Obama offered the job of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. This information surprised more than one but it seems to get popular... However, even though I'm a big fan of the Senator of New York, I'm not thrilled. Indeed, Obama won against Hillary in the democratic primaries for two reasons.
First of all, Obama pledged for change. The change of Washington and its corrupt system, the change of politics themselves, the change of generation, and stuff. It was a very strong argument against Hillary who was perceived as a hypocrite by the opinion and she came from the Clinton era. For now, Obama recruited many clintonites. "Change We Can Believe In", we're still far from it...
Then, the main disagreement between Hillary and Obama was the conception of foreign policy! Hillary was criticised for her vote on the Iraq war, Obama represented a redemption of the american people for opposing the war back in 2003. Hillary pledged for relaunching diplomatic ties with enemy countries, Obama wanted top-level meetings without preconditions. Also, Hillary threatened to "obliterate Iran" if this country attacked Israel, Obama said the United States could go and fight Al-Qaeda in Pakistan even if this country disagrees. Hillary had experience in the field, Obama had none, and that was his asset.
If this job matches Hillary's skills, it doesn't match her favourite field: health. Hillary Clinton has been the greatest activist for universal healthcare, we remember she tried to settle it when she was First Lady, but that she had failed. Also, Obama did not campaign for universal healthcare but lately, signs indicate he may do it. This is so confusing...
To finish, I invite you to read Slate's article imagining the ideal government for Obama.
Last Tuesday, I saw W. at the cinema with Ada and Peter.
Image credits: Lionsgate
I thought the film succeeded in its "documentary" goals in that it relates the story of the american president George W. Bush until the war on Iraq correctly, at least the way the world sees it: the story of a guy who doesn't have the intellectual abilities for his position, manipulated by his vice-president and who has got a tricky ambition of earning his family's approval, his father in particular.
Nevertheless, something was missing, I don't know what. I'm thinking this may be caused by the fact that I already knew what this movie would say, I didn't learn anything interesting. Had this movie been released 4 years later, maybe I would have had a different feeling, like "Wow, things were going so bad these days". Now, it's too fresh.
It's still a good movie though, but it's more like a testimony of one of the darkest times of american history, meant for future generations.
I love Slate. I think it"s one of the best political magazines ever created.
Today, an article has been posted: which minority group will win the White House next? In the case of a gay candidate, they talk about the fact that younger generations are more tolerant of homosexuality and this is their advice:
We know what to do to improve a gay candidate's chances: murder an old person.
On Sunday evening, we watched horror movies at home.
What Lies Beneath with Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford, focuses on a bourgeoise woman who thinks there's a ghost in her house. Boring. Then we watched The Hills Have Eyes, the story of a family lost in the middle of the desert and followed by some kind of mutants eating non-mutant humans. the scene of the attack during which the father is burnt alive, the mother shot, the daughter raped and the baby kidnapped is shocking. Like torture porn. Horrible.
In a nutshell, shit movies who may have predicted the bad news of the week, with Obama's empty speech, the anti-gay wave in the USA and the sort of victory of Ségolène Royal at the french Socialist Party. This is for me, the real Halloween.
Last Tuesday, the anti-gay wave that fell on America upset the american LGBTs. I invite you to read the reaction of a californian, lesbian and black blogger on Daily Kos: SCREW you California Homophobes. There are reasons to be furious, especially when opponents to gay marriage come on TV saying they love gays. I'm fed up with this hypocrisy. I'm also fed up with politicians, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, try hard to look gay-friendly but say they are against gay marriage.
Gays have just had their crash too. They had invested on the idea that society naturally tends to progress and they have just realised they were wrong. We are gonna have to fight to be accepted and understood.
I'm thinking of joining a LGBT organisation, maybe Stonewall, next week.
Update. California LGBTs put their flag at half mast after the passage of proposition 8, at the Harvey Milk Plaza.
Besides the poster, the graphic identity of the Obama campaign has been very successful. Then, you can talk about political marketing, but still, this little logo looks good.
This last logo makes me quite bitter, knowing that Obama, even though he's always cited, and this is remarkable, LGBT people in his speeches, maintained some ambiguity about it. Like when Michelle Obama said her husband would fight for gay rights equality, Barack was on MTV saying he wasn't "in favour" of gay marriage, believed in the fact marriage was between a man and a woman, that marriage was about God (!!!), but would vote against gay marriage ban in California. You can't do more self-contradictory than that. And that would explain the potential victory of Proposition 8.