The private ballot is really about protecting against intimidation. I support the rights of those who choose to keep their voting private, but this is not a personal concern of mine. Being out in the open about who I will vote for and who I endorse is an attempt to promote political discourse. So right or wrong, here are my picks:
For President I endorse Barack Obama.
According to the statistically oriented poll-watching blog Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a greater than 95% chance of winning the election, and in Michigan Obama is up by over 15%. But in recent days Obama has slipped in the national polls (less so in the polls of the key states he needs to win.) The risk of McCain winning is unacceptable. So in Michigan I will still vote for Obama. I am confident enough about Obama in Michigan that I plan to go to Ohio to volunteer on election day.
Cynthia Mckinney has a less militaristic foreign policy, is generally more progressive, but she will not get elected nor will she even get 5% of the vote which would give the Green Party campaign matching funds. Most polls show her at 1%
Ralph Nader has polled as well as 6% but after jumping parties I lost interest in him. I don’t see an argument for building the Natural Law Party.
The Democrats in congress did not push legislation with teeth to end the war in Iraq. This was not the only place where they did not come through.
For Michigan Rep to the US Senate I endorse Harley G Mikkelson of the Green party. Carl Levin will win. Even in the very unlikely event that he didn’t the Dems will still control the senate. We may be reminded that Levin heads the Armed Services committee, but if Levin lost, Kennedy might assume the lead of this committee. That would probably count as progress.
For House of Representative for Michigan’s 15th district I am reminded of the slogan “don’t vote it only encourages them.” Like Levin, John Dingell will win, the district was drawn by Republicans to concentrate Democratic voters in one area. His performance has been so so on foreign policy, and he is a bit too close to the auto industry which is Michigan’s surrogate for the oil industry. Whether to vote for the Green party candidate Aimee Smith is a more difficult question. She is a grassroots activist, I know several activists who find her to be a difficult person to work with. I believe that her often antagonistic approach to activism has been counter productive in Ann Arbor’s progressive community. My tendency is to vote for policy regardless of personality. She holds a pro Palestinian position, and this is a position that has no voice in congress I understand those who share my position on Dingell but still can’t vote for Smith. In the end I will vote for her, I only wish this would encourage her to change her approach towards other activists (not her positions on issues).
I will vote for Matt Erard, the Green candidate for the Michigan state legislature 53rd district. This is a hard one to call as Rebekah Warren is a progressive Democrat. But since she won 2 years ago with 80% of the vote, a little competition from an old school socialist might be healthy. Erard calls for state ownership of all major industries. This is not exactly how I would approach building socialism. My point is to build the Green Party when possible. Erard’s campaign shows that Greens can run “fusion candidates.” Erard is also running as a Socialist Party candidate although they don’t have ballot access.
Vote tallies in the smaller statewide races are what determine if a third party stays on the ballot. So voting Green Party is important in terms of maintaining an independent political voice in the electoral system. I will also vote for Libertarians some times. I would vote for Natural Law Party candidates if there were any at this level. The US Taxpayers Party and their candidates often represent a fundamentalist christian political perspective that I can’t vote for.
For State Board of Education, I endorse Dwain Reynolds III, the Green party candidate
There is nothing exciting in either of the Democratic Party candidates, but I will pick one at random (League of Women Voter web page has some info on each of them)
For Board of Regents of the University of Michigan I endorse Ellis Boal the Green Party candidate and Denise Ilitch from the Democratic Party. Ilitch acknowledges the importance of renewable energy development.
For Board of Trustees of Michigan State University I endorse Therese Marie Storm, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Joseph Rosenquist, the Libertarian Party candidate. I’m not excited about Rosenquist but I think there is a place for Libertarians in politics, and he comes across as less corporate oriented than some of his comrades.
For Board of Governors of Wayne State University I endorse Margaret Guttshall, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Gary S. Pollard, Democrat. Poland seems to understand the importance of class issues regarding who gets a college education.
County office races are predominately unopposed. My position in such races is that if there is no choice there is no democracy. I think that this is in fact the case, but because I believe in having a vision of the future I would like I use the write-in option. I pick candidates from friends or people I know who exemplify the qualities I would like in that office holder. Since I have not asked anyone if I could promote them I will not. Two county races I will say something about are Sheriff and my county commissioner the 10th district.
The Sheriff race is a two candidate race, Democrat and Republican. I endorse Jerry Clayton the Democratic Party candidate. Some of my readers know that I ran for this office as a write-in candidate in 1996 and as a Green in 2000. 2000 was the year that Minzey the Democrat beat Ron Sheible the standing Sheriff and Republican. I have often said that my biggest regret is that I did not take more votes from Minzey. Minzey may well have run to dismantle the study on racial profiling and traffic tickets that Sheible was conducting. Clayton is the other end of the spectrum from Minzey, he understands the problem of racial profiling, and we can anticipate that he will work to stop it.
Finally at the county level, I invite anyone in the 10th district of Washtenaw County to write me in for county commissioner. No offence to Conan Smith, he is a progressive Democrat. But there is the issue of democracy requiring choices. Of the available unopposed offices the county commissioner is the only office I would be interested in and willing to hold (still no expectations of winning).
All right turn your ballot over
For Mayor of Ann Arbor I endorse John Hieftje. He is very popular in Ann Arbor,(the Republicans know this and aren’t wasting any resources running against him). Over all he is doing a good job and deserves to keep at it.
In ward 5 I will vote for Carsten Hohnke (what is it with these candidates with multiple adjacent consonants). I wish there were a Green Party candidate to vote for here. In my opinion, at this point in the development of the Green Party this is a more appropriate level for Greens to run than congress or the presidency.
Then there are the judges:
For Supreme Court I endorse Diane Marie Hathaway. Cliff Taylor is the incumbent and is a right wing extremist. Hathaway is progressive and has a good chance of winning.
For the 22nd District Circuit Court, I support Douglas Shapiro and Donald Shelton (when you go the poles don’t just remember initials as all three candidates initials are D.S.) a vote for Shapiro is a message to the incumbents that they don’t just get a free ride. Shelton is the better of the incumbents. At one point he presided over second gay parent adoptions until this practice was stopped by a higher judge, Shelton deserves credit for trying.
Among the unopposed judges I generally continue my practice of writing in alternatives. This includes when there are 2 candidates running for 2 spots. But I make an exception for Nancy Francis, not only is she a fine and fare judge but I still appreciate the time when she was a legal aid lawyer and she defended me and others in a non-violent anti war demonstration civil disobedience case. Politics has its favors.
For the 15th district cort I endorse Chris Easthope. although his opponent has gotten some progressive support, his opponent has worked as a prosecuting attorney, meaning he's too friendly with the police and he is likely to see cases through the eyes of a prosecute. Easthope will be more balanced. He has progressive credentials, He supported the building of the homeless shelter when running for city counsel in the ward where it was planned to be built, in other is not a NIMBY.
One can vote for up to three candidates for the Board of Trustees for Washtenaw Community College I endorse and recommend voting for two:
Graeme Rogerson
Most importantly he refers to partnership with the alternative energy industry. He is a recent graduate of WCC. Nonetheless he has a master’s degree from another institution
He also has a UAW endorsement
David E Rutledge
Is presently on the board, He appears to be community oriented, and he carries an AFL CIO endorsement.
Now don’t forget the proposals.
State Proposal 1 is for medical marijuana. This proposal receives my full endorsement and deserves unequivocal support. There are many medical conditions where marijuana can be beneficial. Some will point to the existence of marinol a drug derived from marijuana but if you’ve ever talked to those with experience with the drug it is clear that this drug is far harsher than marijuana.
State Proposal 2 expands stem cell research. Again, a clear Yes. If anything it is too limited in its scope, but it is a move in the right direction. Even though medical science is too often controlled by Big Pharm, this science is important and should be allowed to progress.
County Proposal A will get my vote, although the wording is funny, a renewal of an increase comes down to continuing to tax for park services and development at the present level.
City Proposal B gets my endorsement on 2 counts, first it provides greater protection for park land, but an additional benefit is that it promotes a more participatory democracy.
Finally Proposal H Washtenaw Community College Mileage Restoration is also a tax renewal. I endorse this proposal. Community Colleges are wonderful institutions; Washtenaw Community College is a fine example of this. For working class people in an economy as messed up as ours is WCC can be an essential life line.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bob the contractor
Ever wonder why there is no youtube coverage of a small business man named Bob or some such, taking McCain to task about his health care and tax policy. Certainly not for lack of such people who take issue with these policies. Perhaps McCain is handled in such a way that his only contact with the voters is from the podium, while Obama has the courage to talk to people.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Polls, pollwatching and OPD
OK it its October 2008 and I am obsessed with the polls, I’ll check 4 or 5 web pages a day to see the latest polls and poll analysis. I know its not healthy, and polls are the opposite of politics and when presented as news they are really a way of avoiding real news. I know this but still I check the polls again and again. I’ve even come up with a psychological diagnosis, OPD obsessive poll-watching disorder. Obama is ahead by six to ten points nationally and according to some maps, he could reach into the mid 300’s with electoral college votes (270 are needed to win), but is it enough.
There are concerns about the Bradly effect, that people whose voting is hampered by racism will be less likely to admit it. The Bradly effect is actually a bit more complex. First the difference between polling and performance in the election seems to largely involve the “undecided” category. With Obama polling above 50% he should have some insulation against this. Secondly the Bradly effect seems to have been more prominent in the 80’s and 90’s than since 2000. There are various explanations for this but it is what the data seems to show. Nonetheless the N, the number of samples in the study is small. Finally we might take solos in the possibility of a reverse Bradly effect, in the Primaries in certain southern states Obama did better than what the polls showed. Again several possible explanations, but that’s what happened. Then there is the much talked about cell phone effect, individuals with cell phones and no land lines are more likely to fit the Obama supporting demographic, but this was supposed to play out in 04 but didn’t appear to
In 2004 I started watching polls more closely, there was a web site where I would check in daily, and I watched with optimism as the indicators looked like Kerry would win. On election day he held a small lead on Bush in Ohio, but many Clevlanders were disenfranchised by polling places with 4 hr lines, and then there was the Republican district where the number of Bush votes exceeded the number of registered voters. In 2000 Bush was appointed by the supreme court, Florida was marred by voter irregularities and again in 2004 Bush stole the election. Steeling an election is most possible when the election is close.
So between the Bradley effect and the possibility of Republican Party chicanery the question is how much of a lead in the polls will translate to a win on November 4th. There is of course a fine line between hope and confidence when it comes to getting out the vote. This uncertainty of polling numbers may help the Obama team keep on its game.
Finally there is the third party issue. Although I have been working on Obama’s Campaign, I am enthused about the Obama Movement (see my first post), and I hope Barack Obama is our next president, I see the limitations of Obama's politics. I am not a Democrat, the political party I affiliate with is the Green Party. If I were completely certain that Obama would win by a “landslide” I would consider voting for the Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. There is a reasonable argument that a clear and decisive outcome will help Obama promote a progressive agenda. So at what point would in the polls would I vote McKinney? I don’t think that Obama is close to safe unless he is polling greater than 50% and more than 10 points above McCain in any given state. But I would need at least a 20 to 30% spread and at least 55% polling for Obama before I would feel comfortable voting for McKinney. At this point Hawaii is looking like safe territory for voting for McKinney.
There are concerns about the Bradly effect, that people whose voting is hampered by racism will be less likely to admit it. The Bradly effect is actually a bit more complex. First the difference between polling and performance in the election seems to largely involve the “undecided” category. With Obama polling above 50% he should have some insulation against this. Secondly the Bradly effect seems to have been more prominent in the 80’s and 90’s than since 2000. There are various explanations for this but it is what the data seems to show. Nonetheless the N, the number of samples in the study is small. Finally we might take solos in the possibility of a reverse Bradly effect, in the Primaries in certain southern states Obama did better than what the polls showed. Again several possible explanations, but that’s what happened. Then there is the much talked about cell phone effect, individuals with cell phones and no land lines are more likely to fit the Obama supporting demographic, but this was supposed to play out in 04 but didn’t appear to
In 2004 I started watching polls more closely, there was a web site where I would check in daily, and I watched with optimism as the indicators looked like Kerry would win. On election day he held a small lead on Bush in Ohio, but many Clevlanders were disenfranchised by polling places with 4 hr lines, and then there was the Republican district where the number of Bush votes exceeded the number of registered voters. In 2000 Bush was appointed by the supreme court, Florida was marred by voter irregularities and again in 2004 Bush stole the election. Steeling an election is most possible when the election is close.
So between the Bradley effect and the possibility of Republican Party chicanery the question is how much of a lead in the polls will translate to a win on November 4th. There is of course a fine line between hope and confidence when it comes to getting out the vote. This uncertainty of polling numbers may help the Obama team keep on its game.
Finally there is the third party issue. Although I have been working on Obama’s Campaign, I am enthused about the Obama Movement (see my first post), and I hope Barack Obama is our next president, I see the limitations of Obama's politics. I am not a Democrat, the political party I affiliate with is the Green Party. If I were completely certain that Obama would win by a “landslide” I would consider voting for the Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. There is a reasonable argument that a clear and decisive outcome will help Obama promote a progressive agenda. So at what point would in the polls would I vote McKinney? I don’t think that Obama is close to safe unless he is polling greater than 50% and more than 10 points above McCain in any given state. But I would need at least a 20 to 30% spread and at least 55% polling for Obama before I would feel comfortable voting for McKinney. At this point Hawaii is looking like safe territory for voting for McKinney.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Global Justice, Latin American Politics & Obama's Mistake
Barack Obama’s snipes at Venezuela in the two presidential debates are misguided and disappointing. Venezuela is a democracy with a popularly elected president. Hugo Chaves has been reaffirmed by his people in elections and in a recall votes. He has had a hostile relationship with George W Bush, this seems justifiable considering the support of the Bush administration for the players in a coup attempt against Chaves. Whether the Bush administration was behind this attempted coup we don’t know, but the Bush administration has had considerable disdain for the Chaves government. While the Chaves government is accused of many things, its biggest fault is probably its role as a good example. Venezuela under Chaves has shared the wealth, with his people, with other struggling Latin American countries, even with poor US citizens in the form of heating oil assistance. But for all its virtues and faults Venezuela is part of a larger progressive movement in Latin America.
Most Latin American countries had been followed the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism for nearly 20 years. But this period had been one of limited growth. Then on January first1996, Mayan Indians started an insurrection in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the world came to know the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas inspired and united many activists who opposed neoliberal doctrine.
The highlight of this movement was the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 the World Trade Organization met in Seattle Washington and the streets filled with protesters of free trade policy. Of significance was the unity of environmentalists and union activists in opposing these policies. “Teamsters and sea turtles together at last” was a slogan that emerged from this historic event, the biggest demonstration of the 1990’s. Perhaps most important, these demonstrations may have helped to embolden the third world delegates to the WTO meeting to reject the terms of the industrialized nations. After Seattle the anti-globalization movement or the global justice movement began to gain momentum in the United States.
September 11th 2001 had a profound dampening effect on this movement, both inside and out. From the inside many activists shifted focus, putting out fires, trying to prevent and then opposing the wars, defending civil liberties after the passage of the patriot act.
In Latin America politics was not so constrained. During the last decade progressive governments have been elected in several Latin American countries. Their policies and place on the political spectrum vary, but reflect a leftward momentum. These countries from Venezuela to Brazil are developing a critical mass that allows for mutual support. For instance, when the Morales government of Bolivia was in crisis facing resistance and rebellion from some of the right wing governors from Bolivia’s conservative states, the Bush administration wanted to blame the problems on Morales, a socialist and the first indigenous president of Bolivia. But leaders from several Latin American nations joined together to support Morales.
So how does the Global Justice Movement and the leftward movement of Latin American governments relate to Obama? Is it possible that he is being propelled by some of the same forces that have moved Latin America to the left? Certainly Obama’s critiques of unrestricted free trade represent a divergence from neoliberalism. Directionally this is in line with the Latin American left. Obama is not (as McCain has claimed) the most liberal person in the US Senate and the Senate is not known for its ability to attract liberal politicians. Nonetheless, and in spit of his back sliding on certain issues, he still remains the most progressive presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party in at least a generation.
Is it possible that this is more than coincidental with the rise in progressive Latin American politics? The Germans say zeitgeist, it means the spirit of the times or the prevailing attitude of a period. Perhaps Obama and Venezuela are linked in this way. Venezuela could be an ally to an Obama presidency. This is not the shape of American Foreign Policy at the moment, but Barak Obama should reflect on a saying of the global justice movement, “another world is possible” this is no more than the audacity of hope.
Most Latin American countries had been followed the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism for nearly 20 years. But this period had been one of limited growth. Then on January first1996, Mayan Indians started an insurrection in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the world came to know the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas inspired and united many activists who opposed neoliberal doctrine.
The highlight of this movement was the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 the World Trade Organization met in Seattle Washington and the streets filled with protesters of free trade policy. Of significance was the unity of environmentalists and union activists in opposing these policies. “Teamsters and sea turtles together at last” was a slogan that emerged from this historic event, the biggest demonstration of the 1990’s. Perhaps most important, these demonstrations may have helped to embolden the third world delegates to the WTO meeting to reject the terms of the industrialized nations. After Seattle the anti-globalization movement or the global justice movement began to gain momentum in the United States.
September 11th 2001 had a profound dampening effect on this movement, both inside and out. From the inside many activists shifted focus, putting out fires, trying to prevent and then opposing the wars, defending civil liberties after the passage of the patriot act.
In Latin America politics was not so constrained. During the last decade progressive governments have been elected in several Latin American countries. Their policies and place on the political spectrum vary, but reflect a leftward momentum. These countries from Venezuela to Brazil are developing a critical mass that allows for mutual support. For instance, when the Morales government of Bolivia was in crisis facing resistance and rebellion from some of the right wing governors from Bolivia’s conservative states, the Bush administration wanted to blame the problems on Morales, a socialist and the first indigenous president of Bolivia. But leaders from several Latin American nations joined together to support Morales.
So how does the Global Justice Movement and the leftward movement of Latin American governments relate to Obama? Is it possible that he is being propelled by some of the same forces that have moved Latin America to the left? Certainly Obama’s critiques of unrestricted free trade represent a divergence from neoliberalism. Directionally this is in line with the Latin American left. Obama is not (as McCain has claimed) the most liberal person in the US Senate and the Senate is not known for its ability to attract liberal politicians. Nonetheless, and in spit of his back sliding on certain issues, he still remains the most progressive presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party in at least a generation.
Is it possible that this is more than coincidental with the rise in progressive Latin American politics? The Germans say zeitgeist, it means the spirit of the times or the prevailing attitude of a period. Perhaps Obama and Venezuela are linked in this way. Venezuela could be an ally to an Obama presidency. This is not the shape of American Foreign Policy at the moment, but Barak Obama should reflect on a saying of the global justice movement, “another world is possible” this is no more than the audacity of hope.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Is this the best American discourse can present?
Is this the best American discourse can present? The vice presidential debate, and the second presidential debate were most notable for their lack of any true debate. Instead these events are more like simultaneous live commercials.
The VP debate was predictable to anyone who knew that Palin has a track record as a successful debater. She didn't fall on her face but she really didn't have the experience to do much more than recite sound bites, mostly she got them in where she was supposed to although some times she missed things. in debating Biden's record on the war it was clear to me that she was referring to the period of the surge, while Biden was talking about the start of the war. this allowed Biden to assert things with Palin only able to babel on about how Biden was not telling the truth. Holding people to the truth is difficult if you are ahistorical. The good news from the debate is that the Republicans lead cultural warrior has conceded the rights of civil unions for gay couples. We shouldn't stop here but at least it's an example of the Republicans moving to the left. More on that in a later post.
The second presidential debate was called a town meeting format. That they call this spectacle a "town meeting" is an affront to democracy and the New England tradition of town meetings. The assembly is an important form of direct democracy. Among New Englanders the town meetings are an example of the assembly: citizens meeting to discuss issues and make decisions. Instead we get preselected questions primarily from individuals who are politically in the middle of the road. Theatrically individuals are called on and recite their script. The highlight of the show was when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to move because they were blocking the teleprompter, and the cameras let us see this device that we hear about but seldom actually see.
The second debate was basically a rerun of the first debate. McCain started with a moment of populism, saying he would direct the treasury secretary to renegotiate loans to present market values, this of course is something the bail out package allows for. Beyond that initial remark everything else from him sounded like something I had already heard. Obama mostly repeated things said in the last debate, sometimes repeating himself in quoting him self. On Pakistan: "what I said was if Pakistan is "unable or unwilling" to do this job, and U.S. forces have Osama bin Laden in their sights, then U.S. forces will "kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." At least when quoting himself for the second time he could have expounded on this just a bit, indicating his intent to work with Pakistan to assure that they would be willing and able to work to capture Bin Ladin. Obama once again jabbed at Venezuela. This is a shame because Venezuela's progressive politics maybe beneficial to American political tendencies that Obama is aligned with. This also deserves elaboration in a future post. I felt that Obama won the debate with his last two comments. the second to last comment was a response to a question about defending Israel against an Iranian attack. Of course to be considered as a contender for the US senate say nothing about the presidency, Obama has had to show his support for Israel. But I give him credit for indicating that he would like to try to keep things from getting to that point. In the present climate of American middle eastern politics even that modest statement is progressive. Obama's closing remarks held some rhetorical strength. McCain on the other hand seemed to wander with empty political platitudes during his final statement. I'm starting to wonder if one of the advantages that Obama has over McCain in the debates is that McCain gets worn out after an hour, while Obama get wormed up around then.
In any case the debate was largely a collection of sound bites. I would prefer a more focused debate, an hour an a half on exit strategies for Iraq, on an hour and a half on next steps for the economy. Palin showed us that anyone can memorize lines and make it through a pseudo debate. Our politics need to move to the left, but we also need depth.
The VP debate was predictable to anyone who knew that Palin has a track record as a successful debater. She didn't fall on her face but she really didn't have the experience to do much more than recite sound bites, mostly she got them in where she was supposed to although some times she missed things. in debating Biden's record on the war it was clear to me that she was referring to the period of the surge, while Biden was talking about the start of the war. this allowed Biden to assert things with Palin only able to babel on about how Biden was not telling the truth. Holding people to the truth is difficult if you are ahistorical. The good news from the debate is that the Republicans lead cultural warrior has conceded the rights of civil unions for gay couples. We shouldn't stop here but at least it's an example of the Republicans moving to the left. More on that in a later post.
The second presidential debate was called a town meeting format. That they call this spectacle a "town meeting" is an affront to democracy and the New England tradition of town meetings. The assembly is an important form of direct democracy. Among New Englanders the town meetings are an example of the assembly: citizens meeting to discuss issues and make decisions. Instead we get preselected questions primarily from individuals who are politically in the middle of the road. Theatrically individuals are called on and recite their script. The highlight of the show was when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to move because they were blocking the teleprompter, and the cameras let us see this device that we hear about but seldom actually see.
The second debate was basically a rerun of the first debate. McCain started with a moment of populism, saying he would direct the treasury secretary to renegotiate loans to present market values, this of course is something the bail out package allows for. Beyond that initial remark everything else from him sounded like something I had already heard. Obama mostly repeated things said in the last debate, sometimes repeating himself in quoting him self. On Pakistan: "what I said was if Pakistan is "unable or unwilling" to do this job, and U.S. forces have Osama bin Laden in their sights, then U.S. forces will "kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." At least when quoting himself for the second time he could have expounded on this just a bit, indicating his intent to work with Pakistan to assure that they would be willing and able to work to capture Bin Ladin. Obama once again jabbed at Venezuela. This is a shame because Venezuela's progressive politics maybe beneficial to American political tendencies that Obama is aligned with. This also deserves elaboration in a future post. I felt that Obama won the debate with his last two comments. the second to last comment was a response to a question about defending Israel against an Iranian attack. Of course to be considered as a contender for the US senate say nothing about the presidency, Obama has had to show his support for Israel. But I give him credit for indicating that he would like to try to keep things from getting to that point. In the present climate of American middle eastern politics even that modest statement is progressive. Obama's closing remarks held some rhetorical strength. McCain on the other hand seemed to wander with empty political platitudes during his final statement. I'm starting to wonder if one of the advantages that Obama has over McCain in the debates is that McCain gets worn out after an hour, while Obama get wormed up around then.
In any case the debate was largely a collection of sound bites. I would prefer a more focused debate, an hour an a half on exit strategies for Iraq, on an hour and a half on next steps for the economy. Palin showed us that anyone can memorize lines and make it through a pseudo debate. Our politics need to move to the left, but we also need depth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
