Just a quick post to wish the handful of you that read my blog a joyous Easter (or, if you prefer, Resurrection Day).
Cheers,
Regis
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Huzzah!
The caucus was pretty damn exciting, if you ask me (which I'll assume you do, since you're taking the time to read this). I showed up just after the doors were to have opened, and the line outside the door was already a block and a half long. I got in pretty quickly, though; after chatting with a couple of Clinton supporters (and pwning them with the fact that Senator Obama has been an elected representative for longer than Senator Clinton so her experience claims are pretty weak - Illinois State Senate FTW) a second line for last names starting with M-Z opened up and I shot up to right outside the door. The elections office managed not to screw up my party registration (which I had the good sense to check on the last day you could register and participate in the caucus, seeing as they'd put me down as an independent) so I signed in quickly.
About 530 people voted in Sheridan County - a better than ten-fold increase over participation in 2004. The energy in the room was pretty high, particularly among my fellow Obama supporters. My parents were both there; Dad said they had to show up to "cancel me out." I need to get him a "Billary" sticker. When we split into groups for the candidates, it seemed like almost every person going the other way to the Clinton camp was (1) old and (2) female.
In the end, Obama won with about 60% of the vote. Hillary had the rest, save two uncommitted votes. I also put my name in to be a delegate at the state convention, and wound up as an alternate. Plus, I got a sign which is now in my front window at home. I stuck around for the party platform stuff, which was pretty interesting, and got back home around six.
In a move of brilliance, I set the DVR up to record MSNBC's coverage of the caucus - a special weekend edition of Hardball. As soon as the program started at five, they projected Obama to be the winner with about 60% of the vote with 94% of precincts reporting (I heard talk that CNN had called it earlier, but this was the first television I'd seen at the point). Much to my surprise, Chris Matthews had a brief phone interview with Josh Mitchell of The Sheridan Press, a man known in local political circles to be a few tacos short of a combination platter. In the interview, not only did he uphold his reputation but also managed to make the state look like a bunch of ignorant rednecks, saying we usually vote for "white men." I'm pretty sure a letter to the editor will be forthcoming.
So hooray for democracy and a great experience, and a big fat raspberry to the twin headaches of Josh Mitchell and losing an hour of sleep for daylight savings time.
Cheers,
Regis
About 530 people voted in Sheridan County - a better than ten-fold increase over participation in 2004. The energy in the room was pretty high, particularly among my fellow Obama supporters. My parents were both there; Dad said they had to show up to "cancel me out." I need to get him a "Billary" sticker. When we split into groups for the candidates, it seemed like almost every person going the other way to the Clinton camp was (1) old and (2) female.
In the end, Obama won with about 60% of the vote. Hillary had the rest, save two uncommitted votes. I also put my name in to be a delegate at the state convention, and wound up as an alternate. Plus, I got a sign which is now in my front window at home. I stuck around for the party platform stuff, which was pretty interesting, and got back home around six.
In a move of brilliance, I set the DVR up to record MSNBC's coverage of the caucus - a special weekend edition of Hardball. As soon as the program started at five, they projected Obama to be the winner with about 60% of the vote with 94% of precincts reporting (I heard talk that CNN had called it earlier, but this was the first television I'd seen at the point). Much to my surprise, Chris Matthews had a brief phone interview with Josh Mitchell of The Sheridan Press, a man known in local political circles to be a few tacos short of a combination platter. In the interview, not only did he uphold his reputation but also managed to make the state look like a bunch of ignorant rednecks, saying we usually vote for "white men." I'm pretty sure a letter to the editor will be forthcoming.
So hooray for democracy and a great experience, and a big fat raspberry to the twin headaches of Josh Mitchell and losing an hour of sleep for daylight savings time.
Cheers,
Regis
Friday, March 7, 2008
Yes, We Do Matter
Last month, Hillary Clinton suggested that Barack Obama's recent wins in red states (as well as states with large African-American populations and caucuses instead of primaries) really don't matter because he won't carry them in the general election. It irritated me then, but I just chalked the comment up to spin control from an increasingly desperate candidate and went on my nominally merry way. But the comment has been itching in the back of my mind ever since, so I'm going to offer up a rebuttal:
HORSESHIT.
Allow me to elaborate. States don't get much redder than Wyoming. Registered Republicans here outnumber Democrats by about two to one. The state has only given its three electoral votes to the Democratic presidential candidate one time since 1952 (during LBJ's landslide in '64, in case you were curious). I really don't see that streak ending any time soon - not that I won't be working for a different result, but I have little doubt that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will add Wyoming to his column with little difficulty come November 4.
But for Senator Clinton to suggest that the results of Democratic contests in Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, or (by extension) Wyoming don't count or count less than those of states like Massachusetts, New York, or California is both insulting to Democrats in those states and seemingly inconsistent for a candidate scraping for every delegate she can get (cough Florida and Michigan shenanigans cough cough).
The point of the primary process is for a party to select its nominee for the general election. I'd be really interested to hear Hillary Clinton's thoughts on why members of her party in one state (say, New Jersey) should have more say than members in another (like Oklahoma). Sure, the first state may be an almost guaranteed win in the general election while the second is dubious at best, but that isn't the point. All members of the party should have a say in who the nominee is. To suggest otherwise is to perpetuate the divisions fostered by the red state/blue state mentality that's gripped the nation for the last seven years (and possibly more, but I wasn't really paying attention then). This is the race for the office of President of the United States of America, not the Blue States of America.
For the first time since 1960 (when the Wyoming delegation pushed JFK over the threshold to win the nomination at the national convention), Wyoming Democrats have some real say in the presidential nomination process. I'm extremely excited for tomorrow's caucus, and have been since the split decision of Super Tuesday. For once, I'll be participating in the process rather than just watching coverage of the returns on MSNBC once again (I'll probably watch Chris Matthews cover it Saturday anyway - the ad during Countdown tonight was too exciting, with explosions and excessive drama, but I digress). And I even have a candidate that I'm excited about to boot!
I don't consider myself to be very partisan - I don't feel obligated to vote a straight party ticket. I'd classify myself as some sort of left-leaning-moderate-libertarian if I felt the need for a label - I assure you, I don't. Given my relative distaste for the prospect of President John McCain, I'd like to think that the eventual Democratic nominee has my vote no matter who it is. But I can honestly say that isn't necessarily the case. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, after the primary campaign she's thus far run, after demeaning the participation of about half the Democratic party, and especially if she wins courtesy of the superdelegates despite her having fewer pledged delegates than Barack Obama (which is looking like the only way she'll win it at this point, but we'll save that one for later), I honestly doubt she'll get my vote in November.
So even though she won't get Wyoming's electoral votes in November (assuming she wins the nomination, of course), that doesn't make tomorrow's caucus is any less valid. One delegate in the race for the nomination is just as good as any other delegate, and my input is just as valid as any other Democrat's input.
See you at the caucus tomorrow. I'll be with the Obama crowd.
-Regis
HORSESHIT.
Allow me to elaborate. States don't get much redder than Wyoming. Registered Republicans here outnumber Democrats by about two to one. The state has only given its three electoral votes to the Democratic presidential candidate one time since 1952 (during LBJ's landslide in '64, in case you were curious). I really don't see that streak ending any time soon - not that I won't be working for a different result, but I have little doubt that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will add Wyoming to his column with little difficulty come November 4.
But for Senator Clinton to suggest that the results of Democratic contests in Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, or (by extension) Wyoming don't count or count less than those of states like Massachusetts, New York, or California is both insulting to Democrats in those states and seemingly inconsistent for a candidate scraping for every delegate she can get (cough Florida and Michigan shenanigans cough cough).
The point of the primary process is for a party to select its nominee for the general election. I'd be really interested to hear Hillary Clinton's thoughts on why members of her party in one state (say, New Jersey) should have more say than members in another (like Oklahoma). Sure, the first state may be an almost guaranteed win in the general election while the second is dubious at best, but that isn't the point. All members of the party should have a say in who the nominee is. To suggest otherwise is to perpetuate the divisions fostered by the red state/blue state mentality that's gripped the nation for the last seven years (and possibly more, but I wasn't really paying attention then). This is the race for the office of President of the United States of America, not the Blue States of America.
For the first time since 1960 (when the Wyoming delegation pushed JFK over the threshold to win the nomination at the national convention), Wyoming Democrats have some real say in the presidential nomination process. I'm extremely excited for tomorrow's caucus, and have been since the split decision of Super Tuesday. For once, I'll be participating in the process rather than just watching coverage of the returns on MSNBC once again (I'll probably watch Chris Matthews cover it Saturday anyway - the ad during Countdown tonight was too exciting, with explosions and excessive drama, but I digress). And I even have a candidate that I'm excited about to boot!
I don't consider myself to be very partisan - I don't feel obligated to vote a straight party ticket. I'd classify myself as some sort of left-leaning-moderate-libertarian if I felt the need for a label - I assure you, I don't. Given my relative distaste for the prospect of President John McCain, I'd like to think that the eventual Democratic nominee has my vote no matter who it is. But I can honestly say that isn't necessarily the case. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, after the primary campaign she's thus far run, after demeaning the participation of about half the Democratic party, and especially if she wins courtesy of the superdelegates despite her having fewer pledged delegates than Barack Obama (which is looking like the only way she'll win it at this point, but we'll save that one for later), I honestly doubt she'll get my vote in November.
So even though she won't get Wyoming's electoral votes in November (assuming she wins the nomination, of course), that doesn't make tomorrow's caucus is any less valid. One delegate in the race for the nomination is just as good as any other delegate, and my input is just as valid as any other Democrat's input.
See you at the caucus tomorrow. I'll be with the Obama crowd.
-Regis
Saturday, March 1, 2008
I Am The Champions!
With three and a half hours to spare, I have conquered February Album Writing Month 2008. In addition to the songs previously mentioned, I have completed the additional five songs:
Cowboy
Meth-Face Billy
Hog Ranch
Finally Friday
Once More Round
I'm pretty stoked that I added songs about prostitution, illegal drug use, gratuitous drinking, and heroic delusions to my stack. Now I've got to do some polishing and then - God willing - I'll actually record this Mullettes album. Maybe I'll even post some lyrics or rough demos sometime.
But first, I need some sleep. My brain feels like generic gelatin desert with bits of pineapple suspended randomly throughout.
I'm D-U-N Done,
Regis
Cowboy
Meth-Face Billy
Hog Ranch
Finally Friday
Once More Round
I'm pretty stoked that I added songs about prostitution, illegal drug use, gratuitous drinking, and heroic delusions to my stack. Now I've got to do some polishing and then - God willing - I'll actually record this Mullettes album. Maybe I'll even post some lyrics or rough demos sometime.
But first, I need some sleep. My brain feels like generic gelatin desert with bits of pineapple suspended randomly throughout.
I'm D-U-N Done,
Regis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
