Today, Tuesday February 19, 2008 will go down in history as the day when a dynamic leader left the job he has held for years. This man was revered among his followers for his incisive thinking, his intuitive reactions, and his diligent, hard working attitude. Despite some dubious elements of his personal life -- betrayal and violence -- he is respected by many of his peers. Largely through his own talents and force of personality, he took a people who had been dominated by a more famous and powerful neighbor for as long as can be remembered and made them proud of themselves. He took a small group of no-names to the top of the world and kept them there for much longer than anyone expected.
Who is he?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Superdelegates
Increasingly it looks like the dead-lock in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will not be settled by the rank-and-file members of the party who vote and argue in the parties primaries and caucuses. Instead, it seems likely that the Democratic nominee for the presidential campaign of '08 will be decided by the almost 800 Superdelegates. Having the deciding votes cast for the Democratic nominee by a select group of party leaders seems extremely undemocratic, but should we be upset by this?
There's really nothing to be up-in-arms about. No age-old democratic principles are being violated -- the Superdelegates are not perverting the instructions of our Founding Fathers on the subject of political parties. In fact, most of our Founding Fathers considered political parties second only to tyranny (okay, if we dismiss "fuck," "damn," "fhit," and all of the 'normal' curse words) as far as obscenities go. The Democratic party is under no obligation to the principles of democracy at all -- they are a private organization. They could choose a nominee by lottery or brawling (neither of which would necessarily be a bad idea.) After all, what is a nominee other than a citizen who is going to try to run for an elected position?
Would it really be better if the nominee were chosen by the sum of all of the assorted state primaries and caucuses? If the voting ended today, Barack Obama would be the party's nominee, because he is leading the pledged delegate race 971 to 915. That's 51% to 49%. It seems to me that neither candidate has been able to convince a clear majority of democrats that he or she would be better than the other guy or doll. So I really don't see what the problem is with having party leaders decide who will be the best candidate to beat the Republicans and best President.
That said, there are two situations that I think could cause a real problem. If Clinton wins on the strength of her appeal to superdelegates it would be extremely easy for someone (almost anyone) to claim that it was not because of her experience, long service to the democratic party, etc., but because of her race. This could spell trouble. The other situation that could could blow up in a big way would be if one of the candidate's payment to a superdelegate became public. Regardless of whether that payment is a past favor, a future favor, a pledged vote in the senate, or cold hard cash, it would be very bad and very entertaining, but mostly very bad.
I'm still hoping that we will go into the convention still unclear about who will be the nominee and that there will be a back-room deal that would have Hillary Clinton running for President with Barack Obama as her Vice-Presidential candidate on the condition that Bill Clinton takes a long vacation to Tahiti until they win. Really, I think that would be the best for everyone involved.
There's really nothing to be up-in-arms about. No age-old democratic principles are being violated -- the Superdelegates are not perverting the instructions of our Founding Fathers on the subject of political parties. In fact, most of our Founding Fathers considered political parties second only to tyranny (okay, if we dismiss "fuck," "damn," "fhit," and all of the 'normal' curse words) as far as obscenities go. The Democratic party is under no obligation to the principles of democracy at all -- they are a private organization. They could choose a nominee by lottery or brawling (neither of which would necessarily be a bad idea.) After all, what is a nominee other than a citizen who is going to try to run for an elected position?
Would it really be better if the nominee were chosen by the sum of all of the assorted state primaries and caucuses? If the voting ended today, Barack Obama would be the party's nominee, because he is leading the pledged delegate race 971 to 915. That's 51% to 49%. It seems to me that neither candidate has been able to convince a clear majority of democrats that he or she would be better than the other guy or doll. So I really don't see what the problem is with having party leaders decide who will be the best candidate to beat the Republicans and best President.
That said, there are two situations that I think could cause a real problem. If Clinton wins on the strength of her appeal to superdelegates it would be extremely easy for someone (almost anyone) to claim that it was not because of her experience, long service to the democratic party, etc., but because of her race. This could spell trouble. The other situation that could could blow up in a big way would be if one of the candidate's payment to a superdelegate became public. Regardless of whether that payment is a past favor, a future favor, a pledged vote in the senate, or cold hard cash, it would be very bad and very entertaining, but mostly very bad.
I'm still hoping that we will go into the convention still unclear about who will be the nominee and that there will be a back-room deal that would have Hillary Clinton running for President with Barack Obama as her Vice-Presidential candidate on the condition that Bill Clinton takes a long vacation to Tahiti until they win. Really, I think that would be the best for everyone involved.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Iowa and New Hampshire -- Race and Process
To preface this blog, I feel it necessary to remind you that I don't know shit about shit. But, of course, if you're reading my drivel, you probably know that already. Not to worry -- the following political analysis will be highly speculative.
Much ado has been made over the results of the Democratic party's Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Theories explaining first why Barack Obama won in Iowa and now why Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire have been so plentiful that it would be meaningless for me to even link to a few of them. I am nothing if not a slave to popular fads (plus, I'm right and everyone else is wrong...) so, here's my theory.
The results of Iowa and New Hampshire tell us nothing other than that people pretty much like Obama and Clinton equally and (thankfully) that they like Edwards a little less, at least in the Northeast. I am convinced and a little bit afraid that the winning margins in Iowa and New Hampshire can be explained by examining the voting processes of the two contests and thinking about race and racism.
In New Hampshire, the primary contest is an election, a process which is fairly familiar to most of us. The Iowa caucus, on the other hand, is a funny thing. People who are about to vote gather publicly in groups of their families and neighbors, friends and enemies, and then through a process involving debate and attempts and verbal persuasion, they more or less cast their votes. I believe that this would aid a Black candidate in Iowa and hurt him or her in New Hampshire.
As I believe pointed out by Malcolm Gladwell in one of his books, people tend to represent themselves in public as making choices less dependent on race as they actually do. He used the example of people on online dating sites declaring that the race of their date matters very little, but then almost always choosing to "approach" people of their own race. In Iowa -- voting in public, I believe people (basically everyone voting in both of these contests were white) were less likely to NOT vote for Obama because of his race, even if at the last second they felt unsure or uneasy because of it. Conversely, I am afraid that in New Hampshire, in the privacy of a curtained voting booth, people may have allowed their racial prejudices or simply their doubts about the racism of the rest of the country sway their votes from Obama. This would explain why polls (a public statement of your voting plan) would have shown Obama roughly 15% ahead of where he ended up placing in the actual, (and private on an individual level,) vote.
Since most of the rest of the contests are primaries and not caucuses, I still think Obama will have an uphill battle to climb (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) I know that Clinton is a woman (this Clinton) and that there are still tons of people who don't think a woman should be president, but I would argue that these people are less likely to lie to pollsters about this feeling. Either way, I am glad that the results in New Hampshire and Iowa have been so inconclusive. Extending the race for another month and another 20 states at least will get us more experienced candidate, chosen by a more educated and representative group of voters.
After I wrote this, I came across this article which explains my gut theory in possibly more eloquent languege. Apparently this isn't a new idea, and even has a name, the "Bradley/Wilder/Dinkins effect."
Much ado has been made over the results of the Democratic party's Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Theories explaining first why Barack Obama won in Iowa and now why Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire have been so plentiful that it would be meaningless for me to even link to a few of them. I am nothing if not a slave to popular fads (plus, I'm right and everyone else is wrong...) so, here's my theory.
The results of Iowa and New Hampshire tell us nothing other than that people pretty much like Obama and Clinton equally and (thankfully) that they like Edwards a little less, at least in the Northeast. I am convinced and a little bit afraid that the winning margins in Iowa and New Hampshire can be explained by examining the voting processes of the two contests and thinking about race and racism.
In New Hampshire, the primary contest is an election, a process which is fairly familiar to most of us. The Iowa caucus, on the other hand, is a funny thing. People who are about to vote gather publicly in groups of their families and neighbors, friends and enemies, and then through a process involving debate and attempts and verbal persuasion, they more or less cast their votes. I believe that this would aid a Black candidate in Iowa and hurt him or her in New Hampshire.
As I believe pointed out by Malcolm Gladwell in one of his books, people tend to represent themselves in public as making choices less dependent on race as they actually do. He used the example of people on online dating sites declaring that the race of their date matters very little, but then almost always choosing to "approach" people of their own race. In Iowa -- voting in public, I believe people (basically everyone voting in both of these contests were white) were less likely to NOT vote for Obama because of his race, even if at the last second they felt unsure or uneasy because of it. Conversely, I am afraid that in New Hampshire, in the privacy of a curtained voting booth, people may have allowed their racial prejudices or simply their doubts about the racism of the rest of the country sway their votes from Obama. This would explain why polls (a public statement of your voting plan) would have shown Obama roughly 15% ahead of where he ended up placing in the actual, (and private on an individual level,) vote.
Since most of the rest of the contests are primaries and not caucuses, I still think Obama will have an uphill battle to climb (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) I know that Clinton is a woman (this Clinton) and that there are still tons of people who don't think a woman should be president, but I would argue that these people are less likely to lie to pollsters about this feeling. Either way, I am glad that the results in New Hampshire and Iowa have been so inconclusive. Extending the race for another month and another 20 states at least will get us more experienced candidate, chosen by a more educated and representative group of voters.
After I wrote this, I came across this article which explains my gut theory in possibly more eloquent languege. Apparently this isn't a new idea, and even has a name, the "Bradley/Wilder/Dinkins effect."
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The (First?) Ten Commandments of Ezism
1. Don't watch the weather.
2. Don't buy water.
3. Don't trade in currency.
4. Don't ever write ten commandments without an elastic clause like "Don't do stuff you shouldn't do."
5. Don't do stuff you shouldn't do.
6. Deodorant and electric razors are scams and should be treated as such.
7. Shake your ass, but watch yourself.
8.
9. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, two, the dentist, three the psychiatrist.
10. Sleep well.
They're really more like guidelines...
2. Don't buy water.
3. Don't trade in currency.
4. Don't ever write ten commandments without an elastic clause like "Don't do stuff you shouldn't do."
5. Don't do stuff you shouldn't do.
6. Deodorant and electric razors are scams and should be treated as such.
7. Shake your ass, but watch yourself.
8.
9. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, two, the dentist, three the psychiatrist.
10. Sleep well.
They're really more like guidelines...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
