Quick political rant
(with more thoughtful analysis to follow when I'm not running late.)
I am furious with Obama right now for two reasons:
1) His swift-boating of Clinton on NAFTA when their positions are identical. The only "evidence" he uses to back this up is Clinton saying she was proud of her husband's accomplishments as president, which as we all know included NAFTA. Why the fuck shouldn't she be proud that her husband became president and accomplished what he set out to do?
2) His constant gender-baiting and denigration of Clinton's experience. Either Clinton's entire political experience amounts to no more than "attending tea parties" or she claims to have been "co-president." "She can't have it both ways." Oh, really? So she was either a proper Southern belle without a political thought in her head, or she was a scheming Lady MacBeth who diabolically plotted to gain power through her husband. She couldn't have been, oh, say a member of a team supporting a Democratic presidential administration who was intelligent enough to make some valuable contributions? This is blatantly sexist. Former vice-presidents and cabinet members are allowed to cite their experience working under a presidential administration without being dismissed as wannabe "co-presidents." Yes, she should have to explain the differences between her policies and Bill's, but the assumption that she's incapable of doing anything more than blindly obeying her husband deeply offends me.
Edit
Here are two really good links in which the candidates discuss Nafta (courtesy of sister_shaman.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336481
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html
Edit II
Factcheck.org agrees with me: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html
I am furious with Obama right now for two reasons:
1) His swift-boating of Clinton on NAFTA when their positions are identical. The only "evidence" he uses to back this up is Clinton saying she was proud of her husband's accomplishments as president, which as we all know included NAFTA. Why the fuck shouldn't she be proud that her husband became president and accomplished what he set out to do?
2) His constant gender-baiting and denigration of Clinton's experience. Either Clinton's entire political experience amounts to no more than "attending tea parties" or she claims to have been "co-president." "She can't have it both ways." Oh, really? So she was either a proper Southern belle without a political thought in her head, or she was a scheming Lady MacBeth who diabolically plotted to gain power through her husband. She couldn't have been, oh, say a member of a team supporting a Democratic presidential administration who was intelligent enough to make some valuable contributions? This is blatantly sexist. Former vice-presidents and cabinet members are allowed to cite their experience working under a presidential administration without being dismissed as wannabe "co-presidents." Yes, she should have to explain the differences between her policies and Bill's, but the assumption that she's incapable of doing anything more than blindly obeying her husband deeply offends me.
Edit
Here are two really good links in which the candidates discuss Nafta (courtesy of sister_shaman.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336481
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html
Edit II
Factcheck.org agrees with me: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html