I took today off to get some work done on my car - blech - it was more work than I had expected.  How long are rotors supposed to last anyway?  It seems I replace them every other year!!

At any rate, I was at Firestone for 4 frigging hours.  I was outside, moping around, when another customer walked up to me and started talking to me.  He was an elderly gentleman, I would say in his late 70's.  Very nice man - he also got hit with more repairs than he had expected and we were complaining about the high cost of parts.  Which led to gas prices, which led to who is to blame.  

He blamed Bush for a lack of energy program.  He mentioned JFK and how when JFK stated we would put a man on the moon in 10 years, damn it, the US did it.  He stated why didn't Bush make a statement about energy independence and spurring the growth in research and development sectors.

I mentioned Reagan, telling him about the solar panels that Carter had installed in the WH and how Reagan tore them out.  He hadn't heard that story before and asked rhetorically "Why did Reagan take them out?"  We talked about global warming and how it would be a cultural mindset change in the United States, as everywhere you go, everything seems to be bottled, packaged, wrapped, and shipped in plastic.  

This nice man began talking about Obama - he was scared of him.  He felt that Obama was a very intelligent man whose claim to fame was his really wonderful speeches, but was scared of and didn't buy into all of the "change" and "yes, we can" speeches.

I looked him in the eye and stated "you know, I voted for Hillary in the primaries."  He responded "I did as well".  And I went on stating that we talked about the cultural mindset change about habits with oil and plastic products.  I mentioned that I didn't buy into all of the rhetoric, but Obama did inspire a lot of people.  He retorted by stating "By justing stating the word change?"  I replied, well, Obama is more than just words - sure, it started out like that to me, but I have read up on his plans, and although I may not agree with some of them, he does have ideas.  And just as JFK inspired people, I reminded him of his words earlier to me, Obama inspires a lot of folks as well, and that hopefully, will enact the mindset of changing our culture.

He nodded and stated, yes, Obama was a hell of a lot better than McCain, and if Obama tries to push something that is unpopular, the Congress will push back.  And I grinned and stated that is the beauty of our system.  Checks and balances.  

We chatted some more and I felt good about talking to this man - a person who voted like me in the primaries, has some doubts, a little nervous, but in the end, we both felt good about the democratic nominee - even if he wasn't our first choice.

I am not the best spokesperson for Senator Obama, as I stated I am an unenthusiastic supporter.  However, I think this was a plus today.  I was not an eager beaver, not spouting talking points, expressing my disappointment over Hillary's loss, but I was able to bond with this man because of that.  I know that both he & I will vote for Obama this fall.  

The point of this story?  Perhaps the way to reach people like him is to have people like me share my story with him.   Sometimes, really enthusiastic supporters can turn off a person with doubts and the way to reach them is to have someone who has the same backstory and can provide the empathy and bond over the loss and to bond together in our support for the democratic nominee and to win in the General Election.

Up front, for those who don't know me.  I am a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.  I will still strongly call out those who keep stating Obama is the nominee, as he is quite not there yet.  And I will still defend her and what she stands for.

I have no illusions, however.   I believe that Obama will be our Democratic nominee this upcoming week.  He will get the SD's to swing over.  I also believe once that happens, Hillary will concede and rally her supporters to follow her lead as she endorses Obama.  Hillary has NEVER gave anyone any indication that she would not support the Democratic nominee.  Her campaign has been stating that this primary is over once one of them reaches the magic number, despite the talk of Denver. Of course, they are going to mention Denver.  That's politics.  Since she hasn't conceded, of course they aren't going to state they are giving up.  

However, they have given themselves an out - with reaching the required number of delegates.  Hillary will not be seen as a quitter or loser, but hopefully, as a strong candidate who went to the finish line, but missed it by "that much".  

I have no doubts about the Clinton's - they have spent their whole life in Democratic politics and have strongly supported many Democrats, even some that didn't endorse them in this year's primary.  If we have learned anything, thru Bill Clinton's style, they really know that this is politics.   And politics is about supporting each other, even when there are some bitterness or disapproval.  Hell, I don't even think that the Clinton's or the Obama's really dislike each other, or that they have such bitterness towards each other.  If Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could get along and respect each other, why on earth do people think that these folks, who share the same ideals and goals, would not?

What is the point of this diary and my ramblings?  I am sick.  Sick to death of seeing things like
a) Hillary should run as an independent.  Sorry, Charlie.  Look at Hillary and Bill's whole history.  They are not leaving the Democratic party until they are dead.

b) McClinton Voters.  Sigh.  That is the ULTIMATE disrespect towards Hillary I have ever seen.  Sure, at one point, I was thinking of not voting or voting Nader - briefly.  However, the thought of voting for John McCain just because Hillary may not be our Democratic nominee is a slap in her face.  You may think this is the ultimate sign of loyalty, but it isn't.

Loyalty:  Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person or cause.  

I get it - I am loyal to Hillary as well.  But what or who is Hillary loyal to, in terms of this years' General Election, if she is not the nominee?  The cause.  The ongoing cause to promoting our democratic and progressive ideals, such as getting out of Iraq, Universal Health Care, Education, economy, Social Security and so many other issues that are judged on the Supreme Court - Roe V Wade is a biggie.  How we conduct ourselves here at home and around the world;  regaining respect.

This is what Hillary's cause is.  It is the same as Obama's.  Note, I stated the cause, not how we get there.  UHC is one of the issues that I want Hillary to lead in an Obama presidency.  I hope he recognizes her passion and conviction in this area, and will use her and Elizabeth Edwards - Hillary to be the uniter in the Senate (she is damn good at that) and wonk, and Elizabeth to promote it, as she is a shining star and I don't know anyone that doesn't love Elizabeth.

We Hillary supporters can ensure her political career isn't over;  we can support her in NY when she comes up for re-election again.  We can support her by telling us what we think and what is important to us, as her supporters.  

I support Hillary Clinton.  I also support HER cause.  And that cause is to make sure a Democrat is elected to the White House this year.

Update [2008-6-1 19:46:34 by colebiancardi]: Please note that NONE of Hillary's causes will happen if McCain is president. Remember that when you think of loyalty.

Twelve Years in the Wilderness....

Some people today call GWB a "monster".  Well, he is, but to me he is a cartoon monster.  It is out there in the open;  he doesn't have a glib, suave speaking style and he is moronic.  But what gave birth to GWB and nurtured him?   Who allowed the republican party to be hijacked by a bunch of hypocritical fundies and allowed their agenda to be thrust onto the American people?   President Reagan.  He is the granddaddy of all monsters and he is actually worse that GWB.

What, you say?  Come on.  Nope, he is - because Reagan is still looked upon favorably by many and the MSM adores him.  He is worse than GWB because Reagan wore a mask that hid his true features.  Some of you are too young to remember those years or perhaps you were not yet born.

I came politically aware in the 1980's.  I was sixteen years old when Reagan took office.   I saw him with his "trickle-down" economics that trickled down shit to the middle class and the poor.  I saw him dismantled the Department of Education, making it harder for middle class kids, like me, to go to college.  I saw a President who actively thrust himself into worker's rights, taking the wrong side and busting up PATCO.  The employees only sought better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweeks.  What a far cry from FDR, who supported and promoted Unions.  

I saw an administration that cuddled up with Saddam Hussein, knowing what they knew about him.  I saw Reagan playing the Middle-East like a game of chess, stating one thing, while dealing to the other side - Iran-Contra.  Horrific.  An impeachable offense, which never happened.  

I saw Reagan's support of the Saving and Loans with deregulation, which caused the U.S Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist,  called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."  It cost 160.1 billion, of which 124.6 billion was paid BY the US citizens.  

I saw Reagan promote the "Welfare Queen" myth, using a woman from the South Side of Chicago as an example - "She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."  Of course, there was never such a person.

He ignored the AIDS crisis, because he could not say the word gay or homosexual.  It wasn't until grandmothers got infected that he mentioned it.  It wasn't until 1987 - when 36,058 Americans had been already diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died.  By that time, the disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Reagan talked about the "Evil Empire", when in fact, he was truly evil.  But with his glib style and his folksy way of speaking, people ignored it.  Even today, republicans want to put Reagan on Mt. Rushmore and replace Ike with Reagan on the dime.  Reagan is the true monster because he wore a mask which hid his true face.  When you opened the doors to enter "Shining City upon a hill", the corrosive stench would knock you out.  

Those people that worked in the Reagan/Bush I administration came out to play in the GWB administration.  Reagan created the monster.  And his legacy is GWB.

What does Reagan have to do with 2008?  Twelve years in the wilderness.  That is how long the Reagan/Bush I years lasted before a man from Hope took back the White House.  Some of you are critical of President Clinton, but understand this - after 12 years of republicans fucking with our country, President Clinton had to FIX it.  With a house that was hostile to him, even when Democrats had the majority.  He didn't get all that needed to be done, but he managed to undo a lot of the damage those 12 years inflicted on this country and its people.

Whoever is our Democratic nominee, I will support them.  They will face the same challenges that President Clinton faced - to undo the horrific damage done to this country.

I am supporting our Democratic nominee - whoever he or she may be.  For those who state "I hated their tactics" or "Candidate XX is not a TRUE democrat"  or "McCain isn't THAT bad".....think about this - Twelve FUCKING years in the wilderness.  Senators Obama and Clinton are not evil, they are not the enemy.  You may disagree with some of their policies - hell, I do.  You may disapprove of their campaign tactics - hell, I do.  But in the end, they are on the same team.  The differences between Obama and Hillary can be typed up, double-spaced, 20 point font and 3 inch margins all around, on one piece of 8 1/2 by 11 paper.  Whoever is the nominee will have the other's back and strongly support them.

McCain of 2008 is NOT McCain of 2000.  Don't trust him.  Otherwise, it will be another 12 years in the wilderness.  Who knows what will be born of the GWB/McCain years?  If Reagan/Bush I spawned GWB, can you imagine what GWB/McCain will spawn?

I am supporting our Democratic nominee.  Will you join me and end our endless wandering in the wilderness?

Tonight, I picked up my Sunday Boston Globe (5/25/2008) and read the Opinions section.  I didn't have time this weekend to indulge myself with reading the paper, but I did have time tonight.  I read an op-ed by Joan Vennochi.  Her story about her 14-year old daughter and how this election affected her daughter moved me in a way that nothing else has in terms of unity.  This moving story and a non-judgemental way of looking at the Democratic Primary, without slandering Hillary, has brought me home.  

just some snips from the article - I will post the full link at the end, along with some additional thoughts

WHAT do we tell our daughters after Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign?

"I'm voting for John McCain," mine said, when Indiana's primary returns authorized the punditry to declare Clinton dead and officially deny her resurrection.

She's 14, so my daughter's vote is only theoretical. But her disappointment in the apparent outcome of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is real.

My daughter is too young to understand the criticisms of Hillary Clinton as a former first lady who had the nerve to cash in on a relative's power and name, just like a Kennedy or a Bush. She was born during the first Clinton administration, so the scandals and disappointments associated with it are history to be learned, rather than endured.

She did not look at Hillary and see Bill. She saw a strong, articulate female candidate sharing the stage with strong, articulate men, and often commanding it.

We've talked about the focus on Clinton's looks, voice, laugh, and wardrobe. But in our household, we also critiqued the men, from Obama's sometimes sluggish cadence to McCain's wrinkly neck.

The argument that gender can be an obstacle to success doesn't automatically resonate with young women of today. They have parents who encourage them to fight for good grades, slug it out on the athletic field, and pursue whatever dream they choose.

Despite those positives about life in the 21st century, I will tell my daughter what I believe: Sexism hurt Clinton's campaign, but so did Clinton.

Clinton accomplished a lot, as measured by votes cast, money raised, and credibility achieved.

But, when Obama preached change, Clinton fixated on the past. She underestimated the power of hope, a stunning miscalculation, given that Bill Clinton won election as the man from Hope.

She believed her husband was a bigger political advantage than he turned out to be. Someday, she may even conclude his mistakes were not missteps but ambivalence about their quest.

"Brace yourself. Obama's the nominee," I told my daughter the other day.

"I know," she replied. She also knows his success as an African-American is an important breakthrough for the country.

In the end, I may tell my daughter that I've voted for many imperfect men, yet still wonder if an imperfect woman can ever become president.

Since there are no perfect women, I won't tell her what I think that means.

This message moved me.  This story made me think - unlike some who called me a deadender, who bullied, threatened and ridiculed me for supporting Hillary.    I will continue to support Hillary in her nomination for president.  However, if Obama is the sucesssor, I will support him.  I know Hillary will support Obama and would want me, a life-long democrat, whose positions and ideals are so close to hers - as Obama's are so close to Hillary's.

Does it mean I agree with everything Obama proposes?  No.  But I will hope that if he is to be President, I will use my voice, along with Hillary's, to make sure my side is heard.  

Like Joan, I have voted for imperfect men in the past for president.  I will do so again, as there is no such thing as a perfect man.   I do hope that one day I will be able to vote for a woman president, hopefully Hillary in 2016, as she will always be the candidate of my choice.  

Please read the full op-ed.  

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor ial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/25/a_l esson_for_our_daughters/

Interesting article I found on the black agenda report website.  A few weeks ago here on mydd, I was told I was racist, so I started reading sites that were part of the Afrosphere; to better understand what black Americans were thinking about the primaries and the election.  

So, Obama is clean?  Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists?

I am new to the Afrosphere, so I looked at this site and saw it linked to many other progressive black sites, so I don't think it is a republican site.  How creditable is this claim?  

The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called  "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=613&Itemid=1

I am new in the diary business, so please forgive me if this is not considered a "diary".  

I got this email from Senator Stabenow(MI) and I thought this was a very important message to share.  I grew up in Michigan and remember fondly of vacationing off of Lake Superior in the UP, near Hancock/Houghton area, visting the locks up at Saul Ste. Maire, the Picture Rocks,   seeing the Sleeping Bear Dunes off of Lake Michigan and making jokes about how all of the UP was Hiawatha National Parks.  

If you live in Michigan or love the Great Lakes State, please share her message on how important it is to save this beautiful area.  Senator Stabenow was the author of the first Federal ban on Great Lakes Drilling.  

Here is her message:

This Earth Day, I'm reminded how important it is to protect our priceless natural resources for our children and grandchildren.

Never before in the 10,000-year history of the Great Lakes have our waters been in so much peril. Climate change, invasive species, pollution and toxic sediments are threatening the Lakes and our Michigan way of life.

Cleaning up the Great Lakes isn't just the right thing to do, it's an economic imperative. A recent report by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found that cleaning up the Lakes would generate up to $50 billion in short-term and long-term economic growth for our region. With the current state of our economy, this is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.

That's why the Great Lakes have been one of my top priorities in the U.S. Senate. In March, I authored key provisions to the federal budget that will pave the way for $175 million in critical investments in fisheries, toxin removal, water quality improvements, and programs that fight invasive species. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I was able to secure $77 million more for the Great Lakes than the President had proposed in his budget.

I am also fighting in the Senate to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Strategy - a comprehensive plan for Great Lakes restoration crafted by over 1,500 representatives from state, local, and tribal governments, the business community, environmental groups, and civic leaders. The economic benefits of Great Lakes cleanup are extraordinary:

Improving wastewater treatment will clean up our drinking water and prevent beach closures. There are over 8 million swimmers in the Great Lakes every year, and reducing beach closures can generate $2 to $3 billion for our tourism industry.
Fighting invasive species and increasing fish populations in the Great Lakes would improve the commercial and recreational fishing industries by up to $5.8 billion.
There are about 17 million bird-watchers in the Great Lakes states. Protecting wildlife habitats could increase tourism by up to $200 million. Conservation would also lead to an increase of up to $100 million from hunters.
Removing toxic sediments could increase property values in coastal areas and spur economic growth by up to $19 billion.
Reducing sediments would also make it easier for water treatment centers to prepare Great Lakes water for drinking. This could save state and local governments up to $125 million that could be better spent elsewhere.

Protecting our Great Lakes is not only critical to our economy, but to the very identity of our state and our nation. This Earth Day, and every day, you can count on me to continue fighting to restore and preserve this priceless natural resource.

If you have never seen the sites I have described in my intro, google around and look at the amazing pictures of the sites that I mentioned.  Michigan is a beautiful state and we should keep it that way!

Since the Obama comment the other day, all of us have had some fun with our own "choices" for president.  I've read the following (and this is off the top of my head):

1. day old tuna fish sandwich


2. my cat who is currently licking plastic


3. my two year old kid


4. my diabetic cat

so, just to unite our little group, because tensions run so high here, who/what would make a better president that Bush?  And please, no democratic candidates, as we are just funnin' here.

My First Diary, btw.  Not much, I know

added: Based on feedback, this question is too easy and not at all hard work. So, you can either answer the easy question:

Who/what would be a better president than GWB?

or the one that will make you sweat with effort:

Who/what would be a worse president than GWB?

again, the only rule is not to use democratic candidates. I want to have a fun & civil thread where we all can laugh!