For those about to Barack, we salute you

[zdashamber]

O my Washington peeps and the light of my life:

Today, 1:00 PM, is the day for you to go caucus for Obama. This may be the first chance you've had to have a say in who the Democratic nominee for President is, and the choice here, I think, matters a great deal in terms of the future of the country. Plus, caucuses are fun! You really get to feel like a part of a democracy when you're sitting around in someone's living room with serious faces discussing the fate of the nation with real consequences. I hear you don't even have to sit around and talk, though, if you're busy: just show up, sign in with your name and your preferred candidate, and leave, and that's good, too. The Seattle PI has info here about what to expect and where to find your caucus location.

I hope you vote for Obama. One of the most interesting reasons why, that I haven't heard much elsewhere: consider the Senate. The Democrats have a significant advantage this year in terms of defending seats vs. attacking seats. Three of the states so far where the Democrats have a good chance, according to polls, to get a Democrat into a Republican-held spot are Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota. Obama won those states by 75%, 67%, and 67%. He wiped the floor with Clinton there: people there like him more. They will be more likely to come out and vote for him if he's the Democratic nominee, and vote for a Democratic senator while they're at it. Clinton has the advantage in only one Senate-race state so far, New Hampshire; and, like New Mexico, that one is basically a tie.

The Senate is where we can really do some good: get a solid enough majority that we don't have to worry so much about individual legislators flaking. If we're really on our game, we might be able to get a filibuster-proof group of 60 Democratic senators. (More info in a comment I left on Making Light here.)

Obama and Clinton both have about the same plan towards health care (tcha) and GLBT issues (traveling with ex-gay freak vs DOMA and "don't ask don't tell"), but Obama has put a lot more thought into the internet and technology, and he's a huge proponent of open government, which I love. As Randall Monroe of xkcd says in his endorsement,

Obama has shown a real commitment to open government. When putting together tech policy (to take an example close to home for xkcd) others might have gone to industry lobbyists. Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons (under which xkcd is published) and longtime white knight in the struggle with a broken system over internet and copyright policy.

Obama has managed to be a decent guy on the campaign trail, yet he's addressed worries that he'll lie there and be swiftboated; he says the Clintons have been looking for shit on him for a year or more, and all they have is that his wife helped get a lot subdivision through so they could afford their house, and then bought back the subdivided bit of lot from their corrupt friend later when they could afford it. Eh. Not terribly spicy. Versus attacks on Clinton, which come on, haven't you had enough of shitwit Republiclones saying "But Bill Clinton lied about having an affair!" whenever you mention torture or destroying habeas corpus or blowing us massively into debt with China or sinking the economy or whathaveyou... I'm so fucking sick of that line of shit.

Oh, and did I mention that Obama is a constitutional law professor, and the only candidate who supports a presidency limited by the Constitution?

And, come on, there's a endless lode of puns to be mined from the Barack = rock line. That's a plus! It totally is!

Comments

[tavella.livejournal.com]

Three of the states so far where the Democrats have a good chance, according to polls, to get a Democrat into a Republican-held spot are Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota. Obama won those states by 75%, 67%, and 67%. He wiped the floor with Clinton there: people there like him more. They will be more likely to come out and vote for him if he's the Democratic nominee, and vote for a Democratic senator while they're at it. Clinton has the advantage in only one Senate-race state so far, New Hampshire; and, like New Mexico, that one is basically a tie.

Don't put a whole lot of reliance on the Alaska/Colorado/Minnesota numbers; all three of those are caucuses, not primaries, with much smaller voter pools. In fact, that's one of my concerns about Obama; he's been rolling up a lot of caucus victories compared to primaries, and primaries are a lot better predictors of general election performance.

[evilmagnus]

He polls better than Clinton in national McCain matchups, though. Clinton's negatives really come out when things go national.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

I'm not anywhere near confident that lead will stay once the slime machine rolls into gear. Expect the name Rezko to become veeeery famous.

[evilmagnus]

Eh, the Rezko thing is tiny compared to the mud that can be slung at Hillary... and let's not forget that the first person to sling the Rezko name at Obama was Hillary, who did it on national TV during the debates, and grossly misrepresented the situation when she did so (except for it's first mention in the Sun-Times ~ 8 years ago).

So yeah, not so impressed with HRC for that.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

Reality has no meaning in the slime machine. A multiply decorated vietnam vet became a coward in the machine.

Note that "all the mud" that can be slung at Hillary is just as fictional and exaggerated as Rezko will be. You think *truth* matters?

[evilmagnus]

I dunno, Whitewater was objectively more scuzzy than Rezko, but they're both overblown. And speaking of blowing... ;)

Reality has no meaning in the slime machine. A multiply decorated vietnam vet became a coward in the machine.

Yes. Except this time, it was Hillary who used the slime. Not her best character-building moment.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

Whitewater? You mean the real estate deal where they _lost money_? As I said, reality has no meaning when it comes to the machine.

[evilmagnus]

Just because they were dumb about it doesn't mean it wasn't crooked. ;)

[tavella.livejournal.com]

Uh huh. Quick little exercise: what do you think happened in so-called "Whitewater"? Without reference to Google or anything else. Just out of your head. What happened in this deal that you think is so crooked?

[evilmagnus]

It was a real-estate deal between the Clintons and someone else. The Clintons loaned money to them and lost a lot of it. Failed business venture. Other people involved in Whitewater were charged with various felonies, but not the Clintons.

But you'll note that I said in my earlier comment that 'both [scandals were] overblown'. My point was not that Whitewater was ZOMG Terrible! Just that it was a scuzzy deal, and isn't fictional. Also, no-one would have cared if the Clintons hadn't risen to the Presidency.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

No, I mean: what do you think the Clintons did _wrong_ in Whitewater? Investing money in real estate is not either illegal or immoral.

[evilmagnus]

Exactly the same thing Barack Obama did with Rezko; were innocent third parties to someone who did something naughty.

The only difference between the two was more people got thrown in jail for Whitewater. Hence, 'objectively worse'.

[zdashamber.livejournal.com]

I'm told that caucus victories point to better organization, which in my mind means he'll have more volunteers available in those states to help get his message out. Also, I would suspect that his victories in Western states are in a large part due to his message of change and potentially being willing to work with Republicans, which may well play better to the independent and slightly conservative people in the west.

[shadowflyer.livejournal.com]

I do have one reservation about the caucus vs. primary thing, and it's one of the lines of speculation on why pollsters got it grossly wrong in New Hampshire.

Pollsters only get results from people willing to take the time to answer a poll and trust that Big Media won't misrepresent the results. That population segment skews toward educated middle and upper-middle, open-minded, people who pay a lot of attention and think about the issues.

There's a lot of overlap in that description with likely caucus-goers. There's not much overlap with working-class racists.

Clinton's biggest win by demographic category in New Hampshire came from lower-class, less-educated voters. People who, arguably, could take 10 minutes first thing in the morning to go vote but couldn't be arsed to caucus. People who, arguably, are likely to tell media pollsters to go to hell.

[rvdammit.livejournal.com]

I had a bit of cognitive dissonance the first time I heard about the candidates.

[arden-ranger.livejournal.com]

And, come on, there's a endless lode of puns to be mined from the Barack = rock line. That's a plus! It totally is!

:: points to icon ::

Washington for Obama

[greyshade1.livejournal.com]

Well, I did go out and caucus yesterday. This was my first year I got outraged enough to get active, and I can credit The Daily Show, Air America/AM 1090, the courageous examples of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the inspiring oratory of Barack Obama, and my wife who encouraged me to put my money where my mouth is.

Congressman Kuchinich was my candidate because of his policy positions, but I knew he stood little chance because he’s not at all sexy to the media. Once he was out of the race, I had to choose a new person to back.

I was literally undecided until I took a business trip to Des Moines, IA. As you might imagine, I was surrounded by Republicans. This was during the debates two weeks ago, and we watched a lot of them on the bar TV. These conservative Republicans were lukewarm on Senator McCain, absolutely loathed Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama…him they liked. They wouldn’t mind if he were president. In fact, several favored him over any of the Republican candidates. My brother in Minneapolis, who worked for Congressman and former Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Foley, was a staunch Democrat but has now been an attorney long enough that he is an Independent, told me that in a Clinton-McCain match-up he would vote for McCain. Those events opened my eyes.

Because I felt he could reach a greater diversity of Americans, I caucused for Senator Barack Obama in Precinct 606 of my local 32nd Legislative District.

I not only ended up caucusing, I was elected Precinct Chair.

My precinct had four delegates up for grabs. There was an amazing mix of people caucusing for Senator Obama: everyone from a 17-year-old female high school student to a sixty-something male attorney. And they also came in pairs: a mother and a daughter, a husband and a wife; and we were pretty much an even split on gender. I wish there was more of a racial diversity, but it was mostly caucasian with a couple of Persian immigrant citizens also participating for the first time. (Shh! Don't tell the Republicans! They'll think we were aiding terrorists!)

Those caucusing for Senator Clinton were all middle-aged white females. There were only two undecideds: They were both middle-aged white females who threw in with Clinton, and the deciding factor was that if they had stayed uncommitted or threw in with Obama, then Senator Clinton would not have gotten any delegates.

So it ended up one delegate for Clinton, three delegates for Obama. Across the state, Precincts were going 50% to 75% for Obama.

I was elected as one of the Precinct Delegates for Senator Barack Obama, who I am supporting to be the next President of the United States. Think good thoughts for me as I go on to the County Convention, then possibly State Convention in Spokane and National Convention Denver, CO.

Believe in your ability to bring about real change. http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/