NEW HAMPSHIRE!!
Voters are swooning over Obama. The McCainiacs are in full swing. Or is it "Mac is Back"? Maybe Romney makes a late surge? Clinton? Well it seems as if everyone has all but written off the "inevitable" candidate.
There was an opinion piece in The Post I found intriguing. The Simpsons, this past Sunday, presented a wonderful array of satire aimed at the political process. I loved how the Simpson family posted an "Undecided" sign outside their house, only to be descended upon by all the media. What is it mean if you're undecided? Is it that you're weighing all your options? Maybe, in this two party process, falling somewhere in the middle (which I believe is a larger portion of the American public than those who are devoutly Dems or Reps) makes it difficult to choose a candidate. Sometimes I wonder when someone is so decisive about voting for a candidate if they haven't simplified the process for themselves. I think this is where the evangelical voters have an advantage. There is really only one candidate to vote for. And maybe Huckabee is really going to win the primary. If so and Obama wins the Democratic primary, then there's the possibility Mayor Bloomberg will run. If that scenario plays out (as floated in this op/ed in the Monday Times) then the possibility exists that Bloomberg will take votes from the Dems, and Huckabee wins the general election. Which seems strange to me that a candidate who appeals to a polarized segment of our population could rise to the presidency. I suppose that's not much different than when Ralph Nader ran, apparently contributing to Bush's ascension to the White House.
Some studies point out that eliminating choices essentially result in better happiness and satisfaction. I first read about this in The Paradox of Choice, a fantastic book about what we really care about and why we think we are happier with more choice, when maybe it's not always the case. Essentially the idea is that with more choice, we decrease our sense of satisfaction because we concern ourselves with what might have been. Now I'm not promoting Soviet era choice. But maybe when we are presented a scenario where 5-10 candidates are vying for your vote. Maybe you just need to simplify it. But how the hell do you do it? I can agree with many of Congressman Ron Paul's points of view. Some I don't. I can also agree with Obama, McCain, Romney, Clinton, and Giuliani. So where does that put me? It means that I go cover as many volunteer driven events as I can to see for myself why these supporters can be so gung-ho over "their" candidates.
Let me describe my latest developments, quickly. Obama and Paul supporters are fervent in their enthusiasm. Clinton supporters are guarded and I can't find any McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Edwards supporters. Maybe it's my own experience, maybe it actually means something. I travelled to Hillary's HQ here in Arlington. I was quickly informed there would be no way I could photograph any of the volunteer activity going on inside. Nevermind that it's volunteer-driven and essentially anyone who says they support her can show up. But I suppose as I'm "media", then it's a no-go. Fine. I've now contacted at least 2 other Clinton volunteer groups, and both have been extremely skeptical about allowing me to watch any activity. Why so guarded? Wouldn't anyone be thrilled to have their activities photographed, to get more publicity for their political action? I can't seem to respond quickly enough to Obama and Paul emails. I should mention that I also receive a lot of emails from Hillary, to ask for donations. Huckabee supporters, while seemingly less active in the DC metro area, have been very accommodating, as well, although I have yet to go to an event (first one should be on 1/13).
So a few weeks ago, I attended a couple Ron Paul events. The first couple events were sign waving events. The most recent was held outside NBC studios in DC where Paul appeared on Meet The Press. Before leaving, he exited his car, and spoke to the gathered supporters and signed autographs. What struck me, was the level of adoration by the people who attended. In fact, moments after taking the photo seen here, the guy asked Rep. Paul for a hug. He latched on like a kid to Santa Claus. Of course, my CF Card had just gone full and I was in the middle of changing it out [sigh]. Later that day a march was "organized" to commemorate the anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve (which Paul contends is unconstitutional). Not too many people showed up, to put it kindly. No surprise there, as it had been organized a mere 3 days prior, by the organizers of the Ron Paul Blimp. The blimp had been grounded for repairs and they decided to organize the march. It was cold and a pouring rain absolutely soaked anyone there. So the few people marched through the streets of DC anyway, carrying signs and banners, one of which astride a horse, carrying a flag. These supporters are extremely dedicated and genuinely believe in the Ron Paul "Revolution".
Between the Paul and Obama events, I can't figure who is more enthusiastic in their support. Clearly the Obama support has translated into results, while the Paul campaign is relegated to the background. I'm just glad to be able to see these volunteers so fervently supporting their candidates, whether I believe in them or not. I just wish I could follow the other candidate's supporters as well.
There was an opinion piece in The Post I found intriguing. The Simpsons, this past Sunday, presented a wonderful array of satire aimed at the political process. I loved how the Simpson family posted an "Undecided" sign outside their house, only to be descended upon by all the media. What is it mean if you're undecided? Is it that you're weighing all your options? Maybe, in this two party process, falling somewhere in the middle (which I believe is a larger portion of the American public than those who are devoutly Dems or Reps) makes it difficult to choose a candidate. Sometimes I wonder when someone is so decisive about voting for a candidate if they haven't simplified the process for themselves. I think this is where the evangelical voters have an advantage. There is really only one candidate to vote for. And maybe Huckabee is really going to win the primary. If so and Obama wins the Democratic primary, then there's the possibility Mayor Bloomberg will run. If that scenario plays out (as floated in this op/ed in the Monday Times) then the possibility exists that Bloomberg will take votes from the Dems, and Huckabee wins the general election. Which seems strange to me that a candidate who appeals to a polarized segment of our population could rise to the presidency. I suppose that's not much different than when Ralph Nader ran, apparently contributing to Bush's ascension to the White House.
Some studies point out that eliminating choices essentially result in better happiness and satisfaction. I first read about this in The Paradox of Choice, a fantastic book about what we really care about and why we think we are happier with more choice, when maybe it's not always the case. Essentially the idea is that with more choice, we decrease our sense of satisfaction because we concern ourselves with what might have been. Now I'm not promoting Soviet era choice. But maybe when we are presented a scenario where 5-10 candidates are vying for your vote. Maybe you just need to simplify it. But how the hell do you do it? I can agree with many of Congressman Ron Paul's points of view. Some I don't. I can also agree with Obama, McCain, Romney, Clinton, and Giuliani. So where does that put me? It means that I go cover as many volunteer driven events as I can to see for myself why these supporters can be so gung-ho over "their" candidates.
Let me describe my latest developments, quickly. Obama and Paul supporters are fervent in their enthusiasm. Clinton supporters are guarded and I can't find any McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Edwards supporters. Maybe it's my own experience, maybe it actually means something. I travelled to Hillary's HQ here in Arlington. I was quickly informed there would be no way I could photograph any of the volunteer activity going on inside. Nevermind that it's volunteer-driven and essentially anyone who says they support her can show up. But I suppose as I'm "media", then it's a no-go. Fine. I've now contacted at least 2 other Clinton volunteer groups, and both have been extremely skeptical about allowing me to watch any activity. Why so guarded? Wouldn't anyone be thrilled to have their activities photographed, to get more publicity for their political action? I can't seem to respond quickly enough to Obama and Paul emails. I should mention that I also receive a lot of emails from Hillary, to ask for donations. Huckabee supporters, while seemingly less active in the DC metro area, have been very accommodating, as well, although I have yet to go to an event (first one should be on 1/13).
So a few weeks ago, I attended a couple Ron Paul events. The first couple events were sign waving events. The most recent was held outside NBC studios in DC where Paul appeared on Meet The Press. Before leaving, he exited his car, and spoke to the gathered supporters and signed autographs. What struck me, was the level of adoration by the people who attended. In fact, moments after taking the photo seen here, the guy asked Rep. Paul for a hug. He latched on like a kid to Santa Claus. Of course, my CF Card had just gone full and I was in the middle of changing it out [sigh]. Later that day a march was "organized" to commemorate the anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve (which Paul contends is unconstitutional). Not too many people showed up, to put it kindly. No surprise there, as it had been organized a mere 3 days prior, by the organizers of the Ron Paul Blimp. The blimp had been grounded for repairs and they decided to organize the march. It was cold and a pouring rain absolutely soaked anyone there. So the few people marched through the streets of DC anyway, carrying signs and banners, one of which astride a horse, carrying a flag. These supporters are extremely dedicated and genuinely believe in the Ron Paul "Revolution".
Between the Paul and Obama events, I can't figure who is more enthusiastic in their support. Clearly the Obama support has translated into results, while the Paul campaign is relegated to the background. I'm just glad to be able to see these volunteers so fervently supporting their candidates, whether I believe in them or not. I just wish I could follow the other candidate's supporters as well.
Comments
Post a Comment