I'm not sure who is more to blame for the latest Clinton "crisis," the mainstream media or the Obama for President campaign, but it's at best silly and at worst just plain disgusting.

There has been an uproar about a recent comment Hillary Clinton made to the Argus Leader, a newspaper in South Dakota. Clinton has referenced the long Democratic presidential primary during the 1968 election cycle when explaining that this particular cycle is not unusually long. She brought up both her own husband's run in 1992 and the 1968 primary process, both running through June and ending in California. The front runner at the time was Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated the night of the California primaries.

The unfortunate reaction by the Obama campaign, and the subsequent "fake" rage by the media, as perpetuated by the Obama campaign, is they believed she was saying something quite as despicable as likening Obama to Kennedy and that he will surely meet his doom via assassination as well.

What? No, seriously, I mean, WTF?!

First off, she referenced Kennedy and his assassination in response to a question about this "unusually" long primary season; it is a fact that Kennedy was running in 1968, that 1968 was a longer-than-usual primary season, and also that he was assassinated. This is not a simple algebra equation where, because Clinton references Kennedy in 1968, that she thinks Obama will or should be assassinated. Idiots.

Secondly, she also referenced the fact that her husband's run for Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 1992 was also long-ran and drawn out.

It almost sounds to me like Obama doesn't like her still in the race. I have said before, I think on here, that I think she should get out, gracefully, for the good of the Party. But she doesn't need to be forced out on made up charges of her calling for him to be assassinated.

I guess the most amusing part of all this is that both the editor of the SD paper and Bobby Kennedy, Jr (yes, the assassinated presidential contender's son) have released statements supporting Clinton's assertion that she was not calling for Obama's death but merely answering folks who say she is unnecessarily drawing out the primary season. Also, she has already made a similar comment TWO months ago, again referencing the 1968 and 1992 drawn out primaries for Democratic presidential nominee. No loud mouth retorts that she is calling for his death then, were there? Hmmm.

Obama has since then said "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us." Of course this is only after the Obama campaign issued a statement saying the comment "was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." It's always nice to walk back a statement after the damage has been made.

Now let me make this clear: I understand this is politics, and that Clinton is certainly not innocent of her own politicking against Obama. But Obama, long run in the media as someone who never goes negative, is certainly guilty of taking Clinton's comments out of context in a very unseemly way.

Let me know what you think! Join Facebook and send me an invite!

Marriage Equality in California

Today, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling for "In re Marriage Cases," thereby striking down California laws banning same-sex couples from marriage. The ruling was 4-3, though it is important to note one of the dissenting justices started her opinion with the following note:

“[i]n my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...”

Basically, she believes there should be same-sex marriage, but it should be implemented by way of the Legislature, versus by way of the Judiciary; that the Court has over-stepped its authority in reversing the laws and ballot initiatives of the people of the State of California.

Regardless, the State of California can no longer ban same-sex couples from marrying, and will also have to recognize the marriages from those states where they are legal. This will take effect in 30 days, barring intervention on the part of the Court in postponing this action.

I never cared much about same-sex marriage until those on the right made such a big deal about it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again now: if you need a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, then such marriages are currently legal, and more importantly, Constitutionally sound. That is, laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional. If they weren't, then an amendment would not be needed.

This makes California to be the second state (after Massachusetts) in the Union who will recognize same-sex marriages, both those performed in-state as well as those from out-of-state. Currently the following states recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some similar form of union other than marriage that confers some or all rights afforded married opposite-sex couples in said state: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

It is also quite important to keep in mind this does not force religious institutions or other entities to perform marriages with which they do not agree. Quite simply, the only persons that would possibly be forced to perform said marriages beyond their will would be civil servants; even that would be unlikely, with the State most likely finding a replacement to perform the ceremony.

It was also interesting to see the following churches, religious institutions and faiths represented by the Respondent lawyers, meaning they sided with those who won in the end:

General Synod of the United Church of Christ
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
The Rabbinical Assembly
The Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
Metropolitan Community Church

There were also many, many individual churches from such varied sects as Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Mennonite, as well as individual faith leaders (reverends, rabbis, etc).

It's nice to see that because of a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour does not necessarily mean that you aren't also fair-minded.

As always, let me know what you think!

What do I think?

So I took 5 different political quizzes earlier tonight and below are my results, as well as links to the quiz itself!

The Political Compass
Left Libertarian: -2.12 on a scale of -10 is Left and +10 is Right (economic issues) & -5.44 on a scale of -10 is Libertarian and +10 is Authoritarian (social issues).

Advocates for Self-Government
Liberal Libertarian: 100% Personal Score and 50% Economics Score

Political Survey from Mythic Beasts
Left/right -0.1667 where -1 is Left and +1 is Right
Pragmatism +0.1635 where -1 is Idealistic and +1 is Pragmatic
I'd have to admit these results mean the least to me lol.

Moral Politics Test
Scored -4.5 on Moral Order and -0.5 on Moral Rules
The following categories best match my score:
System - Liberalism
Ideology - Capital Democratism
Party - Democratic Party
Presidents - JFK
'04 Election - Ralph Nader
'08 Election - Barack Obama

Political Survey 2005
This is a British test, so not sure how well this fits me.
On Crime and Punishment & Internationalism: -3.0, slightly internationalist and rehabilitationist. On Economics, etc: 2.0, fairly free-market and pro-war.
60.1% of Britain is more punitive and isolationist than me, which I thought was pretty telling.

Let me know how you do!!