My second diary on this site, posted in November 2005, was a diary bashing Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman's support of S.2126, the Family Entertainment Protection Act. In late 2005 Lieberman was already quite the pariah around these parts, but Hillary was not.
S.2126 reeked of the kind of craven political opportunism that turned me away from Hillary in the first place. The gamer constituency doesn't get much love in politics, so the gaming industry tends to be a convenient whipping boy for politicians looking to bolster their "Save the children!" cred without having to commit to anything more substantive.
Although I'm a gamer (and an advocate of free speech), the details of entertainment and gaming policy are less important to me as an issue voter than they are as yardsticks of a politician's reliance on political expediency. I'm of the opinion that Hillary's 2005 stance on federal regulation of the gaming industry was motivated by the same thing as her Iraq vote, and her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment: expediency. Hillary decides what to do based off of the personal repercussions of a decision. If the political brownie points to be gained by taking a a given position outweigh the political heft of the group that will be antagonized, her position is clear. Sometimes that position is on a matter of relative triviality, like regulating video games. Other times, her positions are on matters of terrifying gravity, like conesenting to a war of volition. In either case, Hillary is governing for the benefit of only one person: Herself.
It took me a while to come over to Obama's camp, but his response to this same issue helps me to reaffirm my choice. On Tuesday, Obama was quoted by a Pennsylvania newspaper on the topic of parenting and games:
He noted that "government can't do everything," and offered this advice for parents: "Turn off the television, turn off the video games."
What a radically sensible position to take. What an empowering position to take: Parents are the gatekeepers to the media their children purchase and consume.
I searched to find Obama's position on S.2126 and came upon a blog that quotes a response a reader got from Obama's office on the topic:
"Thank you for your letter opposing the Family Entertainment Protection Act. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter... There has been some significant Congressional activity lately in response to growing concerns among parents that video games have become too sexually explicit and that violent content has been made too easily available to minors. Among these bills is S.2126, the Family Entertainment Protection Act... I understand the concerns of those who believe that Congress is meddling too deeply in this issue and that the proposed legislation could raise free speech problems. All members of our communities, in my view, do have an obligation to ensure that children are protected from harmful material, but that should never come at the cost of denying others their constitutionally protected rights. The challenge here is finding the right balance between these two principles... Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this issue develops."
"That should never come at the cost of denying others their constitutionally protected rights". Obama demonstrates a sensitivity to both sides of the issue by distilling their respective arguments down to a charitable nugget that should be palatable to everyone: Protect the children, but don't do it by restricting free speech.
Unwillingness to pile on the scapegoat and take a position for the sake of expediency is political courage. The same courage he showed in opposing the Iraq war, opposing the Lieberman-Kyl Iran amendment (in position, although he was unable to vote on it), his unwillingness to throw Rev. Wright under the bus, and scores of other issues. The same political courage that Hillary lacks without exception. The choice between Hillary's realpolitik and Obama's reallife is an obvious one.
It ain't so easy
Almost as tired as I am with reading other people posting about her. I wish this whole fiasco would wrap itself up.
Anyway, Kos doesn't write much in the way of blog posts anymore. Most of his posts are short and pithy references to other peoples work (like my blog, with less pictures). Today he posted something out of the ordinary,
She cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.
...
Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.
At this point, if you are still clinging to Clinton, you are either delusional or uninformed. Let's just get this primary over with already.
In case you missed Keith's evisceration of Hillary's racist garbage...
Don't think for a second that any of this bullshit is a "slip". It is all intentional, and deserves ridicule. The shit that I'm referring to, by the way, is the campaign of race baiting that Clinton's campaign has undertaken.
This might be the most retarded thing I've ever seen on cable news:
Are these clowns fucking serious? Do they really think we are as stupid as this seems to indicate they do? If I showed up at CNN headquarters with a flamethrower would anybody even care?
The opportunity Obama presents for growing the Democratic party is unprecedented. The growth of the constituencies in the Democratic party this cycle can mostly be attributed to him (look at where the youth vote goes). Think about what and Obama presidency would mean for the next generation of our political leaders if this reconstruction of the Democratic party is successful. Now, think about the dreadful apathy that would ensue after Hillary obtained the nomination through skulllduggery (the only way she's still got a chance).
From The Nat'l Journal:
If Democrats can maintain the allegiance of the constituencies now pouring into their primaries -- especially young people -- they could seize an edge in November's election, and potentially well beyond. "These are long-term opportunities that could change a generation of leadership in the country and give the Democrats a huge leg up on obtaining or achieving elective office," says Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for President Bush's 2004 election campaign and now a consultant for ABC News. "But it all depends on how they conduct themselves."
This is a few weeks old but its been dugg and redidted this week so its kind of fresh again.
I've tried several times to make the point that BHO and HRC's policy positions are similar enough that the intangibles like "charisma" and "hope" are actually much more important than most HRC supporters care to acknowledge.
On the Internet, chances are someone more clever than myself has already said whatever I'm trying to say (and better). In this case its Lawrence Lessig, whose nerdiness and clarity I find very comforting.
This is a few minutes long but is absolutely worth watching. He really lays the argument out.
I find this argument persuasive:
Recent Comments
-
-
-
-
Les said:
I gagged. But on New Years Eve I also had, first time in my life, oysters on the half shell... read more
on Spicy papaya salad (Som Tom Thai)
No, but kids probably see the same thing as adults. This painting was just a sort of "purity test" meme... read more
on What do you see here?