Here and There

I know that no president has won without winning Ohio in like 3,000 years. But I have to wonder why it’s so significant.

Still, encouraging that Obama is solidly ahead there.

File under: Landslide.

I just welt up watching snippets of Obama’s speech.

I think that when that happens, my mind begins to drift from the uplifting rhetoric, and I start to imagine this country really achieving the greatness it’s capable of.

I’m also reminded that, for the vast majority of my 34¾ years on earth, as I’ve learned of great people throughout history, people who braved odds and made a difference, I’ve wondered whether there would be someone like that in my lifetime. I grew cynical thinking the great days of humanity were over, save the brilliance of scientists.

But Barack Obama, I realize now, is that person. He is the single greatest inspiration to many individuals such as myself, to communities, to this nation, and to the world.

Do not give a misbehaving child what (s)he wants.

And with that implicit analogy, this blog now turns its full attention toward taking down John McCain. Reader submissions are accepted.

The aim will be to expose John McCain for what he is — an old-school politician, beholden to special interests with deep pockets who play by their own rules. The arguments about approach to government are tired, but must be hashed out. The real question is who these candidates are, what they represent, and how they will lead and represent the United States of America at home and to the world.

Given these tenets, the choice should be pretty clear, methinks.

The thought occurred to me today that maybe former press secretary Scott McClellan looked at Bush’s disapproval ratings (between 63 and 70 percent in most recent polls) and thought, I want to sell my book. What if I join this “Bush is a moron” chorus? I’m sure that’ll sell.

Maybe he never bought it all, but also never saw what an enabler, or, at least, accomplice he was. The dots were never connected between message and mouthpiece.

Either way, he’s sure to sell enough books to live handsomely for some time.

It’s a great way to spend the afternoon.

The New Republic’s John Judis dismissively compared Barack Obama’s campaign to George McGovern’s in 1972, saying that the coalition Obama has put together is primarily kids and minorities. Judis claims that the results from one state bear this analogy out.

Horse shit.

But I find these comments by McGovern himself (a Clinton backer) amusing and enlightening:

• On the coalition: “Obama has organized a much wider political coalition and thus a greater chance of electoral success.” (paraphrase)
• On party infighting: “After I had the nomination won and everything except the crowning at the convention, the other candidates that I had defeated in the primaries and the caucuses ganged up on me and spent the next month just bad mouthing me around the country. And, of course the Nixon people used some of the quotes and threw them back at me in the general election.”

So, yes, John Judis, in a way, you’re on to something. But mostly, not really.

Thx: Sullivan

Thx Andrew Sullivan:

Early this morning, a friend sent a link to DailyKos. It was a story about how Ralph “More than a day late and several million dollars short” Nader has chosen a running mate — none other than former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President and one-time Mayoral Candidate Matt Gonzalez.

When I opened the link, I thought, Thank God.

You see, at this point, I’m hoping for this whole campaign to unravel into sheer entertainment. Because we’ve had nearly eight years of cynicism and incompetence, the more folly surrounding a candidate as qualified and inspiring and able to bring about a new form of politics as Barack Obama is, the better. I never expected Nader really to be able to do much this time around. As another friend pointed out, Nader’s returns this time will be even more diminished than they were in 2004, which were a piss in the pot compared with 2000.

I worked with the Gonzalez for Mayor campaign here in SF in 2003. It was the first time I had ever been involved in politics, and it was exciting, to say the least. Back then, I and almost everyone I knew supported the relative upstart, the underdog, that Gonzalez was. He represented a new way to get things done, a fresh take on old problems that had been stuck in the mud since time immemorial. He ended up losing against the anointed successor to a popular mayor. You may have heard of Gavin Newsom by now. He eked out a 52-48 victory over a grassroots campaign in a city were money equals power.

Fast-forward to late 2007/early 2008. A eerie similarity exists between the level and style of support for Barack Obama. The difference is, we’re talking about the presidency. I don’t see any particular reason Matt Gonzalez is prepared or qualified to be president or vice president (ditto for Nader, but that’s another post). Thus, I’m forced to sit back and watch the circus come to town. Or, perhaps, by its very nature, the circus will never leave this town …

First of all, let me just say I am honored the good gentleman who runs Here and There (as he likes to be called) allowed me a chance spew some caustic political graffiti on his blog.

I’ve been trying to satiate my thirst of primary news, and this blog hasn’t helped at all. I’m looking into Methadone. I’ll let you know how it goes. Anyway, you know how the saying goes: If you can’t beat them, bash them with unsubstantiated gut reactions that sound bad at first, but really reflect poorly on you in the long run. Oh wait, no. Sorry, that’s what McCain and Hillary are saying. Join them, I meant join them. See what I mean about politicolism?

We were discussing Grassroots Mom’s Daily Kos diary and I had the opportunity to explain what I think are the three archetypes of Hillary supporters.

Archetype #1 - 90’s Nostalgia - Wasn’t it rad before Bush? I was so cool then and had all this dot-com money to blow. Don’t you want Clinton in office again?

How to turn them: Remind them that the 90’s wasn’t “all that.” Tell them that we’re battling a legacy of partisanship, pithy politics, gratuitous claims and lawsuits, and corruption that began (or escalated) in the 90’s and settled largely into voter apathy. Obama reflects an opportunity to open up politics and bring in a new generation of voters fed up with how our country is being run and displayed to the world.

Archetype #2 - Women - I want my daughter to see a woman president in my lifetime. I don’t even really care who it is.

How to turn them: It is a noble thing to inspire dreams in your family and for women’s rights. However, is it very responsible to, in Here and There’s host’s very capable words, “…want a woman for the sake of her womanhood?” I mean, people voted for Bush because they thought he would make a good drinking buddy.

Archetype #3 - Anti-Bush - I want the anti-Bush. Since Bush is the anti-Clinton, Hillary is the best option. Obama simply isn’t anti-Bush enough. He wants to bring everyone together? I want my revenge!

How to turn them: Smack them across the head and tell them to get with it. Tell them that this kind of thinking is what paved the way for Bush in 2000 and will probably pave the way for a Republican in office in 2012. Let’s skip this step and stay in the middle where we all belong.

In dismissing states that “don’t matter,” how do her so-called strategists (including her husband, former President Bill Clinton) expect her to mend fences with the people of those states after her superdelegate-and-MI/FL coup de grâce at the convention steals wins her the nomination?

Hell, she left California out of it, and even I am reconsidering my pledge to vote for her should end up on the ballot.

It all wreaks of Republican short-sightedness, and honestly is exactly the kind of rogue, status quo, short-sighted politics of yesterday that Barack Obama has consistently been speaking out against.

I was 9 years old at the time. Wow.

Or more like millions.

On this date in 1972, ladies and gentleman, Pong.

Ran across an item in the news yesterday, a study showing that the number one state in the US where languages go to die is Oklahoma. At first, I thought, Well, wow. If we needed proof that that part of the country was a cultural vacuum, now we have it.

But on second thought, the distinction is a rather dubious one.

Here’s what I mean: In order for a culture (or parts therein) to completely absorb those that would attempt to assimilate with it, it must be powerful. For Oklahoma and Oklahomans to be better at killing off languages other than “Oklahoman English,” they must kick a lot of language ass. Hats off, Okies.