I realize the deluge of media coverage on the 2008 presidential election has left many of us weary, skeptical, and largely indifferent to the process. Honestly, the whirlwind of candidate coverage, psychological profiling, nauseating politico buzz words such as “electability” and “likeability,” meaningless polls, mudslinging, and millions of seemingly wasted dollars have left me somewhat disheartened. I am constantly reminded that we are controlled by the media, who show us what they want us to see and tell us what they want us to think. We are no democracy. We are some strange mutation of a plutocracy (a mediacracy, if you will).
And if one more person tells me they are an “agent of change” I will punch a toddler.
That said, election season has finally, officially begun (which means, if nothing else, that the end is in sight). I would be remiss not to talk about it.
On the democratic side, the audaciously hopeful Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus, defeating runners-up John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (respectively) by a healthy margin. For the Republicans, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee rode the evangelical vote to victory, defeating a pitiful group of challengers including condescendingly wealthy Mitt Romney and the ever arrogant Rudy Giuliani (still hoping to run for president of 9/11).
What do these decisive victories mean for the appealing (if inexperienced) Obama and Huckabee? Absolutely nothing. The Iowa Caucus is purely symbolic, holding no bearing over the primaries (which opened yesterday in New Hampshire - more on that in a moment). I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the caucus process, but it’s actually a strange little system. Iowans meet at gathering places (school gymnasiums, town halls, etc.) and literally stand in the corner that represents their chosen candidate. No secret ballots here, folks. You must display your political affiliation in front of friends, family, or anyone else who might feel obliged to judge your sanity. The votes are counted (though this isn’t as straight forward as “one person, one vote” – there is a confusing delegate system that only the wisest of political sages fully understand), at which point there is an inexplicable game of musical chairs (any group representing below a certain percentage of the overall vote must disband and choose a new candidate.) The process is eerily reminiscent to choosing a kickball team in middle school and it turns out that Iowa, like Monty Python’s Camelot, is a silly place.
The Iowa Caucus is granted prominence by the all-powerful, diabolically insidious media, who will lavish extravagant amounts of attention and praise on the caucus winners, bullying them to front-runner status going into New Hampshire and attempting to make other candidates feel like distant memories in the minds of voters.
But New Hampshire-ians (responsible for the first vote that actually matters in the selection of candidates) are notoriously independent, stubborn people. These tendencies were on full display yesterday, as both Hillary and McCain rebounded from their embarrassing drubbings only days before to win the state.
McCain can credit his victory to a focus on the independent voters New Hampshire is famous for. Hillary, apparently, can credit her victory to the women of New Hampshire, who have shown themselves to be suckers to the nth degree. That many of them would actually admit to having been influenced by Clinton’s weepy-eyed display of battle fatigue proves they are not only foolish, but foolish enough to vocalize their own foolishness.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for candidates showing emotion and offering a taste of their personality, but Clinton’s charade fell flat. Ever since her initiation to the public forum she has force fed us an image of a ball-busting hard-ass that would be “ready to lead on day one.” Maybe it’s an unfortunate side effect of being a woman in politics. Maybe she felt she needed to overtly assert her forceful character. But for this chink in her armor to suddenly appear so close to a crucial vote where the main problem facing her was “likeability”…it seems too convenient, a little staged. She’s trying to have it both ways as an impossibly tough leader and a sensitive woman, and I call bullshit.
I know some of you are leery of a President Hillary Clinton, but it’s not yet time to panic. Neither Bush nor Bill won the New Hampshire primary. Barack has considerable support in upcoming Nevada and South Carolina. On the Democratic side only one thing is certain: this should be a hell of a fight.
As for the Republicans, I’m ecstatic about the McCain win. He’s the one dude in government who’s not afraid to take on absolutely anyone (both his greatest virtue and fatal flaw). More importantly, court jester Huckabee and sleazy Giuliani suffered decisive defeats, meaning (with any luck) that they may make their humbled retreats from the spotlight very soon.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to election season.
Thanks for reading.
As a side note, I’ve been fortunate to see some excellent films in the last couple of months, and have done my best to make recommendations. So here are two more:
I finally saw Children of Men (in retrospect it would have been better on the big screen, but the cinematography still looks outstanding on DVD). The story is engaging, if relentlessly bleak, and it will get you thinking about the prospects for our future.
The other was Juno, an endearing, charming story of an irreverent 16-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and, rather than simply “getting rid of the problem,” decides to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. The two young leads (Ellen Page as Juno MacGuff and Michael Cera as Paulie Bleaker) are magnetic in their awkward courtship and their slightly offbeat worldviews.
As a first attempt at screenwriting by Minnesotan Diablo Cody (a former stripper turned blogger turned City Pages editorialist turned memoirist), I must say I’m impressed. The script is funny and heartfelt, though at times the quirkiness feels heavy handed and forced.
Even so, I fell in love with Juno (is it creepy to be in love with a pregnant 16-year-old?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Groobs-I saw Ellen Page on the Late Show with David Letterman. She is a funny girl, a very different sense of humor. The movie does look good from the previews, thanks for the insight.
As far as the election goes I have been following things pretty well, but I need to get to know the candidates better. I don't have a real good grasp on any of them (except for Hillary, due to our earlier conversations about her).
The real question is, who will be the next "Agent of Change"?
I'm feeling sick already about the elections and there has only been one state so far.
I watched the New Hampshire debate and the one candidate from each side that stuck out to me was Edwards from the demos and Mccain from the repubs.
Edwards actually sounded very genuine (I hope I'm not gullable). He also created some of the most memorable moments by double teaming Hillary with his "status quo" comments. I must say every time I watch a debate I dislike Hillary more. In this debate it was here devilish look and fake anger voice when she tried to convince the world that she too was a candidate of change because unlike everyone else she has had a record of 35 years of change (I wonder if that includes a sex change?) Sorry to all that were offended, I had to throw that in there.
As for why I was impressed by Mccain, it probably was mostly due to his witty comments directed towards Mitt during a few of there exchanges. I still can't get myself to believe that he doesn't constantly have a golf ball in each cheek.
I guess the people of NH agreed with me on Mccain but not on Edwards (not saying either are necessarily my favorite candidates, just that they impressed me the most in the debates).
I guess that is all I have to say for now. Thanks for the good post groobsy
PS. Could we maybe get a poll between now and the next post? Maybe two polls, favorite repub so far and favorite demo so far???
I am all for the poll!
I agree with PCorcs on the Republicans. I think the New Hampshirites (If that's how you put it) proved that Huckabee is not necessarily a shoo-in because he represents the Evangelical vote. Mccain seems to be the most experienced and least partisan Republican with the most thought out plans and accumulating knowledge on how gov't works. I find it a virtue that he is the oldest candidate on the bill (ever, I might add) and that he is a senator. I don't think a mayor or governor has the most well rounded knowledge to govern a nation.
On the Dem side of things, I really like Edwards' passion and tenacity for the poor. He seems to have a hold of his rhetoric on the issues as well. But I think Obama is still the strongest candidate. If I had to put it in my best words I'd say that Obama is the supreme Agent of Change!
I also think we should hold the Zizzle-Zotian Caucas.
I have been sucked into the media frenzy surrounding the upcoming elections. I probably spend a good hour every day reading all the different opinions on the previous day's happenings.
It's pathetic, I know. I'm bored at work and have nothing better to do than read the news.
As for my thoughts, I haven't really followed the republicans too closely. I think my feeling is in line with most here, in that I like McCain. Huckabee is OK too, especially his plan to slow illegal immigration...putting Chuck Norris on the border of Mexico.
As for the democrats, you all know I'm an Obama man. Recently, though, I've become a bit intrigued by Edwards. Edwards seems to have more definite plans than Obama and has more experience as well. My only worry is that he is "too" focused on the lower economic classes. Maybe that is a good thing, though, and I am being an ignorant asshole to think otherwise.
And Hillary....what a whiny little bitch. Does she do anything but complain about Obama? And who is running for President, her or Bill? The news has been covering Bill's speeches as closely as hers. Did anyone catch his speech the day or two before the New Hampshire primary in which he lambasted Obama? Dirty girl...fight your own fights! And I don't want to hear a thing about how powerful you are when you need to call in your unfaithful husband to save your ass. I have nothing against Bill, just want him to stay out of it.
Just a thought...did Hillary stay with Bill after the sex scandal just for the political influence as she runs for President?
One more note on Bill's speech before the New Hampshire Primary:
In it he says that he is sick of how Obama has a positive strategy and how he accuses Hillary of being completely negative, when "just the opposite is true."
What did you just say, Bill? sounded a bit negative to me.
(I didn't look up his exact words again, but this was the general idea...so don't quote me)
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the qualifications of a governor/mayor. While a senator may have more foreign relations experience (subject to the committees on which they served), they have little experience balancing a budget, overseeing public works (everything from water/electricity to education), or responding to immediate concerns of citizens. They have never dealt with crime rates, face the illegal immigration question on a purely theoretical level, and lack the experience of overseeing multiple branches of government.
In this particular race I tend to lean more towards Senators than Governors/Mayors, but only because the latter group is represented by a bunch of boobs (Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee).
Let's face it, both Governors/Mayors and Senators have glaring educational gaps when it comes to preparation for the presidency, but in reality who's suited to be President of the US before the time actually comes?
Let's not forget that 14 point creator/Treaty of Versailles negotiator Woodrow Wilson's only political experience before ascending to the presidency was a 2year stint as the governor of New Jersey.
Thanks for the insight Zot. I have joke for you (I may have used it before, but hopefully you've forgotten)
What did Eric Gruber have for lunch when he was in elementary school?
Zater-Zots
That was terrible and I love it....
So...'tis the season indeed. I can't stand this stupid time of year. That fact that Groobs needed to explain what the Iowa caucus actually meant only echoes its pathetic uselessness. What a perfect picture of democracy.
I talked to a friend that is from Iowa and was home for the Iowa caucus…he said it was just a mad house. Every commercial break had nothing but campaign ads and there was a camera crew at his church to get the “religious response” come caucus day. The candidates do so much in one state…and then just move on to the next. Do they even remember the promises the make to the great state of (insert your states name here). I suppose that I’m just bitter about the entire process our country goes through for electing its leaders.
I find it humorous that P Corcs thought that McCain was the most well represented GOP candidate mostly based on the fact that he had the wittiest comebacks for Romney. How true. I feel the same way sometimes. I wonder how many Americans vote on the basis of, “I think this guy is funny”…or, “I’m voting for her because she’s a woman.” It makes me feel that if Steven Colbert actually were to run for president…He would probably win.
Huckabee was on Letterman the night before the New Hampshire poll. He tried to be witty and funny and succeeded for the most part. He told Letterman that if he won or lost in New Hampshire…it would be Letterman’s doing either way. Probably not true…but very true when the rest of the media is considered. I too find the media’s involvement with the elections (and the rest of national opinion for that matter) tactless. I just wish I were able to sit down with each of the candidates personally…make my decision…and not hear another word until the middle of November.
Thanks for the movie suggestions. Haven’t seen Juno yet but have wanted to since I read the article/interview with Diablo What’s-her-name in Citipages. I got the chance to see Sweeney Todd and think it is one of Burton’s best works. The gore is plentiful… but I appreciated the art of it… since I am a blood-lustful sadist.
Don't get caught when you punch all those toddlers. I saw a Elephant debate last night, it really sounds like Romney wants to change things, its too bad he didn't have any ideas of what he was going to change, but he rambeled on and on about how he changed stuf in the past, that was really helpful in understanding why and what he would change if he was president. Awesome, thanks for that.
Huckabee had an idea for changing imigration, but his idea is logistically impossible and illogical. Chuck Norris needs to stand on the stage of another canidate. I really like Chuck Norris, he should run, he makes great work-out equipment and he's got bad ass written on the lining of his sphinkter.
Its too bad Fred Thompson is a little too old and plain, because he has logical ideas logical implimentation strategies.
Ron Paul. Need i say more? dude, seriously?
Any thoughts on Ron Paul?
I think Ron Paul is one of the most logical thinkers up there. His only problem is that he is too idealistic for American Politics. I think he makes a great argument for getting out of Iraq and an overall philosophy of our situation as a nation that is looked at as war-mongers, but we've already made this name for ourselves and to ease our might would probably open the door for some serious retaliation against us.
Romney's comments against Paul's label him perfectly as a posterchild of war mongering. In a perfect world Paul's ideals would be set into place, but we've gotten ourselves so intertwined in this mess that Paul's ideology is impractical.
So how is he logical then? Shouldn't we have someone who has ideals but has realistic solutions. Some consider America "war mongers" because the media and the libs say so.
Post a Comment