JibJab on Campaign

"It's time for some campaignin'!" (h/t Gregg Puls)



"When we promise you anything you want to hear". Couldn't be more on the mark.

Now, That's Journalism!

Here's the dilemma: You feel the coronations are in place, for Obama and McCain, but Clinton hangs around despite the surest signs it's over: No, not the announcement of the nomination. The pronouncement of (say with reverence and awe) Tim Russert! And still, you have to report on something.

What to do... Talk about policy? Nah. The public doesn't care about policy. Not really. Let's make references that signal how cool I am!

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has graduated from the Mike Kole School of Journalism. He has compared Hillary Clinton's campaign to a cadaver by referencing Monty Python sketches! Not once, but twice!

Today's article, referencing the Black Knight scene from the Holy Grail film.
May 14 article, referencing the Dead Parrot sketch from the Flying Circus TV series.

The Black Knight:


Dead Parrot:

Election Re-Cap

So, yes- I did merely walk in to the polling place, sign the book, and walk out. Well, it was a little more detailed.

The clerk asked me if I wanted a Republican or Democratic ballot. I said, "no thank you". This left her perplexed, so she answered, "you have to take one or the other". I advised her that, no, I didn't, that I could sign the book and walk out. The Judge came over and confirmed what I said, so while I signed, I added, "I'm a partisan Libertarian. I would never take one of the other parties' ballots". She replied, "Oh! A Libertarian! I'll put an 'L' next to your name. I thought that was pretty great.

There was no great turnout at my polling place, the Fishers Town Hall. It votes heavily Republican, and apparently, the Republicans felt no need to show up. It was the shortest wait (one person) that I had ever experienced there. I think that Democrats will get excited by the numbers that show greater numbers of 'D' votes than "R' in Hamilton County, and it will yield greater turnout in November.

This signals the end of my one-time hope that the Libertarian Party could quickly supplant the Dems as the #2 party in Hamilton County. As HC grows and urbanizes, it is becoming marginally more Democratic. Nothing the Dems are doing internally are causing this, but external forces favor them some here.

Ron Paul fared worse than Mike Huckabee? How bad is that? Huckabee has been out of the race for months. There is a valuable lesson here for any small-l libertarian who has been clinging to the hopes that the Republican Party can be reformed from within to accept libertarian principles: It ain't happening.

If anything, I expected Paul's numbers to seriously challenge McCain's. After all, McCain has all but experienced the coronation already, and as such, voting for Paul would be a "safe" thing to do. Alas- less than 8% of Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

So the message has been sent. Hoosier Republicans favor big government by a 92-8 count. If you favor liberty and smaller government, you really have to bail on the Republicans.

Everything else is just horse race showtime, and I don't care. I struggle to decide which of the presidential candidates is the worst. At the moment, it's McCain, for his commitment to endless futility in the Middle East, and McCain-Feingold. Obama and Hillary are tied for a very close second worst, as they push economic ruin and socialized health care, which would surely contribute to the economic ruin. It's hard to be excited about any of the lot.

Good For Indiana?

(Fishers, IN)- While so many are delighted by the interest shown in Indiana's upcoming primary, thanks to the close Democratic presidential contest, I have yet to think it a positive. Bill Ruthhart's article in this morning's Indy Star is just the article I've been waiting for and expecting to see. Ruthhart's first paragraph says it all:

Indiana's presidential primary has attracted a spotlight so bright that many Hoosiers remain blind to other key races on Tuesday's primary ballot.

Of course, who will be the next president is important. But, what goes on in my state is important, too. The candidates for president are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get their message out. If you don't know what Obama or Clinton are about by now, you haven't tried. And yet, they get all of the press attention. On the other hand, what do you know about Shellinger or Thompson? If you aren't a political junkie, do you even know their first names? Or even their party?

Races for governor and Congress normally would be a top draw for Indiana's voters and media outlets, but instead candidates in those races have scrambled to be heard over the noise of the presidential contest.

"It is impossible to break through and get any attention on a day when the presidential campaigns are here," said Jennifer Wagner, press secretary for gubernatorial candidate Jim Schellinger. "The presidential race has sucked all the air out of the room, and it's really frustrating."

That's amusing in one tiny way, that the top of the Democratic ticket is making it hard for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates. As ever, that's an unintended consequence. As ever, unintended consequences can be worse than the "benefits" from which they came.

The bottom line is that the people of our state really aren't any better informed about state politics than in years when the primaries here are non-factors. It may even be worse. Instead of light turnout, we'll have heavy turnout by people who don't know what their voting on.

More quotes, about the "media coverage" candidates for governor are "getting":

A Schellinger rally late last week at a Southside union hall was a prime example.

Obama and Clinton were campaigning in Indiana, so only about 30 people heard Schellinger speak.

Normally, such an appearance would draw heavy media coverage and a higher turnout, but the only other reporter in attendance (aside from the one with The Indianapolis Star) was from The New York Times. That reporter's assignment: to write a story about the lack of attention on Indiana's other races.

See that? They notice the phenomena even in the New York paper. In terms of our vote for the very important state and local offices, we'd be far better off without the Obama-Clinton horse race obscuring these contests.

Double Negative

The Kole household received two mailings today- one from Hillary Clinton, one from Barack Obama. Let's break them down.

Obama: I was briefly fooled by this one. The cover shows Hillary Clinton smiling, with a microphone. I thought it was a Clinton piece, until I read the text: "When the chips are down and we need her most, can we really count on Hillary Clinton to stand up for Indiana jobs?"

You see where this is headed. "We can't trust Hillary Clinton to protect Indiana jobs." The proof? A cover of Fortune Magazine, with her face on it and the proclamation "Business Loves Hillary!"

You know, (sarcasm alert) I hate that in a President. I want a President who is hated, no, SCORNED, by business. (sarcasm alert) No good can come from that prosperity nonsense.

What kind of stupidity is Obama trying to sell here? That tried and true stupidity that appeals to losers- protectionism. And worse, it's an attack ad. The campaign could have touted something Obama is for, but his campaign felt the need to promote being against someone instead.

Clinton: Instead of her face (or Obama's) on the cover, Clinton's ad has a multi-cultural group standing beneath the question, "Which of These People Don't Deserve Health Care?"

Normally, I expect this rhetoric from someone playing the race card, so it's curious when offered in opposition to Obama. All the more curious when you consider that you can't tell who doesn't deserve health care by looking at them, as any non-racist should know. You have to know whether or not they've planned and invested properly to manage such costs to cast such judgment.

This is, of course, also an attack ad. In fact, this one doesn't have Clinton's face on it at all, but does have a small smiling picture of Barack Obama. Again, you know who to vote against- not so much who to vote for.

I'm sure these campaigns know what they're doing. They wouldn't go negative if they didn't think it worked. I find such negative advertising perfectly repellent.

I find it a worse mark on Obama, though. I expect negativity and attack from Clinton. Obama had been working so hard to give the imagery, the feeling of positivism. When the chips are down, it comes back to negativity.

I declare them both correct. Niether of their primary opponents are worth voting for. Where does that leave us?