Yesterday I received an email from an organizer of the local Kucinich campaign, saying that if anyone wanted to attend the Democratic debate being held in Chicago tonight, August 7th, they should email him by last night. I was scheduled to work tonight, so I didn’t even respond.
Then at 2:30 today I got a call from work: a gas leak in the building forced my restaurant to close for the night. This bizarre and rare occurrance means I’m not working after all, but what good does it do me now? If only I had responded to that email yesterday.
Anyway, I like the political analysis of a blogger called Profbwoman. She considers Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy and writes,
When the desire for power supersedes commitment to representing the best interests of the people and providing them with the basic needs to live lives relatively free of oppression there is no well-worded speech nor biological argument that should supersede the people from choosing a candidate that does represent them.
It is not anti-feminist to look long and hard at Hillary’s track record and find her lacking. It is not anti-feminist to demand that when we have a woman running the White House she represents the least among us better than she lines her economic and political pockets.
This is preceded by very specific criticisms of Hillary’s words and actions in the recent and-not-recent past, including how she changes her stand on issues such as the Iraq war, depending on popular opinion. Profbwoman says it better than I, so take a look.
0 Comments