OK -- the only anti-poverty solution is world-class education. Liberal rhetoric. Where are we going? Going to revitalize the community colleges? Tell us how! OK. Increased Pell Grants. That's good. Whoa! Debt forgiveness! REEEED meat.
He's talking health care. But I'm a little lost. Didn't get anything out of it.
I haven't had a lot of time for blogging lately, but Richard reminded me yesterday that I really need to say something about how disappointed I am with Obama's approach to Afghanistan and Iraq. I fully agree with what Tristero says here:
If the Democratic party today doesn't have viable candidates who are prepared to oppose this crazy policy, it sure as hell will have them two elections hence. I realize that opposing the election of Democrats at a time when the opposition party has literally gone off the deep end puts this country at serious risk of another extreme rightwing takeover. But I don't think liberals have much choice but to take that risk. We are talking about potentially thousands upon thousands of human deaths for an utterly pointless war. This liberal - and I'm hardly the only one - can neither support nor excuse what is now officially the Obama/Afghan War.
From the Mouths of Conservatives -- Paul Broun (R-Off the Deep End)
From the AP:
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may - may not, I hope not - but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
. . .
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
As you might imagine, I'm deliriously happy today. As I was putting my older son to sleep last night, I had just heard about Ohio. I explained to the boy that Obama was going to win the election and become the first African-American President of the United States. The boy looked up at me, eyes filled with wonder, as one's kids will on occasion, and said, "Really? The first? How can that be?" My son will grow up in a different country than I did, a country where more things seem possible, where more things are possible.
The boy woke up today, left his bed, and stepped into his world of new possibilities. He marched into my bedroom and inquired about the election. I told him that Obama had won. He then asked about Proposition 8. I told him that it passed, that a majority of Californians chose to annul the marriages of several of his cousins and the parents of two of his good friends. He didn't say, "Really? How can that be?" But he was upset - even after I explained that the arc of the moral universe is long, but that it bends toward justice.
He's off to school now, and I'm left feeling like I should have worked harder against Proposition 8, like I should have spent more time phonebanking, should have raised more money. I'm ashamed that I was so overconfident, so sure that the day of justice was finally at hand. My son takes immeasurable comfort in his parents' marriage. His little cousins, his friends from school, the people he knows who will be most directly affected by Prop 8, awoke today into a world without that comfort. The arc of the moral universe feels unbearably long right now, even as a I celebrate President-elect Obama.
I can't believe I'm talking about a next generation...
This Obama ad has been floating on the web for a few days now, but I've been avoiding it because it sounded stupid to me. I finally watching it, and it's not. It might be the best ad anyone's done all year. Fantastic. Watch:
No candidate this far back two weeks out has ever won.
Early voting is going strong and even if something big happens, those votes are already cast.
The Democrats have a 10% advantage in party registration; in 2004 it was even.
Obama is outspending McCain 4 to 1 in many states.
There is no evidence for the so-called Bradley effect in the past 15 years.
Obama is safe in all the Kerry states and ahead in half a dozen states Bush won.
If McCain were to win at this point, it would be the comeback to end all political comebacks. It just isn't going to happen. I'm going to put a wager on it -- if McCain does win, the background image on my blog for the next year will be me wearing a McCain-Palin T-shirt. Nah guh happen.
I believe in this election we will NOT see "The Bradley Effect". Instead, we will see what I call "The Simpson Effect", meaning, Obama will get elected simply because he is BLACK, in spite of the facts that he is "guilty" of being a Socialist, a liar, guilty of being in the MIDDLE of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debaucle that was responsible for the financial crisis, guilty taking in over $200,000 in illegal foreign donations, helping to campaign for and continuing a friendship with Prime Minister Raila Odinga who muscled his way into his position by encouraging his followers to commit mass genocide against the oppostion party, guilty of being pals with terrorists criminals, America haters and like Ayers , Rezco, Khalidi, Odinga, guilty of manipulating ACORN and encouraging voter fraud, guilty of running for President of the US when his Indonesion citizenship disqualifies him, GUILTY, GUILTY- but nobody cares because he is BLACK- just like OJ Simpson.
Barack Obama as a murderous Communist dictator is a common theme among wingnut Republicans, and the drumbeat keeps getting stronger. Here's a quote from a rightie on Silicon Investor (yes, I spend too much time there):
Eventually [Obama] or his successor will make laws [business leaders] cannot avoid breaking, put them in jail, kill them, and take over the companies. Obama's people, ACORN and Democrats will then be the super rich.
For the politically uninitiated, the Bradley Effect is named for Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor of California in 1982 and lost even though he was winning significantly a few days before the election. Since then political conventional wisdom would have it that going into an election, a black candidate needs to have a fairly large lead in the polls to compensate for the number of people who tell pollsters they will vote for the black candidate to avoid admitting that they will not vote for a black candidate.
Politico has some numbers and data that show that the "Bradley Effect" may have been simple polling error, and that Bradley's opponent actually did close the gap in the days before the election.
Jeff, a business associate of mine in my Albany office, floated an interesting idea yesterday. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but the essence of it is that there might be a "Reverse Bradley Effect," where people don't want to admit they MIGHT vote for a black candidate but vote for Obama because they feel like it's in their economic self-interest. Some interesting evidence from Ben Smith at Politico, about a focus group's reaction to a McCain ad:
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.
Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack.">
Obama's brown shirts civilian police force, Ayers, Dohrn and the Weather Underground joining forces with Reverend Wright's Black Liberation Movement and Farrakhan to achieve the destruction of the US thereby implementing world communism.
Sounds like the democrats' plan doesn't it comrade? Maybe you'll get a free pass being a token since you enabled their power grab?
I don't have a lot to say about the debate tonight, other than I think Obama won by a bit (the poll or two I've seen seem to indicate he won by a lot more). McCain's last chance to make this a contest is at next week's debate, but I think this one's over. More tomorrow.
When it comes to elections, The term "ground game" refers to the campaign activities of people on the ground -- people making phone calls, registering voters, staffing field offices, etc...
The Republicans' ground game is usually a force to be reckoned with, and the Democrats' has often been so-so. Thanks to people like Howard Dean and Barack Obama, the Democrats' ground game is incredibly strong. It's been that way for Obama's whole campaign. He's been opening offices in every state, many in which Democrats don't normally compete, like Indiana. But I'd been under the assumption that the Republicans' still were doing pretty well on the ground. Yesterday, Sean Quinn of the amazing FiveThirtyEight.comdropped a bomb on that assumption:
Something interesting is happening with John McCain's campaign. Up until now, we've had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we "shouldn't or don't need to be talking to." (McCain's Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that's not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we'd probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we're regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I'd hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let's be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there's a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain's state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maitre Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain's people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we "just missed." No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. "Call time," for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain's people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we're told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we "just missed it" again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we've been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can't stop convincing ourselves that there must -- must -- be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can't be all they're doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain's ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we've seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama's single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
This may be shaping up to be a serious blowout in Obama's favor...
UPDATE: For an example of how good Obama's ground game is, check this out.
I didn't watch much of the Democratic Convention, because, ironically enough, I was too busy trying to keep up with what the political blogs had to say about it. I do have to say, though, that I think Biden was a pretty good choice for VP; if nothing else, he'll make a great hatchet man for Obama.
When Obama announced his selection for VP, he made history by doing so to his supporters through text message.
I hear that along the same lines, McCain will be making his announcement by carrier pigeon. Stay tuned!
Just got back after a month of self-imposed hiatus from politics after Hillary dropped out of the race. Obama appears to have tacked to the center since then; for example on the surveillance legislation and faith-based initiatives.
All of the long-time Obamaniacs seem to be surprised by this (I'm not one of them, remember)... I'm not. I've always been a little uncomfortable with him (and Hillary) because he's just not really a liberal. Remember his 2004 keynote speech at the DNC?
We liberals are not going to love him as President, but after 8 years of Bush and faced with 4 more in McCain, Obama's still pretty damn appetizing...
Obama defeated Hillary handily in NC, and still stands a chance of pulling off an upset in Indiana. If he wins that, I think she'll concede tomorrow. I want to see what happens, but I need to get up early in the morning for a meeting in Midtown. Dilemmas, dilemmas...
One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in "boutique" caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: "Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling."
She sounds just like a Republican. She's doing it over and over again.
I just wish Obama would do a better job of fighting back, which is what I was worrying about in the first place with him. We'll see!
Bush isn't the only musically-inclined politician out there...
On Friday night, a friend sent me a prank video shows three fat old men having sex in the shower. This one was more disturbing...
I've brushed off the idea that it's time for a new generation in the White House, but this is the best argument for it I've seen. Compare the above video to this one:
Ted sent me a report from the Democratic caucuses in Washington:
Well, we're done caucusing.......at least my precinct is. It was an interesting process. First it was amazing to see people streaming towards the school on foot, by car, by bike. It was like something out of a movie.....people coming from all directions, converging on this school. They clearly got more people than they expected.....not enough forms, not enough seats. They had to send someone to Kinko's to make more copies.
The crowd was fairly diverse.....old, young, white, black, purple; in fact, there were some teenagers and tweenies observing. As far as income, I could see no difference.....mostly middle class, probably white collar but that's a guess.
The caucus started promptly at 1:30 PM. We were separated into rooms by precinct. My room had 64 people of which 5 were undecided. My neighbors from across the street were there. We chatted it up.......we hadn't talked in a while. Unfortunately, I realized as I took our signup sheet to the front of the room that they were for Clinton. I guess there won't be too many summer barbeques this year. hehehehehe! (Jason's Note: "Ted" is actually Beavis)
Then we separated into three groups: Obama, Clinton and Undecideds. I know, I know.....you want the break out for Obama and Clinton but you ain't getting it til the end and no fair cheating. We started out by making a list of resolutions we wanted presented to the county wide delegate meeting to be held in April. Then each candidate group picked three delegates for a total of six.
Finally, the actual caucus began. The Undecideds told us their doubts about each candidate. Then 5 speakers were picked from Obama's group and 5 from Clinton's group. I was one of the 5 for Obama. They were asked to address the concerns and questions of the Undecideds. Did I mention that my neighbor was one of the speakers for the Clintons and that stupidly my comments piggy backed off what he said, and in the process, turned his argument around to the detriment of Clinton? Politically savvy like Obama I am not. Forget the "no barbeque problem"...I am hiring a security guard for my house. ;-((
After the speakers were done, the Undecideds were asked to go up to the precinct captain and indicate if they had changed their position. We started out with 5 Undecideds and ended up with one. In fact, one woman came up to me and told me what I said had turned her around for Obama. Yay! One for the Obama gipper! In fact, Obama got all but one of the Undecideds.
And now for the final tally: 46 for Obama, 17 for Clinton and 1 Undecided. From what I understand, the majority of the 6 delegates go to him but they weren't sure exactly how many he would get. I am unclear why anyone would think this process favors Obama. Whatever the reasons might be, it was not obvious to me.
Oh yeah, my neighbor......he looked at me strangely as I left and was not nearly as friendly as when we first saw each other. Oh well............
I didn't make my vote based on who I thought was "more electable." I thought that was a fool's game four years ago, and I think it's even more foolish this year. I'm picking for myself, not for you. Heck, I have a lot of political positions in common with most people on this community, and many of you would strongly disagree with how I cast my vote. If I can't figure out how you're going to vote, I'm not about to start puzzling what a truck driver in Portland, a single mother in Boise, or a middle manager in Cleveland is looking for in a president.
I didn't make my vote based on how I thought some other part of the world would react to a President Obama. I didn't consider whether some despot at the head of a failing state would think the new president too weak to thwart some scheme. I didn't ponder what they'd think in the cave. I didn't consider whether some faction of the populace in the Middle East, or China, or some other place look on black people as "weak" or "inferior." I didn't consider how Obama would get on with Putin or how he'd handle Chavez. You only have to look at George W. Bush and Tony Blair to know that predicting how world leaders will hit it off is tougher than lining up blind dates for your friends. Anyone making guesses about this is doing just that -- making guesses.
And above all, I didn't make my vote based on some assumption of racism or sexism on another part of the electorate. Not that I didn't have plenty of chances. At some point, it seemed like everyone I know brought up some variant of the Wilder Effect. They usually expressed it as something close to "I know what people tell the pollsters, but I'm really worried in November when it comes down to a woman/black man against a candidate like people have always known..." A relative put it a lot more bluntly in saying "It doesn't bother me that Obama slept with all those white women, but it'll bother other people."
From CNN: "72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party's nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama."
Not exactly a divided party.
I spoke to a friend tonight, who told me that he and his wife spent the weekend weighing Hillary vs. Obama, and decided not to vote because they couldn't make a decision. They both decided they'd be happy with either, and that was that.
Seems a lot of America feels that way. But after tonight's primaries, it looks like we're going to need some more time before we have one candidate to agree upon. But agree we will, and we're going to kick some pachyderm in November!
So, I did vote for Obama (though I flirted briefly with casting my vote for Edwards). It was easy, of course -- two minutes, in and out.
Not as much luck for K-hole, who had to deal with his first caucus, having recently moved to Colorado. He texted me: "This is the dumbest worst thought out process ever."
Here's a little detail you might be interested in. As you know, the Albany City Democratic Committee, which is Jerry Jennings's breakaway from the Albany County Democratic Party, has been ordering all of us City committee persons to campaign exclusively for Hillary. All of us were handed a list of female names in our respective election districts. This turned out to be a list of women 55 years of age or over whom we were supposed to target.
My Wife was on that list, erroneously. She's not yet 55. "That's it, I'm voting for Obama," she told the City Party Chairman.
One of my biggest problems with Hillary has been the people she associates with, from anti-union types like Chris Lehane and Mark Penn to establishment slimeballs like James Carville.
But if Jerry Jennings is going to push so strongly for her, then that does it for me. I'm voting Barack Obama tomorrow.
Who am I gonna vote for? Out of the myriad of choices? I'll be voting for the Democrat in November, even if Ralph Nader runs, and especially if Billionaire Michael Bloomberg runs.
I'm angry at Clinton for A) voting for and supporting the War Against Iraq, and B) voting for and supporting the so-called "Patriot" Act and related legislation. I mean, c'mon lady.
Concerning B), when we were trying to get the City of Albany to pass a resolution opposing the "Patriot" Act (which was ultimately successful, by the way) Melanie Trimble of the NYCLU tried to get an audience with her. She refused to even respond to our request, let alone meet with Melanie. (McNulty met with her, and literally laughed in her face.) As a result, our opponents on the Albany Common Council kept tossing us this line about "undermining Senator Clinton." You think I'm going to forget something like that?
So I guess I'm going to vote for Obama because I'm not as disgusted with him. But I'll tell you, I have serious doubts that a black person can win a national election in white America.
I like both Clinton and Obama, but if I had to pick one as the Democratic nominee right now and offer a single justification for my selection, I'd choose Clinton, and for the same reason that so many people regard her as unelectable: she's gone through a never-ending storm of shit with her head held high. I'm thinking that's the best practice anyone could have for making it to November in one piece. Obama has acknowledged that she has that much of an edge by saying that beating off her attacks have made him a stronger, better-tested candidate, but I hope he isn't really silly enough to think that bitch-slapping Bob Johnson is remotely equivalent to taking on the whole Fox News and right-wing radio manure machine. The people who are attracted to Obama because he's so "inspiring" don't seem to think this ought to be a factor in their decision. It's as if they think that his new-morning aura is so effective that it'll deflect any slander and inspire the other side to behave itself and play on a high ground, especially if the other candidate is the saintly and principled John McCain. They must be out of their motherfucking minds.
Poverty Rising: There are nearly 37 million poor Americans. Most Americans living in poverty work, but still cannot afford to make ends meet.
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
After watching four-and-a-half seasons of The Wire in two weeks and then trying to catch up on my DVR, it hit me that The Wire was so compelling that everything else I watch is boring by comparison. Everything I've read proclaiming how excellent the show is has been true...
I even found myself struggling to keep myself awake while watching the season premiere of Lost!
UPDATE: Barack Obama's favorite show is The Wire. You can't watch the show without being affected by David Simon's handling of the issues of poverty and race. Point for him.
Yes folks, sprawl makes our taxes go up. This is not rocket science. Automobiles not only allow us to use more land than ever before. Autos demand that we use more land, to drive and park the damn things.
Global warming is not the only price we pay for our gas guzzling pollution machines. The more we drive our automobiles, the more land we need to use and pay for. Driving your car raises your taxes.
. . .
May I make a modest suggestion? To stop property taxes from increasing, we need a crash program to reduce dependence on automobiles. Not to eliminate automobiles, mind you. To reduce dependence.
Wouldn't it be nice to have choice? Imagine how delightful it would be to take a pleasant train ride to work, scanning your favorite electronic device or printed material, sipping your favorite coffee concoction and maybe even having a donut. I've lived in places where I could do that, why can't I do that in the Capital District?
Or imagine being able to hop a bus home at two o'clock in the morning after a raucous night out in a neighboring city. Don't we all want to reduce drunk driving? Again, I've lived in places where late night busses are expected and reliable.
I don't want to give up my pickup truck, nosiree. I need it to haul refrigerators and zip off to lumber yard when I want to. What I want is a choice, to not have to keep it full of expensive imported gasoline, to not be dependent on the damn thing. Is that too much to ask?
To reduce dependence on automobiles would require rebuilding our State. It would require transforming suburban sprawl hellholes into communities where it is easier to walk than to drive. It would be a massive job generator, very attractive to job-creating developers.
And while we're at it, why isn't New York State energy independent? We have wind, water and sunshine. We could cut loose from parasitic international energy corporations would make us a boom state. Our state could become virtually reccession-proof.
Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
Clinton:
End the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.
Advantage? Hillary. NCLB has to come off the table; like charter schools, it was molded by Republicans simply as an excuse to be able to weaken the teachers' lobby and to hurt the public school system.
Watch Season 4 of The Wire, and you'll get it...
Speaking of charter schools, neither candidate mentions them, nor private school vouchers at all, for that matter. Disappointing, as both are going to be major factors in inner-city education over the next decade.
Barack's a bit better than Hillary on the war; Barack's website says, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year." Meanwhile, Clinton's simply says her Cabinet would, "draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."
Unlike most people, I don't give Obama any extra points over Hillary for having opposed the war in 2002. Nearly all of the Democrats in the Senate supported the authorization of force against Iraq, and it was less because they believed in it and more because if they didn't, they would be branded as traitors, which was the kiss of death to any national politician that soon after 9/11. Edwards supported it too, and I can't really give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't have voted the same way had he actually been in the Senate at the time. Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't have had to vote for it at the time. I am a little uneasy, however, that unlike Edwards, Hillary hasn't really backed off that vote.
All three candidates rattled sabers towards Iran, which is just plain stupid. Iran's a toothless (like me!) third-world nation that bears no threat towards us, and it's time we ignored them.
I went through Clinton's and Obama's health care issues pages this evening. Also, they're not so far apart here either. They address a lot of the same issues -- covering the uninsured, AIDS, autism, cancer). They also both offer people the option of getting the same plan that members of Congress have.
Ultimately, to me, Hillary's plan is slightly better, because it makes participation mandatory. But neither is anywhere near single-payer (UPDATE: Kossack Partially Impartial explains why this is important) (UPDATE 2: The Urban Institute releases a paper concluding the same).
Running an organization, I find that we spend over $6,000 per year on health insurance per employee, and it goes up close to 20% every year. For people insuring themselves, it's approaching $10,000 per year. How long can that continue? Single payer is the only answer, but it's not even on the table.
I read some of Hillary and Barack's economic platforms on their websites... nothing stood out as particularly good or bad as far as differences go.
One thing that bothered me in both was that there is too much concentration on tax cuts... that's buying into the Republican meme that taxes are too high. They're not; they were higher ten years ago and surveys showed that most people didn't complain then. And today, when we have a national debt approaching a trillion dollars, we cannot eliminate revenue sources.
I have 12.5% fewer teeth in my mouth than I did ten hours ago.
I have seven episodes of The Wire, or approximately 13.5% of the entire series, left to watch after I started watching two weeks ago (and it's every bit as good as I'd heard).
There are five days left until Super Tuesday, so by the end of tonight, I'd like to be 20% closer to choosing a candidate. But some arsehole (SEE UPDATE) Bob Cesca on Huffington Post thinks that I, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere, need to pick one candidate and unify behind him or her now.
Uh, no?
I'm going to pick my candidate before I vote, and I think every other blogger should do the same. But we're not a unit (hell, I'm just a speck), and we make up our minds for ourselves. As long as we're unified behind the Democratic candidate once the party has selected one, we're going to rock the Republican candidate (be it McCain, Romney, Huck, or whomever) in November. I'm confident in that prediction.
UPDATE: I got an e-mail from Bob Cesca pointing out that I was nasty for calling him names when he was making a reasoned argument. He's right... I'm getting a little touchy on the subject right now; I'm having a hard time understanding how it's so easy for others to make the distinction on whom to vote right now. Methinks me taking this a little too seriously...
So, I'll basically be back in bed and in pain for the next few days, starting tomorrow morning when I get all four of my wisdom teeth extracted. And, I need to find a new candidate to support in the Presidential election.
Over the next few days, I'm going to be combing the Issues sections on Clinton's and Obama's websites, and looking for distinctions. I'll post my observations, and hopefully, I can make a decision by Tuesday.
I read several blog posts this morning touting Obama's victory speech, and then a friend called me up and told me that Obama incorporated some of Edwards's populist rhetoric last night. So, I watched it to see if there was anything for me to grab on to.
He did sprinkle in some populist-sounding phrases, and then came to a point where he said:
"There are people all across this great nation who can't afford four more years without health care..."
Good line.
"They can't afford another four years without good schools..."
Another good, very important line.
"They can't afford another four years without decent wages..."
Excellent.
"... because our leaders couldn't come together and get it done."
Wha??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but once again, Obama shows he just doesn't get it. He makes it sound like there are procedural, bureaucratic issues, like the politicians in Washington just aren't talented enough.
But that's just not it. There's a side here that doesn't care about other people; one that is actively trying to keep us from having health care, that is dismantling our public schools brick by brick, that is trying to keep our wages down. The same side believes that we should be able to torture people, start whatever damn wars we'd like, spy on whomever we want to, keep our women in their places, and a whole spate of other things that are just plain wrong and harmful to tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of people in this country.
We need to convince those who can be convinced that our side is right, and not try to compromise with the other side to come up with expensive "solutions" that make corporations rich and don't fix the problems. We need to repudiate them and rid Washington of the other side, not unite with them. Sure, I believe in two-party politics, but the other party is just SO wrong. We don't need to be more reasonable, they do.
The issue, unlike Obama seems to believe, is not that people can't get things done, it's that roughly half the people want to get the opposite done!
And thus, I'm still not on board with Obama, because he just doesn't get it.
And, despite the fact that I'm liking Hillary's tactics less and less, I'm leaning towards her more than Obama if it comes down to the two of them, because she at least understands what she's dealing with when it comes to the other side.
I was just at the wine bar on Lark St. (where else?) and spoke for a while to a guy who hates unions and thinks Obama is a Muslim. He also loves Hillary.
Yup, after his expected third-place showing in New Hampshire (not a state that would be inclined to favor his big-government populist message), I'm still on board. Daily Kos poster Felagund makes the case better than I have the desire to do in an insomniac state at 3:15 AM:
I can see that [Obama]'s charismatic, and maybe if I were in my early 20s that might be enough. But I'm forty, and extremely bitter and cynical about what's happened in American politics since the Clinton healthcare débacle, and at this point, I find his obvious charisma and rhetorical talents more of a turnoff than anything. I think he's an excellent salesperson, but I learned a long time ago that it's more important to check out the actual product.
And I don't see much of an actual product there. Sure, he had a good record as a state senator, and that's all great and everything, but I haven't seen him take any kind of a risk to stand up for anything progressive since he became a US senator. Other than coming out against the war long before it was fashionable, for which he deserves kudos, it's been careful, cautious centrism the whole way. I might be inclined to think there was a there there if the guy had stood up and opposed the Supreme Court nominations, or torture, or wiretapping... or anything. But it's just bland words about hope and unity.
And that's what turns me off the most about the guy. I don't want reconciliation, unity and bipartisanship. I want the next President to investigate, indict, prosecute and convict the living shit out of the thieves and murderers that have despoiled our beautiful country over the last seven years and well before. I want a President who's going to put on some boots and stomp on the throats of the Republicans, tear away the media lies and the layers of obfuscation and show everyone in America just what was done in our name. I don't want warm and fuzzy: I want thunder and lightning. I want a perp walk every night on the news.
I think Obama's just too cozy with his corporate donors to be willing to do that. If he really had that kind of fire in him, he'd have been doing it for years now. He'd have made his claim to the Presidency on the basis of real change, not just the rhetoric of change. I think Obama wants to be liked too much to take risks to do good.
. . .
Having Edwards in the race until the end not only enables us all to vote for someone who actually has battled with, and defeated, the corporate monsters that control us, but moves the race in a more progressive direction...
I don't dislike Obama as much as Felagund does, I just feel that Edwards has done something extremely important in coming out against corporate American on behalf of the middle and working classes, and not only is that maybe the most important thing a candidate can do in my eyes (and not something I've really seen wholeheartedly done before on a national level), but it also takes massive cojones. Bigger than Obama's. And hell, it's not like Edwards isn't a great speaker in his own right -- I find it impressive how on top of his game he is at all times (like tonight after losing in NH), and his speaking is a lot less abstract to me than Obama's (who admittedly made a great speech tonight in NH himself).
So, yes, until further notice, Edwards is my man in this race, as long as he's in it. But I'll happily pull the lever for either Obama or Hillary in the general if it comes to that. It's a good year to be a Democrat, and I'm happy that I don't have to support one of these clowns.
