HOLY DEFINITIVE SUPER PRIMARY, BATMAN!
Some people read the New York Times. Others look to the Washington Post. For yet others, there is CNN, and the online news presence of ABC, NBC, CBS, and even that Right-Wing Reactionary machine known as FOX news. They distort, we be snide.
In the mornings I watch the Today Show [1] for about ten or twenty minutes, usually enough time to see the National News report and the five minute minicast that precedes it. I also catch some of GMA [2], but that's really more for the local weather -- I trust the local ABC station's team of Meteorologists [3] above all the others.
At the PC I check the NY Times, the NY Daily News, a variety of Sports reads (make that Baseball reads), and sometimes I check out the Washington Post and Google News if I want to see varied coverage of a story.
But after that, I get my news primarily (har har, minor pun of the day) from MSNBC [4]. Chris Matthews' Hardball [5] and Keith Olbermann's Countdown [6] have informed me, and distracted me from watching other programs or news converage. Much as MSNBC seems to be a constant work in progress (remember back in 2000, when it was the "newsbabes channel?), and this Deborah Norville experiment must come to an end soon to curtail the embarrassment and the bleeding, it is where I tune to get quick updates. And much as I hate to admit it, I like to see Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw do the analysis and seem all deep and ponderous about the issues. Earlier this evening, Brokaw looked so stern and stolid in deep, earnest ponderance, that I thought he might just crack into pieces and die on camera.
Over on CNN Larry King seems like a joke, he's as interesting to me with a guest as Barbara Walters is with whomever the name of the moment may be (and from whom she will try to elicit teadrops). Back at MSNBC there's Pat Buchanan, a man whose politics make me want to heave, turns out to be a pretty savvy analyst and when he isn't upchucking his own personal politics, is downright interesting, and, well yeah, entertaining.
So I was saddened to come home from my polling place this evening and learn from Chris Matthews, et al on MSNBC, that NY and all the other states were all participating in a landslide victory for John Kerry.
Saddened not so much because I voted for Edwards (the man with the most presidential hair of them all) but because the end of the delegate support race brings to an end a certain form of public discussion. It means less of a spotlight on the Democrats and their differences and nuance, and more of a short-term coronation of Kerry. Then it quickly settles into coverage of a two man race. This is comfortable ground for the media and the press. They've been there before. They know how they cover this, and now it will be a familiar old glove to them.
Insight and spirited discussion will be shelved. Welcome back, "same old same old." Reportage history is about to repeat itself.
This means less analytical and comparative discussion, and more "slate and party line" pronouncements. It also means the public input and participation in the process is now over. No longer necessary -- the professionals will now take charge.
Hopefully this means the Democrats' best hope of winning will now step back into the the limelight and take charge of the campaign. Yes, if we must rely on the professioanls, the handlers, the advisors to take charge, then James Carville, step into the limelight.
Carville is the man of the hour. The Democrats will make it official in Boston: Kerry is the nominee. James Carville, the Democrats need you now more than ever.
VOTEWATCH
I particpate in Votewatch [7], This is a non-partisan political watchdog group. The Votewatch motto: a citizen-based non-partisan nonprofit election monitor. Among the many activities at Votewatch is a manner of participation for voters. Votewatch members can write in and tell of their experience in the polling place. This can be a report of a problem, participation in a poll, or even an affadavit as to an issue if it merits such import.
Votewatch brings to the everyman an opportunity to report on the voting process, the voting experience, and the issues that effect one's vote in the actual polling place. Think back to hanging chads, and to Chief Justice Rehnquist's past efforts, as a man in power who attempted to suppess blacks [8] from exercising their right to vote (and also was in favor of barring blacks and hispanics from entering piblic places [9] - yep, that's our Cheif Justice!), and the concept of Votewatch needs no more explanation, justification, or rationale.
My Super Tuesday voting experience this evening was rather mundane. But I wrote in about it to Votewatch. Here's my 2004 Super Tuesday Votewatch report:
Went to the polling place. No line. Just the same four women "of a certain age" who are always there. Like clockwork. Been voting there for about 10 years now, and these women manage to get older, and even stay alive. If only for this, the election process is a good thing.
Asked them about turnout. I voted close to 8PM, with just one hour left for New Yorkers to show up.
Light, they told me. I was #79 for the day. But not to worry, one elderly grande dame de la place de polling told me. Come November the place will be packed.
Of this she assured me.
I cast my primary vote. Had to spend a little time to realize that not only did I need to vote for a choice as my preferred nominee, but also had to pull levers to indicate that my choice would also be for this candidate's delegates to be chosen to go to the convention, as well.
Nowhere in the poling place was there any indication of what those other names were there for, or why one might cast one's votes in such a manner.
Got back home after voting, sat down in front of the TV, and saw that with just a few minutes left for New Yorkers to cast their votes, MSNBC was giving the NY vote to Kerry.
Can't help but wonder if all the Kerry delegates also got the proper, winning number of votes, as well.
MOOD SWINGS
On the phone with a friend today, shooting the breeze, an interesting observation was made regarding this space. He is regular reader of Deanland, although he does sometimes not read it for a while, then will click in and read a bunch of posts, to get up to date with the blog.
Here's what he told me today: "I could see that you were in a bad mood when you wrote that last item, the one from Sunday [10]." How so, I asked. "Well, it isn't that you were wrong or mistaken about anything you said, and you're always pretty outspoken about things. But this was mostly invective, none of the humor or sidebar you usually add in. When your blog is that sharply spoken, I figure you must be in a pretty bad mood."
Wow, hit the nail on the head, buddy. I wonder, is that me being transparent, or is that the wrong choice of words? I know this is a forum to say or spout whatever I choose. I also know from some other comments in and on other blogs that there are people who take this space pretty seriously.
Yet there are also those who come here simply to see what's the latest apost and are looking for a chuckle. In fact, one person wrote that my sense of humor was his reason for reading this blog. A counterpart of that person, commenting on an entry I'd made in another blog, referred to me as something akin to a steadying force, always with my feet on the ground.
Most of the time when I post a particularly long entry it is because I have a lot to say, and no other or better place than here to post it and express it publicly. This is one of the joys of blogging.
I use the Manila software to blog, so one must "become a member" (yes indeed, you, too, can join Deanland! Membership is free, that's right: FREE!) in order to post a comment. Due to this (I suspect) most of the comments on DeanLand items come in the form of e-mail. Thus they are sent directly to me, not placed in the open and public blogging forum. With respect the method of transit, I do not copy them to the blog. Sometimes I will make oblique reference to e-mails. But more often than not, if a post is based or partially influenced buy an e-mail, I will just send a link to the correspondent.
I was struck, though, that a friend was so able to so clearly read my mood when he saw the weekend blog entry. As fate would have it, I've been struggling with some Diabetes issues, been feeling under the weather, and am under a variety of pressures of varying sorts. Of course, this is sometimes the case and I manage to be of fine spirits just the same.
But last week a number of events just blew me away. And apparently it manifested itself in such a manner as to be evident hereabouts.
I wonder, is this the case with other bloggers?
Your thoughts, be they via e-mail or as a "members only" comment in (on?) the blog, are welcomed and encouraged.