Presidential Politics

Following is something I wrote the day before the Nevada Presidential Caucus. I'm posting it late but before the contest to show that I care about the Progressive U community more than just when there's money available. Although that incentive helps.

As a political science major, I realize how funny it is that one of the things I write about least is politics itself. I have several reasons for this. One is that I don't want to repeat what other people are saying just so that people may know I too said it. Another is that I've put it off because I like to procrastinate. Still another is that I'm moderately disenchanted with politics and government and thus like to keep myself out of the much as much as possible. However, there are a lot of things out right now that need to be analyzed, and nobody is doing a truly adequate job in my opinion. So here is my take on several Presidential Election issues. Please note that I heavily support Barack Obama.

1. The lawsuit by the teachers union- Recently, Obama got the endorsement of the Culinary Union, which claims a membership of 60,000, many of whom have low pay, labor intensive jobs. Days later, the teachers union filed a lawsuit claiming that 9 at-large precincts on the Strip violated the Nevada Constitution's stipulations about electoral equality. They claimed that these precincts, which would allow the thousands of shift workers on the Strip to caucus at work instead of missing out or putting their jobs in jeopardy to go home and caucus, would give the workers a disproportionate amount of power in comparison to everybody else. Commentators have made some obvious critiques of the lawsuit, such as the audacity of a union of teachers who have the weekend off suing to disenfranchise tens of thousands of shift workers. Also, the fact that the union leadership supports Hillary has led the media to claim that it was a move orchestrated by her campaign. The fact of the matter is that claim cannot be substantiated. The lawsuit was most likely filed by the leadership to help the Clinton campaign, but there is no evidence to support the campaign's direct involvement. This could very well have been the idea of a few people who would use their positions of power to help a candidate they liked. What is rotten about the whole thing is that the lawsuit complained about the math used to determine delegate apportionment and all of those good things. This math was set in place in August, and the precincts had been proposed and talked about far in advance. The suit was filed in deliberate response to Culinary and SEIU's endorsement of Obama. But that's not the worst part, as the judge threw out the case and in the end it was just a wild attempt by one union to give its candidate a distinct edge. Culinary and SEIU will be harassing their employees to get them in Obama's corner, so the teachers union lawsuit is not exactly a rarity in union dirty politics. The real problem was that key members of the state Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign either didn't denounce or approved of the lawsuit. Bill Clinton voiced support for the lawsuit, Hillary, Senator Reid, his son Commissioner Rory Reid, and others simply said they would let the courts decide. This is especially low coming from two people who helped get the at-large precincts put in place. The Reids should have stood by their party, instead of issuing vague responses so as to not offend the candidate they've chosen to support. Clinton should have also denounced the lawsuit, as it clearly disenfranchised thousands of people in a system that she has already whined is not equal enough. She said she wanted as many people to participate as possible, BUT wanted to make sure it was fair. Since when has the caucus system ever been fair? Which leads me to:

2. The caucus system. Why does it exist? It seems that, what with the fact that it occurs at one specific time and all that viability math nonsense, that it's even more unfair than elections (which are unfair due to their winner-take-all nature). The reason is simple. Nevada, along with some other states, is cheap. Nevada in particular is a libertarian, or keep the government small and away from my money and social freedom, state, so in Presidential elections they decided to hold caucuses because caucuses are the responsibility of the parties. When there are elections, the state has to pay election board officers at every polling place. Each polling place will have at least 5 volunteers. Each volunteer is paid 10 dollars an hour for 12 hours. The math finds you spending a minimum of 600 dollars on people for each site. In addition, you have to pay election officials to train the paid volunteers, print up the things that must be printed, order thousands of those I Voted stickers, and pay technicians to set up the voting machines. The result is a huge government expense. Caucus costs, on the other hand, must be incurred by the party. This allows the party to choose who to pay, what the rules are, all that good stuff. The result is all of this math and this set time that disenfranchises or minimizes the voice of many people and candidates. The caucus system as a whole is unfair, and hence the teachers union suit made no sense as the entire caucus violates election rules. Caucuses aren't elections, so either deal with it, or force your state government to change the way it picks candidates. But know that the government has to get the dough somewhere...

3. Bill Clinton. I wonder what leverage Hillary has on him to make him do the stuff he's doing. Bill's no stranger to politics, but after spending years building up a reputation as a humanitarian, he has now become his wife's hatchet man. Perhaps the saddest thing about the whole situation is that not many people realize that Bill is being used as a decoy to take the heat so Hillary isn't completely vilified. One of the key strategies her campaign has used is having surrogates tout her strength and denounce her opponents, mainly her chief rival Obama. She's stuck her puppetmaster hands through half of her husband's cabinet, the President of BET, and Bill himself. The second saddest thing is that Bill won't ruin his new reputation as a result of his mudslinging. After all is said and done, they'll still think of Bill as Bill, and not Hillary's puppet which he has proven to be. What has Hillary done for him? In the public eye, she's only served to complicate things. From the 1993 healthcare debacle through all the sex scandals, Hillary has never really seemed to be a great asset to her husband. She was his sounding board, and I'm sure she had and has good ideas, but I want to know what debt he owes her to be her pet, a mascot for her campaign. I would've thought it below him. I suppose I was wrong.

4. Hillary Clinton. Let's get the facts out on Clinton. From first-hand accounts, I've heard that she is a nice, warm person. Her policies, like those of Obama and Edwards, are mostly sound. In honesty, this election is not about policy, as most of their policy differences are small. This is a contest of personality and character. Clinton alternately applauds and denounces lobbyists. She says many are voices of the people, then claims in her mailers that Obama is a slave to them while she is not. The fact is, out of the three main candidates, she is the only one openly accepting PAC money, which is money set aside by lobbyists. Obama and Edwards may get funding from the leaders and members of a PAC, but they are not beholden to organizations the way Clinton presumably would be. Also, Clinton is running dirty politics and most of the American people are sick of it, but seem to swallow it from her because of her proclaimed experience, presumed power, and positions on the issues. Clinton is the only candidate sending negative ads in the mail. Obama is pushing his positives, and even when the two of them got into it in the public eye, Obama always seemed to be a bit more restrained, trying not to distort too much. Obama has still kept that respect, as I saw in a rally two days ago. He said that all three major candidates' plans for health coverage were good. Meanwhile, she's mailing out flyers claiming that Obama wants to put a trillion-dollar tax increase on the middle class. She was referring to the proposed cap increase on social security tax, which would only negatively impact those making over 97,000 dollars a year. Not exactly the working stiffs, right? In fact, that's the top 3 percent of Nevadans. Obama, despite Hillary's best efforts, is really truly a pretty clean person. Edwards is pretty good too. Clinton, however, has a history of scandal and mudslinging that will hurt her in the general election. I honestly believe that she is the least electable candidate. Also, her experience defense will crumble in the general election, as the Republicans get nasty about how useless the post of First Lady is. Obama actually has the most direct governmental experience of the three.

5. John Edwards. There's not much to say about John. He's a good person, has good ideas, and cares about poverty, which is a key issue for me. However, he's not as engaging as Obama. Nobody has ever been interested enough in him. Despite having a presence in Iowa for the last four years, he still came in second place. He doesn't have chance of becoming the nominee. The best thing he can do is step down, help Obama, and get a good gig in the Obama administration, like VP or something that will give him the tools to fight poverty.

6. Barack Obama. People always want to get past the hype, but the hype is important. Obama's personality and way with words have re-engaged a segment of the population and given them hope in government. He's out there saying that Democrats and Republicans are problematic, that we should spend less time focusing on our differences and more time building off our the things we agree on. He and Edwards are both preaching a new form of politics, more transparent, more accountable, more accessible, less corrupt, more cooperative. He has gotten youth involved on a scale most likely not seen since the Bobby Kennedy. I think people have underestimated the energy created by his candidacy. No matter how good his defeat speech, should he lose, that section of the electorate will drop out of civic engagement for years, who knows how long exactly. Obama has imbued himself with concepts and ideas that appeal to so many people. He embodies hope, the kind of hope that I talked about earlier. He has articulated the contemporary American Dream. If he loses, hope dies. This primary season could possibly make or break the impact of my generation, which could come to be known as the new Greatest Generation or the generation that let it all slip away. Obama is also the only person that has the feel of being "of the people". He was not born into wealth or a stable life. He had to deal with ethnic identity, moving a lot, being estranged from his biological father, living in different cultures. He thrived and got into some prestigious schools. After that, when he could've started practicing law, he decided to help organize the disadvantaged and and give them a hand up. Making 12,000 dollars a year plus car expenses (sounds like me), he helped register voters, find employment, and voice opinions on issues for the impoverished people of Chicago's South Side. When he did practice law, he practiced civil rights instead of business law. When he ran his campaign for Congress, his credit card was turned down. Not many people running for a national office have been in that precarious a position. Most of all, the thing that convinced me, was that I have sensed that he isn't just talking, that despite the phrases he uses repeatedly, he isn't just spewing rhetoric because it sounds good. He truly believes in himself and in his supporters, and he truly believes in change and in moving forward.

All that being said, take my friend Daniel's advice, and think for yourself and vote for yourself. But if you live in Nevada, please do a little research and come out to caucus tomorrow at 11am.