An Email Exchange With My Brother

A caveat up front - my brother would have loved an Edwards/Kucinich ticket:

1/26/08: You know, here's the thing - seeing Hillary speak in person, and listening to what she says is VERY different from the way the media portray her, and I don't just mean Fox Noise, though they are the worst. MOST of the media ratchet up this whole thing abt how divisive she is, blah, blah, blah, meanwhile, she has worked across the aisle a lot, including with one of our senators here, to get things done. Her commitment to women and children began a LONG time ago (she worked for the Children's Defense Fund when she got out of law school, which she paid for herself, btw). I might add, I think all of these men who keep bitching abt her tone of voice are sexist as hell. NO ONE could get away with saying crap like that abt a person of color, for instance. The reason her voice is higher than anyone else's is BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!! Ahem. Anywho - I think the rhetoric against her has been tremendous, and she has to fight against THAT, along with other Dems and Republicans (she was quite the topic of conversation at the REPUBLICAN debate the other night).

As far as the war goes, well, Bush didn't have any combat experience either, and you don't have to have combat experience to get OUT of a war. Her close friend, General Wesley Clark, who HAS been in battle as well as DIRECTING battles, can help her figure out how to prudently withdraw our troops and the over 100,000 American civilians in Iraq. I think that would go well enough in a debate. I think if she had Jim Webb run as her VP, she would do quite well. And I think Edwards (whom I like A LOT) would make an outstanding Sec. of Labor. (He had said that if McCain is the nominee, he would be able to tout his ar experience. He can do that to Obama, too...)

And I disagree abt McCain. He is no maverick. He has sided with Bush up one side and down the other, capitulating at every turn. I think the Clintons could use PLENTY of examples to prove that. If this was 8 yrs ago, I would agree with you, but he has really changed - like Colin Powell did. He has flip flopped continuously of late, and keeps ratcheting up the war, despite wht the GENERALS are saying, even in the same week. I don't think that is going to fly with the majority of people now. IMHO, that is! (My brother responded that, absolutely, McCain is NO maverick, and that he has prostituted hismself to this administration.)

Obama has been a disappointment to me of late. His ad hominem attacks, andconstant revisionist history, has been hard to take. I have seen the video, as well as the transcript, abt what he said abt Reagan and the Rep. Party. His attacking Hillary on her mentioning what he said was pretty pathetic. If he can't take criticism from other Dems, how the HELL is he going to take it from the REPS??? Just sayin'!

1/26/08: No doubt, by now, you have heard the results of our voting down here. I failed to ask you why you are not an Obama fan. I admit, I thought you would be. Had we been hanging out having this discussion, it probably would have been one of the FIRST questions I asked!! You know how that goes...

Anyway, here are a few thoughts I have on him. One of his main strengths is as a gifted orator, no doubt abt it. The first time I saw him speak, I knew he was a rising star in the Dem. Party. That being said, I really hope the media starts to hold him accountable for some of the things he says, and things he DOESN'T say. He is GREAT with generalities, but not so much with particulars. And he does NOT like being held accountable, like for his Reagan comment in Nevada, nor for his 17 (20) yr friendship with Tony Rezko, a HUGE contributor to his campaigns since the beginning, and who helped him buy his houses for less, or for having the exact same voting record on Iraq as Clinton does. When confronted, he lashes out, and when others fight back, THEY get the negative press. Go figure. As I've said, I like him generally, but I have concerns abt him. He can give great speeches, though - no doubt. Not as good of a speaker in, say, debates. IMHO, that is. And it was his inability to think as quickly on his feet, or to not seem to have a firm grasp on issues of national security and other policy issues that led me to Clinton.

All of that being said, Kucinich is the one with whom I share MANY similar beliefs. I do not know why he is not taken more seriously in this country, though he got basically NO media coverage, when everyone else was getting at least some (Edwards suffers this same fate a lot, too, I think). It is a telling commentary, I think. And MANY people kept saying they agreed with him, but didn't think he was electable, so went with someone else (Meliisa Etheridge told him that she would keep voting for him until he became president!!). I am guilty of that, too. It isn't just his looks - goddess knows, Bush is no great shakes. So, just wondering.

And along THOSE lines, I am (so) sick and tired of the media deciding who the nominees are going to be. They seem to be doing the same crap they did to Gore and Kerry, and it is REALLY frustrating. Even people I LIKE, like Keith Olbermann, does it (to far lesser degrees than, say, Fox Noise or CNN). On MSNBC, for example, Obama is their man, and they have made that abundantly clear. I do not think that is their job - to tell us who we should want as our nominee. I know - I'm so naive. But their lack of investigation into statements is staggering. I don't know how that gets changed. Seriously, though - HOW is the media brought to account?? Like all of the lies Bush and Powell told to get us into Iraq, that the media just regurgitated - how do we get an actual MEDIA, which engages in JOURNALISM, and not simply reprinting the press releases from, say, Bush?