Damn it! I still didn't make it into bed before 11:15pm. This has got to stop!

[shadowkat]

Ah, just when I was feeling depressed about comics - along comes the news that my favorite comic book team - Brian Lynch and Frank Urru are doing a Spike version of After The Fall - where we get to see the events happening in Angel After The Fall, from Spike's point of view or rather see Spike's story.

This is great. Lynch makes me laugh in a way that Whedon doesn't. I think it's because Lynch cares about the characters in a way, I'm not sure Whedon does. A way a fan cares about them. So his humor is not directed at the characters, but more at the situation. It's a different type of humor at any rate.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=335358&blogID=366009535&indicate=1

On political front? Not at all suprised Spitzer resigned. He's facing potential criminal prosecution - resigning from office may help him on that front. I honestly don't care about the man's sex life. Don't understand it. But then I don't understand why people use others for their own sexual gratification regardless of the cost to the other person or people in their lives. Honestly, is masturbation really that hard to do? What I find despicable about the whole thing is how incredibly hypocritical Spitzer has been. He built his reputation on breaking up prostitution rings, and exposing corrupt officials. Ever heard of the expression - people in glass houses should not throw stones? Patterson looks like he's going to be a much better Governor. NYC is happy at any rate. Spitzer was refusing to give NYC more money or for that matter the MTA. Now...things may be different.

Obama vs. Clinton. This is reminding me a great deal of 1968 election and 1960. With Obama in the Bobby Kennedy role, Clinton in the Lyndon B. Johnson role (she's manipulative like Johnson was - I liked Johnson by the way, so this is not necessarily a criticism), and McCain in the Barry Goldwater role. In 1968 - we had Vietnam war, a Democratic Primary that required super-delegates and was quite volatile, and a horrid economy. What happened? Bobby got shot (we had a lot of assainations during that time period) and died, LBJ declared he wouldn't run and dropped out, and well, Nixon won. No one was going to vote for Goldwater - he was pro-defense, pro-staying in the war, and a fiscal conservative. In 2008 - Bobby's a black man and not a Kennedy but been compared to JFK, Johnson's a white woman who had been first lady and a senator and whose husband has been compared to JFK, not a VP and a senator, and Goldwater is the Republican candidate. Interesting.

Regarding the issues? When it comes to OBama vs. Clinton, you might as well throw them out the window. They agree on the issues. They disagree on how to resolve them. I prefer Obama's approach - which is more logical, less bureaucratic in character, and a bit more realistic - this comes from a background in administrative jobs. In other words :If you are liberal and for stem cell research, universial health care, pro-choice, education reform, re-negotiating NAFTA, getting out of Iraq, an end to moral legislation, and gay rights - Obama agrees with you. Actually both Hillary and Obama agree with you. McCain not so much. All three agree that President Bush is a dingbat and should never have been elected president. Actually, 75% of Americans agree on that. There's still approximately 10-15 % who still like him, for reasons I'll never understand.

I really don't think Hillary Clinton can win a general election. The independents and Republicans won't vote for her and 40% of Obama's Democratic supporters probably won't - if you believe recent polls. Also she's only winning the big urban states - the same states Kerry and Gore won in previous elections. Why? She comes across as increasingly negative. My own mother, who had voted for Hillary in the primary, is now beginning to regret her vote and is wishing Obama would win. That said, she does have an outside chance due to two things: the horrid economy and the war - both of which the country wants to see end. And well, the increasing dissatisfaction in both parties regarding Bush.

A lot of democrats don't think the independent and Republican votes matter. Have you learned nothing during the last two elections? Swing voters matter a great deal. There's quite a few conservative Republicans who may vote for Obama because McCain is running and they hate McCain, there's also a couple who may vote for Hillary. Question is - how many will vote for Nader because they don't like anyone?

This is so hard to predict. It could go any way. Going to be a nail-biter until the bitter end.

Comments

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I don't think many conservatives unhappy with McCain will vote for Obama in the general election. That's pure fantasy. Many will probably stay home and act all superior, though. ;o)

I'm a swing voter. There is little chance that McCain will win exactly because he has been trying to court the far right to get nominated. That's the very people most swing voters want out of power.

The worry with Obama is that he will have a harder time in all those small states against McCain than he had against Clinton. It would be better if he was winning more swing states the Democrats need to win, like Ohio and Texas without the gimmicks. His campaign is reminiscent of George McGovern's, a man who no one expected to be nominated, but whose people knew exactly what had to be done to get him nominated. If Obama were running against a sitting president I'd expect him to lose as badly as McGovern did. With Bush out and people unhappy about the Republicans, I think he can and will win.

But... Both he and Hillary are looking bad over Michigan and Florida. She wishes out loud they would ignore the fact the elections were both tainted, and he wants to cut two of the largest states completely out of the nomination process. They'd both look better if they got together and consistently pleaded for a do-over in both states. Alienating the voters in those two states could be fatal in November.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, I can only speak from my own experience. I know a surprisingly large number of ultra-conservatives as well as swing voters and independents, but very few liberals. Suffice it to say, we don't discuss politics much.

My friend's brother for example - who lives in Missouri (I believe) and voted for Bush in the last two elections - plans on voting for Obama over McCain - he would NEVER vote for Clinton. Her sister was a fan of Romney, but hates McCain - and may vote for Obama. Just the other day I had a long discussion with a Republican (pro-business Republican, not a social conservative) - he told me that he voted for Kerry in the last election - he hated Bush that much. And plans on voting for OBama, because Obama has a fresh and interesting take on things. He is logical, calm, and practical. Another friend, life-long Republican, was the one who told me about Obama in the first place, a little over a year ago. She said - you should check him out. She also hates the Clintons.

I know a lot of Republicans and it is surprising how many of them like Obama. Whether they will continue to do so, is up in the air.

The Obama/Clinton electoral split is interesting. Clinton is grabbing the south and urban coastal areas, while Obama is grabbing the north, northwest, far northeast, and midwest - all states that have gone Republican in the last elections. I don't think of Obama as McGovern - my parents were huge fans of McGovern by the way and I studied him in high school. OBama is more charismatic. McGovern wasn't charismatic and more intellectual. Obama is a lot more like Bobby Kennedy - he has stage presence. And the people pulling for him - remind me of Kennedy's campaigners - my Dad ran into them, they were young and energetic, he commanded stadiums full of people. Actually Kuznich and maybe John Edwards make me think more of McGovern - and Edwards would have been a front-runner if it weren't for Obama. Obama pushed him off the ballot.

I agree about Michigan and Florida. Neither can afford alienating those states, but...I'm guessing most of the voters in those states, don't care. We'll see. Both States went for Bush in the last two elections.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

there is one big flaw in the Clinton claim about 'winning the big states', in fact she is just squeaking by on the big states. California was a narrow win, w/Hillary taking LA and Barack taking San Francisco... And her 'win' in Texas has turned into a dead heat since he took the majority of the caucus votes...so they got about the same number of delegates there.

She is madly spinning the results to try to make it sound like she is more electable when he is still ahead in both delegates and popular votes.

But regardless, I'm afraid I'm getting very disgusted with her, and I'm not sure I can vote for her if she gets the nomination. She represents old time politics: taking all kinds of special interest money (my complaint from Iowa when she stood by the Hog factory farms over the environment, caring more for special interests than the platform she claims to support), going negative/divisive (I have trouble believing she will work with Republicans - I'm starting to think that it is more likely that McCain could work with the Democrats more effectively).

I'm just getting depressed and discouraged, I used to admire Geraldine Ferraro, but I could hear all the stress/hate in her voice. All I can think of is that these old time political types are all into fighting to win, no matter the damage they do.

Sorry I'm so bummed.

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

I do like to see fight in a nominee, but I hate to see someone give ammunition to the other side. I bet neither side will work with the other and that's been the way since Lee Atwater's scorched earth tactics and Newt Gingrich's Permanant Republican Majority, which is fine with me since my liberal views are very very different from any Republican's these days. (No preemptive wars, no military occupations.)

It's all so confusing I think you have to go with what's most important to you. "Security" or no war, no government regulation vs. regulation, and so on.

Don't a lot of swing voters vote on the economy?

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I do like to see fight in a nominee, but I hate to see someone give ammunition to the other side.

Yeah - the thing about what Ferraro said... she's right. Barack Obama is bringing about a lot of excitement as a post-partisan/post-racial kind of candidate, and a lot of that is tied up in him being the bi-racial son of an immigrant. It's silly to deny that, in some ways, his race is a political asset. (and in some ways, isn't...)

The real problem, is that Ferraro communicated with a sense of entitlement that calls to mind the old Jesse Helms ad "You needed that job, but they had to give it to a minority" -- and that opens up a line of imagery that is very detrimental to both Obama and Hilary.

You can't be the party of Diversity/Affirmative Action and complain as Ferraro did. It undermines your entire basis, and then it opens you up to old Republican attacks about identity politics. (Instead of making them look bad for stooping.)

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

Right, I know women get tired of waiting behind everyone else for rights, but Ferraro's comments shouldn't have been made.

We white people have no idea what black people go through. Obama's race makes it harder for him, despite what advantage he might have with liberals. Just wait until the primary's over. If he wins the racism storm will be fierce.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

We White people have no idea what black people go through. Obama's race makes it harder for him, despite what advantage he might have with liberals.

I becoming more and more aware of the truth behind this statement. I was talking to a friend recently who complained about the comedy Borat - how it made fun of white racism, and even Jewish racism, but steered clear of black racism. I stated that's because blacks aren't in power. Whites are, and to some extent Jews have power too. But people of African-American, Caribbean-American, do not. My friend said - well that will change with Obama becoming President.
I responded - well, he is half-white. And people will state that. And even if he becomes President, it still won't change the balance of power, anymore than if Hillary became President it would (just ask the British - they've had Queens and female Prime Ministers).

Recently I went with a friend to a jazz club. My friend is African-American, Republican, and fairly conservative. She was the only black person in the club outside of two waitresses. All the patrons and the band were white, with about ten Asians. I remember thinking at one point what she must feel like constantly being in the minority wherever she goes. I am - when I go to work - the people on the train are all black, I'm the only white person - me and the conductor - usually, until I get to work, and the demographic is mixed. You feel uncomfortable, as if you stand out. Now my friend sort of likes to stand out and makes the most of it.
But while we were talking - about politics - she said something interesting, she said, that most of the men she'd spoken to in NYC had told her that they'd never vote for a woman for President. They'd vote for a black man first. A black man had a better chance than a woman did. My friend hates the Clintons and will most likely vote for McCain, she fears Obama will be like Carter (sigh he's not, McCain's more likely to be like Reagan, actually, which would be worse - if you remember the 1980s). So one's race or sex do not predetermine who we will vote for, which is good thing - my friend tries hard to be color-blind. But I think it is almost impossible to be color or gender-blind when we live in a world run by people who aren't.
Who make race, gender and sexual orientation an issue, a basis for judging whether or not someone should get a job, get married, or whatever. Until that changes...and I've been reminded lately that it hasn't - everytime I think we've made huge strides, I realize how far we still have to go. The recent Buffy comic - demonstrated that homosexuality is still shocking and a joke to some. The recent bit with Ferraro - demonstrated that people still judge others by the color of their skin.
And my friend's comment about Clinton, demonstrated that women are still considered lesser beings by some men. I find it all really depressing sometimes. But then I remind myself - that there was a time that I never thought it would be possible for a black man and a white woman to be viable candidates for President - that they'd never make it this far. They fact two have and one could end up being President of the US? Is amazing, if you think about it. Also the fact that we have so many tv shows on that have homosexuals as leads and reality shows that do as well, is also progress. Time was - it wasn't mentioned at all. Plus all the tv shows that feature minorities - who are not white. All of this is progress. And gives me hope.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well...

I can tell you a few things I know about Hillary, she's a lot better at going across the aisle than you may expect. Hillary's a bit like Lyndon B. Johnson - she knows how to work the system. And has made friends with quite a few of the Republican power-brokers in the Senate. Biden and Lott who had once despised her, now consider her a good friend.
McCain and Clinton are friends. They've worked together to pass bills. She's built coalitions in the Senate to get bills passed for Child Welfare Reform.

What you have to understand about Hillary is she's a New Deal Democrate or Old School. And as a woman, unfortunately, she's had to be a bit more aggressive. It's unfortunate fact of life, but we do live in a patriarchial society. And for a woman to get ahead, she has to bust a few balls. Otherwise she's considered weak. Margret Thatcher did much the same thing. In the business world - a ballsy/aggressive woman gets ahead and is often respected by men. I've noticed that.
And Hillary unlike Obama, has to fight against a charismatic spouse who cheated on her and served as President and Governor, while she played First Lady. I give her a lot of credit. I may not like her, personally, and she may bug me, but I do respect her intelligence and her ability to find ways to work deals behind the scenes. That's were most politics takes place - not up front - but in the back rooms. Obama says as much in his book - and it is in that one respect that Obama is untried meat (if you'll excuse the term) - he has not been in the Senate long enough to know the players or to work the system. This doeos not mean he can't do it, of course, just that he hasn't been there long enough for some voters to be certain he can.

McCain has some serious problems - one is that country is upset about the economy. Really upset. People are hurting and angry.
And McCain's platform is that he'll continue to cut taxes for the rich, and build on defense.

This is why the Democratic Race has become so volatile. Why people are coming out in record numbers to vote. Many of them aren't registered Democrats - you don't have to be in some states. I think Republicans and Independents can vote in a Democratic primary in Texas for example and in Kansas, not positive. Most people see their only hope in the Democratic Party - they've given up on the Republican Party. But they don't want someone who will go too far, over-regulate.

I could go for either Clinton or Obama. I prefer Obama - because he thinks the way I do about things. Clinton bugs me. The difference between the two candidates reminds me a lot of the differences between Eliot Spitzer and Patterson. Spitzer is a steam-roller, pushes things through, knew how to manipulate the system, Patterson is well-liked, calmer, and works the system in another way. Another way of looking at it - Clinton is a litigator, she came from a litigation background, Obama was an advisor, community organizer, and teacher. One is adversarial, the other is more about bringing people together. I hate litigation and loved the other approach.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I am aware of what a good job Hillary Clinton has done in the Senate, and I had been (prior to this primary season) to let that record convince me that I could support her. But she has managed to change my mind, and I think if she wins the White House then she will go back to the defensive 'us' against 'them' that was the Hallmark of her husband's Presidency. It may not be true, but I feel it is her own actions that have convinced me.

And I don't believe that Obama is so completely unknown or untried. He isn't known in Washington, DC but in Illinois he has worked well with Republicans and businesses and managed to bring together coalitions. He understands what it means to work together for a common goal, and John McCain is known for working on compromises. Although I grant that Hillary Clinton also knows what it means, I think she has a long history of defensive angry reactions of blaming everyone else when things don't go her way.

It is a long long time before the convention in August, and even longer before the election in November, but I'm just feeling very disgusted right now.