And about to head off to class. Back is improved, though still stiff. No pain pills last night, so that is good.
In other news, I turned off the anonymous comment option. Just tired of the floaters. If people want to engage, that is fine, but I don't think requiring at least an alias is too much.
And finally, I am so tired of the Clintons right now. I understand not liking to lose, and I understand not even liking Obama personally. Who cares? What I don't understand are people who say they would have voted for Hillary as their first choice, but instead of voting for Obama (with nearly identical policies) they are going to vote for McCain. Can anyone explain that? Someone who thought that Hillary was a good choice instead is willing to go through 4 more years of Republican leadership?
sigh.
8 comments:
Easier to challenge in 2012 if the incumbent is repub. At this level of politics personal ambition usually trumps the team.
BB
I prefer not to believe that. I prefer to think that there is something slightly bigger than that.
Perhaps I dare to hope.
I offer you a cynical take on the situation and you shoot back, "I dare to hope"???? Who are you and what have you done with Streak?:-)
Later
BB
Perhaps I am just too weary of it all tonight. So tired of the spin and the shit. Watched MSNBC tonight to see Pat Buchanan essentially agree that John McCain's POW status was a "get out of jail" card for whatever ails you. Adultery, cheating, forgetfulness, asshattery.
I don't know that he believed it, but the media demands some kind of crossfire effect.
And I am just tired of it. I am just amazed that anyone could look at the last 8 years and say, "hey, let's go with another Republican."
anyway.
Streak, To build on your last comment, "I am just amazed that anyone could look at the last 8 years and say, "hey, let's go with another Republican."" This is especially true if you are a Democrat. There should be nothing about McCain that should entice you. Yet, the poll numbers, which you cite (you know that adage about statistics though), seem to say that some Democrats would vote for McCain.
From my perspective, this is interesting. For the first time in, what, forever, someone with a working knowledge of Indian Affairs is running for the Presidency. I was highly disappointed with Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats refused to participate in a debate on a southern California reservation. Obviously, I never hear about their stances on tribal sovereignty, potential Supreme Court nominations to offset the negative influences of Clarence Thomas and others, and self-determination. It would be nice though.
Hmm, CIL, you are right. I don't understand why any Democrat would consider going for four more years of what this administration has done.
But it sounds like you think that McCain would be better on Indian issues? I would suspect that on some issues he would be better, and perhaps some there. But part of my issue with McCAin is that I don't know which one we would get as President--the one who is pragmatic and knowledgable, or the one who has been telling people that he would appoint judges along the model of Scalia and Thomas and Alito.
That is my dilemma. What do you think?
Streak, I don't know if McCain would be better or if it would even matter. I thought it was interesting to note that he was at least knowledgeable and that I was disappointed with Obama's initial hesitancy to work in Indian Country. I kind of thought his late efforts in Montana and South Dakota were a little late in the game. But at least he went. Moreover, McCain's place on the Senate Committee for Indian Affairs is more a product of geography (most of the members come from Western states) than an initially professed interest in American Indian affairs.
INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY profiled all three candidates earlier in the summer - McCain, Obama and Clinton - with the headline: A clear winner: Indians
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417449
I think your observation is dead on - on some matters McCain might do better; on others Obama will do better. As the column lays out, McCain helped sponsor legislation that sought to curb Indian gaming and tribal sovereignty. Furthermore, scuttlebutt from the DNC has linked McCain to the notorious Jack Abramoff scandal.
I also agree with your last assessment - if elected, which McCain will we get. I doubt we will get the one that appeared to be in 2000. My guess is that we will get the one who cowtows to the current administration. And that would be horrible for American Indians, tribal sovereignty and the overall health of Indian Country. In my opinion, at least.
As CIL notes, it was disappointing that none of the major candidates participated in Prez on the Rez.
Recently I was talking with a colleague who was a former staffer in the Clinton White House. She's a Native woman, and clearly no fan of Hilary. She pointed out that McCain had Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell stumping for him on Indian issues while Obama had some little known attorney from Oklahoma out there. There is a clear message there, and it looks good for McCain.
It could be that it is simply more window dressing. After all, McCain specifically excluded his crony Ralph Reed (formerly an 'agent of intolerance') from scrutiny in his Senate investigation of Jack Abramoff even though by nearly all accounts Reed himself was in the thick of things.
Obama's platform looks good, but Tim Giago, founder of the Lakota Times and still a syndicated columnist, wrote recently that he is undecided but leaning McCain after supporting Clinton in the primaries. His reason? He served under McCain's father in the Navy and he and John McCain are both Navy men.
Post a Comment