This segment of the interview, particularly, struck me as very interesting. What do we think? I was intrigued by Piper’s reactions — clearly she felt comfortable speaking her mind – but I wonder why her mom called her "sister?" Nickname? It’s something I’ve only seen in old-fashioned rural families.
Except for that perhaps odd moment though, she could be formidable if she maintains this sort of posture and intelligent visibility over the next years, no?
I am so nervous I can barely breathe. We’re going canvassing again Sunday and I will try to do more phone calls before then and after but seeing these polls closing – listening to Chuck Todd on MSNBC talk about states that are "tightening" – it’s really scary. I’ve felt all along that everyone is putting this election away way too soon. As I sat with friends and listened to Joe Trippi this week, all three of us were troubled by the seeming assumption that the race is "in the bag." It’s so easy to get complacent and stay home, make fewer calls, do a bit less, if you think things are going your way anyway.
In addition, we don’t know what the "young people" and first-time voters will do. Will they show up? Can they translate quotes like this one from college student Lauren Masterson, on the NewsHour:
"We see ourselves in him, I think. Even though he is of another generation, people are excited about him because he
seems to understand young people.
into turning out and waiting in line and casting that vote? Here’s a nice consideration of younger voters and their commitment.
I suppose if I just watched TNT and the endless, comforting Law and Order broadcasts instead of MSNBC, Your Place for Politics, I’d feel better but after all the years I spent covering campaigns, I can’t imagine avoiding information when it’s available. And it’s really the first presidential election where I’ve had no editorial responsibility (except my blog) so I have all these habits and nowhere to put them. I have to sit and listen and worry and watch and bounce from website to website, and to the links provided by friends on Twitter. Can’t stop. It’s not that I think I’ll miss the Important Moment, it’s that I keep hoping to hear some good news. We all know that races tighten at the end but many states are moving into the margin of error and that’s really scary.
At least I have to go offline for Shabbat, which is going to make me nuts but may be healthy. Keep an eye on things for me, will you?
Could a vast network of voter challenges (here’s help), especially toward young, newly registered and African-American voters (purges of voter rolls, craven voter challenges and other tough-to-prove but disruptive tactics) reduce votes for Barack Obama and endanger a fair election? Despite their efforts to tar Obama-related registration efforts, it appears that the truly dangerous activities — and those most likely to tip this election away from what appears to be the public will — are emerging from Republican operations. For example, on Super Tuesday in Las Vegas, "nearly 20% of the county’s voters were absent from the rolls." As one voting rights expert declared:
I don’t think the Democrats get it," says John Boyd, a voting-rights
attorney in Albuquerque who has taken on the Republican Party for
impeding access to the ballot. "All these new rules and games are
turning voting into an obstacle course that could flip the vote to
the GOP in half a dozen states.
There are several "games" and they’re tough to control because they come from so many different points of origin. Robert Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast, in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone, describe in horrifying detail (and no this is not hyperbole… it really is horrifying), how these vulnerabilities could play out. You can check on violations in your state here. Their account of the basics from across the U.S.:
In addition to the Rolling Stone piece, take a look at Salon’s review of hot spots. For example:
Voter suppression can be difficult to prove. Suppression tactics —
anything from purging voter rolls under suspicious circumstances to
using various justifications to question the eligibility of potential
voters — are often the product of legal gray areas being exploited at
the hands of local partisan officials. To date, no one has presented
evidence of any nationally organized effort by the Republican Party to
suppress Democratic votes. But there is little doubt that at local and
regional levels — in some potentially critical states on the electoral
map — there has been dubious activity that could result in the
disenfranchisement of voters who would likely punch the ballot for
Barack Obama.
This has happened before – and in many ways the Federal law passed in response to the 2000 election debacle makes it easier. Despite the new commitment in both the young and minority communities, local officials can challenge and prevent election day votes that may never be recovered. The young, the black and the poor are most likely to be affected – and that, of course, means, largely, potential Democratic voters, usually challenged in ways very difficult to recover. There is, however, a group called Election Protection providing resources all over the country. Not much we civilians can do – but if you are an attorney or law student or paralegal, please sign up to help . Your help on election day could count at least as much as — and in battleground states maybe more than — your vote.
It’s fun to write about politics; this blog has always been about many things but has pretty much been all politics all the time for the past three months. Even so, once in a while all that handicapping and general outrage and idealism and hope crashes smack into the basic realities of what’s at stake here.
For example, just this month:
"25 percent of families with a cancer patient spent their lifetime savings for the treatment. The same survey said 10% of these families had to forego some basic needs like food, heat and housing" and
"20% of Americans have big problems paying their medical bills."
This is the reality in our country today. And that’s just one issue in just one month. The same is true for education, climate change and our basic civil rights. And that doesn’t count Iraq, Guantanamo, candidates who want to ban books, threatened legal access to contraception and other women’s rights issues, the growing income gap and the current terrifying economic crises.
I know you know this. As my rabbi likes to say, "I’m talking to myself here" but as we monitor polls and the endless talk show and newscast chatter, we need to remember. As I was awakened by a very lovely nurse offering me cranberry juice, with a view of colorful fall leaves on the trees outside the window of a clean, well-lit recovery room, the first thing that came into my mind was how lucky I was to be there. This election is about winners and losers and parties in control, yes. But even more, this time, it’s life and death.
Oh, and if you want to get upset about the campaign itself anyway, try this.
This image was just removed from the Sacramento County Republican Party website, according to its Google source. And it’s very disturbing, but I’m tired. I admit it. All these days of Jewish holiday cooking and praying * (not necessarily in that order) have left me frazzled. So maybe I’m just cranky. But when I saw this on a search for something else all the anxiety and sadness overcame me. There is hate out there – and the Republicans seem to be finding it useful.
No, the McCain supporters aren’t all like this; capable of dreaming up and posting such a terrible thing. But they’ve been ginning their crowds into a frenzy and so this "free speech" issue is becoming a life-threatening undertaking. Generating that kind of distaste so familiar to so many young people will make a big difference. How that difference plays out will depend on the stars.
I want to write so much more but it has to be tomorrow. This is a very nervous election; I and many friends get more nervous the larger the margin is. There’s lots to talk about, although where the debate ranks, not much more than has been said after But if I don’t go to sleep you won’t want to read what I write; neither of us will understand what the hell I’m trying to say. More tomorrow. For now you may want to take a look at the live blog transcript on Writes Like She Talks or the one on BlogHer.
*a post on the same subject from last year.
Every decision my parents ever made was influenced by the Depression. What we ate, what we wore, where we shopped, when and how we took vacations, what we "needed" vs what we "wanted" and, in their own lives, what careers they followed and where we all lived. They had been teenagers in the Depression, and although both went to college (on scholarships and several jobs at once) neither studied what they’d wanted to. I’ve talked about all this before – my mother refusing even to talk about her life then, my dad so concerned when any of us made a job change or took any professional risk.
I felt it too. I still read menus from the price to the item, skipping the ones that are too expensive. Ditto with price tags on clothes. I’ve always clipped coupons and bought things on sale, shopped at big box stores and always, always read the unit prices of things. And, as an American Studies major I took several courses dealing with the Depression. I needed to know more about it not only as a student but as a daughter.
I know that this is not the Great Depression. I know that there are more protections in place, even if too many of them have been removed in the past eight years. But the economic chaos of the past week has been scary on more than one level. Of course I worry about us, getting near retirement age. But my bigger worry is the impact such a colossal change will have on the lives of the younger people we love. Our sons, first of all, at the beginning of their careers. And all the families in this community who mean so much to us – just starting families and facing years of tuitions and outgrown winter coats and activity fees. I also think about just-retired or nearly retired "elders" so well represented by Ronni Bennett’s blog, and all the people living from paycheck to paycheck — who will be endangered by cuts in hours and devastated by the loss of their jobs.
And this is where Sarah Palin comes in. And John McCain. Because every day the level of negative language rises, the indulgent response to enraged constituents yelling things that should not be spoken in an American election or any other time: threats and bigoted characterizations and more. This kind of language is far more dangerous in a bad economy. Hitler was successful partially because the German economy had so badly frightened people, men like "Father Coughlin" (that’s his picture) preached racism and anti-Semitism on the radio during the Depression with substantial response. There other, less prominent hate-mongers too – and they had a real following. People needed someone to be angry at and were vulnerable to that sort of demagogery. It’s a very scary shadow over the economic crisis, the campaign, and the souls of the American people. NOW, go read Josh Marshall on why the ghost of Father Coughlin haunts him, too. And read this very thoughtful post about a tough electoral decision.
The consider what sort of leader allows such things – and doesn’t stand up and tell his/her supporters to cut it out? What does that say about their leadership once they’re in office?
This photo says it all. I took it yesterday, on our second Sunday canvassing for Obama in Virginia. When I got home I decided to review the stats for this blog and discovered that no post has drawn either the traffic or comments as those I’ve written about Sarah Palin. Friends tell me the same is true of theirs. I don’t think it’s brilliant writing that’s doing it. Sarah Palin has captured a large chunk of this presidential campaign as well as either the imagination or the rage (depending on perspective) of many American voters.
The Tina Fey stuff is funny, and effective, as I’ve mentioned before. The mean stuff is plenty mean. The "middle-class hockey mom" stuff is more effective than I wish it were, especially since the Palin family is worth over $2M and they made close to $200,000 last year. None of this matters as much as it should. She draws huge crowds. She’s cute. Those who support her either believe she is a wonder of accessibility and straight talk or have twisted themselves like pretzels to find reasons to justify her presence. For me, at least, it’s kind of sad.
What makes so many people prefer a less-educated, less-experienced candidate with a limited academic past, no curiosity or sense of exploration, untrammeled ambition and not much of a history over far more capable, experienced leadership? I remember when I was a kid and my mother’s adored Adlai Stevenson ran for president in 1952 and 1956, people called him an egghead, he was accused of being too cold and not able to connect to voters. And some analysts have compared him to Obama – two Illinois candidates too smart for the room.
I don’t see it. Obama appears to me far looser and more accessible- and more well-rounded in experience and education – and he’s younger and more available to young voters; Stevenson was a different man at a very different time and he was running against the man who, at least partially, won World War II. Even so, the question really is, how far have we evolved since then? AND how much have we learned from voting for the guy we’d "rather have a beer with" when that guy was George W Bush? AND in times so very dangerous that by the time each post is replaced at the top of the que, markets around the world have gone down once more and international tensions risen – will we still, as a country, opt for the "mavericky mom" who is not, at least on paper and on the stump, capable of understanding, much less solving, our problems? (OH and that guy who’s running with her…..)
As I write this, Palin, just introduced by Joe Lieberman (%#@!!**&) to a huge Florida crowd screaming "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah", continues to draw the faithful to great emotional response. It’s hard to know if, when people go into the voting booth, this emotion will translate into votes – or the reality will hit them and they won’t be able to do it.
My other fear is that because the race is moving toward Obama, acts of desperate chicanery will be part of the election day landscape. Here are some things that are already happening;
If you’re an attorney or law student, you can help with these things and the others that will happen.
We Americans will be tested in many ways in the next few years: economically, militarily, educationally, diplomatically and more. The first test, though, is this: As we face these challenges and all the others certain to emerge, and we think about our kids and what we want to leave for them, will we be able to take a deep breath and vote for "the smart guy" or is the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin the canary in our coal mine – warning us that our electorate is, even after W, not ready to choose the most capable and visionary, who has inspired so very many of our next generation to enter the fray, when they can elect Tina Fey light and her "old guy" running mate instead?
This is an argument for a change of focus. As I began to write it all I could think about was the Wizard of Oz, the fake behind the curtain who had everyone believing he could save them all. When he finally presented gifts to all but Dorothy, it sounded horrifyingly like the tactics of the current "wizard," nominee Palin, and her boss. I am as angry and uneasy as anyone over the nomination of Sarah
Palin but I think it’s time to stop now.
This morning I heard Paul
Begala say on MSNBC that every day McCain isn’t talking about the
economy, he wins. That he can’t win ON the economy so if he keeps
distracting the voters and the press he will be better off – a premise
supported by the current poll numbers. Begala also kept comparing
Palin to the "shiny object in the water" on a fishing line that makes a
fish take the bait. I think he’s right.
The issues of this
election are, as we all know, so enormous and scary that it may be
easier to keep focusing on the governor, but that will not win the
election. We need to help remind people of the real issues – the
devastating effects of the sub-prime crisis and it’s sequel, investment bank failure so evident in the past few
days, the state of the economy generally, our sinking competitiveness
in education and the tragic decline of many of our schools, the
attempts by the Right to place (with hat tip to Auntie Mame)"braces on
our brains" and of course, Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare, energy and
infrastructure.
We’re in a mess. It wasn’t caused by pigs or
lipstick or tanning beds or even community organizers — it was caused
by the people currently in office who want four more years and are
Orwell-ing us into giving it to them. This community has enormous
impact and knows how to raise a ruckus (If you don’t think so, mosey on
over to the League of Maternal Justice!) Let’s get some message
discipline here, leave Sarah to others and push the issues. We’re
going to kick ourselves if we don’t.
A version of this post appears on Blogher.com.
Before I say anything else, I want to show you this great response to Gov. Palin. Take the time to watch it.
I started this post last night but waited to post it until I cooled off and now I’m glad, because there are so many thoughtful responses from people who have gone beyond the rage I have been feeling. The first is the above video response from Nerdette. For some reason the mocking of community organizers was particularly painful to me. Of course since I’ve been listening to The People Have the Power for days now I guess that’s not a surprise.
I also recommend. thanks to a tweet from Pundit Mom, the ever-wise Gloria Steinem’s response in the Los Angeles Times, which includes this: It
won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified
woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most
other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job
for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere.
It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us
for that. It’s about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer
by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard
Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.
Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize
a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates
as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the
right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s
candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in
protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my
shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs."
My good friend Mocha Momma offers some very personal yet universal and policy-based observations – YES you can be personal – as SP was – and still think about policy — as Mocha did. Here’s a sample but go read the whole thing. She’s a wonderful person and educator whose commitment to schools in underserved neighborhoods is profound. She scoffed at Obama’s community organizing and pushed for her own
small town agenda. You know what I heard in that thinly veiled line?
Her lack of experience with people of color and the power of community
organization. She doesn’t know cities or poverty that way or even what
that does for education. She is keeping that dividing line bold and
prominent by letting me see what she thinks about that: small town =
hard-working white farming families vs. city/community = blacks and
latinos and asians and other people she knows nothing about. She so wasn’t talking to me.
More from a Daily Kos-ite, noted by Soapbox Mom or try this one if you just want a laugh.
OK I can’t hide any longer. Here’s me talking. I’ve been around a lot of political campaigns and presidencies. I remember Spiro Agnew and his vicious attacks on the press — many other Republican "red meat" speeches and Democratic ones too. But I don’t remember anything like this (except Pat Buchanan in 1992 but that was different.) Cruelty, sarcasm, disguised bigotry, language so beyond the appropriate, in my view, that it was breathtaking. Literally.
In Mocha Momma’s post there’s a link to a New York Times piece on Palin’s time as mayor of Wasilla. Here’s a taste:
Shortly
after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said,
Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of
banning some books, though she never followed through and it was
unclear which books or passages were in question.
Ann Kilkenny, a
Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms.
Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of
banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or
socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
The librarian,
Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms.
Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking
office but changed course after residents made a strong show of
support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years
later, declined to comment for this article.
If you have read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, you’ve seen a society in which these values were completely in control. Not only government control of women’s bodies but a government of rage, male-domination and the absence of liberty. Of course not even these folks can take us that far but every time we get into one of these periods it’s all I can think about.
Someone on Twitter last night wrote: When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
OK. So that’s why this song says so much. It has to.
Some very smart analysts, including POLITICO and PressThink founder Jay Rosen, are talking about the current Republican strategy in support of Sarah Palin as a "reigniting of the culture wars." Attacking with all the code words of past anti-"left" vocabularies. And here’s Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal:
I’ll tell you how powerful Mrs. Palin already is: she reignited the
culture wars just by showing up. She scrambled the battle lines, too.
The crustiest old Republican men are shouting "Sexism!" when she’s
slammed. Pro-woman Democrats are saying she must be a 
bad mother to be
all ambitious with kids in the house. Great respect goes to Barack
Obama not only for saying criticism of candidates’ children is out of
bounds in political campaigns, but for making it personal, and
therefore believable. "My mother had me when she was eighteen…" That
was the lovely sound of class in American politics.
When the McCain Summer of Love ad debuted, I wrote this – They Will Campaign Against Us Until We’re Dead, and Maybe After. If you watch CSPAN, especially Washington Journal, you know from the phone calls how much anger still exists; how much hatred of the generation I grew up in. Against our opposition to the war, mischief and outrageousness, and even more, our search – no, demand – for peace. Going after all of us, FORTY YEARS LATER, still works.
I guess that since I’ve been posting quite a lot about that time forty years ago, the memories are long on both sides. But Barack Obama was 7 years old in 1968. It’s not and never was his culture war. It is, however, the never-ending flash-point in the conservative playbook, a safe way to rile folks up and re-ignite the hatred and anger manifested in the 60’s and 70’s and again in the 90’s when that Boomer couple, the Clintons, were in the White House.
I’ve given up trying to figure out how to respond. Most Americans, including us 60’s people, love our country and loved it then. It was the a desire to return the country to its true nature — just as it is today — that drove us. But it’s far more useful to the McCain campaign to taunt us — and Barack Obama; and to divide us, too, with these ancient battles. The tough part is figuring out how to answer.