Fear of Election Fever

I'm voting for Barack Obama for President, and for Jeff Merkley as U.S. senator for Oregon. If I haven't said much about that recently it's out of FEAR - the fear of sounding like some of these people, who seem to represent the norm these days:

High Hopes, Little Faith in "The Uniter"

Remember the Barack Obama who began his campaign for president as "The Uniter"? Well here's a review, courtesy of an article from the Washington Post:

"Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton"

MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."

But talk is cheap, especially for politicians, and even more so for politicians with a short public record. Now Obama actually has the power to unite the Democrats. I like to think he's more than talk and that he'll soon use that power to do something for Senator Clinton and all of the people who've supported her. But I'm too old to place my faith in anyone who's asked us to believe in him but has yet to do much to earn our confidence. So while I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to live up to the image of himself he's spent so much time promoting, I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised.

Election '08: My Plan to Never Decide Ruined by Indecisive People

Voters in other states have failed to do their duty, and now for the first time ever I’ll have to cast a vote for the Democratic nomination for president in the Oregon Primary that may actually matter.

I couldn’t be more disgusted. I remember a time, recorded in this blog, when I wanted to think about Democratic politics. That inclination has since been thoroughly squashed, and since approximately late March I’ve just wished to hell it would all be over.

But nooooo, now I need to think about it whether I want to or not, because I need to decide who to vote for, Clinton or Obama. I confess that I kind of want to vote for Clinton just to thwart Obama supporters in Oregon. I suppose that makes me sound anti-Obama, but if that were so my choice would be easy. And I stated my objective accurately: it’s some of his freaky supporters I can’t handle. Supporters aside however, I like Obama more each day because his economic message sounds increasingly like Edwards: he wants to encourage businesses that provide work for Americans, and clean up corporate corruption. But then too I’m angry over the sexist way people have treated Clinton, and I’m impressed with her abilities and truly incredible determination. On the really negative side, however, she’s a bit of a corporate suck-up, and Obama’s a bit of a snob masquerading as an underdog.

So back and forth it goes, and you people from states that have already voted are to blame. Couldn’t you have been a little more decisive? I hate it when people can’t make up their minds.

Now You Too Can Think Just Like the Mainstream Press!

"Facts are stupid things."
- Ronald Reagan, Former U.S. President

While it’s difficult for me to pick a new presidential candidate, it’s easy for the press. They are all very busy these days telling us just how easy it is. They are also busy telling us what we should think about the candidates, so that it will be easy for us too. Perhaps it’s time, then, that I help them out. So I’ve thoughtfully provided the following EZ list of stuff to think, according to the mainstream US press. So save yourself some time. Ignore mainstream news and just memorize this handy list.

My own smart-ass comments follow in parentheses.

* McCain stands for HONESTY. Clinton stands for COMPETENCY. Obama stands for HOPE. (I wish they would just get t-shirts with the words on them. That would save us from most of the “political analysis” we have to otherwise endure.)

* Clinton and McCain stand for the OLD. Obama stands for the NEW. (That is, Hillary and JM have reached their pull dates. When will you reach yours, or have you already? Or do you imagine yourself exempt from such judgments? But it’s good to know that we’re all just products – it gives me a nice, democratic feeling of unity with the rich and famous.)

* The candidates are all pretty much identical. (Yep. The press also convinced us there was little difference between Al Gore and GW Bush. Thanks US press.)

* There was sexism in the campaign, but the press stopped it. Now they avoid discussing what Hillary wears and they rat out anyone else who mentions it. (Yep, now we've finally defeated sexism in the world, since that's all that was left of it. We women want to be paid less and given fewer opportunities by choice, apparently, but when somebody comments on our clothes, by gosh, those are fighting words!)

* If anyone says someone is racist, they are racist. (This is very different from a witch hunt. If it were a witch hunt, we would say “they are witches”! It is very different from a witch hunt.)

* We should pick the next President based on the impression created by their public performances. Does Hillary seem trustworthy when she says something? Does Barack seem sincere when he says something? Does McCain seem friendly when he says something? (What candidates say is actually quite unimportant. Let’s see, who have we elected lately based on the same theory?)

Who Moved My Candidate?

HANOVER, NH - SEPTEMBER 26: Democratic Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear with unidentifed bystanders.

My candidate was John Edwards, so the answer to my question is obvious. The press, and network news in particular, ignored Edwards right out of the race. As I look back on their performance, I’ll always cherish, in particular, two memories of Edwards’ press coverage. The first occurred after the Iowa caucus where Edwards placed second. The news commentators mentioned briefly that he was second and then moved quickly on to the real story: an analysis of the contest between Obama and Clinton. The second magic moment was just after the debate preceding the critical New Hampshire primary. Commentators mentioned briefly that Edwards seemed to have the best and most moving performance in the debate, and then moved quickly on to the real story: an analysis of the contest between Obama and Clinton. I’m not talking about FOX news here either. The major networks consistently ignored Edwards, and even most PBS programs seemed to fall into lockstep with this agenda. And I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb when I say that it’s harder to get votes when the television news organizations don’t seem to notice you’re in the race.

However, since I still believe that this election is of major importance to the future of our country, I need to pick some other candidate to back for president now that Edwards has dropped out. I realize this announcement will send many campaign organizations scurrying to hustle my support, but just to let them know: I won’t send off my $25 contributions or cast my pointless vote in the Oregon primary or the general election for just anyone. It will be a tough call to make, since I like all the remaining major candidates.

So how to decide? Since I’m a Democrat, I’ll need to pick between Obama and Clinton before the primary, but for the final election I’ll consider the Republican candidates too. That leaves a lot of candidates to choose from. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Time permitting, I would like to eventually write some more about the Missing Candidates on both sides. I want to discuss Edwards’ candidacy some more, and also people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (if Edwards was ignored by the press, Kucinich was brutalized and buried by them). The race won’t be the same without the Missing, although the TV news, predictably, barely noticed they’re gone. Since you won’t hear it from a network news show, I’ll state the obvious. What’s missing along with them is our right as voters to pick the candidates who go on to the final primaries. Does anyone really think the press is qualified to decide for us?

Guiliani on Film

I just watched the video Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters, which has been up on UTube for over a month. For such a short video, it’s quite powerful, and I got emotional watching it. But let’s be honest here, I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani anyway. No, he doesn’t strike terror into my heart like some of the other candidates, and I do approve of some of his more edgy fashion choices (see above). But I’m a left-leaning centrist, and while once or twice in the past I’ve voted for moderate Republicans I can’t imagine doing it again unless the current political climate drastically changes. Polls indicate that I’m with the majority in that attitude. Turns out that most of us have somehow failed to appreciate the last seven years of corruption and bungling, or at least not as much as Fox News has hoped we would.

But I wish that most Americans would grasp the real lessons we should be learning from our current problems as a nation, and the lesson is surely not that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. One of those lessons is front-row center in the Giuliani video. Once I dried my eyes over Rudy’s vicious, uncaring attitude towards fire fighters and his stereotypical Republican big-business centric corruption, I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that I had seen this somewhere before. Actually, we have all seen it before. Remember swift-boat veterans against John Kerry, John McCain’s illegitimate black child, the Clinton’s murder of Vince Foster? As I look fondly back at those stories and smile in anticipation of more as we approach the 2008 election, I can’t help but ruin my own good time by wondering if maybe I should start to reject all smear campaigns, even when they’re directed at someone like Rudy Giuliani.

But first I needed to ask, is this video informative or is it just part of a smear campaign? Well, here’s some information missing from the video. What is Giuliani’s own explanation for the defective radios provided for the fire-fighters? As mayor, would he actually have been aware of such a detail? Who was the decision-maker responsible for accepting the no-bid contract for the radios? Why did the city prohibit further excavation of the ruins of the twin towers – was it really because gold had already been recovered or did they have new information about the risks? I don’t have the answer to any of those questions either, and for all I know, Giuliani may well be an evil wealth-and-power driven maggot who prioritizes special deals for the makers of defective equipment over the lives of fire-fighters. I’m just saying I didn’t learn anything from this video that proves it. So gosh, unless someone offers me the facts, I guess I’ll just have to vote for some other candidate for the pathetically old-fashioned reason that I don’t like Giuliani’s platform.

Sure, it would be dull, but isn’t it just possible that the U.S. could be a better place if everyone voted for candidates based on their platforms and their proven records instead of reacting to unsubstantiated rumors? After all, when we need entertainment, we’ll still have Fox News.