i’ve been trying to give clinton a fair shake recently, but her victory speech just rubbed me wrong and i don’t know why it is. this article from the guardian is a good read and dissection of why clinton has floundered recently. i feel bad for her, really. she’s worked so hard to get to this point, and i understand why she’s going to keep fighting (even if it destroys the party), but she seems to be out of touch with a large portion of the electorate. i don’t really trust her, but i don’t want to see her implode or be humiliated. i can’t take her victory in ohio and possible victory in texas as signs that big states are behind her, because she hasn’t really decisively won any of the major states. if she got a super-majority, it’d be a different story, but even when she wins, it’s by a margin which is why obama’s still leading.
i can haz november? until then, i’ll keep watching chris matthews be way more entertaining than keith olbermann (who’s turning into a slightly more reputable (and less annoying) john stewart.)
it’s been almost 24 hours since the polls closed here and probably closer to 24 hours since the media proclaimed clintonthe winner in california. i was planning on rushing home and giving a big blog post about my day at the polls, but i was cranky, tired, and frothing at the mouth about the whole electoral process. the fact that they were reporting clinton winning this state before i had a chance to deliver my ballots was just a great way to cap off the day. it made me wonder if i had just wasted the previous 14 hours and that none of my precinct’s votes mattered.
yesterday just showed to me how poor voter outreach has been in the state of california. my precinct wasn’t beset with all the problems of some other precincts in alameda county, but things definitely could have been smoother. the biggest issue i saw was a lack of knowledge in the electorate of rules for voting in a primary. california’s weird “modified closed primary” only added to the problems. lots of people were upset that they were registered with one party and therefore unable to vote in another party’s primary. many people registered as green wanted to vote democratic. i tried to explain to them, as nicely as possible, that in primaries you get the ballot of the party you registered (if registered partisan), but many seemed confused.
“i voted democratic in 2006, doesn’t that count?” i tried to explain that in general elections (like the 2006 midterm), you can vote for anybody regardless of your party affiliation. “but i voted for feinstein.” that’s great, you’re still registered green! actually, the saddest cases to me were the people who registered as american independents but probably wanted decline-to-state/non-partisan. we’d give them the a.i. ballot and they would ask if they could vote for the democrats. i tried to explain that in california there is the independent party, and that’s how they registered, but that seemed to confuse them more. in the end, for anybody who was dead set on voting in the primary but lacked proper party affiliation (or lack thereof), i gave them provisional ballots. at least that way their votes on the propositions and local measures will count.
i think a lot of the problems people had stemmed from a lack of knowledge about the system, which the state (or at least the county) should have taken some steps to correct. the secretary of state’s website made sense if you’re pretty familiar with election terminology, but the average voter isn’t, nor are they going to take the time to sift through pages to find their answer. that’s assuming they would take the time to look on the website. most likely they will search the internet and find misinformation in some random person’s blog, and then tell their friends, and the whole cycle continues. i know from working in libraries that just having information around doesn’t mean people will find or read it. i wish the state did a big more than just print the party affiliation abbreviation on the back of your sample ballot in the midst of a page full of text. perhaps if they made it easier for lazy people to double check their registration and possibly change it.
i have more to talk about, but i’ll do it tomorrow.
hillary clinton is crying again. it makes me feel cold and cynical to say this, but i definitely feel that she’s just pandering for votes. i imagine her inner dialog being something like this:
“oh crap, obama might win in my backyard.”
“how can i seem more human?”
“smile more? nah.”
“i know! cry! it worked in new hampshire.”
i know her supporters will tout the tears as showing that she’s a caring, compassionate woman. but seriously- it makes me even more sure that she’ll do anything for a vote. it really angers me that this historically strong woman will retreat to stale tactics to get empathy of the voters. instead of crying when it seems advantageous, why doesn’t she try to come off as sincere most of the time? smile like a human? stop moving like a robot? oh, that takes work. i know lots of young people love obama, and it’s because he’s too busy seeming genuine to be pulling crap like this.
remember to vote tomorrow.
[tags]hillary clinton, barack obama, democratic primary, crying[/tags]
last week i went to a party for rudy guiliani. my friend stephen was hosting it and promised vegan food if i’d attend. so i went, in support of stephen and in search of free food. the only person who showed up that wasn’t one of stephen’s friends was a writer for the huffington post. i think she helped keep the conversation lively. here’s her take on the event.
I’d been trying to find Republicans in San Francisco for weeks. Finally, someone named Stephen signed up online to host a house party for Rudy Giuliani. When I arrived, a twentysomething-year-old guy in skinny jeans and a shaggy haircut opened the door. I thought I was in the wrong place until I noticed his top: a slim, red t-shirt with a picture of Ronald Reagan.
“Love him or hate him, he’s an icon,” shrugged Stephen. As it turned out, he was the only Reagan-lover at his party.
[tags]rudy guiliani, republicans[/tags]