Left and Right

As I mentioned in an earlier blog entry (over here), conservatives began to use the media to peddle their points. When Clinton was in power, they were the attack dogs, criticizing anything they could criticize. When Bush was in power, they were apologists for the government, repeating talking points that were dished out to talking heads that were trotted out as so much propaganda.

The left (and really, it's the American left, rather than the left as Europe knows it) had no counterprogramming. The stuff that existed was shrill and horrid, the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. While some viewers/listeners gravitated to that, it was never as accepted by the NPR crowd as it was in "real smalltown America".

The first two shows to begin to provide alternatives were The Daily Show and The Colbert Report who used comedy and a crack team of researchers that would comb through the media content and point out the tactics being used by the right and make fun of it because these tactics were so simple-minded, and yet, sadly, so effective, because no one was prepared to connect the dots and show this kind of propaganda.

These were on the air quite a while before the next two shows became more popular, especially in the year leading up to the campaign. They are MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show.

The reason these two shows succeed where previous ones have failed is that the right tries to find something, say, Obama's idea for some kind of local militia, and then demonize it, say, by comparing it to Nazi Germany. Fox News is always good at making one side look bad, but pretty bad at making themselves look good.

The left, by contrast, typically finds outrageous things said by the right, and finds evidence that it is ludicrous. This is now being handled by the blogosphere and various reporting agencies. They were the ones able to sift out Palin's wardrobe excesses, or Palin being pranked by Canadian comedians who convinced her that she was talking to French president Sarkozy.

The reason that Olbermann and Maddow are intellectually more satisfying, though not as much as Stewart and Colbert, is because they refute arguments, and find evidence to do so. The right simply asserts X is bad. They haven't created the equivalent of the "truth squad" that finds out the details of things. The right is in the demonization market. Find something, and make it sound evil.

There was a recent convention of Republican governors where some felt they needed to rework the message to have a more populist appeal. The attack machinery, which served them well for so many years, has been deemed ineffective. However, with its past success, you can't imagine Republicans will give it up, especially if they are losing. Thus, ads by Elizabeth Dole and Chambliss spew vitriol hoping the public will fall for it. At one point, they appeared to do just that. While I have doubts that the public is getting much smarter, these shows do at least provide some defense against the lies and spin provided by the right.

At the very least, some of that should reduce down with a change of presidency. Sure, this will cause the right media to crank up their messages of hate, but at least there are shows that counter that, and it seems they are gaining in popularity.

Exit Stage Right

Back in the Clinton days, there was a surge in conservative, neocon media. This came primarily from two sources: Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Basically, they became full time apologists for Republican misdeeds and full time attack dogs against Democrats. What they discovered, ironically, is something very Soviet. Propaganda.

Remember when Americans would criticize the Soviet press for giving a one-sided account of everything. They would rewrite history so it better suited the leadership. They pointed at the freedoms of the press, the right to elect more than one candidate. This was used to foster a hate of the Soviet Union. At the very least, it was helpful that the average Soviet citizen, or at least the average Muscovite is so intensely cynical, that they understood what BS was being fed to them.

Somehow, it occurred to folks that these same propaganda techniques that were used then could be used in the US. Who woulda thunk?

And since then, the level of news discourse has been dragged downhill. Edward Murrow would be horrified. As a man who brought integrity to news, who questioned the McCarthy witchhunts, he brought a new medium to the public and gave it credibility. He'd likely wince at both what's happened to news, especially the tabloidization of news, but worse, the conservative media echo chamber which takes everything out of context, and spews it to the public because enough of the public would rather hear stuff than verify any of it is true. Is it surprising that the last two Democratic candidate for President (Kerry and Obama) were the "most liberal" in all the Senate. Funny how that always happens.

It's like there's a Mad Libs of conservative tactics, and they fill in the name of the current candidate and attack them. So and so is a liberal, weak on defense, a socialist, wants to raise your taxes, wants to takes your guns, etc.

This has caused politics to devolve into the way it is now. I was listening to some PBS television special called The Conservatives, which, by the way, is incredibly difficult to search for. There should be some way that I can search for all programs PBS has aired in the last few months. It's sad how much keyword searching dominates search so I can't locate this piece of information.

During this interview, they talked to a moderate Republican senator or congresswoman or some such. OK, I finally found it, partly because PBS has it titled as something different. It's called: 2008: A Republican Reinvention and the person was Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey.

In the interview, Whitman says the party was so concerned about getting elected that they found hot button issues to talk about, usually abortion and gay marriage. The purpose was to use these topics to draw out the vote. Whitman points out that these topics, while highly emotional, are rather distant for most Americans, as many are not involved in gay marriage or having abortions. She feels the Republican party needs to address issues of concern to the average American.

The one thing that's changed in this election cycle is the growing response from the left, though they spend most of their time pointing out errors from the right. The right spews propaganda, and the left finds way to deflate it.

Oddly enough, the first place to do this with any serious effect was The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is a very intelligent guy. His staff would find how Republicans used talking points issued to anyone talking to the media, to create an echo chamber, where phrases are uttered and repeated, to control the media. Essentially, the equivalent of Soviet style media without the Soviet control of the media. Why are such talking points necessary? Why are the exact phrases needed to be uttered by every individual representing the party?

Except no one much noticed for a while, until Stewart's team made fun of it. He also made fun of politicians saying one thing a few months ago, then saying something completely the opposite now. We all know politicians lie, but wow, the amazing lengths at which they go to lying. And the funny thing? The people who listen? They'll tell you they are honest folks. And when you point out that these Republicans have changed their stories, their suspension of disbelief is beyond belief. They simply treat it as conspiracy, and won't listen to obvious evidence placed in front of them.

In particular, many conservatives complained about sexism in the attacks of Palin, but were perfectly willing to criticize Hillary. Rove praised Palin's experience as mayor and governor, while denigrating a potential VP pick for Obama, governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has been governor more years than Palin, and mayor of a larger city (Richmond) than Palin. The hypocrisy of this was unbelievable, as was Fox News's reporting of this.

After Stewart, came Stephen Colbert who produced a faux conservative TV show, The Colbert Report. Again, the point was to point out the follies of Republicans.

It's not that there weren't attempts to combat Rush Limbaugh. Democrats trotted out Air America to compete. It was that the competition was as painful to listen to as the conservative version. The humor in The Daily Show offers a sophistication that is completely missing from conservative diatribes. This appeals to the snobby, elitist, but well-educated Democrats.

However, shows are now popping up that provide a left leaning contrast, though, for the most part, they are more palatable than the conservative ones because they spend most of the time debunking Republican tactics, rather than spewing invented crap. These shows are Countdown with Keith Olbermann, who also criticized Hillary, by the way, so he's not completely flag-waving for Democrats and The Rachel Maddow Show, which has elevated in popularity immensely due to her charms and insights. Indeed, though it's well known she's a lesbian, she's so good at what she does, people don't think about it much, and thinks about what she says.

To be fair, these shows serve a purpose that is sad. They are there to harness the power of the Internet, and point out all sorts of inconsistencies from conservative media sources. Although the Internet also provides this resource, it's so much less pervasive than television. This allows people who read about "palling around with William Ayers" to find McCain "palled around" with Gordon Liddy, and it was David Letterman who pointed this out!

Ultimately, one hopes that this kind of silly "make-up" stuff will leave politics altogether, but the only way it happens is if people read up on stuff, instead of letting folks tell them the truth.

Indeed, with the recent gay marriage California proposition, people spewed out how marriage has been a certain way forever. They did no research on this. They just felt it must be so because they see evidence around them, from their own marriages, to their parents, to their grandparents. Marriages were often arranged. Certain marriages were once illegal (blacks and whites). Polygamy has been seen as OK by certain religions. Again, the pure lack of research based on the "obviousness" that this is the way it's always been is the kind of political naivete that this country doesn't need.

The problem? It's hard to educate people to think. School is a many year process, and certain religious groups would be happy if you never learned to think because eventually you may question the religious underpinnings. A film was made called Idiocracy where a guy who isn't particularly bright eventually finds himself in the future and realizes he's the smartest guy around, because everyone else has become idiots.

One can only hope, and really that's all it is, because the US population is still mostly the way it was a few years ago, that change is coming to the populace, that is tired of such inane politics and tired of being lied to by people who find it's more important to win campaigns (and then accuse others of "doing anything to win" when they are more guilty of it themselves) than to help Americans.

I think history will eventually point to this era and wonder how such a thing could even happen, how we could find people that would lie and distort because the public would believe anything they said. That time can come none too soon, and we can replace this folly with something resembling rational thought.

Voting in the Morning

The Internet has revolutionized the way candidates run elections, from email to viral videos to raising money, the Internet is now a resource that modern candidates need to use.

The one place it hurts, for now, is the act of voting, which has a number of issues. First, is making sure people who are registered are voting, and those who vote are who they say they are. Wouldn't it be nice if people could bring in a laptop or pick up a special number and use that to vote?

This morning, I got up before dawn and made my way to the local Starbucks before I arrived at the polling place which was maybe 2 miles from where I live. I arrived just before 6:30, half an hour before the polls opened. I was probably, hmm, 50th to 80th in line, and it took me maybe half an hour to get in and then only a few minutes to vote.

It helped that the local party sends out fliers suggesting how to vote down ballot, that is for every other position past president and vice-president. I checked into this last night and happened to stumble on this flier and brought it in with me.

Half an hour still feels awfully slow when you are waiting to vote, but the whole process was pretty efficient. It was worth coming in early given the lines stretched out the door once I was done.

But imagine if we could all vote in parallel. There wouldn't be lines, and we wouldn't even have to take much time off work as long as we had access to a computer.

Well, I think I'm going to get a bit of a siesta before heading to work.

Hopefully, the news will be good this evening.

Secrets and Lies

I was listening to an interview on CSPAN radio with Richard Shenkman, author of Just How Stupid Are We? (the title is longer, but I'll just leave it at that). This is about the average voter and how uneducated they are with respect to politics. Even basic facts such as the three parts of government and how they work (legislative, executive, and judicial) are beyond many in the electorate.

The consequences are that the kinds of argument politicians trot out appeal to the basest instincts. Despite the easy access to information from the Web, many are uncomfortable finding information and are unable to distinguish good information from bad. Indeed, many suffer from the worst case of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a bias where you believe things that support your viewpoint, and ignore anything that doesn't. Thus, many are predisposed to believe that, say, the New York Times is biased because it likes Barack Obama and won't say enough negative things about him (or enough positive things about John McCain).

One of the consequences of the willful lack of knowledge is that some voters base their decision on who it affects. If Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists", well then he must be. If John McCain does the same thing, well, that guy isn't really a terrorist, so it doesn't count. Obama is inexperienced, but Palin is experienced?

It says something very poorly about the electorate when the something said about one party is awful, and the same thing said about the other party is irrelevant. In the end, the goal of politics is reduced to name-calling, insinuation of wrong, and sometimes flat-out lying. And why do such despicable acts happen? Because people are unwilling or unable to look up the facts.

Furthermore, they don't know how to question the "facts" presented to them. Many people take what's told to them at face value without even raising a question as to its accuracy. If Obama was a "terrorist", what act did he commit? How did he manage to get to the Senate? It boggles the mind that this charge could stick, and yet people believe it because they were told by people they "trust".

Perhaps a more potent example is the involvement of Iraq and Saddam Hussein in 9/11. After facts were revealed, it was found there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11. Even after Bush himself admitted there was no connection, there are still plenty of people who believe there is a connection. Why? Because looking this information is a pain. Because they are woefully ignorant about the Middle East. Everyone in the Middle East is the same to the average ignorant American. Most people don't even distinguish the two major divisions of Shiite and Sunni. Thus, all Muslims are the same and are, in their eyes, terrorists.

Interesting how only Colin Powell has been the only one to defend Muslims. Even Barack Obama, the uniter that he tries to portray himself, doesn't want to deal with that topic because it would be too much of a powder keg. Powell, with nothing to lose, can talk about that openly.

The desperation of tactics is perhaps no more acute than in North Carolina where Elizabeth Dole, desperate to keep her job, has accused rival Democrat, Kay Hagan, of being an atheist. Dole feigns ignorance saying that she only questions who Hagan is "pal-ing around with" rather than question her beliefs, but her ad was clearly meant to put doubt about her faith to a conservative electorate in North Carolina.

What you find out is how much people will tar their opponents with anything that will stick, even if it amounts to lying.

And that should disturb parents who like to teach their kids to tell the truth. Indeed, politicians seem fond of lying and then sticking to their lie and never admitting errors and then insulting any dissenters. Is that the kind of leaders we want?

But if the populace isn't better educated, better informed, willing to ignore slander and lies, then the temptation to use these tactics will always be there because they work, because a person unwilling to find out information for themselves will always leave themselves susceptible to insinuation and lies.

And that's a sad state of affairs

The Politics of Hate

Politicians like to tell you they are going to run a respectful campaign. After all, they like telling people what they want to hear. How many people will admit to saying that they want to hear slander about their opponent?

And yet, time and again, politicians resort to negative ads because as long as the campaign season is, as lazy as people are to verify what is being said, that's how effective negative campaigning works.

If you ask someone that is going to vote Republican what they think about Obama, they'll have numerous negative opinions and say he's wrong for the country. If you ask an Obama supporter their opinion on McCain, they are likely to say the same thing. Indeed, most people seem to hate the opposing party's candidate more than they love their own.

Lest you think that this phenomenon is restricted across party lines, consider the rather lengthy primary between Obama and Hillary. At the end, Obama supporters hated Hillary and Hillary fans hated Obama. This wasn't a collegial competition between two friends, but two adversaries. The fact of the matter are the two voted quite similarly on a number of topics.

OK, so the one big difference was their stance on the Iraq War. Obama wasn't a senator then, although Hillary was. Nevertheless, he could point to his stance then (and there's a video of him saying he was against the war).

How can we solve this problem? One way, that would never work, is to allow the opposing parties to approve ads. However, if that were done, there would never be any ads allowed. These days, they try to force the candidate to say "they approve the ad" so at least the candidate can't claim ignorance that the negative ad was done without their knowledge (even if it was done without their knowledge).

Until voters can demonstrate that they vote for a candidate's positive side (and even then), then negative ads will continue to air. And yes, they air because they work, because people won't check whether these ads or true or not, and because they will make decisions based on your middle name.

Whereforth Politico?

Have you heard of the website, politico.com? Here's a website that reports on American politics, and has cracked a lot of interesting political stories including stuff about Joe the Plumber and the amount of money spent on Sarah Palin's clothing.

But where did they come from?

Less than two years old, many places, like Keith Olbermann, cite Politico showing its increased importance in the political discourse.

Has anyone heard of them prior to, say, 2008? Their reputation has increased from virtually nowhere and that's surprising.

CSPAN is cool

CSPAN does something that every network covering the debate should do, and that is to display the question that is asked. If they would do this, you would see how much the politician evades the question being asked.

And believe me, they do a lot of evading. The average listener often forgets the question. So the networks should be obligated to put it up.

That is all.

Clever Lines

With so many people on the Internets, people come up with so many good zingers that go by the wayside. Some are deemed too harsh, too offensive.

I was just listening to Barack Obama's speech. He criticizes McCain, especially McCain's use of lobbyists on his campaign staff. He says "If you think his staff is working day and night to put themselves out of a job, I've got a bridge to sell you in Alaska".

This drew cheers.

But. But.

Obama could have taken it further. He could have said something like "And his vision for the future of the US, is much like that bridge. It's a vision to nowhere. We've had eight years of that. We don't need four more. I'm sure you will join me in saying 'Thanks, but no thanks'".

I like the twist in using that phrase back on McCain.

The Dumbing Down of American Politics

Sean Penn recently complained that both Democrats and Republicans are playing politics (duh!) and that America deserves better than either party. Or something to that effect.

There are a bunch of reasons for this, but there are two reasons: first, many Americans simply don't care about politics. It's all about politicians trying to look good, make their opponent look bad, and spend money for special interests. Yes, everyone does that. When folks worry about the latest football, basketball, baseball game, trying to pay rent, dealing with their job, paying for gas, then these issues matter to them very little. It's homework for most people to even know what politicians do.

Thus, we get simplified politics. And in the world of simplified politics (sorry to hear the passing of Don LaFontaine, who did that voice, though he wasn't the original one that Jerry Seinfeld used in his trailer), the idea is to treat political parties like sports teams. It's even worse than the worst rivalries you can imagine.

Red Sox-Yankees, Redskins-Cowboys, Duke-UNC, Michigan-Ohio State? Nothing compares to Democrats-Republicans.

I have to say I'm not immune to this. I find Sarah Palin's voice like listening to nails on chalkboard. The Republicans have a simple strategy which is to sling mud and then make up credentials. They criticize Governor Tim Kaine for a lack of experience, being a mayor of a tiny city, then turn around and say Palin with even less experience, being even mayor of a smaller town is not qualified.

Here's the funny thing. Republican talking heads know they are doing this, and they do it because they think Americans are stupid. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Because people have picked teams, and they can't stand the other team. How much loyalty is that?

You can literally point to places where Republicans say one thing when it's a Democrat and another when it's a Republican. Worse still, these points are handed out to Republicans to say everywhere so everyone stays on the same message as if this thought were somehow original. Jon Stewart continuously points this out, but brand loyalty is hard to squash.

Machiavelli once said it is better to be feared than to be loved. The corollary is that it is better to hate your opponent than to love your friend. Hate transcends love always.

Democrats have taken to similar strategies, but have avoided really heavy hitting stuff. They don't criticize McCain's leaning on his POW past, his involvement in the Keating Five, his soundbite of drill for oil to turn around his campaign, his cheating on his first wife, his embrace of Bush even as Bush insinuated McCain had fathered an illegitimate child in their 2000 run for presidency.

Obama has tried to claim the high ground. He argued that removing the gas tax in the summer (of 17 cents) was silly, that drilling was silly. It is! But Americans think there are easy solutions everywhere. Drill more and our problems are solved. And Republicans look for strategies to win. They accuse Democrats of this, but they are far more interested in winning.

They've done it in a variety of ways, the most common being trying to make Democrats look wimpy. Republicans like to feel tough and independent (despite being poor). The other factor is religion. Although Jimmy Carter was the first evangelical to run for President, he was an anomaly by being both smart and Democrat (by smart, I mean he has an advanced degree; his political savvy wasn't so good).

You can blame Bush for this kind of strategy. Bush trotted out the Willie Horton ad. Bush, Jr. merely followed the same tactics (remember Swift Boats).

The thing is many a Democrat would love to sling back, hitting hard on Republicans, except what works on the average Republican voter doesn't work on the average Democratic voter (is there such a thing?).

And that it has come down to this kind of petty bickering is because the level of discourse has been dragged down by Fox News, the Republicans, etc. And it's been dragged down because it works.

As Ron Paul tries to run an alternate convention, no one much covers it because it would give credibility to some other viewpoint. Rather than create a democracy of ideas, we are given the autocratic two-party system with one sides fighting dirty as they've done time and again.

Even Democrats rail against their own, vilifying Nancy Pelosi for lacking the will to stop the war, giving Bush whatever he wants in the hopes that the elections will swing Democrat and maybe she can do some of the things she actually promised.

We deserve better, but it ain't coming any time soon.

Staying on Message

The American electorate has been criticized for not always being that bright. For example, recently, pundits have accused Obama as being light on substance. Sure, he's got rhetoric, the grand speeches, but what more does he have after that.

This is what the spin doctors rely on.

You are frickin' lazy.

Do you know why the major networks only ever cover 3-4 candidates during the primaries? Because even if 10 candidates are running, they know that you won't spend 5 minutes figuring out who is who. You want the media to winnow out the less important candidates, and they want to oblige you, because they know you're not patient enough to do your own research.

Now, sometimes there is a groundswell of support for a candidate, like Ron Paul, who otherwise doesn't register a blip on the collective conscience. The web savvy, which probably number less than a percent of the public, think that Ron Paul produced an honest difference from all the George Bush wannabes. And he did. But the media is still the way this information is disseminated. Even Fox, the Republican apologist attack dog channel, wouldn't touch Paul, because his libertarian leanings, despite being praised by Reagan, was not neocon, and Fox is neocon.

It's amusing, indeed, how the modern Republican party bears the imprint of Bush, and that's Bush, Sr., more than Ronald Reagan, yet, hail Reagan as the conservative who could do no wrong.

But I digress.

The point is that Obama has recently been accused of lacking substance, and the echo chamber of America may or may not let this meme persist and have an impact on voting. Note that when people say this, they don't mention whether McCain is a man with big ideas, whether he has substance or not. After all, it's always been about attacking your opponent, and the Republicans are better at it, meaning more ruthless, more willing to send any kind of innuendo. The Democrats aren't ready to stoop so low to paint McCain in a negative light.

Perhaps they could simply mention that all those Republican faithful rejected McCain back in 2000, preferring Bush by a whopping majority. Maybe they can trot out the Bush campaign book on how to defeat McCain. Heck, it can be done by innuendo. Bush said this about McCain. The idea is to rattle the opinion of the Bush faithful, that they shouldn't trust McCain.

There is, alas, a sense that elections are like sporting events, something one wins. Not wins by lofty means showing the capability to lead, but by casting doubt about the opponent. This has, as recent history shows, always been more effective.

When Kerry ran against Bush, there were a few factors in Bush's favor. One, the label of flip-flopper seemed to stick to Kerry, and it made some voters nervous. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there was a huge grassroots campaign built around gay marriage. Conservatives who were traditionally not voting were convinced if they failed to vote, that gay marriage would become the norm. Such folks, who claim they treasure Jesus and love, found themselves scared that the world would collapse if they failed to take action on something that was, for the most part, illegal in the states that brought it up.

In essence, they were voting to say the law is correct. And while they were at it, they voted for Bush.

Ultimately, we get this kind of mess because the average citizen finds it too time-consuming to find out what these candidates stand for. They let TV programs let them decide, and repeat innuendos which they've never verified.

Recently, McCain made a gaffe on the timeline of the surge. He claimed that the surge produced something called the Anbar Awakening (also called the Sunni Awakening), when the order was reversed. This kind of gaffe shows McCain's confusion about what's going on in Iraq.

That could be seen as serious, maybe on par with Ford saying there was no Communist influence over Poland during a debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976.

But, here's the issue. The average American knows almost nothing about Iraq. Here's the few things they know. Troops are there. People are being killed. There's something about a surge. They have no idea what is going on there. Why is there fighting? They presume that it's just a bunch of terrorists (even though Bush has claimed they have freedom now). Maybe they know about Abu Gharib, the prisoners at Guantanmo, or some such.

Their knowledge of Iraq is often paltry. Keeping up with what's going on is unimportant because it's complex and hard to follow. What's Sunni? What's Shiite? Doesn't make sense.

So if McCain got the timeline wrong, no one will care, because they don't follow the timeline either! Now, maybe if you can impress on the public that this is like a military leader not knowing who their friends and enemies are, not knowing where the troops are located, then it would seem like something people could follow!

If, on the other hand, Americans were devoting a decent chunk of time trying to keep up, then maybe such gaffes would be considered disastrous. But they are more likely to care about who wins American Idol than the progress of some war they don't have to worry about on a day-to-day basis. If it happens over there, then it's out of sight, and out of mind.

Many a political science major laments how little Americans care about politics. It's actually lead to a fair bit of stability. How often do you see Americans really protest about anything? The more they care about sports and trivia, the less they question the government's action, the more the government does what it does.

And that's a sad state of affairs.

Are Republicans Democratic?

OK, finally a blog entry that's not about tennis.

The lengthy Democratic primary season has raised one important distinction between the parties. While Democrats favor proportional representation, Republicans favor, majority (or is it plurality) takes all.

The electoral college also favors this way of counting votes. In hindsight, it's not that democratic, is it? If you are in the minority, your vote doesn't count at all. When people claim that we live in a democratic society, where every vote counts, they're wrong. By saying majority takes all, it basically reinterprets all the dissenting votes and says they don't matter.

The electoral college was put in place to stretch the lead of the majority. The Reagan landslide in 1984 over Walter Mondale where Mondale won two states (his own state of Minnesota and Hawaii, which almost always votes Democrat) didn't reflect that 40% of the vote went to Mondale. Reagan still took more than 90% of the electoral college, and thus 30% of the voters had their votes effectively not count. Even if, in the end, the guy with the most votes wins, it can lead to unusual situations, like when Gore lost in 2000, where the candidate with the most popular votes loses.

Republicans hold their primaries like this, presumably, so a candidate will come out on top, and because the American public is stupid, they jump on the bandwagon of the leader, and let McCain win a nomination where a year earlier, everyone said he was dead in the water. The Republican primary has ceased to be meaningful, despite Ron Paul occasional reaching 25% of the disaffected voters who want a true libertarian to win, rather than some neocon wannabe.

In the end, the Republican primaries aren't very democratic, and that's with a lower-case "d".

Rhymes with Rich

OK, a non-tennis entry.

This year has been a historic campaign, at least, on the Democratic end. For the first time, there has been both a viable woman and African American running for the President. In fact, both are so viable, that this late into the campaign season, both are still hanging in for the long haul.

It's been said, with Obama's delegate lead, he should win the nomination. Nevertheless, Clinton fights on, partly, I assume, because of her gender. Men have traditionally believed women weren't capable of such lofty positions, especially the President of the US. Stereotypes of women are that they aren't strong or determined.

Now, I'm sure part of the fight is due to Hillary's personality. But partly, I assume, is because she wants to be tough for all women that follow her.

I wonder how much the bitch factor plays a role in her divisive personality. People who hate her, and these are in the Obama camp as well as Republicans, see her as a tough person who doesn't want to give up, even if there might be damage done in the general election, one way or the other.

No one has uttered the "b" word, though I recall Barbara Bush insinuating this about Geraldine Ferraro, then a vice-presidential candidate for Michael Dukakis.

At one point, people felt certain that whatever candidate the Democrats would put forth would certainly defeat whomever the Republicans came up with, especially since the candidates at the time, Giuliana, Romney, and even upstart Huckabee, just had too much baggage to wage a serious candidacy. But McCain is the one name that has been in politics for a long time. Indeed, that may work against him, we'll see.

But now, it's not so clear that this won't be a competitive general election.

Also, the more I see the Democratic primaries, I find the "winner take all" idea rather reprehensible, and not at all democratic. Votes are effectively not counted because the majority wins out. It has the virtue of smoothing out some errors, but given how close the 2000 election was (a few states decided within the margin of 1000 votes or so), these errors can also get magnified.

As politicians push the notion of democracy, it may be good to reflect on just how good a democracy we really have.

Winner Fakes All

Presidential elections use a winner-take-all scheme. Some primaries do this too. I realize this really devalues a person's vote. For example, in Maryland, Obama and Hillary are the top two candidates. If one gets 60% of the vote, and the other 40%, then the delegates are split. There is some value, even if you don't back the winning horse.

Even a candidate with as little air play as Ron Paul can pick up delegates here and there, provided proportional representation is available. And that means people's opinions are being heard. Of course, the media and politicians would prefer that not happen because the fringe scares them. They want people to back a front-runner, and let the others fall by the wayside.

I recall hearing a story about Nixon, who felt sorry for a guy that got a silver medal in the Olympics. The guy thought he did pretty well, but for Nixon, winning was the only thing, so he couldn't imagine how anyone would think differently.

Whether this story is true or not, it does reflect a kind of truth, which is that elections aren't about hearing differing points of views, but about suppressing fringe dissent, so the rest of the electorate doesn't have to pay attention.

It seems strange we favor democracy, but only care about who wins, rather than the discussion that should ensue.

On Hillary's Strength

Hillary Clinton was asked a peculiar question by Katie Couric. How does she find the strength to run?

Hillary attributed to quite a few things. She drinks tea to stay alert. She now avoids diet soda, which she used to drink prodigiously. She washes her hands a lot (you often get sick when you touch some germs then rub your eyes and nose). She eats chilies (spicy stuff). She drinks a lot of water.

Humans are still trying to figure out what makes their lives optimal. How can they get on by on less sleep? How can they get sick less? How can they concentrate better? We don't have great answers, and those answers may vary from person to person.

I found that part of the interview more compelling that the other kinds of questions she got (of course, neither her nor Obama had many questions on where they stood on this topic or that, except Iraq).

The Politics of Being President

Americans aren't nearly as political as others in the world. Sure, you, personally, may care about Presidential politics. Maybe you think that Hillary's vote for war against Iraq automatically disqualifies her as President. Perhaps there are more subtle issues, such as their views on monetary policy.

However, many Americans find, as long as they can get on with the merry day-to-day lives, that politics can wait.

At one point, there were about eight candidates each on running for the Democratic and Republican nominee. These numbers seem too large to care about, and yet, many a fan of American Idol manages to track, in two hours a week, at least as many singers, already singling out who they like, and hoping their favorite makes it one more week.

In the meanwhile, the media also tries to find who is a front-runner. For the Democrats, it was Hillary, Barack and John Edwards. For the Republicans, the field was larger, and included Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. When McCain was left for dead a year ago, and each of Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee has flaws, Fred Thompson joined the fray, hoping that another former actor would rise to the top of Republican favorites, only to be cast with the image that he simply didn't care enough.

Huckabee also came from nowhere to do quite well in Iowa, then mainly did well with the evangelicals.

But let's go back to Hillary and Obama. Both vote nearly the same, except, of course, with the war on Iraq, which, for some, is enough to swing their opinions to Obama. But those that love Obama and equally despite Hillary see personality as the separator. Obama insprires. Hillary does not.

It goes to show the kind of President you have to be when television follows you everywhere. Once upon a time, you could have the social skill of an anteater, but if you could make solid decisions, and show enough leadership, then it didn't matter if most of the people in the country barely knew what you looked like, and certainly didn't know what you sounded like.

These days, it doesn't hurt to speak well. Of course, it didn't help Romney, who look well-groomed, and very polished. Somehow, perhaps due to Huckabee, McCain managed to get back to the stage where he had been so many years ago, when he battled George W, only before a smear campaign left McCain wounded, and eventually out of the race. So McCain bided his time, did what the Bush-ites wanted him to do, and even as it looked awful for him, he came back, and now looks solid as the Republican nominee.

Of course, in the meanwhile, a few devoted fans rang the praises of Ron Paul, hoping his Libertarian message would be heard far and wide, found that if the media chooses to ignore someone, they will be ignored. Were there special articles about Paul showing his support? He raised more money than his Republican co-runners. But, the media rather exacerbates the difference, trying to push the leaders far ahead, and sweep the insignificant to obscurity.

Why should the media, in their estimation, help out a candidate that's barely registering name recognition? But is not the goal of the media to give votes the best information they can, rather than handicap the horse race the presidential election always reduces itself to? Apparently not. They, too, get caught up in numbers. Who's leading? Who's dropping out?

And why? Because they understand the average person cares only about the race, and thus, the Presidential race. The positions on this policy and that, they don't think about so much, which is why the Republicans have always favored a pretty naive platform of "Don't raise taxes!". Year after year, this bankrupt ideology trots out the same idea, and it appeals to folks a lot, because dadgum, no one really knows how to save.

We all spend to excess, unhappy if we can't have the goodies our neighbors do. Possessions becomes our elixir, and Americans are plenty caught up in it. So tax relief seems good, except the truly wealthy want it even more. They know, so they think, how better to spend their wealth, caring very little for those who make it on paycheck to paycheck.

Let's not forget that politics is all about trying to cast your best face forward. Ron Paul has a tough time doing that. He's trying to stick to his principles, and when you do that, it's tough to say yes to everyone. When Hillary is asked if she's ever thought she is losing, she says she never thinks it. The media wants her to show weakness, and yet, the candidate must show strength, and so she yields no ground. Of course, she's never thought she would lose. We Americans won't stand for anyone who doesn't have confidence in themselves.

Once upon a time, we said politicians all lie, and to some extent, they do because they want people to vote for them, and it's hard to have a policy that everyone can agree to.

Stances don't seem to matter much. Once someone is roughly what you want, then it becomes the intangibles. Their personality. Their vision. That seems to matter a lot, perhaps more than it should.