It's Not Misogyny. Really It Isn't.

I don't read as many magazines as I used to. I've let all of my subscriptions run out and only occasionally do I make an effort to pull a few back issues of titles that interest me and check them out and bring them home to read. (Current issues of magazines can only be read in the library and may not be checked out.) So it is that I am a little late in reading and responding to Newsweek magazine's feature Hear Her Roar (Newsweek March 17, 2008).

I was saddened and frustrated when I learned in Tina Brown's lead essay that many middle aged women in Ohio had been drawn to work on Hillary's campaign because of the perceived misogyny, gender discrimination and "good old boys glass ceiling" they see in the opposition to Ms. Clinton's presidential ambitions. It feels a it like the old trick question "...and when did you stop beating your wife?". To make a point of publicly stating as I do here and now that I fully support gender equality and would definitely vote for a female candidate for President of the United States, were I satisfied with her record of achievements, her policies and priorities and her character and competence seems, to me, to give the impression that such a proclamation is merely pro-forma and intended as a fig leaf to legitimize the clear cut calls for misogyny and discrimination soon to come.

Hillary Clinton has a long history, as a lawyer, as a political spouse and power behind the throne and as a United States Senator of never failing to put the interests of Big Business over the interests of ordinary Americans, and indeed above all other interests save her political ambitions which to me seem so clearly the one high principle Ms. Cinton has always been consistently devoted to.

I oppose Sentaor Clinton's candidacy because of her strong financial ties to Wall Street, her insurance company enrichment program err failed National Health Care program and because I can clearly foresee a Hillary presidency netting us eight more years or paralytic partisan gridlock in Washington and a nightly replay of all new versions of all of the trumped up bullshit scandals of the Bill Clinton years. Near the beginning of this campaign I stated in this post that I believed that nominating Hillary was the only way the Democrats could possibly lose and nothing that has happened since then has caused me to reconsider that conclusion.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to oppose Ms. Clinton's candidacy on the basis of her policies, past performance and enormous political baggage. And it occurs to me that we will be a lot further along the road to gender equality those Ohio women claim to want when it is safe to o without be regarded as anti-feminist trying to roll back the tide of gender equality.

Not The Oval I Was Expecting To Blacken

I find myself holding and examining my Washington state Primary Election Ballot with considerably more interest and hope than I would have anticipated feeling at this point in this election cycle. I had previously conceived and written of a plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (see The Complex Calculus of One Man's Vote). I find that I can't do that.

One thing that many people I respect have agreed on is that what will be needed most in the next President is someone who can work across party and ideological lines to actually get the People's business done, something that just is Not generally happening in the current Administration. And I had been So afraid that the Terry McAwful wing of the Hackocracy was gonna succeed in pushing Hillary, the only Demo who could Lose in November on an Inveitablity path to the ticket, and am thrilled that Obama has staged a decisive Saturday Sweeps across a very diverse bunch of states and has the wind at his back going into the next rounds. And it
begins to look to me as though we may be shaping up to a November choice of Obama vs McCain, Either of whom is a zillion times more likely than any of the other choices in their respective parties to be able to unify the country and work with both sides to get things done.

Which brings me back to my Washington Primary ballot and my decision to blacken a different oval than the one I had decided upon back in October when I was trying to generate some political discussion and started a Ron Paul for President group, just to generate some discussion. And I had thought I would support a long shot candidate as a gesture to his onine supporters who all seemed new to political involvement and genuinely moved by their candidate to become actively involved in the political process, which I quite applaud, even while having great reservations about their candidate and being unpersuaded by their arguments in his favor.

Obama has secured two thirds of Washington's delegates to the Democratic National Convention and party officials have cleary announced that the upcoming primary election will NOT count for any delegates. Meanwhile McCain is leading Huckabee by a whisker and is expected to carry the state but the 18 delegates allocated by the caucus are split among four candidates, including Romney who has already dropped out of the race. The results of the Republican primary will be used to allocate 19 additional delegates and a win for McCain could be critical to his success.

And so with an eye towards a new President who can work with both sides and get things done, I have darkened the oval next to Sen. John McCain--R on my Republican primary ballot. I will drop it off at city hall on my way to work once they are open to receive them next week. And will be anxiously continuing to follow the results. And I will do so, feeling much more hopeful about the future than I had expected to feel at this point.

And So It Begins

Iowa has spoken and the Presidential campaign now kicks into high gear. With the primaries so front loaded we may well be discussing the actual nominees and debating the general before Spring is sprung, and I find I am once again interested in writing about politics.

Those who've read my previous posts already know that I am at heart an Edwards man, though due to a peculiarity in the political process I am planning to take a Republican ballot in the primary and vote for Ron Paul, whom I don't actually support and would Never vote for in the general. (If this is confusing to you click here.) The media seem to be trying to spin Edwards' second place finish in Iowa as the death knell of his campaign (even though he placed ahead of the horrid Hillary whom they are not rushing to write off). But the fat lady isn't even warming up yet so clearly the media is per usual being premature in an attempt to sway the race to their corporate keepers' benefit and I continue to hold out hope of darkening an oval for John in November. But if Obama succeeds in using his bounce from Iowa to win again in New Hampshire, I may well jump right onto his bandwagon and begin flogging him like mad.

As for Huckabee, I will only say that I hope he continues to win and becomes the R's nominee since I am 101% certain that Americans are NOT under any circumstances whatsoever going to elect another Arkansas governor, let alone a frickin' Baptist preacher.

And all of this discussion of the early race quite fails to address what the real end game will be. Yesterday on Blog Catalog, for the first time in ages we had an interesting political thread when momoftwingirls posed the question "Do you think GWB will cancel the election and declare martial law?"

Few if any respondents considered this a likely scenario, but the question did lead us to consider the final outcome of the election. MadameX said that she had actually expected the 'cancel the election and declare martial law'-trick to be pulled last time and that she had not considered the possibility this time around as she is much less interested in the outcome of this one. I replied:

I did expect it in the last election and was not surprised that Ohio turned into another Florida instead. Who knows which state will be the surprise place it all turns out to hinge on but in my observation of the current ruling regime, they seem very much dedicated to the "stick to what worked before" school or totalitarian government. I personally will be shocked if we do Not have another outcome that boils down to The Supremes singing their classic hit "The Republicans Really Won Again" to the tune "Here He Comes Again" in the key of Rove.

And that's the real question, isn't it? Not 'whom will the voters select?' but rather 'how will the powers that be rig the outcome this time?' Since my political interest has been re-awakened I will probably be posting regularly about the horse race on this blog. But honestly, I will be shocked if the person actually selected by the majority of US voters takes the oath next January and moves to Pennsylvania Avenue. That hasn't actually happened in more than a decade.

The Corpse Is Still Breathing

To hear the talk around the political blogosphere today you'd think that Barrack Obama had dropped out of the Presidential race and conceded the nomination to Hillary. The postmortems are thick on the ground though a quick check of the Obama 08 site suggests that the campaign is still in business.

Perhaps today's best post comes from blogger Kyle E. Moore on the blog Comments from Left Field. Why Obama Won't Win is an in-depth analysis of the Democratic Presidential Primary. Moore argues that Obama's gift for seeking consensus, finding middle ground and finding ways to work with political opponents would make him an ideal general election candidate with an excellent chance of beating any of the Republicans in November. Unfortunately, Moore also believes that Barrack has zero percent chance of getting the nomination since the partisans who vote in Democratic primaries are furious after 7 years of being ignored and will be hungry for red meat and not conciliation. I honestly don't know how much credence to give this theory, but if Moore is correct Obama is toast.

Blogger Talk Left is also quite pessimistic about Obama, though for very different reasons. The Problem With Obama, according to this blogger is that he is not a fighter. He

refuses to fight for Democratic and progressive values. He holds them of course. But he does not fight for them. He believes in finding "common ground" and, in the process, simply does not fight. He does not work to persuade the persuadable. As a politician fighting for issues, he fails (while perhaps succeeding in burnishing his own image.) If you are committed to Obama, you can be pleased with his political style. If you are committed to Democratic and progressive values, I think you can not be satisfied.

That's a pretty strong condemnation and one I find hard to rebut. And finally, just one more example of today's eulogizing for Barrack, Mike Lux in an excellent diary at Open Left argues the problem with the campaign is that a unique candidate with a great message and new campaigning style is being badly managed by the same old hapless Democratic campaign managers who are So intently running the same old hapless Democratic campaign that they completely fail to utilize their candidate's assets and abilities.

I think I would agree with Lux and Talk Left that Obama desperately needs better management and a campaign that comes out swinging against Hillary, Inc. But I fear that Mr. Moore's analysis is the one that will prevail-- Barrack is just too conciliatory to win the Democratic primary this time out.

Touching The Third Rail

My post yesterday on the War On Drugs, its casualties and its existence as a third rail in American politics, an issue politicians can not Even discuss without being painted as horribly soft on crime and rendered instantly unelectable was quite an experience for me. 62 Diggs, 150 new unique visitors many of whom stuck around and read more than one of my essays. And then there were the really great comments.

In comments here and on Blog Catalog, I suggested to rockstories that it sounded as though she had written a very different post with the same title I'd used. And now she has. I urge you to go and read This Isn't My Post which I would have titled Touching The Third Rail.

No Joking, Run Stephen Run!

Forget about Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. Forget about Barrack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. The political blogosphere is completely ABUZZ about the real and unreal Presidential candidacy of Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, who may or may not be running as both a Republican AND a Democrat in the South Carolina Presidential Primary Election and whose campaign/non-campaign may or may not be illegal under FERC rules.

And I am wondering why anyone is surprised. While Comedy Central is not the Viacom division that has "The News more Americans trust" as its slogan Colbert and his Daily Show counterpart Jon Stewart are about the only people on television talking about politics and serious issues that have Any real credibility left with the American people. So I enthusiastically welcome Colbert to the race and hope those enthusiastic supporters DO move beyond freeping online polls and actualy get his name on the ballot and run to win.

With our recent history of hiring has been movie actors for the job, an up and comer from a hit show couldn't fare any worse in the Oval Office. And if somebody can assure me he isn't married to an astrologer I will be sold.

Ron Paul-- Will He Get Zapped by WOD Third Rail?

I touched on the subject of immigration reform in the post on Social Security so I had figured to do a follow up post on immigration, and looked up Ron Paul's position, I found that I completely agreed with everything he said. That does increase his palatability in the general but does not make for an interesting blog post. Ditto Ron Paul's position on Iraq. With over 70% of Americans wanting to bring our troops home, Paul's position is for once positively Mainstream.

And then I read Ron Paul's position on the War On Drugs. And again I agreed, but this issue is, imho, meatier for a real discussion on the theoretical Hillary vs Paul in November question.

The War On (some) Drugs (users) has been a third rail in American politics since Jimmy Carter pledged on the trail to de-criminalize marijuana and found the issue untouchable once he got to Washington. And while it is widely acknowledged by sensible people that the United States' War On Drugs has been a costly failure that has caused far more harm than it has prevented, no politician has ever been willing to go Near this issue.

It's an issue I feel strongly about. Just last night I was sitting at a restaurant table and the name of an old friend who has moved away came up and we recalled how horrible it was when her son was murdered. Her son had been a heroin addict. He had gotten himself clean and had been off the junk for over two years when he was killed soon before he was scheduled to testify against his dealer, which he had been more or less forced to do to keep his own hide out of jail. Let's be clear here. This bright, handsome young man did not die because of drugs. He died because of Prohibition.

My own cousin, who was a number of years younger than me, and who had been a kind of little brother to me at family gatherings through the years died of a drug overdose. And I always felt strongly that if it were not for prohibition, his death would likely have been avoided. Drugs purchased pharmaceutically of a specific and known strength and dosage are much less dangerous than street drugs that may be tainted or 'cut' with who knows what and if unexpectedly purer than expected can cause an accidental overdose. In any case, my argument that my cousin was Not well served by our present system seems incontrovertible, even to those who would argue that in this case it was drug abuse and not Prohibition that killed my sweet, funny cousin.

A part of me is thrilled to see that Ron Paul agrees with me about ending this horrid and destructive 'war' that we will never win and which is largely fought as a cash cow for the prison industrial complex (one of the few true growth industries in Bush America) just as Iraq is primarily a cash cow for the Halliburton wing of the Republican party, regardless of the justification du jour for our misadventure there.

But another part of me strongly suspects that if and when the media comes to feel that they can Not continue to largely ignore Ron Paul they will attack him hard with the soft on drugs, soft on crime meme that the Rove wing of the Republican party often uses successfully against politicians who defy the playbook. And the fact that the Rove wing would be operating via Terry McAwful and the Hillary campaign should not surprise anyone who's been paying attention.

So my questions are-- how long can Ron Paul stay under the media radar on the WOD Third Rail and is there any way he can survive the attack when This story gets its 15 minutes of fame?

Ron Paul: Lockbox Illegal Aliens Out Of Social Security

Having written about the Hype surrounding the Ron Paul campaign and having gotten an interesting comment from Zagurim (who by the way has an excellent breakdown of the funding sources that go beyond the fund raising totals mentioned in my Hype post) who asked how I would vote in a Hillary vs Ron Paul match-up.

Anyone who has read my Hillary post knows that I think she is the only chance the Democrats have of losing this November and that I personally Would NOT vote for her. I replied to Zagurim that I would either vote for Dr. Paul or for Mickey Mouse and that I have NO intention of ever coming any closer than that to pledging to vote RP in the general. But blanking my ballot is not a real attractive option. So I realized maybe I should take a closer look at Ron Paul on the issues, beyond the hype. And today I start with Social Security.

First, a thanks to my Blog Catalog buddy, Cindy, who kindly provided me with a link for ronpaullibrary.org which has a wealth of Dr. Paul's position papers and other writings. I found a concise document out-lining Paul's Social Security positions, which can be summed up by referencing three bills related to Social Security introduced by Rep. Paul in January 2007 at the start of the 110th Congress:

H.R. 191 Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act

H.R. 219 Social Security Preservation Act

H.R. 190 The Social Security for Americans Only Act

(click on any bill number to read summary or full text information at OpenCongress.org)

The first of these bills, I happen to agree with completely. American workers paid taxes on the income that they contributed into the Social Security trust fund and it seems wrong to tax that income again when it is paid out of the trust fund as benefits.

The second bill sounds good. It seems to say simply that Social Security funds must be invested in interest bearing accounts and can not be lent to other government entities interest free nor used to pay any other government obligations. This sounds to be a great deal like the "lockbox" concept that was a key element of many plans that have been floated to save Social Security and it does sound good. The problem for me it that I haven't a sophisticated enough understanding of law or finance to really know if the bill will as promised insure Social Security's continued solvency. Does this bill really address any of the fundamental problems with Social Security that are often attributed to demographic changes and increasing longevity rather than Congress' raiding the cookie jar?

The third bill is the one where I Know I'm going to piss off friends and make new enemies. I confess to being the only Liberal extant who is opposed to illegal immigration, opposed to "amnesty" and on this issue find myself strangely standing in a corner with the freepers. (And man do they creep me out.) The following is quoted from a post on my books blog, The Thin Red Line:

And then this issue of illegal immigration seems to re-draw these lines rather strangely, and to a large extent I find myself cast uncomfortably on the side of the freepers.

I believe that illegal immigrants depress wages for all Americans and utterly reject the argument that we must have illegal immigrants because there are so many jobs that American's just won't do. (It seems to me that argument is really an insistence on being allowed to have illegal immigrants so as not to be forced to provide the level of wages, benefits and working conditions most Americans would likely demand.) Certainly, I believe that America should continue to welcome immigrants, that we should develop a fair process for rationing the privilege of coming here that takes into account both the needs of business for additional labor and the limits of our resources to care for, succor and support new arrivals, while actively and effectively enforcing our immigration laws, primarily through stiff financial and criminal penalties for those who employ illegals.

The "compromise" immigration reform currently being debated in Washington does none of this.

I do, however, have a problem with the fact that this bill would not in any way exempt illegal aliens from paying into the Social Security trust fund through OASDI deductions (which are of course Mandatory) on paychecks earned in the United States. I am uncomfortable with the idea of forcing undocumented workers to supplement the retirements of everyone else. As Ron Paul argues strongly elsewhere money you pay into Social Security out of every paycheck is there for you to live on when you get old or sick and not for the government to spend on anything else. So I think that if you pay into the fund you earn the right to draw out of the fund.

My biggest concern about all three of these bills, however is that since being introduced and referred to committee in January, absolutely Nothing has happened on any of these bills. No hearings, no votes, no nothing. Which leaves me wondering "is any of this actual serious legislation that Ron Paul had any intention of pushing through Congress or are these three bills basically campaign promises written in the Congressional Record, the use of a Congressional Seat as a Presidential Platform printing department?

On the surface I like much of what Ron Paul says about Social Security. But I lack faith that his prescribed solutions would solve the real problems. And I also wonder whether he is legislating or grand-standing with these bills.

And just in case you were wondering...

...just How Hillary managed to scrape up that 90 million, read this.

How Real Is The Hype About Ron Paul?

He's been called the Howard Dean of 2008 and there is a lot of hype about Ron Paul's Internet supporters being a force to be reckoned with. But I have to wonder, how real is the hype?

Recently, blogger Anonymous Liberal argued that Ron Paul is not the HD of '08, stating that Dean was a relatively mainstream Democrat, whose popularity with the party's base was proved by his subsequent appointment as DNC chairman, where as Paul is basically a Libertarian posing in an ill fitting GOP suit.

Over on Blog Catalog we have a small but very vocal contingent of Ron Paul supporters, always prepared to spin their candidate in the best possible light. Stoneman suggested some research is in order to answer the question of how real the hype is.

Nothing substantiates buzz like cold hard cash, and according to Open Secrets.org Ron Paul comes up short, ranking 5th among Republican presidential candidates in 3rd Quarter fundraising, with a Q3 total of 5.2 million vs 18 million for Romney, 12 million for Thompson, 11 million for Giuilani and 5.7 million for McCain. In total fundraising the order shakes out a little differently but with Ron Paul still in fifth place-- Romney 62 million, Giuliani 47 million, McCain 32 million, Thompson 12 million and Ron Paul 8 million. (And all of these numbers pale next to the 90 million and 80 million raised by Hillary and Obama respectively.)

Money is important, but it isn't everything, so I also decided to take a look at what kind of buzz the candidates are making in the blogosphere. For this, I turned to Nielsen Media's Blogpulse which provides a measurement of the percentage of All blog posts that mention a particular candidate. This is a Very fuzzy metric, imho since without exhaustive and painstaking analysis there is no way to differentiate from posts that may have mentioned a candidate in passing and posts that are actually About that candidate. Also note that these numbers are Very low because they are a percentage of All blog posts, including the many, many, many blogs that have nothing to do with politics. With those caveats, the numbers are:

Romney 0.113%
Giuliani 0.105%
Thompson 0.064%
McCain 0.0003%
Ron Paul 0.118%

and for comparison

Hillary 0.170%
Obama 0.12%

Note that all of these numbers are for blog posts on October 22, 2007 and the numbers spike up and down a great deal each day so this is only a static snapshot that may not be indicative of any larger trends. But it does appear that on the 22nd at least, Ron Paul was the most blogged about of the Republican candidates.

I'm honestly not sure how much or how little relevance to attach to any of these findings. I also realize that there are many, many other data points that could be examined that might lead to a truer and fuller picture of the state of Paul's campaign. I doubt my Ron Paul supporter friends over on Blog Catalog will be too thrilled that I sum it up-

Ron Paul-- last in money, first in buzz, except for Hillary.

The Complex Calculus Of One Man's Vote

I am writing this post in hopes that those who know me but don't know me well from the Political Discussions at Blog Catalog will hear directly from me precisely whom I am supporting and when and why. I believe that most voters' choices in any election are the result of a complex matrix of considerations and concerns, both those explicitly held and those unrecognized and unexamined. This is the story of how one person can be favoring three different candidates in the same election and have specific plans to vote for each of them at different times and under different circumstances.

The journey to understanding at least the explicitly held and conscious concerns that lead to my voting choices begins with Washington State Democratic Party. In their wisdom, the party bosses in my state have announced that ZERO PERCENT of the state's delegates to the Democratic National Convention which will NOMINATE the party's candidate for the 2008
Presidential Election will be determined by the vote of the people in the Washington State Primary election. So if I choose a Democratic ballot, my vote will NOT count for Anything At All.

For this reason, I will choose a Republican ballot in the primary because
I think my vote should count. I also send back every snail mail I get
from the state demo's with a note telling them I'll send money when they count my vote, but that's another thread. Since I am at heart a capitaL eL
Liberal, voting in the Republican primary my goal is to help splinter the Republican vote, hopefully weakening the eventual nominee. In the last Presidential election cycle I was a pretty hard core Deaniac, spending hours and hours each day at http://blogforamerica.com. And while I confess that I find Ron Paul's core platform of dismantling the social safety net that Democrats have spent the entire history of their Party creating to be horrifying, I see in many of his online supporters the same idealism and commitment that characterized Dean campaign supporters and feel the need to praise and applaud their budding involvement and activism in the political process, even though I abhor their candidate. Thus I am a leader of the Ron Paul For President group on Blog Catalog and plan to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, though for extremely different reasons than those
of other supporters in that group.

Were Washington State Democrats to hold a primary election that counted, I would be a John Edwards man. From what I can see all of the major candidates who have any shot at the Democratic nomination are 1) Rich. and 2) Claim to care about poor people. Alone among these Edwards strikes me as genuinely caring about poor people, rather than seeking to appear
to care for political gain. IF the other major Democrats want equal consideration from me, they need to haul their asses to New Orleans and spend some time helping the people there to re-build like Edwards did. My original home town is far from recovered and except for Edwards none of the Democrats seem to talk about New Orleans at all.

Which brings me to state that if John Edwards is the Democratic nominee I will definitely vote for him and actively urge others to do so as well. Should Barrack Obama be the nominee I would just as certainly vote for him, though I suspect I would be a bit less Gung-ho in my cheer-leading.

But if Hillary Clinton is the nominee I will be faced with a terrible choice. I believe that electing Hillary would insure that we Americans are in for another four or eight years of deeply divided government that accomplishes little and hurts everyone. For this reason I can see myself choosing to vote for Guillani or McCain as people more likely to be able to heal divisions and actually get something Done in Washington. What is the calculus of Your vote? Please post a comment and share it with us.

Amazing how Much they HATE Hillary

As described in a previous post on this blog, I have recently written about why I believe nominating Hillary Clinton is the Deomocrat's only means of possibly losing the 2008 Presidential election. In those comments I point out how extremely polarizing Hillary is and how having her as the candidate would galvanize political opponents like nothing else could. It was not until I began searching the blogosphere for recent posts about Hillary that I learned just how right I was.

It seems amazing to me, but Anti-Hillary bloggers and web sites are more numerous and better organized than blogs and sites supporting any candidate. There is even a site that will provide you with free web hosting and publicity for your Anti-Hillary blog. The level of venom and un-adulterated hatred this woman inspires both on the Left and on the Right is mind-boggling. And that so many Democrats fail to see how making the 2008 campaign a magnet for this hatred is political suicide, frustrates me immensely.

So today, from around the blogosphere I present for your consideration what people are saying about Hillary Clinton this week:


First, to lead off with a positive, blogger Kentucky Democrat

kydem.blogspot.com/

reports that Hillary has been endorsed by Sen Evan Bayh, D IN. Does this endorsement mean anything to you or change your intention of voting for or against Hillary Clinton?

Moving on the the more numerous negative reactions that dominated my search results:

Blogger Newsalert reports that Jesse Jackson Jr. has condemned Hillary and urged people to back Obama

nalert.blogspot.com/2007/10/jesse-jackson-jr-attacks-hillary.html

Does this change anyone's scorecard? More or less likely to support Hillary after Jackson's rebuke?

A rather rabid anti-tax crank takes Hillary to task over her $5,000/per child tax credit proposal at

ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-clinton.html

Blogger Prisoner of Starvation writes much more eloquently about Hillary's position on Iran:

prisonerofstarvation.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-clinton-covers-her-ass-on...

And finally, conservative religious blogger Freedom Eden blasts a comparison of Hillary to Ronald Reagan

freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-clinton-as-new-reagan.html

I don't necessarily agree with any of the bloggers linked above, but having glimpsed just a bit of all the Hillary-hatred floating free around the blogosphere I am more convinced than ever that nominating Hillary is the only way the Democrats can lose in '08.

On Blog Catalog All (Political) Roads Lead To Canada

The post below originally appeared on The Thin Red Line on October 9, 2007.


As I have mentioned in passing, I have been using Blog Catalog more and more, and primarily to meet and socialize with the kinds of thoughtful, logical people who can make an online argument fun, for those of us who like that sort of thing. I lead two discussion groups over there, Skilled Political Debate (moderated) and Ron Paul For President.

Don't faint, Mom. I am not supporting or working for Ron Paul, and largely function as a devil's advocate to respectfully question supporters claims and lead discussion threads so that they become conversations worth remembering. I am, however, working for blog catalog as an intern. I think the site owner and I agreed on the job title Ambassador, but he is a brilliant mile a minute kind of guy who occasionally pops in to lavish praise or ask a few questions or share news but mostly says, I trust you, do what you think best.

So it was that Friday afternoon found me struggling to lead a discussion of Hillary's Presidential campaign. It was a slow day on the boards and we only had a handful of our most skilled debaters on hand and I painstakingly led the discussion to the point of getting someone to state what to me is SO obvious. That the only way the Democrats could possibly lose in 2008 is to nominate Hillary Clinton. Hillary is an INCREDIBLY polarizing figure. (shouting intentional). As many of us on the left dislike her as our counterparts on the right. Nominating Hillary would guarantee a replay of every bullshit trumped up scandal of the Bill Clinton administration, would guarantee we would see lots of us real Liberals who are sick to death of the same old do Nothing Democrats defect to third parties, or even God help us, Ron Paul who despite having a few policy positions that are enormously appealing to me-- ending the War On Iraq and ending the War On Drugs, is basically running on a platform of dismantling the social safety net that Democratic Party spent its entire history building up and is thus Not gonna get my support in November.

And having so laboriously gotten to having this point made, I waited in vane for anyone to pick up and run with it. And I thought to myself if we can't get Democrats to realize what a disaster Hillary is going to be, maybe I should just bag it and move to Canada where they've already won all the things we Liberals have to fight for here. This discussion was not one of our better ones,
like the one on Health Care Reform

So it was timely that I happened on Friday to scan a copy of WAIT! Don't Move To Canada! a strategy guide for despairing liberals to buck up, reclaim the word and the principles and reform the country by speaking out, blogging, writing letters and not giving up. And I shrugged and said to myself 'but I already do all of those things'. This one comes mildly recommended if you feel you need a book to tell you to write letters to the editor, get involved in the blogosphere, and speak your mind. Which may be the weakest recommendation I've ever given a book.

A final note, all across the Blogosphere on October 15th, that's one week from today, bloggers will unite to speak out on enviornmental issues. If you blog, please consider planning an environmental topic or theme for next Monday. More info here.