Town Hall Meeting

Every time the candidates talk of earmarks, I think of earwigs, those ugly bugs that look so evil but are no serious threat to human life or our homes and gardens.

I switched over to CNN in order to watch the response graph of uncommitted voters. Obama is scoring huge on the health care discussion. Both candidates brought up support for nuclear power during the energy questions -- and I was very pleased to see precipitous drops in the response lines on the graph at the very mention of nuclear power. Nuclear power is so last century. We don't need more nuclear plants creating more dangerous piles of spent fuel that must be guarded for thousands fo years from terrorists and prevented from poisoning our air, land and water supplies.

McCain is promising some wild things tonight -- paying off mortgages and doubling the amount of tax emptions. Maybe I'm nuts, but I'd think that in terms of planetary health, we'd do much better to tax people for bringing more than two children into the world. Over consumption is the problem, so less consumers would be a good thing.

Maybe the economic crisis will lead to the death of capitalism, or at least the so called "free" market type. Free to be greedy is what it really turned out to be. Let's not stop at socializing the banking industry. Universal health care, anyone?

The format tonight is as tedious as the moderator. I am not a Brokaw fan. The constant nagging about time limits reminds us that the media is not so keen on letting candidates go into issues on any deeper significant level..

McCain's response line would bring the EMT technicians running with the paddles. Is there a heart beating in there? Thank dog it is finally over.

Obama for President

Fantastic speech tonight! I'm listening to the bloviacs on MSNBC tell me what to think about what I heard and saw tonight. Mostly, I've avoided the pundits this convention week. It's been much more interesting to watch the unedited CSPAN coverage.

Last night I kind of dozed out in the middle of it all. Bill Clinton has never been one of my favorite politicians, his folksy voice and demeanor, not to mention his far from progressive policies, were not my cup of tea. I did wake up in time to see Jon Stewart's coverage of the prior night. A half hour of Jon and company is worth far more than 6 non-stop hours of MSNBC. And what's with all the public feuding over there, anyway? How unprofessional can you get? Even Rachel Maddow looks stressed beyond measure.

As a former Hillary voter (but one who never did send her any campaign funds), I never had any doubt after she lost the primary that I'd be voting for Barack Obama over John McCain. I think Obama has grown immensely over the campaign, and I look forward to him stepping it up even more for the debates.

Faithless-based initiatives anyone?

Regular readers will note I've taken down the photo of my Obama/Clinton in 2008 bumper sticker (created the day after Kerry lost in 2004) from this blog. My original intent was to annoy the heck out of Republicans driving about with their Bush/Cheney stickers in full display. (Have you seen many of those lately?) I figured an Obama/Clinton ticket would be their worst nightmare. I had no idea how close my fantasy would actually come to reality.

The sticker on my vehicle has faded out completely, mirroring my original luke-warm support for The Candidate for Change -- that support now growing rather chilly observing all the pandering to the center right crowd the past couple of weeks. Wouldn't you know it -- in an act of compulsive conciliation, I actually threw some money Obama's way a week or so after he clinched the nomination. Then suddenly FISA - handguns - capital punishment - Wesley Clark - faith-based initiatives -- have I missed anything? Oh yeah, MoveOn.org.

For me, Obama's repudiation of MoveOn.org was highly ironic, as I had only a few days prior cancelled my online subscription to MoveOn. I'd always liked their populist and creative organisational tactics, but they really pissed me off when they decided to support Obama in the primary. There was so little actual difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of stated policy. Well MoveOn -- are you happy with your decision now? And of course, one has to wonder what issues Hillary would have flipped on in the general election. She'd already taken on some macho hawkish rhetoric in order to be just like the boys. (blech!)

However, it is important to remember that Obama has never been a true progressive. Righties continue to label him a "socialist" or worse, but they are making it up. Progressive Punch provides a scale of progressive voting records in Congress and Obama is at 43. Hillary Clinton is at least in the upper third at 31 and our own Senator Brown sets a high standard at #7. Dick Durbin is the most progressive of all.

Therefore I'm not going all suicidal over Obama's displaying his true colors. I'll probably still vote for him, unless I get so disgusted I decide to vote for the Green Party. Could happen. Mike Gravel is endorsing this guy for Green Party presidential candidate.

Now about this faith-based government funding foolishness. I have no problem with religions doing good works. Let them tithe and pass the plate and continue on with their volunteer work. But why should they get government money on top of that? Isn't it a major point of religious practice that the believer must make sacrifices of time and money for what they believe in? Reverend Barry Lynn was on television tonight making a whole lot of sense about life before any of these faith-based plans were put in place. Charities functioned well, governmental support of community programs happened in the non-profit sector and we didn't have to pay anyone to head up a new agency to make it all happen.

I'm not convinced by Obama's statement that in his plan, there will be no proselytizing or suspect hiring/firing decisions. Who is going to run around policing all these groups to make sure that no proselytizing is taking place? For many religions, proselytizing is part of the practice. And will faith-based groups consent to hire out-of-the-closet atheists and agnostics?

There are plenty of things that the government could be spending money on that will make our citizens healthier and happier, such as low cost dental clinics, local food pantries, medical research and alternative energy systems -- to name but a few. I don't see the need to collaborate with religious groups to provide these services. Community and social services must be secular in nature in order to fairly serve the great diversity that is this country.

But maybe -- in the grand scheme of things political -- Obama's actions are simply pragmatic decisions made to ensure his win in November. Lefties must simply bite our lips and stay cool until our candidate is in office. Then we'll see renewed support for progressive ideals. Sorry, I was born without faith. In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.

Super Duper Tuesday and I'm in a Stupor

I stayed up way too late last night working on an iMovie. Deadline. Had to get it done.

So I'm not going out to either of the Democratic presidential watch parties in the Akron area. Instead, I plan to watch from the couch in between snoozing and waking up to the challenge of untangling a marionette's strings that resemble a chaotic cat's cradle. This is what happens when the drama teacher misses a day from school -- the puppets run wild!

I have no predictions for the night, other than I will be switching from CNN to MSNBC shortly, but even that move won't keep me awake much longer. I'm rooting for a mixed result so that the March 4th primary here in Ohio will actually have some meaning in the whole unfolding of events.

CNN is now reporting that Rush Limbaugh has stated he'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton than John McCain. Following in Ann Coulter's slimy footsteps, he takes this tactic as a double whammy against both the hated so-called non-conservative McCain as well as providing gullible Dems with yet another reason to turn from Hillary. If Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh would vote for Hillary, then she must be Bush-lite -- right? I'm sure both Rush and Ann and their mindless followers would prefer going against Obama in the fall classic.

Arrghhh! I need respite from Too Many Talking Points From All Sides.

See you when it is all over.

So long Dennis, and thanks...

...for representing those of us whom some people like to stigmatize as the far-out lefties, the old hippies, the peace-niks and so on. Although there are a few issues I am probably more libertarian than progressive, when it comes to presidential candidates, Dennis was the one I always found myself closest to -- no matter what quiz or political compass I happened to be taking.

I didn't care much for the new-age spiritual tones he occasionally brought into his speeches, but I could put up with them a lot more than all the earnest avowals of religious faithfulness I hear from the others, regardless of party.

The thing I admired most about Dennis, was his fight to keep Cleveland's municipal power operations out of the hands of corporate ownership. That's the kind of personal history that means something when choosing a candidate.

Some people brought up his history of voting against a woman's right to choose for so long as a reason not to vote for him. I imagine it was tough for a good Catholic boy to go against his upbringing, but finally he did and I give him full credit for it.

No candidate is perfect, but there should be someone to represent all the segments of society, not just those who reside in or near the center on either side. I voted for Dennis in the 2004 primary and was planning on voting for him in this one. Not sure what I'm going to do now -- maybe a write in vote for Barbara Boxer. As for now, I'm staying out of the Obama/Clinton brouhaha. I'll support the winner in the fall. As someone who didn't vote in the Gore vs Bush sham election, I don't think I could bring myself to sit this one out.

Which presidential candidate is your best match?

Forget the rhetoric -- let's look at the issues. But how? Here's a site with a handy quiz that will match you up with the candidate based upon Economic, Social and Personal criteria. Vote Match also ranks the candidates by percentages.

Here's how I match up in ranking order by percentages:

1. Dennis Kucinich - 88% (88% Social, 88% Economic)
2. Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 83% (81% Social, 83% Economic)
3. Hillary Clinton - 78% (75% Social, 79% Economic)
4. Mike Gravel - 75% (88% Social, 71% Economic)
5. Barak Obama - 65% (56% Social, 71% Economic)
6. John Edwards - 58% (44% Social, 67% Economic)
7. Ron Paul - 33% (38% Social, 29% Economic)
8.Rudy Giuliani - 25% (38% Social, 17% Economic)
9. John McCain - 15% (13% Social, 17% Economic)
10. Alan Keyes - 15% (13% Social, 17% Economic)
11. Mike Huckabee - 10% (19% Social, 4% Economic)
12. Mitt Romney - 10% (0% Social, 13% Economic)
13. John Cox (Who the hell is he?) - 8% (13% Social, 4% Economic)
14. Fred Thompson - 8% (0% Social, 13% Economic)
15. Duncan Hunter - 5% (0% Social, 8% Economic)

What is really neat is that you can go into the issues in depth by clicking into how each candidate matches up with you on the issues. For example, the issues that lower Obama's score as a match to mine are he is pro Drug War, wants to spend more on the military, and supports faith-based welfare. With Hillary, I get a 13% higher match than Obama. The only big difference in scoring is that Hillary is also in support of faith-based welfare.

It pleases me no end to see that there are three candidates with whom I have 0% matching on social issues, including Romney, Hunter, and the recently dropped-out Thompson.

Take the quiz and us know via the comments if your actual candidate matches up with your stance on the issues. And if you spot any problems with this quiz and/or the results, please let us know that as well.