm may arise from some strangely shared metabolic urge, which may explain the mystery of their marriage — the Clintons say things that remind voters of the aesthetic reason for recoiling from them.

    Last week, in his 10-thumbed attempt to prevent his wife’s Louisiana loss, Bill Clinton said that Obama has made "an explicit argument that the ’90s weren’t much better than this decade." The phrase "explicit argument" was an exquisitely Clintonian touch, signaling to seasoned decoders of Clintonisms that, no matter how diligent the search, no such thought could be found, even implicitly, in anything Obama has ever said.

    Then in Virginia on Sunday, his wife, true to the family tradition of "two for the price of one," contributed her own howler to the growing archive of Clintoniana. She said she is constantly being urged to unleash her inner Pericles: "People say to me all the time, ‘You’re so specific. . . . Why don’t you just come and, you know, really just give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and then, you know, get everybody all whooped up?’ "

    It must be wearisome. But surely people are "all the time" pestering her about being so substantive. It is a stronger word; she should tweak her fable in future tellings.

    (more…)

  • For Obama : Here and There

    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has picked up the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle. The Chronicle also reports that despite the old and influential network of the Clintons in Texas, a huge victory for Hillary Clinton is not guaranteed due mainly to a trend of younger voters leaning toward Obama. We’ll have to wait until March 4 to find out.

    The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

    Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. In a conference call, Obama told the Chronicle editorial board that "more than any other candidate, I can bridge some of the partisan as well as racial and religious divides that have developed in this country that prevent us from getting things done."

    The 46-year-old Obama has expanded his base of support, winning new legions of supporters. The more people see and hear him, the more they like him. As the Hawaiian-born son of a Muslim Kenyan father and an Anglo Midwesterner, the devoutly Christian Obama transcends race and religion. His life has been one of involvement with disadvantaged Chicago residents, excellence at Harvard Law School and eight years as an Illinois state senator. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, only the third African-American to serve there since Reconstruction.

    Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies.

    The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination.

    Obama also has an unlikely but enthusiastic constituency in a faraway land which can neither vote for him nor influence public opinion in the US.  Residents of the western port town of Obama, in the Fukui prefecture of Japan are watching the US presidential contest with keen interest. They have a clear favorite – they are nuts about Obama.

    Obama_japan_2_4OBAMA, Japan — Barack Obama has never been to this port town on Japan’s snowy west coast, and residents only know him from news reports about his faraway campaign for the U.S. presidency.

    No matter. Obama the town is nuts about Obama the man. Obama’s name is on posters hung in the main hotel. Headbands and T-shirts with drawings of the candidate’s face will be available soon. Local confectioners are designing Japanese-style sweet bean cakes with Obama’s portrait on them Policy doesn’t seem to matter much either to this Obama, which is well-known in Japan for its lacquerware. Instead, the overriding issue is simple: Obama’s name.

    "Obama gives good speeches and has a good voice, so I want him to do well. And, of course, we share the same name," said Seiji Fujiwara, a hotel executive and leader of a local support group established earlier this month for the Illinois senator.

    As fanciful as it may seem, leaders in Obama — which means "little beach" in Japanese — are serious about forging a relationship with the candidate. The mayor, Toshio Murakami, sent Obama a letter a year ago with a gift of lacquerware chopsticks, a DVD introducing the city, and a guidebook, but no one knows if the package arrived because they never received a response.

    The town 250 miles west of Tokyo is undaunted. Murakami plans to send Obama another care package, this one with a fist-sized lacquerware good-luck daruma doll with the word "victory" across the chest in Japanese calligraphy.

    "We want to ask him to stop by Obama as president if he visits," said Sadakazu Tsu-bouchi, an official at city hall.

  • Stuffed Animal Tales (Sujatha)

    Cross-posted from Fluff ‘n’ Stuff:
    —————————————————————————————

    "I’m naming this monkey Caramel, because of the color of his skin."

    I
    squinted at the brand new plush monkey M waved proudly at me. Her
    ever-indulgent father had purchased it from her from a mall kiosk when
    I had taken a brief trip to the restroom. S was performing in a concert
    near the food court, part of the annual fund raising efforts for the
    strings group that he belonged to.

    "Very nice", I said."Are you
    sure you want another stuffed animal toy?" Especially, considering that
    M’s bed is getting a bit overcrowded with the likes of Cuddles the
    bear, Fluffy bear, Beary, Raggedy Ann, Raggedy Kitty and Lemee the
    lioness. Plus Maya bear, Shammy rabbit, Christmas Bear and Sugarheart
    Gorilla, all jammed into the drawer under her bed. Not to mention other
    animals named for food such as Mango the orange dog with the yellow
    belly.
    (Man on the airplane: "What’s your doggie’s name? Is it Rover?"
    M: "No, it’s Mango, because she looks like one."
    Man : "!!!" )

    "I
    want a monkey, I don’t have any monkeys," she wheedled with all the
    pathos a little kid can muster, along with the certainty that this was
    a battle already won.

    I
    kept glancing at the monkey intermittently through the afternoon, and
    in the car, couldn’t keep the comment on the tip of my tongue to myself
    any longer.
    " You might call it Caramel, but I’m going to call it
    Geedubya!". True enough, it bears an uncanny resemblance to no else
    than the primate of the White House and here’s the proof! (Click on the photo for a closer look)

    Impressed by my observation, M declared "His name  may be Caramel, but his nickname is going to be President George!"

  • A Venomous Cult?

    Do Obama supporters hate Hillary Clinton or is their choice based on a genuine preference for Obama and / or unease with Hillary’s past and current record? I won’t go into the details of my opposition to HRC which I have explained in detail in several posts and comments. Anna too made a persuasive case for not voting for Hillary. Both of us expressed our wariness and disappointment with the Clintons and a lack of enthusiasm for their return to the White House. Hillary supporters continue to believe that informed choice such as ours is not informed at all. They suspect it is based on an "irrational hatred" for their candidate whose easy path to coronation has been made bumpy by our lack of co-operation.

    In an earlier post I had argued why accusations of misogyny hurled by Robin Morgan in a slightly unhinged diatribe against Obama supporters are unfounded. In the comments section of the same post Dean linked to an article by Stanley Fish who makes a similar point as Morgan but in a more didactic manner. But Fish does not clarify whether he is lumping the truly misogynistic anti-Hillary sentiments of the right wing with the liberal voters’ opposition to her. The latter, as I pointed out, is not based on hatred but a healthy skepticism born out of past and recent experience with the Clinton (both Bill and Hill) mindset, their inability to stand by principles and proclivity of playing both sides of the field. Another commentator, Paul Krugman, whose recent pro-Hillary and anti-Obama outbursts have surprised many of his fans, unequivocally fingers Obama supporters as "Hillary haters." In fact he labels them cultish venom spewers. 

    The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

    Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

    Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

    I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

    Is this unexpected "venom" the result of the Obama campaign forgetting to call Mr. Krugman for policy advise or is he drinking the Kool Aid he accuses Obama supporters of ingesting? Not surprisingly, nine out of the eleven letters to the editor  published in the NYT in response to Krugman’s article take him to task for making these silly, unfounded charges. Krugman, whom I usually like, deserves the brick bats.

  • Local Wonders: Seasons in the Bohemian Alps

    "The quietest magnificent book I’ve ever read," says author Jim Harrison on the cover of Ted Kooser’s Local Wonders. Cross Annie Dillard’s incisive observations with Erma Bombeck’s outrageous knack for finding humor at the kitchen table, tone it down, round off the edges and you have something akin to Kooser’s sweet cadence of story telling.

    In a place in southeastern Nebraska close to Lincoln and not far from Omaha lie the Bohemian Alps, a tongue in cheek name for the low rolling hills in the dusty prairie, as well a tribute to the early Czech and German immigrants who settled Nebraska. Ted Kooser, two term Poet Laureate of America, artist and former insurance salesman, was born in Iowa and settled in Garland, Nebraska after retirement. The town of Garland is located in the Bohemian Alps.

    Local Wonders is an account of Kooser’s unhurried life in Garland mixed in with memories of the past and reflections on the future. Divided into four seasons with the Bohemian Alps as the backdrop, the book takes us through his life and places that have the veneer of placid ordinariness.  With gentle humor and quiet deftness Kooser reveals excitement, anxieties, love, loss, happiness and disappointments amidst them – the warp and weft in the fabric of any life. In doing so, he utilizes "wolf vision," the ability to detect the slightest change in one’s surroundings and life’s rhythm. Kooser doesn’t make any earthshaking observations but he has a keen sense of what matters. He manages to find breathtaking beauty in nearby landscapes, dignity in the uneventful lives of neighbors and forgotten history at abandoned mines and crossroads. Nothing is too large or too insignificant for Kooser’s attention. The vast prairies, a trapped insect, the quirky personalities of domestic and wild animals, a mice and spider infested barn and an outhouse that needs some care in using; they are all fodder for Kooser’s ruminations and satisfaction. But with an artist’s eye, he sees beyond the obvious. In the supple limbs and practiced strut of a shimmering aqua clad teenage rural drum majorette, he catches a flash of the tired middle aged farm wife. In his parents’ peaceful midwestern lives, he remembers the anxiety of post depression era immigrants. In the death of a bachelor uncle he notes the parallels with the dignified resignation of a dying elephant.

    A Czech saying adorns the fly leaf of Local Wonders.  It reads: "When God wishes to rejoice the life of a poor man, he makes him lose his donkey and find it again." At the end of the book we discover how Kooser lost his donkey and then rejoiced in finding it again. The donkey, he tells us is his will and ability to write poetry. But the most striking thing in the book is the author’s serene joy in discovering new facets of familiar surroundings.  He describes it in the following paragraph.

    The Joslyn Museum in Omaha owns a 1948 painting by George Ault called August Night at Russsell’s Corners, portraying two old buildings and a section of road illuminated by a single hanging light. One side of a red building to the left is lighted, one side of a white building to the right. The road curves slightly, as indicated by a painted center line, and abruptly vanishes into the darkness. Recently I was asked to submit a poem about a favorite picture for a book and I chose this painting. It seems to have a simple premise: old buildings that in daylight would be so familiar that a person living in Russell’s Corners wouldn’t even notice them, become exotic and mysterious in the light from a commonplace bulb. Ault made four paintings of this same midnight crossroads, each from a slightly different angle, some showing a third building. But their effect upon me is identical. I can feel my will joining with that of the feeble light in its struggle to push back the darkness, darkness that has already begun to affect and alter the familiar, making it strange and exciting.  I wrote:

    If you can awaken
    inside the familiar
    and discover it new
    you need never
    leave home.

    Local wonders.

    (A glimpse of Russell’s Corners here)

    My enjoyment of Kooser’s book was enhanced by my familiarity with the region of Nebraska described in it. Writing the review also provides an opportunity to post a 1995 painting of mine here – A Tribute to Nebraska.

    Rp_nebraska_4

    (click to enlarge)

  • Narcissism of Minor Differences

    I have repeated on several occasions that this blog was launched largely as an outlet for me to vent my displeasure with the atrocious administration of George W. Bush. As other authors climbed aboard and joined me in blogging, all of us were united in our disgust, disdain and disappointment with Bush-Cheney. The list of our differences with G.W.B.’s policies is long and our philosophical disagreements clear.

    Now that the Democratic nomination process is under way, the six A.B. authors are no longer in perfect agreement. Some of us were not particularly excited with the initial slate of candidates.  Anna and I broke early for Obama. For Joe it was "Edwards or bust." Andrew too was an Edwards supporter. Sujatha agreed with Kucinich on most issues but knew he couldn’t win. She is not particularly enthusiastic about the current choice of candidates but will vote Democratic in November no matter who the eventual nominee is. Dean hasn’t shown his hand.

    It is interesting that a small group of politically like minded people cannot agree on the nominee of our own party although ideologically the candidates differ from each other only on the minor details of their policies. The one area which sets Hillary Clinton clearly apart from Barack Obama was her vote on the Iraq war (later a similar vote on Iran) and her initial reluctance to commit to ending the occupation.

    While discussing Clinton and Obama, each one of us brings to the table our own comfort (or discomfort) level about them. Although Sujatha and Joe found the greatest areas of agreement with Obama, as shown by the results of a simple test, for both of them Obama’s message of hope and change falls flat and they tend to tune him out. Anna and I on the other hand, have found agreement with Obama on issues and are willing to take a chance on his doing the "right thing" if he does become the president. 

    After I decided to cast the primary vote for Obama, I have paid more attention to his views – away from the rousing speeches at campaign rallies where he speaks like an inspirational speaker. In quiet Q & A sessions I have heard him speak at greater lengths about his plans for health care, education and Iraq and found them mostly satisfactory. (The same details are also available at his campaign website for anyone who wants to find out) But others who are not sold on Obama tend see a political light weight who is riding a wave of popularity based on his oratory and empty rhetoric. Because of this perception, they may not bother to investigate fully where he stands on issues.   

    At this stage of the nomination process, it would be honest to say that our decisions are being driven as much by our emotional connection (or lack of it) to a candidate as they are with his / her policies. This is to be expected. When nothing very substantive like party allegiance or broad philosophy distinguishes candidates on a tangible, factual tally sheet, our choice very often comes down to intangibles – personality, the cadence of voice, whether the candidate looks sincere, honest and trustworthy, their life stories and background. Heck, sometimes it comes down to how a candidate eats a tamale!

    (more…)