In my first post for this blog in February, I enthusiastically and ardently supported and defended Hillary Rodham Clinton, a leading Democratic candidate for the US Presidency in the 2008 election. "She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good...The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect." Now, I still support Hillary over all other candidates (probably with an exception of Dennis Kucinich), but my faith in her is dwindling, and for me not a single day passes without having some thoughts and temptations to switch my support to Barack Obama.
Around me, almost all of my left, liberal-minded friends support Barack Obama (or Kucinich, Nader. I haven't met a single Hillary supporter. I am confused and isolated; one day, the moment I pronounced my support for Hillary, my friend with an incredulous look quizzed me "how dare you support that warmonger corporate pupper, a right-winger in Democrat's clothes?". Yes, I was aware of her past ties to Wal-Mart, the Arkansas retail giant corrupted by horrendous sexism, racism and exploitation; also Murdoch's support for her. I read some of compelling leftist pieces of article criticising her for being too "moderate", or conservative, such as "Hillary Inc." and "Who is Hillary Clinton?" by renowned and admired Barbara Ehrenreich. It seems there are far more than enough reasons for me to convert to Obama, but one crucial factor has kept me from abandoning my support for her; feminism and misogyny.
My point is not that I simply support her only because of her gender. Obviously, voting for a female candidate doesn't always mean voting for feminism. I would have vehemently opposed Margaret Thatcher had I lived in the 80's Britain, and I would support almost anyone who's standing against Katherine Harris, the worst thief in history. (In contrast to these right-wing female politicians, Hillary's feminist credential is impeccable; even among left-wing few questions her commitment to feminism, demonstrated by her masterpiece 1995 speech.) But my concern is, why this hostility and anger against her? Aren't all these negative remarks about her partly prompted by hidden, insidious or even subconscious misogyny? Though the Right is much more sexist without a doubt, it is also naive to think that the Left is totally immune from misogyny. Were she male, would she have been criticised and slammed harshly and intensely as this? Doesn't abandoning my support for her, influenced by these criticisms of Hillary that might have been influenced by Patriarchy, mean submitting to, or tacitly cooperating to, the structures of Patriarchy that is the reason why more than 5 in 6 Representatives and Senators "lack ovaries". As this insightful article rightly points out, " Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards," and I never, ever wish to contribute to any form of misogyny by ceasing to support her.
I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama; far more strongly than I supported Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. However, I just can't desert her unless it is proven that Hillary isn't subjected to higher standards than other candidates because of her gender (that is, by credible liberal sources that criticise her). Any opinion (especially from Obama supporters) that might change my mind is welcome.
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Friday, 13 July 2007
Monday, 26 March 2007
Jennifer Brunner; an unsung guardian of Democracy
Have you ever heard of Jennifer Brunner? Probably most people in the world have no idea whatsoever who Jennifer Brunner is, unless you are her friend, you live in Ohio, or you follow the US Politics so closely and know what and who really matter in our world. Ms. Brunner is the woman whose work is crucial and essential in saving the democracy in the country with a democratic tradition and the global influence. Indeed, she is the woman who might save the entire humankind from catastrophic damages.
She is the Secretary of State of Ohio, who is in charge of administering elections in Ohio. Ohio is the most important "purple" state in the US whose vote was decisive in giving Bush four more years to destroy civil liberties, Iraq, America's worldwide reputation and the Right to Choose. It will be crucial in 2008, too. She is working to rescue Ohio from the election process marred and plagued by frauds that changed the course of history, and to enable it to conduct a fair election in 2008.
She asked all of four members of Cuyahoga County election board to resign, to reform the board so the elections are properly conducted in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County, which includes the most populous city of Cleveland, is heavily Democratic, and was the main battleground of the 2004 electoral coup (read below). Three of them followed and resigned (some reluctantly) to restore confidence in the voting system; though one Republican member, Bob Bennett (who is also a chairperson of the Ohio Republican), is obstinately refusing to resign. Brunner has started the procedure to fire heavily partisan Bennett. She is, not only a believer in the genuine democracy, but also determined and capable. Jennifer Brunner deserves more media attention, recognition and praise for her ambitious, noble and Heraculian task to restore the American Democracy. Let us hope that Brunner successfully completes the task to get the US and the world out, after long eight years, of the dark tunnel called the Bush "presidency".
You might reject the election fraud in Ohio in 2004 as a mere left-wing conspiracy theory, but read this article before you jump to the conclusion. It's no wonder if you can't believe what you are reading; your eyes are not deceiving you, it IS real, Cuyahoga election workers were found guilty , in the Court, of rigging the Presidential Election in 2004. They are sentenced to 18 months in prison.
So WHY is this groundbreaking news not widely reported at all? It is an AP article; many Ohio papers, Washington Post, LA Times and a few other American papers reported it, (outside the USA only the Guardian did). While just a tiny handful of papers reported, while the others (supermajority) didn't say a single word on the Court verdict. And I don't know the treatment of the article in printed newspaper for each paper (e.g. how visible it was) or even if they published it or not (sometimes newspapers put AP articles in their website while not publishing that in their printed paper). It is not a mere issue of petty, local fraud case; these criminals stole something invaluable called Democracy. What it means is that THIS VERDICT OFFICIALLY CASTS A DOUBT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The hardest media bias is to detect, and the worst, is not biased articles; it is the absence of media reports on an issue. When the media doesn't even tell you that such a story exists, how would you be able to even think about the issue, let alone to criticise someone in power? It is, essentially, a thought suppression. And in this case, not only that so few newspapers fulfilled their role as journalists, the AP article doesn't tell any details of the case; the alternative media tells the truth. The mainstream media has the power to shape the political agendas, but we are empowered not to conform to the values disseminated by them and agendas they promote. Our thought need not, and should not be suppressed by the systematic agenda-limiting machines of the commercial, corporate media.
She is the Secretary of State of Ohio, who is in charge of administering elections in Ohio. Ohio is the most important "purple" state in the US whose vote was decisive in giving Bush four more years to destroy civil liberties, Iraq, America's worldwide reputation and the Right to Choose. It will be crucial in 2008, too. She is working to rescue Ohio from the election process marred and plagued by frauds that changed the course of history, and to enable it to conduct a fair election in 2008.
She asked all of four members of Cuyahoga County election board to resign, to reform the board so the elections are properly conducted in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County, which includes the most populous city of Cleveland, is heavily Democratic, and was the main battleground of the 2004 electoral coup (read below). Three of them followed and resigned (some reluctantly) to restore confidence in the voting system; though one Republican member, Bob Bennett (who is also a chairperson of the Ohio Republican), is obstinately refusing to resign. Brunner has started the procedure to fire heavily partisan Bennett. She is, not only a believer in the genuine democracy, but also determined and capable. Jennifer Brunner deserves more media attention, recognition and praise for her ambitious, noble and Heraculian task to restore the American Democracy. Let us hope that Brunner successfully completes the task to get the US and the world out, after long eight years, of the dark tunnel called the Bush "presidency".
You might reject the election fraud in Ohio in 2004 as a mere left-wing conspiracy theory, but read this article before you jump to the conclusion. It's no wonder if you can't believe what you are reading; your eyes are not deceiving you, it IS real, Cuyahoga election workers were found guilty , in the Court, of rigging the Presidential Election in 2004. They are sentenced to 18 months in prison.
So WHY is this groundbreaking news not widely reported at all? It is an AP article; many Ohio papers, Washington Post, LA Times and a few other American papers reported it, (outside the USA only the Guardian did). While just a tiny handful of papers reported, while the others (supermajority) didn't say a single word on the Court verdict. And I don't know the treatment of the article in printed newspaper for each paper (e.g. how visible it was) or even if they published it or not (sometimes newspapers put AP articles in their website while not publishing that in their printed paper). It is not a mere issue of petty, local fraud case; these criminals stole something invaluable called Democracy. What it means is that THIS VERDICT OFFICIALLY CASTS A DOUBT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The hardest media bias is to detect, and the worst, is not biased articles; it is the absence of media reports on an issue. When the media doesn't even tell you that such a story exists, how would you be able to even think about the issue, let alone to criticise someone in power? It is, essentially, a thought suppression. And in this case, not only that so few newspapers fulfilled their role as journalists, the AP article doesn't tell any details of the case; the alternative media tells the truth. The mainstream media has the power to shape the political agendas, but we are empowered not to conform to the values disseminated by them and agendas they promote. Our thought need not, and should not be suppressed by the systematic agenda-limiting machines of the commercial, corporate media.
Thursday, 15 February 2007
Hillary 'dogged' or 'breezed through'?
I'm a believer in Hillary. I believe that her election to the world's most powerful job would transform, not only the US, but the world we live in. I can't wait till the day she wins the election. Not only I believe in her truly liberal beliefs and extraordinary ability, I believe in her victory as well.
I know that she is a polarising figure. I know right-wingers in TV and radio, her decades-old enemy, continue to attack Hillary, fearing the prospect of her presidency. But what I'm concerned is that recently a lot of liberals seem to be reluctant to support Hillary; because of her Iraq War vote.
When Hillary Clinton visited New Hampshire to campaign for the next year's U.S. presidential election last weekend, the main story that most news media reported from her weekend campaign trail through the Granite State was the negative one that her position on the Iraq War was unpopular. The AP article in the CNN website; titled 'N.H. voters want clarity on Clinton's Iraq Views'; says "defending her vote means she'll continue to be dogged by skeptical questions about it". This 'dog' imagery seems to be the favourite among journalists, left and right alike, to describe the Hillary's weekend campaign in NH. The conservative Chicago Tribune believes "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was dogged with questions about the war as she campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend" while the headline of the Independent article is 'Clinton is dogged by criticism of war stance'.
But it is too prepossessed to judge that Hillary was always hounded by noisy anti-war protesters for the whole weekend. New Hampshire Union Leader, a Manchester paper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire, sheds the different light on Hillary in NH with a more detailed report of her campaign. According to the Union Leader, Hillary 'breezed through' New Hampshire. Though 'attendees grilled the senator on a wide range of subjects', she handled them with great understanding of the issues and compassion for people; 'audience members said they were particularly impressed with Clinton's command of the issues'. The AP article refers to her 'command of the issues', about which the UL article tells in depth, in just one paragraph; "she deftly fielded questions on a range of subjects, from education to health care to the genocide in Darfur." It devotes more than half of the article to the Iraq issue with negative connotation; ending it with the response of Claire Helfman, a voter unsatisfied with Hillary's position on the Iraq War. If you read the UL article as well, you get a different impression; you will understand that 'by and large, they seemed as interested in domestic matters as in the war in Iraq'. Even for the Iraq, you get an impression that voters understood Hillary's position; and it finishes with the positive, confident comment of the event organiser, Debora Pignatelli.
Both articles can be true; obviously, some voters can be 'converted' by Hillary while others can remain unconvinced. It's only the difference of focus, but readers will have a completely different idea about her weekend campaign. Two realities, two biased media.
The Independent asserts that 'her vote in 2002 to authorise the Iraq war will be the biggest obstacle to her winning the Democratic presidential nomination'. I think it is too early to determine that, but my question here is; should liberals stop supporting her because of the vote she cast five years ago, and she hasn't said 'it was a mistake'?
I oppose the Iraq War, so I support it if she clearly says the 'yes' vote she cast in 2002 was a mistake. But is that an important issue for liberals, as the Independent claims? She has been a staunch critic of the Iraq War for a year or two years; and her speech is a clear proof for that. It is just my total speculation, but it is possible that she doesn't 'admit a mistake' just to avoid being 'swiftboated' by the right-wing noise machine. It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't believe it was a mistake, though we never know what she actually believes. And what really matters is what she really believes.
She is a supporter of the universal health care. She has been working for the children's rights for nearly forty years. She has consistently supported women's right to choose, civil union, gun control, and stem-cell research. She is, unequivocally, a feminist. It is a good time to read her awe-inspiring 'women's rights are human rights' speech for the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Did we ever have such a passionate women's rights defender as a leader of the big, powerful, Group of Eight countries; in fact, the Superpower of the world? (Only three women have ever been a leader of G8 countries; all three are from a conservative party.) It would be almost impossible to imagine that such a historic change wouldn't improve lives of millions of women in the US and all over the world.
She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good. She knows how to win; so she declared 'I'm in and I'm in to win'.
What else can we desire from the presidential candidate?
The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect. John Edwards is a passionate supporter of health care and poverty reduction. Barack Obama is a brilliant star. But I believe, as she spoke 38 years ago, 'Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free'. That is why I believe in Hillary.
I know that she is a polarising figure. I know right-wingers in TV and radio, her decades-old enemy, continue to attack Hillary, fearing the prospect of her presidency. But what I'm concerned is that recently a lot of liberals seem to be reluctant to support Hillary; because of her Iraq War vote.
When Hillary Clinton visited New Hampshire to campaign for the next year's U.S. presidential election last weekend, the main story that most news media reported from her weekend campaign trail through the Granite State was the negative one that her position on the Iraq War was unpopular. The AP article in the CNN website; titled 'N.H. voters want clarity on Clinton's Iraq Views'; says "defending her vote means she'll continue to be dogged by skeptical questions about it". This 'dog' imagery seems to be the favourite among journalists, left and right alike, to describe the Hillary's weekend campaign in NH. The conservative Chicago Tribune believes "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was dogged with questions about the war as she campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend" while the headline of the Independent article is 'Clinton is dogged by criticism of war stance'.
But it is too prepossessed to judge that Hillary was always hounded by noisy anti-war protesters for the whole weekend. New Hampshire Union Leader, a Manchester paper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire, sheds the different light on Hillary in NH with a more detailed report of her campaign. According to the Union Leader, Hillary 'breezed through' New Hampshire. Though 'attendees grilled the senator on a wide range of subjects', she handled them with great understanding of the issues and compassion for people; 'audience members said they were particularly impressed with Clinton's command of the issues'. The AP article refers to her 'command of the issues', about which the UL article tells in depth, in just one paragraph; "she deftly fielded questions on a range of subjects, from education to health care to the genocide in Darfur." It devotes more than half of the article to the Iraq issue with negative connotation; ending it with the response of Claire Helfman, a voter unsatisfied with Hillary's position on the Iraq War. If you read the UL article as well, you get a different impression; you will understand that 'by and large, they seemed as interested in domestic matters as in the war in Iraq'. Even for the Iraq, you get an impression that voters understood Hillary's position; and it finishes with the positive, confident comment of the event organiser, Debora Pignatelli.
Both articles can be true; obviously, some voters can be 'converted' by Hillary while others can remain unconvinced. It's only the difference of focus, but readers will have a completely different idea about her weekend campaign. Two realities, two biased media.
The Independent asserts that 'her vote in 2002 to authorise the Iraq war will be the biggest obstacle to her winning the Democratic presidential nomination'. I think it is too early to determine that, but my question here is; should liberals stop supporting her because of the vote she cast five years ago, and she hasn't said 'it was a mistake'?
I oppose the Iraq War, so I support it if she clearly says the 'yes' vote she cast in 2002 was a mistake. But is that an important issue for liberals, as the Independent claims? She has been a staunch critic of the Iraq War for a year or two years; and her speech is a clear proof for that. It is just my total speculation, but it is possible that she doesn't 'admit a mistake' just to avoid being 'swiftboated' by the right-wing noise machine. It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't believe it was a mistake, though we never know what she actually believes. And what really matters is what she really believes.
She is a supporter of the universal health care. She has been working for the children's rights for nearly forty years. She has consistently supported women's right to choose, civil union, gun control, and stem-cell research. She is, unequivocally, a feminist. It is a good time to read her awe-inspiring 'women's rights are human rights' speech for the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Did we ever have such a passionate women's rights defender as a leader of the big, powerful, Group of Eight countries; in fact, the Superpower of the world? (Only three women have ever been a leader of G8 countries; all three are from a conservative party.) It would be almost impossible to imagine that such a historic change wouldn't improve lives of millions of women in the US and all over the world.
She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good. She knows how to win; so she declared 'I'm in and I'm in to win'.
What else can we desire from the presidential candidate?
The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect. John Edwards is a passionate supporter of health care and poverty reduction. Barack Obama is a brilliant star. But I believe, as she spoke 38 years ago, 'Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free'. That is why I believe in Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)