Spotted: Another Jackass - Driving an H2 in Bumper to Bumper Traffic

Driving an H2 in any non-commercial capacity is grossly wasteful. Driving an H2 in the city at any point in time is pretty obnoxious. But driving solo in an H2 during bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on Lake Shore Drive is a pretty bold signal that you are a thoroughly self-centered person in the worst sense of the word and just have total disregard for the current global situation. Climate change? People starving because prices have doubled for basic food staples? I don't know what you're talking about - I'm oblivious to all that nonsense while I execute my 6-mile commute in my perceived status symbol so I can impress other a-holes who care about such superficial things.

Is it a Good Thing that Racists are Allowed to Vote?

From the LA Times:

"Exit polls from Pennsylvania showed that about 20% of voters said race was a major factor in deciding whom to support. White voters who cited race as a factor went for Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin."

So, should racists be allowed to vote? (And this applies equally to white racists, black racists, Hispanic racists and Asian racists)

A Plea to DNC Chairman Howard Dean for Sanity in the Nomination Process

Image Source: Johns Hopkins University

To:
Howard Dean and Any Democratic Party “Super” Delegates with Whom You Care to Share This
(Note: this post is also being submitted to Mr. Dean via the DNC web site.)

From:
Art Sindlinger, a registered voter

What:
A Plea for Sanity Now and Some Consideration of the Longer Term Implications of Who Represents the Democratic Party in the 2008 General Election


Dear Chairman Dean:

Let me begin by telling you who I am. I am one of the educated professionals with whom Barack Obama’s message of aspiring to a better way of governing, a ‘post partisan’ way of governing, resonates. But by the sound of how this group of voters is characterized by the various talking heads – ‘news’ personalities and party luminaries alike – I’m not sure the Democratic party is all that interested in actually receiving my vote. Either that or they presume my vote is a lock regardless of who their nominee is. In my case, that’s a hugely flawed assumption. Though my votes in the last four presidential elections were Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I’m far from an automatic Democratic vote in the general election. My views are progressive on social issues but moderately conservative on fiscal issues, so no single candidate truly represents the whole of my views (i.e. I generally agree with the social programs Democrats wish to develop and fund, but I think they tend to do a piss-poor job of managing them. And I wouldn’t mind seeing the concept of individual accountability being discussed every now and again as my tax dollars move around in the great wealth redistribution game.) So each election I wrestle with the choice between a candidate / party that has a poor track record of spending my tax money ineffectively (though Bush has certainly broke new ground on the Republican side in this regard during his two terms) or a candidate / party that has a poor track record of wanting to legislate what I’m allowed to think and how I’m allowed to live my life. It is a very frustrating choice to make.

I am writing to you now to provide a direct view of one voter’s perspective on how this nominating process has unraveled in the last eight weeks. This year strikes me pretty clearly as a choice between (1) moving the Democratic Party backwards through the activation of base, shameless and manipulative tactics that may drive short-term results among an angry and lesser educated fraction of the electorate, or (2) moving the party forward and elevating the discussion by energizing the younger generation of voters, engaging the progressive minded among the country’s educated affluent and embracing independent voters.

To me that seems like no choice at all. Yet the circus carries on and it’s becoming less magical and less entertaining with every stop on the circuit. People are no longer captivated by the show but rather are transfixed by the car crash-esque spectacle of backstage bickering spilling out into the main ring. This is a great strategy if you’re running a cheap reality TV show. It’s a rather questionable strategy, though, if you’re trying to demonstrate competence and leadership that deserves support in the quest for becoming leader of our nation.

My point is you will lose me if the Democratic Party rewards this disingenuous nonsense and names Hillary Clinton as the Party’s nominee. You’ll lose my vote this election (I’ll either vote for McCain or just abstain) and it won’t be easy to bring me back in future elections.

I feel this way in part because it seems incredibly obvious that the process never needed to come down to this. In March the Democratic Party had the opportunity to capitalize on real momentum behind a new breed of politician, elevate the national discourse and begin charting the path to retaking the White House in November. Instead the Party has bowed to one arrogant candidate’s ego and feeling of entitlement. The Party has stood idly by as she has shamelessly spewed all manner of old school manipulative sound bites that appeal to the very worst instincts among the most vulnerable potential voters and do indeed inflict damage upon the Party's best option for November victory. Clinton’s desperate approach is truly emblematic of a Low Road to Victory strategy. If the Party’s objective is to de-motivate and alienate the thoughtful, the hopeful and the people who have a little discretionary income they might be willing to put into a general election campaign effort, mission accomplished. Congratulations.

However, since I recognize that Illinois is going to be a ‘blue’ state no matter what I personally do with my vote in November, I want you to know that not only will you lose my vote but I’ll also redirect my campaign contributions in the coming months to McCain. I would much rather cast my lot with him (who probably should have been president in 2000, for what it’s worth), warts and all, than do anything to help bring about the clusterf*ck this country will devolve into when Hillary galvanizes Congress into games of ‘gotcha’ and gridlock and triggers a great renaissance in rampant right wing jack-asserry among the population at large. Just thinking about what that will be like makes me want to check the real estate listings in Canada or Chile.

In conclusion, I am resigned to the reality that neither this letter nor any other expression of my views is likely to have any impact whatsoever on who will be the Democratic presidential nominee. But I wanted to be on the record so maybe one pundit or one of the Party powers-that-be might stop so cavalierly dismissing voters like me as being highly unlikely to turn away from the Democratic Party in November no matter how this nomination plays out. For this voter, at least, that is definitely not the case.

Sincerely,


Art Sindlinger

Hillary Clinton's 'Low Road to Victory' - New York Times

Below is an excerpt from the The Low Road to Victory - article

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."


I think the "low road" characterization is exactly right. It echoes a characterization Hunter S Thompson used for Nixon, which I referenced in this post. As ever, the Hillary mantra appears to remain 'personal victory no matter the cost'.

What boggles and saddens me is that her supporters believe they will benefit somehow if she does win through these means. A Hillary presidential victory would ensure that congressional gridlock achieved new lows and the country's possible path toward a more progressive and sane future will be further retarded after what has already been a lousy 8 years under Bush.

I simply don't understand how Hillary's supporters don't see this. They take myopic ignorance to new levels. It would be fascinating to watch people so avidly rooting for what will be their own demise if the stakes weren't so high for the rest of us. But, like the H.L. Mencken quote says, 'no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public', and therefore pathological weasels can continue to fleece a moronic electorate for their own personal gains.

Jon Stewart Gets it Right re: Hillary's Disingenuous, Manipulative and Transparently Opportunistic Tactics

Thanks to MarkN for this clip: