8 posts tagged “hillary clinton”

Sean says...

Respect for one's country is one thing, is wearing it really necessary? Does not wearing a flag pin or patriotic garb mean we are any less loving of our nation? When is symbolism too much?

I don't usually agree with CNN commentator and columnist Roland Martin but today he really hit the nail on the head. When are we as people going to let silly issues like this one go and concentrate on issues? Probably never, since we hold on to things we can understand and ignore things we don't. This is an easy issue that gets people fired up unlike poverty.. I mean some Boston Red Sox fans will never vote for a New York Yankees fan, but sometimes you have too.

But is not wearing something desecration or ambivilence? I don't think so. We all support our free will to make decisions, should we really be throwing rocks at glass houses on who is more of something? If we did that noone would get along. Is what we do to show our patriotism or any other personal feeling about our lives, loves, country, or religion anyone else's business as long as it does not harm or personally insult someone?

(CNN) -- When is the last time you watched a mindless movie that had no redeeming value for you intellectually, but all it did was make you laugh?

That perfectly describes the raging debate among voters and the rabid television and radio talk show hosts who love to yell and scream from the top of their lungs, "I'm an American, and by golly, you better show as much appreciation for this country as I do!"

But once you finish listening to these high-minded bloviators -- and yes, that includes the voters who have bought into this nonsensical issue -- ask yourself: Does it really have anything to do with anything?

I've watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"

I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.

Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former soldier often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.

It has become sort of like bird watching as I've surveyed elected officials on the local and national levels and looked them over like a hen-pecked mother or a foaming-at-the-mouth military drill sergeant, studying their attire and deeming them insufficiently American because of their lack of decency and respect by refusing to adorn themselves appropriately with a lapel pin.

So, after listening to radio callers and the folks that e-mail various TV shows, maybe we ought to expand this need to express our Americanism even further. Shouldn't we insist that our politicians all begin to sport red, white and blue socks in order to feel good knowing that they are walking as Americans? How about asking officeholders to sport the American colors as undergarments to show that their undying love for the country is so important, they want the flag pressed against their skin?

There have been times when the candidates -- especially McCain, who has beaten back skin cancer -- have worn hats on the campaign trail. I want to know, datgummit, why the people running for the highest office in the land didn't cover their head with an American flag baseball cap to express to the nation their love and affection for the U.S. of A.

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

That's what zealots do. They take something so simple, so personal, so voluntary, and absolutely lose their mind, trying to force someone else to do as them, and everyone else be damned.

Folks, the first year I ever cast a ballot for political office was in 1988. And in the last 20 years, whether it was mayoral, school board, city council, or a statewide, congressional or presidential campaign, the thought of what was on a politician's lapel never entered into the equation as to whether they are worthy of office.

Those who will criticize me will say, "Well, Roland, if it's no big deal, then why not wear one?" And the reply is the same: "If it's no big deal, then why do you make it a big deal?"

Let me tell you something: When I'm on the golf course and I slip my wedding ring into my golf bag, the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin is still my wife. When we shoot hoops and I remove my Texas A&M University ring from my right hand, I still love my school. The fact that I can no longer wear my 1987 class ring from Houston's Jack Yates High School doesn't mean I don't cherish the crimson and gold. And I may not be able to fit into the shirt I pledged in, but I will be a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. until the day I die.

I am an unapologetic Christian, but you won't see a cross dangling from my neck or a James Avery charm bracelet on my wrist. Why? Because my love of Jesus Christ is in my heart.

This debate is useless, tiresome and distracting. Why? Because if there are members of Congress who wear a flag lapel pin but refuse to shore up our borders, don't do enough to stop the flow of drugs into our neighborhoods, or don't help to eradicate the gaps between the haves and have nots, then are they truly fighting for the concerns of Americans, or playing on the emotions of people by what's on their lapel?

We're better than that. We're smarter than that. It's time that we make decisions based on substance, which is what we say we actually care about. But maybe we're just lying to ourselves about that, too.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University.You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

Sean reports...

Well as the Democratic Party continues to shoot itself in the foot over stupid decisions and rules, I found this story that makes a lot of sense to me but in the end may mean nothing.  To me the Democrats have a point on being a private entity but when they are utilizing resources from the state doesn't taht factor into having to abide by legal statute? Enjoy!

Sean and Stefan announce...

Hillary Clinton

Well after Sean endorsed John Edwards a few weeks back only to have him withdraw from the Democratic Party race and Stefan being undecided up to the very end, The McFreeds finally made their selection, and voted in the Maryland primary last night.  We both voted for Hillary Clinton.  It was a long and tortuous decision (Sean's mom noted that this is the first time since he discovered politics as a passion that he had not selected a candidate before going into the voting booth); but in the end we voted with our minds and not our hearts.

Clinton convinced us that she is the best person to tackle the hard facts of Washington DC, not with oration, but with her sleeves rolled up ready to work on Day One.  America needs a working President, not just a cheerleader.  Our faith in her comes from her grit and determination in tackling mountains over her entire life, not just career. As a leader and a woman, she has overcome so many things you cannot deny her respect for figuring out how to survive and take it all - good and bad - in stride. She has made some mistakes and learned from them. But it is her commitment that can never be questioned. If elected, she will always have health care, education, and the family checkbook on her agenda. She has been consistent in that mission and in her desire to bring all Americans together to make our nation work for everyone. This is why we made the decision we did and why we hope she will eventually win the nomination.

This is not to say this that this was an easy decision. Barack Obama would make a better president than any of the the Republicans running, including the remaining foes John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Obama is an amazing speaker and personality. It is no wonder his fresh words and his very picture of change as the first truly viable African-American, or any minority for that matter, (with all do respect to Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm) to have a real chance at being our nation's president. But for us, he just hasn't sealed the deal. There is substance lacking here. And if he does win the nomination, his ideas will be scrutinized in the general election harder than now. Sure the website is impressive in words. Obama's mention of gay and lesbian issues on it and in his speeches is most welcoming. Clinton's lack of mention on her website is discouraging, but her public words cancel that out. We know both of these people will do what they can for us, but it is really up to the states to make the changes we need, along with a federal cheerleader to hold the nation's hand as we make that change. But we choose a President for the whole package and this round she won with both of us.

Barack Obama

Everyone wants a John F. Kennedy this year to sweep us into the wonder of a fairy tale; but lest we forget that even Kennedy had a tough fight to his election as well because of questions about his substance. Up until 2000, the 1960 election was the last election where it was too close to call. Richard Nixon was the candidate of substance that year. The whole reason Kennedy went to Texas that faithful day in November 1963 was to start his push for the 1964 election because it was going to be a tight one. But as it worked out, Kennedy's strong vision and Lyndon Johnson's initial brilliance at working the Congressional machine gave America the progress it needed to make major changes in how we dealt with ourselves. Unfortunately it took his death, Martin Luther King Jr's death, and his brother Robert Kennedy's death as well as many other martyrs to a greater cause of equality and economic championship for this to be accomplished.  But what if Kennedy lived? Would his vision have become a reality? Would he have compromised like he did in the first 2 years? We will never know. But this true look at history gives at least Sean pause when considering Obama. It is right to wonder if the emperor has new clothes when considering a President. And if anything Obama hasn't made his case in this first test to us.

Granted Obama won last night and this weekend, but whatever the media pushes does not silence the fact that it is still dead-even on delegate count. It will be on this division of opinion that the ability of our standard bearer to unify a party will make our choice either stronger or weaker when the time comes. We concede that who ever the nominee is for the Democrats will be our candidate in the general election, but our voice as well as others too should be heard to at least force Obama or Clinton to learn from why we didn't choose them the first time, not matter the size or % of the opposition. Because, if anything, we Democrats want to win in November, and we want to make sure we are united after the convention ends.

We are sure many of you will have opinons about our vote and our reasoning. Please be respectful as we are of your choice. Many of you showed us your passion and commitment to your choices up to this point and we are amazed at all of your dedication. Sean's friend Keith gave an impassioned plea in particular for Obama; Keith's trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina are truly something to be admired and celebrated. Stefan's brother, sister-in-law, and parents lobbied us hard on our vacation in Florida for Obama as well. Their arguments made it even harder to choose. And Sean's Mom and sister gave their own reasons for voting Hillary. We wish we could have mentioned you all that spoke including fellow bloggers (Quest and Wayward Son in particular) but the excitement about it all truly is encouraging that people are thinking and involving themselves in the right to vote in 2008.

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion).  What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief.  So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.  

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

Here is what we (Sean and Stefan) both think!

Sean says...

Well the Iowa Caucuses are over and Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee won.  It's now on to the New Hampshire Primary. 

Huckabee is the intimate candidate (who I usually say when talking to Stef) has the "crazy" (although some might say unconventional) ideas.  He gave a great victory speech tonight that truly drew you in and made you like him. I am impressed by his delivery and his ability to communicate without seeming like the loon he truly is.  

Obama gave the speech of a leader.  Surrounded by adoring crowds he gave the speech from a pulpit that talked about hope, history, and change. Why did it still leave me unimpressed?  I feel like I am missing something about Obama (despite MANY emails from my friend Keith as to why I should be on the Obama train). Now I won't be voting for Huckabee of course because well he believes being gay is a choice, that being homosexual is ok as long as we don't practice it, and that creationsim is a valid theory. But Obama has a shot at my vote and I am not running to jump on his band wagon for some reason. My earlier post which really dismissed his impact is proven wrong of course and that is ok because this is one contest. But with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out now and the field winnowing, what do I do to get excited about someone I am just not getting into?

I am excited that in the Democratic race alone there are viable female, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino candidates!  And I think this is where a lot of people are getting excitement because truly race is being conquered as a barrier in our time in an arena where there truly was a barrier based on personal choice. However, is because the potential of historic significance a reason to vote for someone? I remember being in 7th grade and being excited about Jesse Jackson (yes I was in 7th grade now so it makes good sense since I didn't understand what was wrong with Jesse at the time) in 1984. Jesse I believe finished 3rd in Iowa that year which was truly a break through. Hillary Clinton finishing third is a break through as well since she basically has finished better than any female presidential candidate has done ever as well. 

But in the end I just don't have Obama fever.  I really haven't caught any one candidates fever actually. So what can anyone do, say, or argue to sway me toward the light of political hysteria for any of the Dems still standing? Is it just me? As I age am I becoming harder to impress and excite? Do I need political viagra?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan says...

Romney scares me because his beady-eyed stare is too Ted Bundyesque.

Huckabee frightens me because he is an eloquent, dynamic speaker, who conveys authority...whose ideas and messages are dangerous. 

Richardson blew it for me during his performance at the debate on Logo a few months ago.

Obama concerns me because of his youth and inexperience, despite his charimsa and likeability.

Edwards looks the part (he is certainly shiny and handsome), but I'm still not convinced...yet.

Clinton has the intellect and the experience, but I worry about her electability (of course, that's a little bit like a run on a bank, isn't it?)

Who is left?  Well, as long as they are left, and not right...  :-)  381 more days until Dubya is outta there!  http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Sean says...

My political past has me all in a tizzy today about the 2008 Presidential Campaign beginning in Iowa today, but it also finds me still wondering who is worth my vote.  Obviously, Stefan and I will be voting Democratic. Stefan's parents would only expect that choice with only my (Sean) dad questioning where I went wrong. But who should we choose?

A few friends keep pointing me toward Barack Obama, but I feel as luke warm to him as I did when he got started last year. As a political junkie, I am one of those who continuously look up the candidates online and follow those political shows once and a while. But I find myself feeling famished after Obama speaks. Sure he is very articulate and an exciting orator. But having been in the "business," he leaves me unimpressed.

2008 Democratic Candidates

Hillary Clinton is an admirable person. She has worked hard and taken her lumps. I believe she wants to help the world, the question is can she lead it?  I like her point that the president cannot be a neophyte to the "game" that is Washington. Being that I work next to the White House and am aware of the "game" in town, she has a point and knowing how to go through the minefield is much more valuable than saying the easy line of Washington needing to be "taken back."  Bureaucracy is better tamed than challenged in my experience and the strategy to take it on is picking your battles and bunching small victories together strategically in order to force true change. And I think this is where Hillary is going; her vision is one I can agree with. The question though is "she the one to lead the change and can she?" That is what I am uneasy about and that is why I am not on her bandwagon yet.

John Edwards is one I thought I wouldn't fall behind but according to this Washington Post Questionnaire he should be my man... in the presidential race that is.  Edwards has something the others are not truly exhibiting now, a man with humility willing to show strength of conviction as well as his thought process on things he is not sure of. Gay rights and marriage is my "clever" issue this year (for good reason - and Bill Richardson felt it squarely on his head back this summer after saying being gay is a choice); and Edwards has shown great growth and strength of character in how he has shown his journey in understanding it. That is the kind of president who will help the nation truly become comfortable with this group of issues rather than an outright supporter.  The best way to phrase it is by saying Richard Nixon was the right one to open China to the West. Elizabeth Edwards ceratinly is on "our" side, and showing his comfort with working with a diverse set of opinions and allowing them to be voiced certainly gives me hope of moving passed the stubborn, one-mindedness of our current failure.

But what is truly rallying me to Edwards cause is his ideas on economic diversity. Hillary and he have it right, a piecemeal approach is the right course of action. But Edwards has a terrific focus on poverty which is reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy, my personal political hero.  And in fact that comparison has hit me time and again with Edwards since 2004. Kennedy was a skeptic who with exposure evolved and became a stronger visionary because he embraced humility as well as honed his vision of a better world.  Now Edwards isn't all the way there yet but he is moving that direction. But yet I am still not sold because of some of his strident comments and criticisms about others. "Can he get people to work with him even if he disagrees with them?" is my question for him.

Lastly, Joe Biden has impressed me with his brilliant mind. However, as a leader I do not know if he can inspire and truly show the way. He knows what he is talking about but his manner and temper just turn you the wrong way. He would be a truly wonk president but I see a potential Jimmy Carter malaise speech coming out of him in a cardigan sweater some night in October.

Well we will see who breaks out of the pack tonight and then see who stays in to fight on. In the end its strategy, money, and on the ground success that will truly pull our next president through to the end. I hope we just pick a good one, we are totally due.

Sean says...

Nancy Giles' editorial on CBS Sunday Morning July 29, 2007 has resonated with me for some reason today. Here is a transcript of her words.  Love to hear what you all think of her rhetorical question!

© MMVII, CBS Interactive, Inc. All Rights Reserved.