Electoral Map

Based on polling, if the election was held today, this is what would happen.

The big question, as always, is turnout.

Whose Free Market?

Prompted by this post and the related article, I am kind of curious about something:

When people refer to the free market, whose free market is it? Is it free for companies and corporations, or free for consumers?

Clearly, the two have different interests, so it can't magically be free for both: Corporations want the most profit possible, and consumers (among other things) want to spend the least amount of money possible for goods and services. Those two priorities are in direct contradiction to each other. (Cue tortured wingnut logic that tries to explain how that isn't really so.)

So when crafting government regulation, where should the priority lie? As exemplified in the article linked to in the post, the so-called 'Google' position is that the most freedom should come at the consumer end, whereas the 'AT&T' position is more interested in seeing freedom for corporations to do what they want vis-a-vis telecommunications. The former position requires government regulation of telecommunications to achieve end-user equality, whereas the latter suggests that no regulation is best, even though that leaves companies free to create end-user inequities.

Another way of looking at what market is currently more free, from the article:

The country is now served almost entirely by three local phone, four cellular, and four cable companies.

Compare that to the number of software companies out there. Yes, there are behemoths and monoliths on the software side - Microsoft and Google probably being two of the most notable - but the barrier to entry for software is so small compared to telecommunications it's insane. The key about this is that it's not an accident. The software underlying the Internet is neutral and publicly accessible, and is only so because the US government regulated that in the early 1990s when it was developing the Internet in the first place.

End result: The structure of the Internet is regulated. This has resulted in awesome software innovation and innovation in how we use the internet. The telecommunications market is not as regulated, and has devolved into a few crappy, giant companies who now want to end the existing regulation regarding how consumers/end users use the internet, which will inevitably stifle innovation.(Imagine if you had to pay to use Facebook, not because Facebook wanted you to, but because Comcast would charge you for visiting www.facebook.com. That is precisely what the net neutrality debate is over.)

The other point about this I wanted to make is that Obama at least knows what he's talking about when it comes to tech policy. McCain's campaign has a bunch of people who have lobbied for Verizon or AT&T. I have a sneaking suspicion which will lead to a better policy, and ultimately end user, outcome.

My other rather strongly held opinion on this, of course, is that the Internet should be treated not as a market commodity, but as a public good. Changing that underlying assumption - which I think Obama's policy goals get at - would make a world of difference.

Tim Wise on white privilege and the election

Found at Eric Stoller's place, here is the opening paragraph of Wise's essay:

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for an easy-to-understand example of it, perhaps this list will help.

Follow the link for the list.

This blog tries something new

How about a link to Jennifer Moody's blog:

It is simply not possible to be both a parent and a high-powered executive and give both jobs your absolute, undivided energy. (Frankly, it’s not possible to be only ONE of those things and give it your absolute, undivided energy 100 percent of the time, but I digress.) One or the other, and sometimes both, will be dropped from the priority list every single day.

....

God bless women who want to lead. I have every confidence in women as governors, women as politicians, women as leaders of countries. They should not have to sacrifice parenting to accomplish any of that.

But the reality is, they do. Just like their husbands have done for so long.

And so, for her sake and her family’s, I’m sending up a prayer. Because something’s going to have to give, and I’m betting it won’t be the job.

Moody gets it right; even with the tremendous amount of help Palin is sure to get, something's going to give.

I've linked to a lot of stuff that is critical of Palin - and rightly so. That doesn't mean I think she or her family are immune to the stress they are about to go through. Far from it - which is part of the reason I am linking to Moody's blog post as well.

That said, I can't get over the fact that Palin gets help of the kind she would seek to deny others through her policy preferences. On some level, that has to produce cognitive dissonance for her. I hope. Certainly it should for her would-be voters.

Preznit Qualifications

Let's take at face value for a second all the stuff around who is/isn't qualified to be President:

McCain is unqualified because he's too old.

Palin is unqualified due to her lack of experience.

Obama is unqualified due to his lack of experience.

Say hello to President Joseph Biden, the only one of the four who meets the "qualifications" being thrown around. (Odd that he's older, but not too old, and white, and male, and has been in government for a very long time.)

Somehow I don't think proposing this as a solution will make many people happy.

UPDATE: Clearly I need to stop half-assing blog posts. This was a joke/thought experiment taking into account what the campaigns and their supporters are saying about the candidates - not an endorsement on my part.

Sheesh.

Palin's appeal, according to one supporter

Part of a comment found elsewhere on this blog:

This is why she had won my vote. She is a mom a wife that was not groomed to be a politican. She reminds me of mothers I met at soccer fields, basketball, baseball and the hockey arena cheering on their kids. They are caring, loving and speak from the heart. Not a person that went to elite universities with a goal in mind to be a politican and willing to do what ever it takes. She does not take sides but only looks out for the average person.

This is the same argument advanced as evidence for GWB in 2000. I don't particularly think it's a good reason to vote for someone, but clearly there are a lot of people who do.

That said, I want to note a distinction that I think is blurred - quite intentionally - by this argument: Namely, that 'politician' and 'elitist' and 'craven' (maybe 'lacking principles') are all different categories. Yes, some people are all three, it's true. But they're not the same thing, and there are plenty of people who are one or two but not all three.

The commenter above - who I am using an example for a more generic argument - seems to think that being educated is equivalent to being elitist and craven.

Yes, I'm back to the anti-intellectual and anti-education bias. I think such a bias is dangerous and stupid. Maybe more later, but I have to go now.

UPDATE: That comment implies some other things which I think are wrong...

1) That Obama, in comparison, doesn't care about his family. This is just insulting.

2) That anyone who does desire to be involved in politics is somehow automatically lacking principles, except for Sarah Palin - because she clearly desires to be involved in politics, having run for office seven times (two city council, two mayor, one failed Lt. Governor, one Governor, and now VPOTUS)?

3) That Palin has somehow remained not a politician despite being the governor of a state and a former mayor. (And if that's true, how does that jibe with the claim that she has the necessary experience to lead the country? Is it all of a sudden no longer necessary to have political experience to head the US government?)

Family-friendly for me but not for thee

There's been quite a bit of discussion about Palin's family and her choice to run for office, and how Palin is a big hypocrite for refusing to support policies that are family-friendly while taking advantage of all kinds of privileges that allow her to have a family and run for office.

I actually don't think pointing this out as hypocrisy will get much, if any, traction. Here's why: According to the myth of the American Dream, the only people who deserve such pampered treatment are those who have it - which means that for many people, Palin is not a hypocrite at all. We're only suppose to be in it for ourselves, you see. The fact that many working mothers don't have the luxuries Palin does just means Palin is better, smarter, more deserving. It's not talent --> success, but success-as-evidence-of-talent.

Actually advocating for other people runs counter to the spirit of the American Dream, apparently. Palin's success is to be celebrated, but not emulated (there's an assumption in there about the inevitability of a hierarchy with a few at the top as well).

The classic Protestant Ethic - that one's access to heaven is determined by birth, and that signs of wealth in this life are merely signs that one is destined for heaven (with the subtext that any accumulation of wealth is blessed and therefore good) - is alive and well in America.

What may seem obvious to anyone to the left of, say, Bill Clinton is not, in fact, even considered true for many of Palin's supporters; as such, charges of hypocrisy on this front might easily be seen as incorrect at best and underhanded smears at worst (after all, we're supposed to be celebrating her success, not noting her hypocrisy). Or so I would guess.

Palin, Family Values, Campaigning and Family Policy

Friend JC writes in regarding the intersection of Sarah Palin's family and the election....

If Sarah Palin wants to keep her family/children as an untouchable subject in the political world, then she shouldn't be parading the crew out at political events or using them as props in her speeches and in developing her political persona. You can't have it both ways. If you're running on "family values" than your own personal family values are absolutely fair game for fair criticism, especially due to the double standards she holds for her and her family. She's out there saying that you can be VP with 5 children under 18, including an infant, including a disabled child, including a pregnant teen, but fighting against supports for other working mothers, such as subsidized childcare and extended familial leave policies. I don't think that it's anti-feminist to admit that working mothers simply cannot to do it all on their own. They require extra help and adjusted circumstances. Working men need these things too, but women's needs are greater, due to the fact they're the ones gestating, giving labor, and breastfeeding the child, a process that takes up at least a year and ideally more like 3 years. She seems to shun assistance for her family, which demeans the way the vast majority of American families live their lives.

There are plenty of political issues that make Sarah Palin an easy target for democrats, but pointing these out only helps secure left-leaning voters. If we want to capture independents and fed-up Republicans, we need to show the hypocrisy and lies inherent in the Republican party and their candidates. The criticism doesn't have to be personal, it just needs to be pointed. Sarah Palin claims to be just like you, but she's not, for X, Y, and Z reasons (wealth and privilege among them). Sarah Palin claims to support famllies, but her decisions and policies, such as cutting funding for social programs don't support this fact. Sarah Palin's daughter has choices Sarah Palin doesn't think your daughters deserve. Sarah Palin is an extremist who doesn't believe in contraception and thinks rape victims of any age should be forced to carry to term their attacker's offspring. John McCain used to believe the opposite of most of those (and OMG there are so many things he's changed his position on in the last 4 years!) and now he agrees with Palin? How can you trust a man like this? Dems need to start getting personal, because the Republicans already have. And that doesn't mean they have to be nasty, but they need to fight hard. The media isn't doing their job, so the Dems have to be the ones to bring out the skeletons in their closets.

The only thing I'd add is to make it crystal clear that the only reason Sarah Palin could succeed as governor of Alaska, or as VP, with her family is that she has staff take care of damn near everything: Shopping, laundry, child care, etc. That's a luxury almost no one has, so the next time you hear someone saying "well, Sarah Palin can do it," just remember that it's actually Sarah Palin with substantial help - help that the rest of us don't get. It's not Supermom; it's Supermom and Friends.

The other alternative is that she really is refusing that help, and thus neglecting her job. There's just no way to do both.

Role reversal; or, in which a Republican reveals he knows something about McCain's health the rest of us don't

From a DH letter, about the McCain-Palin ticket:

Just look at her record as governor of Alaska. That is the kind of leadership we can expect from John McCain as our leader.

Hmm.... what's the phrase... oh yeah: WTF?!

McCain's speech

I didn't watch it, but here are some reactions:

A roundup of TV personalities, courtesy Washington Monthly.

Steve Benen:

And that, ultimately, is why the speech didn't work. McCain simply didn't have a vision or a policy agenda for the future. He has his character, and his biography, and he hopes that's enough. The message of the night, and practically the entire convention, seemed to be: "Vote for John McCain, not because he's right, but because he's John McCain."

To be fair, what else can he do? The Republican party is dictating the policies in the platform, even though those policies have never worked. McCain can't effectively sell himself (I hope) as any kind of significant change from the current administration as long as he's supporting the same policies.

All that's left for Republican candidates to do these days is spin furiously, turn out their base and attempt to discredit their opponents. Sadly, it's proven to be a somewhat effective strategy. (Note that it does not include providing any kind of actual leadership or vision.)

A caveat: This strategy, with this particular platform (being driven by the Christian Right and all), does put the Republican business community in a bind; while they see how Bush's policies are a long-term disaster (the Dow reportedly dropped something like 350 points after Palin's speech), the incredibly amounts of profits being made in the short term are proving to be enough of a bribe to get them, on the whole, to keep their mouths shut.

A second caveat: "spin furiously, turn out their base and attempt to discredit their opponents" and "does not include providing any kind of actual leadership or vision" sound like part of Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wineteer's efforts to avoid being recalled and their time on the school board. Heh.

Palin: SSDD

I found two posts fact-checking Palin's RNC speech; the second in particular does a thorough job:

Obsidian Wings

Reality-Based Community

Based on the amount of lying she did in her speech tonight, she'll be a great replacement for Cheney, and fit in well with other Republican elites.

Like many others, I am constantly astounded that the media gives people a free pass when it comes to facts.

Palin: Counterintuitive Analysis

Found over at Obsidian Wings:

Many observers, not least on ObWi, have remarked that McCain is a gambler, a “hunch player,” and that the naming of the unvetted Palin is just the latest and most conspicuous example of this flaw. It bespeaks (we say) a lack of judgment, the very quality McCain is supposed to exhibit supremely over the untested Obama.

But in the context of American politics, I fear, this analysis is wrong.

Around half of the American populace, based on the elections of both 2000 and 2004, actually likes hunch players, prefers them to smartass “experts” and intellectuals who have demonstrated competence in the classroom or in life. It is hardly a coincidence that the Republican nomination falls yet again to someone who drifted through the lower depths of his college/academy class.

This is not a bug, but a feature. Many Americans, perhaps a majority, have come to distrust open displays of intelligence, and prefer to rely on “character,” by which they apparently mean “capable of making decisions without stopping to consider the consequences.” Hence Iraq, hence Palin. And pointing this out – pointing out, for example, that Palin is completely unproven in both national and international policy – is irrelevant. So what? She's a “soulmate” of McCain (as Putin once was of Bush?). We can trust her. She has character.

Lots of 'murikans voted for GWB in 2000. Not enough to win, mind you, but a lot.

Whaaa?

There's something wrong with this story, but I can't quite put my finger on it. What gives:

Jeff Merkley says he agrees with the Supreme Court decision that Americans have a constitutional right to keep handguns at home.

The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate made the point in response to a question Tuesday during an editorial board interview at the Democrat-Herald.

That's pretty much the whole story. It reads like Hering took the prerogative to put this in the paper as a news story, but it doesn't feel like a news story.

Not quite sure why. Maybe it's because it's not a full writeup, but a "Hering authored a news story that does nothing but note that Merkley clarified an answer he gave to a Hering editorial" sort of thing, and omits anything else (with the exception of a sentence or two at the end, on an issue that might only be related because Hering cares).

It's just strange.

Billmon

Obama's done lots of stuff -- teaching, state legislature, writing books, etc. -- but "community organizer" seems like an odd one to fixate on.

Follow the link to see what Billmon thinks the GOP was getting at. I think Billmon is right.

Palin: An Observation

Far too many lefty bloggers are concerned with a) the fact that Palin is really unqualified and b) how offensive/craven McCain's pick is in terms of historical precedent, departure from the modern political norm, etc.

Instead, they need to realize that the vast majority of voters are several more degrees removed from political elites than your average (white, suburban, male) lefty blogger. Just because you're taking this as a personal affront because McCain is deviating from the political norm doesn't mean that other people feel the same way. Not only is the Republican base happy about this (and therefore more likely to turn out in November, which, for my money, is going to be one of two deciding factors in the campaign - the other being Obama's ability to register and turn out voters), but it's stupid to assume so-called swing voters won't buy into the McCain-Palin ticket.

Shorter me: Class-privileged lefty bloggers need to get over themselves and their preconceptions.

UPDATE: Alternative shorter me: Don't expect to win just because you're right. If making arguments on the merits worked, GWB would have never been Preznit.

Is that fair? Of course not - ask anyone involved in any kind of social justice movement.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now arrested at RNC Convention

Good links here.

Can't say I'm surprised. A little scared for what this represents, but not surprised.

UPDATE (9/2/08 at 1:10 PM): Goodman has been freed.

"PALIN AND THE MEANING OF CHOICE."

From Tapped:

Now today comes the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. In the news release, the McCain campaign made sure to state that:

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

While it's obvious why they made this statement to assure the public that Bristol was not coerced into keeping the baby (after all, she does have a parent who is a staunch opponent of the right to choose and is currently on the Republican presidential ticket), as my significant other pointed out, there's some serious hypocrisy at play here. I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don't believe women have a right to choose. It's absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol "made this decision," and then push for policies that take away that choice.

If I were, say, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, or anyone else with a brain, I would be hammering home this hypocrisy starting today. Choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee takes on extra-special meaning when coming from people who support anti-choice public policies.

Palin, Uknown

From Huffington Post (but via OG and Daily Kos), it appears that the McCain campaign didn't do much - if any - vetting of VP pick Sarah Palin:

On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contacted the Huffington Post with this piece of information: as of this weekend, the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin's hometown newspaper.

How does he know? The paper's (massive) archives are not online. And when he went to research past content, he was told he was the first to inquire.

"No one else had requested access before," said the source. "It's unbelievable. We were the only people to do that, which means the McCain camp didn't."

Not only is this inconceivable by traditional political standards, but it adds even more credence to the argument advanced by my coworker that McCain make the pick late in the week and as a snap response to the events of the Democratic National Convention.

John McCain: Picking the second-in-command of the most powerful country in the world on a whim. As a reaction. And yet we're to believe it's Obama that lacks the judgment necessary to be President.

One More Round of Palin

Why don't reporters and legislators have a high opinion of the governor?

Gregg Erickson (Anchorage Daily News): It is clear that she has not paid much attention to the nitty-gritty unglamorous work of government, of gaining consensus, and making difficult compromises. She seems to be of the view that politics should be all rather simple. That often appeals to the wider public, but frustrates those who see themselves as laboring in the less glamorous parts of the vineyard.

Dave3544: Then [MSNBC is] pushing the idea that her selection "opens up the West" for McCain because, apparently, we vote for people who share a vague geographic designation with us. No wait, that's the South with the shared heritage of treason.

Dave 3544: Did John Fucking McCain just tout the fact that she's a member of a union and her husband is a member of a union?

Steve Benen: PALIN ON HRC.... One of the more offensive angles to the McCain campaign's running mate announcement is how breathtakingly cynical it is. As the McCain gang sees it, supporters of Hillary Clinton are driven entirely by gender concerns -- the notion that Democrats may have actually liked Hillary for her record and agenda apparently isn't a consideration -- so picking a woman, any woman, even a far-right anti-choice woman, will necessarily drive Democrats to vote Republican.

I suspect this will backfire. No one likes to be played for a fool, and these crass tactics will probably be perceived by Clinton backers as more insulting than anything else.

And yet, in a move that was about as subtle as a sledgehammer, Sarah Palin praised Hillary Clinton during her first appearance on the national stage today, referencing the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" quote. Before anyone's fooled, though, keep in mind that Palin is not a Clinton fan:

Newsweek reports that back in March, at a Women and Leadership event held by the mag, Palin's view of Hillary wasn't quite as charitable: "She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's 'whining.'

Think Progress: Palin Denies Global Warming is Manmade

Charles Homans: THE PALIN PICK...Howdy folks--I'm a new editor here at the Monthly, and as someone who lived in and reported on Alaska for the entirety of Sarah Palin's tenure as governor (until a couple months ago), I feel like I should jump in here. I'm less quick than Steve to dismiss McCain's pick--the Palin choice does have a gimmicky quality to it, but Obama supporters should still be concerned... In short, Palin can legitimately claim the maverick reformist credentials that McCain himself has long since lost. Her pro-life record helps McCain with the Republican base, her gender might lure away a few Hillary bitter-enders, and her youth goes a little way towards compensating one of McCain's major weaknesses. Palin also manages the Obama-esque feat of commanding a great deal of popularity among people who don't really know what she stands for...

Michael Faris: I agree that it's a pandering move, of the most cynical sort. I also think it's a good move, if you're a cynical Republican.

Eric Martin: Further, it offers something "new" from a Republican Party that is rightly viewed as musty and bankrupt of fresh ideas. [Points to Eric Martin for making the first Michael Palin reference that I've seen. Check the title on the post.]

Palin herself on the VP slot, from just a month ago:

Count Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as one of the most surprised that she was chocen as unning mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

In an interview just a month ago, she dissed the job, saying it didn’t seem “productive.”

In fact, she said she didn’t know what the vice president does.

Larry Kudlow of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co.” asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.

Palin replied: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?

This kind of cinches for me McCain's desperation.

OK, I'm out for the evening. Better things to do.

Stunned Silence

Found here.

This is territory that needs traversed carefully. I predict that while Republicans will actually play the above card (not in so many words, I hope), Democrats and Obama supporters will question Palin's qualifications based on her sex, even if unintentionally. Neither should be acceptable.

Also: Holy ****.