Three Months in the Storm

You would think that this political season would have led to a lot of worthless observations on my part. Well, you would be correct; I just haven't posted any of those worthless observations. I wish you could have been sitting next to me at the neighborhood tavern; it would have been so much easier.

But today, three thoughts seem to be rising to the top of the stew in my head.

#1 - From yesterday's Wall Street Journal: "Today's housing crisis is even worse, says Mr. (David) Rosenberg (a Merrill Lynch economist), and the financial crisis it has precipitated is far more severe. University of Maryland economist Carmen Reinhart and Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff agree. They say the current crisis appears to be at least as bad as the five most catastrophic financial crises to hit industrialized countries since World War II."
Yes, read the business papers to get the real news. I heard Sen. Edwards on NPR yesterday say "we ARE in a recession." Being the underdog does give you certain freedoms, I guess, like being blunt. The others (Clinton, Obama, Romney, and anyone holding a seat in Congress) are all still talking about a recession that MAY or MAY NOT occur. Um, hello? Is anyone in here?

#2 - What does it say about a political candidate when they are hoping for low voter-turnout because they feel it gives them a better shot at winning? I find this to be a tragic reality. This has been bothering me since I heard aids to Romney and Clinton (different aids on different days) discuss the benefits their campaigns would receive from low voter-turnout. Wow, there's something to make you stand up and salute our democracy. We already have a depressingly low turnout at the polls - though it has risen this caucus / primary season, more so on the Democratic side. Why do we need campaign staff talking about the benefits of low voter-turnout? I understand what their saying. From a purely mathematical standpoint they may be right. But those kinds of discussions only cheapen our democracy and serve to further embitter the great majority of voting-age Americans who opt out of our system. Granted, the fact that 95% of the candidates we see are corporate stoolies probably has more to do with low turnout; but trotting out political aids to discuss the benefits of low turnout certainly doesn't help the situation. So I've made the decision to never vote for someone whose campaign in any way discusses a personal gain from low turnout.

#3 - Bill Clinton's penance. Oh how the mighty have fallen. I was never a big Pres. Hillbilly fan. He accomplished some good things for the country and I enjoyed watching how he made the far right go crazy; but overall I was thoroughly nonplussed by the man. But watching him campaign on behalf of his wife disappoints me. His constant attacks on Sen. Obama and his cavalier attitude towards facts show him for the true, calculating and manipulative politician that he is. But I wonder how much of it is up to Bill. Is it really his decision to distort what Obama has recently said about Reagan and the political landscape of the last 25 years or is this his penance for liking to poke tubby chicks on days that end in "y?" It's sad, it's upsetting, and people are buying the garbage. Hell, i believed it, too, for a second. Then I took the time to read the trascripts of the interview. You know what? Obama was right.

#4 - Race and Gender in 2008. The media sure loves to make you think these are important issues in 2008 race for the White House. They are not, though, and most people know that. In my interactions with voters between the ages of 21 and 65, not a single person has mentioned Barack Obama's race or Hillary Clinton's gender as a factor in their voting decision. Come to think of it, they haven't mentioned these two things at all. But our wonderful media resources, flooded with so many political experts, beat us over the head with it and insist that we drink the kool aid. Perhaps you heard about Sen. Clinton's remarks regarding Martin Luther King, Jr - he wasn't that important in the civil rights movement, he couldn't have done it without Pres. Johnson. How dare she say that? Well, she didn't say that. What she said was actually a very clear and intelligent observation - MLK laid the foundation, built a movement, and LBJ closed the deal by doing what a president does, signing a bill into law. It was one of those deals where people came together to create change. Don't drink the kool aid, kids.

These are fun times. I'm hoping both parties go into their conventions without a clear nominee. Perhaps then we will see real interest in our democracy, even if just a sporting one.