It was fascinating being stuck in a hospital bed for the election and the ensuing returns. I had gotten myself into some pretty brisk conversations around town over the past few weeks when I'd hear something like "Oh, I'd vote for that Obama, but I heard on the radio that he's a Muslim." No matter how I tried to lay out what I saw as the truth, I had the feeling that most of the people I saw on a daily basis would never vote for a black man, no matter what other reasons they gave for their choice.
Now that I was hospitalized for my knee replacement I knew that I was in a weak position and that I shouldn't irritate my caregivers with my liberal opinions, but I got right into it in the recovery room when, through my slowly clearing anesthetic haze, I heard one nurse say to another, "...I heard that he's a Muslim and that he won't salute the American flag." I surprised us all by snapping "he isn't and he does, too!" They must have figured I'd recovered enough and zipped me right on out of there and down the hall to my bed in the post surgery wing.
Once installed in my own hospital room (private, airless, noisy, stinky, never a chance for ten minutes of uninterrupted sleep in three nights) I cautiously approached the subject of the election whenever my nurses would bring it up. I've learned the caution because this is such a "red" place and my mother taught me to be nice to everyone. Let me say right here that my nurses were wonderful and caring and I loved them all, politics aside. But many of them were very fearful of the possibility of an Obama Presidency, believing that he represented some foreign influence, and that he would nationalize medicine and pay them minimum wage. Or that, God forbid, he'd take their guns away or recognize gay rights. Not many of them liked Sarah Palin, but they liked the idea of domestic drilling in the nearby Texas and New Mexico oil fields. They honestly liked that "drill, baby, drill" business and thought it a catchy thing to chant.
However, invisible signals were passed, and those few of us who were Obama supporters were soon known to each other--A young woman (I'll call her Josette), here with her military husband, who was from France and who was aware of how America has lost its reputation among the countries of the world over the past eight years; the African American student nurse assigned to me who was feeling politically isolated here in "West Texas" (I'll call her Emily); and me, a white knee patient in late middle age (I prefer to call it that) who has somehow been lucky enough to be surrounded by liberal and thoughtful people all my life.
When the election results were called and America found that, miracle of miracles, we had a new President-Elect called Obama, I pressed the nurse's call button, hoping to see a blue nurse so that I could share the incredible news. Alas, they sent me an angry looking Texas girl. I was sobbing so hard by that time, watching Jesse Jackson's tear-streaked face in the celebrating Grant Park crowd, that she got frightened and ran off to find Emily. Emily came running, fearful that I had somehow hurt myself or was in some other sort of medical trouble when she heard that her patient was having a fit of wild hysteria.
I managed to get Emily to close the door, pointed at the TV and sobbed "he won!" When she understood what I was talking about I handed her the box of kleenex and we wept for joy together. Josette eventually found her way to us and we all rejoiced, doing triumphant fist jabs, weeping, and feeling great hope on our tiny blue island in the middle of an angry red sea.
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tracking the Tracking Polls
Zogby, Rasmussen Reports, Quinnipiac, Gallup--we've heard the names of the polls and what they are predicting, but what about the polls themselves? To learn about what kind of samples they use, when they publish findings, and their strengths and weaknesses, see FiveThirtyEight.com for a Tracking Poll Primer written by Nate Silver (an "all-star in the world of baseball stats). His site is named for the number of electors in the electoral college.
Here are some more resources for you. Come on, I know you're fixated on this election, just as we all are. Might as well pass the time productively...
Pollster.com
Rasmussen Reports, Presidential Election Polls
RealClearPolitics
USA Today's Presidential Poll Tracker
After you've spent half your day looking at statistics, take a look at this article: General Election Polls: A History of Inaccuracy; The Sad History of General Election Polls, and How They Have Repeatedly Failed to Predict the Outcomes of Presidential Elections. It was written in February, 2008 by Nithin Coca, a free-lance writer for Associated Content. Note that this website is an "open content network," allowing anyone to submit content, so you might check Nithin's stats.
Wait, you probably just want to cut to the chase, so I'll quote the entire article right here for you.
I'm sure you've noticed all the political campaign touting general election polls. Unfortunately, these polls have a terrible history of actually predicting who will in the fall. So what is Barack Obama leads everyone in Zogby, woop-dee-do! Does John Edwards leads in Rassmussen, oh my lord! Clinton leads in ARG? Yowsie!
I'm going to explore how the polls have failed repeatedly, and show you the real margin of error. So next time you see a poll, read it with caution!
Here are some of the worst disasters of General Election polling from the last 24 years of Presidential elections.
After this January's debacle in New Hampshire, can we just argue on the issues and the REASONS why to support a candidate, and ignore faulty polls?
1976Late July - Gallup
Jimmy Carter 62%
Gerald Ford 30%
Final Results
Carter 50.1%
Ford 48.0%
Average MOE - 14.95% This sort of shift would make it a blowout for either side of the aisle.
1980 (this one's for those of you who say - "polls shift over time") Nov 1980, Gallup Pre-Election Poll
Carter 44%
Reagan 41%
Final Results
Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%
Average MOE - 5.85% = the margin of error in every GE poll this year. This really embarrassed the pollsters, so of course, they went ahead and did it again.
1988
5/17 - NYT/CBS
Michael Dukakis 49%
George Bush 39%
Final Results
Bush 53.4%
Dukakis 45.6%
Average MOE - 7.9% A shift like what occurred in 1988 would make any Democrat the winner or the loser by a healthy margin.
1992
June 1992 Time/CNN
Ross Perot 37%
George Bush 24%
Bill Clinton 24%
Final Results
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%
Average MOE - 20.1%. Imagine if Bloomberg's runs, I foresee similar dynamics.
2000
Sept 2000 Newsweek
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%
Final Results
Bush 47.9%
Gore 48.4%
Average MOE - 4.8% So all the undecided went for Bush, eh? Polls are worthless in close races. Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it?In conclusion, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Here are some more resources for you. Come on, I know you're fixated on this election, just as we all are. Might as well pass the time productively...
Pollster.com
Rasmussen Reports, Presidential Election Polls
RealClearPolitics
USA Today's Presidential Poll Tracker
After you've spent half your day looking at statistics, take a look at this article: General Election Polls: A History of Inaccuracy; The Sad History of General Election Polls, and How They Have Repeatedly Failed to Predict the Outcomes of Presidential Elections. It was written in February, 2008 by Nithin Coca, a free-lance writer for Associated Content. Note that this website is an "open content network," allowing anyone to submit content, so you might check Nithin's stats.
Wait, you probably just want to cut to the chase, so I'll quote the entire article right here for you.
I'm sure you've noticed all the political campaign touting general election polls. Unfortunately, these polls have a terrible history of actually predicting who will in the fall. So what is Barack Obama leads everyone in Zogby, woop-dee-do! Does John Edwards leads in Rassmussen, oh my lord! Clinton leads in ARG? Yowsie!
I'm going to explore how the polls have failed repeatedly, and show you the real margin of error. So next time you see a poll, read it with caution!
Here are some of the worst disasters of General Election polling from the last 24 years of Presidential elections.
After this January's debacle in New Hampshire, can we just argue on the issues and the REASONS why to support a candidate, and ignore faulty polls?
1976Late July - Gallup
Jimmy Carter 62%
Gerald Ford 30%
Final Results
Carter 50.1%
Ford 48.0%
Average MOE - 14.95% This sort of shift would make it a blowout for either side of the aisle.
1980 (this one's for those of you who say - "polls shift over time") Nov 1980, Gallup Pre-Election Poll
Carter 44%
Reagan 41%
Final Results
Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%
Average MOE - 5.85% = the margin of error in every GE poll this year. This really embarrassed the pollsters, so of course, they went ahead and did it again.
1988
5/17 - NYT/CBS
Michael Dukakis 49%
George Bush 39%
Final Results
Bush 53.4%
Dukakis 45.6%
Average MOE - 7.9% A shift like what occurred in 1988 would make any Democrat the winner or the loser by a healthy margin.
1992
June 1992 Time/CNN
Ross Perot 37%
George Bush 24%
Bill Clinton 24%
Final Results
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%
Average MOE - 20.1%. Imagine if Bloomberg's runs, I foresee similar dynamics.
2000
Sept 2000 Newsweek
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%
Final Results
Bush 47.9%
Gore 48.4%
Average MOE - 4.8% So all the undecided went for Bush, eh? Polls are worthless in close races. Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it?In conclusion, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Why We Worry About Our Election Process and What We Can Do To Make It Better
I've been looking around for discussions of our voting system and what we can do to fix it. I found this article by Richard L. Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who writes the Election Law blog.
Eight Years After Bush v. Gore, Why is There Still So Much Election Litigation and What Does This Mean for Voter Confidence in the Electoral Process?
By RICHARD L. HASEN
Monday, Oct. 20, 2008
With Election Day just a few weeks away, newspapers and blogs are filled with reports about election litigation. In Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and other battleground states disputes are working their way through state and federal courts-with one already leading to a Supreme Court decision. Why is this happening, eight years after the 2000 Florida debacle in which public officials promised to fix the way we conduct elections? And what does it mean for future public confidence in the electoral process?
The short answer to why this is occurring is this: We haven't made some important changes in election laws that should have been made soon after Florida 2000, and some of the post-2000 changes that were put into place have actually made things worse. Add to that some very heated partisan rhetoric about voter suppression and voter fraud, and we have the recipe for continued legal battles over election administration. These battles are troubling, as they undermine voter confidence in the process, and pose a small, but serious, risk of election meltdown in the case of a close election.
What Happened After 2000: Only a Partial Fix, and Some Changes for the Worse
In Bush v. Gore (2000), as readers will recall, the United States Supreme Court put an end to a statewide recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, thereby insuring the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore for president. In that opinion, the Court expressed the hope that "[a]fter the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."
In some ways, things did get better in the wake of the Court's call for change. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), providing money for states to get rid of their antiquated voting machines, such as those inaccurate punch card ballots (Goodbye, hanging chads!). One study found that there were 1 million fewer lost votes in 2004 compared to 2000.
But we still have seen a number of balloting snafus since the changes, including a ballot design problem in a 2006 congressional race from Florida that likely led to a change in the outcome of the election. As a response to public lack of confidence in electronic voting, Florida and other places have now junked the machines they recently purchased. With places like Palm Beach County on their third set of voting machines in three elections, we should not be surprised that we are now hearing horror stories of missing votes and botched recounts in Palm Beach-stories that chronicle events occurring now, in 2008, not back in 2000.
HAVA itself also is partially responsible for the new mess. The law was a compromise between Republicans who voiced concerns about "ballot integrity" and Democrats who were worried about voter access. Some of the provisions of the law are (unsurprisingly) unclear---representing the kind of fudging necessary for legislative compromise. But some of the most important lawsuits from 2004 and this cycle concern alleged violations of HAVA. Significantly, on Friday the Supreme Court ruled that at least one provision of HAVA likely does not create a right for individuals to sue when it is violated.
As Partisanship in Election Administration Has Heated Up, Election Law Litigation Has Also Risen
One of the other lessons from Florida 2000 is that there is a danger when elections are being run by people whose allegiances are to the political parties to which they belong, rather than to the political process itself. Since 2000, however, partisan battles over election administration have only become more intense.
Consider, for example, the partisan debate over whether voter identification should be required to prevent voter fraud. The 10 voter ID bills proposed in state legislatures from 2005 to 2007 were supported by over 95% of Republican legislators and about 2% of Democratic legislators. Meanwhile, the current disputes over voter registration fraud and ACORN only fuel the partisan mistrust.
Election law has become part of a political strategy; every campaign needs an election lawyer in case the election is within the "margin of litigation." Candidates are not shy about suing to overturn close election results. For this reason, and because of uncertainty regarding the changes in election laws, the number of election cases has gone up from an average of 96 cases per year before 2000 to about 230 cases per year since 2000:
Voters Now Increasingly Lack Confidence in the Fairness of the Electoral Process
The upshot of all of this litigation and talk of voter fraud and voter suppression is that many voters are losing confidence in the fairness of the electoral process.
In 1996, a study by the University of Michigan's National Election Studies found that about 10% of voters thought that the way the presidential election was conducted was somewhat or very unfair. Unsurprisingly, the number spiked at 37% in 2000, and it fell to 13.6% in 2004.
But we now see a partisan and racial skew. In 2004, 21.5% of Democrats saw the system as unfair, compared to just under 3% of Republicans. And according to a Pew study, the number of African Americans not at all confident that their votes would be accurately counted has more than doubled from 11% in 2004, to 24% in 2006.
Part of what is going on here is a loser's effect: If my candidate wins the election, it must have been conducted fair-and-square, but if my candidate loses, there must have been some chicanery. The point is reinforced by a survey done after the contested 2005 Washington state gubernatorial race: In that election, the Republican was initially declared the winner, only to have the results reversed by the state supreme court after an election contest. After that election, 68% of Republicans thought the election process was unfair, compared to 27% of Democrats.
Accordingly, we can predict with confidence that if Sen. Obama wins the election next month (as current polls show he is likely to do), our figures on voter confidence will be reversed: Many Republicans will believe that the election was "stolen" and the results somehow tainted by fraud, while Democrats will believe the rightful winner prevailed.
If the election is very close and Senator Obama is ahead, I expect that Republicans will raise voter fraud as a reason to contest the election. Thanks to the prevalence of overheated rhetoric on the issue, many people will be tempted to believe that voter fraud is rampant and can affect the outcome of the election - even when the evidence is all to the contrary.
Solving the Problem: An Election Administration "Bailout"
What can be done about these problems? The answer, I believe, is that we need a government bailout of our broken electoral system -- just like the one we've seen for our broken financial system. But this bailout won't be about money, or at least won't be primarily about money. It will be more centrally about ensuring uniformity and fairness in the election process.
We can start with a uniform ballot for federal elections, applicable in all elections. To eliminate voter registration fraud and incompetence, we can move to a national, universal voter registration model. More ambitiously, too, states should consider creating the conditions for nonpartisan election administration, and cleaning up ambiguities and holes in the rules for running our elections.
The swings in voter confidence in the electoral process are troubling, and present a real national crisis. Once this election is over, we need to move to fix the process. Unfortunately, once the election is over, the press will doubtless stop paying attention to our election problems, only to return to election experts, just before the 2012 election, to ask us why things haven't been cleaned up yet. Part of our reply should and will surely be that coverage of these problems shouldn't follow the election cycle; it should persist until they are fixed.
Eight Years After Bush v. Gore, Why is There Still So Much Election Litigation and What Does This Mean for Voter Confidence in the Electoral Process?
By RICHARD L. HASEN
Monday, Oct. 20, 2008
With Election Day just a few weeks away, newspapers and blogs are filled with reports about election litigation. In Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and other battleground states disputes are working their way through state and federal courts-with one already leading to a Supreme Court decision. Why is this happening, eight years after the 2000 Florida debacle in which public officials promised to fix the way we conduct elections? And what does it mean for future public confidence in the electoral process?
The short answer to why this is occurring is this: We haven't made some important changes in election laws that should have been made soon after Florida 2000, and some of the post-2000 changes that were put into place have actually made things worse. Add to that some very heated partisan rhetoric about voter suppression and voter fraud, and we have the recipe for continued legal battles over election administration. These battles are troubling, as they undermine voter confidence in the process, and pose a small, but serious, risk of election meltdown in the case of a close election.
What Happened After 2000: Only a Partial Fix, and Some Changes for the Worse
In Bush v. Gore (2000), as readers will recall, the United States Supreme Court put an end to a statewide recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, thereby insuring the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore for president. In that opinion, the Court expressed the hope that "[a]fter the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."
In some ways, things did get better in the wake of the Court's call for change. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), providing money for states to get rid of their antiquated voting machines, such as those inaccurate punch card ballots (Goodbye, hanging chads!). One study found that there were 1 million fewer lost votes in 2004 compared to 2000.
But we still have seen a number of balloting snafus since the changes, including a ballot design problem in a 2006 congressional race from Florida that likely led to a change in the outcome of the election. As a response to public lack of confidence in electronic voting, Florida and other places have now junked the machines they recently purchased. With places like Palm Beach County on their third set of voting machines in three elections, we should not be surprised that we are now hearing horror stories of missing votes and botched recounts in Palm Beach-stories that chronicle events occurring now, in 2008, not back in 2000.
HAVA itself also is partially responsible for the new mess. The law was a compromise between Republicans who voiced concerns about "ballot integrity" and Democrats who were worried about voter access. Some of the provisions of the law are (unsurprisingly) unclear---representing the kind of fudging necessary for legislative compromise. But some of the most important lawsuits from 2004 and this cycle concern alleged violations of HAVA. Significantly, on Friday the Supreme Court ruled that at least one provision of HAVA likely does not create a right for individuals to sue when it is violated.
As Partisanship in Election Administration Has Heated Up, Election Law Litigation Has Also Risen
One of the other lessons from Florida 2000 is that there is a danger when elections are being run by people whose allegiances are to the political parties to which they belong, rather than to the political process itself. Since 2000, however, partisan battles over election administration have only become more intense.
Consider, for example, the partisan debate over whether voter identification should be required to prevent voter fraud. The 10 voter ID bills proposed in state legislatures from 2005 to 2007 were supported by over 95% of Republican legislators and about 2% of Democratic legislators. Meanwhile, the current disputes over voter registration fraud and ACORN only fuel the partisan mistrust.
Election law has become part of a political strategy; every campaign needs an election lawyer in case the election is within the "margin of litigation." Candidates are not shy about suing to overturn close election results. For this reason, and because of uncertainty regarding the changes in election laws, the number of election cases has gone up from an average of 96 cases per year before 2000 to about 230 cases per year since 2000:
Voters Now Increasingly Lack Confidence in the Fairness of the Electoral Process
The upshot of all of this litigation and talk of voter fraud and voter suppression is that many voters are losing confidence in the fairness of the electoral process.
In 1996, a study by the University of Michigan's National Election Studies found that about 10% of voters thought that the way the presidential election was conducted was somewhat or very unfair. Unsurprisingly, the number spiked at 37% in 2000, and it fell to 13.6% in 2004.
But we now see a partisan and racial skew. In 2004, 21.5% of Democrats saw the system as unfair, compared to just under 3% of Republicans. And according to a Pew study, the number of African Americans not at all confident that their votes would be accurately counted has more than doubled from 11% in 2004, to 24% in 2006.
Part of what is going on here is a loser's effect: If my candidate wins the election, it must have been conducted fair-and-square, but if my candidate loses, there must have been some chicanery. The point is reinforced by a survey done after the contested 2005 Washington state gubernatorial race: In that election, the Republican was initially declared the winner, only to have the results reversed by the state supreme court after an election contest. After that election, 68% of Republicans thought the election process was unfair, compared to 27% of Democrats.
Accordingly, we can predict with confidence that if Sen. Obama wins the election next month (as current polls show he is likely to do), our figures on voter confidence will be reversed: Many Republicans will believe that the election was "stolen" and the results somehow tainted by fraud, while Democrats will believe the rightful winner prevailed.
If the election is very close and Senator Obama is ahead, I expect that Republicans will raise voter fraud as a reason to contest the election. Thanks to the prevalence of overheated rhetoric on the issue, many people will be tempted to believe that voter fraud is rampant and can affect the outcome of the election - even when the evidence is all to the contrary.
Solving the Problem: An Election Administration "Bailout"
What can be done about these problems? The answer, I believe, is that we need a government bailout of our broken electoral system -- just like the one we've seen for our broken financial system. But this bailout won't be about money, or at least won't be primarily about money. It will be more centrally about ensuring uniformity and fairness in the election process.
We can start with a uniform ballot for federal elections, applicable in all elections. To eliminate voter registration fraud and incompetence, we can move to a national, universal voter registration model. More ambitiously, too, states should consider creating the conditions for nonpartisan election administration, and cleaning up ambiguities and holes in the rules for running our elections.
The swings in voter confidence in the electoral process are troubling, and present a real national crisis. Once this election is over, we need to move to fix the process. Unfortunately, once the election is over, the press will doubtless stop paying attention to our election problems, only to return to election experts, just before the 2012 election, to ask us why things haven't been cleaned up yet. Part of our reply should and will surely be that coverage of these problems shouldn't follow the election cycle; it should persist until they are fixed.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
What the Latest Polls are Showing
Don't take anything for granted. Help five friends or relatives vote early today.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rejecting Islamophobia
Back when that messy-haired woman at a McCain rally accused Senator Obama of being "an Arab," I was glad that Senator McCain took the microphone from her and defended Senator Obama as a citizen, etc. However, I was bothered that being a citizen and a good family man was presented by Senator McCain as being the opposite of the attributes of "an Arab." So I was very pleased and touched to hear Colin Powell address the issue on Meet the Press yesterday.
Here is an article, quoted in full, by Abed Z. Bhuyan in The Washington Post:
Powell Rejects Islamophobia
On NBC's Meet the Press this weekend, former Secretary of State Colin Powell formally endorsed Barack Obama in this year's presidential election
.
Pundits will spend the next few days debating whether or not this endorsement matters. In truth, his endorsement of a politician matters less than his strong rejection of the Islamophobia that has tainted this race and that continues to exist unabated in many parts of America.
In a moment that would have made Tim Russert proud, Secretary Powell firmly renounced the divisiveness that has been perpetuated by his own party. During his interview, Secretary Powell exhibited a gravitas that has been unmatched thus far by politicians and pundits alike when it comes to an honest discussion of the state of a presidential race that has increasingly gone negative.
Since the beginning of this way-too-long presidential campaign Americans of conscience have longed for someone of such stature to repudiate the blatant bigotry towards Muslims. On Sunday Colin Powell lived up to his billing as senior American statesman.
I know I was not the only one moved to tears by the following remarks of Colin Powell:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his counrty and he gave his life."
It is important that Secretary Powell's statement not be minimized to a political endorsement. It was so much more.
But despite the powerful imagery and language used by Secretary Powell, there are two unfortunate facts that accompany his statement. First, the fact that I was so moved by his statement highlights the fact that the many calls for denouncing bigotry towards Muslims have gone ignored. Many Americans, not only American Muslims, have been denouncing Islamophobia in the campaign for over a year, making comments from high-profiled public officials long overdue. Secondly, the portion of the endorsement that I chose to highlight above is likely to get lost in the news. That is because decrying Islamophobia, even though it seemed to be the most important reason for Powell's decision to endorse Obama, is simply not sexy. Very few in the media will give proper credit to Powell for rejecting prejudice towards Muslims. But of all the bigotries exposed in this election cycle, including racism and sexism, Islamophobia has been the most consistent and unchallenged.
Now, given today's political climate, not holding or seeking office makes denouncing Islamophobia a lot easier. Furthermore, it should be noted that Islamophobia is not something that exists only within the Republican Party. After all, the man who has been the target of these so-called smears himself has not issued as strong and direct a rejection as Secretary Powell did this weekend. When Senator Hillary Clinton was battling Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination, she certainly allowed the Obama-is-a-Muslim whispers to continue. Obama has frequently denied the claim that he is a Muslim only by presenting the fact of his Christian faith and not addressing the crucial subtext of the claim: that there is something wrong with being a Muslim.
With his endorsement coming largely as a result of Obama's ability to transcend party and race, Secretary Powell has raised the bar for whoever does win this historic election. Politicians of either party have been unwilling to denounce Islamophobia for fear of appearing both weak and willing to 'pal around' with 'terrorists.' By unequivocally attacking the bigoted tenor of the campaign, he struck at the heart of what politicians have for this entire political season felt a taboo subject to address.
In addressing the Powell endorsement in the coming days, one can only hope that both candidates Obama and McCain see it more as a rejection of heightened bigotry than as a mere endorsement of any one politician.
Here is an article, quoted in full, by Abed Z. Bhuyan in The Washington Post:
Powell Rejects Islamophobia
On NBC's Meet the Press this weekend, former Secretary of State Colin Powell formally endorsed Barack Obama in this year's presidential election
.
Pundits will spend the next few days debating whether or not this endorsement matters. In truth, his endorsement of a politician matters less than his strong rejection of the Islamophobia that has tainted this race and that continues to exist unabated in many parts of America.
In a moment that would have made Tim Russert proud, Secretary Powell firmly renounced the divisiveness that has been perpetuated by his own party. During his interview, Secretary Powell exhibited a gravitas that has been unmatched thus far by politicians and pundits alike when it comes to an honest discussion of the state of a presidential race that has increasingly gone negative.
Since the beginning of this way-too-long presidential campaign Americans of conscience have longed for someone of such stature to repudiate the blatant bigotry towards Muslims. On Sunday Colin Powell lived up to his billing as senior American statesman.
I know I was not the only one moved to tears by the following remarks of Colin Powell:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his counrty and he gave his life."
It is important that Secretary Powell's statement not be minimized to a political endorsement. It was so much more.
But despite the powerful imagery and language used by Secretary Powell, there are two unfortunate facts that accompany his statement. First, the fact that I was so moved by his statement highlights the fact that the many calls for denouncing bigotry towards Muslims have gone ignored. Many Americans, not only American Muslims, have been denouncing Islamophobia in the campaign for over a year, making comments from high-profiled public officials long overdue. Secondly, the portion of the endorsement that I chose to highlight above is likely to get lost in the news. That is because decrying Islamophobia, even though it seemed to be the most important reason for Powell's decision to endorse Obama, is simply not sexy. Very few in the media will give proper credit to Powell for rejecting prejudice towards Muslims. But of all the bigotries exposed in this election cycle, including racism and sexism, Islamophobia has been the most consistent and unchallenged.
Now, given today's political climate, not holding or seeking office makes denouncing Islamophobia a lot easier. Furthermore, it should be noted that Islamophobia is not something that exists only within the Republican Party. After all, the man who has been the target of these so-called smears himself has not issued as strong and direct a rejection as Secretary Powell did this weekend. When Senator Hillary Clinton was battling Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination, she certainly allowed the Obama-is-a-Muslim whispers to continue. Obama has frequently denied the claim that he is a Muslim only by presenting the fact of his Christian faith and not addressing the crucial subtext of the claim: that there is something wrong with being a Muslim.
With his endorsement coming largely as a result of Obama's ability to transcend party and race, Secretary Powell has raised the bar for whoever does win this historic election. Politicians of either party have been unwilling to denounce Islamophobia for fear of appearing both weak and willing to 'pal around' with 'terrorists.' By unequivocally attacking the bigoted tenor of the campaign, he struck at the heart of what politicians have for this entire political season felt a taboo subject to address.
In addressing the Powell endorsement in the coming days, one can only hope that both candidates Obama and McCain see it more as a rejection of heightened bigotry than as a mere endorsement of any one politician.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Wanted: Election Observers
Here is a link that I found on Shambles Manor which, in turn, I found on Sylvia's blog, The View from Over the Hill.
What's really on my mind today is the election. I'm increasingly nervous about the way the Republicans are setting up an atmosphere of voter fraud accusations. I hope this doesn't mean that we will have another one of those long, contested elections that ends with us all being suspicious of the outcome. I've never been one for paranoia, but I am increasingly uneasy and will continue to be so until this administration/regime is out.
I'm mailing in my absentee ballot today. I've been reluctant to let it go, thinking that someone might lose or miscount it.
I wish that all the other democracies in the world would send representatives to oversee our election, to make sure that it is a fair one and to see that everyone has a chance to vote. We used to be the ones who brought democracy to other countries; now our own freedoms need some shoring up.
What's really on my mind today is the election. I'm increasingly nervous about the way the Republicans are setting up an atmosphere of voter fraud accusations. I hope this doesn't mean that we will have another one of those long, contested elections that ends with us all being suspicious of the outcome. I've never been one for paranoia, but I am increasingly uneasy and will continue to be so until this administration/regime is out.
I'm mailing in my absentee ballot today. I've been reluctant to let it go, thinking that someone might lose or miscount it.
I wish that all the other democracies in the world would send representatives to oversee our election, to make sure that it is a fair one and to see that everyone has a chance to vote. We used to be the ones who brought democracy to other countries; now our own freedoms need some shoring up.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For
This gets scary in the middle--just like everything around us--but stay with it and you'll be glad you did.
P.S. This video was taken down at YouTube for a while, but it's back. Be sure to watch it.
P.S. This video was taken down at YouTube for a while, but it's back. Be sure to watch it.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Last Day to Register to Vote in New Mexico
Irises in my old New Hampshire garden
Today is the last day for voter registration in New Mexico. For the first time ever, I am planning to vote with an absentee ballot. It's a way to vote early and conveniently--I happen to be doing so because I am planning to have another knee replacement done the day before Election Day.
If you want to find out more about early/absentee voting in your state, check out this website.
Don't forget to watch the Presidential Debate tonight at 9PM EST. You can see it on these TV channels: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, C-SPAN or you can watch it on the Internet live from CNN.
You can also watch videos of all past debates here.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Email to John McCain
New Hampshire irises
I contacted the McCain Campaign this morning, although they probably won't notice. They ask us to "spread the word," and that is what I am doing. Here is the message I sent:
Please stop the negative campaigning, that is not "Country First," but a way to divide us all.
Please allow Sarah Palin to answer questions (the ones that are asked) so that we know what she knows. Let her express her real opinions, not those disjointed phrases she keeps parroting (excuse me, parrotin').
Please try to act like the John McCain who campaigned in New Hampshire during the 2000 Presidential campaign. I don't understand what you've turned into.
Your campaign is acting in a way that makes me feel sad about my country.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
What's Past is Prologue
It's important to understand the causes of a situation before we can correct it. Joe Biden pointed this out in the Vice Presidential Debate when Sarah Palin said that the causes of global warming don't matter, we just have to fix the situation.
We've all been worried about how our country can heal the deep divisions so apparent during this long Presidential campaign. Analyzing how we got here helps; again quoting Biden, who was quoting Shakespeare, the "past is prologue."*
Take a look at this article from The Economist called Richard Milhous McCain. It's about the politics of cultural resentment--how "Nixon recognised that the Republicans stood to gain from 'positive polarisation': dividing the electorate over values." It recognizes “the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the baby-boom generation that has long engulfed all of us,” which Mr. Obama hasn't been able to overcome. And it points out that "the American electorate is still trapped in Nixonland: a land where Democrats and Republicans exchange endless gibes about who despises whom, where simmering class and regional resentments trump all other political considerations and where the airwaves crackle with accusations about lies and counter-lies."
I don't mean to imply that the Republicans are solely responsible for our "cultural resentments;" just that we can search our history to find how we got here and, perhaps, to begin to understand how to find a solution to our divisions.
The recent theme on this blog has been about reading primary resources and making up our own minds; so please read the entire online essay that I've quoted and don't take my word for it.
*Whereof what’s past is prologue, what to come
In yours and my discharge. ~William Shakespeare, The Tempest
We've all been worried about how our country can heal the deep divisions so apparent during this long Presidential campaign. Analyzing how we got here helps; again quoting Biden, who was quoting Shakespeare, the "past is prologue."*
Take a look at this article from The Economist called Richard Milhous McCain. It's about the politics of cultural resentment--how "Nixon recognised that the Republicans stood to gain from 'positive polarisation': dividing the electorate over values." It recognizes “the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the baby-boom generation that has long engulfed all of us,” which Mr. Obama hasn't been able to overcome. And it points out that "the American electorate is still trapped in Nixonland: a land where Democrats and Republicans exchange endless gibes about who despises whom, where simmering class and regional resentments trump all other political considerations and where the airwaves crackle with accusations about lies and counter-lies."
I don't mean to imply that the Republicans are solely responsible for our "cultural resentments;" just that we can search our history to find how we got here and, perhaps, to begin to understand how to find a solution to our divisions.
The recent theme on this blog has been about reading primary resources and making up our own minds; so please read the entire online essay that I've quoted and don't take my word for it.
*****
*Whereof what’s past is prologue, what to come
In yours and my discharge. ~William Shakespeare, The Tempest
Friday, October 3, 2008
"I Know I'm the Underdog...I'm Proud of My Running Mate"
In 2007, the Des Moines Register endorsed Senator McCain for the Republican nomination and Senator Clinton for the Democratic one. When Senator McCain met with the editorial board of the newspaper on Tuesday, Sept. 30th, their questions indicated that they were perhaps regretting that endorsement.
You can watch the entire video, which is almost an hour long, or you can choose shorter clips to view. My TV news station plucked around 30 seconds out of the entire interview in an attempt to show McCain's testy side. Watch the whole thing and you can decide for yourself.
You can watch the entire video, which is almost an hour long, or you can choose shorter clips to view. My TV news station plucked around 30 seconds out of the entire interview in an attempt to show McCain's testy side. Watch the whole thing and you can decide for yourself.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Just Needed to Share This...
When I woke up this morning, I had the same incredible feelings of anticipation that I used to have on Christmas morning when I was a child.
It's the day of the Vice Presidential Debates at last! I can't wait.
According to the Obama website debate-watching party finder, there are no parties scheduled within 50 miles of our house--this is the Bible Belt, after all, and people around us seem to believe that Senator Obama is part of a Muslim conspiracy to take over the world--so we'll just have to have our own party.
According to the Obama website debate-watching party finder, there are no parties scheduled within 50 miles of our house--this is the Bible Belt, after all, and people around us seem to believe that Senator Obama is part of a Muslim conspiracy to take over the world--so we'll just have to have our own party.
Bucksnort is coming over--the last time she saw Sarah Palin on TV, she asked, "Is that Tina Fey?" It's getting harder and harder to tell them apart.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Does Sarah Palin Really Believe "The Flintstones" Was Based on a True Story?
Quotes from a fictional conversation between The West Wing's President Jed Bartlet and Barack Obama:
...Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it...
...You’re a 47-year-old black man with a foreign-sounding name who went to Harvard and thinks devotion to your country and lapel pins aren’t the same thing and you’re in a statistical tie with a war hero and a Cinemax heroine...
Want to read more? See Maureen Dowd's New York Times column called Aaron Sorkin Conjures a Meeting of Obama and Bartlet.
Thanks go to Ben for the link to this article.
...Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it...
...You’re a 47-year-old black man with a foreign-sounding name who went to Harvard and thinks devotion to your country and lapel pins aren’t the same thing and you’re in a statistical tie with a war hero and a Cinemax heroine...
Want to read more? See Maureen Dowd's New York Times column called Aaron Sorkin Conjures a Meeting of Obama and Bartlet.
Thanks go to Ben for the link to this article.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Obama Campaign: Using the Power of the Internet
I thought I'd share this list of links that I just received from the Obama Campaign. Never before has a Presidential candidate used the power of the Internet in such an effective way. Imagine, there are more than 40,000 supporter created blogs, and the Obama Campaign alone has posted more than 500 videos on their YouTube channel.THE BASICS
Here are a few ways you can learn more, get the latest news, and share information with friends:
MEET BARACK
Watch a brief video and learn about Barack's early years, his education, his work as a community organizer and civil rights attorney, and his years in the Illinois and U.S. Senate. This is a great introduction to share with your friends: http://my.barackobama.com/meetBarack
OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN BLOG
Catch up on the latest news, photos, and videos from the campaign trail and share your thoughts on our official campaign blog:http://my.barackobama.com/blog
ISSUES
Learn more about Barack's positions on a variety of issues, from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his plan for universal health care: http://my.barackobama.com/issues
FACTCHECK ACTION CENTER
Barack Obama stands for a new kind of politics -- without the smear tactics that we're all fed up with. You can help push back against negative attacks and distortions right now by telling people about Barack and his background. The truth is only as strong as your voice:http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction
VIDEOS
Watch a few of the more than 500 videos from the campaign trail on our YouTube channel: http://my.barackobama.com/youtubechannel
OBAMA MOBILE
Our movement is ready to go wherever you are. Text HOPE to 62262 (OBAMA) to receive text updates on your mobile phone and advance notice about local Obama events:http://my.barackobama.com/mobile
ORGANIZING
Barack Obama got his start as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and since he declared his candidacy in 2007, a nationwide network of supporters have taken this campaign into their own hands, organizing online and their local communities. Here are some ways to get involved:
LOCAL GROUPS AND EVENTS
My.BarackObama is an organizing tool that empowers you to take this campaign into your own hands. Connect with other supporters in your area and find out about local events, or create your own organizing group and schedule your own events: http://my.barackobama.com/
SPREAD THE WORD
Introduce your friends, family, neighbors, or coworkers to Barack Obama. Let them know why you support Barack and encourage them to join our movement for change: http://my.barackobama.com/invite
BLOGS
There are more than 40,000 supporter created blogs on My.BarackObama where they chronicle their campaign experience and interact with other supporters. Find one for your community or launch your own today: http://my.barackobama.com/
ONLINE PHONEBANKING
Supporters like you have put us within reach of making 1,000,000 phone calls to registered voters by March 4th. Use our online phonebanking tool to reach out to voters in crucial states from the comfort of your home: http://my.barackobama.com/call
POSTERS, FLYERS, AND ORGANIZING RESOURCES
Print your own posters, flyers, fact sheets, supporter cards, and dozens of other resources from our online resource library:http://my.barackobama.com/resources
COMMUNITIES
Women for Obama and People of Faith for Obama are just two of the many communities large and small supporting Barack Obama. Explore a few of them here: http://www.barackobama.com/people
FUNDRAISING
Barack Obama does not accept donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups. Instead, we depend on a network of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford.
PERSONAL FUNDRAISING PAGE
Take the fundraising process into your own hands. Help support the campaign by reaching out to people you know and asking them to give through your personal fundraising page: http://my.barackobama.com/outreach
MATCH SOMEONE'S DONATION
This campaign has always been about reaching as many people as possible and bringing them into the political process. When you make a matching donation you'll learn the name and hometown of the person whose gift you match, and even exchange a note with them through our unique system: http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f7c70240869f1063/hnMIhm/VEsHAQ==/
STORE
Let everyone in your community know that you support Barack. All purchases through our online store go to support our campaign and are considered political donations. Show your support in style: http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f7c70240869f1063/4c3qod/VEsHAA==/
Monday, January 28, 2008
Great News for the Obama Campaign
My friend Gail with her friend Barack Obama on his campaign bus in New Hampshire (photo taken by another friend)The Obama campaign has received some big endorsements in the last day or two. Carolyn Kennedy, in her op-ed piece for the New York Times, said "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans. " See "A President Like My Father."
Voice of America: [Senator Ted] "Kennedy Endorses Obama for U.S. President"
Time Magazine: "Why the Kennedys Went for Obama"
For some background on the Obama campaign, read the December 2007 Atlantic Monthly article entitled "Teacher and Apprentice," which was recommended by my son. The Atlantic tagline reads: "Hillary Clinton tried to teach Barack Obama about power, but then he got ideas of his own. A story of nasty surprises, dueling war rooms, and the Drudge Report."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)