Or: Flash Mob Activism, Part Two
A while back, I wrote about worldwide protests outside the Scientology centers in various cities, with a turnout that far surpassed what most had predicted. The protesters went masked, many of them wearing Guy Fawkes masks from the movie V is for Vendetta, as a way of highlighting the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which encourages their members to silence "suppressive persons" (people who disagree with them) by any means necessary. The resulting image was iconic, nothing like the protests to which most people have grown accustomed. The signs were all handmade, not printed and passed out en masse. People came not only in masks, but in wild costumes, and there was a party atmosphere. Rather than be angry, Anonymous were having fun.
(There are many photographic essays of the Anonymous protests; I have seen photojournalists remark on their blogs that the protests were a joy to photograph. Here are a few of my favorites: the Laist; tanya-n; Orato.)
After the protest, Anonymous swore that they would return on March 15th, two days after L. Ron Hubbard's birthday, and, in another creepy video, bade the Church of Scientology in a synthesized voice to beware the ides of March. In my previous post, I noted that the ides of March would be the true test of Anonymous; Internet memes generally have a short lifespan, and a month might as well be a decade. Anonymous might lose interest in their cause and turn their attention to LOLcats, or Rickrolling, or other such persuits.
I'm pleased to report that the ides of March have come and gone, and my faith was well placed. In some places, the protests were as large as they had been in February, and in others they were larger. The theme of this protest was a mocking birthday party for L. Ron Hubbard. Some of Anonymous brought cake. Many wore party hats. They sang Happy Birthday. In Sydney, they marched to the beat of (and donated to) a tuba player's version of the Imperial Death March from Star Wars. Again, instead of anger, the same party atmosphere prevailed.
The Church of Scientology was not so friendly; they have done everything they can to stop the protests. In Clearwater, they applied for a restraining order against 26 people who they observed at the February 10th protest. (It's disturbing that they were able to learn who these people were from their photographs, and proves that the masks that Anonymous wear are not only for show.) The judge denied the restraining order, because the Church could not prove that the people who they had named, several of whom were employees of nearby businesses who had nothing to do with the protests, posed a threat to the Church. The Church sent a private investigator to harass one of Anonymous who had not worn a mask, and she had to call the police, and in one case, a man moved into the center of the crowd of protesters and flashed a gun.
The gun incident was the most fascinating thing that I uncovered in my search for news about the March 15th protests. In a standard protest, the reaction to such behavior could have gone one of three ways – either the protesters would have ignored the man, they would have gone to the police, or they would have gotten angry and attacked him. Anonymous did none of these things. Instead, they made a sign that read "this man has a gun". Then, one of their number held up the sign and started to follow the man around. The police noticed, he was questioned, he denied working with the Church of Scientology, and then he promptly returned to the Church building.
The party atmosphere, the costumes, the sometimes amusing handmade signs, and the reaction to harassment and threats reveal a new breed of protester. Here are a bunch of uppity kids who are certain that they're smarter than everyone else. Instead of attacking through anger, they attack through mockery. They are also creative in a way that the previous generation has not shown itself to be; it's not enough just to show up and yell. They show up in costume. They make, edit, and share videos of the event. They use strong iconic imagery in a way that I have never seen it used before.
As more people from the nameless generation that comes after mine come of age, there is going to be a paradigm shift in the way that activists behave, and I firmly believe that it's going to make as much impact on the political and social landscape as the advent of television.
Anonymous is the future. Expect them.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Eliot Spitzer's wife
So the comedy gold story of the moment is now-former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, previously famous for his crusade against prostitution, has been caught literally with his pants down, boinking a prostitute. ('Boinking' is a technical term.) Every joke that can possibly be made about this deeply ironic situation has already been claimed by someone far wittier than I, so instead, I'll take another, more serious angle on the subject.
If you had a look at the article linked above, you'll see a little thumbnail picture of Spitzer and his wife, which seems to be the shot that everyone is using in their articles about this scandal. What struck me about the picture is how utterly devastated his wife looks. She's got deep circles under her eyes, the kind of circles that you get from crying rather than lack of sleep, and she looks like she's barely holding back tears while she watches her husband speak. This experience has obviously broken her utterly.
But even so, after her asshole of a husband betrayed her trust, broke his marriage vows, and utterly humiliated her on the national stage, she's standing by his side. I don't get that.
I know that being the wife of a political figure is a completely different culture and mindset. It requires an unshakable loyalty to live with every aspect of your life under constant scrutiny, to endure long periods alone while your husband campaigns, to cultivate a media image of your own and meet with endless girl scouts (or do whatever else it is that you want to do), to look, on the outside, as though you are Perfect. I have heard that among the circles of women who are married to public figures, it's even a mark of prestige to endure the unendurable with a convincing smile.
But no matter how loyal and devoted "no matter what" I was, no matter how committed I was to the ideal of giving all, if my husband, for whom I had sacrificed so much, betrayed me like he betrayed her – with a fucking prostitute, over the course of a decade, so it wasn't like he met someone, sparks flew, and he had a moment of indiscretion – the loyalty would be gone. That man went out over and over again with the cold blooded intention to pay some woman an inordinate amount of money for sex. The only question that would remain for me would be whether I was going to take the high road by refusing to stand by his side while he delivered his fake apology and cried his crocodile tears, or whether I was going to get my revenge by standing by his side and, at the last moment, grabbing the microphone and yelling 'My husband is a cheating asshole!', then slapping him in the face and storming off the stage.
That's all I've got to say, really: Eliot Spitzer is an asshole, and I'm baffled as to why his wife isn't throwing his cheating ass to the media dogs.
If you had a look at the article linked above, you'll see a little thumbnail picture of Spitzer and his wife, which seems to be the shot that everyone is using in their articles about this scandal. What struck me about the picture is how utterly devastated his wife looks. She's got deep circles under her eyes, the kind of circles that you get from crying rather than lack of sleep, and she looks like she's barely holding back tears while she watches her husband speak. This experience has obviously broken her utterly.
But even so, after her asshole of a husband betrayed her trust, broke his marriage vows, and utterly humiliated her on the national stage, she's standing by his side. I don't get that.
I know that being the wife of a political figure is a completely different culture and mindset. It requires an unshakable loyalty to live with every aspect of your life under constant scrutiny, to endure long periods alone while your husband campaigns, to cultivate a media image of your own and meet with endless girl scouts (or do whatever else it is that you want to do), to look, on the outside, as though you are Perfect. I have heard that among the circles of women who are married to public figures, it's even a mark of prestige to endure the unendurable with a convincing smile.
But no matter how loyal and devoted "no matter what" I was, no matter how committed I was to the ideal of giving all, if my husband, for whom I had sacrificed so much, betrayed me like he betrayed her – with a fucking prostitute, over the course of a decade, so it wasn't like he met someone, sparks flew, and he had a moment of indiscretion – the loyalty would be gone. That man went out over and over again with the cold blooded intention to pay some woman an inordinate amount of money for sex. The only question that would remain for me would be whether I was going to take the high road by refusing to stand by his side while he delivered his fake apology and cried his crocodile tears, or whether I was going to get my revenge by standing by his side and, at the last moment, grabbing the microphone and yelling 'My husband is a cheating asshole!', then slapping him in the face and storming off the stage.
That's all I've got to say, really: Eliot Spitzer is an asshole, and I'm baffled as to why his wife isn't throwing his cheating ass to the media dogs.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Hillary's still in
Sorry I didn't get to discussing the March 4th primaries right away. I've been pretty busy, and I haven't had as much time as I'd like for blogging.
As I'm sure you all know, Bill Clinton said that his wife had to win Texas and Ohio in order to take the nomination. She did, which keeps her in the race against Obama, even though he still has more delegates than she does, and even though he's expected to do well in Mississippi and Wyoming, and Pennsylvania is close. In the meantime, John McCain finally gathered enough delegates to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican party.
This is bad for the Democrats, because McCain, now free of his rivalry with Mike Huckabee, can begin campaigning for President, while Obama and Hillary are still stuck campaigning against each other. I'm the only one who has come to this conclusion, either. There have been many calls for Hillary to bow out from people who claim that she has no hope of winning, even though the race is still very close. Johnathan Alter, of Newsweek, has written an article where he claims to have "done the math" and reasoned that Hillary Clinton can't win, even in the most unlikely circumstances. (See the article here.)
As much as I'd be thrilled to see Hillary bow out, and as much as I think that it would be the best move, politically, for her to do so, I can understand why she's staying in the race. She has devoted an awful lot of time and money, some of it her own, to her bid for President. She's got to want it badly, and she's got to feel that she still has a chance – especially if she can get the delegates from Florida and Michigan admitted, or sway superdelegates her way, in spite of the popular vote. (Never mind how bad for the party this would be.) She probably doesn't even feel that she's hurting the Democratic party's chances of making it to the White House by fighting on while John McCain runs unopposed, since she's probably of the opinion that she's more electable than Barack Obama.
The question is – How far will she go? And how much damage will it do?
Politically Expedient
A graceful exit from the race ASAP would benefit Hillary Clinton, because it would be seen as a monumental sacrifice on her part for the good of the party. The goodwill that she would earn, even among people who have been previously opposed to her, would give her all kinds of political capital that she could use to increase her power in Washington. Hillary Clinton isn't cut out to be President, but she's an amazing senator.
On the other hand, she takes an enormous risk by staying in the race; if Obama becomes the nominee and loses the election, Hillary Clinton would be blamed, and the entire party, many of whom are not particularly enamored with her in the first place, would take up the torches and pitchforks. The rage that much of the party has directed against Ralph Nader would look like minor irritation compared to the way that she would be attacked by her own party. Crucified would be the wrong word for it, since that implies a certain amount of martyrdom, so I'll risk being asked to turn in my feminist card and choose the metaphor 'burned at the stake'. Either way, her career in politics would be in shambles at the very least.
The numbers are against her, and the risk of staying in the race is enormous. I can see why Hillary Clinton doesn't drop out, but if she were wise, she would.
As I'm sure you all know, Bill Clinton said that his wife had to win Texas and Ohio in order to take the nomination. She did, which keeps her in the race against Obama, even though he still has more delegates than she does, and even though he's expected to do well in Mississippi and Wyoming, and Pennsylvania is close. In the meantime, John McCain finally gathered enough delegates to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican party.
This is bad for the Democrats, because McCain, now free of his rivalry with Mike Huckabee, can begin campaigning for President, while Obama and Hillary are still stuck campaigning against each other. I'm the only one who has come to this conclusion, either. There have been many calls for Hillary to bow out from people who claim that she has no hope of winning, even though the race is still very close. Johnathan Alter, of Newsweek, has written an article where he claims to have "done the math" and reasoned that Hillary Clinton can't win, even in the most unlikely circumstances. (See the article here.)
As much as I'd be thrilled to see Hillary bow out, and as much as I think that it would be the best move, politically, for her to do so, I can understand why she's staying in the race. She has devoted an awful lot of time and money, some of it her own, to her bid for President. She's got to want it badly, and she's got to feel that she still has a chance – especially if she can get the delegates from Florida and Michigan admitted, or sway superdelegates her way, in spite of the popular vote. (Never mind how bad for the party this would be.) She probably doesn't even feel that she's hurting the Democratic party's chances of making it to the White House by fighting on while John McCain runs unopposed, since she's probably of the opinion that she's more electable than Barack Obama.
The question is – How far will she go? And how much damage will it do?
Politically Expedient
A graceful exit from the race ASAP would benefit Hillary Clinton, because it would be seen as a monumental sacrifice on her part for the good of the party. The goodwill that she would earn, even among people who have been previously opposed to her, would give her all kinds of political capital that she could use to increase her power in Washington. Hillary Clinton isn't cut out to be President, but she's an amazing senator.
On the other hand, she takes an enormous risk by staying in the race; if Obama becomes the nominee and loses the election, Hillary Clinton would be blamed, and the entire party, many of whom are not particularly enamored with her in the first place, would take up the torches and pitchforks. The rage that much of the party has directed against Ralph Nader would look like minor irritation compared to the way that she would be attacked by her own party. Crucified would be the wrong word for it, since that implies a certain amount of martyrdom, so I'll risk being asked to turn in my feminist card and choose the metaphor 'burned at the stake'. Either way, her career in politics would be in shambles at the very least.
The numbers are against her, and the risk of staying in the race is enormous. I can see why Hillary Clinton doesn't drop out, but if she were wise, she would.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Nader, Nader, Nader
Back when Sam worked at UC Berkeley, he used to come home with all sorts of delightful stories about the things that he saw on Telegraph and around the campus. It's true that Berkeley has mostly settled down and become a "respectable" school – the naked guy no longer goes there – but it still has its fair share of crazy events.
One of my favorite stories began when he was on his way to lunch one day. He passed a man standing on a crate who was yelling, over and over again:
"Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar! Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar!"
He went to lunch and came back 45 minutes later or thereabouts. When he passed the man on the crate, he found a second man now standing on a second crate. After the first man finished screaming:
"Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar!"
He would point at the man and yell:
"Liar, Liar, Liar! Nader, Nader, Nader!"
They kept this up, like one of those medieval call and answer chants, except with more screaming and more Nader, as long as he was in earshot.
Nader, Nader, Nader
I have related this little anecdote of Berkeley craziness because today I'm going to talk about Ralph Nader.
If you were watching Meet the Press on February 24th, then you already know that Ralph Nader has announced that he is running for President yet again. (You can read the transcript here.) Even though I predicted that he would run, I'm not going to start crowing about how smart I am, because it was pretty much a given that he would throw his useless hat in the ring.
Since Nader made his announcement, there has been a lot of melodramatic moaning and groaning on the liberal blogs about how Nader is going to get McCain elected. Many haven't forgiven him for costing Al Gore the election in 2000. Of course, many of the Greens and other would-be rebels who were "sticking it to the man" justify their votes by way of the argument that it was Al Gore's robotic lack of personality and mismanaged campaign that cost him the election, and that if he hadn't flubbed things as bad as he did, it wouldn't have come down to him needing Florida so badly. As for me, I take the middle road: What the Greens say is true in part, and I won't deny this; Al Gore's campaign was a mess, and his inability or unwillingness to let his true self shine through was a mistake. However, nobody reasonable can deny that Nader's selfishness and arrogance, and the Quixotian quest of his followers, played a part. The Republicans knew at the time that he would, which is why they they aired pro-Nader ads in 2000, and contributed to his campaign in 2004 (Nader took the money).
Aside from a few diehard supporters, the Greens learned their lesson, and in 2004, and many of them begged him not to run. Nader ran anyway, but as an independent, and the party itself refused to endorse him. His campaign was a joke; the people who had foolishly voted for him in 2000 now, by and large, understood the stakes, and why empty displays of rebellion were dangerous to their interests, and the man who had loomed so large only four years before became an afterthought. Even so, the democrats haven't forgotten the victory that they see as unfairly snatched from Gore's grasp, and so the worry persists that he will cost the democratic nominee the election once again.
They couldn't be more wrong. If Nader's campaign was a joke in 2004, his 2008 campaign is going to be an Eddie Izzard HBO special; only the most stubborn, lime kool-aid drinking Nader supporters will vote for him – and even some of them will defect to the democrats. Here's why:
Look, first, at Nader's rallying cry: Washington is corrupt, lobbyists are bad, we should take care of the environment and have universal health care, we should fix US trading policy, and get out of Iraq. Sound familiar? It should, because it's also Obama's platform, only Obama expresses it with an inspirational passion that Ralph Nader cannot hope to imitate. Given that both men share essentially the same message, who are people going to vote for? The egotistical, crotchety old man, or the young and vital leader? If Nader gets even 2% of the popular vote in November, I will be stunned.
This is assuming that Barack Obama secures the nomination, as he seems almost certain to do. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, she's going to lose no matter what Nader does.
Liar, Liar, Liar
If Ralph Nader cared about his causes half as much as he cares about his ego, he wouldn't be wasting what little political capital that he has left from his days as a great crusader in the 1970's, and he wouldn't be further tarnishing his reputation by running for President. He has a great opportunity right now, if only he would abandon his grasping self-interest and seize it; the issues that he has so loudly espoused over the years are finally being discussed on the national stage. A major player on the political scene, a candidate for President who is almost a shoe-in as the Democratic nominee, who has a real chance at the White House, and who has the leadership qualities to push his agenda through a Democratically controlled congress has taken up the banner of his cause. This candidate, though he has been rightly critical, has even refused to wholly reject Ralph Nader, calling him "heroic", and a "singular figure" in American politics, and stressing that Nader has reached out to his campaign. If Ralph Nader would abandon his nonstop lunatic denouncements, he would have a chance of brokering himself into an advisory position in the Obama administration. His past actions have probably ruined any chance he might have once had for a seat on the cabinet – at least for now – but a change of tone and thrust in his rhetoric could allow him to, for the first time in years, offer a real and substantive contribution to the forwarding of the causes that he insists are so important to him.
Unfortunately, Nader's obsession with himself has blinded him to the possibilities, and that's too bad – for him, and for his supporters.
One of my favorite stories began when he was on his way to lunch one day. He passed a man standing on a crate who was yelling, over and over again:
"Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar! Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar!"
He went to lunch and came back 45 minutes later or thereabouts. When he passed the man on the crate, he found a second man now standing on a second crate. After the first man finished screaming:
"Nader, Nader, Nader! Liar, Liar, Liar!"
He would point at the man and yell:
"Liar, Liar, Liar! Nader, Nader, Nader!"
They kept this up, like one of those medieval call and answer chants, except with more screaming and more Nader, as long as he was in earshot.
Nader, Nader, Nader
I have related this little anecdote of Berkeley craziness because today I'm going to talk about Ralph Nader.
If you were watching Meet the Press on February 24th, then you already know that Ralph Nader has announced that he is running for President yet again. (You can read the transcript here.) Even though I predicted that he would run, I'm not going to start crowing about how smart I am, because it was pretty much a given that he would throw his useless hat in the ring.
Since Nader made his announcement, there has been a lot of melodramatic moaning and groaning on the liberal blogs about how Nader is going to get McCain elected. Many haven't forgiven him for costing Al Gore the election in 2000. Of course, many of the Greens and other would-be rebels who were "sticking it to the man" justify their votes by way of the argument that it was Al Gore's robotic lack of personality and mismanaged campaign that cost him the election, and that if he hadn't flubbed things as bad as he did, it wouldn't have come down to him needing Florida so badly. As for me, I take the middle road: What the Greens say is true in part, and I won't deny this; Al Gore's campaign was a mess, and his inability or unwillingness to let his true self shine through was a mistake. However, nobody reasonable can deny that Nader's selfishness and arrogance, and the Quixotian quest of his followers, played a part. The Republicans knew at the time that he would, which is why they they aired pro-Nader ads in 2000, and contributed to his campaign in 2004 (Nader took the money).
Aside from a few diehard supporters, the Greens learned their lesson, and in 2004, and many of them begged him not to run. Nader ran anyway, but as an independent, and the party itself refused to endorse him. His campaign was a joke; the people who had foolishly voted for him in 2000 now, by and large, understood the stakes, and why empty displays of rebellion were dangerous to their interests, and the man who had loomed so large only four years before became an afterthought. Even so, the democrats haven't forgotten the victory that they see as unfairly snatched from Gore's grasp, and so the worry persists that he will cost the democratic nominee the election once again.
They couldn't be more wrong. If Nader's campaign was a joke in 2004, his 2008 campaign is going to be an Eddie Izzard HBO special; only the most stubborn, lime kool-aid drinking Nader supporters will vote for him – and even some of them will defect to the democrats. Here's why:
Look, first, at Nader's rallying cry: Washington is corrupt, lobbyists are bad, we should take care of the environment and have universal health care, we should fix US trading policy, and get out of Iraq. Sound familiar? It should, because it's also Obama's platform, only Obama expresses it with an inspirational passion that Ralph Nader cannot hope to imitate. Given that both men share essentially the same message, who are people going to vote for? The egotistical, crotchety old man, or the young and vital leader? If Nader gets even 2% of the popular vote in November, I will be stunned.
This is assuming that Barack Obama secures the nomination, as he seems almost certain to do. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, she's going to lose no matter what Nader does.
Liar, Liar, Liar
If Ralph Nader cared about his causes half as much as he cares about his ego, he wouldn't be wasting what little political capital that he has left from his days as a great crusader in the 1970's, and he wouldn't be further tarnishing his reputation by running for President. He has a great opportunity right now, if only he would abandon his grasping self-interest and seize it; the issues that he has so loudly espoused over the years are finally being discussed on the national stage. A major player on the political scene, a candidate for President who is almost a shoe-in as the Democratic nominee, who has a real chance at the White House, and who has the leadership qualities to push his agenda through a Democratically controlled congress has taken up the banner of his cause. This candidate, though he has been rightly critical, has even refused to wholly reject Ralph Nader, calling him "heroic", and a "singular figure" in American politics, and stressing that Nader has reached out to his campaign. If Ralph Nader would abandon his nonstop lunatic denouncements, he would have a chance of brokering himself into an advisory position in the Obama administration. His past actions have probably ruined any chance he might have once had for a seat on the cabinet – at least for now – but a change of tone and thrust in his rhetoric could allow him to, for the first time in years, offer a real and substantive contribution to the forwarding of the causes that he insists are so important to him.
Unfortunately, Nader's obsession with himself has blinded him to the possibilities, and that's too bad – for him, and for his supporters.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Oops!
You may have noticed that the last couple of posts that I've made linked to the same video of Obama talking about how words matter. I've fixed it now, and the videos embedded into the page point to their proper places. I'm still figuring out all of the code here, but I'll get it eventually! :)
The Ohio Debate
Since I finally had a day off today from work, I took the chance to watch the Ohio debate on YouTube. As always, here is a link to the debate itself, posted in parts, in case you didn't get a chance to watch it, yourself. (I'm just posting the first part to avoid spamming you with all ten.)
Before I talk about how Clinton and Obama did, I want to focus on the moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams. The moderators of a debate are as important as the candidates themselves, as they set the tone through the questions that they choose to ask, and how much they push the candidates to stick with the format.
Tim Russert and Brian Williams were as good as could be expected. They didn't ask any silly questions, and they had quotes not just on this campaign, but on previous years. Given the short attention span of politics, that's pretty rare. However, there were a couple of points where the moderators disappointed me. The first was the 16 minute rant about health care, where both candidates were taking turns repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. Russert and Williams should have found a way to stop that, even if they had to cut the candidates' microphones. I don't care how important the damn health care debate is – when both candidates insist on droning on about it, and neither candidate has anything new to say, it starts boring the hell out of me.
Tim Russert also brought a personal agenda to the table, which was inappropriate. At one point, he assaulted Hillary Clinton with hypothetical possibilities for Iraq, and when Hillary called them what they were, he insisted that they weren't hypothetical, they were reality. No, Russert. Reality is what is happening right now. Unless you have a magical crystal ball hidden in your desk, you have no business predicting the future and calling your predictions fact.
Similarly, the obvious "gotcha" question about Medvedev, the man chosen by Putin to be Russia's next president, annoyed me. It was clear that Russert intended to trip Hillary up and expose her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, which he failed to do, since she knew who he was. Since her blunder, people have been passing her mis-pronunciation of Medvedev's name around all over the internets and laughing at her. Good for them, but could they have done better? I'm looking at his name written down right in front of me, and it took me a couple of tries to pronounce it. It's a tongue twister.
Now that I've torn the moderators to shreds, let's move on to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's performances. I haven't got a whole lot to say about these because this debate was, in essence, nothing but a repeat of the debate that came before it. Nobody is saying anything new, so there's not much to say that hasn't already been said.
I think we can all agree that Obama won the debate. He stayed calm and collected throughout, and seemed very much in control of himself and the situation, while Hillary Clinton had a lot of shrill moments. She whined about how she was always given the first question in debates, she whined about how Obama was always attacking her. I don't know what she thinks whining is going to get her, because I can't imagine anyone wanting a president who, when stymied by North Korea or Iran, turns to the media and whines about how all of the Axis of Evil are ganging up on her, boo-hoo.
It reminds me of when her husband, Bill Clinton, was running against Bush the First. By the end of the campaign, Clinton was so far ahead, and such a media darling, that Bush's campaign took on the slogan – and I'm not kidding about this – 'Annoy the media. Elect George Bush'
Obama's performance was about what it has been. As I said, he kept his cool under pointed questions and attacks, and looked confident and presidential. Interestingly, he's started shifting some of his attacks to John McCain, and indication that there's a certain amount of assumption that he's going to be the nominee. He stood by his position that it's important to talk to people, even bad people, rather than try to "punish" them by giving them the silent treatment. I don't know about any of you, but I stopped screaming "I'll never speak to you again!" at my parents and friends when I was about ten. I don't know if anyone has coined the phrase 'schoolyard politics' yet, but if not, I claim it, because that's what George Bush's policies, and to some extent Hillary Clinton's policies are.
However, Obama did annoy me when he backed away from being called a liberal. The more that people insist on doing that, the more power they give to the Republicans. Obama IS liberal, and they will attack him with that label, and their attacks will succeed unless he's willing to step up and own the word. Obama is a good and convincing orator. If anyone could re-claim the word 'liberal' after the Republicans so adeptly tarnished it, it's him.
All in all, the debate was fairly uninteresting and in some places (sixteen minute pedantic exchange about health care) insufferably dull and annoying, to the point where I was yelling 'Shut up, already!' to my screen. But even so, the tenth and final part of the debate, as broadcast on just one of the many accounts that had it posted, had, as of this posting, over 12,000 views. That's over 12,000 people who bothered to watch the damn thing all the way to the end just on that one account. Even though the debates are dull, there are people – a lot of people – out there watching. There's a new world being born, and I'm proud to be a part of it.
Before I talk about how Clinton and Obama did, I want to focus on the moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams. The moderators of a debate are as important as the candidates themselves, as they set the tone through the questions that they choose to ask, and how much they push the candidates to stick with the format.
Tim Russert and Brian Williams were as good as could be expected. They didn't ask any silly questions, and they had quotes not just on this campaign, but on previous years. Given the short attention span of politics, that's pretty rare. However, there were a couple of points where the moderators disappointed me. The first was the 16 minute rant about health care, where both candidates were taking turns repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. Russert and Williams should have found a way to stop that, even if they had to cut the candidates' microphones. I don't care how important the damn health care debate is – when both candidates insist on droning on about it, and neither candidate has anything new to say, it starts boring the hell out of me.
Tim Russert also brought a personal agenda to the table, which was inappropriate. At one point, he assaulted Hillary Clinton with hypothetical possibilities for Iraq, and when Hillary called them what they were, he insisted that they weren't hypothetical, they were reality. No, Russert. Reality is what is happening right now. Unless you have a magical crystal ball hidden in your desk, you have no business predicting the future and calling your predictions fact.
Similarly, the obvious "gotcha" question about Medvedev, the man chosen by Putin to be Russia's next president, annoyed me. It was clear that Russert intended to trip Hillary up and expose her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, which he failed to do, since she knew who he was. Since her blunder, people have been passing her mis-pronunciation of Medvedev's name around all over the internets and laughing at her. Good for them, but could they have done better? I'm looking at his name written down right in front of me, and it took me a couple of tries to pronounce it. It's a tongue twister.
Now that I've torn the moderators to shreds, let's move on to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's performances. I haven't got a whole lot to say about these because this debate was, in essence, nothing but a repeat of the debate that came before it. Nobody is saying anything new, so there's not much to say that hasn't already been said.
I think we can all agree that Obama won the debate. He stayed calm and collected throughout, and seemed very much in control of himself and the situation, while Hillary Clinton had a lot of shrill moments. She whined about how she was always given the first question in debates, she whined about how Obama was always attacking her. I don't know what she thinks whining is going to get her, because I can't imagine anyone wanting a president who, when stymied by North Korea or Iran, turns to the media and whines about how all of the Axis of Evil are ganging up on her, boo-hoo.
It reminds me of when her husband, Bill Clinton, was running against Bush the First. By the end of the campaign, Clinton was so far ahead, and such a media darling, that Bush's campaign took on the slogan – and I'm not kidding about this – 'Annoy the media. Elect George Bush'
Obama's performance was about what it has been. As I said, he kept his cool under pointed questions and attacks, and looked confident and presidential. Interestingly, he's started shifting some of his attacks to John McCain, and indication that there's a certain amount of assumption that he's going to be the nominee. He stood by his position that it's important to talk to people, even bad people, rather than try to "punish" them by giving them the silent treatment. I don't know about any of you, but I stopped screaming "I'll never speak to you again!" at my parents and friends when I was about ten. I don't know if anyone has coined the phrase 'schoolyard politics' yet, but if not, I claim it, because that's what George Bush's policies, and to some extent Hillary Clinton's policies are.
However, Obama did annoy me when he backed away from being called a liberal. The more that people insist on doing that, the more power they give to the Republicans. Obama IS liberal, and they will attack him with that label, and their attacks will succeed unless he's willing to step up and own the word. Obama is a good and convincing orator. If anyone could re-claim the word 'liberal' after the Republicans so adeptly tarnished it, it's him.
All in all, the debate was fairly uninteresting and in some places (sixteen minute pedantic exchange about health care) insufferably dull and annoying, to the point where I was yelling 'Shut up, already!' to my screen. But even so, the tenth and final part of the debate, as broadcast on just one of the many accounts that had it posted, had, as of this posting, over 12,000 views. That's over 12,000 people who bothered to watch the damn thing all the way to the end just on that one account. Even though the debates are dull, there are people – a lot of people – out there watching. There's a new world being born, and I'm proud to be a part of it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Texas Debate
I finally got the chance to watch the Texas debate on YouTube the other day. (Yes, I'm aware that the Ohio one has already taken place. I plan to watch it today.) I don't have cable, so I'm at the mercy of the good people at YouTube who eventually tend to get around to posting videos of the debates, which can take a day or two. It does take a while, but I'm glad it's a service that's available; it's great that the debates are posted where a wider – and largely younger – audience has access to them.
If you haven't seen the debate yet, here's the first part of it:
My overall impression of the debate is that Obama will beat the pants off of McCain when the two of them match up in front of the cameras. He's a substantive speaker, very good at getting his point across, and he comes off as more confident than McCain has seemed in previous Republican debates. Plus, as everyone knows, he's a much more inspiring speaker.
Hillary Clinton made a lot of big blunders during the debate. For one, she re-used an argument that I've read a lot on message boards lately – she implied that Barack Obama's supporters are delusional, fooled by his oratory and unable to see with her wisdom and clarity the empty package that lies beneath. The problem with this argument is that right now, Hillary needs to sway some of Obama's supporters to her side, and she's not going to convince anyone of anything by calling them simpletons and idiots. Is it any wonder that she got booed when she brought up the damn plagiarism thing again?
Another one of her big mistakes came when she started talking about her proposed moratorium on home foreclosures. In what I assume was a misguided attempt to indicate in an amusing way that even an idiot would agree with her plan, she mentioned that George Bush thought it was a good idea. Let me tell you, if George Bush thought any plan of mine was a good idea, I'd re-think it. He thought Iraq was a good idea, and the tax cuts were a good idea, and Michael "Brownie" Brown was a good idea. He's like a bizarro idea man, and his approval is not something that anyone in their right mind should be bragging about.
Which isn't to say that Obama didn't annoy me as well. Both candidates persisted to debate on health care long after the moderators tried to change the topic; candidates breaking the rules during a debate annoys me to no end, and I wish that there was some way to stop them from doing so. It shows a disrespect to the news organizations who are giving them the media coverage that they so crave. Worse, the two of them were just making the same arguments over and over – Hillary repeating the same stupid allegations, and Obama repeatedly denying them. Granted, she started the whole exchange, but Obama could have chosen not to continue it, and he didn't.
I did notice an interesting tactic that Hillary Clinton used during the debate -- other than the 'tactic' of constant attacks against Obama. She made several referrals to tactile relations between herself and the people that she met on the campaign trail. I caught two or three times when she described women 'grabbing her hand'. She should have used that kind of imagery a lot earlier in the primary season; it was very effective.
All in all, Obama won the debate hands down. He stayed positive, talked about ideas and what could be fixed and how to do it, and he refrained from attacks, except when he was attacking John McCain. He came off as someone so fit for the job that he didn't have to tear anyone down to rise above.
If you haven't seen the debate yet, here's the first part of it:
My overall impression of the debate is that Obama will beat the pants off of McCain when the two of them match up in front of the cameras. He's a substantive speaker, very good at getting his point across, and he comes off as more confident than McCain has seemed in previous Republican debates. Plus, as everyone knows, he's a much more inspiring speaker.
Hillary Clinton made a lot of big blunders during the debate. For one, she re-used an argument that I've read a lot on message boards lately – she implied that Barack Obama's supporters are delusional, fooled by his oratory and unable to see with her wisdom and clarity the empty package that lies beneath. The problem with this argument is that right now, Hillary needs to sway some of Obama's supporters to her side, and she's not going to convince anyone of anything by calling them simpletons and idiots. Is it any wonder that she got booed when she brought up the damn plagiarism thing again?
Another one of her big mistakes came when she started talking about her proposed moratorium on home foreclosures. In what I assume was a misguided attempt to indicate in an amusing way that even an idiot would agree with her plan, she mentioned that George Bush thought it was a good idea. Let me tell you, if George Bush thought any plan of mine was a good idea, I'd re-think it. He thought Iraq was a good idea, and the tax cuts were a good idea, and Michael "Brownie" Brown was a good idea. He's like a bizarro idea man, and his approval is not something that anyone in their right mind should be bragging about.
Which isn't to say that Obama didn't annoy me as well. Both candidates persisted to debate on health care long after the moderators tried to change the topic; candidates breaking the rules during a debate annoys me to no end, and I wish that there was some way to stop them from doing so. It shows a disrespect to the news organizations who are giving them the media coverage that they so crave. Worse, the two of them were just making the same arguments over and over – Hillary repeating the same stupid allegations, and Obama repeatedly denying them. Granted, she started the whole exchange, but Obama could have chosen not to continue it, and he didn't.
I did notice an interesting tactic that Hillary Clinton used during the debate -- other than the 'tactic' of constant attacks against Obama. She made several referrals to tactile relations between herself and the people that she met on the campaign trail. I caught two or three times when she described women 'grabbing her hand'. She should have used that kind of imagery a lot earlier in the primary season; it was very effective.
All in all, Obama won the debate hands down. He stayed positive, talked about ideas and what could be fixed and how to do it, and he refrained from attacks, except when he was attacking John McCain. He came off as someone so fit for the job that he didn't have to tear anyone down to rise above.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Moste Tragical Storie of Hillary Clinton
Unless you've been living under a rock or hiding in a cave with Osama bin Laden, you know that Barack Obama won decisively in Wisconsin and Hawaii. , giving him a ten state winning streak. He has begun to eat into many of Hillary Clinton's core demographics, and labor unions, including the Teamsters Union and the Service Workers Union have been falling over themselves to endorse him. Hillary Clinton's campaign seems powerless to stop Obama from rocketing from a longshot second to disputed frontrunner status. Her ugly attempts at doing so, including the rumor that she will attempt to win the nomination by strong arming superdelegates into backing her, even if she loses the popular vote, and the American Leadership Project, a 527 committee, that has been recently formed in Ohio for the purpose of airing negative ads are quickly eroding her political capital. Her actions have degenerated into selfishness; for Hillary Clinton, it's no longer about America. It isn't even about the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton's campaign has become about nothing more than Hillary Clinton and her desire, even need, to become President.
The state of her campaign is a stark contrast to the way that it looked at the beginning of the primary season. Back then, she was almost singlehandedly keeping the tone of the primary campaign positive. She looked graceful on the stage at the debates, gently but firmly pushing everyone to party unity. The positive, upbeat Hillary Clinton was also popular; even people like me who didn't feel that she was electable in the general election and had serious problems with some of her behavior and policies admired her poise.
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
So what happened? How did the Hillary Clinton of those first few debates, who couldn't be needled by even the most subtle leading questions into saying a single bad word about her fellow Democrats, turn into an attack dog so vicious that she's alienating former allies and supporters? I think the first sign of what was to come happened after Obama's win in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton's now infamous New Hampshire tears. While some may argue that these tears were a genuine and uncontrollable expression of emotion, anyone who's had enough exposure to politics and politicians knows that the best of them do not lose control of themselves this way. Hillary Clinton is one of the best; make no mistake, the tears were calculated.
As Obama's poll numbers increased, Hillary Clinton went increasingly negative, and her campaign fell apart. Her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager both quit right around the time that she made the bizarre choice to focus on Texas and Ohio, all but skipping the "little states" in between. Such a boneheaded decision looks even more boneheaded because of how well it "worked" for Guliani less than a month ago. I know that memories are short during the primary season, but this is ridiculous. There were money troubles as well, the standard 'nosediving campaign' craziness. But there's more.
Ready From Day One?
Even though Hillary staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio, and spent almost all of her time stumping in those states, her campaign staff never bothered to look up Texas' byzantine primary system and targeted their campaign in all the wrong areas. And in Pennsylvania, they didn't get in all the names of their delegate candidates, even though Governor Rendell, a vocal Clinton supporter, extended the deadline by a day and a half due to bad weather. She was short ten or eleven delegate candidates, and if the deadline hadn't been extended, the figure would have been double.
How could a campaign run by such a seasoned politician, who started out as the "sure thing" and who was touted as being "ready from day one", blow up so spectacularly? The question itself contains the answer – Hillary Clinton believed all of the media "inevitability" hype and ran her campaign accordingly. She believed from the beginning that the White House is not only her destiny, but her right. She wasn't paying attention to the possibility that she might have a formidable challenger, and never saw Obama coming.
As primary after primary passed without anointing Hillary Clinton as the clear frontrunner, her campaign became increasingly disorganized. But the Super Tuesday primaries were where things really started to fall apart. Hillary Clinton believed the pundits who were certain that she would sweep the Super Tuesday states, and she believed that the dawn of February 6th would see her as the nominee. She was so certain that she probably had few or no plans to continue her campaign as anything more than a victory tour, and her campaign wasn't able to adapt to the sudden and unexpected situation when Obama remained a contender.
In the end, Hillary Clinton's campaign has resembled a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. Her very greatness led to the hubris that caused her downfall, while the young and virtuous contender has risen to take her place. The only thing that's missing is the final horrible moment of terror and pity before the curtain closes on the final act. Let's just hope that she won't gouge out her eyes on national television.
The state of her campaign is a stark contrast to the way that it looked at the beginning of the primary season. Back then, she was almost singlehandedly keeping the tone of the primary campaign positive. She looked graceful on the stage at the debates, gently but firmly pushing everyone to party unity. The positive, upbeat Hillary Clinton was also popular; even people like me who didn't feel that she was electable in the general election and had serious problems with some of her behavior and policies admired her poise.
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
So what happened? How did the Hillary Clinton of those first few debates, who couldn't be needled by even the most subtle leading questions into saying a single bad word about her fellow Democrats, turn into an attack dog so vicious that she's alienating former allies and supporters? I think the first sign of what was to come happened after Obama's win in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton's now infamous New Hampshire tears. While some may argue that these tears were a genuine and uncontrollable expression of emotion, anyone who's had enough exposure to politics and politicians knows that the best of them do not lose control of themselves this way. Hillary Clinton is one of the best; make no mistake, the tears were calculated.
As Obama's poll numbers increased, Hillary Clinton went increasingly negative, and her campaign fell apart. Her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager both quit right around the time that she made the bizarre choice to focus on Texas and Ohio, all but skipping the "little states" in between. Such a boneheaded decision looks even more boneheaded because of how well it "worked" for Guliani less than a month ago. I know that memories are short during the primary season, but this is ridiculous. There were money troubles as well, the standard 'nosediving campaign' craziness. But there's more.
Ready From Day One?
Even though Hillary staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio, and spent almost all of her time stumping in those states, her campaign staff never bothered to look up Texas' byzantine primary system and targeted their campaign in all the wrong areas. And in Pennsylvania, they didn't get in all the names of their delegate candidates, even though Governor Rendell, a vocal Clinton supporter, extended the deadline by a day and a half due to bad weather. She was short ten or eleven delegate candidates, and if the deadline hadn't been extended, the figure would have been double.
How could a campaign run by such a seasoned politician, who started out as the "sure thing" and who was touted as being "ready from day one", blow up so spectacularly? The question itself contains the answer – Hillary Clinton believed all of the media "inevitability" hype and ran her campaign accordingly. She believed from the beginning that the White House is not only her destiny, but her right. She wasn't paying attention to the possibility that she might have a formidable challenger, and never saw Obama coming.
As primary after primary passed without anointing Hillary Clinton as the clear frontrunner, her campaign became increasingly disorganized. But the Super Tuesday primaries were where things really started to fall apart. Hillary Clinton believed the pundits who were certain that she would sweep the Super Tuesday states, and she believed that the dawn of February 6th would see her as the nominee. She was so certain that she probably had few or no plans to continue her campaign as anything more than a victory tour, and her campaign wasn't able to adapt to the sudden and unexpected situation when Obama remained a contender.
In the end, Hillary Clinton's campaign has resembled a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. Her very greatness led to the hubris that caused her downfall, while the young and virtuous contender has risen to take her place. The only thing that's missing is the final horrible moment of terror and pity before the curtain closes on the final act. Let's just hope that she won't gouge out her eyes on national television.
Don't Buy Into The Hype!
No long post for today (yesterday, whatever), because I was out buying expensive yarn -- err.. helping the economy all day. Don't worry, GW! I've got your back!
Now it's almost 3am, and I'm still giddy and high on yarn fumes. So I've been reading a bit to calm myself down and get some ideas for later. While clicking around, I stumbled on the following article in Daily Kos.
Normally, I'd rather not link to blogs, the same way that I would hesitate to link to editorials or blatantly partisan newspapers. I don't like to lean on people for facts when it's in their every interest to advance their own opinion. However, I really liked the way that this article broke down differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
She takes the tack that a lot of people have used in the past -- she looks at their senate records. But instead of looking at their voting records, which she acknowledges can be misleading in terms of what's really important to them, she looks at the bills that they sponsor and co-sponsor.
I urge you to take a look. The writing is clear, and the subject is interesting.
Don't buy into the hype!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go fondle some silk.
Now it's almost 3am, and I'm still giddy and high on yarn fumes. So I've been reading a bit to calm myself down and get some ideas for later. While clicking around, I stumbled on the following article in Daily Kos.
Normally, I'd rather not link to blogs, the same way that I would hesitate to link to editorials or blatantly partisan newspapers. I don't like to lean on people for facts when it's in their every interest to advance their own opinion. However, I really liked the way that this article broke down differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
She takes the tack that a lot of people have used in the past -- she looks at their senate records. But instead of looking at their voting records, which she acknowledges can be misleading in terms of what's really important to them, she looks at the bills that they sponsor and co-sponsor.
I urge you to take a look. The writing is clear, and the subject is interesting.
Don't buy into the hype!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go fondle some silk.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Just Words
Well, I don't have an explanation for what happened with the missed entries yesterday and the day before, except that things are not going well in blogland.. Monday was the day that Sam and I celebrated Valentine's Day, so of course I wasn't going to sit down for a couple of hours and hammer out a blog entry, but yesterday was another matter. I typed something up and, after letting it sit for a bit, went to edit it and put in some links. While doing so, I managed to crash OpenOffice AND corrupt the file with the blog entry in it, after which I had a small temper tantrum, folded laundry, and went to bed.
I hate rewriting things that I've written before and lost. It never goes well. I'm always convinced that what I wrote before was so much better than the repeat version, which frustrates me, which makes my writing worse, which frustrates me more, and so on. But I'll do my best, because I liked what I had to say last night.
The Power of Words
It's nice that current events (and kitty litter!) have moved in such a direction that each of my posts can build on the post before. I'm also excited that the topic that I get to build on is language, which is one of my favorite subjects.
I talked a couple days ago about how Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for being an excellent orator and thus for lacking in substance. I called bullshit on the meme that she invoked, that if the wrapping paper is pretty then there must be nothing in the package. I pointed out how dangerous the meme can be, and how the Democratic party's persistent belief in its veracity has harmed us in the past, and will continue to do so as long as we hold onto it. This was, I'll admit, as much of a defense of Barack Obama as it was a commentary on the power of myths, symbols, and memes, and how they manipulate us into irrational beliefs and actions that work against our self interest. But I also admit that such a defense is too abstract and geeky for the majority of the American public, and even those who would care to listen would probably vehemently deny that it was true; after all, we would quickly discard the symbols and memes that hurt us if we could easily see them for what they are.
Barack Obama Strikes Back
Around the time that I was writing my geeky and obscure defense of Barack Obama, he was defending himself in a more effective and compelling manner, in the form of a speech that stressed the power of words to shape ideas and events. I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, but I did find a video of the last ten minutes of it, which include the now infamous 'just words' passage. I'm presenting it here, and I encourage you all to take ten minutes to listen. Barack Obama is a powerful speaker who gives even this diehard pessimist a sliver of hope.
The trouble came when the Clinton camp claimed that Obama had plagiarized the key part of the speech from another speech given by a close friend of his, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A few people have taken to calling the whole affair – and prepare for groaning and rolling of eyes – "wordgate".
The whining about Obama's remorseless stealing of words continues, despite the fact that only two words were stolen – "just words" – and despite the fact that they weren't actually stolen; Governor Patrick himself pointed out that he had encouraged Obama to borrow the words from his speech.
As a writer, I take charges of plagiarism seriously. It's not just A cardinal sin among writers, it's THE cardinal sin. If I thought that plagiarism was going on here, I'd be the first person to denounce Barack Obama until I was blue in the face and hoarse from shouting. But writers share ideas all the time, and if an idea or a set of words are used with the permission of a friend, that's called collaboration, which is something that I approve of.
The most hilarious example of this mountain out of a molehill idiocy was when Governor Patrick put in an appearance on Good Morning America, where he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Diane Sawyer is clearly a Clinton supporter, judging by her pointed and leading questions, and she must not have done a scrap of research before the interview, because it clearly did not turn out the way that she had expected. The expression on her face as Governor Patrick relentlessly praised Barack Obama despite her every effort to lead him into doing otherwise was priceless. Governor Patrick is a masterful politician who turned what was supposed to be a smear of Obama into an opportunity to praise him to the skies and argue articulately why everyone should vote for him.
Because the Daily Show is on break this week, and thus won't be broadcasting clips from the interview until the 25th, I present it to you here, for your amusement. God knows that we all need a laugh right now!
Especially check out the look on Sawyer's face when the camera cuts to her and she's trying so hard to smile. It's priceless.
I hate rewriting things that I've written before and lost. It never goes well. I'm always convinced that what I wrote before was so much better than the repeat version, which frustrates me, which makes my writing worse, which frustrates me more, and so on. But I'll do my best, because I liked what I had to say last night.
The Power of Words
It's nice that current events (and kitty litter!) have moved in such a direction that each of my posts can build on the post before. I'm also excited that the topic that I get to build on is language, which is one of my favorite subjects.
I talked a couple days ago about how Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for being an excellent orator and thus for lacking in substance. I called bullshit on the meme that she invoked, that if the wrapping paper is pretty then there must be nothing in the package. I pointed out how dangerous the meme can be, and how the Democratic party's persistent belief in its veracity has harmed us in the past, and will continue to do so as long as we hold onto it. This was, I'll admit, as much of a defense of Barack Obama as it was a commentary on the power of myths, symbols, and memes, and how they manipulate us into irrational beliefs and actions that work against our self interest. But I also admit that such a defense is too abstract and geeky for the majority of the American public, and even those who would care to listen would probably vehemently deny that it was true; after all, we would quickly discard the symbols and memes that hurt us if we could easily see them for what they are.
Barack Obama Strikes Back
Around the time that I was writing my geeky and obscure defense of Barack Obama, he was defending himself in a more effective and compelling manner, in the form of a speech that stressed the power of words to shape ideas and events. I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, but I did find a video of the last ten minutes of it, which include the now infamous 'just words' passage. I'm presenting it here, and I encourage you all to take ten minutes to listen. Barack Obama is a powerful speaker who gives even this diehard pessimist a sliver of hope.
The trouble came when the Clinton camp claimed that Obama had plagiarized the key part of the speech from another speech given by a close friend of his, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A few people have taken to calling the whole affair – and prepare for groaning and rolling of eyes – "wordgate".
The whining about Obama's remorseless stealing of words continues, despite the fact that only two words were stolen – "just words" – and despite the fact that they weren't actually stolen; Governor Patrick himself pointed out that he had encouraged Obama to borrow the words from his speech.
As a writer, I take charges of plagiarism seriously. It's not just A cardinal sin among writers, it's THE cardinal sin. If I thought that plagiarism was going on here, I'd be the first person to denounce Barack Obama until I was blue in the face and hoarse from shouting. But writers share ideas all the time, and if an idea or a set of words are used with the permission of a friend, that's called collaboration, which is something that I approve of.
The most hilarious example of this mountain out of a molehill idiocy was when Governor Patrick put in an appearance on Good Morning America, where he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Diane Sawyer is clearly a Clinton supporter, judging by her pointed and leading questions, and she must not have done a scrap of research before the interview, because it clearly did not turn out the way that she had expected. The expression on her face as Governor Patrick relentlessly praised Barack Obama despite her every effort to lead him into doing otherwise was priceless. Governor Patrick is a masterful politician who turned what was supposed to be a smear of Obama into an opportunity to praise him to the skies and argue articulately why everyone should vote for him.
Because the Daily Show is on break this week, and thus won't be broadcasting clips from the interview until the 25th, I present it to you here, for your amusement. God knows that we all need a laugh right now!
Especially check out the look on Sawyer's face when the camera cuts to her and she's trying so hard to smile. It's priceless.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Politics and Symbolism
Ever since I got some exposure to Jung and Campbell in college, I have been what I have called a 'goobery Campbell fangirl'. ('Goobery' being a technical term.) I've read a lot of their writings, as well as the writings of others who touch on this field – I read the entire Golden Bough, and anyone who's taken a look at that monster knows that takes dedication. My reading has led me to become fascinated with the myths and symbols that permeate our society, spread unconsciously through the words we choose, the stories that we tell, the way that we see ourselves and choose to present ourselves. We don't realize it, but everything about the way that we see the world is controlled and guided by a symbolic language that stretches back hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.
Once I became aware of this symbolic language, I started to see it everywhere. I also realized the way that myth and symbolism could be used by someone who understood it to manipulate people; by wielding symbols in a precise manner, it would be possible, even easy, to control how the public sees the world. What's more, I started identifying who these people are, and how they are doing it.
Of course, the manipulation of symbols is everywhere; it's not as though I'm the first person to discover their power to control others. Advertisers are geniuses at it; if you know what to look for, you can watch commercials and break them down neatly into the symbols they use and the memes they count on to reinforce their message. Politicians are good at it, too.
Dangerous Symbolism
Symbols aren't necessarily a bad thing. They provide a filter through which we can make sense of an increasingly complex world that might otherwise overwhelm us. But the problem that they pose is that not all of them are helpful – some lead us to take unwise actions, to believe lies told to us by people who do not have our best interests in mind, to stereotype people, to hurt ourselves or those around us. Those symbols need to be exposed for what they are, because once we recognize them, their power over us becomes greatly diminished.
I'm going to talk about one of those dangerous symbols today.
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been manipulating symbolism in her standard attack mode against Barack Obama by claiming that while he is an incredible orator, he lacks substance. This plays on a meme that we have in our society that people have a certain number of "points" that they get to distribute – or have distributed for them – so that people who get to look good and have a strong, charismatic presence don't have enough "points" left over to also be intelligent or effective, whereas people who lack charisma have more "points" free to give them the qualities necessary to be hard-hitting politicians who Get Things Done.
Examples of this meme in action pervade in the stories that we tell. Bookworms are portrayed in books and film as socially awkward, plain, or even ugly. (The exception being the sexy librarian – but mankind has found a way to sexualize everything. If you doubt me, the internet will disabuse you of your charming innocence.) Models and strippers are generally considered to be stupid and/or uneducated. Would you be surprised to learn that a supermodel had a masters degree in economics?
For the most part, the democrats have swallowed this meme hook, line, and sinker, which is a shame, because it's dangerous for a political party that wants to get its candidates elected to positions of power in this country. Our belief in this falsehood is why we keep losing. We assume that the less charismatic, droning candidates are more substantive, and therefore the only responsible choice, and so we end up with "winners" like John Kerry. And then we wonder why they lose, when their ideas are so good, their positions so well thought out and substantial. What we refuse to see is that if their droning voices put Americans to sleep, no one gets to hear about their ten point plans to rebuild the country.
Hillary Clinton is trying to cast herself in the role of the kind of policy wonk that the party loves by claiming that Obama's charisma is an empty facade that obfuscates a lack of real ideas or strong policy. And because of the dangerous meme of points allocation, she's succeeding. I've heard a lot of people who clearly don't know what they're talking about parroting her words.
It isn't true. Here is the transcript of a speech that Obama gave recently at a GM assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. (I tried to find a link to a video of the entire speech, but no dice.) It opens up with the usual Obama-esque soaring rhetoric – Washington is corrupt, people are hurting, politicians are sold out, he comes on a golden wave of hope to bring change and prosperity and unity, blah blah blah. But then he gets into the second part of his speech and directly addresses hard economic realities one by one, and talks about the solutions that he proposes, and those that he has already proposed. Agree with him or don't on his policy, but he lays out in-depth ideas. It would be hard not to call what he has to say in that speech substance.
You want the truth that transcends the symbols that have chained our minds to strategies that don't work? Here it is: Once in a generation, someone comes along who can talk economic policy and make it sound riveting. Barack Obama is that man.
Once I became aware of this symbolic language, I started to see it everywhere. I also realized the way that myth and symbolism could be used by someone who understood it to manipulate people; by wielding symbols in a precise manner, it would be possible, even easy, to control how the public sees the world. What's more, I started identifying who these people are, and how they are doing it.
Of course, the manipulation of symbols is everywhere; it's not as though I'm the first person to discover their power to control others. Advertisers are geniuses at it; if you know what to look for, you can watch commercials and break them down neatly into the symbols they use and the memes they count on to reinforce their message. Politicians are good at it, too.
Dangerous Symbolism
Symbols aren't necessarily a bad thing. They provide a filter through which we can make sense of an increasingly complex world that might otherwise overwhelm us. But the problem that they pose is that not all of them are helpful – some lead us to take unwise actions, to believe lies told to us by people who do not have our best interests in mind, to stereotype people, to hurt ourselves or those around us. Those symbols need to be exposed for what they are, because once we recognize them, their power over us becomes greatly diminished.
I'm going to talk about one of those dangerous symbols today.
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been manipulating symbolism in her standard attack mode against Barack Obama by claiming that while he is an incredible orator, he lacks substance. This plays on a meme that we have in our society that people have a certain number of "points" that they get to distribute – or have distributed for them – so that people who get to look good and have a strong, charismatic presence don't have enough "points" left over to also be intelligent or effective, whereas people who lack charisma have more "points" free to give them the qualities necessary to be hard-hitting politicians who Get Things Done.
Examples of this meme in action pervade in the stories that we tell. Bookworms are portrayed in books and film as socially awkward, plain, or even ugly. (The exception being the sexy librarian – but mankind has found a way to sexualize everything. If you doubt me, the internet will disabuse you of your charming innocence.) Models and strippers are generally considered to be stupid and/or uneducated. Would you be surprised to learn that a supermodel had a masters degree in economics?
For the most part, the democrats have swallowed this meme hook, line, and sinker, which is a shame, because it's dangerous for a political party that wants to get its candidates elected to positions of power in this country. Our belief in this falsehood is why we keep losing. We assume that the less charismatic, droning candidates are more substantive, and therefore the only responsible choice, and so we end up with "winners" like John Kerry. And then we wonder why they lose, when their ideas are so good, their positions so well thought out and substantial. What we refuse to see is that if their droning voices put Americans to sleep, no one gets to hear about their ten point plans to rebuild the country.
Hillary Clinton is trying to cast herself in the role of the kind of policy wonk that the party loves by claiming that Obama's charisma is an empty facade that obfuscates a lack of real ideas or strong policy. And because of the dangerous meme of points allocation, she's succeeding. I've heard a lot of people who clearly don't know what they're talking about parroting her words.
It isn't true. Here is the transcript of a speech that Obama gave recently at a GM assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. (I tried to find a link to a video of the entire speech, but no dice.) It opens up with the usual Obama-esque soaring rhetoric – Washington is corrupt, people are hurting, politicians are sold out, he comes on a golden wave of hope to bring change and prosperity and unity, blah blah blah. But then he gets into the second part of his speech and directly addresses hard economic realities one by one, and talks about the solutions that he proposes, and those that he has already proposed. Agree with him or don't on his policy, but he lays out in-depth ideas. It would be hard not to call what he has to say in that speech substance.
You want the truth that transcends the symbols that have chained our minds to strategies that don't work? Here it is: Once in a generation, someone comes along who can talk economic policy and make it sound riveting. Barack Obama is that man.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle
A combination of too little sleep, too much work, and a cold that I've been fending off but that I can't quite seem to beat have made me a little dizzy in the head today. I tried writing a couple of times, and what I saw when I came back to my "brilliance" looked more like the ravings of a lunatic teenager.
So rather than wax philosophical, I bring you a little bit of weekend political levity:
Barack Obama is your new bicycle.
(Click on the link when the page opens to see more things that Barak Obama does for you!)
I try and make myself look like a hard-hitting political pundit, but the truth is that I'm someone who will sit and smile from ear to ear while refreshing that page all over again. (Barack Obama smiled when someone mentioned my name! And he gave me a puppy!)
So rather than wax philosophical, I bring you a little bit of weekend political levity:
Barack Obama is your new bicycle.
(Click on the link when the page opens to see more things that Barak Obama does for you!)
I try and make myself look like a hard-hitting political pundit, but the truth is that I'm someone who will sit and smile from ear to ear while refreshing that page all over again. (Barack Obama smiled when someone mentioned my name! And he gave me a puppy!)
Friday, February 15, 2008
Democrats Contemplate How to Lose -- Again.
If any of you caught the blank entry I've had posted for most of this morning, sorry about that! I had to post an entry to get the code for the video at the bottom of the post (stupid YouTube!) and I couldn't figure out how to delete the entry.
Delegate Manipulation
I've heard a lot of talk recently about the possibility that the election results from Florida and Michigan may be used to help decide who becomes President. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one who campaigned in Florida – and you know she campaigned; her entire victory speech was a big old Florida pander – and she was the only one who was even on the ballot in Michigan. The party line is that it's unfair to deny these states their part in the electoral process, as though some other entity, a vengeful god acting against the will of the DNC, had capriciously imposed the punishment. They're also claiming that it would be unwise to alienate voters in two swing states, something they maybe should have thought of before they locked Florida and Michigan out. Hillary Clinton stayed silent on the issue all the way up to when she realized that she was in a close race with Obama and she was polling well in Florida and then – only then – did she start talking about fairness and inclusiveness.
Because Hillary Clinton took the most electoral votes from Florida and Michigan, the only reason to include those states in the total tally would be to tip the balance of votes in her favor. And you know, if the democratic party wants to shoot itself in the foot, changing the rules for the purpose of crowning their establishment candidate would be an excellent way to do it. I've already talked about how if Hillary is nominated when the popular vote has gone to Obama, a good portion of democrats are going to take their ball and go home. If she's nominated through rule-bending when the popular vote would have otherwise gone to Obama, that number gets even bigger.
The other option would be to hold new primaries and/or caucuses in both states, allowing both candidates a chance to campaign first. Despite the fact that this would still give Hillary a slight advantage (since most of the people who voted for her before in the unfair primaries will probably vote for her again) Obama's camp has agreed to this. Florida, however, is digging in its heels, saying that caucuses would be unfair to its elderly and its military, and primaries would be prohibitively expensive, and Michigan Senator Carl Levin said that it "would be neither practical, nor fair" to hold new caucuses in Michican.
I'm hopeful that this talk is just that – talk, totally unfounded on reality. If it were any group of people who had ever in their lives impressed me as being competent individuals, I wouldn't believe a word of it. But these are the democrats we're talking about here. All I can hope is that Obama manages to sew up a big enough lead to make such vote manipulation irrelevant.
Yes We Can
I was amused to discover that my remarks on the awesomeness of "Yes we can!" a couple of days ago were right on the money. Recently, I ran across a link to a video wherein a whole bunch of various artists, actors, and famous people sing 'Yes we can!', with occasional interruptions for a bit of oration from Obama. The overall video isn't actually very good, but even so, it's powerful, and it's powerful because of the repetitions of 'Yes we can!'. I thought I'd go ahead and link it here so you can get the idea.
Yes, I know that it's stupid to make political decisions based on what celebrities think, but most people do it anyway.
Delegate Manipulation
I've heard a lot of talk recently about the possibility that the election results from Florida and Michigan may be used to help decide who becomes President. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one who campaigned in Florida – and you know she campaigned; her entire victory speech was a big old Florida pander – and she was the only one who was even on the ballot in Michigan. The party line is that it's unfair to deny these states their part in the electoral process, as though some other entity, a vengeful god acting against the will of the DNC, had capriciously imposed the punishment. They're also claiming that it would be unwise to alienate voters in two swing states, something they maybe should have thought of before they locked Florida and Michigan out. Hillary Clinton stayed silent on the issue all the way up to when she realized that she was in a close race with Obama and she was polling well in Florida and then – only then – did she start talking about fairness and inclusiveness.
Because Hillary Clinton took the most electoral votes from Florida and Michigan, the only reason to include those states in the total tally would be to tip the balance of votes in her favor. And you know, if the democratic party wants to shoot itself in the foot, changing the rules for the purpose of crowning their establishment candidate would be an excellent way to do it. I've already talked about how if Hillary is nominated when the popular vote has gone to Obama, a good portion of democrats are going to take their ball and go home. If she's nominated through rule-bending when the popular vote would have otherwise gone to Obama, that number gets even bigger.
The other option would be to hold new primaries and/or caucuses in both states, allowing both candidates a chance to campaign first. Despite the fact that this would still give Hillary a slight advantage (since most of the people who voted for her before in the unfair primaries will probably vote for her again) Obama's camp has agreed to this. Florida, however, is digging in its heels, saying that caucuses would be unfair to its elderly and its military, and primaries would be prohibitively expensive, and Michigan Senator Carl Levin said that it "would be neither practical, nor fair" to hold new caucuses in Michican.
I'm hopeful that this talk is just that – talk, totally unfounded on reality. If it were any group of people who had ever in their lives impressed me as being competent individuals, I wouldn't believe a word of it. But these are the democrats we're talking about here. All I can hope is that Obama manages to sew up a big enough lead to make such vote manipulation irrelevant.
Yes We Can
I was amused to discover that my remarks on the awesomeness of "Yes we can!" a couple of days ago were right on the money. Recently, I ran across a link to a video wherein a whole bunch of various artists, actors, and famous people sing 'Yes we can!', with occasional interruptions for a bit of oration from Obama. The overall video isn't actually very good, but even so, it's powerful, and it's powerful because of the repetitions of 'Yes we can!'. I thought I'd go ahead and link it here so you can get the idea.
Yes, I know that it's stupid to make political decisions based on what celebrities think, but most people do it anyway.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
George Orwell on language
I've been saving this link for a day when I didn't feel like writing a whole lot. I've realized that maybe I'm being a little bit too wordy – my last entry took me several hours to write up and prepare, and I wound up posting it before I thought that I was 'finished'.
Anyway, since I've been talking a lot about language lately, I thought I would share a link to an essay by George Orwell, written before he wrote 1984, about how language, when misused, can cloud our thinking, and how cloudy, lazy thinking can muddy our language. I learned about it while listening to a speech writer talk on NPR; he mentioned the article and called it his 'bible'. Having read it, I re-read it and pay close enough attention to its lessons that you might call it my 'bible', as well.
Here's the link, and I urge all of you, writers and non writers, to read it:
Politics and the English Language
In other news: Happy Valentine's Day!
Anyway, since I've been talking a lot about language lately, I thought I would share a link to an essay by George Orwell, written before he wrote 1984, about how language, when misused, can cloud our thinking, and how cloudy, lazy thinking can muddy our language. I learned about it while listening to a speech writer talk on NPR; he mentioned the article and called it his 'bible'. Having read it, I re-read it and pay close enough attention to its lessons that you might call it my 'bible', as well.
Here's the link, and I urge all of you, writers and non writers, to read it:
Politics and the English Language
In other news: Happy Valentine's Day!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Language and Superdelegates
As a writer, I'm interested in language, and how it is used. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am more interested in language than most authors I have met, whose eyes glaze over when I talk about the finer art of choosing the right word, or how to properly structure a sentence. But this is my blog, so I'm not going to talk about how to get an agent or how many rejection letters I've received – I'm going to talk about language!
No More Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
One of the fascinating things about language is how people can consciously change it, and use those changes to direct how other people think. There must be people working in politics, who are interested the power of individual crafted words and phrases as much as I am, and who understand them better than I do.
For example: When Republican candidates wanted to advocate torture, they re-named it "enhanced interrogation techniques", and flatly denied that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture. That, of course, isn't true. Enough people with brains called the bullshit for what it was that the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" soon became analogous to "torture" in the minds of most people, so it was time for the people who wanted to advocate it to change the words that they used.
Now, torture is being called . Here is one of the quotes by Scalia that particularly irks me: "You can't come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say 'Oh it's torture, and therefore it's no good.' "
IT IS NO GOOD! People who interrogate people say that it's no good! Psychologists and scientists say that it's no good! PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TORTURED say that it's no good! Forgive me for shouting, but entirely independent of moral considerations, torture is no good because it's unreliable. Read the firsthand account of waterboarding in the post linked above. The poster specifically says that he would have said anything – anything – to make it stop. If you didn't know about an imminent attack, make one up, anything to stop these crazy people from dumping water on you. People who interrogate people for a living have said publicly that information obtained from people who have been tortured is unreliable to the point of uselessness. Any "physical interrogation technique" short of torture isn't going to work, either. You think if someone is so determined not to talk that you come to the point where "slapping them in the face" is necessary is going to give because they're smacked around a little bit?
Even if, like Scalia, your soul has been replaced with the soul of a creeping, slimy thing, torture still doesn't work. It's not just a moral consideration.
So remember: "physical interrogation techniques" = "enhanced interrogation techniques" = torture. Don't let the smoke and mirrors of language cloud your mind as to what is being discussed and advocated, and who advocates it.
To be honest, the phrase "physical interrogation technique" isn't even very well crafted, because it evokes images of physical interrogation (torture) and enhanced interrogation (torture).
Positive Use of Language
There are, happily, more responsible and positive uses of the art of manipulating language. There is another phrase in wide use right now that is one of the best, if not the best, crafted slogan, that I have ever seen. Just thinking about it and breaking it down fills me with the kind of deep and swelling awe that most people feel when they see a masterpiece painting, or hear a beautiful symphony.
That phrase is Obama's motto: "Yes we can!"
In three words, three simple, one syllable words, that motto manages to be positive (yes), inclusive (we) and active/positive (can). On top of that, it forms a great rhythm when repeated or shouted. Humans have a very strong reaction to strong beats. They also have a strong reaction to things that come in threes. There's a reason why this slogan is firing people up in rallies that I have frequently heard described a "electrifying", even if the crowds that it sweeps through on a wave of emotion don't understand why. Whoever thought of "Yes we can!" is a god among speech writers. I want to become an acolyte, sit at his or her feet, and beg: "Teach me, master!" I am in awe.
You're probably not, because (as I said), most people don't get excited by how powerful the manipulation language can be. That's fine. But take my word for it – whoever wrote that slogan is a genius, and I hope Obama is paying him or her well.
Obama's Sweeping Victories (Or: Hillary In Trouble)
We all know by now that Obama scored a sweeping victory in the "potomac primary" yesterday, and that, because Hillary has made the dubious choice of ignoring the 'little states' and moving directly to campaign in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, a decision reminiscent of Guliani's disastrous Florida gamble, he's likely to go into the big primaries with ten straight wins under his belt. I'm firmly of the opinion that most voters don't care about how many wins a candidate has when they go to the polls, but Obama's winning streak means that they will see his sexy self (you know he's sexy!) and his handsome, smiling face wherever they go – on the TV, on the news stands, everywhere. This is a massive amount of free publicity to top the massive amount of money that Obama has been raising. Recently, his campaign urged his supporters to top Hillary Clinton's $5 million donation to herself, and they did, donating $7 million, much of it in small sums, in less than 48 hours.
Hillary needs a decisive victory in either Texas or Ohio to win the nomination, and it doesn't look good for her. Another of her top campaign officials has quit. She's tapped out her donors. Obama is eating into her core constituents. For once, it might be that the democratic party will actually pick a winner.
A lot of people are saying that, no matter how well Obama does, the superdelegates will flock to Hillary's side and artificially crown her the nominee. The reasoning goes that superdelegates, being by and large senators,congressmen, and other elected officials, will support the establishment, since they are, themselves, part of it. People claim that the Clintons can call in favors, that superdelegates will be nervous about this young, energetic man who is so earnestly calling for the end of "politics as usual" and that Hillary Clinton's larger count of superdeletages is a bellwether for that is to come.
They are wrong.
The Establishment
Let's look at the first statement, that senators, congressmen, and other elected officials are part of the establishment. This is true – if they weren't, they wouldn't be superdelegates -- but what is also true is that they will no longer be a part of the establishment if they do not get re-elected, and their role in the establishment will be drastically reduced if the democrats lose their majority in the senate and the house.
If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, she will galvanize Republican support against her, and they will turn out in droves to vote for the not-Hillary candidate (John McCain). And since they're there already, most of them will go ahead and vote for any other republicans who happen to be on the ballot. This is bad news for the democrats for two reasons. The first is that a lot of republicans are up for re-election this year, and Hillary Clinton would all but make certain that they went right back to Washington. The second is that any democrats up for re-election would be in a very bad way, especially with a lot of the young people and first time voters that Obama has been rallying staying home in disgust, or refusing to vote for them because of who they supported in their role as superdelegates.
Conversely, if Barack Obama is the nominee, it will be bad for the Republicans. Assuming John McCain never manages to rally his party around him (and I don't think he can expect to do so completely), many of the evangelicals who have been key to republican victories in the past will stay home. In the meantime, Obama's incredible charisma and his well-crafted message -- he's got the 'Yes we can!' guy working for him, after all – will inspire first time voters to come to the polls. Many of these people will, as in the above scenario, vote for any other democrats who happen to be on the ballot while they're there. Which means that established democrats get re-elected, and many republicans up for re-election get tossed out of office, thus increasing the democratic majority.
Calling In Favors
Have no doubt: The Clinton family is a new dynasty in American politics, and they are like the Incredible Hulk. You do not want to make them angry. You will not like them when they are angry.
A lot of people in politics owe them favors, and a lot of people are terrified of pissing them off. But there are a lot of senators and congressmen who are angry with them, as well. Hillary Clinton's attitude of 'what Hillary wants, Hillary gets' has led her to ride roughshod over her colleagues, and Bill Clinton's centerist policies during his presidency, and his tendency to throw his substantial weight around, have alienated others. These senators and congressmen, now superdelegates, will see their chance for payback, and they will take it.
It's true that Hillary Clinton has over 200 pledged superdelegates at this time, but these are probably the limit of the favors that she's been able to call in. The rest are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing; they want to endorse Obama, but know better than to come out in the open and do it unless Obama is certain to win. Hillary Clinton angry with them as a senator is one thing. Hillary Clinton angry with them as President is another thing entirely. As Obama's lead widens, they will see the importance of crowning him victor before the convention and they will flock to his side. Some of Hillary's superdelegates might even change their minds, counting on Hillary losing enough political capital in her bid for the Presidency that they can safely do so.
The Will of the People
The final thing to consider in predicting which direction the superdelegates will swing is whether or not they will follow the will of the people. The idea of superdelegates crowning the candidate who lost the popular vote is reminiscent to the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush was named President of the United States by a ruling of the Supreme Court. I think we all remember how utterly pissed off the majority of the Democratic party was. Even now, eight years later, and with so many other things to be mad about, I occasionally hear someone whining about this injustice. For the superdelegates to do the same thing would be ludicrously stupid. These are seasoned politicians, and no matter how much we enjoy painting them as a pack of idiots who are bound and determined to find a way to lose, even someone with rocks where their brains should be can see that imitating the controversial situation that made their party's most hated figure President would be a bad idea.
So there's my opinion: If Obama performs well in Texas and Ohio, which I believe he will, the establishment will begin to swing over to his side. It's in the party's best interests to crown a victor as soon as possible, and as soon as the superdelegates can do that with their support, they will.
Hillary Fights Back
With her campaign in serious trouble, the question is: What will Hillary do? The last time she faced Obama as a rising star, when he went to Nevada flushed with high poll numbers that she never expected, and a near certainty of winning in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton fought dirty. She campaigned in Michigan, when the candidates had been asked not to. She campaigned in Florida, when the candidates had been asked not to. As such, she scored strong victories in both states, clearly with the plan of trying to get those delegates from unfair primaries included in the total count. She cried. She made attacks so ugly that Ted Kennedy called her and told her to stop, and defected to Obama's side when Bill Clinton made his borderline racist remarks in South Carolina, and it was only then that she backed down. She has made it clear that she will do anything – ANYTHING – to take the White House.
Well, she's backed into a corner again. Soon, she will be campaigning against Obama in Texas and Ohio, and I'm expecting her to do something sneaky, or even downright dastardly in an effort to bring him down. I'm going to be interested to see what it is, and whether it succeeds.
Huckabee Loses in Virginia
Hey, when I'm wrong, I admit it with grace. I was stunned to read that Huckabee lost Virginia; I was certain he'd win there. And while he did do very well with people who identified themselves as extremely conservative, he didn't do well enough. This is bad for his campaign, and for his chances of becoming the Republican nominee.
I would be interested to see what factors led to Huckabee's loss in Virginia, but I haven't been able to dig up commentary on the subject anywhere.
Anyway, that's about it. I'm looking forward to the Texas and Ohio primaries. It's going to be great to see how those turn out. I'm betting that Obama's awesome speech writer will pull him through. ;)
No More Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
One of the fascinating things about language is how people can consciously change it, and use those changes to direct how other people think. There must be people working in politics, who are interested the power of individual crafted words and phrases as much as I am, and who understand them better than I do.
For example: When Republican candidates wanted to advocate torture, they re-named it "enhanced interrogation techniques", and flatly denied that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture. That, of course, isn't true. Enough people with brains called the bullshit for what it was that the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" soon became analogous to "torture" in the minds of most people, so it was time for the people who wanted to advocate it to change the words that they used.
Now, torture is being called . Here is one of the quotes by Scalia that particularly irks me: "You can't come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say 'Oh it's torture, and therefore it's no good.' "
IT IS NO GOOD! People who interrogate people say that it's no good! Psychologists and scientists say that it's no good! PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TORTURED say that it's no good! Forgive me for shouting, but entirely independent of moral considerations, torture is no good because it's unreliable. Read the firsthand account of waterboarding in the post linked above. The poster specifically says that he would have said anything – anything – to make it stop. If you didn't know about an imminent attack, make one up, anything to stop these crazy people from dumping water on you. People who interrogate people for a living have said publicly that information obtained from people who have been tortured is unreliable to the point of uselessness. Any "physical interrogation technique" short of torture isn't going to work, either. You think if someone is so determined not to talk that you come to the point where "slapping them in the face" is necessary is going to give because they're smacked around a little bit?
Even if, like Scalia, your soul has been replaced with the soul of a creeping, slimy thing, torture still doesn't work. It's not just a moral consideration.
So remember: "physical interrogation techniques" = "enhanced interrogation techniques" = torture. Don't let the smoke and mirrors of language cloud your mind as to what is being discussed and advocated, and who advocates it.
To be honest, the phrase "physical interrogation technique" isn't even very well crafted, because it evokes images of physical interrogation (torture) and enhanced interrogation (torture).
Positive Use of Language
There are, happily, more responsible and positive uses of the art of manipulating language. There is another phrase in wide use right now that is one of the best, if not the best, crafted slogan, that I have ever seen. Just thinking about it and breaking it down fills me with the kind of deep and swelling awe that most people feel when they see a masterpiece painting, or hear a beautiful symphony.
That phrase is Obama's motto: "Yes we can!"
In three words, three simple, one syllable words, that motto manages to be positive (yes), inclusive (we) and active/positive (can). On top of that, it forms a great rhythm when repeated or shouted. Humans have a very strong reaction to strong beats. They also have a strong reaction to things that come in threes. There's a reason why this slogan is firing people up in rallies that I have frequently heard described a "electrifying", even if the crowds that it sweeps through on a wave of emotion don't understand why. Whoever thought of "Yes we can!" is a god among speech writers. I want to become an acolyte, sit at his or her feet, and beg: "Teach me, master!" I am in awe.
You're probably not, because (as I said), most people don't get excited by how powerful the manipulation language can be. That's fine. But take my word for it – whoever wrote that slogan is a genius, and I hope Obama is paying him or her well.
Obama's Sweeping Victories (Or: Hillary In Trouble)
We all know by now that Obama scored a sweeping victory in the "potomac primary" yesterday, and that, because Hillary has made the dubious choice of ignoring the 'little states' and moving directly to campaign in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, a decision reminiscent of Guliani's disastrous Florida gamble, he's likely to go into the big primaries with ten straight wins under his belt. I'm firmly of the opinion that most voters don't care about how many wins a candidate has when they go to the polls, but Obama's winning streak means that they will see his sexy self (you know he's sexy!) and his handsome, smiling face wherever they go – on the TV, on the news stands, everywhere. This is a massive amount of free publicity to top the massive amount of money that Obama has been raising. Recently, his campaign urged his supporters to top Hillary Clinton's $5 million donation to herself, and they did, donating $7 million, much of it in small sums, in less than 48 hours.
Hillary needs a decisive victory in either Texas or Ohio to win the nomination, and it doesn't look good for her. Another of her top campaign officials has quit. She's tapped out her donors. Obama is eating into her core constituents. For once, it might be that the democratic party will actually pick a winner.
A lot of people are saying that, no matter how well Obama does, the superdelegates will flock to Hillary's side and artificially crown her the nominee. The reasoning goes that superdelegates, being by and large senators,congressmen, and other elected officials, will support the establishment, since they are, themselves, part of it. People claim that the Clintons can call in favors, that superdelegates will be nervous about this young, energetic man who is so earnestly calling for the end of "politics as usual" and that Hillary Clinton's larger count of superdeletages is a bellwether for that is to come.
They are wrong.
The Establishment
Let's look at the first statement, that senators, congressmen, and other elected officials are part of the establishment. This is true – if they weren't, they wouldn't be superdelegates -- but what is also true is that they will no longer be a part of the establishment if they do not get re-elected, and their role in the establishment will be drastically reduced if the democrats lose their majority in the senate and the house.
If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, she will galvanize Republican support against her, and they will turn out in droves to vote for the not-Hillary candidate (John McCain). And since they're there already, most of them will go ahead and vote for any other republicans who happen to be on the ballot. This is bad news for the democrats for two reasons. The first is that a lot of republicans are up for re-election this year, and Hillary Clinton would all but make certain that they went right back to Washington. The second is that any democrats up for re-election would be in a very bad way, especially with a lot of the young people and first time voters that Obama has been rallying staying home in disgust, or refusing to vote for them because of who they supported in their role as superdelegates.
Conversely, if Barack Obama is the nominee, it will be bad for the Republicans. Assuming John McCain never manages to rally his party around him (and I don't think he can expect to do so completely), many of the evangelicals who have been key to republican victories in the past will stay home. In the meantime, Obama's incredible charisma and his well-crafted message -- he's got the 'Yes we can!' guy working for him, after all – will inspire first time voters to come to the polls. Many of these people will, as in the above scenario, vote for any other democrats who happen to be on the ballot while they're there. Which means that established democrats get re-elected, and many republicans up for re-election get tossed out of office, thus increasing the democratic majority.
Calling In Favors
Have no doubt: The Clinton family is a new dynasty in American politics, and they are like the Incredible Hulk. You do not want to make them angry. You will not like them when they are angry.
A lot of people in politics owe them favors, and a lot of people are terrified of pissing them off. But there are a lot of senators and congressmen who are angry with them, as well. Hillary Clinton's attitude of 'what Hillary wants, Hillary gets' has led her to ride roughshod over her colleagues, and Bill Clinton's centerist policies during his presidency, and his tendency to throw his substantial weight around, have alienated others. These senators and congressmen, now superdelegates, will see their chance for payback, and they will take it.
It's true that Hillary Clinton has over 200 pledged superdelegates at this time, but these are probably the limit of the favors that she's been able to call in. The rest are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing; they want to endorse Obama, but know better than to come out in the open and do it unless Obama is certain to win. Hillary Clinton angry with them as a senator is one thing. Hillary Clinton angry with them as President is another thing entirely. As Obama's lead widens, they will see the importance of crowning him victor before the convention and they will flock to his side. Some of Hillary's superdelegates might even change their minds, counting on Hillary losing enough political capital in her bid for the Presidency that they can safely do so.
The Will of the People
The final thing to consider in predicting which direction the superdelegates will swing is whether or not they will follow the will of the people. The idea of superdelegates crowning the candidate who lost the popular vote is reminiscent to the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush was named President of the United States by a ruling of the Supreme Court. I think we all remember how utterly pissed off the majority of the Democratic party was. Even now, eight years later, and with so many other things to be mad about, I occasionally hear someone whining about this injustice. For the superdelegates to do the same thing would be ludicrously stupid. These are seasoned politicians, and no matter how much we enjoy painting them as a pack of idiots who are bound and determined to find a way to lose, even someone with rocks where their brains should be can see that imitating the controversial situation that made their party's most hated figure President would be a bad idea.
So there's my opinion: If Obama performs well in Texas and Ohio, which I believe he will, the establishment will begin to swing over to his side. It's in the party's best interests to crown a victor as soon as possible, and as soon as the superdelegates can do that with their support, they will.
Hillary Fights Back
With her campaign in serious trouble, the question is: What will Hillary do? The last time she faced Obama as a rising star, when he went to Nevada flushed with high poll numbers that she never expected, and a near certainty of winning in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton fought dirty. She campaigned in Michigan, when the candidates had been asked not to. She campaigned in Florida, when the candidates had been asked not to. As such, she scored strong victories in both states, clearly with the plan of trying to get those delegates from unfair primaries included in the total count. She cried. She made attacks so ugly that Ted Kennedy called her and told her to stop, and defected to Obama's side when Bill Clinton made his borderline racist remarks in South Carolina, and it was only then that she backed down. She has made it clear that she will do anything – ANYTHING – to take the White House.
Well, she's backed into a corner again. Soon, she will be campaigning against Obama in Texas and Ohio, and I'm expecting her to do something sneaky, or even downright dastardly in an effort to bring him down. I'm going to be interested to see what it is, and whether it succeeds.
Huckabee Loses in Virginia
Hey, when I'm wrong, I admit it with grace. I was stunned to read that Huckabee lost Virginia; I was certain he'd win there. And while he did do very well with people who identified themselves as extremely conservative, he didn't do well enough. This is bad for his campaign, and for his chances of becoming the Republican nominee.
I would be interested to see what factors led to Huckabee's loss in Virginia, but I haven't been able to dig up commentary on the subject anywhere.
Anyway, that's about it. I'm looking forward to the Texas and Ohio primaries. It's going to be great to see how those turn out. I'm betting that Obama's awesome speech writer will pull him through. ;)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Flash Mob Activism
Here's what I want to know: Why is it that The Media insist on making up snappy names for everything? Today is, according to Reuters, the "Potomac Primary", because Maryland and D.C are voting.
Of Flash Mobs and Grassroots Movements
Since I don't have political news to talk about pending the results of the "Potomac Primary" (insert a rolling of eyes here), I thought I'd continue on a thread that I've been exploring for the past couple of days – the new generation's form of activism.
I don't know if anyone remembers a phenomenon that sprung up a couple of years ago that got termed "flash mobs". For those who don't, a flash mob took place when a bunch of people used email, message boards, text messaging, and other forms of communication technology to get the word out that they were all, for example, going to show up at a particular place and a particular time, simultaneously line up, do the dance from 'Thriller', and then disperse. There was no purpose except to have fun and do something crazy, and to interject the unexpected into the mundane lives of observers. (Here is the Wikipedia page for those who are interested in reading more.)
Flash mobbing was not just a passing fad. It was a way of exploring a new form of activism where a large group of people, interconnected in a kind of human/electronic mesh, could quickly organize themselves around a central cause. This form of activism is nothing like what came before it. There is no formal group or nonprofit organization. There is no figurehead or leader. There is no community organizer, no protest leader. There's just a group of people, some who know each other and some who don't, all of them equals, getting involved in something that grows with the spontaneity of a spreading meme. I've talked about the political effects of what I am now going to dub 'flash mob activism', but now I'm going to bring up a specific example that's been discussed on blogs and message boards lately.
Anonymous vs. Scientology
Recently, some clips with an interview with Tom Cruise surfaced where he discusses his belief in Scientology. The video is so insane that it makes the couch jumping incident look like an Alan Greenspan level of droning, mundane sanity. It's almost ten minutes of unflinching, nonstop crazy. It's also a Scientology indoctrination video. The mockery of Tom Cruise's Crazy spread over internet message boards, until the Scientology legal team showed up and demanded that it be taken off of YouTube, as well as another site where it was hosted. It was, but not before hundreds of other people grabbed it and put it up on their own sites.
The Scientology legal attack on one of their own outraged the users of several message boards, most notably 4chan. 4chan is a great example of one of these interconnected communities that create and spread memes; they're responsible for the hilarious LOLcats which have since penetrated into the mainstream.
4chan didn't just get angry. They got even. They started a group that they called 'Anonymous', in reference to Scientology's infamy in the way that it attacks critics of their organization through any means necessary, up to and including harassment. Anonymous declared war. Here is their first video, posted to YouTube. In the video, they continued the theme of pointing out Scientology's censorship by using a computer speech program to deliver their message, and by showing only shifting clouds.
Initially, Anonymous' war against Scientology was restricted to 4chan kids whose tactics included illegal and immature actions such as instituting denial of service attacks against Scientology's website. But along the way, something happened. As the meme spread, people started to look at Scientology more carefully, and even as the 4chan kids got distracted by something shiny and lost interest, another breed of activists took over. They went to Operation Clambake, an anti-Scientology website. They read about Lisa McPhearson, a woman who died in a horrific manner, locked in a hotel room, without access to food and water, for eighteen days. They learned about L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction author who was also Scientology's creator, and who famously said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." These people, more mature and more motivated than the first wave had been, took over the movement and changed it into something legal and formidable. A second video, titled 'A Call to Action' turned up on YouTube, urging viewers to protest outside of Scientology centers worldwide on the 10th of February. Another video containing 22 rules for the protest surfaced, which included exhortations to protesters not to become violent or resist police officers, and also advised all protesters to cover their faces with scarves and sunglasses, to prevent the Scientology legal team from photographing, attacking, or harassing them.
Be Very Wary of February
Many people predicted that the movement would fizzle on February 10th, that the people who organized the protest would be unwilling to leave the safety of their computers and message boards and turn up in the real world to back up their beliefs. They were wrong. My generation, the generation that people said couldn't be bothered to stand up for anything, stood up to the tune of thousands in over 50 cities in 14 countries. I am so proud that I could burst. We are finally taking the first halting steps on the path to finding our voice. The protests were peaceful; despite the large numbers who attended, everyone complied with the 22 rules, and there was no violence and no reported conflicts with police officers or Scientology representatives, although many of them filmed or photographed the protesters from the safety of their churches.
A Hydra, Not A Snake
What's interesting about these flash mob protests is how different they are from the protests that traditional activists organize and attend. Usually, a protest is held by a single group. The group is often a nonprofit, a recognizable entity with known organizers and a known leader. Like a snake, it has a single head that, if chopped off, will kill it.
Anonymous is not like this. It has no leader. It has no known organizers, members, or supporters. There is no 'head' for the Scientology legal team to cut off – and even if they were to find one, like a hydra, there would always be more heads springing up in its place.
Viral Advertising
Anonymous spread its message and drummed up interest in its cause through more than the simple means of posting to message boards and telling their friends. They also took a page from the viral advertisers that have saturated the internet with memes promoting products and movies. They are distributing small index cards printed simply with 'You Found the Card', and the name of a website by leaving them in computer labs, at bus stops, and in other locations where people might discover them and become curious. The website address leads to a page that outlines the damage that Scientology does to its members and their loved ones. It also links to other websites where people can become involved, and announces the dates of planned protests.
Anonymous has spread videos on YouTube advertising the protests, and they posted videos of the protests, afterward. They even have a professional looking logo, a headless man in a suit rendered in stark black and white.
Little Media Coverage
There has been little media coverage of this phenomenon; there was a spike of interest at the beginning, when Anonymous was a group of hackers, but since they have become a peaceful protesting force, interest, and the corresponding articles, has dropped off. It makes me angry. Once again, the powers that be in the media have built an archetype that borders on a caricature of my generation that they want to present, and as soon as we stop conforming, they fall silent.
Anonymous is an important movement because it shows the way that not just protests, but many other community actions such as neighborhood watch and giving to charity (which I have already mentioned) will be organized. A hundred to two hundred people turning up in cities worldwide would have gotten a lot of coverage if it hadn't been organized on the internet by a bunch of "kids".
Anonymous, and the flash mob activism by which it is conducted, represent the future of how politicians will be elected, how charity benefits will be organized, how community movements will be started, how public policy will be made. It needs to be discussed beyond the current dismissive soundbyte charges of "cyber-terrorism." It's going to happen whether or not we understand it, and the people who refuse to see this will be left out in the cold.
Beware the Ides of March
The next Anonymous protest is scheduled on March 15th. It will be a test of the beginnings of flash mob activism, because it will answer the question of whether people will continue to turn up after the novelty has worn off. The downside of an organization with no leader to rally it is that it can disperse as quickly as it formed, just like the flash mobs that started it all.
Of Flash Mobs and Grassroots Movements
Since I don't have political news to talk about pending the results of the "Potomac Primary" (insert a rolling of eyes here), I thought I'd continue on a thread that I've been exploring for the past couple of days – the new generation's form of activism.
I don't know if anyone remembers a phenomenon that sprung up a couple of years ago that got termed "flash mobs". For those who don't, a flash mob took place when a bunch of people used email, message boards, text messaging, and other forms of communication technology to get the word out that they were all, for example, going to show up at a particular place and a particular time, simultaneously line up, do the dance from 'Thriller', and then disperse. There was no purpose except to have fun and do something crazy, and to interject the unexpected into the mundane lives of observers. (Here is the Wikipedia page for those who are interested in reading more.)
Flash mobbing was not just a passing fad. It was a way of exploring a new form of activism where a large group of people, interconnected in a kind of human/electronic mesh, could quickly organize themselves around a central cause. This form of activism is nothing like what came before it. There is no formal group or nonprofit organization. There is no figurehead or leader. There is no community organizer, no protest leader. There's just a group of people, some who know each other and some who don't, all of them equals, getting involved in something that grows with the spontaneity of a spreading meme. I've talked about the political effects of what I am now going to dub 'flash mob activism', but now I'm going to bring up a specific example that's been discussed on blogs and message boards lately.
Anonymous vs. Scientology
Recently, some clips with an interview with Tom Cruise surfaced where he discusses his belief in Scientology. The video is so insane that it makes the couch jumping incident look like an Alan Greenspan level of droning, mundane sanity. It's almost ten minutes of unflinching, nonstop crazy. It's also a Scientology indoctrination video. The mockery of Tom Cruise's Crazy spread over internet message boards, until the Scientology legal team showed up and demanded that it be taken off of YouTube, as well as another site where it was hosted. It was, but not before hundreds of other people grabbed it and put it up on their own sites.
The Scientology legal attack on one of their own outraged the users of several message boards, most notably 4chan. 4chan is a great example of one of these interconnected communities that create and spread memes; they're responsible for the hilarious LOLcats which have since penetrated into the mainstream.
4chan didn't just get angry. They got even. They started a group that they called 'Anonymous', in reference to Scientology's infamy in the way that it attacks critics of their organization through any means necessary, up to and including harassment. Anonymous declared war. Here is their first video, posted to YouTube. In the video, they continued the theme of pointing out Scientology's censorship by using a computer speech program to deliver their message, and by showing only shifting clouds.
Initially, Anonymous' war against Scientology was restricted to 4chan kids whose tactics included illegal and immature actions such as instituting denial of service attacks against Scientology's website. But along the way, something happened. As the meme spread, people started to look at Scientology more carefully, and even as the 4chan kids got distracted by something shiny and lost interest, another breed of activists took over. They went to Operation Clambake, an anti-Scientology website. They read about Lisa McPhearson, a woman who died in a horrific manner, locked in a hotel room, without access to food and water, for eighteen days. They learned about L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction author who was also Scientology's creator, and who famously said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." These people, more mature and more motivated than the first wave had been, took over the movement and changed it into something legal and formidable. A second video, titled 'A Call to Action' turned up on YouTube, urging viewers to protest outside of Scientology centers worldwide on the 10th of February. Another video containing 22 rules for the protest surfaced, which included exhortations to protesters not to become violent or resist police officers, and also advised all protesters to cover their faces with scarves and sunglasses, to prevent the Scientology legal team from photographing, attacking, or harassing them.
Be Very Wary of February
Many people predicted that the movement would fizzle on February 10th, that the people who organized the protest would be unwilling to leave the safety of their computers and message boards and turn up in the real world to back up their beliefs. They were wrong. My generation, the generation that people said couldn't be bothered to stand up for anything, stood up to the tune of thousands in over 50 cities in 14 countries. I am so proud that I could burst. We are finally taking the first halting steps on the path to finding our voice. The protests were peaceful; despite the large numbers who attended, everyone complied with the 22 rules, and there was no violence and no reported conflicts with police officers or Scientology representatives, although many of them filmed or photographed the protesters from the safety of their churches.
A Hydra, Not A Snake
What's interesting about these flash mob protests is how different they are from the protests that traditional activists organize and attend. Usually, a protest is held by a single group. The group is often a nonprofit, a recognizable entity with known organizers and a known leader. Like a snake, it has a single head that, if chopped off, will kill it.
Anonymous is not like this. It has no leader. It has no known organizers, members, or supporters. There is no 'head' for the Scientology legal team to cut off – and even if they were to find one, like a hydra, there would always be more heads springing up in its place.
Viral Advertising
Anonymous spread its message and drummed up interest in its cause through more than the simple means of posting to message boards and telling their friends. They also took a page from the viral advertisers that have saturated the internet with memes promoting products and movies. They are distributing small index cards printed simply with 'You Found the Card', and the name of a website by leaving them in computer labs, at bus stops, and in other locations where people might discover them and become curious. The website address leads to a page that outlines the damage that Scientology does to its members and their loved ones. It also links to other websites where people can become involved, and announces the dates of planned protests.
Anonymous has spread videos on YouTube advertising the protests, and they posted videos of the protests, afterward. They even have a professional looking logo, a headless man in a suit rendered in stark black and white.
Little Media Coverage
There has been little media coverage of this phenomenon; there was a spike of interest at the beginning, when Anonymous was a group of hackers, but since they have become a peaceful protesting force, interest, and the corresponding articles, has dropped off. It makes me angry. Once again, the powers that be in the media have built an archetype that borders on a caricature of my generation that they want to present, and as soon as we stop conforming, they fall silent.
Anonymous is an important movement because it shows the way that not just protests, but many other community actions such as neighborhood watch and giving to charity (which I have already mentioned) will be organized. A hundred to two hundred people turning up in cities worldwide would have gotten a lot of coverage if it hadn't been organized on the internet by a bunch of "kids".
Anonymous, and the flash mob activism by which it is conducted, represent the future of how politicians will be elected, how charity benefits will be organized, how community movements will be started, how public policy will be made. It needs to be discussed beyond the current dismissive soundbyte charges of "cyber-terrorism." It's going to happen whether or not we understand it, and the people who refuse to see this will be left out in the cold.
Beware the Ides of March
The next Anonymous protest is scheduled on March 15th. It will be a test of the beginnings of flash mob activism, because it will answer the question of whether people will continue to turn up after the novelty has worn off. The downside of an organization with no leader to rally it is that it can disperse as quickly as it formed, just like the flash mobs that started it all.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Welcome!
Before I begin today's post, I'd like to welcome anyone who comes wandering in here as a result of the link that I just emailed to my father. (Hi dad!) Welcome! :) Have a look around, and tell me what you think.
I love comments, even those critical of my positions, and I look forward to a lively debate with some of you. But be aware: I will ask of you the same as I ask of myself, so be prepared to cite any assertions that you make with articles from non-partisan news sites, and be aware that no matter how strongly you believe something, no one is a terrible person, or a stupid person, because they believe differently than you. In politics, it's easy to get worked up over things that aren't true without bothering to check into the facts of the situation, and it's important to keep the discussion squarely on the ground.
But as long as the tone remains civil, and the facts remain solid, I welcome a debate!
And now, the news...
Hillary In Trouble
Hillary Clinton's campaign is starting to show some signs of trouble, and not just because Obama won yet again in Maine on Sunday. Her campaign is starting to show some of the traditional signs of internal trouble that could easily boil to the surface and do some harm. First, she had to loan $5 million of her own money to her campaign. And now, after her losses in the post-Super Tuesday primaries, she has replaced her campaign manager. Of course, we have a prime example already of someone who came back from this kind of trouble (John McCain, for those who haven't been paying attention), but what's been going on in Hillary's campaign is still significant in that no one thought that it would get to the point where steps like these were necessary – at least not until the general election.
Huckabee For The Win
Mike Huckabee is pushing for every electoral vote that he can get. He's got lawyers protesting the results in Washington state, saying that they stopped counting the votes at 86% of total votes cast. Since the race was really close, Huckabee could have won it – at least according to his campaign. We'll see how things work out in the end.
It frankly surprises me that the vote in Washington was that close. I wouldn't have figured that state for a place with a lot of Huckabee supporters. Even this near win for Huckabee's campaign is very bad news for McCain, because it shows that Huckabee's got some kind of appeal outside of the bible belt.
Of Pawprints and Pundits
And this leads me to an interesting point that occurred to me while I was listening to NPR on my way downtown this morning. They had a pundit on who was expressing bafflement about why Huckabee was staying in the race when, mathematically, he has no chance of getting enough delegates to secure the nomination, even if he wins every state primary between now and the convention. In fact, pundits have been baffled over and over in this race – by Ron Paul's fundraising, by the rise of McCain, by Mitt Romney dropping out, by Hillary Clinton no longer being a shoe-in for the candidacy. I hear constant choruses of 'this shouldn't be happening', and while I listened to that refrain yet again on the radio, it hit me: If we think that something shouldn't be happening, and yet it IS happening, then it isn't reality that's wrong. It's our perception of what reality ought to be. The rules by which the pundits judge politics and current events clearly don't work anymore, and yet there's this weird resistance to figuring out the new rules. Which means that they'll continue being wrong until they come to understand how things have changed.
And what about me? I'm fast approaching pundit status myself – after all, this blog is called 'Pawprints on the Pundits'. Am I hampered by the old rules? I don't think so. I have explanations as to why Edwards and Romney haven't endorsed anyone, and why Huckabee isn't dropping out of the race, even though he supposedly can't win. Maybe it's my generation, who haven't been steeped in the old ways, who are best equipped to understand how things are now.
Of course, now that I've said this, I'm going to start being wrong about everything. ;)
I love comments, even those critical of my positions, and I look forward to a lively debate with some of you. But be aware: I will ask of you the same as I ask of myself, so be prepared to cite any assertions that you make with articles from non-partisan news sites, and be aware that no matter how strongly you believe something, no one is a terrible person, or a stupid person, because they believe differently than you. In politics, it's easy to get worked up over things that aren't true without bothering to check into the facts of the situation, and it's important to keep the discussion squarely on the ground.
But as long as the tone remains civil, and the facts remain solid, I welcome a debate!
And now, the news...
Hillary In Trouble
Hillary Clinton's campaign is starting to show some signs of trouble, and not just because Obama won yet again in Maine on Sunday. Her campaign is starting to show some of the traditional signs of internal trouble that could easily boil to the surface and do some harm. First, she had to loan $5 million of her own money to her campaign. And now, after her losses in the post-Super Tuesday primaries, she has replaced her campaign manager. Of course, we have a prime example already of someone who came back from this kind of trouble (John McCain, for those who haven't been paying attention), but what's been going on in Hillary's campaign is still significant in that no one thought that it would get to the point where steps like these were necessary – at least not until the general election.
Huckabee For The Win
Mike Huckabee is pushing for every electoral vote that he can get. He's got lawyers protesting the results in Washington state, saying that they stopped counting the votes at 86% of total votes cast. Since the race was really close, Huckabee could have won it – at least according to his campaign. We'll see how things work out in the end.
It frankly surprises me that the vote in Washington was that close. I wouldn't have figured that state for a place with a lot of Huckabee supporters. Even this near win for Huckabee's campaign is very bad news for McCain, because it shows that Huckabee's got some kind of appeal outside of the bible belt.
Of Pawprints and Pundits
And this leads me to an interesting point that occurred to me while I was listening to NPR on my way downtown this morning. They had a pundit on who was expressing bafflement about why Huckabee was staying in the race when, mathematically, he has no chance of getting enough delegates to secure the nomination, even if he wins every state primary between now and the convention. In fact, pundits have been baffled over and over in this race – by Ron Paul's fundraising, by the rise of McCain, by Mitt Romney dropping out, by Hillary Clinton no longer being a shoe-in for the candidacy. I hear constant choruses of 'this shouldn't be happening', and while I listened to that refrain yet again on the radio, it hit me: If we think that something shouldn't be happening, and yet it IS happening, then it isn't reality that's wrong. It's our perception of what reality ought to be. The rules by which the pundits judge politics and current events clearly don't work anymore, and yet there's this weird resistance to figuring out the new rules. Which means that they'll continue being wrong until they come to understand how things have changed.
And what about me? I'm fast approaching pundit status myself – after all, this blog is called 'Pawprints on the Pundits'. Am I hampered by the old rules? I don't think so. I have explanations as to why Edwards and Romney haven't endorsed anyone, and why Huckabee isn't dropping out of the race, even though he supposedly can't win. Maybe it's my generation, who haven't been steeped in the old ways, who are best equipped to understand how things are now.
Of course, now that I've said this, I'm going to start being wrong about everything. ;)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
I Was Right!
... As usual.
Before I begin today's post, I just want to say: I WAS RIGHT! Romney's dropping out of the race has stopped McCain's sweeping victories cold. The social conservatives, anti-immigration conservatives, and hardcore evangelicals have had the fear of God (or maybe the fear of not-God) put into them, and they're swarming to the polls. Out of the three primary states that voted yesterday, Huckabee took two of them. Call it the Colbert bump. He's gonna take Virginia as well. Everyone writing for Reuters is still assuming that McCain is going to lock up a decisive victory, but Romney still hasn't endorsed him, and Romney has a lot of delegates up for grabs.
Fundraising in the New Era
On the Democratic side, Obama took all three states by a significant margin. Nobody can say it was all black voters voting for him either, because one of those states was Washington. His new support is due in part to the fact that by performing well enough to stay in the race after Super Tuesday, he proved that he has a chance of beating Hillary, so people who otherwise would have felt that a vote for him was a vote wasted changed their minds.
Another reason Obama did so well has to do with the amount of money that he's been raising. A big deal has been made out of the millions that Barack Obama and Ron Paul have been taking in during this campaign; despite the fact that he has yet to win a primary, Ron Paul is the top fundraiser among the Republicans for the last quarter of 2007. Further, a big deal is being made of the fact that most of these donors are donating small sums of money, and can be tapped again later on in the election. Ron Paul supporters, for example, are holding another big fundraiser on Ron Paul and his wife's anniversary.
The pundits -- and some of the candidates -- are at a loss to explain where this support came from. It's something that first seemed to spring up around Howard Dean four years ago, although his "grassroots" support evaporated when he made a fool of himself with the Crazy Yell. Other candidates have tried to cultivate it, but internet junkies in this day and age are wise enough to the ways of advertising to know when they're being used. They seem to attach themselves to candidates at random, candidates who often don't seek their support -- Ron Paul is as bewildered as anyone about the sudden flood of donations that he's getting -- and they become rabid supporters, converting everyone that they can in their frequent interactions among the highly interconnected internet community.
But what really surprises the pundits is how much money these people are donating. Generally donors are the big money givers who expect favors in return, or older people who have the money to spare. But these people are practically kids, twentysomethings working retail jobs, and college students with huge loans they'll have to pay. The pundits and the media are at a complete loss to explain why they're sending money to their candidates in such droves as to make those candidates top fundraisers by a wide margin when they have hardly any money of their own.
Well, I'm reasonably hip enough to explain it. And so I will.
Culture of Donation
My generation has grown up donating small sums of money over the internet to things that they like. National Novel Writing Month got $284,723 in donations and tee-shirt sales during November last year, most of it in very small sums. There are several web comic artists, such as Pete from Sluggy Freelance and Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik from Penny Arcade who make their living entirely off of the donations and tee-shirt sales of their fans. Recently, Radiohead offered their latest album as a free download, with a 'pay what you want' system, and the rumor is that the profits from the digital download has outstripped the profits from any of their traditionally released studio albums. OpenOffice, a free office suite that's every bit as good as Microsoft Office, is a free download, as is the web browser Firefox. All of these programs are produced because of donations by people who don't need to pay for them, but who are used to throwing a few dollars at things they like. Every year, users of Livejournal who have the largest followings organize a "blogathon" where they promise to blog for 24 hours straight, posting an entry every fifteen minutes. They restrict access to these entries to people who donate money to their cause, and raise hundreds of dollars for their charities. Knitters Without Borders, a group organized by Stephanie Pearl-McFee, popularly known to her fans as the Yarn Harlot has raised nearly $500,000 for Doctors Without Borders.
You get the idea. My generation is used to tossing whatever small amount of money that they can spare at the things that they enjoy, use, or care about. We understand that if we want this thing, whatever it is, to stick around, we need to support it. And all of those small donations add up fast. The internet is, as I said, a large and highly interconnected community. Once a meme catches on with a few people, it sweeps through everyone like wildfire. People post on their blogs, Facebook and Meetup groups form, videos go up on YouTube, websites start springing up and are linked to other websites -- and before long, hundreds of thousands of people are donating a couple of bucks, whatever they can spare, because that's their usual reaction to something that they want to see more of.
Barack Obama and Ron Paul caught on like wildfire, because their messages appealed to internet users, and their memes translated into money. That's where the money is coming from.
The only problem is that the internet can be fickle, and easily distracted by something shiny. If either Barack Obama or Ron Paul makes a fool of themselves on national television, a la Howard Dean's crazy screaming (which was remixed and mocked internet-wide for months), their support will vanish as fast as it appeared.
As for me? I'm a retail drone engaged to a starving student, so we're hardly rich people. I haven't donated yet, but I do plan to do so later in the general election when cash funds start running low. I figure that there's only so much that I can afford, and my money will be most useful then.
Before I begin today's post, I just want to say: I WAS RIGHT! Romney's dropping out of the race has stopped McCain's sweeping victories cold. The social conservatives, anti-immigration conservatives, and hardcore evangelicals have had the fear of God (or maybe the fear of not-God) put into them, and they're swarming to the polls. Out of the three primary states that voted yesterday, Huckabee took two of them. Call it the Colbert bump. He's gonna take Virginia as well. Everyone writing for Reuters is still assuming that McCain is going to lock up a decisive victory, but Romney still hasn't endorsed him, and Romney has a lot of delegates up for grabs.
Fundraising in the New Era
On the Democratic side, Obama took all three states by a significant margin. Nobody can say it was all black voters voting for him either, because one of those states was Washington. His new support is due in part to the fact that by performing well enough to stay in the race after Super Tuesday, he proved that he has a chance of beating Hillary, so people who otherwise would have felt that a vote for him was a vote wasted changed their minds.
Another reason Obama did so well has to do with the amount of money that he's been raising. A big deal has been made out of the millions that Barack Obama and Ron Paul have been taking in during this campaign; despite the fact that he has yet to win a primary, Ron Paul is the top fundraiser among the Republicans for the last quarter of 2007. Further, a big deal is being made of the fact that most of these donors are donating small sums of money, and can be tapped again later on in the election. Ron Paul supporters, for example, are holding another big fundraiser on Ron Paul and his wife's anniversary.
The pundits -- and some of the candidates -- are at a loss to explain where this support came from. It's something that first seemed to spring up around Howard Dean four years ago, although his "grassroots" support evaporated when he made a fool of himself with the Crazy Yell. Other candidates have tried to cultivate it, but internet junkies in this day and age are wise enough to the ways of advertising to know when they're being used. They seem to attach themselves to candidates at random, candidates who often don't seek their support -- Ron Paul is as bewildered as anyone about the sudden flood of donations that he's getting -- and they become rabid supporters, converting everyone that they can in their frequent interactions among the highly interconnected internet community.
But what really surprises the pundits is how much money these people are donating. Generally donors are the big money givers who expect favors in return, or older people who have the money to spare. But these people are practically kids, twentysomethings working retail jobs, and college students with huge loans they'll have to pay. The pundits and the media are at a complete loss to explain why they're sending money to their candidates in such droves as to make those candidates top fundraisers by a wide margin when they have hardly any money of their own.
Well, I'm reasonably hip enough to explain it. And so I will.
Culture of Donation
My generation has grown up donating small sums of money over the internet to things that they like. National Novel Writing Month got $284,723 in donations and tee-shirt sales during November last year, most of it in very small sums. There are several web comic artists, such as Pete from Sluggy Freelance and Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik from Penny Arcade who make their living entirely off of the donations and tee-shirt sales of their fans. Recently, Radiohead offered their latest album as a free download, with a 'pay what you want' system, and the rumor is that the profits from the digital download has outstripped the profits from any of their traditionally released studio albums. OpenOffice, a free office suite that's every bit as good as Microsoft Office, is a free download, as is the web browser Firefox. All of these programs are produced because of donations by people who don't need to pay for them, but who are used to throwing a few dollars at things they like. Every year, users of Livejournal who have the largest followings organize a "blogathon" where they promise to blog for 24 hours straight, posting an entry every fifteen minutes. They restrict access to these entries to people who donate money to their cause, and raise hundreds of dollars for their charities. Knitters Without Borders, a group organized by Stephanie Pearl-McFee, popularly known to her fans as the Yarn Harlot has raised nearly $500,000 for Doctors Without Borders.
You get the idea. My generation is used to tossing whatever small amount of money that they can spare at the things that they enjoy, use, or care about. We understand that if we want this thing, whatever it is, to stick around, we need to support it. And all of those small donations add up fast. The internet is, as I said, a large and highly interconnected community. Once a meme catches on with a few people, it sweeps through everyone like wildfire. People post on their blogs, Facebook and Meetup groups form, videos go up on YouTube, websites start springing up and are linked to other websites -- and before long, hundreds of thousands of people are donating a couple of bucks, whatever they can spare, because that's their usual reaction to something that they want to see more of.
Barack Obama and Ron Paul caught on like wildfire, because their messages appealed to internet users, and their memes translated into money. That's where the money is coming from.
The only problem is that the internet can be fickle, and easily distracted by something shiny. If either Barack Obama or Ron Paul makes a fool of themselves on national television, a la Howard Dean's crazy screaming (which was remixed and mocked internet-wide for months), their support will vanish as fast as it appeared.
As for me? I'm a retail drone engaged to a starving student, so we're hardly rich people. I haven't donated yet, but I do plan to do so later in the general election when cash funds start running low. I figure that there's only so much that I can afford, and my money will be most useful then.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
High Voter Turnout
I'm really excited about how engaged people seem to be in the electoral process this year. In many states, the primary turnout has hit record levels and the recent debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was the most watched debate in cable TV history. My generation, which is usually disinterested in the electoral process, have been turning up in rallies and donating money -- especially to Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Recently, one of my co-workers commented that she had decided who to vote for in the primary based on arguments that she read on Livejournal, where the candidates are being discussed at length and with passion, while another co-worker, who has previously bragged about how she never votes, tracked me down to make certain that I had. In other words: At least one of the disenfranchised voter populations is doing what they have never bothered to do. They are voting.
The reason that I'm excited is that I believe that a large part of why the system in the country is broken is because so few people vote -- and it's always the same people casting their ballots, all in a small handful of select demographics, while large demographics of people don't bother. They rationalize this -- if they bother to rationalize it at all -- by telling themselves that it doesn't matter because no matter who is elected, nothing will change, and the system is always going to screw them over. And lo, nothing changes, and the system continues with the screwing. Aren't they smart.
What these people don't realize is that they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; nothing is changing specifically because they don't get involved in the process. They don't donate money, they don't work on campaigns, they don't show up for rallies, and they don't vote. Even if a candidate were to come along who wanted to serve the interests of these disenfranchised non-voters, they wouldn't have a shot in hell of being elected, because who would support them? Anyone who commits to the enormous strain and expense of running for public office is in it to win, and only a fool would rely on a fickle demographic that can't be expected to turn up at the polls.
And anyone currently in office has no reason to pander to non-voting demographics, because there's no chance of getting thrown out of office if they don't.
So nothing changes, and only 20% to 30% of the country get served. People like me, those small parts of the non-voting demographic who vote, are reduced to voting for the candidate who accidentally serves as many of our interests as possible while they pander to the people who actually will get them elected. That's the best we can hope for, and it's hard not to lose faith.
What would happen if 90% of the population got involved and started donating to campaigns, showing up at rallies, and voting? Suddenly, the sacred 20% to 30% wouldn't be enough to get anyone elected or keep them from being thrown out of office. Politicians would have to address the issues that affect the rest of us, the way they do now for the demographics that vote. In short, our elected officials would have to start serving all of the people, not just the few who're smart enough to make themselves part of the process.
It would be politics for the people and by the people in a way that it has never been in the history of this country. If Barack Obama really wants to get rid of 'politics as usual', all he has to do is to find a way to get this lazy country off its ass and into the voting booth.
The reason that I'm excited is that I believe that a large part of why the system in the country is broken is because so few people vote -- and it's always the same people casting their ballots, all in a small handful of select demographics, while large demographics of people don't bother. They rationalize this -- if they bother to rationalize it at all -- by telling themselves that it doesn't matter because no matter who is elected, nothing will change, and the system is always going to screw them over. And lo, nothing changes, and the system continues with the screwing. Aren't they smart.
What these people don't realize is that they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; nothing is changing specifically because they don't get involved in the process. They don't donate money, they don't work on campaigns, they don't show up for rallies, and they don't vote. Even if a candidate were to come along who wanted to serve the interests of these disenfranchised non-voters, they wouldn't have a shot in hell of being elected, because who would support them? Anyone who commits to the enormous strain and expense of running for public office is in it to win, and only a fool would rely on a fickle demographic that can't be expected to turn up at the polls.
And anyone currently in office has no reason to pander to non-voting demographics, because there's no chance of getting thrown out of office if they don't.
So nothing changes, and only 20% to 30% of the country get served. People like me, those small parts of the non-voting demographic who vote, are reduced to voting for the candidate who accidentally serves as many of our interests as possible while they pander to the people who actually will get them elected. That's the best we can hope for, and it's hard not to lose faith.
What would happen if 90% of the population got involved and started donating to campaigns, showing up at rallies, and voting? Suddenly, the sacred 20% to 30% wouldn't be enough to get anyone elected or keep them from being thrown out of office. Politicians would have to address the issues that affect the rest of us, the way they do now for the demographics that vote. In short, our elected officials would have to start serving all of the people, not just the few who're smart enough to make themselves part of the process.
It would be politics for the people and by the people in a way that it has never been in the history of this country. If Barack Obama really wants to get rid of 'politics as usual', all he has to do is to find a way to get this lazy country off its ass and into the voting booth.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Waterboarding, Yet Again
So US attorney general Michael Musakey has refused to investigate possible CIA waterboarding. I don't think this surprises anyone -- or if it does, it shouldn't.
There has been a lot of hemming and hawing about whether waterboarding is an "enhanced interrogation technique" or whether it's flat-out torture. John McCain, who has personally endured horrific torture, says that it's torture, but what does he know? All of the chickenhawks who stayed home during the Vietnam and Korean wars know way better than he does.
Recently, a poster on the Straight Dope Message Boards, having heard all of the arguments pro and con, decided that there was one way to settle the issue in his mind. And so, in search of real knowledge that cut through the rhetoric, he subjected himself to waterboarding.
You can read his graphic account of his experience here.
For those too lazy to click the link (and I highly recommend that you do) here is his conclusion:
Waterboarding is, without a doubt, horrific torture. Or in his words:
"It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything." "It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever."
And on that cheerful note, I'm off to bed!
There has been a lot of hemming and hawing about whether waterboarding is an "enhanced interrogation technique" or whether it's flat-out torture. John McCain, who has personally endured horrific torture, says that it's torture, but what does he know? All of the chickenhawks who stayed home during the Vietnam and Korean wars know way better than he does.
Recently, a poster on the Straight Dope Message Boards, having heard all of the arguments pro and con, decided that there was one way to settle the issue in his mind. And so, in search of real knowledge that cut through the rhetoric, he subjected himself to waterboarding.
You can read his graphic account of his experience here.
For those too lazy to click the link (and I highly recommend that you do) here is his conclusion:
Waterboarding is, without a doubt, horrific torture. Or in his words:
"It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything." "It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever."
And on that cheerful note, I'm off to bed!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Romney Drops Out!
I had a 'holy shit!' moment today when I opened up Reuters. The article that stared me in the face was this one: Romney Quits Race.
So it seems that Mitt Romney, despite not being so behind that he couldn't have squeaked a victory through, decided that the best thing for the party would be for him to drop out and get someone anointed victor as soon as possible.
...Or did he?
Where's The McCain Endorsement?
Everyone has assumed that Romney will endorse John McCain any time now, but he hasn't done so yet, and I'll tell you why: Because if Huckabee does well in the next few primaries, then Mitt Romney can throw his weight -- and his delegates -- on Huckabee's side, and suddenly the republicans are looking at a brokered convention where Huckabee might come out the victor.
Does Huckabee have a shot? He may. There are a lot of states that he might have won, if he hadn't been splitting the vote with Mitt Romney, although then again, maybe some of Romney's supporters would have gone over to McCain if Romney hadn't been in the race. But without Romney splitting the far right wing vote, it may be that Huckabee will have a chance at winning enough states to make him a player.
In addition, McCain is having a hard time bringing the conservative wing of the Republican party to his side; many of the popular conservative talk show hosts are practically foaming at the mouth over his possible nomination. Ann Coulter, that crazy republican ghoul raised from the dead to torment America, has said that she'll support Hillary Clinton over John McCain, and many callers to conservative talk shows have said that they will sit out the election, or vote for Hillary Clinton if John McCain is the nominee. If these people take their displeasure to the polls and vote for the candidate who is not John McCain, Huckabee might see enough of a comeback for Romney's delegates to make a difference.
The whole thing is going to boil down to who gets Texas. On the one hand, Texas isn't a hotbed of the religious right the way that some states in the south are. On the other hand, immigration is a big issue there. Romney won in a state with similar central issues, California, and Texas isn't nearly as liberal. We don't have many "real republicans" here. So Huckabee has a real chance at taking the state, and all of its delegates.
Of course, Mitt Romney can't endorse Huckabee until he gets an idea of where the wind is blowing, as he, like Edwards, might be holding out for a seat on the ticket as the VP candidate, to balance out McCain and rally the party. In that case, endorsing Huckabee would anger the McCain camp and generally be a bad idea.
Sad to See Romney Go
Romney's loss is a disappointment to me. I was hoping to see him as the nominee, because if we had to have a republican president, I'd want Romney. It would be delicious fun to watch the religious right shit themselves for four years over a Mormon president. I wonder if he would have insisted on being sworn in on the Book of Mormon? (Probably not, but it would have been hilarious.)
I think it says something that part assumes that the democrats are going to manage, somehow, to lose.
It's interesting to me that by stubbornly staying in the race in what he's got to know is a lost cause, Huckabee has essentially shot his party interests in the foot. There are a lot of states that Romney would have won if the socially conservative arm of the Republican party hadn't been split between him and Mike Huckabee. Now, while he still has a slim chance at the nomination, Huckabee has eliminated the chance of Romney being a sure thing.
Disaster for the Democrats
John McCain's nomination is disaster for the Democrats, especially with the possibility remaining that we might, in our idiocy, nominate Hillary Clinton. As I have said before, Hillary Clinton's only chance in hell of being elected if she's running against McCain would be if McCain died on the campaign trail. Even worse, the Hillary and Obama (well, mostly Hillary) will continue to attack each other as the primary season trudges on, while John McCain will have several attack-free months to begin rallying support and trying to get his party together. He's going to look great, doing his victory laps and raising money without having to spend it while Clinton and Obama bankrupt themselves. Even Obama might not be able to defeat McCain if the democrats push things to a brokered convention.
Which is why, for the good of the party, Hillary Clinton ought to step out of the race. She has no chance of beating McCain if she gets the nomination, and every day she continues to fight and attack Obama with every play out of Karl Rove's book lessens Obama's chances of doing so. On the other hand, if she abandoned a real possibility of becoming the nominee and immediately endorsed Obama, giving some kind of inspiring speech about how she has so much faith that he'd be as good a President as she that she's willing to abandon her chances of becoming the nominee in order to give him a better chance of winning the general election, she'd solidify all of her support behind him, and give his support another boost from the triumph. The convention could serve as it's meant to serve, as a coronation ceremony, complete with the anointing with oils and the washing of feet, and Obama could go about the business of trouncing McCain. Well, maybe not trouncing, but in such a situation, with a united democratic party, while McCain struggled to unite a divided republican base and fend off Obama's charisma, he'd win.
Not convinced? Rush Limbaugh is. He has sworn that he will raise money for Hillary Clinton because she's the only chance of uniting the republican party behind John McCain. Normally, I don't pay attention to a word coming out of that fat windbag's mouth, but I'm willing to postulate that if anyone knows the loonies of the right, it's him.
But Hillary Clinton is a self-interested witch who will do anything for the nomination. (She actually welcomed Ann Coulter's support!) She has shown that she's willing to use ugly tactics against Obama, despite the damage it would do to him if he were to become the nominee. In fact, her camp took the tactics so far that they started alienating their supporters, and that's the only thing that stopped them. There's no way she's going to drop out, and she might cost the party the election.
I might become a republican, just because I'm getting tired of my side losing all the time!
And Now for Something Completely Different
Enough with the depressing stuff. It's time for lighter news -- because whenever things look dark, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are there to help us laugh at ourselves!
As the writer's strike drags on, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O'Brian have come up with a creative way to maintain viewer interest in their shows. (Although John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows are about as funny as they usually are, even without writers. The extreme pollsters video had me in tears, I was laughing so hard..)
Anyway, what they've done is create a conflict between their shows, a grudge match, if you will. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert vs. Conan O'Brien.
It all started when Stephen Colbert claimed to have "made" Mike Huckabee by having him on his show and giving him the coveted "Colbert bump". Then, Conan O'Brien, on HIS show, claimed to have "made" Stephen Colbert by mentioning him on network television. This led to John Stewart playing a clip from his old show on MTV, where he had a pre-fame Conan O'Brien on the show in an interview, thus having "made" Conan O'Brien, and through him Stephen Colbert, and through him Mike Huckabee. Finally, Conan O'Brien, in what can only be described as an Irish rage, claimed to have been the doctor who delivered both John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and went on to threaten to kick some Comedy Central ass if either John Stewart or Stephen Colbert mentioned it again.
So what did the ever-combative Stephen Colbert do? He mentioned it again. Which led to, as John Stewart put it afterward, the stupidest thing ever broadcast on late night television. But it was also hilarious. For your viewing pleasure, I present it here:
Who won? America. Will the fight go on? Depends on how long the writer's strike lasts. How will this fight effect Mike Huckabee's campaign? Only time will tell.
So it seems that Mitt Romney, despite not being so behind that he couldn't have squeaked a victory through, decided that the best thing for the party would be for him to drop out and get someone anointed victor as soon as possible.
...Or did he?
Where's The McCain Endorsement?
Everyone has assumed that Romney will endorse John McCain any time now, but he hasn't done so yet, and I'll tell you why: Because if Huckabee does well in the next few primaries, then Mitt Romney can throw his weight -- and his delegates -- on Huckabee's side, and suddenly the republicans are looking at a brokered convention where Huckabee might come out the victor.
Does Huckabee have a shot? He may. There are a lot of states that he might have won, if he hadn't been splitting the vote with Mitt Romney, although then again, maybe some of Romney's supporters would have gone over to McCain if Romney hadn't been in the race. But without Romney splitting the far right wing vote, it may be that Huckabee will have a chance at winning enough states to make him a player.
In addition, McCain is having a hard time bringing the conservative wing of the Republican party to his side; many of the popular conservative talk show hosts are practically foaming at the mouth over his possible nomination. Ann Coulter, that crazy republican ghoul raised from the dead to torment America, has said that she'll support Hillary Clinton over John McCain, and many callers to conservative talk shows have said that they will sit out the election, or vote for Hillary Clinton if John McCain is the nominee. If these people take their displeasure to the polls and vote for the candidate who is not John McCain, Huckabee might see enough of a comeback for Romney's delegates to make a difference.
The whole thing is going to boil down to who gets Texas. On the one hand, Texas isn't a hotbed of the religious right the way that some states in the south are. On the other hand, immigration is a big issue there. Romney won in a state with similar central issues, California, and Texas isn't nearly as liberal. We don't have many "real republicans" here. So Huckabee has a real chance at taking the state, and all of its delegates.
Of course, Mitt Romney can't endorse Huckabee until he gets an idea of where the wind is blowing, as he, like Edwards, might be holding out for a seat on the ticket as the VP candidate, to balance out McCain and rally the party. In that case, endorsing Huckabee would anger the McCain camp and generally be a bad idea.
Sad to See Romney Go
Romney's loss is a disappointment to me. I was hoping to see him as the nominee, because if we had to have a republican president, I'd want Romney. It would be delicious fun to watch the religious right shit themselves for four years over a Mormon president. I wonder if he would have insisted on being sworn in on the Book of Mormon? (Probably not, but it would have been hilarious.)
I think it says something that part assumes that the democrats are going to manage, somehow, to lose.
It's interesting to me that by stubbornly staying in the race in what he's got to know is a lost cause, Huckabee has essentially shot his party interests in the foot. There are a lot of states that Romney would have won if the socially conservative arm of the Republican party hadn't been split between him and Mike Huckabee. Now, while he still has a slim chance at the nomination, Huckabee has eliminated the chance of Romney being a sure thing.
Disaster for the Democrats
John McCain's nomination is disaster for the Democrats, especially with the possibility remaining that we might, in our idiocy, nominate Hillary Clinton. As I have said before, Hillary Clinton's only chance in hell of being elected if she's running against McCain would be if McCain died on the campaign trail. Even worse, the Hillary and Obama (well, mostly Hillary) will continue to attack each other as the primary season trudges on, while John McCain will have several attack-free months to begin rallying support and trying to get his party together. He's going to look great, doing his victory laps and raising money without having to spend it while Clinton and Obama bankrupt themselves. Even Obama might not be able to defeat McCain if the democrats push things to a brokered convention.
Which is why, for the good of the party, Hillary Clinton ought to step out of the race. She has no chance of beating McCain if she gets the nomination, and every day she continues to fight and attack Obama with every play out of Karl Rove's book lessens Obama's chances of doing so. On the other hand, if she abandoned a real possibility of becoming the nominee and immediately endorsed Obama, giving some kind of inspiring speech about how she has so much faith that he'd be as good a President as she that she's willing to abandon her chances of becoming the nominee in order to give him a better chance of winning the general election, she'd solidify all of her support behind him, and give his support another boost from the triumph. The convention could serve as it's meant to serve, as a coronation ceremony, complete with the anointing with oils and the washing of feet, and Obama could go about the business of trouncing McCain. Well, maybe not trouncing, but in such a situation, with a united democratic party, while McCain struggled to unite a divided republican base and fend off Obama's charisma, he'd win.
Not convinced? Rush Limbaugh is. He has sworn that he will raise money for Hillary Clinton because she's the only chance of uniting the republican party behind John McCain. Normally, I don't pay attention to a word coming out of that fat windbag's mouth, but I'm willing to postulate that if anyone knows the loonies of the right, it's him.
But Hillary Clinton is a self-interested witch who will do anything for the nomination. (She actually welcomed Ann Coulter's support!) She has shown that she's willing to use ugly tactics against Obama, despite the damage it would do to him if he were to become the nominee. In fact, her camp took the tactics so far that they started alienating their supporters, and that's the only thing that stopped them. There's no way she's going to drop out, and she might cost the party the election.
I might become a republican, just because I'm getting tired of my side losing all the time!
And Now for Something Completely Different
Enough with the depressing stuff. It's time for lighter news -- because whenever things look dark, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are there to help us laugh at ourselves!
As the writer's strike drags on, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O'Brian have come up with a creative way to maintain viewer interest in their shows. (Although John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows are about as funny as they usually are, even without writers. The extreme pollsters video had me in tears, I was laughing so hard..)
Anyway, what they've done is create a conflict between their shows, a grudge match, if you will. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert vs. Conan O'Brien.
It all started when Stephen Colbert claimed to have "made" Mike Huckabee by having him on his show and giving him the coveted "Colbert bump". Then, Conan O'Brien, on HIS show, claimed to have "made" Stephen Colbert by mentioning him on network television. This led to John Stewart playing a clip from his old show on MTV, where he had a pre-fame Conan O'Brien on the show in an interview, thus having "made" Conan O'Brien, and through him Stephen Colbert, and through him Mike Huckabee. Finally, Conan O'Brien, in what can only be described as an Irish rage, claimed to have been the doctor who delivered both John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and went on to threaten to kick some Comedy Central ass if either John Stewart or Stephen Colbert mentioned it again.
So what did the ever-combative Stephen Colbert do? He mentioned it again. Which led to, as John Stewart put it afterward, the stupidest thing ever broadcast on late night television. But it was also hilarious. For your viewing pleasure, I present it here:
Who won? America. Will the fight go on? Depends on how long the writer's strike lasts. How will this fight effect Mike Huckabee's campaign? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
