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.
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday Morning Quarterbacking
Well, the election results are in, and you all know how they turned out, I'm sure. (All one of you.) (Hi, dad!) I'm still sifting through the articles and trying to get a sense of the subtleties of what happened.
I Was Right, After All
The thing that surprised me before the primaries was that the polls were showing that Romney and Obama had leads in California, the exact opposite of what I had been expecting. My expectation had been that the California Republicrats would break heavily towards McCain, and that Hillary Clinton's connection with Latino voters, Unions, and community organizers in this state would play to her favor. The polls were showing that the opposite was true -- Obama and Romney were pulling ahead. And while I could understand more or less why that might be, it surprised me.
Well, turns out I shouldn't have doubted my judgment, because the dust has cleared, and it turned out I was right all along.
Obama Stays in the Race
While McCain has solidified his lead among the republicans, the democratic fight soldiers on, still too close to call. Obama didn't manage to leave Hillary in the dust (no one expected that he would), but he did manage to stay in the race. This works to his advantage, because his principle problem thusfar has been that 90% of voters don't give a crap about politics, and don't even know who he is in more than the vaguest terms, whereas they know all about Hillary Clinton. Since Obama's charisma is such an important part of his candidacy, he needs people to get to know him and see him in action to get their support. With all of the primaries on Super Tuesday, he hasn't had time to do that. But now, with the rest of the primaries more spread out, he's going to have time, and that's going to help him build support. Even so, there's every chance that we might wind up with a brokered convention, and that's going to hurt whoever comes out of the fray still standing.
Where In the World Is Bill Richardson?
Leading up to Super Tuesday, I was hearing a lot of baffling speculation that Bill Richardson was going to endorse Barack Obama. When Obama went to make the rounds in New Mexico, a lot of people were saying that Richardson was going to make an appearance and take the chance to make his endorsement. I started searching news sites for some indication of what I must have missed -- why the hell should anyone believe this? All of Richardson's ties are to the Clintons. He worked for Bill Clinton, for crying out loud. Bill Clinton practically MADE him. They watched the superbowl together!
But Richardson didn't endorse Hillary Clinton either, and let's face it, if he was gonna do it, he was gonna do it before Super Tuesday. I'm pretty sure that, like Edwards, he's expecting that there's a good chance that he'll be tapped by SOMEONE for the VP spot on a ticket. Since the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama looks too close to call, and since an endorsement of the losing party would rule him out of getting jack from whoever gets the nomination, I think he'll sit on the fence until the victor has already been anointed -- or until he can have a good chance at anointing the victor with his endorsement. Of course, he doesn't have anything by way of delegates to contribute, but he may be counting on his popularity with Latino voters.
In fact, Richardson would be a good running mate for Barack Obama. He's not very charismatic, but Obama's got enough charisma to make up for ten Bill Richardsons, never mind one. Obama's weakest areas seem to be the established democrats, Latino voters, and his inexperience, especially with regards to foreign policy -- all things that Richardson could make up for. Obama could dispatch Richardson, as VP, to do most of the foreign policy negotiations, and Richardson has already proven that not only does he have the contacts to be effective, he IS effective.
I prefer not to think about the possibility of a Clinton/Richardson ticket. The cognitive dissonance hurts my brain. I would desperately like to see Richardson in power, because he seems to know what he's doing, even if I don't agree with every single one of his policy opinions. But I cannot, absolutely cannot, bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton. The idea of rewarding her behavior with my vote is repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'd do.
I Was Right, After All
The thing that surprised me before the primaries was that the polls were showing that Romney and Obama had leads in California, the exact opposite of what I had been expecting. My expectation had been that the California Republicrats would break heavily towards McCain, and that Hillary Clinton's connection with Latino voters, Unions, and community organizers in this state would play to her favor. The polls were showing that the opposite was true -- Obama and Romney were pulling ahead. And while I could understand more or less why that might be, it surprised me.
Well, turns out I shouldn't have doubted my judgment, because the dust has cleared, and it turned out I was right all along.
Obama Stays in the Race
While McCain has solidified his lead among the republicans, the democratic fight soldiers on, still too close to call. Obama didn't manage to leave Hillary in the dust (no one expected that he would), but he did manage to stay in the race. This works to his advantage, because his principle problem thusfar has been that 90% of voters don't give a crap about politics, and don't even know who he is in more than the vaguest terms, whereas they know all about Hillary Clinton. Since Obama's charisma is such an important part of his candidacy, he needs people to get to know him and see him in action to get their support. With all of the primaries on Super Tuesday, he hasn't had time to do that. But now, with the rest of the primaries more spread out, he's going to have time, and that's going to help him build support. Even so, there's every chance that we might wind up with a brokered convention, and that's going to hurt whoever comes out of the fray still standing.
Where In the World Is Bill Richardson?
Leading up to Super Tuesday, I was hearing a lot of baffling speculation that Bill Richardson was going to endorse Barack Obama. When Obama went to make the rounds in New Mexico, a lot of people were saying that Richardson was going to make an appearance and take the chance to make his endorsement. I started searching news sites for some indication of what I must have missed -- why the hell should anyone believe this? All of Richardson's ties are to the Clintons. He worked for Bill Clinton, for crying out loud. Bill Clinton practically MADE him. They watched the superbowl together!
But Richardson didn't endorse Hillary Clinton either, and let's face it, if he was gonna do it, he was gonna do it before Super Tuesday. I'm pretty sure that, like Edwards, he's expecting that there's a good chance that he'll be tapped by SOMEONE for the VP spot on a ticket. Since the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama looks too close to call, and since an endorsement of the losing party would rule him out of getting jack from whoever gets the nomination, I think he'll sit on the fence until the victor has already been anointed -- or until he can have a good chance at anointing the victor with his endorsement. Of course, he doesn't have anything by way of delegates to contribute, but he may be counting on his popularity with Latino voters.
In fact, Richardson would be a good running mate for Barack Obama. He's not very charismatic, but Obama's got enough charisma to make up for ten Bill Richardsons, never mind one. Obama's weakest areas seem to be the established democrats, Latino voters, and his inexperience, especially with regards to foreign policy -- all things that Richardson could make up for. Obama could dispatch Richardson, as VP, to do most of the foreign policy negotiations, and Richardson has already proven that not only does he have the contacts to be effective, he IS effective.
I prefer not to think about the possibility of a Clinton/Richardson ticket. The cognitive dissonance hurts my brain. I would desperately like to see Richardson in power, because he seems to know what he's doing, even if I don't agree with every single one of his policy opinions. But I cannot, absolutely cannot, bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton. The idea of rewarding her behavior with my vote is repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'd do.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Handicapping the race
I'm writing this on February 5th, "Super Tuesday". It's well before the polls close today, so I don't know what's going to happen. I feel a sense of anticipation coiling inside me, something tight and humming with pent up energy. I haven't been this excited about an election in years -- not since Bill Clinton ran his first time, and I was really young then and inclined towards getting excited about things.
Looking at the news, it looks like Huckabee has already nailed West Virginia, a hint that the bible belt might breathe some life into his campaign. McCain voters switched to him to keep Romney from winning. If this is a bellweather of things to come, it's very, very bad for Romney. Polls show Obama leading Clinton in California, which is good for Obama, especially since it's tight everywhere else.
Of course, these are just polls, and who knows how accurate they will be? I think that this year, more than any year in my lifetime, anything could happen.
Split Down the Middle
To distract myself from the pre-results jitters, I thought I'd elaborate on what I mentioned yesterday about handicapping the race. I don't think anyone can dispute that the Democratic and Republican sides each have two possible nominees. (Huckabee is making himself a contender, but he doesn't have a chance at the nomination -- too many Republicans realize that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is never going to win the general election.) What's interesting, though, is how different these candidates are from each other, and the way that each pair divide their respective parties passionately in half.
On the Democratic side, you've got the idealists represented by Barack Obama. Many of these are young people who've never voted before because they grew up with no faith in the system, and no sense that their opinion mattered. Barack Obama has given them faith, and they're coming to his rallies and -- amazingly -- following through and coming to the polls. Hillary Clinton's followers include entrenched aspects of the party who are looking to preserve established interests. Many of these people are powerful party and union leaders and community organizers who can get a lot of people to the polls, though Ted Kennedy's defection over to Obama's side seems to be eroding that base.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney represents the hardcore conservatives of the party. He puts focus on family values and immigration, and has instilled in people confidence in his financial abilities -- which is of no small importance, given the crumbling economy. John McCain, on the other hand, represents the moderates. He's more critical of the war in Iraq -- or the way it's being handled -- and he's come out strongly against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He projects the image of having broken with the loony warmongers, and gives a voice to the dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement that moderate Republicans have been feeling.
What the split in the parties means is that no matter who gets the nomination, half of the Democrats and half of the Republicans are going to be pissed the hell off, and the degree to which they are angry is going to have a lot to do with how the general election turns out; if a substantial part of one party is too disgusted to vote, or even worse defects to the other side, then the other party is certain to win.
How It Will Break Down
1) Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain: This one goes to McCain by a substantial margin. Hillary Clinton can't count on the support of the young people who voted for Obama; their candidate losing despite their involvement will drive them further away from the process. She also can't count on Democrats like me, who usually vote but who are so turned off by her methods that we'll find ourselves unable to hold our noses and vote for her. In the meantime, she's going to unite the Republicans against her, because nothing riles up the hardcore conservatives like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how they may feel about McCain, they will turn out to the polls to keep Clinton out, the same way that McCain's supporters went to Huckabee in order to thwart Romney. In the meantime, McCain will pull in the independents and the undecideds, who have shown a penchant towards voting for him in the primaries.
2) Barack Obama vs. John McCain: This one could break either way, depending on how the campaigns are run. My instinct is that it goes to Obama. With Obama running, McCain won't have total control of the independents, arguably his greatest asset, and there will be no collective hatred of Hillary Clinton to bring the conservatives together -- which means that a lot of evangelicals will stay home. In the meantime, the Democrats will get behind Obama, not in the least because of the Kennedy clan's influence pushing them in line. Even more young voters than voted in the primaries will come to the polls; Obama's win, his message of looking to the future, and the real possibility of him being elected president will electrify and empower my generation.
3) Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney: This one will be closer than Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, but Romney still manages to win the general election. The threat of Hillary Clinton allows Romney to 'run to the center' without losing the support of the far right, so that he doesn't alienate McCain's supporters. But what really clinches it for Romney is that he'll get the independent voters over to his side because of his clean image and infectious optimism. If you listen to him speak, he projects a sense of 'don't you worry, I'll take care of everything, everything's going to be all right.' that's flat-out entrancing. Rationally, I know that he's my ideological opposite in every way, but when he hits me with the full force of his benevolent patriarchy, I start to believe him. It's completely irrational, but I just want to let him protect me. People call him too polished, but when he's contrasted with Hillary Clinton and her alternately stone cold and weepy image, he's going to look like the less calculating of the two, and 'polished' is going to turn into 'presidential' in the eyes of many voters.
4) Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: It'd depend on how the campaign is run and if anyone does anything stupid, but I'm pretty sure that Obama wins this one. Mitt Romney's charisma is nothing to Barack Obama's; he'd look so robotic next to Obama that comedians would be able to dust off their old Al Gore jokes. In addition, the far ends of the Republican party on both sides (the far right conservatives and the moderates) would be unlikely to turn up at the polls -- some of them might even defect over to Obama -- and Obama would capture the independents. Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of uniting the democrats behind him, and his army of young voters would turn up to boost him further.
Third Party Contenders
There are several complicating factors, however, in the form of possible third party candidates. These include:
Ralph Nader. He's going to run. His ego demands it. But I don't think he's going to be a force in this election the way he was in 2000; I've talked to many people who voted for him in the past, and many of them tell me that they bitterly regret it. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he might get a few democratic defectors, but he pulls his support from the left, and he has no chance against Obama. I predict a weak showing.
Ron Paul. He's said he won't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination, but with the kind of money that he's been bringing in (he was the top fundraising Republican in the last quarter of 2007!) and with the rabid support of his followers egging him on, I'm not sure he'll be able to resist the temptation. And speaking of that money, how the hell is he not buying stronger support with all of that cash?! I know he's a crazy person, but we've elected crazy people before.
Michael Bloomburg. A lot of people think he'll make a go at it, but if he's got two neurons to knock together, he'll only do it if the matchup is Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney. Bloomburg is seen as a centerist, and he'll do best if there are divisive members of both parties running. In a situation like that, he'd be able to pull a lot of independents and dissatisfied members of both parties over to his side. With his money and good reputation, he'd do pretty well. I doubt he'd win, but with this election? Never say never. Crazier things are happening.
Edwards the Kingmaker?
The last wrench to be thrown into the wheels of the campaign is John Edwards' delegates. He's got 26 under his belt, and he's probably going to pick up one or two more today from absentee voters. My father, for example, voted for him before he dropped out. (Dad -- you should have listened to me and voted for Obama.)
Those 26 delegates could decide the race if it gets close enough, and therein lies the question -- who gets them? Whoever Edwards endorses will get his delegates. A lot of people predicted that Edwards would endorse someone before February 5th to give them an added bump of momentum and make himself into a kingmaker, but he didn't. And here's why: Edwards is gambling that, come convention time, the race will be close enough for his delegates to crown the winner. If this happens, he's in an amazing bargaining position, and his delegates will go to whoever agrees to put him on the ticket as their vice-presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton will be the person most willing to cut this deal; she has already shown that she will do anything to win.
If Obama manages to pull a clear lead over Hillary Clinton, far enough that Edwards' delegates won't make a difference, he'll give them over to Obama, however, VP slot or no.
Huckabee is in essentially the same position as Edwards, but I don't know what he's going to do with his delegates.
Okay, that's it for now. The only thing that I have left to say to you is that if you're reading this on one of your state's primary days, get out there and VOTE! :)
Looking at the news, it looks like Huckabee has already nailed West Virginia, a hint that the bible belt might breathe some life into his campaign. McCain voters switched to him to keep Romney from winning. If this is a bellweather of things to come, it's very, very bad for Romney. Polls show Obama leading Clinton in California, which is good for Obama, especially since it's tight everywhere else.
Of course, these are just polls, and who knows how accurate they will be? I think that this year, more than any year in my lifetime, anything could happen.
Split Down the Middle
To distract myself from the pre-results jitters, I thought I'd elaborate on what I mentioned yesterday about handicapping the race. I don't think anyone can dispute that the Democratic and Republican sides each have two possible nominees. (Huckabee is making himself a contender, but he doesn't have a chance at the nomination -- too many Republicans realize that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is never going to win the general election.) What's interesting, though, is how different these candidates are from each other, and the way that each pair divide their respective parties passionately in half.
On the Democratic side, you've got the idealists represented by Barack Obama. Many of these are young people who've never voted before because they grew up with no faith in the system, and no sense that their opinion mattered. Barack Obama has given them faith, and they're coming to his rallies and -- amazingly -- following through and coming to the polls. Hillary Clinton's followers include entrenched aspects of the party who are looking to preserve established interests. Many of these people are powerful party and union leaders and community organizers who can get a lot of people to the polls, though Ted Kennedy's defection over to Obama's side seems to be eroding that base.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney represents the hardcore conservatives of the party. He puts focus on family values and immigration, and has instilled in people confidence in his financial abilities -- which is of no small importance, given the crumbling economy. John McCain, on the other hand, represents the moderates. He's more critical of the war in Iraq -- or the way it's being handled -- and he's come out strongly against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He projects the image of having broken with the loony warmongers, and gives a voice to the dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement that moderate Republicans have been feeling.
What the split in the parties means is that no matter who gets the nomination, half of the Democrats and half of the Republicans are going to be pissed the hell off, and the degree to which they are angry is going to have a lot to do with how the general election turns out; if a substantial part of one party is too disgusted to vote, or even worse defects to the other side, then the other party is certain to win.
How It Will Break Down
1) Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain: This one goes to McCain by a substantial margin. Hillary Clinton can't count on the support of the young people who voted for Obama; their candidate losing despite their involvement will drive them further away from the process. She also can't count on Democrats like me, who usually vote but who are so turned off by her methods that we'll find ourselves unable to hold our noses and vote for her. In the meantime, she's going to unite the Republicans against her, because nothing riles up the hardcore conservatives like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how they may feel about McCain, they will turn out to the polls to keep Clinton out, the same way that McCain's supporters went to Huckabee in order to thwart Romney. In the meantime, McCain will pull in the independents and the undecideds, who have shown a penchant towards voting for him in the primaries.
2) Barack Obama vs. John McCain: This one could break either way, depending on how the campaigns are run. My instinct is that it goes to Obama. With Obama running, McCain won't have total control of the independents, arguably his greatest asset, and there will be no collective hatred of Hillary Clinton to bring the conservatives together -- which means that a lot of evangelicals will stay home. In the meantime, the Democrats will get behind Obama, not in the least because of the Kennedy clan's influence pushing them in line. Even more young voters than voted in the primaries will come to the polls; Obama's win, his message of looking to the future, and the real possibility of him being elected president will electrify and empower my generation.
3) Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney: This one will be closer than Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, but Romney still manages to win the general election. The threat of Hillary Clinton allows Romney to 'run to the center' without losing the support of the far right, so that he doesn't alienate McCain's supporters. But what really clinches it for Romney is that he'll get the independent voters over to his side because of his clean image and infectious optimism. If you listen to him speak, he projects a sense of 'don't you worry, I'll take care of everything, everything's going to be all right.' that's flat-out entrancing. Rationally, I know that he's my ideological opposite in every way, but when he hits me with the full force of his benevolent patriarchy, I start to believe him. It's completely irrational, but I just want to let him protect me. People call him too polished, but when he's contrasted with Hillary Clinton and her alternately stone cold and weepy image, he's going to look like the less calculating of the two, and 'polished' is going to turn into 'presidential' in the eyes of many voters.
4) Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: It'd depend on how the campaign is run and if anyone does anything stupid, but I'm pretty sure that Obama wins this one. Mitt Romney's charisma is nothing to Barack Obama's; he'd look so robotic next to Obama that comedians would be able to dust off their old Al Gore jokes. In addition, the far ends of the Republican party on both sides (the far right conservatives and the moderates) would be unlikely to turn up at the polls -- some of them might even defect over to Obama -- and Obama would capture the independents. Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of uniting the democrats behind him, and his army of young voters would turn up to boost him further.
Third Party Contenders
There are several complicating factors, however, in the form of possible third party candidates. These include:
Ralph Nader. He's going to run. His ego demands it. But I don't think he's going to be a force in this election the way he was in 2000; I've talked to many people who voted for him in the past, and many of them tell me that they bitterly regret it. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he might get a few democratic defectors, but he pulls his support from the left, and he has no chance against Obama. I predict a weak showing.
Ron Paul. He's said he won't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination, but with the kind of money that he's been bringing in (he was the top fundraising Republican in the last quarter of 2007!) and with the rabid support of his followers egging him on, I'm not sure he'll be able to resist the temptation. And speaking of that money, how the hell is he not buying stronger support with all of that cash?! I know he's a crazy person, but we've elected crazy people before.
Michael Bloomburg. A lot of people think he'll make a go at it, but if he's got two neurons to knock together, he'll only do it if the matchup is Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney. Bloomburg is seen as a centerist, and he'll do best if there are divisive members of both parties running. In a situation like that, he'd be able to pull a lot of independents and dissatisfied members of both parties over to his side. With his money and good reputation, he'd do pretty well. I doubt he'd win, but with this election? Never say never. Crazier things are happening.
Edwards the Kingmaker?
The last wrench to be thrown into the wheels of the campaign is John Edwards' delegates. He's got 26 under his belt, and he's probably going to pick up one or two more today from absentee voters. My father, for example, voted for him before he dropped out. (Dad -- you should have listened to me and voted for Obama.)
Those 26 delegates could decide the race if it gets close enough, and therein lies the question -- who gets them? Whoever Edwards endorses will get his delegates. A lot of people predicted that Edwards would endorse someone before February 5th to give them an added bump of momentum and make himself into a kingmaker, but he didn't. And here's why: Edwards is gambling that, come convention time, the race will be close enough for his delegates to crown the winner. If this happens, he's in an amazing bargaining position, and his delegates will go to whoever agrees to put him on the ticket as their vice-presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton will be the person most willing to cut this deal; she has already shown that she will do anything to win.
If Obama manages to pull a clear lead over Hillary Clinton, far enough that Edwards' delegates won't make a difference, he'll give them over to Obama, however, VP slot or no.
Huckabee is in essentially the same position as Edwards, but I don't know what he's going to do with his delegates.
Okay, that's it for now. The only thing that I have left to say to you is that if you're reading this on one of your state's primary days, get out there and VOTE! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
