Another One Bites the Dust

Scott Hardie | January 23, 2008
Pfft, forget Heath Ledger. Today's really shocking news, that nobody could possibly have seen coming, is – omg are you ready – Fred Thompson has quit the GOP race.



Does anybody else picture him frantically calling NBC for his old job back?

I don't have much against Thompson personally, but it feels nice to see the comeuppance of all of the bloggers who made such grand sweeping predictions about his inevitability if he entered the race. His candidacy was a flop, start to finish. Nice try, pal.

It's still hard to predict the outcome of this race with Florida and Super Tuesday looming, but at the moment it seems like we'll soon be saying "President McCain." Chuck Norris calls him old, but he's only four years older than Chuck himself. Granted, Chuck Norris doesn't age, he spins the Earth backwards in time whenever he goes jogging, but nobody else seems to be pointing it out.

Personally, a McCain presidency would sit pretty well with me. When I thought "open election, Clinton vs McCain, who would I vote for," I had a hard time deciding. Then I thought "say McCain becomes a Democrat but is otherwise exactly the same," and I realized I would vote for him over Clinton in a second. What good is party bias anyway? Steve has it right.

What do you think of the race right now?

Anna Gregoline | January 23, 2008
Personally, I'd like to know what you like about McCain...

I am desperate for Obama. I want him so bad, he inspires people, something that none of the other candidates seem to do (in my eyes). I've never wanted a president more than him.

Scott Hardie | January 25, 2008
My vote for president is based mostly on character instead of issues: Is the candidate a person of intelligence, conscience, integrity, humility, selflessness, and honesty, among other values? Clinton and Giuliani are crooked, Romney and Edwards are phony, and Huckabee is insane. That leaves me with Obama, McCain, and Paul, any of whom I think would make a fine president. I prefer Obama, but McCain will trample him in the general election.

Jackie Mason | January 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 25, 2008
The problem with voting on character is that you can end up with a President who is utterly sincere, dedicated, and honest in going about demolishing the policies you'd support. McCain is doubtless open and honest about his tax policy, his opposition to Roe vs. Wade and gay marriage, his certainty that "market forces" will solve our environmental problems, and his belief that lowering employer tax rates and promoting "personal responsibility" are the way to fix the health care crisis.

I disagree with him on every one of those issues, however. Faced with a choice between an honest, moral, direct candidate who takes those stances and a Machiavellian, disingenuous, and conniving candidate nonetheless out to do the opposite for pure political gain, I will pick the latter every time. Policy and law determine what government does to me and everyone else, not the clarity or honesty of motivation behind the policies and laws.

(I have taken all quoted language and the general policy statements paraphrased here from the "Issues" sections of McCain's official campaign website.)

Scott Hardie | January 25, 2008
Representative government isn't just about choosing a vote proxy. Otherwise we could each program a personal voting robot with our stances on the issues and send it off to Washington. We need representative government because there are complex issues facing the nation, and it's a full-time job to become informed and make proper decisions. I want a representative who will weigh the issues with intelligence, conscience, and integrity, who will vote for what's right rather than what his party or his religion or his lobbyists dictate. McCain regularly deviates from all three and articulates his reasoning when he does. He's someone I trust to make good decisions. Honesty is only one of numerous important values to have.

How much law does a President make? He influences Congress with his role as party figurehead, he vetos aspects of laws he finds unacceptable, and he appoints people to positions of influence such as the Supreme Court. I know people who vote for President every election based solely on which candidate will, given the chance, appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade. That seems like an awfully narrow view of the President's actual job duties. It's about being the face of government to the American people, the face of America to the rest of the world, the commander in chief of the military, the executive official during emergencies, the guide of our national intelligence program, the nation's top diplomat and treaty negotiator, and other roles short on policy and long on personality. When I vote in Congressional or state or local elections, my political views reign, but there's more to consider when filling the Oval Office.

McCain would keep us in Iraq for many years to come, first as a peacekeeping force and later as a way to influence the region with our interests. He wants the war to end, which means he wants the violence and bloodshed to end. But he recognizes the importance of stability in the Middle East and of supporting democracies instead of theocracies, which can best be achieved by our presence. I do wish he was just a little more careful in his treatment of the subject, since the region is paranoid about Western influence and American leaders' comments are often taken for worst, but he has the right intentions.

I left Gravel off my process-of-elimination list, but at this point even he must have forgotten he was running. Give it two weeks and the oversight will be moot.

Amy Austin | January 25, 2008
I have to agree with Jackie and Kris on this one... especially Kris. And I'm curious as to why y'all think Edwards is "phony"... he is certainly not as awkward as poor Romney, I think he seems like the most "mature" of the top 3 Dems, and I like his positions and platform. I will support whomever of those three does make it, of course, but I am really hoping (against the odds) that it will be Edwards.

I'm also really sick of the way the media -- just like they do in the general elections -- makes it seem as if there are only two choices with all their (lack of) coverage... it's no frickin' wonder we're losing the rest of them so early! They are all about covering the "dirt", and the dirt always seems to be flying fastest between the top two candidates... particularly when "the race card" keeps turning up -- I am so tired of that expression, I just want to puke whenever I hear it. I feel like that old parental threat is finally going to be proven true whenever my eyes ultimately wind up getting stuck rolled back into my head... my ocular muscles have got to be buff enough to compete in the Mr. Universe title by now. Last night, Jon Stewart made fun of how the media overdramatizes any free-minded or rebutting commentary from *any* of the candidates... and of Bill Clinton in particular. Bill told the press that they "should be ashamed" about the fact that they are only after sensational converage, and he was completely right! He was also completely polite and restrained about it, and yet the media chooses to villify him or any of the candidates with descriptions like "lashing out", "erupted", "exploded", "attacked" -- *that* is "tragic comedy" for you!

Aaron Shurtleff | January 25, 2008
Well, based on that survey from the other topic, if I went just by issues, and whose views (based on whatever they have said publicly or whatever the poll survey thingy was based on) most closely matched mine, I'd vote for Huckabee (I'll be honest with you all...I suspect it's his views on immigration issues that are matching me with him).

Now you might think I'm crazy, but I'm not that stupid. :)

Honestly, I can't figure out who I might vote for. The ones who have the same views as I do on issues seem crazy to me, and the ones I think are "good people" wouldn't do anything I'd like. The two big Republicans don't inspire me with confidence, and the two big Democrats, one makes me uncomfortable, and the other I feel talked down to every time I listen him. Ron Paul...I have a disconnect with him for some reason. I actually listen to him talk, and I end up thinking, "God! He got his ass handed to him! Poor guy." and the next day, all the pundits are saying how great he did and how intelligent he sounded. What? Huh? I'm trying to find common ground, but I think I might have to wait until there are fewer choices.

Kris Weberg | January 25, 2008
That's the difference, Scott -- representative government to my mind, and in political philosophy, really is about choosing some who best represents the voters (and voters') views. Based on the decisions McCain says he would make on the issues I listed, I don't want him making decisions as my representative, that is, on my behalf. And that is really what you choose when you elect a President; a person who wields executive power as your representative and the representative of every other citizen.

I am far less interested in why that power is wielded in certain ways than what it is wielded for; as said, I don't live in the world of power's motives, but in the world of its effects. And so I vote for the person who will produce effects I'd like to live with, or could at least tolerate. A lying crapsack who creates a world I can live in is infinitely superior to the world's most honest person wielding power in line with convictions I oppose.

As to how much law a president makes...well, the power of Congress in all sorts of matters has been severely eroded by Bush's Constitutionally questionable use of signing statements and executive orders. And lawmaking is far from the only means of power available the U.S. government, as we've seen with everything from warrantless wiretapping to the Padilla case. The executive branch has accrued a great deal of power through the combination of a diffident Congress that seems to ignore many of its own powers and a team of White House legal advisors who genuinely subscribe to the idea that a President's power in national security matters essentially trumps law as written. (Look up David Addington and John Yoo for examples of this reasoning.)

That makes me doubly worried about an apparently sincere pro-war, strong-on-security candidate like McCain. He may oppose torture, but where does he stand, really, on the subtler issues regarding the reach of the executive power to detain, to direct military action in the absence of a clear war declaration, and so forth? Does he stand with Bush, Nixon, LBJ, and their like, or elsewhere? Likewise, a President inveighing on Supreme Court decisions regarding reproductive freedom seems quite harmless until we recall that the bully pulpit was used to push ideas like "snowflake babies," appoint anti-abortion demagogues to policy-making boards and departments, and direct federal funds to statistically-debunked abstinence education programs rather than funding birth control options and reasonable sex education. The Presidency affects a whole lot of things, especially since Congress's power over the budget has more to do with how much different government sectors receive than with how it is spent. Fine control of spending, and thus a tremendous influence on policy, rests with the executive alongside the foreign policy and intelligence-directing powers everyone focuses on.

Amy Austin | January 27, 2008
While I an essentially in agreement with Kris, I think I understand well enough where Scott is coming from on this... (as always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here!)

To paraphrase Scott, as I understood him here and in The Eww Factor, he wants a candidate with a decent moral compass and an open mind capable of healthy reasoning. This candidate would operate from a stance of "weighing all the input" and using it to turn out decisions/actions/policies that would seem to nobly serve the greater good. Such a candidate, since he/she would ostensibly be interested in serving the greater good (rather than themselves in whatever fashion), would hopefully be immune to being derailed from this intent by the self-serving motivations of power or money or popularity or whatever. While this is admirably idealistic, it's probably also highly unrealistic. I think the best that we can hope for is to choose the most savory candidate who claims to stand for the policies we desire, and I think Kris said it best... A lying crapsack who creates a world I can live in is infinitely superior to the world's most honest person wielding power in line with convictions I oppose. Word.

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2008
All I know is, if HillBillary winds up winning the presidency, I'm moving to the Grand Cayman Islands.

Aaron Shurtleff | January 27, 2008
Yeah yeah yeah. Like all the Democrats that were moving to Canada if W was re-elected? ;)

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2008
Who wants to move to Canada? That's why I picked a tropical environment. Nice year round... :)

Scott Hardie | January 27, 2008
Kris – I appreciate your difference of opinion. I think you've made a straw man out of my point about honesty: Given a black-and-white choice between someone who tells lies but does what I want in government and the opposite, of course I'd make the same choice you would. I'm talking about the whole of their character, not just their sincerity, and I still believe it's worthy of consideration. Many people still agree with Bush's individual policies such as favoring tax cuts and opposing abortion, but how many of them would re-elect him if they could, now that the widespread corruption of his administration has come to light? I would hope that the nation would take a good look at Clinton's shady business deals and Giuliani's cronyism and reject them both, but they enjoy continued support (well, Clinton does) precisely because most people, like you, prefer a lying crapsack they agree with. You don't need to explain participatory democracy to me; I don't expect most people to choose a candidate the way I do.

Amy – You have me right, except that I don't think what you describe is highly unrealistic. :-) Nobody's perfect and immune from poor or corrupt decision-making, but I do believe I can find someone who will make good decisions more consistently than others. I agree with you about media hyperbole; eight years ago they created a shitstorm by portraying Gore as the winner when in fact Bush had won the electoral college, and just this month they declared Clinton the front-runner because she "won" New Hampshire and Nevada, when in fact Obama tied in the former and won more delegates from the latter. The media likes their horse-race and obsesses about who's in the lead, but there is no lead and the election is much more complex than they make it sound. As for Edwards, he spent his brief Senate career almost exclusively running for President, he promises things that he can't deliver (he'll "take on the big corporations" and "end poverty"? good luck, President Feelgood), and he gives off the general vibe of caring much more what you can do for him than what he can do for you. All of this, especially the last part, is just my opinion, but maybe we can get Steve or Kris to weigh in from North Carolina.

Kris Weberg | January 27, 2008
I'm of the opinion that seeking the presidency is itself an indicator of, at the least, gross egotism and monstorus self-entitlement. There are no honest office-seekers, save perhaps no-hoper candidates like Keyes and Kucinich; by its nature, political campaigning makes a liar of anyone out to appeal to that mythical "average voter," because the effort to do so invariably requires some attempt to be all things to all people.

McCain's been caught out once or twice this season, as with his howler of a claim that he'd been a 15-year congregant at a Baptist church that was quickly squashed (and embarressedly retracted) when it was pointed out that he was a lifelong member of the Episcopalian church and had said so in 2000 when he was running. And then there was his ludicrous visit to a Baghdad market so "safe," as he claimed, that he needed just over 100 troops, a helicpoter escort, and a bulletproof vest to walk around there.

In any case, my real objection to McCain is in those differences on the issues that I listed above: I think he's wrong on Iraq, wrong on health care, and wrong on reproductive and gay rights, and I can't in good conscience vote for him for those reasons given the power the President has to affect such matters.

I've nothing to say about Edwards, being a mere carpetbagger living in the bluest bit of a red state. I like his platform the best of the major Democratic candidates -- if Edwards still counts in that regard -- but I think he's run an awful campaign and was outmatched in the primaries before he started. I rather doubt Steve will share my assessment of Edwards' platform.

Jackie Mason | January 31, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | January 31, 2008
Honestly Edwards was abandoned by the media in favor of the "2 specials" the fact that he's probably the best suited for the job was ignored and more attention was given to noteriety over substance

Amy Austin | January 31, 2008
Actually, Mike, British Columbia is quite nice -- it's Pacific Northwest location gives it a pretty mild climate and Beautiful scenery, between the historic architecture and Butchart Gardens (I only have Victoria to gauge by, and it was *gorgeous* there, even at this time of the year!) -- but I suppose if we're going to fantasize about where we'd *really* like to be in such events, vs. what's practical, then... the Caymans sounds like a fine idea to me, too. ;-)

A bit of a delayed response, I know... but you've been on my mind lately, and now that Edwards has (sadly) slipped off the radar and left us with only the Hill-O-Rama machine, I'm guessing that you pretty much have to be in favor of McCain, Romney, or (God forbid) Huckabee. Your opposition to Hillary must run hard and deep, given what I remember your feelings on Obama to be... and you're pretty darn quiet on the topic around here these days. I know you're outnumbered, but I'm really wondering what your thoughts on the dwindling selection of candidates are... care to share? ;-)

Tony Peters | January 31, 2008
I retire in a year... IF Hill wins I may think about Canada even if it's only the part just north of Vermont....the race I'd like to see is Obama vs McCain though the race I think we will end up with is Mitt vs Hill which gives me no choice at all

Amy Austin | January 31, 2008
I disagree... I think it will be Obama/McCain -- in which case, it will be tough to say whose race (ha) that is!

Tony Peters | February 1, 2008
I'm getting too cynical with political races these days...I hope you are right, that would be a race that I could be energized with...so much that I can honestly say I'm not sure who I would vote for.

Steve West | February 1, 2008
Barack Obama is the most liberal senator of 2007 based on his voting record. I'm not sure if that helps or hurts him. (link)

Anna Gregoline | February 1, 2008
"A lying crapsack who creates a world I can live in is infinitely superior to the world's most honest person wielding power in line with convictions I oppose."

A fabulous quote, Kris, and I agree. While it's certainly possible I could theroetically love a candidate's attitudes, etc., if his or her stance on issues important to me was opposite to my beliefs, I would not vote for them. It's important to me, for example, that my right as a woman to control my own body is upheld, so I could not endorse any candidate who would want to take that away from me. It's something I hold so fundamental to my being that I can't imagine not voting for someone who felt I deserved that right. And that's only one issue - there are so many!

I see what you're saying though Scott.

Amy Austin | February 1, 2008
Ditto, Anna... hence, my leeriness where McCain is concerned. I'd like to think that his pro-life stance doesn't necessitate that he'd go mucking around with things like Roe v. Wade -- I'd like to think that... -- but his strong desire to appear like a candidate worthy of his affiliation and his ever-changing statements on the subject tell me to quit dreaming. Pardon the silly song imagery, but I can't help but think of McCain as "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" on vacation in "Margaritaville" -- the sincere and put-upon oddball of the Republican party who's finally being called upon to guide the sleigh on this momentous occasion. In the meantime, while trying so hard to go down in history and finally gain some cred with the rest of those snobby GOP reindeer, he sure is blowing the heck out of those flip-flops!

Erik Bates | February 1, 2008
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | February 1, 2008
Of course this is all acedemic anyway, for me, as I have not yet decided whether I'll vote at all, even though I desperately want Obama to win. No one, and I mean no one, has been able to answer this question for me - does voting mean anything at all any more? Everyone keeps talking about who to vote for, this and that, as if our system works fine - but in my eyes, it's completely broken. Even if I vote, there is no guarantee my vote will be counted, or will not be changed to an opposing party. They've cheated twice now, it's been uncovered as such, and yet nothing has been done to fix that. And no one seems to care! I feel the whole system is corrupt, so I don't hold much hope at the moment in the process.

Kris Weberg | February 2, 2008
So long as you live in Chicago, Anna, I'd say your Democratic vote will stay Democratic :)

Seriously, though, we have some massive problems with our electoral system; the absence of a nationally-standardized voting system for federal office is supposed to reserve rights and powers to the states, but it's increasingly difficult to see what benefit this particular reservation of power actually manages. Ditto the primaries, which have become a game of jockeying for importance and economic boosts among the states, and merely confuses and distorts what should be a genuinely national process.

And that's without considering Diebold machines, of course. What we really need is a simplified paper ballot that goes through both a hand count and a Scantron count, with a second hand count if there are major discrepancies. What we have a re fifty different standards created for fifty different reasons, with plenty of room for grievous error and outright fraud in between.

As to the oft-floated issue of voter fraud, frankly I'm less concerned with whether or not felons manage to vote than I am with larger systemic errors and confusion. (In all honesty, I see no good reason that a felon who has served their sentence or been paroled should be barred from voting anyway; it's not as if felons have ceased to be citizens, or ceased to live under the results of elections, is it?)

Eric Wallhagen | February 3, 2008
"I feel the whole system is corrupt, so I don't hold much hope at the moment in the process."

Anna spoke my mind perfectly with this statement. I also agree completely with what Kris said about there being no "Honest" candidates anymore, as the process "makes a liar of anyone out to appeal to that mythical 'average voter,' because the effort to do so invariably requires some attempt to be all things to all people."

Personally I'm of the mind that we need way more change to the system than any president could possibly achieve, even if they were the "perfect" candidate. The system is too cluttered with red-tape, is too corrupt across the board, and the media simply caters to it all while twisting the facts and hiding everything behind smoke and mirrors. The system is broken, and no one seems to care about fixing it. Everyone is satisfied with the status quo, then complains about the candidates that get elected through the broken, antiquated system.

I agree with Erik that given the choice of A or B, who's the lesser of two evils? I despise being given that kind of choice for something as important as the presidency of the USA. I also don't feel like throwing my vote away on some candidate C who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Is it any wonder my generation feels jaded and hopeless about it all?

One thing I would love to see, is the elimination of term limits. When a president only has to worry about getting re-elected once, they're not going to put a very high priority on anything more than 8 years out. That leaves things like Global warming, alternative energy, and other long-reaching issues on the back burner, and more often than not, they never make it off the back burner. If we give the president some incentive to get re-elected 2, 3, or even more times, they will be forced to start thinking ahead a little more, which would (hopefully) bring some of those issues to the table. Maybe this is a little too idealogical, but I can hope.

Viva la revolucion!

Lori Lancaster | February 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | February 5, 2008
Well, there's a Morrissey lyric 'f'ever I heard one.

Steve Dunn | February 5, 2008
I used to think like Kris on the "policies vs. character" issue but lately I've been thinking like Scott. I've begun to think that character and charisma are among the most important qualifications for the job. The president is only one piece of the federal policymaking puzzle, but he's the only person serving as figurehead and he's the only person with his finger on the button. I think the president's ability to communicate effectively and cultivate cooperative relationships is more important than any particular policy stance.

This outlook enables me to get excited about Obama even though we're not well aligned politically. He can't single handedly run the country into the ground - if that were possible Bush would already have done it by now. I think Obama can make people feel good about America again. This may seem like an unsophisticated view, but I've been through a lot of phases and this is the phase I'm in now.

Re: Edwards, I think he is an empty suit with a pretty face and that's basically all. My short take on Edwards is that he's a talented trial lawyer who made himself rich on personal injury lawsuits, but was never really interested in politics until he decided to buy himself a senate seat. Immediately upon getting elected, he set up camp in Iowa, visited Israel, and started running for president. He managed to ignore his NC constituents so thoroughly that by the time he came up for re-election is was obvious he had no chance of winning. Needing some kind of job to keep himself in the public eye while continuing to run for president, he became the titular head of a "Center For Poverty" at UNC Law School, my alma mater, an organization that distinguished itself by putting out a couple publications and hosting a couple seminars while Edwards divided his time between a hedge fund and Iowa. I think he's a joke. This recent editorial from the Charlotte Observer touches on some of the same things: Link The writer is no conservative or Edwards-hater - his point is that Edwards' ambition hurt the working people of NC who elected him.

Re: counting of votes, I have yet to see any argument for recent presidential elections being stolen that withstands basic scrutiny. The 2004 election was not close. The 2000 election was close in Florida, but if one is given to believe that Bush stole it, an equally plausible case can be made that Gore tried unsuccessfully to steal it. I don't buy any of it. Based on having represented elected officials and candidates for office, and having attended countless meetings of boards of elections, and having personally observed machine recounts and hand recounts in several counties in North Carolina, I have reached the following conclusions: local election boards try VERY hard to get the counts EXACTLY right. They are meticulously honest people trying to do their best. No system is perfect, but there are procedural safeguards in place to provide adequate reliability and transparency. Conspiracy theories are always exaggerated and often founded on speculation if not outright lies. Having said all that, I strongly support reforms to increase the reliability and transparency of vote counting. I think all voting machine software should be open-source and publicly owned. I think paper receipts should exist (we have them in NC - do you?) I think voters' identities should be verified. I just don't don't buy into the hysteria from either side, that Diebold is going to steal elections or that felons are casting unauthorized votes all over the place. I think most experienced political observers would agree that funny vote counts affect both parties in roughly equal proportion and that errors are infinitely more common than fraud.

Eric Wallhagen | February 5, 2008
Stuck with Bush? Do you seriously believe he has a prayer of winning the vote this time around? Granted I probably wasn't the only person to be surprised when he won the second time, but his approval has sunk even further since. He couldn't get elected again. Another interesting point to consider, and depending on your stance this could be a good or bad thing, without term limits Clinton could have run again in 2000, potentially preventing Bush from ever getting elected in the first place. (I don't know about you, but I'd take Clinton over Gore in that race.) I seriously doubt we'd be in the same mess we're in now had that happened.

Amy Austin | February 5, 2008
Exactly.

Tony Peters | February 6, 2008
though he will fight on I think after last night we can effectively count Mitt out of the race.....thankfully. Sadly Hillary did better than many expected and is back in the lead, given how close the Damocratic race is this could go all the way to the convention....when was the last time that a canidate was selected at the convention anyway?????

Jackie Mason | February 7, 2008
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | February 7, 2008
I agree with Steve about the actualities of voting problems, but I think that the electoral system, like the legal system, relies as much or more on people's perceptions as on its actual functionality and equity. How many non-lawyers, for instance, sincerely believe that the sorts of spectacular and bizarre technicalities with which the occasional Law and Order villain escapes punishment are routine occurrences in the justice system? And how many understand how few genuinely absurd tort outcomes exist, and how even fewer of those absurd awards survive the appeals process?

Yet we have constant efforts to "remove technicalities" in criminal justice and plenty of people making tort reform arguments that far exceed the genuine problems that do exist in tort law at present. The consequences of a public mistrust in the electoral system seem to me quite different: voter apathy, and a toxic rather than investigative skepticism of government. (We should always be skeptical of political power and authority; we should never be so cynical of it that we disempower ourselves in its face.) The perception is what needs to be dealt with, and I believe that the sorts of reforms many of us are discussing is the way to remedy that as painlessly as possible.

Steve Dunn | February 8, 2008
Kris, I agree with much of what you say, but I think it's impotant to remember that false perceptions are often created by individuals and organizations with readily discernable interests. As to both the electoral and legal systems, serious criticism operates almost entirely at the margins (death penalty should be non-existent instead of very very rare... punitive damages should be capped at three times actual damages instead of ten times... arbitration agreements should or should be allowed in given circumstances... we should use optical scan ballots instead of punch cards...) while there is virtually no serious fundamental criticism of these sytems. By this I mean, no one's really arguing that the best way to resolve disputes is outside the legal system. No one's really arguing that elections are an invalid method of choosing representatives in government.

For this reason, I think the perception of both systems - a perception you rightly identify as necessary - is quite healthy. Grumbling about the McDonald's coffee case or even Bush v. Gore is a far cry from "no taxation without representation."

Anyway, like I said, I mostly agree with you but I think lots of fine lines come into play when we advocate policy reforms intended to shape perceptions that are not grounded in fact. As an extreme example, I'm sure you would agree that Bush ought not impose martial law in order to prevent a non-existent imminent terrorist attack. I would argue we should not build suburban light rail lines in response to people's perceptions about pollution and traffic (because they demonstrably alleviate neither).

Scott Hardie | February 10, 2008
Amy: I think it will be Obama/McCain -- in which case, it will be tough to say whose race (ha) that is!

Polls say that Obama would win (link), but has there been a year where polls seemed wrong more often than this year? I think McCain has it no matter which Democrat he faces. This is still a Republican nation, and they will support their candidate, Ann Coulter's satirical endorsement notwithstanding (link). Obama still has my vote and I hope I'm wrong.

Erik: That's much of the reason I support Ron Paul. I know he doesn't have much of a chance of winning this election (I blame the media, partially). I don't see eye-to-eye on him on every issue, but I admire the fact that the man has been unwavering in his convictions for years. He strikes me as a man that I can trust to do what he says he is going to do -- even if it something I don't agree with.

Same here. The consensus everywhere seems to be that the media has held Paul back, but he has neither a compelling personality nor mainstream positions; more coverage wouldn't affect his chances, imo. I don't agree with many of Paul's positions, and I don't believe he's the man for the job, but I do at least appreciate his authenticity.

Anna: No one, and I mean no one, has been able to answer this question for me - does voting mean anything at all any more?

It means as much as it ever did. As one voter among many million, your vote has much more symbolic importance to you than any numerical importance to your candidate, but if that's still worth something to you, then you should cast it. If Obama is the candidate you've most wanted for President ever, then it's worth voting to express that. (And yes, I know you're really talking about corruption.)

Anna: Even if I vote, there is no guarantee my vote will be counted, or will not be changed to an opposing party. They've cheated twice now, it's been uncovered as such, and yet nothing has been done to fix that. And no one seems to care!

The people who believe there was cheating, like you, do care and speak up. I think the rest of the people don't believe there was cheating, like me. Investigation after investigation has turned up no proof of cheating, only phantom anecdotal evidence. While the cheating may or may not have happened, what continues to do real damage to your political support is the belief that there was cheating, and the ensuing frustration that the rest of the world doesn't seem to care. It robs a lot of people of their faith in the system, and keeps them away from the polls, but take notice that it's only one side. Do you know any Republicans who believe the system is rigged against them, even when a Democrat wins? Do they skip voting?

Politics involves constant allegations of dirty campaigning, falsehoods invented by an underground rumor mill, the vast majority of which turn out to be vapor. A friend of mine worked for several campaigns, including Kerry's, and told me how many lies he'd heard spread around the community about how these votes weren't being counted or these machines were turned off and so people weren't going to vote. He spent more time convincing people just to believe in the system than convincing them to vote Democratic. If the rumors convince you to lay down your support for your candidate and let the opposition win, they've done their job. Don't allow yourself to be disenfranchised.

Jackie Mason | March 21, 2008
[hidden by request]

Steve West | March 22, 2008
Huge collection of Hillary photos. Many (most) are pretty unflattering.

Tony Peters | March 30, 2008
I honestly hope Hillary doesn't end up breaking the Democratic party otherwise it'll likely be a decade or more before it recovers and we don't need more of what we have right now

Scott Hardie | March 31, 2008
An incident from the Clinton campaign last week bugged me, besides the sniper fire lie, but I'm having trouble finding a link to it that isn't an op-ed piece. Campaigning at a college, Chelsea Clinton was asked by one of the students whether the Monica Lewinsky scandal had tarnished her mother's credibility as a candidate for public office. Clinton said, "Wow, in over seventy colleges that I've been to, that's first time somebody has asked me about that. Frankly, it's none of your business." The crowd cheered. She then took a different question, since she didn't want that one to be the last of the day.

When I first saw this reported, it seemed to be cast in a positive light, as in how dare someone ask Chelsea Clinton about her father's sex scandal and how noble of her to give the questioner a deserved verbal beat-down. But that's not the way I reacted to the incident. First of all, the question came from a member of the public, not a reporter operating under a code of conduct, and you don't treat a civilian like that. Second, Clinton was making an official campaign presentation for her mother, not bumped into on the street somewhere. Any question relevant to her mother's candidacy is fair game. Third, did she really not have an answer prepared for that question? I sure hope that answer wasn't it.

Tony Peters | March 31, 2008
while I agree with you Scott, I really think the question was in very poor taste I mean if someone asked me if I thought that my dad getting blown made my mom a less qualified canidate I think I would have been a lot less polite than she was. There are some questions that really shouldn't be asked whether or not you have the right to ask them...asking that same question of Hillary if done it the right context is a different matter but I fail to see how Chelsea would even be qualified to answer that question

Aaron Shurtleff | March 31, 2008
Yeah, but Chelsea was out there representing her mother, so she should have to answer the questions that come up, not just the ones she feels are in good taste.

And I, personally, totally think that is a very relevant issue. It goes back to her values and strength (and I know how non-Republicans feel about the using values, but bear with me). I mean, her husband (whether you believe it is relevant or not) violated their marriage vows. She forgave him. Does that reflect on her as a forgiving person? As a sucker? As a president, will she be a person who is beloved as a forgiving person, or a doormat who lets people get away with a bunch of BS. I want to know these things! She needs to speak on this, and if Chelsea is representing her, she needs to be able to speak on that. How many times have I heard people bitching about how Bush and his representatives don't tell us anything?? Or avoid uncomfortable questions?? Fair is fair, I think.

Lori Lancaster | March 31, 2008
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | March 31, 2008
Well, sure the Republican Party would say that! They would take the most negative opinion on it that they could...it's what they do.

And didn't Guiliani take a bit of guff in his time because he was divorced? I recall people saying it was an issue with his campaign...

And to answer the first question last, no it really shouldn't. But it does. How many sound bites taken out of context have we seen so far? Does it matter what Obama's preacher says? Should that reflect on Obama as a person? No, but it can and does. Does McCain's time as a POW make him unable to make unbiased decisions about the current war in Iraq and the prisoners we have right now? Some say yes. There's a lot of stuff like this that goes on, on both sides, and yeah, in a perfect world, we would take it all with a grain of salt. But we are far from a perfect world, don't you think? And I think it's fair to wonder about these things, and whether it shows what they'll be like a president. Would Kerry have necessarily been a flip-flopper? Is changing your mind about a subject bad? Do you think that portrayal had anything to do with the second term for W?

And, yeah, maybe one day, my wife won't get some position because they link her name to something I might have blogged. Do you think I don't think that? Trust me, if she hadn't kept her maiden name after marriage, I would be less open in what I say. Things like that do reflect back on people you don't want them to. My not going out and spending time with my wife's friends due to being uncomfortable already does reflect on her. Yeah, it sucks, but it's the way it is. I can't change it. I can just live with it.

Amy Austin | March 31, 2008
You're (We're/I'm/He's/She's) damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Tony Peters | March 31, 2008
Sorry but in Polite society there are things you should not ask of a child about his her parents, now I'm not a fan of Hilary's at all and as I said given a proper context to ask her that question could be on topic but Chelsea is little more than a talking head at this point.
As for McCain and his opinion on Prisoner's of War...I am at present an instructor at a military school, the code of conduct is something I get to hear and stress on a daily basis, it was written based on the behavior of people like John McCain and while I am happy to have never been put in his position I am also equally proud to serve in the same Navy that he did. That we can and have treated prisoners in the same maner as he was treated is disgusting to me.

Jackie Mason | April 4, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 4, 2008
I don't think what her husband did has any bearing on her credentials as a leader. If anything, I see it as she stayed legally married to him for her own benefit. They don't even live together anymore do they? I think for her, her political career is a hell of a lot more important to her than being with or not being with Bill. Ever see the movie /read the book Primary Colors?

Jackie, I disagree I think the question is a valid one to ask, Of Hillary!!! How much trust should we place in a person who can't manage their own marriage? Yeah they probably don't live together anymore, I'm sure that there was a political deal made along the lines of I will support you now and when I want to run for office you owe me. Yes I have both read the book and seen the movie a couple of times (it was on TV locally this week). They have always been win at any cost regardless of the truth, I find it funny that so many people have forgotten it (or maybe people just ignore it).

Jackie Mason | April 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | April 5, 2008
So, if you happen to be in a shitty relationship and it doesn't go your way, and things get messy, you automatically are going to suck at your job? I disagree with that line of thinking. I don't want her to be our next president. But not for that reason. People that run for office are real people....

THANK YOU, Jackie... truer words were never spoken. As for Paterson confessing what shouldn't be anybody's no-how no way... now *that* is "tragic comedy" for you. Pretty funny/sad, but such a sign of the times, when you have to feel like beating everybody (esp the gd media!) to the punch with all your fucking dirty laundry like you're Eminem at the end of a nasty Detroit rap battle. What ever happened to good taste... discretion... the idea that what goes on in (or outside of!) a marriage belongs in the *private* domain... specifically, that of the parties involved??? Amazing how the Information Age is eroding all boundaries of etiquette and privacy. Seems that *everything*, no matter how minor or relevant, can be used against you somewhere, someday.
I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.

Tony Peters | April 5, 2008
for certain I would never run for public office...that said for me its they way they (and I say they because it she goes back to the White House it will be a THEY) handled the situation that bothered me.....deny, redefine the word "is" decide that the whole world needs to know that blow job isn't sex, attack the women he "did not have sexual relations with" because it "had" to be their fault. As Primary Colors showed Bill Clinton's first campaign was the first step in dirty politics at the presidential level since Water Gate, GW's advisor's certainly learned from that and used similar tactics against McCain 8 years ago (yes I know that nothing can be directly traced to GW but please).