Syndicate and Hague

In truly uncharacteristic fashion, I’ve not commented yet on the election at any length. Unlike many recent elections in which I got used to complete and utter depression after the votes were counted, this year left me torn.

When the news outlets called it for Obama, I felt it in my heart. He’s certainly mortal and will make decisions I don’t agree with during his time in office, but I have so much confidence in his ability to do more good than harm. That might sound like a backwards compliment, but it truly is a compliment. Every choice has a downside. But I believe that on the whole the choices Obama makes will be good.

It doesn’t hurt that he’s coming into office with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We’re going to see a lot of changes. If you’re interested in some of the planning, Obama has a website at change.gov and I can’t tell you how elated I am to see the role of advancing technology in his administration.

But, of course, Obama’s resounding victory was not the only thing that happened on November 4th. The anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed in Florida, California, Arkansas, and Arizona were heartbreaking. (CA and AZ went against gay marriage, FL went against domestic partner benefits, AR outlawed unmarried people from fostering/adopting children).

I’ve been thinking about the way the Internet helps/hurts us as we process information. And I’m going to come out in favor of the Internet on this. In the wake of the passage of Prop 8 in California, a lot of media and vocal gays seized on the exit polling in California that said 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8. For about a week, the anger and hurt in some segments of the GLBT population blinded them to the racism that came pouring out because of that statistic.

But here’s the good thing - there are seriously awesome blogs run by people of color, like Pam’s House Blend, that led the online voice in calling BS on that line of thinking. Regardless of whether that statistic is accurate or not, the population of African-Americans in California is not large enough to have caused the proposition to pass or not pass. It’s a red herring.

And I think there is regrouping going on. I’m hopeful that the racism of the reaction of some white gays raises that issue for mainstream organizations like the HRC to what many other GLBT folks have said for a long time though - all these “isms” are gay issues.

What I’ve seen this week is people like Bill O’Reilly trying to entrench the racist narrative, and I think we’re too smart for that. Once O’Reilly’s ilk start exploiting something, I’m hopeful that even the most oblivious among us know to question its truth.

Anyway, while I know there are serious issues other than gay marriage that need to be addressed, I think this election was a wake up call to us as a whole. People still don’t respect us. If I’m being generous, I’ll say that they don’t understand and we’re not making compelling arguments.

Either of those statements make me depressed.

I’ll be at the Prop 8 protest this weekend, and I encourage anyone who cares about their gay family members or gay friends to do the same. Numbers mean something.

12:30 p.m. on Saturday at the Government Center downtown MPLS.

Hey folks, it’s time for the Minnesota voter information session here. First off, if you want to find out how to protect your vote and have a handy checklist, that’s a good site for it. Also, if you’re interested in Rolling Stone’s in-depth look at voter suppression you should take a look there.

If you’re interested in how local voter suppression/intimidation is taking place, just answer your phone and listen to Mark Ritchie (MN’s actual Secretary of State) tell you what to do.

“We want to let all Minnesotans know that if you or anyone in your family receives a phone call from any individual claiming to be working with or associated with the Office of the Secretary of State, politely get their name and phone number and then hang-up and immediately contact our office at 1-877-600-8683,” Ritchie said.

Alright, so first the practical stuff. In Minnesota, you can register to vote on election day. So, come TUESDAY, if you’re not registered you can march down to the polls and do it right then. Here’s more information about registering. Here’s info about MN registration from Obama. Also, if your ID has the wrong address or you moved or whatever, someone in your precinct can vouch for you that you live there and you can vote that way.

This is a side note, but if you happen to have been convicted of a felony and have finished serving your time (they say “discharged, expired, or completed”), you’re able to vote in Minnesota. Just FYI.

Find your polling place. When I find it, I’ll also put up a phone number you can call if there’s a problem with voting. For now, use the SOS number: 1-877-600-8683

And despite my irritation with the Strib’s full force move to the right, I do recommend their MyVote application because you can generate and mark up your list of candidates easily and print it out. You can bring a list of the candidates you plan to vote for to the polls. It’s hard even for the most politically savvy of us to remember things like, oh, soil and water candidates’ names.

As for the races on the table, I’ll take a minute and weigh in on what’s on the ballot here.

I won’t go into detail on the top level ticket candidates, you already know I’m going to say Obama - Franken - Ellison. So let’s leave that there. Also, District 61A for the Minnesota House goes to Karen Clark, of course.

There are a number of ballot initiatives that need to be considered this time around. Each of them has pros and cons, so I thought I’d sort them out for you (and me) to hash out yay or nay votes.

First - the Constitutional amendment
Increase state sales tax by 0.375% to pay for environmental and cultural programs.
Tax increase amounts to 38 cents on a $100 purchase. Money would be divided among projects related to clean drinking water (33%), natural areas and wildlife habitat (33%), parks and trails (14.25%) and arts and culture (19.75%). Must be approved by a majority of all voters - not voting on the question counts as a “no” vote.

Most people who rather poorly assess the amount of thought I do put into politics might expect me to automatically vote yes to this - supporting our environment and culture are truly important to me. But I have mixed feelings about this amendment. I’ll bullet them.

• Yes: funding for the environment and the arts are consistently in danger in tough economic times - and in good ones - and it would be nice to see the majority of Minnesotans saying that these things are important enough that we should enshrine those values in our constitution.
• Yes: a “no” vote on this might give our legislators license to further cut funding for these kinds of programs because it would say that Minnesotans don’t care.
• Yes: no legislation isn’t flawed. This is the best way to ensure funding.
• No: Sales taxes are regressive - meaning that they disproportionately affect people with lower incomes. Is it right for the burden of caring for our environment and culture/arts to be put upon people who can least afford it?
• No: Adding to that, the drive towards “assessments” and fees that target individuals allows people with wealth to amass more of it and not pay their fair share for the types of programs and necessities that make our state healthy.
• No: Legislators should do their jobs and legislate. We shouldn’t have to force them to spend money where they should. (I think this is a poor argument, actually, because things like lobbying skews their perception of what is necessary.)
• No: This might actually cause legislators to stop funding the arts/environment at high enough levels because they would perceive the sales tax as handling those issues.

It’s a tough one, and I’ll admit to strugging with it.

Second - Minneapolis school operating levy
Operating levy: $585 per pupil increase
$172 tax increase on a $213,000 house. Total per pupil levy if passed: $1,200. To hire more teachers, keep class sizes down, purchase technology and textbooks and improve reading, math and science programs.

God, I wish the state would fund our schools better so that the burden of funding individual districts wouldn’t put disproportionate burdens on the people in the districts. (Leading to richer areas to have better schools.) Sigh. But what are you going to do? The schools need money. I know this logic directly contradicts my struggles with the constitutional amendment, but sales taxes are far more regressive than property taxes.

Third - Referendum: Expand school board and elect some members by district
Minneapolis voters will decide whether to expand the city’s school board from seven to nine seats with three elected citywide and six elected by districts, similar to the city’s Park and Recreation Board. All are now elected citywide. If approved, the plan would be phased in over two voting cycles. Proponents argue it would increase board members’ accountability to residents throughout the city.

I heard on MPR that the state mandated this to happen and if we didn’t do it then we’d have to vote on it as a city - and thus we’re voting on it. This just makes sense to me. I hope it would ensure that areas with struggling schools and poorer areas could have someone who is representing their interests. I’m voting yes.

The judges always drive me bonkers because I really have no idea. Thankfully I have awesome resources - aka people who work with these people. Their (trusted) judgment is as follows and its strength is based on how smart, articulate, and fair the judges are:

State Supreme Court Associate Justice
Seat 3
Paul Anderson (strong, glowing endorsement)
Seat 4
Lori Gildea (strong, glowing endorsement)

Court of Appeals:
Seat 16 -
Terri Stoneburner (strong endorsement)

Hennepin County:
Seat 9:
Philip Bush (medium endorsement)

Seat 53:
Jane Ranum (strong, glowing endorsement)

Seat 58:
No endorsement - sorry.

I wish I knew something about the Soil & Water races, but I don’t know enough to make some kind of public pronouncement of it. Good luck, folks.

I found a website as I was compiling this list that does have recommendations for some races that I neglected - so go on and take a look.

The election is exhausting me. I wish we could vote today and have it over with, but we can’t and so we get nasty, horrible robocalls from the McCain campaign like this one:

I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. His organization bombed the US Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home, and killed Americans. Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they control Washington. Barack Obama and his Democrat allies lack judgment to lead our country. This call’s been paid by McCain/Palin 2008 and Republican National Committee at 202-863-850—-(call cut off).

Then there’s another, equally offensive robocall.

I’m calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in the Illinois Senate opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions — a position at odds even with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and his liberal Democrats are too extreme for America. Please vote — vote for the candidates who share our values. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202 863 8500.

I understand that McCain is desperate, the tactics pretty much confirm that. If you go to Five Thirty Eight you can see that, statistically, McCain has very little chance of winning the election. Without some sort of momentum that dramatically pulls things to his side again, he’s lost. So: desperate times/desperate efforts.

Here’s the thing. The only reason to believe crap like this is because you want to. Connecting Person A to Person B and saying - thirty years before Person A met Person B, Person B did horrible things, so let’s list those horrible things now so you can associate them with Person A - is ridiculous.

So again, to believe that one thing has anything to do with the other shows that you want to believe it.

Anyway, don’t get distracted. Our economy is in a bad way and we need stable leadership. There is only one candidate who is up there being calm and collected. Obama is it. He’s the one with the temperament to be president.

There’s an article in Sunday’s Washington Post by Linda Hirshman that I’ll be getting to in just a moment, but first I want to touch on something I mentioned in a previous “on the issues” post. In it, I said that the “culture wars” topics - like gay marriage or abortion - were a distraction. This is true. When presented as issues of morality they are intended to distract people and drive an impenetrable wedge between them and the people who are “immoral.”

The problem, however, is that both of these issues have very real impacts - not only on peoples’ lives and choices, but in how the people who are the objects of each of those debates is treated.

I’m not going to talk about gay marriage today, but I am going to talk about abortion. Linda Hirshman’s article first.

My generation of women has been spoiled in that we have (dwindling, but present) access to abortion. Why is this spoiling? Because, apparently, the fact that we have it makes us not care whether we have it. The anti-choice fundamentalists love to wave fetuses in your face to show you how awful abortion is, but you rarely - if ever - see pro-choice people waving around images of women dead in a pool of blood from hemorrhaging after an illegal abortion.

Sorry for the shock value, but it’s true, it’s our legacy, it’s what has happened. It’s what will happen again because when abortion is illegal, women suffer. For instance, Hirshman cites West Germany’s prohibitive abortion laws and what they meant for women travelers.

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn’t illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination – as West German law empowered them to do.

Think this is outlandish? Couldn’t happen here? Please.

four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe’ s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow

And the trouble may come with crossing state lines and criminality there.

“To speak of the fetus’ ” home state, and make the home it shares with the mother “a basis” for controlling a woman’s ability to get an abortion might “make sense,” Columbia law professor Gerald Neuman wrote in 1993 when abortion rights were last in peril.

Now, the difference between Obama and McCain on this is clear. McCain has pledged to pack the Supreme Court with justices in the vein of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas (extremely conservative). Among these men are the three youngest justices who may have careers on the court for as long as 30-35 years. They are entrenched. Any more conservative justices and the next 30 years will be a nightmare for women, people of color, GLBT folks, free speech, torture discussions, social programs, etc.

And let me remind you, on the more liberal side, John Paul Stevens will not last out another administration. The man is hanging on by his 88-year-old teeth.

Anyway, on McCain’s issues page, the very first entry on the “Human Dignity and Sanctity of Life” section (sigh) is this:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the benchwill overturn it.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

Blah blah blah it goes on about “strength” of pregnant women “choosing life” and faith based hoo-ha and nothing about sex education or anything that actually prevents abortion from being needed as an option nor anything about social programs to help women/families who choose to have children. So - as usual - pro-life as long as the kid isn’t born yet.

Obama’s site has a reproductive choice section

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

So there it is - you choose between the guy who won’t tell you how to not get pregnant, force you to keep it if you do, and leave you out on your own once you’ve given birth OR the guy who will work to get you the education and the access to contraception you need to not get pregnant in the first place, give you the opportunity to make the choice if you do, and in other sections has all kinds of things about supporting families/mothers. (Obama doesn’t cynically roll together helping families and his reproductive choice section into the same thing like McCain does.)

This post is in absolute danger of becoming a long, long rant about trickle down economics, deregulation, supposed “free market” capitalism, and the decimation of the true middle class. I will throw down some knowledge on that this week, but not today. Today, I want to focus on a small, small portion of the Social Security issue in light of what has happened on Wall Street this month.

It starts as simply as this. McCain wants to privatize Social Security. Obama doesn’t.

I believe, last week, that McCain compared Wall Street to a casino and had all kinds of quasi-regulatory talking points (”Cleaning up Wall Street” is not the same as saying you’re actually going to hold them accountable. It’s all talk.)

If Wall Street is a casino, why does McCain want us to trust the entirety of our retirements to it?

Imagine the absolute freak out that would be happening in this country if the entirety of not only our pensions and 401ks were on the line, but our Social Security as well. Of course, the government bailout essentially puts Social Security on the line, but that’s another topic.

So here’s your choice on your future.

Vote for Obama and you vote for someone who argued against privatization at the National Press Club in 2005 and has voted against Republican amendments to privatize Social Security.

Vote for McCain and you vote for someone who, if he’d had his way, would already have had your retirement in the rollercoaster stock market and free the government from any accountability for its citizens in their old age, despite them working to build the economy of this country for their entire lives.

Do not let McCain rewrite his own history on this. In 2000, part of his presidential agenda that he ran on was to privatize Social Security in “personal accounts” and he voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan, which would have moved Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would become private accounts (ahem, you know, in the Wall Street Casino). [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

Seriously, people. We cannot afford for McCain to be president. I don’t care which “culture war” issue may have to hedging to the Republican side, the downfall of our economy is NOT worth it. I’ll address the “culture war” issue - and how those issues are used to distract people - in another post.

This is so dire, folks. I really hope that anyone who is remotely considering voting for McCain or not voting at all hears this one, because if there is anything at all that will kill your budget, here you are.

I’m going to throw a lot of sources at you, because I want you to see that this isn’t some far out rant from the Huffington Post. This is real.

John McCain wants to destroy employer-based health benefits. Is destroy too severe of a term? I don’t think so. Part of McCain’s plan is to tax you for the amount your employer contributes to your health care benefits as if it were income. More on that after this public service moment.

First, you need to see through the carefully constructed terminology he uses on his website:

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care…An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people’s needs, lower prices, and portability…While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.

What this means: this means that you are on your own. Things like “restoring control to the patients” and “families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care” sound really nice. What they mean is that you are on your own. Have you ever tried to afford insurance on your own or worked for a small business whose coverage was minimal? I have. Cheap health insurance comes with ungodly deductibles before they even begin to cover doctor visits; caps on prescription drug spending; and bureaucratic nightmares if you need something actually covered. Small business’s insurance policies have similar problems.

The problem is, people often don’t notice these things until they get sick. Or in an accident.

The basic concept behind health insurance is one that is anathema to conservatives like Phil Gramm and John McCain - in theory, everyone pays into a system that disproportionately benefits those who need it most. It’s essentially making the burden of risk and the profit of benefit public. I would argue that conservative philosophy is exactly the opposite - they prefer privatizing profit and have no problem lobbying for the public carrying the burden of risk. This is where health care would go under McCain. Private profit, public risk. Keep repeating that. Private profit, public risk.

So back to the employer benefit and taxation issue. Highlighted in today’s Huffington Post is what is rarely spoken. I’ll quote:

McCain intends to tax workers for the value of health insurance that they receive from their employers. Really. It’s not included in the description of his plan on his web site. It is, however, on the site of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy…It says McCain would “reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income.”

Gerard breaks it down in numbers: “The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket. McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes. And since the McCain tax credits are for privately purchased health care ONLY and do not extend to employer-paid benefits, you are literally losing at least $1,323 per year. I just ran the numbers for myself and - as a single person with no dependents, which means less costly health care - I would be looking at a $1300 increase myself.

Know what I don’t have? $1300. It is ridiculous for workers with benefits to be pressured to buy substandard insurance on the market.

Want to read more? I hope you’re outraged. I hope you know where you have over a thousand dollars to cut from your annual budget. Tell people about this. McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax (NY Times) The Tax Increase McCain Doesn’t Want to Talk About(Washington Monthly) McCain’s Health Care Proposal Will Increase Costs and Reduce Benefits (AFL-CIO) McCain’s $5,000 Promise (FactCheck.org) McCain’s Health-Care Proposal (Businessweek)

What I wish I could give you is more focused discussion of Obama’s health care proposal. Part of the problem is that the majority of time the news spent discussing any of Obama’s proposals/issues were in contention with Clinton. Since then, the news really couldn’t care less about his policy ideas. I’ll give you some info from his website and then add a couple of highlights. God he has so much more specificity on his site than McCain does. It’s beautiful.

I really encourage you to review Obama’s site that I linked to above. The plan is so detailed that I have a hard time summarizing it. But this is my attempt.

The goal is to have a publicly backed health care system. Key elements include guaranteed eligibility, benefits on par with the plan members of Congress have, affordability, subsidies for individuals in need, and accountability on the part of insurance companies. The National Health Insurance Exchange concept is to also allow individuals who want to purchase a private plan - it will act as a watchdog group and create rules/standards (accountability!) for private insurances. They would be required to issue everyone a policy and charge rates that aren’t dependent on health status. Employers must make a contribution, except for small business who can also receive a tax credit to help reduce their health care costs. Mandatory coverage of children. Ensuring Medicaid and SCHIP. Providing a safety net for the cost of catastrophic illnesses for employers/employees IF such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers’ premiums.

You guys, it just keeps going. Go to the site. He addresses women’s issues, civil rights issues in health care, disability/mental illness, technology research, prescription drug companies AND ON AND ON.

This is the man to vote for. He’s got the ideas, he’s got the plan, he needs the platform.

To those of you who have pointed out to me lately that my blog is lacking in its previous copiousness…you’re right. I have been a bad blogger, which is partly due to a hectic life, partly due to a newfound sleep schedule (seriously, wow!), and to Twitter.

Twitter has served me well during this mess of a Democratic primary and it has also served to mute the flow of blog postings because quick hits that might have wound up in my blog before now sit in 140 character form on my twitter feed. I will consider pulling the feed into the blog here, but that’s not going to happen right away. If you’d like to keep tabs on my quick and dirty comments about random things, you can find me at http://twitter.com/saralovesyou.

I’ve been feeling a little social-networked/Web 2.0′d out lately, as well as a little politicked out, which has resulted in sluggish blogging on my part.

All that said…

It is time for you to stop now, Geraldine Ferraro.

It’s actually time for all Clinton supporters to take a step back, breathe, and realize that it is over. Game. Over. Obama won, fair and square. He out-campaigned, out-finessed, and just plain old out did the Clinton campaign.

But them’s just the numbers. While I’m irritated by the Clinton campaign’s Rovian fuzzy math, I’m downright angry at Ferraro and other feminists of her generation who are not temporarily being, but showing themselves as flat out racist in the course of this election.

I actually heard a few days ago, and I will not repeat my source because I personally would be embarrassed to have anyone know I’d said such a thing, from an older woman who said that “In my opinion, Obama is just another white man.”

And here is a problem among many…the intention of that remark was that Obama is just as sexist and mistreats Clinton based on her gender as any other man with power (read: white man) has. But the implications of that remark run a much more troubling path.

I will be the first to argue that all men–men of color included–have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that women do not. This does not mean that they have it any “easier” or “better,” but that there are avenues of communication that are shared between them as men.

However, it is tragic that the same women who recognize male privilege don’t see the ways white women have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that men of color do not.

I just can’t bring myself to go over all the intricacies of this argument because I am So. Tired. of all of it. And all over these here Interwebs, there are people making headway into the very basic nature of both of my statements. Try Jack and Jill Politics or Feministing for a sample. In posts and comments you’ll see problems. You’ll also see compelling arguments.

I’m firmly situated behind Obama as a candidate, but I see his flaws. There’s a certain “chivalry” to his dealings with Clinton that have struck feminists as being condescending (pulling out her chair for her at the debate, for instance). More troubling about how he deals with women was when he called a reporter “sweetie” when she kept annoying him as TV reporters tend to do.

The women who came before me in particular had to deal with men casting them aside professionally, dismissing them, muting their interactions with endearments, and downplaying their intelligence and decision-making skills. This isn’t relegated to the past: just as we don’t live in a post-racist society, we don’t live in a post-misogyny society.

However, there is no argument for the racism of the white feminists in response to Obama. There just isn’t. He’s a compelling candidate in his own right. A candidate whose speeches inspire and whose ideas are based in a solid liberal philosophy. He’s a candidate who established a community-based campaign fueled by small donations from a broad base. He showed himself to be the better candidate. If he can organize this well in the general election, we will be handing McCain his ass on a platter. It will be beautiful.

Nonetheless. Clinton lost. Obama won. We need to move on from that, but we’ll be dwelling in the racial/gender divide for some time now. I hope it becomes productive.

*Note: I’m not super happy with this post because I’d like to dissect everything more. As I said, however, I’m so freakin tired of all this.

John Edwards is going to pull out of the presidential race.

Well, that made my decision for me. Barack Obama for prez…

But I’m serious about the title of this post. Edwards should endorse Obama now for the AG slot come January. I want that man prosecuting the bejeezus out of people.

So hey…did you guys know that there’s no difference between Al Gore and George Bush?

Ah, remember back then? Remember when Ralph Nader was going to lead the Greens to 5% and create a viable 3rd party? Back when Al Gore was gutted by the press…

For instance, remember the oft-repeated “Al Gore says he invented the Internet.” Follow that with lots of derisive laughter.

Thing is: he never said that he invented the Internet. Thing is: Al Gore was instrumental in developing the Internet as we know it. From Snopes:

[H]e sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)

In a time before people had any idea what the Internet would become, he was a driving force. Take that.

Back to Nader, however.

Angie and I have joked that Ron Paul could “Naderize” the Republicans this year. (Her term).

Naderize, v., “To sway an election by adding a spoiler candidate.”

Anyway, the formerly useful consumer advocate who has been overtaken with self-importance over the last ten years announced today that he is going to run for president this year.

He said, this morning, that

I’d go after Bush even more vigorously as we are in the next few months in ways that the Democrats can’t possibly do because they’re too cautious and too unimaginative, but they can pick up the vulnerabilities and the failures of the Bush administration that we point out.

This worked much better the first time around, Ralph. Why go after Bush? He’s out. That whole “two terms” deal. This time, we should be more sensible–you are a megalomaniac. A narcissistic, egotistic asshole. This isn’t about choice or expanding the conversation, this is about you. Fuck you.

Tonight when I got home, I was perusing these here interwebs taking in the results of Iowa (don’t despair/congratulate any of yourselves yet, folks) and I came across an article published in The Nation that discusses Obama, Race and the Presidency in a way that lays things out better than I could in my previous post that touched on Ron Paul’s racist ass. All of the quotes below are from Ari Melber’s piece that I linked to above.

By the way, I highly recommend reading the entire article.

So I don’t really know who I’m going to vote for when it comes to be Minnesota’s turn. Obama is on my short list, so I was pleased to see him win over Clinton in Iowa. Though I’d love to have a woman in the Oval Office, she’s too economically conservative for me. I digress, however.

Win or lose, he is arguably the first black American to be treated by the political and media establishment as a fully viable presidential contender…We should not gloss over this development. It is a meaningful step towards addressing a resilient, uncomfortable American fact: our national power structure has always been, and stubbornly remains, overwhelmingly white, from all forty-three Presidents across history to ninety-five of the one hundred senators serving today.

When I was listening to Olbermann tonight as I read through the news, I heard either him or Tim Russert say that Republicans don’t think about electability as much as Democrats do when they’re voting. Whoever said it has a point. The higher the profile, the more we Dems are sooo self-conscious. And in politics, as in life, the hesitant are often trampled. The Republicans aren’t any less processed or polled, but even when they contradict themselves or make no sense or are just being complete assholes, they do it with aplomb.

Obama is popular, intelligent, and completely viable as a candidate. If he chooses a running mate with foreign policy experience, he would have a pretty sweet ticket. And despite the fact that he has made history as a candidate because of the sheer amount of money his campaign has brought in (which leads to its viability), despite the fact that I think we should be talking about race, if I hear one more blowhard Dem worrying about Obama’s “electability” as shorthand for “we’re wringing our hands because what if people won’t vote for the black guy?” I’m going to start throwing things at my TV like dear old Grandpa Dan used to when Reagan was on.

Know what? We’re not going to know if America will vote for the black guy or the woman or the white guy or the other white guy or the other white guy or the latino guy or anyone until it happens.

When I was going through my grandfather’s things after my grandma died in 2002, I found a letter that was sent before the 1959 Democratic Convention. From one Irish pol to another. The awe and anticipation in that letter have similarities to what’s going on with Obama now. I’ll look for the letter sometime soon to see if I can find the actual text, but in essence it said: “Do you really think America would vote for a Catholic? Is it really possible? An Irish Catholic!”

It was full of hope. And some fear–that maybe America wouldn’t elect Kennedy. You never can tell before it happens.

Melber goes on:

That segregated power structure was reinforced by the Supreme Court’s sharply divided June decision to ban integration programs in public schools. Most educational policies that consider a student’s race for the purposes of integration are now illegal. Like the original Brown opinion, this year’s decision is not neatly confined to K-12 schools, either. Brown consecrated a new national ambition for racial equality in the public sphere, delegitimizing both explicit and implicit racism in government, and laying a foundation for remedial measures to equalize many other facets of our society. Many critics contend that this case, Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, augurs a disturbing slide backwards. It bans integration programs, sharply restricts race-based government remedies and sets the stage for future bans on other remedial programs, such as affirmative action, as Justice Stephen Breyer warned.

Melber’s argument is that this thinking extends to our treatment of candidates. A reinforcement of “they don’t belong” or “they’re trying to take something away.” You know. Fear-mongering.

Hostility towards affirmative action runs so deep, in fact, it is a staple of attacks against black political candidates. Senator Jesse Helms perfected coded campaign racism in 1990, with an infamous attack ad darkly juxtaposing his black opponent’s face with the text “For RACIAL QUOTAS.”

This next part brings us back to Obama.

Some commentators have latched onto Obama’s success as proof for the flawed claim that the United States has completely achieved equal opportunity for all, obviating remedial programs like affirmative action. “Obama embodies and preaches the true and vital message that in today’s America, the opportunities available to black people are unlimited if they work hard, play by the rules, and get a good education,” writes Stuart Taylor Jr., a columnist for The National Journal (emphasis added). Taylor presents one man’s unusual political arc as a universal lesson for all “black children”: “Obama’s soaring success should tell black children everywhere that they, too, can succeed, and they do not need handouts or reparations.”

Because, well, you know that racial inequality exists because people are lazy. /sarcasm

Thing is, that’s a pretty entrenched idea. I’m betting some people reading this believe that. I could extend this to class mobility as well, but that would just make this post positively book length and it’s already too long. Too bad.

I am going to cut this off though. Please read the article. It’s fantastic. Goes on to talk about Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and Bush’s Cabinet and the Supreme Court as it goes into the future. Such good stuff.

Good night, folks. Here’s to a long slog through election season.