Anger over the Democratic Nomination

[fabrisse]

I don't want someone who has not completed a term in the Senate (or a minimum of three terms in the House or been governor of a small or medium sized state -- I don't want someone who's been governor of a large state as they tend to think they know what they're doing without being a little cautious.). I especially don't want someone with no foreign policy clue: that Mr. Obama is not attending his committee meetings is the worst kept secret on the Hill.

I don't want someone touched, however gently, by the Chicago political machine. The current Mayor Daley may be running his fiefdom well, but the Chicago machine tends to cause more problems than it solves on a national level.

I don't want someone whose public speeches give no specifics, but I can find the specifics on his website. I have relatives who have never used the internet in their life. They have no access in a couple of cases because they are older and housebound. They don't want "hope", they want specifics on why they should hope and that means specifics on the national network news. (Don't get me started on the way the networks have abrogated their FCC mandated responsibility to inform the public.)

I'm pissed at the media for the "Hillary Deathwatch" type sites which seemed to imply she had no business remaining in the race. She did. Maybe she should have dropped out sooner, but I bloody well respect her for not giving in to the pressure. Had I seen the Slate and other sites grave dancing and been the candidate, I would have kept going too. That kind of "commentary" is unnecessary and nasty.

I'll hold my nose and vote for him, because I think the Republicans need to be out. But I don't see the elderly voting for him and they are the strongest single voting bloc in the country.

Comments

[wadjet-theperv.livejournal.com]

The American political process seems long and torturous from my perspective in the UK, but I have to confess to not keeping too close an eye on it.

Is it possible that the candidates will run together on the same ticket? Or do you think there's too much bad blood?

I do know one thing. John McCain scares the heck out of me. He always seems to me just an intelligent redneck in a smart suit, and they're the most dangerous of all. Sadly it appears to be like most political systems (if not all) in the Western world. You have to pick the lesser of the evils. I tend to agree with Cats when she says that the mere fact someone is running should disqualify them from office. Although I'm sure there are plenty of well meaning folk who run for political office out of a genuine desire to change things for the ordinary person, by the time they get far enough up the ladder to actually *do* anything about it, the process has corrupted them inexorably.

Gosh. That sounded very cynical :o(

I suppose we're in a slightly different position in that we had a woman leader for quite a long time. You still have that to come. We still haven't had a black person or an Asian yet, but I'm sure it's coming. It would be wrong to vote for Obama just because he's black, but I'm sure some people will.

They say we get the government we deserve.

I do hope not!

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

McCain is much more than a redneck -- and I mean that in a good way. Also, as a descendant of rednecks, that's a term that could be taken amiss.

I fundamentally disagree with Senator McCain on far too many issues to even consider voting for him. His temper worries me, too. But he's thoughtful and loyal to his mentors and friends in a way not often seen in Washington.

The smart thing for both Obama and Clinton would be not to run together. Clinton's shot is over. But Obama will need a Supreme Court nominee at some point, and I think Hillary could be a good fit. It would let Bill have his own legacy, too.

I'm not the one who suggested this in the first place. The idea's been percolating in several venues for a little while now.

[wadjet-theperv.livejournal.com]

McCain is much more than a redneck -- and I mean that in a good way. Also, as a descendant of rednecks, that's a term that could be taken amiss.***

That's obviously a Limey's misunderstanding of the term. I've only ever heard it used in a disparaging way for someone who is as far away from liberal as one could possibly get.

My apologies, I didn't intend to cause offence in any way.

What does the word actually stand for?

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Rednecks have red necks because they are farmers. The term was originally a pejorative for rural -- especially Southern -- people. It got picked up as a point of pride at least partially due to Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck if..." schtick. I like his comedy, and I recognize the stereotypes. Foxworthy's point was that rednecks come from all over, not just the South.

Technically, if you have a college education and don't work on a farm, you're not a redneck.

Southerners can be ignorant (or even stupid), but it's not their default setting. I have cousins who are proud that my great-grandfather ran the last black people out of their small town in Maryland. But I have cousins who deplore his actions too. Both can fairly be described as rednecks.

edited to add: I also know you're from the UK, so I didn't take offense. I just wanted you to know the word has connotations for many of us.

[wadjet-theperv.livejournal.com]

Now that makes sense. It's a shame that it's only been picked up as a derogatory term.

Thanks for cutting me some slack and explaining the nuance :o)