Wednesday, February 6, 2008

My lone political post - don't worry it's a video

This is your lone political post. Which I probably should have posted yesterday but...alas.

So I voted for Barack Obama yesterday. Then last night I went over to a little Super Tuesday party my friends have. We ate junk food, watched the results, and each guessed who would win for both the Republican and Democratic race. It was fun. There were some awkward speeches. My friend L was saying stuff like, Clinton just sounds off. And I would say things like, well she isn't any worse than any of the republican speeches so far. They must be so tired.

Not related to Obama at all, yesterday I also brought into the voting booth a list of judges to vote for. There was one judge position where all of the five people running for it were identified by the law website I got my judge list from as "not recommended" or "unqualified"! Seriously? How in the world do they get on the ballot then?

And not to be redundant or trendy since everyone and their mother has posted this video, but have you seen it yet?


Anonymous said...

Someone accused me of throwing my vote away yesterday. I voted for Kucinich, even though he's withdrawn from the campaign, because he's the only one I can vote for with absolute integrity (and he didn't drop out of the race until the ballots were already printed!) When I listed to the HRC "debate" with the presidential candidates, I cried hearing Kucinich. Then I exclaimed out loud "Damn, I'm going to have to vote for a loser AGAIN!"

I like so much of what Obama and Clinton each stand for and have done. But, both stated categorically that they do not support gay marriage. Obama even went on to share a story of how he "understood the pain" of the LGBTQI community because his parents, too, were not legally allowed to marry in many states because they were interracial. What sense does that make? I think his story negated his point. He should be for gay marriage because it's the right thing to do!

I heard a listener comment on NPR recently that she, too, was voting for Kucinich because he was still on our state ballot. For her, making a statement for Kucinich was important because he stands for "Strength through Peace" (not peace through strength). She said she'd vote for him just to let people of the state know that they're not alone in believing he has the answers. I agree. As long as there is an option on my ballot (valid or not) for a candidate who really matches up with my values, she or he will get my vote, even if it's a long shot.

So, that's my emotional post. Now a genuine question about the political process:
The "candidate" section of my ballot still listed Kucinich, but the "delegate" section only listed Obama and Clinton delegates. If I had voted for Obama the candidate and Clinton's delegates (or vice versa) would I have negated my votes? How does this process work? If delegates are the only things that matter, why even have the "candidate" section on a ballot?

Michael Tyas said...

I don't like this video because it's a big avalanche of emotional fallacy.

titration said...

Um. Have you all taken the quiz here?

It tells you where you fall. And freyasigns, I am voting for Obama because I like him and his story but also because I LOVED what he said about GLBT issues on his MTV question and anwser. Did you see that? I tried to find it on youtube but haven't. I was impressed by his response.

titration said...

Here's a quote from this article that I found helpful. It goes through where the candidates are on all these positions.

"Both Senators Clinton and Obama have expressed approval of overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or at least that portion of it that defines federal recognition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman."