dirty politics

well lately i have been paying a great deal of attention to the news surrounding the presidential campaigns and primaries and caucuses, and there is a great deal of dirty politics. there was a long list of comments from people in the clinton campaign insulting or denouncing barack obama in various ways, from calling him a kid to a drug dealer to the hip black friend people wish they had to calling voting for him a roll of the dice to calling the media/public perceptions of barack obama a fairy tale. a great deal of these negative attacks were done by former president bill clinton. you know, a lot of people are talking about ronald reagan nowadays for some reason. the republican candidates are all claiming to be the most like ronald reagan and the ones who can unite the reagan coalition of the 1980s. barack obama made the news for praising how ronald reagan was able to get his message across and win elections using charisma and sounding positive. hillary clinton has also praised ronald reagan for the same thing, and lists reagan as one of her favorite presidents on her website. yet we have bill clinton denouncing barack obama for saying the exact same stuff about ronald reagan that hillary clinton said. basically, bill clinton is the king of dirty politics, and has demonstrated that all of the dirty political attacks against him over the years convinced him that he had to resort to the same sort of dick morris/karl rove-style dirty politics that the republicans use. i have lost all respect for bill clinton, whom i wtill admired a great deal when he gave my commencement speech at cornell in 2004 when i graduated. i know the truth about bill clinton: he is and always has been a centrist, a master of propaganda (i remember being completely awed and mesmerized by all of his state of the union addresses), and he does not care about the democratic party. he is leading the charge against barack obama and treading very dangerous waters with some of the things he says, which threaten to break apart the coalition of the democratic party. and what is the dirty campaign tactic that the clintons used in nevada? well, several clinton supporters were part of a group of democratic party officials in nevada who approved the caucus process for the 2008 elections which would have 9 caucuses held at casinos, and the votes of the people voting in the casinos, who would all be shift workers, 40% hispanic, would count 5 or 10 times as much as people in the other caucuses held elsewhere in the state of nevada. the clintons and their supporters had absolutely no problem with this system which was basically rigged in their favor, since these shift workers were part of the culinary workers union that was expected all along to support hillary clinton. then, earlier this month of january 2008, the culinary workers union unexpectedly endorsed barack obama, and the very same clinton supporters who originally helped devise this caucus plan immediately filed a lawsuit to prevent the shift voters from voting at all and shut them out completely. this lawsuit thankfully failed, but bill clinton led a campaign to court the members of the culinary workers union and try to convince as many as possible to go against their union leadership and vote for hillary clinton. on the day of the caucuses, he went around to all of the 9 caucuses at the casinos for the shift workers, and personally campaigned for his wife, while people were voting, using every last ounce of his charisma. and it worked. the people in the 9 caucuses for shift workers that the clintons had tried to shut down favored clinton over obama in 7 out of those 9 caucuses, despite the fact that the clintons had tried to prevent them from having the opportunity to vote at all. hillary clinton won in the las vegas area where most of the people of nevada live, but all across the rest of the state, where there is low population density, barack obama won. most disturbing of all, african-americans voted for barack obama over hillary clinton by more than a 6 to 1 margin, while hispanics voted for hillary clinton over barack obama by over a 2 and a half to 1 margin. through their race-baiting campaign against barack obama, trying to pigeonhole him as “the black candidate” like al sharpton or jesse jackson was successfully pigeonholed, they managed to alienate black people completely, despite bill clinton’s record of being someone black people used to love, who was nicknamed the “first black president” by one of his black supporters. and as for why hispanics overwhelmingly favored hillary clinton, i really have no idea why that happened, but it seems like a bad thing, like racial tensions between black people and hispanics that we do not need right now. white people, of course, were split, favoring hillary clinton but not by any huge margin, which seems much more healthy. and there were the same generational and gender divides of before, with women favoring hillary clinton and men favoring barack obama, and with old people favoring hillary clinton and young people favoring barack obama. i suppose that since i am young and male, i fall perfectly into the demographic of people who support barack obama, and yes, i do support him. anyway, i certainly hope barack obama can win south carolina and go on to win the nomination and the general election to become the next president of the united states. his chances in south carolina look very good, given the race-baiting of the clintons that has made them rapidly become very unpopular among african-americans after being very popular among the same group less than a month earlier. and let us not forget how hillary clinton won in new hampshire by playing the gender card. and she won nevada since almost all of the population resides in a very small geographic area and her husband campaigned there and he is still quite popular among democrats. barack obama supporters like me have been very vocal about the dishonesty and dirty politics of the clintons, but barack obama himself has remained above the fray and almost entirely avoided saying anything negative about the clintons. this guy has a lot of class, and is trying his best not to hurt the chances of the democrats in the general election, while it seems the clintons are hell-bent on creating divisions within the party and having negative campaigns against fellow democrats which undermine the party in the general election. so if you are someone concerned about democrats winning in november, i would not recommend supporting a candidate who is trying to create divisions within the party and tear other democratic candidates down. if you watch barack obama’s speeches, not once does he ever have a negative attack on a fellow democrat, except on very rare occasions where he does not even mention them by name, and only criticizes them very mildly. he is the polar opposite of bill clinton, the man who lost congress for the democrats in 1994 and rendered the democratic party completely impotent for an entire decade, who turned the party from a party that stood for principle on liberalism even if sticking to principle meant losing elections sometimes, to a party that had no principles and was republican-lite centrism disguised with sophistry. only after george w. bush proved himself to be the worst president in history did the democratic party really regain its values and principles, only after michael moore made the film fahrenheit 9/11 that woke this country up. and michael moore had voted for ralph nader rather than al gore in 2000. why? because bill clinton tried to kill liberalism and lost congress to the republicans and then went on to help them end welfare, pass nafta, and betray the liberal/progressive movement in many other ways. he had people like me fooled, but not anymore. i have found out more about president clinton and learned he was not as great as i thought, not by any means. his only major plus was his oratory, his ability at giving great speeches, something that barack obama can do but his wife can’t. but barack obama has other assets besides giving great speeches. he is a true liberal/progressive who can get independents and republicans to vote for him and vote democratic. he can help realize the dream of martin luther king jr., and bring unity to this nation and end the bitter divisions we have. and he is not burdened by all of the clinton baggage that would have us re-fighting all of the battles of the 1990s and make our party lose people to the republicans. just look here to see how many people are willing to bolt the democrats to vote for the republicans or a third-party candidate or stay home if hillary clinton is the nominee. that link is from a liberal blog that always supports democrats and opposes republicans, and you can see the poisonous atmosphere that the clintons have created if you look at all of the comments people posted there. although i would vote for any of the democratic candidates if they are the nominee on the ballot in november, i cannot speak for all of my fellow obama supporters, and it seems many of them are so disgusted with the clintons’ karl rove-style attack machine that they are willing to vote for third-party, independent, or republican candidates. i have also seen this phenomenon of people in the democratic party who refuse to vote for hillary clinton on the site huffingtonpost.com, ever since she first announced. and i see it at dailykos.com, even though that site officially claims to be 100% committed to helping the democratic party win elections, and people who do not share that goal are unwelcome at dailykos.com. now huffingtonpost.com is run by arianna huffington, who, like hillary clinton, is a strong woman who got a career in politics by being the wife of a prominent politician. and arianna huffington, while she used to be a republican, has been a liberal/progressive for years now, although not really a staunch supporter of any party, and she famously ran for governor of california against arnold schwarzenegger and many other candidates after governor gray davis was “recalled”. virtually nobody voted for her, since she was an independent and her only prominent backer was herself. i am a big fan of arianna huffington, and she, like me, supports barack obama. she also really really hates hillary clinton, which seems odd coming from a strong woman and a progressive like arianna huffington, but what it really shows is how a lot of people like ms. huffington and myself are smart enough not to just blindly support whoever happens to have the same gender or race or religion as themselves. and up until recently, the majority of african-americans supported hillary clinton, rather than just blindly supporting barack obama, which shows that they, too, are thinking seriously about things. but the major shift away from hillary and towards obama among black people shows how badly her campaign has alienated black people. and none of this was done by the barack obama campaign. it was brought up by individual people like myself and many others who support barack obama, most of whom have no ties whatsoever to the barack obama campaign. we are just sick and tired of all the negative attacks on him by people who claim to be democrats. now it is fine and well and good to attack him for not being liberal or progressive or left-wing enough, to say that he is republican-lite or a centrist. why? this kind of attack does not damage someone in a general election, and may actually help them win a general election. i am trying not to damage hillary clinton in a general election, by only criticizing her from the left. i am not resorting to personal attacks or trying to stir up racism or sexism or other prejudice. and i have absolutely no problem with a black president, a female president, a mormon president, a catholic president, a jewish president, a buddhist president, a hispanic president, a native american president, an atheist president, an asian president, or a subgenius president. i would have a problem with a muslim or a hindu or a scientologist or another christian fundamentalist president, though, since those belief systems completely go against my beliefs. muslims believe in jihad, hindus believe in the caste system, scientologists are a dangerous cult and actually kill people, and christian fundamentalists believe in sexism and homophobia and using the government to force their religion down everyone else’s throats. actually, muslims also believe in sexism and homophobia and using the government to force their religion down everyone else’s throats, at least in all the countries they run. so they are a lot like christian fundamentalists. in the “culture wars” between fundamentalists and secularists, the islamic and christian fundamentalists are both allies in the fight against modernity, science, human rights, and basic human decency. christian fundamentalists like mike huckabee are little different from their islamic fundamentalist counterparts. we democrats need to stop these dirty politics against each other and focus on winning the general election against the republicans. if only bill clinton would just STFU and stop making more and more people dislike both him and his wife. i mean, sometimes it seems like bill clinton is actually trying to sabotage his wife’s campaign and make her lose. i really do not understand what the hell is wrong with bill clinton, but he needs to keep his mouth shut and let hillary do the talking.

as for the republicans... they have all been breaking what ronald reagan called the 11th commandment, namely “never attack a fellow republican”, which hurts their chances in a general election just like the clinton-obama infighting and attacks hurt the democrats. mitt romney won by a huge margin in nevada and ron paul surprisingly came in second in that state. half of the people who voted for mitt romney were mormons, but he would have still won by a large margin even without them. so since he has won wyoming, michigan, and nevada, that is 3 out of the 6 states so far. not bad! his negative attacks against mike huckabee and john mccain really seem to have worked... just not in south carolina, where john mccain won and mike huckabee was second, and even empty suit fred thompson beat mitt romney in south carolina. so mike huckabee has iowa, which is one, john mccain has both new hampshire and south carolina, and mitt romney has the 3 i mentioned earlier. fred thompson went on the attack against mike huckabee, ignoring the other candidates, which helped john mccain win south carolina. many pundits claim fred thompson likes john mccain and is trying to get john mccain elected. i am not sure about that, and it seems kind of dubious, but if it is true, that is very good news for john mccain. however, i would much, much prefer mitt romney as the republican candidate, as opposed to john mccain, mike huckabee, or any of the others, except for ron paul. ron paul would be the best republican candidate to run against. fred thompson would be 2nd best, rudy giuliani 3rd best, and mitt romney 4th best. mike huckabee would be 5th best, and john mccain would be the worst. what i am talking about is, the best candidate to run against, namely, the one most likely to lose big time. mike huckabee is the only candidate who really scares me about what he might do if elected, but john mccain is the only one who i worry might actually win a general election. john mccain would do especially well against hillary clinton if she is the nominee, since she is running on “experience” as her campaign theme and he has a hell of a lot more of it than her or anyone else running. john mccain would kick her ass so bad it wouldn’t even be funny. his one weak point that i can think of is how old he is. but i do not think his support of the war in iraq would hurt him at all. john mccain opposed the rumsfeld strategy and then supported the “surge” from the beginning. everyone in the news media seems to think that the surge is a brilliant success and that all the naysayers were wrong. john mccain did say he would be willing to have our troops in iraq for 100 years, which could hurt him, but he explains his position on iraq much better than hillary clinton, who was for it before she was against it. remember john kerry? and john edwards? they both did the same thing as hillary clinton when it comes to iraq. and so did bill clinton, despite all his false claims of opposing the war from the start. voters want someone who has the courage of their convictions. barack obama opposed the war in iraq from the start and never wavered. that makes a lot more sense than hillary clinton. oddly enough, john kerry is supporting barack obama. i guess after seeing how “flip-flopping” on the war in iraq hurt him, he did not want another democratic presidential candidate in the general election who had made the same mistake as him, and wanted someone who had shown better judgment. even though john mccain’s support of the war is unpopular and people think the war is wrong, john mccain has the courage of his convictions and can defend his point of view quite well. voters do not usually vote based on the issues, but on personalities and media hype and spin. so out of the leading republican contenders, i think mitt romney is the best poised to win his party’s nomination and then go on to lose badly in the general election. rudy giuliani would probably do even worse, but he has no chance, and will probably not even be able to win florida, despite campaigning there and nowhere else. i hope rudy giuliani does win florida, to keep the republican race wide open and as many candidates as possible still sniping at each other. it is very bad that just as the democratic party is being torn apart over racial and gender divisions, the republicans have no problems with these divisions since all their candidates are white men. the republicans are very divided over religion, which is good. and although i think mike huckabee would lose badly in a general election, i do not want to risk it, because victory for him in either the nomination or the general election elevates the religious right fundamentalists to greater heights of power and influence within the republican party. also, he is charismatic and funny, despite his radical beliefs, and people may be drawn to both his personality and his “fair tax” proposal. mike huckabee has a bigger sense of humor than any other candidate in either party, which could help or hurt him, since people relate better to someone with a sense of humor, but they might be turned off by someone who acts like running for president is just one big joke. but remember that mike huckabee, mitt romney, and rudy giuliani have absolutely no foreign policy experience or experience with the military or defense matters. they all have weaker records on this than either hillary clinton or barack obama, and especially much weaker than john mccain. so i really hope john mccain loses or that the other republicans manage to attack him quite harshly. and as for the issue of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, john mccain’s position on illegal immigration is indistinguishable from that of hillary clinton or barack obama, so that would not be an issue at all in a general election, although it might make anti-illegal-immigration folks like the tom tancredo/lou dobbs crowd stay home or vote for a third-party candidate. anyway, my thinking is this: john mccain must be stopped, and the only person who can do it is mitt romney. john mccain is the only republican candidate with lots of support among independents and democrats. and he has joe lieberman behind him, with all of the might of “joementum”! i have learned to never underestimate joe lieberman. while an endorsement from joe lieberman would be a kiss of death to doom a democrat, it can be very helpful to a republican, because republicans do not think of joe lieberman as a traitor. many of them do think of john mccain as a traitor to his party, though, which is very good. hopefully they will continue to think he is a traitor to his party, and they will nominate an inferior candidate who will easily lose. i am continually perplexed by all the hero-worship of ronald reagan. the hero-worship of martin luther king jr. actually makes sense, because he really was a hero, despite the fact that i disagree with his religious beliefs. ronald reagan was more a villain than a hero. remember george orwell wrote a book called 1984 about a totalitarian new world order? and in 1984, ronald reagan won 49 out of 50 states? that is no coincidence. never forget what happened in 1984! by the way, the real 1984 is actually in the future, since the things in george orwell’s book have not happened yet, but they will someday, and we will call that year the true 1984. similarly, the real 2001 has not happened, since the events of the movie 2001: a space odyssey have not happened yet, with evil robots trying to kill people in space. oddly enough, 2001 may come before 1984, and we may have evil robots on the international space station killing our astronauts before a totalitarian new world order takes over the planet earth. anyway, enough joking around. i was just saying, i do not get what the big deal is with ronald reagan. he did not end communism. islamic fundamentalist terrorists ended communism, with the help of the united states, saudi arabia, and pakistan. it was called charlie wilson’s war, not ronald reagan’s war. and charlie wilson was a democratic congressman from texas, who helped organize the united states government’s covert support of islamic terrorists in afghanistan back in the 1980s. thank you charlie wilson! i am very grateful for how you helped create al qaeda! good job! and all of this happened under ronald reagan’s watch, run by a cia whose director was appointed by ronald reagan. ronald reagan was president when i was born. i knew absolutely nothing about him when he was president, and never heard of communism until it was over. but from what i have heard, ronald reagan was no good, especially for poor people and minorities. ronald reagan is said to have put together the coalition of the religious right (a.k.a. social conservatives) and big business (a.k.a. fiscal conservatives), and his coalition even included democrats and libertarians. he piled up massive amounts of national debt and spent ridiculous amounts of money on the military when we did not need it and were not even at war. he supported right-wing fascist dictatorships like the one of general augusto pinochet that carried out programs of genocide against their own people (if killing thousands rather than millions can be considered genocide). and there was a big mess with iran-contra, where it turned out the united states was actually helping out our sworn enemy, iran, which had taken all of the hostages that got released the day ronald reagan took office because of a secret deal ronald reagan made with the iranians to help him get elected and defeat jimmy carter. jimmy carter put solar panels on the white house roof and ronald reagan took them off. that is all i need to know to know that ronald reagan was a bad president. we need clean, renewable sources of energy like solar energy. anyway, i wish all the republicans except john mccain the best of luck in winning their nomination. and i know the republicans were involved in plenty of dirty politics against each other, doing push-polling and other such shenanigans. i hope they continue to trash each other. we cannot afford another republican president at this time, one who will continue all the policies of george w. bush and keep many of the same people from his administration. i “hope” that we can “experience” “change” by having a democratic president and having an even more democratic congress. now some people might claim that real change only happens with the green party or the libertarian party or the reform party or the communist party or with independents, and that democrats and republicans are the same thing. but those people are nuts. we have winner-take-all elections in this country, which means only a 2-party or 1-party system can work unless the rules for elections are completely changed. and the 2-party system is obviously much better than a 1-party system. it would take a lot of work changing the laws to make more than 2 parties viable... not going to happen any time soon, especially with people from those 2 parties in charge of everything and not wanting more competition. so we need to accept reality and work within this system we have. and just think... the clintons tried to stop their own supporters from voting in las vegas. what other crazy shenanigans will happen in this election between now and november? what if ron paul somehow magically wins based on his strength among conspiracy theorists? what if jesus comes back from the dead and publicly endorses mike huckabee? what if dennis kucinich manages to win based on his support for single-payer health insurance for all americans? what if ronald reagan comes back from the dead and endorses someone? what if mike bloomberg spends 1 billion dollars of his own money to win and it works? and who will be vice president? it could be anybody. probably someone with a lot of vice. like people in las vegas. i bet the vice president will probably be a prostitute from nevada where it is legal. that will get a lot of people’s attention. or maybe a space alien. recently the good people of texas saw some ufo’s in the sky. it reminds me of my favorite ufo cult that started in texas, founded by j.r. “bob” dobbs and currently run by the radical fundamentalist end-times preacher rev. ivan stang. or we could have a robot as vice president, and the robocratic party would make a comeback after losing in 2004. or we could just have a dumb animal as vice president. like my dog. except my dog is really smart, so that wouldn’t work. maybe paris hilton’s dog tinkerbell would be a good vice president. or, since vice presidential candidates are traditionally supposed to trash-talk their opponents, how about white rapper eminem for vice president. or even president! marshall mathers would make a great president. or we could have the first black president: calvin broadus for president. you have probably never heard the name calvin broadus, but he is the greatest rapper in history, calling himself snoop doggy dogg or snoop dogg. or how about the first asian president? alex chiu for president! if you vote for alex chiu you get a free immortality ring and then you get to live forever, absolutely free! satisfaction guaranteed or your $0.00 back! or, even better: dr. gene ray for president! dr. gene ray is the wisest human, although he is not human. just ask him! dr. gene ray is also above god! i wonder how many other presidential candidates can make the same claim. of course, dr. gene ray and alex chiu are both paranoid schizophrenics. here is a video from theonion.com about how the government needs to spy on paranoid schizophrenics like alex chiu and gene ray:


In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough?