Entries for June 2008

I commend to you a very thoughtful critique of the Obama flip-flop question in today's New York Times by op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. He considers the type of policies an Obama administration might support, coming to the (unstated but implied) conclusion that it's kind of hard to divine, because the candidate has changed substantive positions so many times:

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration's behest.

This blog entry is written mainly in response to comments posted by readers during the past week and a half who have hung the monikers "Republican" and "feminist" on me. The comments strike me as odd because for the most part they are polar opposites (yes, there are a few Republican feminists around, but they're no longer a force in the GOP), and neither one is apropos.

Eight years ago, Ralph Nader appointed himself Green Party candidate for president, cobbling together the mantra that candidates Bush and Gore were so similar he needed to enter the race to give voters a real choice.

There are few if any admirable political figures in Washington, D.C., these days. But one whose under-the-radar work calls for high praise is Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican. Whitfield's stalwart concern for horses is nothing short of spectacular, particularly given the fact he hails from the Bluegrass State. In Kentucky, the political muscle of horse breeders and trainers (many of whom oppose animal welfare laws because they interfere with profits) reigns, or should I say, reigns supreme. I have written about Whitfield in the past, but his nonstop push to protect horses from neglect, slaughter, and abuse deserves revisiting.

Whitfield most recently worked with a small group of members of Congress to hold last week's subcommittee hearing on thoroughbred racing. At that hearing, members of Congress publicly "scolded the horse racing industry for endangering thoroughbreds with lax drug policies and faulty breeding, and said the sport emphasized greed over transparency," according to the Associated Press.

When a friend last week E-mailed a picture of Sen. Barack Obama standing in front of a new campaign seal, I thought the emblem was a put-up job by the right wing. I decided not to blog about it then because I was on vacation and could not verify the accuracy of the picture, seen on this link to Ad Age's website.

Turns out, it was no put-up job. It was in fact created by the Obama campaign. Shortly after delivering it to the American public, the campaign unceremoniously slaughtered the poor seal. Whoever had the combination of gall and stupidity to (A) create and (B) use that seal in public ought to be summarily dismissed.

The seal is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Obama campaign: presumptuousness, self-aggrandizement in lieu of substance, unadulterated hunger for power and social climbing. The seal makes him look as if he has appointed himself president before being elected to the post. This is such a mark of bad judgment it makes one think: God help the American public if voters give him the White House job.

Both presidential candidates spent the weekend trying to explain away recent policy reversals. The predominant question for voters this November may well become: Whose list of flip-flops is longer and more egregious?

From CNN.com:

Days after both men reversed course on major issues, the presidential campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain spent much of Sunday's talk-show circuit working to ensure accusations of "flip-flopping" don't stick.

Sen. Barack Obama's decision to go back on his word and reject federal campaign financing is being hailed by fellow Democrats as a brilliant move. It is anything but.

Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said Friday on Washington all-news radio station WTOP that Obama is doing the "right thing" by rejecting federal financing because his campaign has generated small donations from more than 1 million small donors.

On Wednesday, I discussed collaborative divorce. The next trend, legalized friendships, should be of particular importance to older Americans. It was described this week in the Boston Globe as follows:

Now, a number of scholars are seeking to shore up friendship...by granting it legal recognition. Some of the rights and privileges restricted to family, they argue, should be given to friends. These could be invoked on a case-by-case basis—eligibility to take time off to care for a sick friend under an equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. Or they could take the form of an official legal arrangement between two friends, designating a bundle of mutual rights and privileges... .