Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Voted for Dean
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not politics, I am as clanging brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries, and have all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not politics? I am nothing. And though I bestow all my own goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not politics? It actually changes nothing. Politics is patient, and is helpful; politics is not personal, is something professionals know not to take too personally, not to have grudges over; rejoices not in ideological purity, but rejoices in practical solutions; supports all things, believes in the people, hopes for a better world, endures anything. Politics never fails: but whether there be prophesies, they will fail; whether there shall be spin, they shall run out of things to say; whether there be trivia, it shall fail. For we prophesy unsuccessfully, and we spin to an audience that knows our tricks by now, but when that which actually solves problems and gets things done shows up, trivial distractions pass away. For trivia is trivial, and prophesies get even the most elementary things wrong, but when the rubber hits the road, trivia and prophesies are done away with. When I was a child, I ranted like a child, I understood no more of how the world actually works than a child does, and I had a childish faith in ideology: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see the world as through a dirty window, but in the future, we'll see the evidence face to face; now we know a little, but then we'll know every bit as much about the actors as they know about us. And now abideth economics, history, and politics, these three: but the greatest of these is politics.

No, really, that's more or less how I think. OK, what's really going on above is that I was thinking about something way out of character for me, namely the fact that I am actually falling asleep at my desk while trying to watch the evening's political news coverage, night after night, for almost two weeks, to the point where it's randomizing my sleep schedule. And that's very, very weird for me, because there are three lenses that I use to look at almost the entire world: history, economics, and politics. That's how the parody of First Corinthians chapter 13, above, began, with the realization for me there "abides three things, economics, history, and politics, but the greatest of these is politics," and having put it that way, I couldn't resist completing the parallelism. But no, really, in truth three things are fundamental to my self-image, and fundamental to how I approach and understand and interact with the world. So do you realize how hard it is to bore me with political news?

But the fact of it is this: nothing has changed in months. George Bush and John McCain still intend us to be bogged down in two or more land wars in Asia for at least an entire generation, thinking that's the best tool for protecting us from tiny and largely irrelevant criminal gangs, and nothing's changed that. Congress is too afraid of having something go wrong if they stop these stupid wars, and too willing to keep signing Bush's loan paperwork and too willing to let several young Americans die per day in order to not have to deal with this until they have a Democratic president who won't blame a Democratic congress if things go wrong. Barack Obama is still going to actually win the whole campaign, Hillary Clinton will still say or do anything however sleazy to try to persuade delegates to steal it for her, but she can't so today's particular accusations are neither likely to be true nor at all interesting. And no, we won't know until November if despite John McCain's intention to wreck the country with disastrous unnecessary wars and even more disastrous deficit spending, people will vote for this senile and clearly increasingly deranged old man who only has two virtues: he used to have an honest reputation, and he's neither black nor female. And Hillary's still a woman, and Obama is still black. We've known all of these things since February, at the very least.

It has been at least that long since anything actually changed, so I'm having an increasingly hard time justifying to myself why it's still on the news every night. I mean, I used to have two problems with the Monica Lewinsky story. First of all, it was trivial garbage, something that took at most a couple of nights' reporting to know everything that mattered about it and for any reasonably well informed and honest person to see it as what it was, a right-wing partisan witch-hunt, an attempt to win in Congress what they'd lost at the polls in November of '92 and '96. But my even bigger problem with it was that even on nights in which there was no actual news on the Monica Lewinsky story, it was still the top headline. No, really, I watch the news to hear something new, at least some new detail in an ongoing story; recapping the previous several months' worth of story without adding any new details night after night after expletive-deleted boring night, eventually ticks me off. And that's how I feel about this increasingly pointless and stupid Democratic nominating contest. I just want the damned thing to be over, and if I can't have that, I want the journalists I watch to wake up and realize that even if it's not over, it's not news, or at least not the top news story of the day every day, any more.

P.S. That being said, one thing did wake me up last night while watching the news, briefly: Keith Olbermann was in rare form, at his snarkiest best in a way he hasn't been in months. Check it out. (YouTube copy found via [info]obama_2008.)

Comments

[info]gleef wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 12:27 pm (UTC)
Political News
namely the fact that I am actually falling asleep at my desk while trying to watch the evening's political news coverage, night after night, for almost two weeks, to the point where it's randomizing my sleep schedule.

Well, I'd say part of your problem is that you're watching the evening's political news coverage. With few exceptions television news in this country has been all but dead for years. Even the usual exceptions (eg. Nightline, NewsHour) have been through so many recent changes it's debatable whether or not they still matter.

Another part of the problem is that national politics tends to move slowly, so of course there's little news on that front. I'd say the gas tax stupidity would count as news there, but there's not much you can legitimately report on it apart from: here are the three candiates' positions on it, here are some reputable economists explaining why it's a dumb idea, here are some broke drivers explaining why it's attractive anyway.

Local politics is where most of the interesting political news generally is, and you're not likely to find it on a national forum like MSNBC, no matter how good or bad they are.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 12:59 pm (UTC)
Re: Political News
Feh. There is political news that's new and interesting every day. The Raw Story finds it. But then, unlike every TV network and cable news show, they don't find the daily polling horse race and the same speeches given over and over again by the two candidates to be the top story most days.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 01:38 pm (UTC)
Well, the biggest story of the last few months has been the slow-motion melting of the Obama campaign, so I'm not surprised you're somewhat oblivious to it. To some extent, his papier-mâché candidacy has lurched around these awkward associations of his, from Wright to Ayers to Rezko... his own statements being very much in contradiction. But rhetoric is all he's got, and he doesn't know what to do when it doesn't work. After all, there is no long experience, no great accomplishments, no executive positions at all. For a presidential candidate, it's a thin gruel of a resume.

No, the biggest news of the last few months is that the Democrats are faced with splitting the party (i.e. a Clinton nod), or nominating the weakest candidate since Michael Dukakis, or, arguably, George McGovern.

It's an exciting new cycle.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 01:45 pm (UTC)
Except that we knew all of the above after New Hampshire.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 04:38 pm (UTC)
Obama's rhetoric worked back in February. Now his support has dwindled down to the left-wing intelligensia and African-americans. Thus creating the whole "electability" issue.
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC)
Are you stoned, lying or just overestimating the numbers of "the left-wing intelligensia"? Barack Obama technically has a majority of the electoral college favoring him over McCain today, though he really needs one more state to win.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC)
Are you stoned, lying or just overestimating the numbers of "the left-wing intelligensia"?

Goodness, and *I* catch flack for being rude.

So, I could go on about current polls showing Obama in deep trouble in both Ohio and Florida... and his failure to make inroads into any bit of the Deep South or Texas or Appalachia (or the West outside of Colorado). That's about 200-220 electoral votes plus change...

I could do that... but then I question the ability to restrain myself... so, since you're being rude, I don't think I'll reply to any future comment at all.
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 08:27 pm (UTC)
My last comment seems unclear. I meant to say that his current support would technically give him more electoral votes than McCain.
[info]slothman wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 03:18 pm (UTC)
Yep. The only broadcast news I can stand to watch is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Usually Veracifier has all I need to see from the other shows...
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 04:52 pm (UTC)
Yeah, except that these last couple of weeks, Keith's as bad as the worst of them about wanting something to actually be new news before it makes the main headline of the day.
[info]songdogmi wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 03:29 pm (UTC)
...a right-wing partisan witch-hunt, an attempt to win in Congress what they'd lost at the polls in November of '00 and '04.

Do you mean '92 and '96 here?

Also, you're not the only one wishing they'd actually report new news. I know there must be news out there, but the mainstream outlets don't seem to believe it.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 04:51 pm (UTC)
Yes I did. Typos corrected. I was tired.
[info]aberranteyes wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
I watch the news to hear something new, at least some new detail in an ongoing story; recapping the previous several months' worth of story without adding any new details night after night after expletive-deleted boring night, eventually ticks me off.

I'm ineffably reminded of Suck.com's Ambrose Beers saying something similar at the time:

We're not precisely sure of its exact location, but we're prepared to assert - vigorously, with a steak knife clenched in our white-knuckled hands - that there must have been a point, somewhere, at which the entire metastasizing hell of Ken Starr's "investigation" could have been ended, instantly, if it just hadn't been mentioned in the news for a few hours.
[info]flewellyn wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 06:45 pm (UTC)
Barack Obama is still going to actually win the whole campaign, Hillary Clinton will still say or do anything however sleazy to try to persuade delegates to steal it for her, but she can't so today's particular accusations are neither likely to be true nor at all interesting.

Foregone conclusion, is it? This is something you know, or something you "know"? I know it's the meme the media is trying to push, because they hate Clinton with irrational fury, but is it actually true? I think not.
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 08:25 pm (UTC)
Not the part about Clinton's actions, I think.
[info]flewellyn wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 04:41 am (UTC)
Oh, pull the other one. Clinton's not done anything slimy and horrific, that's pure media bullshit.
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 05:47 am (UTC)
You: I know it's the meme the media is trying to push, because they hate Clinton with irrational fury, but is it actually true? I think not.

Me: Not the part about Clinton's actions, I think.
[info]flewellyn wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 06:56 am (UTC)
I see the problem. I thought you were negating my negation, instead of the proposed sentence. My apologies.
[info]discogravy wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
I don't know brad's reasons, but I agree with the assessment.
hillary against mccain = mccain wins
obama against mccain = obama wins


mccain's a soft push from the republican side; he's not an especially strong candidate, and he doesn't have the religous fervor that bush had powering him from the religious right. hillary against him would be the catalyst that motivates people to vote -- not for Mccain, but against clinton. Clinton's biggest positive is that her supporters are very passionate. Her downside is that she inspires passionate hatred in the right. Obama is well-liked and at least as strong a candidate as clinton, if not stronger.
[info]flewellyn wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 06:56 am (UTC)
Re: I don't know brad's reasons, but I agree with the assessment.
Don't be ridiculous. At this point, a dead ficus plant could beat McCain.
[info]discogravy wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 01:22 pm (UTC)
Re: I don't know brad's reasons, but I agree with the assessment.
I think you're seriously underestimating the dislike anyone vaguely to the right has for the Clintons generally and Hillary specifically; it's a visceral, pavlovian thing. Her supporters are fiercely loyal and personally vested in her (my guess is because they identify with that "i'll stay with it even if everyone wants me to quit, because it makes me an underdog and FUCK YOU GUYS" spirit she's got going, but again, that's a guess on my part,) but Republicans will turn out in droves to vote for a dead ficus plant if the shrubbery were running against Hillary Clinton. McCain's biggest problem is that he's not as charismatic as Bush (hell, this was honestly what sunk Gore, Kerry and one of the things that will hit Hillary hardest; charisma trumps so many things. It got Bill elected and he was unquestionably personally kinda shifty and sleazy, and it got W elected (twice!) and the man can barely speak.) If McCain manages to keep from being caught balls-deep in a hooker or man, and it's between Clinton and him, I think you'll see he's a stronger candidate than you might suspect.
[info]keori wrote:
May. 8th, 2008 06:13 am (UTC)
Re: I don't know brad's reasons, but I agree with the assessment.
Agreed. I work with military intelligence soldiers (there's an oxymoron for ya), and though they all dislike and fear McCain for his stalwart support for decades more bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan (most of them have been on two combat tours and lost friends already), they will all still vote for him in a general election if the Dem nominee is Hillary. They may dislike and fear McCain, but they LOATHE Hillary. It's not that they support McCain or Clinton, it's a just a question of whom they hate less. Most of them are Obama supporters.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 02:19 pm (UTC)
First of all, if I didn't make it clear enough, in that sentence what I mean by "the whole campaign" is the Democratic nominating contest, not the general. Neither Obama nor Clinton are white men, and since New Hampshire we've known that there are enough bigoted voters in some states that the Republicans could run Charlie Manson and he'd get their electoral votes; sure, he's an aging hippy mass murderer, but hey, at least he's a white man. (Has Clinton offered even a shred of evidence that the same voters who prefer a white woman over a black man, per se regardless of who the black man and the white woman are, would pick a white woman over a white man under any circumstances? This "pick me, the voters will never go for a black guy" argument she's pitching in racial code words these last couple of months isn't just sickening, it's false.)

But just in terms of the Democratic nominating campaign? There is at this point no statistical way, period, that she can go into the convention with more delegates than him. Can't be done. She'd have to suddenly and inexplicably start winning by margins of at least 3 to 1, wider margins than she's ever gotten even in the most white racist of states. Not only will her other metrics that Keith so aptly lampooned not fly at the convention, (Obama and Dean hold a 2/3rds majority on the credentials committee) even by her own ever-shifting metrics she's going to lose, too; he will have won more states, more states that Democrats do well in, and more of the popular vote, and he's going to go into the convention with higher general poll numbers and higher poll numbers versus McCain.

She has one and only one argument left to make, and it's the same one she's been hammering almost daily since the Reverend Wright "controversy" broke: this argument that none of the people voting for Barack Obama in the states where he won actually realized they were voting for a black guy, that now that the voters have started paying attention to the fact that Barack Obama is a black man, he's surely unelectable. This argument can not possibly work for her.
[info]ankh_f_n_khonsu wrote:
May. 6th, 2008 09:05 pm (UTC)
Barack Obama is still going to actually win the whole campaign[.]


IMO, that seems like a mighty leap of faith. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all establishmentarians, and any one of them could lock the candidacy down through fraud and subterfuge.

Namaste.

[info]hick0ry wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 06:25 am (UTC)
If the politics coverage is getting boring, you can always dig to the truth behind the Roland Carnaby story. That ought to keep you busy for months ;-)
[info]bradhicks wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 02:25 pm (UTC)
I doubt it. Looks like a routine and entirely justified police shooting to me. Go back and look at my classic "How not to get shot" advice on handling traffic stops; this guy broke every rule, because his rich fantasy life was about to come crashing down on him.
[info]hick0ry wrote:
May. 7th, 2008 09:12 pm (UTC)
lol ... yes, I agree (and "How not to get shot" is a fine piece, btw, and surely one that he would have read in a real spy school), but I could hope you were bored enough that you'd get distracted by reports he was chasing an Israeli suitcase nuke destined for a quick-fix demolition job on the Houston refinery fields, the natural follow-up on the quick-fix demo job pulled in NYC. Sigh.
[info]satyrblade wrote:
May. 9th, 2008 04:29 pm (UTC)
What date was Keith's broadcast, and what was the topic? The video's been pulled from your link.

Oh, and your Corinthians parody was a thing of beauty.

Thanks!
[info]branson825 wrote:
May. 10th, 2008 03:13 pm (UTC)
Well