The election is over, well the public part of the election is. There is still the part of the election that the electoral college votes for the president. I do not expect any bad happen, but you never know. This has been a very long election. I will be very happy when Obama gets sworn in. Then it will really be over.
I think Obama is going to win the election. I think the reason that will push him over the top is the economy. I think lots of people that go either way will kick out the republicans because of this crisis. The race was pretty close until the bailout started to dominate the news.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
There is a reason what went wrong is important. There is a reason we should ask which steps were steps in the wrong direction. Without that information we might take the wrong steps to fix the problem. Remember that the economy is like a house on fire. Not only do we need to put out the fire, we will have to rebuild the house and keep it from happening again. I worry that the politics of the issue will cause people not to do everything they need to do.
I was looking at 270 to win recently. It is a pretty cool tool. You can use it to answer the question, "What happens if X state goes for Y person." You can click on the states and find all sorts of cool information. It has a bunch of tools that you can use. My favorite tool is the election simulator. It uses the odds to see what might happen.
You can also So far this year the media has been good at covering the electoral college this year. I have not heard any random people not understand it. This tool is cool to see what might just happen.
I was looking at this report about young voters turnout. I have heard many times that young people do not vote. Even if you get them to register, it is hard to get them to get out to the polls. Even if years where young people "rocked the vote" the rest of the population voted more also. It is good to get the population excited to vote, but I think they do not tip the scales when it comes to getting elected.
I live in the bay area and I have a lot of friends who are democrats. I know a handful of republicans, but most of them know better than to speak up in political conversations. We all know it is not going to get us anywhere. I found the best way to go is ask democrats questions and make them explain the way they think.
I have been hearing them talk a lot about Sarah Palin. I find myself often explaining that the democratic party here in California is not the same as the democratic party in other states. I have to remind people that when I was in high school Pennsylvania elected a pro-life democratic governor in Robert Casey. Pennsylvania currently has a pro-life democratic senator in Bob Casey Jr.
In the last week I have heard and read a lot of those California Democrats react to Sarah Palin. When I hear the reaction there is an extra level furor and anger about Sarah Palin. After the convention speech, I feel that there was a much bigger reaction that their would have been if a man would have made this speech.
I think there is something going on here. I want to know what other people think. I want to know if there is more anger because she is a woman. A few people I have asked have admitted that they are angry about that. They feel both that there is a level of pandering on John McCain's part.
Will Democrats be upset if the Republicans beat them to the punch putting a woman in the White House or at least a heartbeat away from the White House?
It appears that Sarah Palin has energized both the Republicans and the Democrats. She has upped the fund raising of both parties. After the speech at the convention this race got more interesting.
Now that both conventions are over, we can look at the speeches and the facts. I have seen a lot of twitter posts and blog posts about the facts around the Sarah Palin convention speech. It should not be surprising that she is the only person who has stretched the truth. You should also check out the fact checks on the Obama, McCain and Biden speeches. I think it is really cool that this information is on the web. Every voter should check it out.
Was I the only person who woke up this morning humming John Melloncamp's "Smalltown" after seeing Sarah Palin's speech last night. You might not agree with the content of the speech, but the speech did make it clear why John McCain picked her. After the speech picking Sarah Palin seems like a much smarter pick than it did a week ago
Sarah Palin did a lot to cash in on the idea of being from a small town. Her speech went a long way to say "I am more like you than I am like them." The them being the inside Washington types and the costal media. She went a far way to define who she is. She went very far to say that is who she is and who she will fight for. Many people I know who live in small towns feel very alienated from the major American cities. I can see Sarah Palin playing well in these small towns.
I hear lots of people in the Bay Area use the term "fly over states" and that is exactly who she is trying to appeal to. She went as far as name checking the states that might be in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota. These are the places where she can make a difference. She is not meant to pick up New York or California Hillary Supporters. She is meant to pick up some of the places where Hillary did well and Obama did poorly. According to the CNN Electoral Map, these are places where
Why did John McCain pick her, because he has a gender gap problem. More women are democrats and John McCain is not going to win without closing that gap. He does not need to close the gap everywhere. The CNN political map points out some of the places Palin can make the difference.
Yes John McCain knew what he was doing when he picked Sarah Palin. I do not think she was his first pick. I do not think he thinks she is the best choose to be President if something happens to him. The VP is not about the best person to be president because they cannot be president if they cannot help win the election.
There is part of me that things that John McCain picking Sarah Palin is a comment about how the media covers the election. In the four days since she was selected I have hard the media say a lot of things about Sarah Palin. I have not heard anything about the job she is doing as governor. I have not heard what kind of bills she is signed into law. I have not heard and analysis about which campaign promises she kept. I have not heard anything about how the state agencies are running under her administration.
So far from the media I have got four stories over and over again, Her Bio, The scandal with the Public Safety Commissioner, her daughter is pregnant, and she lacks experence. The problem with the 24 hour media culture is that they end up covering less and not more. CNN only runs about 22 minutes worth of stories all day long. MSNBC does a little bit better with about 42 minutes of stories all day long. it is still not much.
Since Barack Obama picked Joe Biden I have not seen one story on the television news looking at his record in the Senate. I get high level overviews about who is his and what he stands for. For this reason alone I can see what McCain picked Sarah Palin. The media is not going to check what she really did as governor McCain gets to write that story. People can say she is inexperienced, but they do not have the job experence information to back it up. I think that the media is a big reason John McCain picked Sarah Palin.
I think that Sarah Palin has a very interesting quality. She is almost a blank slate on most issues. Salon did a piece where she has no record on Iraq. It is hard to see where she stands on any international issue. She has very little of a record. People will be searching all over for clips of her saying anything. I wonder if this will allow her to write her own ticket when it comes to her stances on different subjects.
I have been reading a lot about people hitting McCain for picking Sarah Palin because she is not qualified. I have seen lists of republicans more qualifed than Sarah Palin. When I read these lists again after they remove everyone over 60 off this list. When I saw her on the news her age stood out to me. I think age is playing a big part in this election.
This pick to me said something clear. John McCain is worried about having two white guys running against the Obama-Biden ticket. It would look bad for the idea that John McCain represents the status quo. I think McCain see that he will not win that way. I think that an old white woman might still give that feeling of the status quo.
I also want to see this list without centrist Republican candidates. If McCain picked Christie Todd Whitman he would get killed by the conservative wing of the party. That might be enough to get those voters to stay home.
I know that this leave Condoleezza Rice on the list. While I like Condoleezza Rice. She might be the Smartest person in the current White House. Nothing would say "Third Bush Term" more that Condoleezza Rice for Vice President. John McCain is More of the Same was a major part of the Democratic Primary. I think that message is currently making head way with the voters.
If you look at the Democratic Primary there was the message that experence is not important. People what change more than they want experence. If they do this might be the right pick.
To be honest, I am holding my opinion on Sarah Palin until the Convention and her speech. The left has really gone after her for this pick. I think there was no good pick for VP for McCain. Every door had a tiger behind it for him.
I really love this video. The Onion got this one right. I like the idea of every American is in their own demographic. It kills the idea of demographics.
I was thinking about John McCain picking Sarah Palin for his vice president. Everyone's first reaction is that he is just doing this to pick up some of the Hillary Clinton supporters. Her first speech even mention the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. The press has called this move everything from pandering to brilliant.
Many of the hard core Hillary supporters will not go for this. I do not expect them to. There are still a group of PUMA's out there that are not happy after the convention. Bill Clinton became president by appealing to Centrist democrats. It is those democrats that McCain is going after with Sarah Palin.
Yes, some former Hillary supporters who will go for this. The key is that not that many have to go for McCain for this to be effective. You just need to swing some in the battle ground states. This pick is not for the San Francisco-Feminist Hillary Supporters. This pick is for the Rural Ohio and PA democrats that are members of the NRA. I am surprised that more democrats do not realize this.
There is one thing I want to hear from Barack Obama's speech tonight. I want to hear that his administration will not treat the Constitution with the same disregard as the Bush administration. I want no warrant wire tapping, no spying on American citizens, and now water boarding. I want no black site prisons, no passing prisoners off to other countries to be tortured, and no holding people without charge. These are the real things that can be done to get America's standing back in the world.
If Barack Obama addresses these things in his speech he will go a long way toward winning my vote. If he does not I worry that the change and hope he is talking about is all a smoke screen.
At the Democratic Convention yesterday everyone kept on saying that Obama is going to create new jobs and he is going to create them in the areas that are hardest hit by out sourcing. These jobs are going to be good playing and for the middle class. There is a lot of talk that they are going to do it, but not a word of how they are going to do it.
I know in elections people do not give out specific plans. They do not want to be judged on the details of their plans in case they get elected and cannot pull it off. The problem is I really want details. I already know what republicans will do to spur job growth. You are saying the republicans have failed. I want to know just want you will do to create those jobs. I do not want to hear "invent in green technology and clean energy." I want to know just want that means. If you want to win over people like me, I think the plans will have to be more detailed.
It is also an election of ageism. Everybody seems to have fun making fun of McCain's age. How come native Indians chose their "Elders" as leaders and why are older people in China the most respected as they are looked upon as wiser than younger ones? Only in our rotten civilization, we are required to "shut up" once we are past the average "dinks" age of 40. Nobody asked Hilary for a medical exam although she could have aids or STD with all the women who s...her husbands d.....
I had not thought about this before, but I should have. A friend brought my attention to younger than McCain. The point of this to mock age. I know that Obama's campaign is all about change. His message is that McCain is part of the Old Guard and that will be business as usual.
I can tell Munichmaedchen why age and wisdom is not valued in our culture. It is bcause we are always looking for something New. America was made on the next idea America was made by people trying to get away from their past. That is way experence is a dirty word in politics.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the ageism going forward. I think it will become an issue when McCain picks his running mate.
There is a lot of talk in the media lately about the amount of sexism that Hillary has been facing. I saw a story about this on Good Morning America. The story really got me thinking.
I think lots of things are going on here. In part lots of the political coverage on 24 hour news networks area about personality and not about policy. When this plays to candidates advantage it is fine. When it does not play to their advantage they call it a social problem. I think that the sexism I have seen in the media is directly related to the idea of personalty.
The media coverage of this election has been more superficial than substantial. It is clear if you look at the 24 hour news networks. First they cover the horse race, second they cover election gaffs, third they cover speeches, forth they cover opinion. They do not get around to covering policy to until about fifth on the list. No wonder they cover things like what Hillary looks like.
The news media is still part of the media. I know in an ideal world the news media would be different that the entertainment media, but it is not. I am so shocked that there is sexism in the presidential election the same year that Sex and the City movie is released. I cannot believe that the same media that comments on Hillary showing her feminine side by crying. I know that people will say that the news media should be above this for a presidential election, but it is still the same media.
In the end the media is reflection of us. It is not separate from us. It is part of our culture. Yes there is still sexism in our culture. Yes when it comes the to the media sexism is front and center. It is not limited to the presidential election but it cannot be excluded from the presidential election either.
The issue with sexism is a tough one. Everyone wants to be treated fairly. The problem is that our culture does not agree what it means to be treated fairly when it comes to sex. You cannot just remove all mention of gender all together from the election. Many people want to see more women elected to office because gender is important. If the news make no mention of gender it will also be seen as too politically correct. This is cause them to lose credibility.
My problem with this election is the other sexism that no one brings up at all. The only way we have a female candidate that has done this well is for her to have been a former First Lady. Someone look at the list of women in the US Senate or female governors and tell me that Hillary is really the best qualified. There is something wrong with that being the only way a woman can become a national political figure in America. I have not heard one person decrying sexism in this election mention that.
Part of the story was about Glenn Beck saying "she's a stereotypical bitch." Later on in the story he talks about what he wants out of a president. He wants a president that will take on all challenges. He wants Hillary Clinton to take the Hillary Clinton Nutcracker on stage, hold it up and say, "Damn straight." The idea is that the world is not a fair place. A good President has to be able to face the world when it is unfair. They are going to have to fight when the chips are down.
What is the right answer? I am not sure. This situation will not change anytime soon. It might change when near 50% of all elected officials are female. Maybe it will change when it is not a news story for a woman to do well in a presidential primary. Right now a woman running for president is still Man Bites Dog.
In the past days since this has happened I have heard lots of points of view about this. The points of view range from "Finally" to "This is judges making new laws from the bench," from "Marriage is a human right" to "the state should not be in the business of marriage." There are a lot of voices with a lot of messages on this topic.
I did not change my registration in them to vote on Prop 22 was on the ballet. I did not get a chance to vote on it. At that time I was surprised at how it won by 60%. This is a heavily Democrat state. Later that year Al Gore and Ralph Nader took 57% of the presidential vote.
Now there is a movement to put a amendment to the state constitution on the ballet. Both sides are raising a lot of money. The court ruling has put both sides into action. It will be a really interesting election if this gets onto the ballet this November.
The other day on NPR I heard a story about Dennis Kucinich not being able to be part of the Presidential Debate. The basic story on NPR was, Dennis Kucinich said that MSNBC is not serving the public good and he was being held off because GE, NBC's Parent Company sells nuclear power plants and he is anti nuclear power. MSNBC said that they want the debate to be between candidates who actually have a chance to win the nomination.
Dennis Kucinich was also not in the New Hampshire debate that I watched, because he did not poll or finish high enough in Iowa. Ron Paul was in that debate on the Republican side. In my head Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are connected. They are both on the outsides of their party. Dennis Kucinich is closer to the green party and Ron Paul is closer to the Libertarian party. They are both US Representatives, No Representative has ever become President without being in a higher office first.
Dennis Kucinich is closer to the mainstream of the democratic party than Ron Paul is to the mainstream of the Republican party, but Ron Paul has done a lot better job making his case. This who thing says something about the parties, but I am not sure what yet. We will have to see what happens in future elections. I think this says something about where politics is going in the US. I am just not sure where it will end up.
There is a New York Times article that some big states are planning to move their primaries forward in 2008. I know the frustration of having the primaries decided before I get to vote. The only reason a candidate has come to California in the last two primaries was to raise money. Moving them so early just becomes ridiculous.
This convinces me that we should have a national primary system. I know no state would agree to that. With the current trend the primaries are going to start before the last election is over.
