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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
