Clinton in Grand Ledge? WTF?

OK, my home town in Michigan has a population of maybe 7,000 people, so why is Sen. Clinton electing to campaign (for Obama, presumably) there on Sept. 27? Is it the coolness quotient from underground folk singer Paul Baribeau naming a CD for the town? Is it the brew pub moving in? I'm gonna wear my "I Heart Grand Ledge" construction hat and Grand Ledge Comets sweatshirt to show home town pride.

Beyond Sex or Race

I'm really trying to minimize comments in this blog on the presidential campaign, from an underlying belief that the United States holds "demonstration elections" in which no candidate is allowed to compete who would really have the power of changing anything. In particular, I don't pay a lot of attention to the Clinton vs. Obama slugfest because I see fundamental weaknesses in both candidates.

Nevertheless, Marcia Pappas of New York National Organization of Women stirred me from my stupor Jan. 29 with her profoundly stupid comments railing against Ted and Caroline Kennedy for backing Obama. Both Hillary and Barack insist they have no interest in playing the sex or race card - they just let others, like Bill Clinton, do it for them. In the case of NOW, Pappas acts as though working for another candidate than Hillary is a fundamental betrayal of women.

I have news for Pappas and NY NOW - Hillary Clinton is a very flawed candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with her sex. Like her husband, Hillary is a triangulator. Rather than reach her positions from a passionate commitment to core values, she tries to decide where a majority is on the basis of polling, and positions herself accordingly. In particular, her key consultant Mark Penn, author of the book Microtrends, epitomizes for me everything that is wrong with American politics. If Clinton wants to be treated seriously, she has to get rid of Penn and the very concept of triangulation, develop a platform based on consistent and passionately-held positions on issues, and operate accordingly. Pappas and NOW need to realize that until Clinton is willing to do that, she will not be treated seriously by many who would love to see a woman president.

Obama is far from an ideal candidate. Caroline Kennedy's comments in The New York Times comparing Obama to her father would be laughable, if I didn't think that JFK himself was so highly overrated. Later this year, we can argue over whether Clinton or Obama shows the most superficiality. But for now, we can insist that endorsement of Obama scarcely constitutes a vote against women.

Meaningless Elections, Indistinguishable Parties

When confronted with a group as nasty as the Bush team it's hard to sustain belief in the Ralph Nader dictum on the two major parties being indistinguishable. Problem is, as far as end results are concerned, there's a lot of truth there. As the NY Times' primary editorial Aug. 7 pointed out, the weekend sellout on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was a perfect example on how useless the Democrats have become. And an Associated Press article on the real results of this surveillance bill should show us that its impact will last far longer than six months.
Meanwhile, latest polls show that Hillary Clinton has moved far ahead of her contenders in the Democratic race. Hillary, the one whose "changes" of opinion on the war have all been superficial. Hillary, who is even better than her husband at triangulating every possible position, since she carries no deep-seated opinions of her own. Hillary, who thinks Rahm Emanuel is a great asset to the Democratic Party.
It's only August 2007, and I already could care less about the 2008 elections, even if it means the end of the Bush era. This country is run by two shades of the imperial class, and nothing can be done to change that.