It looked like a free ride for quite a while, but after taking beating after beating in primary after primary, Hillary Clinton quickly became the underdog. This is not a position she's used to.
I must say, however, that despite the fact that I prefer Obama, and that by continuing to attack Obama, she's doing McCain's work for him, we all knew that she would fight until the bloody end, and that's impressive. She's stubborn, but stubbornness is a very endearing quality.
The reason I don't prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama is because, unlike her fans, I realize that Hillary is not Bill. No matter what the Republicans would try to pin Bill Clinton, nothing could make the bulk of American citizens hate him. He was just too cool. In that respect, Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Hillary is. If Bill could run again, he would win in a landslide.
Why is coolness important? It's not, in and of itself. I really don't think Hillary or Bill or Obama really have that many differences between them. I just think that they will fuck things up far less than McCain or any other Republican. But The Republicans know how to piss, moan, scream, shriek and otherwise bore their way into people's collective crania until their bullshit reaches enough people to put a road block in front of any good anybody who tries to do something they don't like. That's how they keep winning. In order to stop that, you need someone made of teflon. Or adamantium coated with teflon.
When the Pugs throw shit at Hillary, it sticks. That doesn't happen with Obama. That's why she won't win, and why, even if she did win, that she would not be a very successful president.
But maybe she still has something up her sleeve.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Stupid Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Since California oficially became the second state to allow gay marriage, there have been a shitstorm of crazies spreading their fundy craziness all over the place.
Here's one of the best (and by the best, I mean the most hilariously retarded) arguments against gay marriage.
From www.drumwaster.com
Yesterday, a judicial panel of seven judges voted 4-3 to ignore the definition of marriage given in existing black-letter law by finding a “fundamental right” that has gone hitherto unnoticed for a century and a half. The last time this issue came up was Proposition 22, which passed by more than 20 points (61-39), yet those unelected judges ignore that to create a “compelling state interest” in gay marriage. (Which neatly sidesteps the utter lack of legal precedent, as well as the need to actually have any written laws supporting the judges as they attempt to arrive at their various decisions.)
Funny… wouldn’t there be a “compelling state interest” in one man-one woman marriages? After all, that is proven to be the most stable form of family, as well as being self-sufficient in creating future generations (something same-sex couples simply cannot do).
First of all, having a compelling state interest in gay marriage does not proclude having a compelling state interest in heterosexual marriage. And allowing gay marriage does not undermine heterosexual marriage. To assume that is to assume that gays who can't marry are thinking, "Gee, if I can't marry a man, I guess I'll turn straight and marry some chick!" Or that straights are thinking, "Aw, geez, now that gays are marrying, I don't wanna anymore. Nothing is worth the effort unless it is something that gays are specifically banned from doing."
By the way, there are people who really believe that allowing gay marriage will endanger heterosexual marriage because heteros will see it as "something gays do."
Case in point, "Crazy Larry" Auster,
Well, it has the effect of devaluing marriage. Men often don't want to get married, the social incentives, the prestige of marriage, need to be there if marriage is to happen. If you turn marriage in a soulless union of two "partners," no longer focused on the forming of a family and the raising of children, but on the convenience of the two "partners," you've stripped marriage of its specialness, the sense of joining something larger than yourself. Also, you've turned marriage into something which is based on a homosexual paradigm, which is not exactly going to increase its attraction to heterosexual men. So in that sense it would tend to make marriage less appealing.
Here's one of the best (and by the best, I mean the most hilariously retarded) arguments against gay marriage.
From www.drumwaster.com
Yesterday, a judicial panel of seven judges voted 4-3 to ignore the definition of marriage given in existing black-letter law by finding a “fundamental right” that has gone hitherto unnoticed for a century and a half. The last time this issue came up was Proposition 22, which passed by more than 20 points (61-39), yet those unelected judges ignore that to create a “compelling state interest” in gay marriage. (Which neatly sidesteps the utter lack of legal precedent, as well as the need to actually have any written laws supporting the judges as they attempt to arrive at their various decisions.)
Funny… wouldn’t there be a “compelling state interest” in one man-one woman marriages? After all, that is proven to be the most stable form of family, as well as being self-sufficient in creating future generations (something same-sex couples simply cannot do).
First of all, having a compelling state interest in gay marriage does not proclude having a compelling state interest in heterosexual marriage. And allowing gay marriage does not undermine heterosexual marriage. To assume that is to assume that gays who can't marry are thinking, "Gee, if I can't marry a man, I guess I'll turn straight and marry some chick!" Or that straights are thinking, "Aw, geez, now that gays are marrying, I don't wanna anymore. Nothing is worth the effort unless it is something that gays are specifically banned from doing."
By the way, there are people who really believe that allowing gay marriage will endanger heterosexual marriage because heteros will see it as "something gays do."
Case in point, "Crazy Larry" Auster,
Well, it has the effect of devaluing marriage. Men often don't want to get married, the social incentives, the prestige of marriage, need to be there if marriage is to happen. If you turn marriage in a soulless union of two "partners," no longer focused on the forming of a family and the raising of children, but on the convenience of the two "partners," you've stripped marriage of its specialness, the sense of joining something larger than yourself. Also, you've turned marriage into something which is based on a homosexual paradigm, which is not exactly going to increase its attraction to heterosexual men. So in that sense it would tend to make marriage less appealing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)