If you didn't catch it on TV the other night, and wanted to watch it, here it is:
Personally speaking, I think it was a well done ad. As the election is coming to a close, I think consolidating all of the positive aspects of Obama's platform into one piece, and combining it with the reasons - the people he's listened to - was a great choice for the Obama campaign.
All politics aside, I want to comment on the campaign that Obama has run so far. It has been wildly successful - even if he doesn't win the presidency, his campaign has been run so well it should be a model for future presidential campaigns.
Now, I know what you're thinking, if it's such a good campaign, and he doesn't win, why should it be a model? Well, first we have to understand the nature that is campaigning, and voting. The main function of a campaign is to get the person elected, however, you can't negate the people who will vote their party, or for a candidate for every reason under the sun but the campaign. These are the people who have their minds made up before the election has started, or don't bother to pay attention to any of it, and simply vote for the person with the nicest hair, or a name they vaguely remember hearing once at a cocktail party. You have the die hards and the brain dead who can swing an election!
All of that not withstanding, campaigns have to over come hurdles - fund raising, public relations, and yes, slamming the "other guy". And of course, that comes with dodging mud for the home team, too.
Obama's campaign has had some serious public relations issues to contend with. The McCain campaign threw around very seriously damaging accusations, trying to get the public to hear an insinuation about say, Obama and Ayers, and internally digest it as being associated with terrorists, and then spew it back out to others as Obama is the terrorist. This is like playing "Operator" with a political twist. Had the Obama campaign not been swift on it's feet, a rumor like this could have brought them down easily months ago. It didn't.
The Obama campaign has handily balanced the fine line between defending the candidate against outright and malicious attacks about his character, his ethnicity, and his religion without letting it become a constant defense routine. Putting your opponent on the defense is the easiest way to prevent the platform message from getting out. McCain failed to do that, and, in fact, Obama managed to work the defenses of his character in with his platform stomp speeches so that it was all one, fluid, piece.
The Obama campaign has shown consistency in it's campaign tactics, and preparedness in battleground states. The amount of preparation is what has astounded me. The campaign teams were in the neighborhoods knocking on doors and making phone calls before McCain was even in the state itself. Considering the fact that McCain had almost six months on Obama to prepare for the presidential race, he is seriously behind campaign wise.
So much so, that he has had to pull out of battleground states.
The other aspect that has struck me, at least, are the assertions being made by McCain's campaign that are false, and the facts asserted as facts being proven as false. In the age of instant gratification, online access to information in a New York minute, the ease at which we can get records of past speeches, debates, and quotes, and the flurry of fact checking a candidate must take extra care to ensure that what they say cannot be debunked just moments after they've said it. Or at all, if they can help it.
In this regard, I do believe that Obama's campaign has utilized and maintained the usefulness of the electronic era to it's fullest potential. While both Obama and Biden have made small gaffes and mistakes, the mistakes made on behalf of the McCain campaign are astounding. The frenzy of information being debunked, checked, or refuted justs moments after a speech or debate is something few presidential candidates have had to encounter in campaigns past. To not understand, or be wary of the ramifications of speaking about issues topics or people without having all of the facts in this era is a massive tactical mistake for campaigns to make.
As we saw with the whole "Joe the plumber" debacle.
Another area to look at is fundraising. According to The BBC Obama has raised an astonishing $659 million dollars, but most impressively, has dominated in the small donation category. Obama has latched onto and used local excitement to help raise money for his campaign. While McCain sat back, waiting for large donations to drop into his lap, and for public funds to come flowing in in September - far too late in the game - Obama managed to raise the money he needed before that public funding was even made available, and so he didn't need to take it. That saves the government some money, at least.
But more importantly, it shows campaign initiative.
Regardless of political opinions, and who you plan to vote for, if you haven't already voted, you simply can't deny that Obama has run the superior campaign.
If you didn't catch it on TV the other night, and wanted to watch it, here it is:
Posted by Anok at 3:39 PM
What do you do next? Now, most of my readers are probably not first time voters, so bear with me folks. If you are, or know someone who is, feel free to pass this post around. With only a week until election day, I think it would be good to go over some basics about voting.
First, if you haven't registered, and registration is still open where you live - do it now! Go directly to your town hall and do it, otherwise you may not be registered in time.s
First and foremost
You should verify that your registration has gone through. If you haven't received a letter of verification, stating that you are registered, in your town, and telling you which polling place you need to vote in, call your registrar office and double check. Better yet, go in, and get a letter of verification. Make sure you know which polling place you can vote in, and the hours it will be open. Usually it's open at 6am until 8pm, but you should double check.
What you'll need on election day
When you go into the polls you will need to verify your identity. The best way to do that is to make sure you have your ID on you. The best ID is a driver's license, military ID or state ID. If you don't have any of those, you can use a combination of items, such as your social security card, birth certificate, utility bill if it's your account showing your address and name, photo ID such as a college ID, or wholesale card with your photo or a card with your name on it, that is embossed, like a credit card.
If you are disabled, or English isn't your first language, and you think you will need assistance, you can bring someone with you! It is perfectly legal for someone to help you in the voting booth as long as:
It is not your employer or religious leader, or a candidate or political figure and they do not cast the vote for you. They can help you understand the ballot, see where the bubbles or selection is, translate for you, help you stand, etc...Election officials in the polling place CAN help you.
Also, polling places have special booths for the physically disabled, ask for one if you need it.
You can also bring your children along with you, but they cannot cast the vote for you.
When you should go
This election is going to be a rather busy one. Trying to go on your lunch break is going to be a nightmare. Plan to go during an "off time". The busiest times at polling places tend to be early in the am (6-8), late at night(8), lunch hour (between 11 and 1) and dinner time, or around 5 or 6 pm. Try to get there before or after these times, and your wait will be decreased.
If you already know that you will not make it to the polls on time you should go to your town hall right now, and cast an absentee ballot. They will open and count it in central counting (at the registrar's office) on election day.
When you get there
You will be "challenged" or asked for your address and name, with ID. you will show this to the challenger or checker. They will then check you off the list, and ask you to move either to the ballot clerk, who will issue you a paper ballot and a folder for privacy, or you will go directly into line to use a machine, depending on the system your polling place uses.
You will cast your vote, and exit through the approved exit (not the same door you came in). You'll get a sticker, and go on with your day.
Possible problems you could encounter
When you go into the polling place there are a few problems you could encounter.
1) You are not on the master list. If you've just registered, or haven't voted in the last four years, moved recently, or made any changes like that, your name could have been removed from the master list of registered voters.
It may be on the inactive list, in which case, you will have to sign some paperwork, you will be reinstated, and you will be able to vote.
It may be a misspelling of your name, or street address. Give alternate spellings, and show your ID. If it is a simple mistake, you will be allowed to vote.
You may not have been added to the master list in time for the election. The Assistant registrar or moderator will verify your eligibility to vote with the registrars, your name will be added to the list to be checked off, and you will be allowed to vote. This is why you should have your verification letter on hand - it will speed up the process.
You may not be in the system at all. If so, that means you did not register in time, or the place where you registered did not send your information in time. You will NOT be eligible to vote if that is the case. This is why I advise people to register directly in their town hall.
2) Your vote is challenged.
When you go into your polling place, and present your information, someone there can challenge your ability to vote. Usually for three reasons: Your identity (you are not who you say you are), your address (you no longer live in that district), or your legal ability to vote due to prison sentences, or probation. Each state has different laws regarding criminal's and convicted felon's eligibility to vote. (Be sure you have on you documentation of your eligibility to vote in case someone challenges you about that.)
When your vote is challenged you have the opportunity to prove that you are who you say you are (ID) live where you say you live (Verification, witnesses), or have documentation of your eligibility to vote. If you do, you will be allowed to vote.
If you don't, can't or refuse to provide proof, you will cast a "challenged ballot". This ballot does not go into the machine, and is not counted until eligibility is verified. In my state, the law has changed so that challenged ballots will not be counted. So be sure you can prove that you can vote.
Each state has different voting systems. Some are computers, others are paper ballots with tabulators, and some may even still have the old lever voting booth. Whatever type your polling place offers, be SURE to look over the demonstration, and ask for a tutorial before trying to vote.
If you are using the paper ballot and tabulator kind, you MUST fill in the bubble next to the candidate's name who you wish to vote for. Circling the candidate's name, making an x in the box, or any other mark can render the vote invalid. The machine only reads what is in the bubble, so if you accidentally mark the wrong bubble you must call for assistance, and the moderator or assistant registrar will "spoil" your ballot, and give you a new one. Be sure to mark only bubbles next to the names you wish to vote for, and do not over vote in each section. Otherwise your ballot will be rendered invalid.
Do not bend, fold, or get the ballot wet.
DO make sure that you vote goes into the tabulator fully (without forcing it) and that it has counted your vote before you leave. If you leave and the machine spits it out, you will not have a chance to fix whatever mistake was made, and your vote may not be counted. It only takes a second or two.
If you have computer voting - I don't know how it works specifically, but do make sure you pay attention to which selection you make, and touch the screen gently so you do not accidentally select a candidate you didn't want to vote for.
If you still have the old lever booths: you walk into the booth, and pull the big lever at the bottom from left to right. That will close the curtain, and set the levers so that you can vote. You choose the candidate you want, and flick the lever down, so that you can see the arrow showing, and LEAVE IT like that! The lever booths will not let you over vote, so if you try to choose two candidates where you can only vote for one, the other lever will not go down. If you've made a mistake, and flicked the wrong lever, you can push it back up, and select a different one.
You leave your chosen levers down, and pull that giant lever at the bottom from right to left, the curtain will open, and your vote will be counted.
If you have paper ballots - just make sure you get the punch in the right spot, the mark is clearly for your candidate, and you take your time!!
Then you're done!
Awesome, you've voted!
Odds and ends, voting laws
There are some voting laws that will need to be addressed. Don't wear paraphernalia or bring pamphlets supporting your candidate into the polling place. In many places this is illegal, and you will be asked to remove it or leave, in other places it's just bad etiquette.
Campaigning folks and unofficial checkers - campaigning parties generally cannot come within a specific footage of the polling place to prevent coercion. Unofficial checkers are in the polling place, and they work for their party. They have NO authority there, and are under direct control of the moderator. If they harass or intimidate you you, inform the moderator right away. She or he will have them removed from the premises if necessary.
Don't cause a ruckus, or you will be escorted off the premise by police. If you are frustrated, stay calm, and work with the election officials.
Children are OK to bring into the polling place, but they must be tended to by an adult. They can't run around, or play basketball behind the privacy booths.
At 8PM, the polling place closes. Anyone in line before 8pm sharp will be able to vote. But at 8 pm, an election official will be positioned at the end of the line, and will not allow anyone else in line to vote.
So get there before 8.
Now, go! vote!
Posted by Anok at 8:44 PM
There has been a lot of conversation lately about Obama's tax plan that has inspired the battle cry of "punishing the people who are successful". Now, it's been argued that a tax break for those who earn less than $250,000 per household, or $200,000 per unmarried individual per year is in some way telling people not to be successful, and not to earn a lot of money. By "punishing" those who do earn that much money per year or more, the de facto result is a push for mediocrity in the other income brackets.
This is a silly notion, for a few reasons.
First of all, very few US households bring in $250,000 per year or more, according to Factcheck those households account for about 2 - 3.1 percent of the population.
For simplicity, we'll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office.[...]Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year.
In a capitalist economy such as the US, the economic hierarchy is set up in "classes" , or income brackets. In order for a capitalist economy to work properly, all of the economic brackets must be filled by the appropriate ratio of people.
If everyone earned what the top earners did, who would be left to man the factories, clean the schools, and sweep the streets? Not everyone can earn top dollar, and, if companies opted to pay out top dollar for even the most rudimentary jobs, than the prices of products, and cost of living expenses would rise accordingly, and those earning $250,000 per year would then remain in the same economic bracket as they had been in previously, because the top earners would be paid proportionately more than them.
Now, this doesn't mean that some people can't move up the economic ladder, but it does mean that very few can move up that ladder without toppling the entire economic structure. As soon as one class emerges into a new class, another group immediately takes their old position. So, it would stand to reason that the only thing that is actually standing in the way of people trying to be successful, is the economic structure of capitalism.
Reason number two, who says that bringing in under $250,000 per year isn't successful? A household with a $200,000 per year income is living a pretty gosh darn comfy life.
So too, are those bringing in $100,000 per year. or even less, if the family isn't struggling to get by, and have little desire to make more money.
Are people trying to insinuate that those who are living comfortably at their current incomes are lazy? Are they trying to say they aren't successful? Has it ever occurred to anyone that making boat loads of money isn't the be-all, end-all goal of many people?
If a family is comfortable at their current income, and considers their life to be a success, and have no need to make $250,000 per year or more, what negative influence will a tax break have on them? They are already uninspired by the glorious pursuit of enormous wealth. They don't need it, they don't want it, and not taxing those who do make that much more than them will not inspire them to go out and try it.
Let's face it, a very small percentage of Americans actually make that much money. A quarter of a million dollars a year is a lot of money, much more than most realize. It's much more than most of actually need - no matter what lottery winning fantasies we may have.
The argument that this tax plan will somehow reduce aspirations and goals is a fallacy. Those who want to make that much money will make it and more, no matter what tax plan is thrown their way. They aren't going to throw away the lavish lifestyle they have become accustomed to just to avoid taxes. And those who don't earn it aren't going to try and earn less, either. Nor will they be any more uninspired to earn more than they already are.
It's just the silliest idea I've seen in a while.
But what about the tax plan? Why does this Anarchist support it? Quite frankly, taxes run this country. It funds the government, the programs, the schools, roads, and military. So we do need taxes, however, the economy is lagging and so we need an infusion of purchase power.
Who purchases more products, the upper 3 percent, or the rest of the country? Well, it's those earning under $250,000 and more than the poverty threshold that purchase enough goods, over the span of about 200 million people, that make the economic gears grind. 200 million multiple purchases beats 10 million purchases every time. The upper class elites can only purchase so many goods, and often times are not making purchases in plain Jane retail stores and franchise chains. The upper echelon are not making daily stops to the local McDonald's and Walmart. They aren't shopping at Macy's, Target, and JC Penny. They may be helping the Audi and BMW sales go up, but they aren't buying used cars at the local car dealership.
It's those of use who need to purchase things regularly, at lower prices, from chain stores that actually help keep businesses afloat, not the wealthy. SO if they can't help keep the economy up by purchasing things, they can certainly help by paying a bit more into the tax system.
That way, we're all helping by playing to our strengths. The lower 95 percentile will help keep the economy up by purchasing things with the money they will have left over from the tax break, and the wealthy can add a bit to the pot by way of taxes, since they can't purchase enough to do it on their own. We can't simply give everyone a break, because that money needs to come from somewhere. And we can't raise everyone's taxes because taxes aren't the only part of the solution that needs to be addressed. And we can't keep it the same as it is because someone, somewhere, needs to have enough expendable income to make the purchases that will help out the economy.
This is the only logical solution. And the argument that it punishes people, or inspires other to be lazy is ludicrous.
Posted by Anok at 4:43 PM
I'd like to address some smears that have resurfaced - once again - and only because the sheer willful ignorance about separating fact from fiction - or the inability to do so has begun to give me a headache. So, let's be clear, McCain and Co have released the hounds and the smears that have been let loose are running rampantly around, here are a few of them:
Barack Obama Is, in fact, a US citizen, and from Factcheck:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Obama does not refuse to place his hand over his heart for the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, or any other unpatriotic nonsense. From ABC:
Obama said the photo was taken during the singing of the national anthem, not the pledge.
“My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 2,” Obama said, his annoyance obvious. “During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing.
Yes, Michelle Obama is proud of her country. From ABC:
Appearing eager to set the record straight [on ABC’s The View] in front of a television audience of millions of women, Obama said she is “proud of my country, without a doubt.”
“I’m a girl who grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Chicago let me tell you, of course I’m proud,” she said. “Nowhere but in America could my story be possible.”
“What I was talking about is pride in the political process,” she said.
Yes, Obama supports the troops, from Factcheck:
This is another viral e-mail falsehood. The author now says it's not true; the Army says it's not true; and video and photos show Obama shaking hands with troops and eating breakfast with them as well.
The swiftboater is responsible for the attacks on Obama about Ayers
From the website:
In 2004, Harold Simmons was the biggest funder of the manipulative smear group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In 2008, Simmons is the sole donor funding a vicious attack ad in some battleground states that uses tortured logic and clumsy innuendo to invent a tie between Barack Obama and terrorism.
The ad goes completely beyond the pale by cynically exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in an unfounded connection with Chicago academic William Ayers. Then it claims that Ayers somehow “launched” Barack Obama’s career — an assertion so outlandish that not even Simmons’ fellow discredited Swift Boater Jerome Corsi included it in his smear book.
The ad may even be a criminal violation of campaign finance laws. Simmons has previously been fined tens of thousands of dollars for campaign finance violations – including forging the signatures of his own daughters to make political contributions from trust funds.
Obama is not part of Acorn, from the website:
Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. (For more about Barack’s career, check out our Obama bio.)
Obama's financial advisors are not Fannie and Freddie.
The McCain campaign is the one with many ties to key lobbyists and advisers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the campaign’s campaign manager Rick Davis and McCain’s Senate Chief of Staff Mark Buse. Read more about their extensive ties to Fannie and Freddie here: Newsweek, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. John McCain started smearing Barack Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads. Anonymous smear emails have followed McCain’s lead by fabricating even more connections.
These smears disguise the fact that Barack actually has a sensible, detailed plan to fix the economy — and it’s a much better source of answers than anonymous attack emails.
The non-partisan fact-check website Snopes.com looked into these smears, and their conclusions about Barack and the Fannie Mae executives shouldn’t be surprising: “None of them has (or apparently ever had) ongoing roles with the campaign as chief economic advisors.”
Not an adviser: Frank Raines
Barack estimates that he and Raines have talked for “maybe five minutes” in their lives, and Frank Raines himself even released a statement saying that he is “not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.”
Not an adviser: Tim Howard
This supposed connection appears to have been made up completely out of thin air. Snopes.com writes, “We haven’t yet found any tangible connection between Tim Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the claim that Howard is a ‘chief economic adviser’ to Obama.”
Not an adviser: Jim Johnson
Jim Johnson has never held a paid position with Obama for America. He volunteered to help Barack select a vice presidential nominee but stepped down after just one week.
And finally, no, Obama is not friends with William Ayers
From the NYtimes:
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
And from CNN:
CNN Fact check wrote about Palin’s claim that Obama is palling around with terrorists, “Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now “palling around,” or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.”
OK great, I'd like everyone to move on now, and get over the fact that Obama is ahead, and that McCain's got nuthin'.
Oh, the Gallup poll today:
Obama 51%, McCain 41%.
And check out the electoral map on RealClearPolitics it's a doozy.
Posted by Anok at 11:57 PM
It's been reported that AIG executives were treated to a posh retreat in California, at one of the most exclusive hotels and resorts in the US, to the tune of $440,000.00 of taxpayer's dollars.
That's right, your money. This retreat was implemented after the $85 billion dollar bailout of the insurance giant that almost tanked, helping to undermine the US's economy so much so that the US government had to step in, and take control, using tax payer's money to bail them out of trouble. From the CNN.com:
Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown.
The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Now, is there any wonder why our economy is in the tank? Is there any wonder why these massive companies, charged with fraudulent behaviors and corrupt practices are going under, to the great expense of the US economy, and all of the citizens in it?
This company took huge risks (with your insurance premiums, I might add) lost it all, gave their former CEO a raise bringing his enormous salary up to $13.7 million dollars per year, excluding perks and compensation of stocks while the company was going under, cooked the books AND THEN...
Had the government bail them out with $85 billion dollars of tax payer's money who then has the audacity to turn around and pamper the executives with a retreat that cost US - you and me - nearly a half of a million dollars?!
It is more than obvious that corporations cannot be trusted to do business ethically, or intelligently and those who stand to gain the most but risk the least who have such a major influence on the domestic and global economy should not be allowed to make decisions for themselves.
It's like letting a baby play with a samurai sword. It won't end well. And it hasn't.
Have we forgotten history?
In the meantime, you have McCain supporters crying that they don't want their tax dollars going towards a national health care system because "other people" will be able to get health care off 'their dime". And yet, "other people" namely CEO's executives, and massive corporations are getting spa treatments off their dime. Off of, actually millions of their dimes.
Where are they? Are they screaming from the rooftops about this yet? Or is anything corporate good - particularly the pampering of executives of corporations by way of tax payer dollars, yet helping individual citizens get proper health care through tax dollars "socialism"?
I don't even want to know how they justify this. From the article:
"I do agree there is some profligate spending there, but the concept of bringing all the major employees together ... to ensure that the $85 billion could be as greatly as possible paid back would have been not a crazy corporate decision," Dinallo told the House committee.
What, they couldn't have them gather at the headquarters for a meeting? They had to play golf, and get their nails done too?
This is no excuse. This is the poorest rationalization I've seen.
It's no wonder why we are in the mess we are in, corporate budgetary priorities are entirely backwards. They pay millions upon millions of dollars to the people who do the least work, and lay off the people who produce the product and services that make them millions of dollars. They could create thousands of jobs on their salaries, yet squander their money away on perks and overgrown children who apparently can't do business unless they are getting an avocado facial.
They take huge risks with your money, then ask for more of your money to bail them out, and then squander what they've borrowed on more perks.
And they complain about their "tax burden" Hello? Is anyone there?
This is ridiculous. Utterly. Ridiculous.
From the article:
"You have cost my constituents and the taxpayers of this country $85 billion and run into the ground one of the most respected insurance companies in the history of our country," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York. "You were just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars."
Damn straight. By the way, Presidential hopeful, Obama expressed the sentiment that the executives of AIG should be fired over this.
And I agree.
Posted by Anok at 2:39 PM
The a thread on BlogCatalog about McCain's "that one" and numerous "attacks" on Palin about her folksy demure got me to thinking - how many people really relate to that type of speech? I know that Palin chided the East Coast as being bad...somehow - of course the West coast has it's fair share of metropolitan areas, as does middle America where "down home farm talk" just doesn't fit in.
Where I live is considered "rural" compared to the massive cities I am surrounded by. Even still, we aren't very "rural" and we don't speak in any discernible manner in the way that "country folk" do. (or, are apparently supposed to). Only in the more rural New England states does this happen.
So, I got to wondering, how many "Big city folk" are actually out there listening? I did a quick search of populations in 10 major cities in the US:
Boston MA has 600,000 residents.
New York NY has 8 million.
Brooklyn NY has 2.5 million.
Bronx NY comes in fourth in NY at 1.3 million residents.
Queens NY has 2.2 million.
Washington DC, which isn't even a city, per se even though it is is home to 575,000 residents.
Miami FL, that mecca of nightlife has 409,000 very tan residents.
LA is home to 3.8 million people, and
Sand Diego has 1.2 million.
Columbus OH has 711,000 residents.
Total residents for just ten metropolitan cities around the US comes in at 20,125,000.
That's over 20 million people, between ten cities that do not relate to "folksy straight talk". Never mind the surrounding suburban areas that are filled to capacity with people.
The largest population in such Midwest "farmtowns" as Fargo, ND is 90,000.
Really, how much of the US population relates to this rural farm talk? Is the "Straight talk express" complete with farm house colloquialisms just another nail in the McCain/Palin ticket?
Posted by Anok at 10:57 AM
I came across this video on Youtube. Now, I have always said that if there is an election, and you feel that you have no real choice in candidates, you should still go into the voting booths and select the write in option, then write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE". But I have always advocated that you vote and make your voice heard. It's not the only way, and it's not the best way - but this election, even I think it's necessary.
Go directly into your town hall, and fill out the registration form, and hand it directly to the registrar, or registrar's secretary.
Posted by Anok at 10:19 AM