Friday, August 01, 2008
Swing Voter: Movie Fraud Perpetrates Fraud About Fraud
Hey, there are lots of movies made about things that almost never actually happen -- it's the fantasy business, right? There is almost certainly a higher incidence of people thinking they are Spiderman than the 0.000225% (nine possible, but never proven incidents out of 4 million votes cast) rate at which the conservatives' version of voter fraud happens. And yet those are the scenarios that the recent rush to pass voter ID laws is meant to prevent -- the actual result being the ultimate disenfranchisement of mostly Democratic voters.
I wouldn't care so much about the plot of some throwaway Kevin Costner vehicle, but America today finds itself in that strange little place at the intersection of "anecdote trumps statistical fact" and "life imitates art". I just hope this doesn't do for the voter ID card hysterics what Jack Bauer and 24 did for our torture policy.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Et Tu, Brute?
The WaPo had so much going on this morning I barely knew where to start. Lil Scotty Mclelland's article had 812 975 comments when I looked at it and I'm willing to bet that lots of **##'s got removed. A quick impression of the article reminds me of the story of Aron Ralston, the climber who cut off his own arm with a pocketknife to survive. Somebody's figured out there were war crimes and is doing their best to avoid being charged with one while at the same time trying to provide imaginary cover for those left behind. And Katrina was a costly blunder. No kidding.
While still smiling More... at the image of Lil Scotty realizing he had been had and hoping that he has a loyal security detail, I moved on to the right whining about how MSNBC is too left leaning and how they don't like Lil John McCain as much as they like Lil Obama, knowing full well that they had to turn their attention somewhere as soon as they got rid of Lil Hillary. Now that was a hatchet job, with several people wielding the hatchets. Sort of like the stories on John Edwards haircut. Designed to do nothing to further policy or decent political discussions and quite a lot to do with making sure that the candidate they were in love with had no viable competition. After enduring all these years of Fox News I have little to no sympathy for people who whine about the press.
But the Meyerson article, oh Mr. Meyerson, you raised my blood pressure so high, the first thing that I did was reach for my Fosinopril. Let me state first that Hillary was neither my first or second choice in the California primary, but neither one of them were still running, but their names were still on the ballot by the time it was our turn to vote. So, as is usual out here in California, we had to pick the lesser of two evils and it wasn't Obama. Sigh, I'm really tired non-choices like that. Anyway, back to your article.
Hillary's campaign ruined democracy and feminism? Are you serious?Blow it out your ass. Oops, I see you already did. The Democratic Party (they're in the Constitution where?) had no right to exclude the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan, no matter what time frame they held their election in, because they are citizens of the United States and deserve to have their votes counted. Period. And if Obama had won those states he wouldn't want those delegates seated? Get real.
The hypocrisy of anyone talking about Indiana's photo ID requirement in order to vote and then disregarding the votes of thousands of people in two other states is mind boggling. Not quite as mind boggling as accusing women of ruining democracy while you briefly mention the rampant sexism in the united campaign against Hillary and then you attack her supporters for complaining about it, but it's darned close. From start to finish, this race hasn't been about policy issues, it's been about hair, clothes and makeup. Throw in a little bowling and a shot of whiskey (if I was her I would have been so grateful to have had an excuse for a drink since the press hounded her almost as much as they do Paris or Britney neither one of which are anywhere near the same intelligence or contributions to society) with the guys and you have a campaign.
I'm a feminist because I'm a woman. I consider myself the equal of any man under normal circumstances. And the abnormal ones would be so abnormal that whatever sex you are will be one of the last things on your mind. While I may not be able to heave boulders due to brute strength (is that needed anymore?), I am quite capable of using a lever and gravity to accomplish the same task. The odds are that a man invented the hammer, the javelin and the sword, but a woman invented the wheel, pulley, lever and pivot. You develop what you need to survive. Or conquer, as the case may be.
Now that we're supposedly in the 21st century, the skills needed to survive are quite different since we don't have anything left to conquer except each other. And what a shame that is. Nowadays this can be done way too efficiently and requires no brute strength (and judging by reduced requirements to join the military, a minimum of intelligence) at all. Just because one is tall, short, white, brown, black, blue eyed, brown eyed, male, female, rich, poor, right handed, left handed, religious or nonreligious, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, skinny, fat, young or old does not automatically infer competency, incompetency, superiority, stupidity or a tendency towards evil. To say that the women who support Clinton and want the delegates seated is to make a mockery of both democracy and feminism while showing a complete disregard for the people of the two states not being represented and a whopping display of misogyny because women are being so vocal about how their candidate got marginalized, all under the cloak of rules instead of common sense and compassion. But those are traits that come to people who think and who have spent more than enough time clinging to the bottom rung of the ladder to recognize when someone is stamping on their fingers and trying to make them fall off into nonexistence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way we are ever going to have fair elections in this country is if we have a national primary, followed by the national elections thirty days later. Between television, radio and the internet people will have plenty of opportunity to explore their candidate and the press will have less of an opportunity to choose our candidates for us.
And that's what most of the press and Mr. Meyerson are really afraid of.
3Bs and Debsweb.
Posted by
Deb
at
10:21 AM
|
Labels: Barack Obama, Bush, California, Campaign Issues, Deb, Democrats, Feminism, Religion, Tolerance, Voters, Voting
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Horse Race? Its the Chess Game from Hell.
Now that Edwards is out I guess I'm that most desirable of commodities a swing voter. Its never happened to me before that I haven't made up my mind long before the primary but in talking to other people IRL and online its pretty clear that I'm not alone in making up my mind on what are, to me, the wrong issues--electability and what the other guy is doing.
I'm no spring chicken and I have a pretty good memory but I can't remember an election that seemed quite this much of a crap shoot in terms of the reasons people give for choosing their candidates and also the reasons they give for choosing the candidate they think the person sitting next to them will choose. Are we setting ourself up for an Edsel moment? And if we are, who are we in that story? The Ford Motor Company which designed a big car just as small cars were coming in, priced it wrong in a sinking market, and failed to grasp what the buyers really wanted in terms of style and other issues. Or the buyer whose excitement was whipped into a frenzy by excellent use of marketing prior to the rollout, only to turn on the product when it turned out to be a cheaper version of what the buyers really wanted? Or not what they wanted at all? You really need to click on the link to get the full flavor of the metaphoric comparison between the Edsel and Obama's campaign.
Today on NPR I heard a series of interviews with voters, both Republican and Democratic, who were going for Obama. The Republican said he would vote for Obama because he was a "compromiser" and "compromise" is what is needed. The (very young) Democrat said plaintively that he couldn't take another round of divisive partisanship at the thanksgiving table with his elderly Republican relatives and he was voting Obama because he thought Obama could heal that apparently painful divide and the passing of the cranberries could be done in a spirit of comity thenceforth.
Talking to my favorite barrista at my (non franchised) coffee shop this morning I heard all about how one of the counter guys was working overtime for Obama, how she had taken an online test showing she was most sympathetic to Kucinich, but was leaning Obama because she had seen a poll saying that in a head to head matchup with McCain Obama was more likely to win than Hillary. Her own mother (apparently an unreliable and illogical spite voter if ever I heard of one) was planning to vote for Obama because she thinks Republicans are more willing to vote for an African American man than a white woman after having become attached to the fictional African American president in 24.
It seems as though everyone I talk to has a theory about how the next person is going to vote and they are tailoring their votes to that. I was called last night by a sweet young thing from the Obama campaign and this was her point to me--she thinks he can bring all these non democrats into the fold. I don't think there's anything wrong with that but its pretty clear that Obama at least is tailoring his style to reach these compromise voters who are sure of one thing--that they want to be on the side of the winner and they don't mind if he leaves the content of his winning philosophy and policy a sort of blank. Even my passionate Obama phone caller, when pressed, said she'd like a more active, progressive, policy oriented stance than she's getting from Obama but that she thinks he will do all those things (whatever they are) once he's in. I've come around to thinking Obama is doing what he has to do to win. But where will that leave the voter/buyer when the Edsel is unveiled?
aimai
Posted by
aimai
at
6:23 AM
|
Labels: After Edwards, Barack Obama, Voters