Monthly Archives: January 2008

Let’s hope I can finally change the subject and get back to some of my more (or less) interesting digressions. Unfortunately, I have reacted very personally for some reason to these elections. At the same time that I have felt an almost innocent excitement for Obama’s messages, I have also felt incredible revulsion for Billary. I have tried to reflect some of these feelings in a short article for Safe Democracy, entitled “Barack vs. Billary: Why it is Obama’s Time” (and the Spanish version) that summarizes much of what I have said here before.

I have also done two things that I had never even fathomed doing in the past: (i) endorse a candidate, and (ii) give a campaign donation. I suppose that if you don’t commit just a little bit, then you lose your right to be complain about the outcome later. Continue reading →

I was just listening to Bob Schieffer’s interview with Hillary Clinton from last Sunday’s Face The Nation. When asked about her husband’s egregiously offensive comments towards Obama, Hillary defended Bill thusly:

. . . my husband has such a great commitment to me . . . You know, he loves me, just like, you know, husbands and wives get out there and work on each other’s behalf.

That doesn’t answer the question, and actually, I don’t quite remember things that way. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that husbands are supposed to love their wives the way he does, at least not if actions speak louder than words. But, that could just be my memory of the summer of 1998 when I was studying for the Bar Exam and Bill was bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory while testifying before the grand jury. (In the photo, he could just as well be declaring that he’d “never had sex with this woman”). A little respect for our intelligence, please! Continue reading →

Dear Senator Obama,

I fully understand that Grave Error is not the Washington Post or the New York Times. A Grave Error endorsement might not sound like much, considering the only people who read this blog are my parents, brother, two uncles, one cousin, and my Berber girlfriend. And although I am no Kennedy, I am now offering you my full endorsement, something I have never done for any politician since I have been eligible to vote. As a matter of fact, and I know this sounds like pure convenience, I am even offering my professional services to your future Administration with the hope that you will become elected to the White House. Continue reading →

It was telling about the hate, devisiveness, and disgusting nature of Billary how after Obama’s win in S.C., it was Bill and not Hillary who first spoke to the press. And what did Bill say? He said that even Jesse Jackson had won a primary in South Carolina. That’s about as devicive and bottom-feeding as you can get.

Are you disgusted? Well, apparently the majority of senior Democrats have had enough of Bill (who now thinks he’s running for president). Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. What does it mean for Hillary’s experience argument when Ted Kennedy (who has been a U.S. senator for 40 years) says that Obama is more qualified than Hillary? It means that it’s time for change. Ironically, every single candidate in the race, both Republican and Democrat, all represent a break from the past . . . all of them except for Billary.

Dick Morris was one of President Clinton’s most trusted advisors and able spinsters. He has just written an op-ed piece confirming what I have previously said about how the Clintons were using Obama’s race and latent racial slights to Obama’s detriment. It is all just too disgusting, especially considering that all of the Clintons’ repulsive techniques appear to be bearing fruit. Is there any hope for this country if playing the game is what wins an election? Continue reading →

Just after having written my last post on why I find Bill’s over-the-top campaigning inappropriate, William sends me this excellent piece from the New Republic: Continue reading →

Americans have a special relationship with the presidency and their presidents. Americans and American politicians on both sides of the table can disagree with their president on policy and other issues but will always support and honor the figure of the “president” out of respect for the institution of the presidency.

As a result, when a U.S. president’s mandate reaches it finale, the president is converted into an ex-president with all that the new mandate entails. Ex-presidents are honored as elder statesmen, as having served their country, and are bestowed with the enduring title of “President”. Former presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, are still officially called President Clinton and President Bush (respectively). And former presidents continue, for the remainder of their lives, to be representatives of their country.

Nevertheless, in the present elections, we’re seeing some of these traditional notions change. Of course, there is the obvious (and possibly hypothetical question) as to what role a former president may play in the new administration if his spouse becomes president. But there is a much more immediate question, that I believe, should be raised. What is the appropriate behavior of a former president in a presidential campaign? What happens when Bill Clinton acts more like James Carville, the Ragin’ Cajun, than like a dignified statesman? Or said another way, is it ethical for Bill Clinton, with all of the weight of his honorary role of ex-president, to campaign as fervently as he is doing now? Continue reading →