Insanely long rant in response to t's rant

This blog is in response to t’s blog at the supernicety.com.

First of all, I wouldn’t be afraid of a Ballerina’s punch, but I wouldn’t go near her kicks.

It’s 2008, I’m 30, I’m still short, but I still don’t get blocked in sucky recreation leagues, so I’m not old yet either.

There is a saying that you should never discuss politics or religion because you never know who you will offend, but here I go into politics anyway…

For those of you who don’t know, I would be considered a definite liberal in KY, which makes me pretty centrist here in Philly. Most of my comments mostly address t’s comments and my opinions largely on the Democratic primary. I wrote this without looking at the results of “Super Tuesday”

I concur that the way the system is set up now is really messed up and seems to be made to largely whittle the crowd down as soon as possible, as determined by people in states that are definitely not representative of the nation as a whole. But at the same time I wonder what can be done? A national primary doesn’t seem too feasible to help the smaller candidates due to inability to raise requisite funds (let’s leave the debate of public financing for another day). The idea of setting a national plan, maybe rotating states every election won’t work anyway, because the DNC and GOP set the national plan this year, but states ignored it and voted their own elections. Iowa threatened to move theirs to 2007 to keep its “first in the nation” status. How does that benefit the nation, when the big items on the agenda have already changed from December to late January? Let alone that Iowa, while they may be very thoughtful voters who take the process very seriously, isn’t the most representative state for the nation as a whole (is there such a state, I would say no).

On a side note, I think it’s funny how every state was trying to move the Feb 5 or earlier so that their votes “would matter” might soon find out the proportionally awarded delegates in the democratic race will largely keep the races open for the later states. Suddenly March 4 with Ohio and Texas becomes more important, imagine if Michigan and Florida were still in play. Imagine the advertising dollars and attention they would get.

Anyway, back to possibly better methods, perhaps a more Parliamentary approach you see in Europe. I’m not an expert on world governments, but my understanding on how this could work for the nomination would be made (assuming elections were on the same day) by forming coalitions between candidates until a majority is obtained, and they can negotiate policy concessions/cabinet positions, whatever. I’m babbling now, but I think you get the point. The problem is this kind of goes against the winner take all, capitalistic approach most of our presidents have, and it will cause candidates to change the platforms they were elected on (not necessarily a bad thing though). Will this only be for the primary (I would say yes)? What about independents? Can we do this with multiple parties like they do in other countries (get out of the 2 party system)? I don’t see it ever happening.

As far as the elite leading us, I think the best we can hope for is a benevolent monarchy J (for those of you who don’t know, that’s an inside joke that someone seriously told some friends of mine would be a good government).

I think that it has always been the case, and part of remarkable experiment that is the US, a person can go from where Obama started to Harvard Law (which should not be a strike against anyone, but should not be criterion, as we’ve Harvard MBA isn’t linked to the ability to lead) to possibly President. Do we want the average American to be President? I would argue no, but I would also say that the ability to run is increasingly being restricted to those with great personal wealth or connections to that wealth. And that is a problem.

Election coverage does suck, and the best detailed descriptions that I’ve read on the differences between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards has been by NY Times Columnist Paul Krugman, who unabashedly wants universal health coverage and has shelled Obama for offering anything less. I personally agree that Obama’s plan is the least comprehensive, but that also makes it more realistic. Edward’s plan was the one that intrigued me the most as it allowed people to buy into Medicare and could possibly lead to a public health care. You can argue whether this is desired, but I think it is a debate that I would love to have (if done properly, which it wouldn’t) since we essentially do have universal health care. It just kicks in when the problems are way too far progressed to be treated cheaply (ER care for indigent patients, etc). Why not have a system that has universal health care which includes regular visits to keep problems from growing into larger more expensive health care bills?

I wish we could have real national discussions on privatization, health care, and Blackwater. You can (kind of) by listening to NPR and PBS, but you and the 10 other people that watched it isn’t quite a national discussion. Unfortunately, we now have 24 hour “news” coverage that thinks the covering the news means having two people of opposite views scream at each other in 8 minute segments, distorting facts, or just lying. Or, having some popular blowhard (I’ll go O’Reilly and Olbermann on this one, even though I’m more likely to agree with KO) rant about whatever they want, once again distorting facts, selectively quoting, etc… Somewhere, someone needs to stop reporters and say “Hey when somebody says something that’s not true, you’ve got to fact check it and beat them over the head with it.” Is it really acceptable that the Bush administration is secretive? Whose government is it? Supposedly it is ours, but according to Bush and his Executive Privilege, it’s his, and to hell with the rest of us. Okay, when this is about national secrets in war, I think the case can be made (though not in the unilateral way in which it is claimed); but when we’re talking about an energy bill that heavily favors industry or using government agencies to get your party elected (sorry Jennings), it’s unacceptable. And that has to come from the press, the congress, the courts, and mostly the people.

Finally as far as the hope message of Obama. I think that the way the media is set up now, it unfortunately favors the inspirational and the vague. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and (God bless the poor man) Al Gore were brilliant with the details, and they all get ripped for it. They’re boring, they’re stiff, they’re robotic. They continue to have things that should be strengths turned into weaknesses for them. I don’t know if Obama’s strengths just happen to match up to what plays well in the media, or if that’s what he decides to show, in order to not get hit with the above critiques. I suspect from his debate performances that in the former, I don’t think that he’s a details man. Unfortunately, that is something I think he shares with Bush, I would just think that he would surround himself with better people than Cheney and the neocons. That and he is capable of understanding the details when it comes down to it (can’t say the same for Bush). Preferably we’d have someone with Obama’s ability to inspire and Al Gore’s vision (how having the foresight to make the internet was it is today became a weakness I will never understand, it’s also why he can’t have mature discussions in this country) and either Clinton’s detail comprehension.

In the end, I don’t think I can stand 4 more years of two opposing sides screaming at each other. I like to believe (or hope) that Obama can breach that gap, which I see less in the interactions I have with friends of opposing political opinions (which I have plenty, and would love to hear their opinions on some of what I said). I’m almost certain Hillary cannot, if through no fault of her own other than what her husband represents to the other side of the aisle (and that fact that she has such attention to detail that she would fight for the minutia that could make every little piece of legislation a war). I also desire to move beyond the politics of the Vietnam war, I’m sick of fighting wars from the 60’s over and over. I desire a candidate that can finally move us past that.

I’ve ranted enough now…