Change

While he has a long (I mean loooong) way to go, Obama has done some simple, yet paradigm shifting things that may change the relationship between government and the People. Many of these things are just an extension of the way he ran his campaign, but the fact that he apparently intends to continue connecting to the People is both exciting and ground-breaking.

First, he has a website at www.change.gov which has a blog, news updates and an area where you can share your vision of America. I'm usually pretty cynical and apathetic when it comes to government, but I was really moved by the site and thought about what my vision of America is. Then I realized I did not have a vision and that I probably should. My goal now (in between study sessions), is to formulate my vision for America to submit.

Second, Obama is now posting the weekly Democratic radio address on YouTube (and other video sites), and plans to continue doing this once his presidency starts. The only times I've heard a weekly radio address are those odd occasions that 1) I have to drive somewhere early weekend mornings, and 2) I happen to have the radio on and tuned to a news station. I have a feeling I'm in the majority on this one.

While my cynical subconscious still questions the motivations of a government where both parties are funded by big oil, big pharma, and big tobacco (with the NRA in there somewhere), this simple reaching out to the public by Obama has softened me.

I hope both sides of this government-to-public connection fulfill their duties. This should just be the beginning for a more transparent and public-friendly government, and the public needs to maintain its sense of efficacy that it had on Nov. 4th.

I'm going out on a limb....

....and calling this election for Obama.

Remember, you heard it hear first! :)

Does Your Vote Count?

Many would think that the greater the margin of victory, the less impact each vote has and vice-versa. But it seems that the opposite may be true - the closer an election is, the less weight your vote has.

For example, in the Democratic primary it is expected to be a tight race. If Obama and Clinton are neck and neck after today, it is likely that the final decision will be based on the voting of the 800 Superdelegates (about 20% of total delegates), who are free* to decide for who they want as their Presidential nominee. Thus, your vote counted only in that it put the decision in someone else's hands.

In 2000, the same was true in the Presidential election. Had that been won by a landslide, your vote would have counted. Since it was too close, votes of the Supreme Court Justices were the only ones that mattered.

Maybe I'm a little pessimistic (I usually get that way after eating too many cookies), but while people are raving about how great our system is, producing a leading woman and a African-American candidate, I'm wondering why it has taken 230 years to do so.

*free - meaning whoever the DNC political machine wants as a candidate

Primary Issues and Food

Why is it that by the time I get to vote in the primaries, most of the candidates have left the race?

Thanks to lovely states like Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina (states that certainly represent my interests and concerns living in the suburbs of a large metropolis), my menu choices are limited to steak or shrimp for dinner. What if I feel like chicken tonight?

"I'm sorry sir, we don't serve chicken anymore. Someone in Nevada didn't particularly care for its taste."

With all due respect to our great nation, we have it backwards again. During the November elections, results are withheld until all polls are closed, presumably so a late voter, Mr. Undecided in California, won't be swayed to vote for the guy winning in New York. With the exception of Ross Perot years, there's only 2 candidates to choose from and I would go out on a limb to say that most people don't show up to their polling place ready to flip a coin to choose their candidate, yet we make sure everyone gets a fair vote free from persuasion.

So if we're so concerned with democracy and freedom of choice in that election, why the heck do we spread our primaries, where there are many more choices representing many more points of view, over several weeks? Those states in the early stages get arguably more clout and a much greater selection of candidates to choose from. Could you imagine who might win the primaries if all 50 states went in at once, with only CNNUSATODAYTIMEWARNERGALLUP polls to rely on for predictions?

Thanks to the current system, I can't vote for a candidate who has the potential to represent me, because he or she didn't do well in a few other states. Thanks New Hampshire.

Oh, and another thing....what about those poor Democratic folks in Florida who got the proverbial middle finger from the DNC when they were told their delegates don't count. Yet people still voted.

"We thank you for your patronage, however, since you showed up an hour early for your reservation, you can only view the menu. Please remember to tip well and we hope you choose to eat here again in November."

The Floridians do get to vote in November with the rest of us. Sort of like eating desert in the most popular, highly regarded, wealthiest, diverse country....errr...restaurant in the world.

"Sir, let me show you our desert tray. We have a wide selection of either cake or Jello."

Oh...and another thing....

I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but....

This new economic stimulus plan makes me laugh.

The economy is in trouble because we overextended ourselves by taking frivolous loans and borrowing against inflated home valuations to feed our greed, among other things.

Now that market forces are correcting the situation back to a natural, healthy state, the government's response is to give us more money to spend. The same government that has overextended itself and is in enormous debt. So our government is 'fixing' our problem by doing the same thing that got us into the trouble in the first place.

What's even scarier is the fact that the 150 billion dollars ($150,000,000,000.00, looks bigger that way) will undoubtedly be funded by treasury notes (read: debt) sold primarily to our biggest investor - China (read: communists).

And where are most people going to spend their $600? You guessed it, buying crap imported from China. They are the real winners here, not us, or our economy.

I've decided to spend my tax refund supporting a different communist regime by smuggling in some Montecristos from Cuba.

Double Post Thursday!

To make up for my lack of posting and because this really irks me I'm doing my first annual double-post Thursday. Look for my next one in 2009!

There is a lot of complaining on both sides about the lack of content regarding real issues coming from the candidates. While these complaints are certainly justified, can we take aim at the media for a while?

Candidates live & die by their image, not their take on issues. As much as I would like this not to be true, it is. Where do candidates get their image from....the media.

During the Republican debate a week ago, the moderators went down the line asking a different question to each candidate. Mostly Iraq and illegal immigration stuff. They get to dear old Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul, many of your supporters call themselves 9/11 Truthers. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

What does this have to do with anything? Does Mit Romney have to answer for those in his religion (and undoubtedly support him) who live on compounds and believe in plural marriages? What about the bands of ultra-conservative militia types who support the other candidates...are we going to dig those up and find who they endorse so we can confront the candidates with this?

I turned off the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas, not because of the candidates, but because of the schlock coming from the moderators.

A question to the white male Senator Edwards:

Why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate? What is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?

This was followed by a bunch of questions about Hillary's New Hampshire tearfest (a la Tom Hanks - "There's no crying in politics!), and the apparent tag team Hillary bashing by Edwards and Obama.

I think Fox, MSNBC and everyone else are trying to dump Kucinich and Ron Paul from these debates because they actually think for themselves, are not tools of some right- or left-wing agenda, and in turn, get in the way of the media's manipulation of the images of the remaining 'electable' candidates.

I'll end with some uplifting news - it looks like there is a strong chance our next President has taken Public Speaking 101...much to the chagrin of daily calendar makers and stand-up comedians.

Give Me Liberty....

I've decided today that if I'm not doing something to prevent what I dislike than I'm part of the problem. I'm talking about the ongoing torture and detainment of prisoners by the US. It has disgusted me so much over the last few years I've suppressed my anger because I don't want it to ruin my day, but what if I, or someone I knew was one of the journalists that have been detained without charges filed against them for the last 6 years?

This is as much my country as it is everyone else's, and I don't stand for the inhumane acts that have been carried out. The recent 'waterboarding' debate shouldn't even be an issue; if there is a gray area regarding torture, our country should not be there. The founders of our country put liberty above death, now in a role reversal we give up liberty in fear of death.

Some interesting reading:

• Glenn Greenwald - Only American-hating traitors believe in due process for journalists.
• Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Dish
• Press Without Borders - Press freedom day by day

Day 6:

To keep me going day to day, I partake in guilty pleasures: cigars, single malts, American Gladiators reruns, etc. Last night's guilty pleasure was going back for a third helping of my wife's chicken enchiladas (with ass-kicking hot, homemade pico de gallo to boot). For a Scottish/Irish girl she certainly has a streak of Latin American blood, especially when it comes to cooking.

Now, to follow up with my political rant yesterday I offer a solution to the problem of the endless, ineffectual election process we have in place now.

Based on my current law school endeavors, I got to thinking how efficient the application process is, especially for top schools like Yale, Harvard and the like. They can whittle 10,000 applications down to 200 successful matriculates over the course of months. So why do we need 2 years of issue spewing, mudslinging and slanted punditry to choose from a pool of under a dozen candidates?

I propose an elimination round prior to the primaries (I guess they wouldn't be primaries anymore would they). Those interested in running for president must apply by submitting a resume, a personal statement (2 pages max, double-spaced, 12 point font), and maybe a short video response to one or more prompts. The average American could easily browse 20-30 applicants in one evening and make an informed decision. After the vote, the top few candidates move on to the primaries. Then they can proceed with all the ad campaigns, debates and fund raising.

This cut and dry approach levels the playing ground by eliminating fund raising, at least initially. It also forces candidates to commit their ideals and achievements to paper. Later on in the election, one could always refer back to the original application for the truth.

The idea is by no means complete, or foolproof for that matter, but I think it would allow for higher quality but less popular candidates to have shot, eliminate fund raising as a prerequisite for success, and clear the muck surrounding the real important information needed for a voter to make a decision.