Articles of the Opinionated: Palin Defines Patriotic Demographic?

Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin recently made a misstep at a North Carolina fundraiser, according to CNN.com.  Speaking to those gathered at the fundraiser, she used words like “very pro-American” and “very patriotic” to describe small-town America.  Palin tried to clarify her comments the next day, but Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden wasted no time in lambasting his opponent for her misplaced glorification, expressing outrage at the “implications about patriotism” and that “we are all patriotic”.  In what has been a rough couple of weeks for Palin given the cold reception given to her by European media, added to a little public safety director firing fiasco, and you may start to think that her highfalutin praises of small-town America can only be damaging to the Republican campaign.

Biden hit the nail on the head with this timely criticism.  We’ve often heard the “small-town America is real America” line before, but for a vice-presidential candidate to proclaim that these are where the so-called truly patriotic people live, that is pushing it.  What makes these people more patriotic than, say, people in Lower Manhattan?  Because small-town people have porches from which to hang American flags?  Maybe more apartment dwellers should tape flag cut-outs to their front doors so as to notify Gov. Palin of her misunderstanding.  Or perhaps the governor believes that the patriotic American is someone from constituencies represented by her party and politics.  Either way, it’s not a good line for winning over swing voters, when you are effectively telling them  that their patriotism is determined by how many neighbors they have.

But that’s not even really the annoying part.  For the last several years, America has endured a Bush administration that questioned its citizens left and right.  If you were not for the war, you were against America!  In light or our recent economic woes, a bleak outlook in our “war on terror” and other grim domestic concerns, Gov. Palin’s comments are not only pretentious, they’re off-track and unwanted.  People don’t want to here about your pompous praising, what they want to know is that, should Sen. McCain assume office and follow that with a stroke, that you won’t be a dim bulb leader who tells people to believe in God and their country while they can’t afford the gas to move their cars and heat their homes.  So I was glad that Sen. Biden immediately followed up on her quotes, because after eight years of being told I was a bad American for not supporting the current agenda, I don’t want to have to fear another four of that nonsense.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Thoughts on a Black Presidential Candidate

In the past, and for all we know still, it has been an unwritten rule that the President of the United States had to be a white male of Christian upbringing, deep pockets with deep connections, and maybe even a puppy. Candidates of minority status were often fringe candidates, people who made an attempt to push the agenda but probably never had a serious shot.
Before Sen. Barack Obama, there was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who achieved more than most expected when he ran as a Democrat in both 1984 and 1988. He still didn’t earn the nomination. Others that have run before or after him (Cleaver, Sharpton, Keyes, etc.) didn’t have serious chances. The fact that Barack Obama is not only running for President, but that he also has a strong chance of winning, poses some series potential implications. My thoughts on a few.
1) That Americans are one small step closer to “looking beyond race”. Obama is winning over many people, both of Caucasian and minority descent, and doing so without being overtly smug or aggressive in his tactics. November will be the truer test of this sentiment, but the fact that Obama may be both likeable and electable is a strong statement given the history of our country.
Of course, we can’t discount the number of people voting for or against him using race as an issue, which would challenge the first point. Statistical analysis and observation will give us hints soon enough, so for now we have to settle for an incomplete picture with a promising chance of completion.
2) That our image to the world will be affected dramatically. There are parts of the world where Pres. George W. Bush (and every President before them) is the representative of what Americans are like and care about, something that has a certain grain of truth. Obama represents an extreme alteration to the type of leader Americans may seem to generally follow, and that goes well beyond issues of race.
As voters, we do have to be careful there. Obama is as fallible as the next politician, and it’s the wrong idea to pick him because he represents only one kind of change. America needs improvement, not novelty. The American populace has to fairly scrutinize the senator as much as any other candidate, lest they risk being disappointed with the results.
3) That the political conventions will have a dramatic difference from 2004. The 2004 GOP and Dem conventions were downright overzealous, both camps desperately clamoring for their candidates as if they were chosen apostles. All conventions are like this to an extent, but I can’t see it as so crazed this time around. The Republicans are in some minor disarray at the moment; their base has weakened since right before the 2006 mid-terms and their trying to redefine their message. The Democrats are still in the process of “winning back the people” and demonstrating what they feel is the better road.
A stark difference in candidates’ profiles and agendas will be the highlight, even if it goes largely unmentioned. Both candidates will be very, very careful with how they elate the hopes of their own base while trying to reach the massive amount of swing voters out there.
4) That someone this election is going to make a big-time blunder. It could be either of the candidates, or those who represent them, or those who support them. We’ve seen it already with people like Jeremiah Wright or Geraldine Ferraro, and it can still get worse. Someone is going to overreach and pay dearly. Perhaps either Obama or McCain try too hard to reach the moral and sophisticated high ground to counter the other (Kerry as the “Vet” in 2004 rings bells). Perhaps one of them says something that’ll completely ruin their own credibility. Perhaps that credibility gets touched by someone trying to speak on their behalf.
The most likely event is that one of the Sharptons or Limbaughs that exist out there will say something extremely arrogant and stupid. Then both candidates will have to answer to questions about it, something neither will want to do. It won’t take much for the sensitivity level to rise in that event, but I expect both McCain and Obama to be smart and respectful enough to minimize such issues.
5) That Obama might be shot at. Seriously, there’s that small possibility, and it’s a truly terrifying thought. We’d like to think that there’s no chance of that happening, that it hasn’t happened since Reagan in the early 80’s (not true at all), but that’s rather naive thinking (many of us thought America was unassailable pre 9-11).
There are vicious, hateful, psychotic people out there, and if they see Sen. Obama as perhaps being the next President and don’t like that, they may act on it. Not everyone halts at the fears of justice or risked martyrdom. I remember when someone I knew wondered aloud why Gen. Colin Powell never ran for President, and I answered that he might not want to be shot. That could sound harsh and short-sighted, but the actions of many people can often be harsh and short-sighted.
6) That the outcome of this election will have serious ramifications on voter turnout in the future (among other things). No one really knows where this is going to take us. In the past, I’ve been certain that the standard for President of the United States would long be maintained. Several people now feel that victory is already in one candidate’s grasp. I’m not so sure, but I do think a LOT of people may show up to vote if they feel it is close.
And when the results come in, it will generate some rejoicing, some bemoaning, but everyone will be pondering. They’ll be thinking about what America is, how much it has changed and where it is going. Perhaps even more significantly then in previous elections, people will use these results to determine what this society is, and support or abandon it from there. I think these are truly important times worthy of both excitement and trepidation, as America finds itself forging ahead through issues it so hesitates to confront.

 

Come on, Pennsylvania, Get This One Right!

As a former resident of the U.S., primaries are out of my reach.  Pennsylvania was my former state of residence, so let me implore you Penn Dem peeps to vote Obama for the Democratic nomination.  I would likely support Clinton should she lock up the nomination, but Obama’s the better choice of the two in my book.  Also, Obama has to win because I wrote a VERY interesting article on the implications of his Presidential run, which I choose not to publish until after he’s locked in.  So come on then!  Dooooooo iiiiiiiittttttt….

 

Congratulations for Pre-Mature Victories!!!

At 7:02 PM EST (9:02 Seoul time the next morning), CNN.com declared the Vermont primaries as victories for Senators Obama and McCain in their respective primaries. Now I know Vermont has a small population inferior to some major metropolitan areas, but with 0% reporting at that moment, how do they figure this stuff? It doesn’t matter whether they get it right or not (they have a 50-50 chance anyway), but I still want to know how! Man, it angers me…

 

Articles of the Opinionated: My Endorsement for Vice-President

 

Once upon a time, I wrote and discussed for consideration the legitimacy of Bill Richardson’s candidacy as President of the United States. Well, he won’t be President, so ah well. However, with Obama and Clinton getting hotter by the minute, it’s easy to forget that one of them will eventually be the Democratic nominee for President. So one thing worth discussing at this point is who would be a smart choice as a running mate. Well, how about Bill Richardson now?

The first reason for Richardson consideration is the need to appeal to southern voters. There are few Democratic politicians (Jim Webb?) that are popular and have that kind of appeal. If Obama or Clinton were to pick the other candidate, I would be angered, because it would be just a pick for popularity that would not significantly increase votes. The appeal of John Edwards has disappeared. Richardson is a strange brew of New England education and southwestern living.

Richardson also has the Dick Cheney-esque elder statesman quality that Obama and Clinton don’t. I spoke to Richardson’s experience in the past as UN ambassador, energy secretary and a successful governorship in New Mexico. These qualities are desirable for either a Pres or Vice-Pres., and almost no one else in Democratic politics fits the bill better. Also, similar to Bush-Cheney, you don’t need a charismatic, popular choice because the main candidate already would embody that.

Richardson’s Hispanic heritage also has to be considered. Where the Democratic candidate will be either black or female, and voters already considering that as a factor in their Presidential pick, I don’t think Richardson’s ethnicity hurts him at all as a candidate. Not only that, but his immigration stance and experience, which promotes successful and legal immigration, would garner a lot of respect among voters. I don’t think he will heavily polarize many voters against him and his running mate.

The need for an experienced running mate that will grab attention, respect and ultimately votes is a value shared by both sides.  But I think the Democrats can make a stronger statement with this pick than the Republicans can this time around.  My reasoning for this is McCain, who is respected by liberals and conservatives alike, as well as young and older voters.  He has a great deal of clout and therefore support in his party, and a great deal of political experience.  Given that, who can help make that ticket stronger?  My thought would be Giuliani, both famous and from the northeast, though that makes the ticket look a bit geriatric.

Richardson, however, can assimilated into the Democratic candidate’s message while also providing it more legitimacy.  He’ll speak to some voters that Obama and Clinton cannot do so easily, and he’ll also demand a great deal of respect amongst the voting populace, the party and the pundits.  But perhaps most importantly, there is little about him (as with others like the Clintons, Edwards, Kerry and so on) that bothers voters.  He has enough presence to demand attention without engendering a great deal of negativity.  And that might help make the difference this November.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Judge Some Books By Their Covers

I’m always fond of venturing into bookstores, because I like to pretend that I am a literary type in front of a group of people that I do not know. However, as I browse around, I always come across a selection of books that make me shake my head and wish I walked with aspirin. One reason for this would the fact that they exist in the first place, but what’s even worse is the prominence that some of these titles are given.

As a child, my teachers would tell to never judge a book by its cover. But as an adult, I know this to be a lie. Here are some books that should be judged by their covers, titles, etc.:

- Current affairs or political books where the author’s face is pasted all over the cover. When I see the latest Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Al Franken and so on, I wince a bit. Seeing these smug faces staring at me with their self-implied polymathic diatribes inside is not appealing in the slightest. And you’ve got to love some of the titles attached, like How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), one of Coulter’s many wastes-o’-trees. You can even apply this to people like Jose Canseco, author of Juiced, written primarily so that he can still be remembered for something other than being a cheater at the game of baseball. The faces you see ultimately mirror the true point of the content inside, which is “Hey, I’m smarter than you and you should pay me for it”. When it comes to political or cultural commentary, I have two requests: Be intelligent in your criticism, or be funny. Many of these types strike me as neither. And when you have neither, what you really have left is nothing but bile. Skip ‘em.

- Books by and about current political personalities. I think the prominent thought that I have concerning books written (well, ghost-written) by political figures on the rise is that I hardly think their personal lives are nearly as important as what they should be doing at the moment. Barack Obama publishes The Audacity of Hope, and maybe it gives me some insight into his character, the reason for his political stances and some other neat little factoid that I could share with my friends. Or maybe it’s just a veil for what he and his campaign want me to go along with. After all, if we think about it for a minute, public record already has a substantial amount of information about the senator. Personally, I’d rather stick to their qualifications and stances, and I can get that without shelling out some $15 for a book I’ll never read again. Because in the grander scheme of things, I care more about how Obama will handle our education crisis than what might have been a big turning point in his outlook on life at, say, age 12. If you’re that interested in learning more about a political figure, hit up your local library for the book.

- Rebuttals of other people or other books. In 2004, Hillary Rodham Clinton came out with her autobiography Living History, ostensibly a simple account of her life and upbringing, though obviously another selling point with which to sound off her eventual Presidential run. I never picked it up myself, as my last rule warns me against such reads. But what may bother me even more would be Dick Morris’ Rewriting History, which challenges the information Clinton shares in her own book. Now, essentially, Morris was close to the Clintons during their years in prominence, but scandals have a way of creating falling-out, and Morris decided to set the facts straight with his rebuttal book. I’m not all that interested in what is inside and the truth of his or Clinton’s content (especially since I don’t expect much from either), but I also find that such books are a joke, where a person pushes a political agenda using a contentious public persona while making some extra dough on the side. Not worth my time or yours, dear reader.

- Books with incredibly ignorant titles. In 2004, American journalist Thomas Frank wrote a book about the changing trend of politics (from left-to-right), from the 60’s and 70’s up to today, in his home state. He particularly highlights the evangelical side of conservatism, which claims a major role in that political pole reversal. Now that sounds somewhat interesting. I like reading about historical trends and talking politics. The name of the book? What’s the Matter With Kansas? Aside from essentially calling a state out, the title is revealing of Frank’s strong leftist slant. I’m a strong liberal myself, but I never feel the need to have my beliefs regurgitated to me like a mother wren feeding its fledglings. Or how about Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America? A title like that just begs for contempt. I might give Frank’s book a try in the future, but I do admit that I am seldom optimistic about these kind of books. Is it too much to ask for an unbiased opinion or at least a more classy imparting of one? Maybe. Read these books with caution.

- Books about other popular books. I have never read nor plan to read The Da Vinci Code. It’s just not my cup of tea; when I see things like that, or maybe movies like “National Treasure”, they seem like a lot of fluff disguised by intelligent research and fun what-ifs. So when I hit up my local bookstore for recent book recommendations, it’s a bit much to have seen seven to ten other books about The Da Vinci Code and how accurate it is (or isn’t), during its height in popularity. A book of fiction, and people are challenging or supporting the accuracy of the book? That makes no sense. As a former English major, I realize the importance of criticism, but I like for things to weather a bit. But I also contend that such books can be like scavengers after the main kill, and some of these people probably wish they could write something as engaging or digestible as what they are writing about. Again, proceed with caution.

- Novelizations, tie-ins and similar books. When I was a kid, and was very much into sci-fi and fantasy, I loved to read “Doctor Who” books because it was my favorite sci-fi series. I would also, from time to time, read novelizations of other famous works, like “Star Wars” or “Star Trek”. However, the more often I read such things, the more I thought them to be a bit trite compared to the original cinematic or televised works. Some things just don’t translate well, and it gets even worse when you see original stories taking place in the same universe. You wonder why these writers don’t strive at coming up with something of their own (though there are exceptions). I’d like to think that I am (usually) a more matured reader now, and look for more challenging ways to stimulate my literary curiosity. But sometimes I still read a “Doctor Who” book. Don’t touch unless you are truly a huge fan.

- Books with “secrets” and “success”.  I have a rather profound loathing of the traditional self-help books.  I can try to empathize with people that are depressed or stressed or what have you.  But I don’t think a book is a great resource to “buck you up”, no matter how much it is endorsed by Oprah or Dr. Phil (spare me).  That sentiment gets stronger with books that promise riches and prosperity.  American materialism is bad enough without some pretentious schmoe telling you those simple little steps to glorious wealth that really are not all that simple.  It gets worse when you add the bull that is positive thinking or, even better, Rolanda Byrne’s “The Secret” and her “Laws of Attraction” garbage.  Do you know what one secret to success is, folks?  Writing “secret-to-success” books that dupe people into paying for your beach house.  You’re better off working it out on your own.

- Books with ridiculously long sub-titles. Seeing these just annoy me. I don’t even care what it’s about. I wish publishers and editors could think of more creative ways of selling a book. When I see a title like (just to make one up) My Struggle Against the Struggles: How I Did This And That And a Lot of Other Things In Between And Came Out a Winner, I feel like I have just read the book right there. Surely this can be condensed; after all, what will you struggle against if not struggles? I’d like to think that the educated person will be interested in the content without needing the sub-titular overdose, but then again, not enough people read in America. Just go ahead and read it if you want.