Unless you missed the news, Elizabeth Edwards passed away today. She was 61.
I wrote about Mrs. Edwards' cancer back in 2007 (here). Let me echo something I said back then. There will be those who say this is God's punishment for something or another. Shame on them.
My heart goes out to the family. She left three children, including a 12 year old and a 10 year old. These children will have to go on without a mother.
One interesting tidbit that I found was that Edwards' son Wade (who was killed in an auto accident at age 16) was honored by then First Lady Clinton for an essay he wrote. After his death, the essay and his obituary were entered into the Congressional Record by Senator Jesse Helms (for those unfamiliar with Helms, he would have seldom agree with the Edwardses politically).
Showing posts with label edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edwards. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Game Change - Overview
Ok, I've shared my notes from the book, it's time to wrap it all up. First, thanks to all of those who stuck it through. I've shared emails with a few people about the book and have been promised a deep discussion with the person who loaned me the book. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.
About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.
Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.
Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).
H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.
B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.
M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.
B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.
I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.
The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.
More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.
I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.
About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.
Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.
Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).
H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.
B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.
M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.
B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.
I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.
The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.
More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 21-Epilogue
FINAL set of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers the last part of the book - after the primaries. After this post, I will make one or two final posts to wrap up my ideas
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 21 - Obama's reaction to the September financial meltdown. He was calling the Fed Chief and Treasury Secretary. McCain's reaction changed with the wind. It appears to me that Obama was already in transition.
A view of TARP pages 381 & 382 - very necessary. How much TARP was needed - not clear.
Pg 385. McCain cancels Letterman. It was Letterman's reaction and the actions of some of his guests that has convinced me that Letterman is not an entertainer, he's a politician. As such, I'll watch him when I agree with him, turn him off when I don't.
Obama's "above my paygrade" comment about a fetus' human rights was ridiculed (p390) This is the one time (well not the only time) I agreed with him. However, he received a pay increase a few months later and changed his tune (or never meant it in the first place).
Hillary's comment (pg 393) "God wants (Obama) to win." - A very telling point.
Chapter 22 - Pg 396 Palin was concerned about her image in Alaska., even though it was solidly Republican.
Katie Couric interview with Palin - she didn't see it to go that badly, but when it came out she blamed oters, said she shouldn't have done the interview. Palin said "if I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." (pg 401)
Lieberman (Jewish) prays with Palin (Christian) "providing (her) with Talmudic wisdom" (pg 403) Interesting combination.
Debate prep and the election campaign was hard n Palin. She was away from her family. All this impacted her. When her campaign staff focused on what she did well, she excelled. When they took her down the usual campaign roads, she did miserably.
Palin goes on attack (pg 408). "She was emerging as a big-time control freak." (Pg 409).
Page 413 - Biden said "mark my words, it will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." I was always amazed that this fot flack from the left and the right.The book implies that it hurt Obama because it reminded people of his inexperience. I thought it showed Biden's confidence.
Pg 415 - "The truth is, the McCain people did fail Palin."
Chapter 23 - (Page 421) The McCain battler gets ugly. Very ugly. McCain tried to rein it in.
Colin Powell saw "McCain's selection of Palin... as polarizing." How? If she was as ineffective as the book says, how could she be effective at polarizing?
"How fully Obama understood the alchemy or tides of history, the tides of history, the collision of man and moment.. was impossible to know." (Pg 426 - IMPORTANT POINT!)
Epilogue - Hillary as Secretary of State. "Hillary felt the pull of patriotism and the call of duty. She believed that when the president asked a person to serve, there was an imperative to say yes." The first time I encountered this feeling was in the documentary "Fog of War" - a story about Robert McNamara (see here for my post on that story).
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 21 - Obama's reaction to the September financial meltdown. He was calling the Fed Chief and Treasury Secretary. McCain's reaction changed with the wind. It appears to me that Obama was already in transition.
A view of TARP pages 381 & 382 - very necessary. How much TARP was needed - not clear.
Pg 385. McCain cancels Letterman. It was Letterman's reaction and the actions of some of his guests that has convinced me that Letterman is not an entertainer, he's a politician. As such, I'll watch him when I agree with him, turn him off when I don't.
Obama's "above my paygrade" comment about a fetus' human rights was ridiculed (p390) This is the one time (well not the only time) I agreed with him. However, he received a pay increase a few months later and changed his tune (or never meant it in the first place).
Hillary's comment (pg 393) "God wants (Obama) to win." - A very telling point.
Chapter 22 - Pg 396 Palin was concerned about her image in Alaska., even though it was solidly Republican.
Katie Couric interview with Palin - she didn't see it to go that badly, but when it came out she blamed oters, said she shouldn't have done the interview. Palin said "if I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." (pg 401)
Lieberman (Jewish) prays with Palin (Christian) "providing (her) with Talmudic wisdom" (pg 403) Interesting combination.
Debate prep and the election campaign was hard n Palin. She was away from her family. All this impacted her. When her campaign staff focused on what she did well, she excelled. When they took her down the usual campaign roads, she did miserably.
Palin goes on attack (pg 408). "She was emerging as a big-time control freak." (Pg 409).
Page 413 - Biden said "mark my words, it will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." I was always amazed that this fot flack from the left and the right.The book implies that it hurt Obama because it reminded people of his inexperience. I thought it showed Biden's confidence.
Pg 415 - "The truth is, the McCain people did fail Palin."
Chapter 23 - (Page 421) The McCain battler gets ugly. Very ugly. McCain tried to rein it in.
Colin Powell saw "McCain's selection of Palin... as polarizing." How? If she was as ineffective as the book says, how could she be effective at polarizing?
"How fully Obama understood the alchemy or tides of history, the tides of history, the collision of man and moment.. was impossible to know." (Pg 426 - IMPORTANT POINT!)
Epilogue - Hillary as Secretary of State. "Hillary felt the pull of patriotism and the call of duty. She believed that when the president asked a person to serve, there was an imperative to say yes." The first time I encountered this feeling was in the documentary "Fog of War" - a story about Robert McNamara (see here for my post on that story).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 18-20
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers part of part 3 of the book - after the primaries.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 18 - "McCain and Obama had much in common. Both ... argued that Washington was broken... and ascribed its (problems) to hyperpartisanship..." (pg 323 - seems even more broken and more partisanship now than it did in 2008)
"There was one minor hitch... McCain and Obama didn't like each other." I would go further and state that they don't understand each other Michele's "proud of my country" comment was a slap in the face of many veterans and patriots. But she never understood (and still doesn't understand) why.
Obama u-turns on campaign finance. No one should be surprised. He said "you can always change your mind" (see chapter 2 comments).
"The lengthy Democratic nomination fight meant that the Obama forces had operations in nearly every state." In contrast "in mid-June (McCain's campaign) was still a mess." (Pg 328 - a big bonus for Candidate Obama. Their response to the situation - McCain built a wall between him and the press, Obama tore down the wall. As a result, the press saw them differently).
Did Obama play the race card? Pg 332 says he did. Did McCain? pg 331 says he "warned his team to steer clear of anything that might open him up to that charge." Pg. 333 Obama sees McCain as playing the race card. Can black & white compete without one thinking the other has brought race into the challenge? This chapter is almost convincing me that Obama is not past the racial issues.
Chapter 19 " Process mattered to Obama." (Pg 338 - How did this play in his decision to go for the surge in Afghanistan? How about his handling of the Shirley Sherrod issue?)
Pg 339 Michelle Obama remembers Hillary's comments about RFK. To me, she seems very sensitive.
More of Edwards' lies. To his wife and to everyone. I agree with Warren Buffett. People who contributed to his campaign should ask for a refund.
The DNC - everything fell into place. H. Clinton, B. Clinton, the delegates. Then Obama delivered the speech he need to deliver. Nothing could go wrong.
Chater 20 - McCain, Lieberman and Graham "the trio was dubbed the Three Amigos." (pg354 - sounds more like old college buddies, always looking back and what used to be.)
"McCain's VP selection - pro-choice pick would cost him votes among Republicans and gain him few, if any independents." (pg 358)
I get general feeling of rushto vet Palin (pg 360) "They weren't searching for problems, they were looking for a last second solution." (pg 362) McCain's attitude? "High risk, high reward." (pg 363)
"The attacks on Palin were as frantic as the vetting process." (pg 367)
The clothes (pg 369)
Her tutoring process (pg 370). She seems a fast learner, with a lot to learn. Will we see more of her on 2012?
Pg 373 McCain picked up a lot of white female vote with Palin. Bill Clinton said "Good old boys, they can relate to her."
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 18 - "McCain and Obama had much in common. Both ... argued that Washington was broken... and ascribed its (problems) to hyperpartisanship..." (pg 323 - seems even more broken and more partisanship now than it did in 2008)
"There was one minor hitch... McCain and Obama didn't like each other." I would go further and state that they don't understand each other Michele's "proud of my country" comment was a slap in the face of many veterans and patriots. But she never understood (and still doesn't understand) why.
Obama u-turns on campaign finance. No one should be surprised. He said "you can always change your mind" (see chapter 2 comments).
"The lengthy Democratic nomination fight meant that the Obama forces had operations in nearly every state." In contrast "in mid-June (McCain's campaign) was still a mess." (Pg 328 - a big bonus for Candidate Obama. Their response to the situation - McCain built a wall between him and the press, Obama tore down the wall. As a result, the press saw them differently).
Did Obama play the race card? Pg 332 says he did. Did McCain? pg 331 says he "warned his team to steer clear of anything that might open him up to that charge." Pg. 333 Obama sees McCain as playing the race card. Can black & white compete without one thinking the other has brought race into the challenge? This chapter is almost convincing me that Obama is not past the racial issues.
Chapter 19 " Process mattered to Obama." (Pg 338 - How did this play in his decision to go for the surge in Afghanistan? How about his handling of the Shirley Sherrod issue?)
Pg 339 Michelle Obama remembers Hillary's comments about RFK. To me, she seems very sensitive.
More of Edwards' lies. To his wife and to everyone. I agree with Warren Buffett. People who contributed to his campaign should ask for a refund.
The DNC - everything fell into place. H. Clinton, B. Clinton, the delegates. Then Obama delivered the speech he need to deliver. Nothing could go wrong.
Chater 20 - McCain, Lieberman and Graham "the trio was dubbed the Three Amigos." (pg354 - sounds more like old college buddies, always looking back and what used to be.)
"McCain's VP selection - pro-choice pick would cost him votes among Republicans and gain him few, if any independents." (pg 358)
I get general feeling of rushto vet Palin (pg 360) "They weren't searching for problems, they were looking for a last second solution." (pg 362) McCain's attitude? "High risk, high reward." (pg 363)
"The attacks on Palin were as frantic as the vetting process." (pg 367)
The clothes (pg 369)
Her tutoring process (pg 370). She seems a fast learner, with a lot to learn. Will we see more of her on 2012?
Pg 373 McCain picked up a lot of white female vote with Palin. Bill Clinton said "Good old boys, they can relate to her."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 12-14
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). This completes Part 1 of the book.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 12 - "The Gores (Al & Tipper) still looked askance at the Clinton marriage..." Comment what do they think of it now that their marriage has ended? There but for the grace of God, go I.
When women's groups didn't come to Hillary and Chelsea's defense, when MSNB's David Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out", Hillary said "where (are) the women's groups? ... If they get away with this... they deserve what they get." Comment - What about the women's groups vs. Bill's philandering and treating women as disposable? Seems they were quiet then. Hillary comes across in several chapters as bitter and vindictive.
"Bill (Clinton) received a call from George W. Bush. The current and former presidents spoke more often than almost anyone knew; from time to time, when 43 was bored he would call 42 to chew the fat." Comment - reminds me of stories about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. If 43 & 42 got along as well as this implies - why can't their followers?
Chapter 13 - Obama vs. Wright. This chapter interested me the most as I'd followed this encounter closely. I think it helps define Obama's character, his view on racial issues and his religion.
Obama's "initial attraction to (Wright) ... sprang from it's commitment to the social gospel." (pg236) Comment - is that what Christianity is about? A better way to serve people? What happened to the idea of a better way to serve Him?
"Obama liked the mixture of working class and buppie congreants in the church" (pg 236) yet "in 1998 and 2001 the Obamans had rarely attended services" (pg 235). Comment - Obama put a lot of faith in something he knew little about. As a Christian, I should study Christ, and make sure whoever I follow, follows Him.
Regarding Obama's speech on Racism, he said "This is tough. ... But I'm running for president, and this is what you do when you run for president. I want this to be a teaching moment." Comment - I think this defines why Obama wanted to be president and why he thought he should. He has something to teach us. In 20 years, if he looks back at today, what will he think of this attitude?
I remember when I was 22, I threatened to sue a lawyer. I look back and realize how immature I was. That's the way I see the current president, as an immature young man, who thinks he has something to teach us.
I took no notes on Chapter 14. It was more of the politics of the end of the primary process and continued to show Clinton as bitter and Obama as wanting it to be over. Now on to Part 2, about the Republicans.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 12 - "The Gores (Al & Tipper) still looked askance at the Clinton marriage..." Comment what do they think of it now that their marriage has ended? There but for the grace of God, go I.
When women's groups didn't come to Hillary and Chelsea's defense, when MSNB's David Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out", Hillary said "where (are) the women's groups? ... If they get away with this... they deserve what they get." Comment - What about the women's groups vs. Bill's philandering and treating women as disposable? Seems they were quiet then. Hillary comes across in several chapters as bitter and vindictive.
"Bill (Clinton) received a call from George W. Bush. The current and former presidents spoke more often than almost anyone knew; from time to time, when 43 was bored he would call 42 to chew the fat." Comment - reminds me of stories about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. If 43 & 42 got along as well as this implies - why can't their followers?
Chapter 13 - Obama vs. Wright. This chapter interested me the most as I'd followed this encounter closely. I think it helps define Obama's character, his view on racial issues and his religion.
Obama's "initial attraction to (Wright) ... sprang from it's commitment to the social gospel." (pg236) Comment - is that what Christianity is about? A better way to serve people? What happened to the idea of a better way to serve Him?
"Obama liked the mixture of working class and buppie congreants in the church" (pg 236) yet "in 1998 and 2001 the Obamans had rarely attended services" (pg 235). Comment - Obama put a lot of faith in something he knew little about. As a Christian, I should study Christ, and make sure whoever I follow, follows Him.
Regarding Obama's speech on Racism, he said "This is tough. ... But I'm running for president, and this is what you do when you run for president. I want this to be a teaching moment." Comment - I think this defines why Obama wanted to be president and why he thought he should. He has something to teach us. In 20 years, if he looks back at today, what will he think of this attitude?
I remember when I was 22, I threatened to sue a lawyer. I look back and realize how immature I was. That's the way I see the current president, as an immature young man, who thinks he has something to teach us.
I took no notes on Chapter 14. It was more of the politics of the end of the primary process and continued to show Clinton as bitter and Obama as wanting it to be over. Now on to Part 2, about the Republicans.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 9-11
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). My blogging is about to catch up with my reading, I need to read more!!
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 9 - Oprah "anointed" Obama (p159) Didn't she claim to be neutral and offer equal time to all candidates? Did she "anoint" McCain? I don't fault her for choosing a candidate. Everyone is entitled. But she shouldn't choose a candidate, then claim to be neutral.
Edwards kept fighting even after the Enquirer published the second article about his affair. I agree with what Warren Buffet said - people who gave him money should demand a refund.
Chapter 10 - This book explains several times what H. Clinton is wearing. But rarely (or never) what the men are wearing. Is there a double standard? It also uses words used by the conservatives - e.g. "anointed" and "coronation" - but frowned on by liberals. Could it be the conservatives were right? (sorry if I sound cynical)
Chapter 11 - Hillary's message - "The politics of common purpose" (pg194) Thought - Hillary was al about reaching across the aisle, Obama was about change. But he expected to unify?
"Nothing agitated the Clintons more than the prospect of being outspent in a campaign; the fear of it drove them to such extremes as the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom" (pg 194 - I knew there were allegations of this, but was it true? Is this legal?)
"Invocations of Obama's youthful cocaine use - to suggest that the Clintons were playing the race card." (pg 198 - Obama's aides claimed it was racist without his knowledge. He tried to defuse it. This matches my understanding of Obama's points on racism. See my previous comments, here, here, here and here.)
"The candidate (Obama) had presented an image - caustic, sarcastic and thin-skinned (pg 206 - his aides were afraid of what might happen if things got nasty)
Bill Clinton ate at Lizard's Thicket in Columbia. I've eaten there several times, good Southern food.
Page 209 brings back memories of Willie Horton and calls it racist. I remember the issue well and I remember the ads. I never saw them as racist - I saw them as anti-Dukakis.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 9 - Oprah "anointed" Obama (p159) Didn't she claim to be neutral and offer equal time to all candidates? Did she "anoint" McCain? I don't fault her for choosing a candidate. Everyone is entitled. But she shouldn't choose a candidate, then claim to be neutral.
Edwards kept fighting even after the Enquirer published the second article about his affair. I agree with what Warren Buffet said - people who gave him money should demand a refund.
Chapter 10 - This book explains several times what H. Clinton is wearing. But rarely (or never) what the men are wearing. Is there a double standard? It also uses words used by the conservatives - e.g. "anointed" and "coronation" - but frowned on by liberals. Could it be the conservatives were right? (sorry if I sound cynical)
Chapter 11 - Hillary's message - "The politics of common purpose" (pg194) Thought - Hillary was al about reaching across the aisle, Obama was about change. But he expected to unify?
"Nothing agitated the Clintons more than the prospect of being outspent in a campaign; the fear of it drove them to such extremes as the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom" (pg 194 - I knew there were allegations of this, but was it true? Is this legal?)
"Invocations of Obama's youthful cocaine use - to suggest that the Clintons were playing the race card." (pg 198 - Obama's aides claimed it was racist without his knowledge. He tried to defuse it. This matches my understanding of Obama's points on racism. See my previous comments, here, here, here and here.)
"The candidate (Obama) had presented an image - caustic, sarcastic and thin-skinned (pg 206 - his aides were afraid of what might happen if things got nasty)
Bill Clinton ate at Lizard's Thicket in Columbia. I've eaten there several times, good Southern food.
Page 209 brings back memories of Willie Horton and calls it racist. I remember the issue well and I remember the ads. I never saw them as racist - I saw them as anti-Dukakis.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 3-5
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards).
As mentioned yesterday, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 3 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet". Her is Hillary Clinton. I suppose the title chapter is a take-off on the wings beneath her wings. From what I've read in this chapter and others, the left leaning Dems had a lot of problems with Hillary's vote on Iraq. Leading into the primaries, she was trying to find a way to back-peddle on the vote. Explain her actions. Whatever words you want to call it. I've written before about flip-flopping, I don't see it as bad if it fits. I don't see this as a major change for her.
Lots of discussion in this chapter about her bi-partisanship -- but not really. Seems she was appearing bi-partisan and still trying to ram her Democratic agenda through. I get the feeling she can be pragmatic when it fits. The bi-partisanship and Iraq vote cost her a lot of liberal votes.
Chapter 4 - "Getting to Yes" - the title matches the name of a book on negotiations. Good book. My only note from this chapter is a quote from Obama when he saw some of the problems with Rev. Wright starting up. "I think the world would look at us differently the day I got elected, because it would be a confirmation of what America is about, the constant perfecting of who we are. I think I can help repair the damage that's been done."
I need to look back, but it was never clear to me what damage Obama saw. This seems to relate to what the right leaning people have called his "apology tour" after his election.
Chapter 5 - "The Invincibles" - Popular idea in this timeframe was that the Clintons were invincible. Hillary hired a "team of rivals" to run her campaign. I'd heard someone talk about Bush's team all being in sync (this was described as a bad thing). In this case, the team of rivals were so conflicted, they didn't help her.
Clinton saw Obama as jumping in line (pg 85). She saw it as a personal betrayal when her supporters went over to him. Obama saw Hillary as being unable to "bring the country together" (pg 87 - he hasn't done much better)
Clintons saw a "fawning press coverage of Obama" (pg 90). The Republicans saw this also.
More coverage to come
As mentioned yesterday, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 3 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet". Her is Hillary Clinton. I suppose the title chapter is a take-off on the wings beneath her wings. From what I've read in this chapter and others, the left leaning Dems had a lot of problems with Hillary's vote on Iraq. Leading into the primaries, she was trying to find a way to back-peddle on the vote. Explain her actions. Whatever words you want to call it. I've written before about flip-flopping, I don't see it as bad if it fits. I don't see this as a major change for her.
Lots of discussion in this chapter about her bi-partisanship -- but not really. Seems she was appearing bi-partisan and still trying to ram her Democratic agenda through. I get the feeling she can be pragmatic when it fits. The bi-partisanship and Iraq vote cost her a lot of liberal votes.
Chapter 4 - "Getting to Yes" - the title matches the name of a book on negotiations. Good book. My only note from this chapter is a quote from Obama when he saw some of the problems with Rev. Wright starting up. "I think the world would look at us differently the day I got elected, because it would be a confirmation of what America is about, the constant perfecting of who we are. I think I can help repair the damage that's been done."
I need to look back, but it was never clear to me what damage Obama saw. This seems to relate to what the right leaning people have called his "apology tour" after his election.
Chapter 5 - "The Invincibles" - Popular idea in this timeframe was that the Clintons were invincible. Hillary hired a "team of rivals" to run her campaign. I'd heard someone talk about Bush's team all being in sync (this was described as a bad thing). In this case, the team of rivals were so conflicted, they didn't help her.
Clinton saw Obama as jumping in line (pg 85). She saw it as a personal betrayal when her supporters went over to him. Obama saw Hillary as being unable to "bring the country together" (pg 87 - he hasn't done much better)
Clintons saw a "fawning press coverage of Obama" (pg 90). The Republicans saw this also.
More coverage to come
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Game Change
A friend loaned me the book "Game Change" by John Heilmann and Mark Halperin. Thse two reporters had a lot of behind the scenes looks at the 2008 election and the book describes those scenes.
The book is NOT about the policies of the people involved in the election. I doubt seriously that it will change anyone's mind about the candidates. It may give you some insight into why they do things they way they do. And it may give some insight into their character.
I have not finished reading the book. The first 14 chapters are about the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwardses. The next three are about McCain/Palin. It's not clear who the last six are about, but I'm thinking it's about President Obama. After all, he did win.
So starting today, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
One thing I've noticed about the book and the characters involved, is their language. There is a lot of profanity. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, given the language our VP has used on micro-phone, but it still disturbs me. I'm by no means perfect, but I hope my language has never been that bad.
Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton thought about running for presidency in 2004, but decided to stay loyal to her promise to serve her Senate term. Chelsea did not want her to run and this had a big influence on her. She was not very respectful of a lot of other Democrats. She was also somewhat resentful of playing "second fiddle" to former President Bill Clinton.
Chapter 2 - Obama sees President Bush's "empathy deficit." On 1/22/06, he committed not to run for president. "You can always change your mind" (pg 30). (Compare this to Clinton's attitude). He had a low respect for senate life - seemed bored by the whole process.
More comments from the book later, now it's time for your comments
The book is NOT about the policies of the people involved in the election. I doubt seriously that it will change anyone's mind about the candidates. It may give you some insight into why they do things they way they do. And it may give some insight into their character.
I have not finished reading the book. The first 14 chapters are about the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwardses. The next three are about McCain/Palin. It's not clear who the last six are about, but I'm thinking it's about President Obama. After all, he did win.
So starting today, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
One thing I've noticed about the book and the characters involved, is their language. There is a lot of profanity. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, given the language our VP has used on micro-phone, but it still disturbs me. I'm by no means perfect, but I hope my language has never been that bad.
Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton thought about running for presidency in 2004, but decided to stay loyal to her promise to serve her Senate term. Chelsea did not want her to run and this had a big influence on her. She was not very respectful of a lot of other Democrats. She was also somewhat resentful of playing "second fiddle" to former President Bill Clinton.
Chapter 2 - Obama sees President Bush's "empathy deficit." On 1/22/06, he committed not to run for president. "You can always change your mind" (pg 30). (Compare this to Clinton's attitude). He had a low respect for senate life - seemed bored by the whole process.
More comments from the book later, now it's time for your comments
Monday, October 15, 2007
Texas Student Booted - Follow-up
Several days ago, I posted an entry titled Texas Student Booted from School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt. In the post, I said “the question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school?” I sided with the schools.
I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.
While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.
Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.
Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.
In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).
In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).
But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).
Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”
Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”
The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.
In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)
Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.
The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."
In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.
The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)
But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)
And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)
Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.
Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.
On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.
My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.
If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.
It’s possible to effect change within the system.
Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.
I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.
While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.
Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.
Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.
In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).
In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).
But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).
Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”
Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”
The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.
In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)
Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.
The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."
In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.
The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)
But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)
And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)
Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.
Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.
On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.
My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.
If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.
It’s possible to effect change within the system.
Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Great post in another blog
One of my sometimes-readers had a humorous post that I loved. I hope you'll love it too.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Senator from North Carolina
Interesting article at Economist.com on Sen. Edwards and his run for the presidency. It has something for everyone, the anti-Edwards camp can point and say "see, I told you" and the pro-Edwards camp can do the same.
Most interesting to me was the emphasis on the detail the Edwards campaign has given on it's plans. I applaud the Senator from NC for being forthright. I do not agree with his plans, but at least he states them. And the short description provided in this article makes me want to learn more about the details.
Most interesting to me was the emphasis on the detail the Edwards campaign has given on it's plans. I applaud the Senator from NC for being forthright. I do not agree with his plans, but at least he states them. And the short description provided in this article makes me want to learn more about the details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)