In Honor of the Presidential Election Newsmaker, Andrew Wolf has created a cross post on the election and its impact on Cornell and our country.

It was just one of those moments. Time stood still, and everything began anew. Long before midnight, just seconds after the polls closed in California, Barack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States of America. As I stepped onto College Ave., car horns were honking, strangers were hugging, and fireworks were sent loudly into the sky. Half an hour later standing in one of Collegetown’s many half rate bars, we all crammed around the television as Obama took to the stage and gave a beautiful and beautifully orchestrated victory speech.

It was, of course, hardly a victory speech. It was a presidential speech. The Obama campaign would not let anyone into the park with an Obama sign. You were only given an American flag or nothing at all. The stage had no symbols from his campaign but merely a stoic line of Old Glories.

The speech weaved and bobbed through history, touching on our past and our present. It was a reminder that the president-elect will be the head of all 50 states, not just the blue ones. As his words crashed down, and the Motown picked up, the nation sighed a sigh of relief - relief because the election was over. Two years on both sides of rage, race, and ruckus was now a park full of Americans dancing to Stevie Wonder.

It was amazing to me how real and imperfect Obama seemed on that stage. He seems so tangible and human. MLK, Gandhi, Mother Teresa never seemed real to me. They were beyond reality. Obama looks like you should be having dinner with him, not listening to him give eloquent speeches. His persona and his story are so much larger than larger than life, yet his personality is so simple.

Here we are just over two weeks later, and the world has quietly been turned on its head. For most of America we returned to our lives. Washington has erupted into pious power jockeying… no surprise there. So as Obama’s various constituencies line up and demand him to pony up, let’s join to course, Cornell did vote overwhelmingly blue - didn’t we?

Barack Obama as President could have an incredible impact upon colleges such as Cornell. For starters, I believe Obama’s Washington will become a hotbed of activity and jobs. I suspect Cornellians, who dreamed of shaping policy will find far more opportunities than under the Bush administration. Following the election of FDR, Washington became a beehive of college graduates, helping investigate and crunch the numbers on what became the New Deal. With the increase in think tanks, this should only be greater. Furthermore, with the crash of the stock market many economics and finance students might want to turn their dreams from Wall Street to K Street.

Beyond jobs in Washington, Obama wants to increase service opportunities. I bet we will find Teach For America, the Peace Corp, and other new programs well funded.

Obama has pledged to invest in research, and Cornell, undoubtedly, will find its already deep pockets further padded during this process. Bush has been unbelievably good at cutting funding for science. America uniquely teaches its students to be creative, and this has facilitated our dominance of science for years. But over the past few years, our students have had to become far too creative as they attempted to reach for the stars with no money. I believe engineering, space studies, agriculture, and economics in particular will find funding easier to come by.

Most importantly, Obama’s tax plan stands to save students thousands of dollars a year. His tax plan, for the first time in history, will offer up to $4,000 in tax breaks for families sending their children to college. He also hopes to end our disastrous experiment with privatized student loans. Opponents of this plan call it socialism, but it is the current system that most resembles the Soviet Union. Under our current system, the federal government will pay student loan companies back if students default on loans. So the loan company jacks up the price in order to make sure students default on their loans, because they know the government will pay the inflated bill.

Sadly, an Obama presidency will most likely result in less material for comedians. Gone are our days of stopping our homework at 11:00 PM to snuggle up to our John Stewart to get our requisite half an hour of Bush hating. Let us just hope foreign leaders can ante up and cover our humor deficit.

Beyond Cornell, Washington has been shuffling people faster than you could imagine. Rahm Emanuel? Really? the chorus of pundits and insiders cried. Emanuel has been chosen to be Obama’s Chief of Staff. Now this is the most important secretarial position in the country, a position which on the surface sounds boring at best. Emanuel is known as “The Bulldog” and is known to have a vast vocabulary of four letter words. This, many feel, goes against Obama’s image. Now, people… people, people, people… Obama ran for president on a platform of cotton candy and rainbows. Washington is made out of blood and destruction. Emanuel was a signal to Pelosi, Reid, unions, civil rights groups, women’s groups, and anyone else who thinks they elected Obama, that they are not in charge. Any other choice would have been unwise and irresponsible.

We have already seen them lining up at Obama’s door. Pelosi thinks she can move hard left suddenly, and Harry Reid forgot that he needs 60 votes to pass anything and is trying to force Lieberman out of the party. Unions want labor law reform, day one. Women’s groups want greater protections for abortion. Immigrant groups want amnesty. It’s insanity, and if Obama is not careful he will be rendered useless sometime around February 1st.

This does raise an important point. Obama will not be all puppies and rainbows, or even change and YES WE CAN. By the end of January – just 10 days into his term – I bet that most of use will be upset with something he did. Columbia Free Trade Agreement? Sorry unions. Complete National Health Care? Maybe not. Quick withdrawl from Iraq? Maybe next year. For those who could not keep their heads on straight and believed that Obama is the second coming, you will be sorely mistaken… and for that, I am sorry.

It has been wonderful to watch how quickly the world has fallen back in love with us. We are (yet again!) the land of opportunity. I think we should all take pride in the fact that we are the first country to elect a national minority as head of state. Iraq’s government on November 5 told the New York Times that they are excited because Obama will actually respect their withdrawal time table. Since 9/11, we have forgotten the power of peace, we have forgotten the respect and power that comes from silence, and we have forgotten what it means to be a citizen of this world.

This next year will be rocky; it will be exciting; it will frustrate; but most of all it will be different. As we take solace in victory over race, let us not forget Barack’s own warning, “This election is not about me; it’s about you.” Good luck to those who do not react.

Hey Folks,

So school got busy and my blog fell by the wayside. I am gonna make it up to you. I’ll post everyday or every other day until the election. In return you got to promise to make comments so that I know I am not just writing for my dad and my girlfriend. Deal?

Here is a great article from theroot.com

Will White People Riot?

By Wendi C. Thomas | TheRoot.com

Ridiculous question? Then stop asking it about black people.

Oct. 20, 2008–

“Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn’t win the election?” That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn’t surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

Riot because we didn’t get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I’d go so far as to say we’re experts in making the best out of a losing hand.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: “No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win.”

But soon after getting this man’s e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an “Obama” sticker on the toy’s head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?

Not all white people are McCain supporters. (See primaries, Iowa.) Not all black people are backing Obama. (See Negroes, self-loathing. Just joking.)

But there is a small but vocal segment of white Republicans who just might have an aneurysm if the next occupant of the White House is a black man.

If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?

Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that’s unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that’s scary.

Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?

There may be some people who think this is an absurd question. I honestly don’t know. But it is no more absurd than asking it about blacks.

Wendi C. Thomas is the metro columnist for The Commercial Appeal. She’s been a writer or an editor for The Charlotte Observer, The (Nashville) Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. Among her many journalism awards is her 2008 induction into the Scripps Howard Hall of Fame for her opinion writing.

I found this great article by Jay Cost of realclearpolitics.com, it’s amazing this guy is only a grad student.

October 03, 2008

Nebraska and Maine?

I noted with interest stories today discussing McCain and Obama opening up campaign offices in some far-flung places: McCain in Bangor, Maine and Obama in Omaha, Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska do not have reputations as swing states, so what the heck are these guys up to?

Part of it is to head off the possibility of something like this occurring:

What you see here is a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. So also is this:

What happens when there is such a tie? We go to Amendment 12, which states:

The person having the greatest Number of [Electoral College] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

That’s right, the House of Representatives - which acquitted itself so beautifully over the last week! - gets to make the choice, but with a twist. Each state gets one vote. That makes things a little dicey, for both campaigns.

For McCain, the problem is obvious: the Democrats control the Congress. Not only that, but they currently control 27 of the 50 state caucuses. The GOP controls 21 and 2 are split.

But Obama has a problem here, too. In this scenario, McCain will have won more states, which means that to win, Obama will have to convince some Democrats to vote against their states. A few unfortunate souls would probably have to vote against their own districts. In 2004 George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts to Kerry’s 180. A 269-269 tie like this implies that McCain will probably have won more districts than Obama, which would complicate matters for the Democrat.

Why is it that Maine and Nebraska are relevant to this scenario? Most states allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska do, too - but they also dole out electors depending upon who won which congressional districts. If McCain were to win Maine’s second district, he’d get an elector. If Obama were to win Nebraska’s third, he’d get an elector. That could make the difference.

That would be especially helpful because here’s how the Vice-President is selected.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

Again, the same tension would exist. Biden would have more Democrats. Palin would have more states.

Note that the House picks the President, the Senate picks the Veep. That means it’s possible to see a split in the executive branch - one party wins the top job, another wins the second job!

So, a spare elector from Maine or Nebraska could be quite useful.

Who won the debate? That is the all important question. From my own personal vantage point, no one won, which someone pointed out means Obama won. By virtue of being ahead, a tie means he is still ahead. McCain has been desperate for a game changer, and he didn’t get one at the debate.

Of course, the pundits are pundits, and actual voter reaction is most important; so here it is:

CBS Insta Poll: Obama 39%, McCain 25% and 36% not sure who won

MediaCurves.com: Independents gave Obama a 61% to 38% win.

CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%. Men even split. Women Obama 59% to McCain 41%. (Maybe as my classmate pointed out McCain in HDTV is not pretty)

Insider Advantage: Obama 42%, McCain’s 41% and 17% not sure who won.

And of course, Sunday’s Gallup Tracking Poll: Obama 50%, McCain 42%

Things the pundits said that I think are important:

Pat Buchanan (Also, how did this right wing yahoo/semi-racist warm his way into my heart with his charmingly unbiased reporting) recalled that while working for Reagan, the cowboy did not do that well in a debate against Mondale. But as the media buzz grew people’s perceptions of Reagan’s victory grew to above 80%, despite Pat’s belief that Reagan was terrible. So expect this again and forever.

John McCain visibly could not stand Obama. McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain got angry a few times, repeatedly told Obama he didn’t understand, and appeared flummoxed. Not to mention, McCain kept referring to how old he is. While Obama stayed calm and was not afraid to agree with McCain. Possible perception being that McCain is an angry old man with a temper (we have heard this before).

When Obama gave his laundry list of things he believes McCain was wrong about, McCain retreated to talking about how he stands up for wounded veterans (a point having nothing to do with Obama’s complaints). At some point he will be perceived as hiding behind the flag.

McCain’s best moment was when he said the next president won’t have to worry about winning the war in Iraq, but instead when and how we leave. This is an extremely good mantra for his campaign.

Obama did not do well on the Iran issue. And the exchange about Henry Kissinger was silly.

My thoughts:

McCain really did look grumpy, angry, insert various adjectives he needs to avoid here. Substantively though, he did rather well especially considering the first third of the debate was on the economy, the subject he has failed to talk about correctly for quite some time. On the flip side, Democrats don’t do well on foreign policy, the next two debates won’t be on foreign policy, and Obama avoided damage.

McCain was constantly on script and Obama was not. McCain said Obama just doesn’t understand, and yet Obama seemed to understand foreign policy quite well.

McCain’s views of the crisis in Georgia are horrible (please see my post on the CIAR panel on the conflict).

Obama missed the opportunities to point out that we still haven’t found Osama, at least not in a clear way. Just say, “Where is Bin Laden?” and say it a lot. Also, Obama’s stance on Iraq is becoming increasingly convoluted. He is trying to explain that McCain was wrong to want to go in there in the first place, but he can’t reconcile this with the success of the surge. He should point out that McCain advocated for the surge under the pretext that it would give the Iraq’s the opportunity to come to a political solution, but no political solution has come to pass.

Obama’s best moment was when following John McCain’s explanation of how the dead soldiers bracelet that he wears around his wrist proves he understands the troops better, Obama replied, “You know John I have a bracelet too…”

So basically, if stylistic issues matter, Obama probably won by a lot simply because McCain would not condescend himself to make eye contact with Obama. On the other hand, if substance matters it was a draw and both sides should be kicking themselves for failed opportunities to win.

Finally, John McCain was born before the Depression ended (1936). So when at the beginning of the debate he said that this financial crisis was the worst in his life time, he either incorrectly remembered when he was born or has come full circle and now believes that we are royally screwed.

Up next, Joe “I have foot in mouth disease” Biden v. Sarah “Every time I open my mouth I cause a crisis” Palin in what will undoubtedly be a glorious if not cringe worthy circus side show…Sweet!!!

Is it really the media’s job to give advice?* When I think back on all the things I have said about politics, all the things I thought so and so should do, I realize how poorly informed I am to make these assessments. Is the press really that much more informed. You turn on the news and some pundit will hold up a chart and say McCain must do this or Obama must do that. Who doesn’t have advice for these guys?

The more important question is who is actually qualified to give this advice? Pretend you are Obama or McCain. You need advice, whom do you turn to? I bet the answer isn’t one of those people on TV and I bet it isn’t even a journalist from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard or what ever? I realize that I personally would be looking to a political scientist or a sociologist or a psychologist. Basically, I would want someone with actual charts, actual figures, actual correlation coefficients, and actual degrees.

For example, the data shows that campaigns only have a minimal effect on voters. Elections are decided on the margin; so I guess it’s still worth spending the near billion dollars net the two campaigns will spend. More important than campaigns to voting are changes in party affiliation, the state of the economy, and incumbent status. Furthermore, statistics show that the things that actually predict election results are voter enthusiasm and the so-called “right track wrong track” poll, not these silly national polls that get all the reporting (although if you must, the Gallup Tracking Poll is the best followed by SurveyUSA).

So I am really bored by this substanceless, numberless, and meaningless opining that I read every day. Maybe the reports should…you know….report! If Obama lays out his economic plan, publish it as a bullet point explanation. If McCain explains what he will do in Iraq, give it to me. But saying Obama needs to show he is stronger or McCain needs to act younger - Not helpful.

These reporters have minimal basis for what they are saying. RealClearPolitics blogger Jay Cost put it best when he said that the media reports in a bubble. They are political junkies, reporting for other political junkies. Gaffes only matter to political junkies, unless the gaffe really shows poor policy (McCain saying the economy is strong when Lehman Brothers fell is not a gaffe but a reflection of his inability to understand the economy). Cost points out that the race is currently tied because most of America hasn’t plugged into the race yet. We still have two months left of this, and people don’t start watching until the debates. If you are outside of the bubble, these opinions and advice and gaffes and counter-gaffes are all static.

I contend that actual reporting and actual explanations of the policy would show through and beyond the static, and prove helpful to those who haven’t tuned in.

*To avoid calls of plagiarism this article was inspired by Christopher Beam’s Slate article on the same topic but from the standpoint of how the advice is dumb, where I am made that reporters are wasting their time.

Wow…Palin reminded me last night why I never played hockey, the parents are too vicious. That was one hell of an attack dog speech. She even called her self a dog. She came out swing. If you are any of the following Palin attacked you for not putting country first: Obama, the Obamas, Biden, the media, a democrat, a liberal, a San Franciscian, a Hollywoodian, an East Coaster, a Gay, a Muslim, a Jew, someone who can’t skin a moose, Caption Spock, etc.

I have two thoughts. One, I am not sure being angry and hateful and vengeful towards others is really an effective tactic. What if, God forbid, democrats actually do love their country? What if San Francisco actually loves this country? What if love for country is not really a questionable thing? Beyond being divisive it is insulting. Last night Palin looked like she was going to lead the convention out into the streets with touches and pitch forks laying waste to anyone from St. Paul to Hollywood. At first I thought Country First was a good pitch for, “John McCain, the maverick, who stood up to his party and put country above the elephant.” But he first had to allow 3 days of the party he once fought. I have come to realize ‘country first’ means Obama and all democrats are unpatriotic. Yet again Bush steals McCain’s message.  

The second, thing I would like to point out is that Obama in his convention effectively turned the tables. Obama, and the democrats, effectively learned how to attack the Republican’s. Leading up to the convention day after day McCain would attack Obama’s energy plan, his speeches, his supposed love of arugula (I’m more of and endive man). Obama was constantly on the defensive. Then Obama figured it out and started attacking first. He started putting McCain on the defensive. Then McCain forgot how many houses he owned and then Palin’s family had some babies-mama’s problems. The point is when you listen to the entire Republican convention they have been on the defensive. They are not talking about their policies. And more importantly they are not guiding the debate they are responding to the debate.

The reason this matters is conventions are the best time to gain or pick up ground. If you are on the defensive no matter how nasty Palin’s words were they were still within a narrative shaped by Obama.

I hear that McCain tonight promises to put forward some policies. This would be a good idea because right now they are not playing their own game.

After skipping day 1 of the RNC to watch Hurricane Gustav, thankfully, miss New Orleans, the RNC’s first two days became one.

Notes about the RNC: The first thing that I noticed was the simplicity of the stage, especially when it is compared to the flash and glamour of the DNC’s stage. The stage of the RNC is really minimalist and frankly kind of ugly. This is of course either stupid or brilliant. It either feeds their armature at govt image or feeds the image they want to create of the Dems as elitist. My guess is the second.

The script is not really but kind of surprising. McCain hates the culture wars. That is why the Dems in the Senate like him. McCain has always been lukewarm about the issue of abortion and frankly doesn’t like talking about it. He isn’t a social conservative but he has no problem voting that to expand his base. Palin is a culture warrior. Since adding her to the ticket we are now back in the culture wars.

Abortion, the gays, religion, blah blah blah let’s fight…

With this comes the tactics of Bush and Rove that McCain back in 2000 despised. They will attack Obama’s patriotism and every Democrat’s patriotism…a la ‘country first’. Then they will attack the media for being biased. Now the media is biased in a sense. Fox News is biased, MSNBC is in part biased, and various people on CNN (Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs) are biased. But Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric? Give me a break.

John McCain says the coverage of Palin is sexist and biased. Yes the biased people have taken sides. But McCain claims the non-biased people are now biased. This is crap. They are vetting Palin because that is what reporters do. They did it to Obama…a la Rev Wright…and Palin gets no special treatment.

I leave you with Joe Klein of Time Magazine’s words or McCain’s attacks:

September 3, 2008 2:04

Angry Amateurs

Posted by Joe Klein

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign’s war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate–and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past–have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain’s rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God’s sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn’t have: she had deployed them to fight fires.)

So what’s going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he’s ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field…any intimations that he’s gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable.

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair–sexist (you gotta love it)–personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media–about the substance of Palin’s record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers–and the tabloid press–who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable….the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage–Palin’s moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it’s a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is “a task from God.” The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

 

I almost don’t want to talk about it, but, of   

course, it's news so I am forced to - so is the   

dilemma facing the Media. McCain has bucked at   

tradition and forced himself into the narrative of

the DNC. It is a tradition that during a party's   

convention, the other party remains silent - each   

getting their turn. At most press releases from   

the opponent are accepted and allowed.   

In a kind of Karl Rove-style evil brilliance,   

McCain has called the media’s bluff. Reminiscent   

of "the field of dreams," I suppose it is true   

“If you news it the media will come.” So while   

Obama got set to accept the nomination, McCain   

announced he would release an historic ad during   

Obama’s speech, sparking many calls of poor   

sportsmanship from the press, McCain fooled them."

Then he has stolen all evening news coverage today by

announcing his VP. He picks Sarah Palin. Who is Sarah Palin? No one   

really knows. And that’s the point. She is a   

woman; so McCain looks better. And by being a   

complete unknown she poses little immediate harm.   

McCain has nullified the convention.   

I think it's kind of lame and sleazy, but now   

that it has happened look for Obama to do the   

same. So much for new politics….When you can’t   

beat them, scratch their fucking eyes out.

Last night in Denver Colorado The Democratic National Party nominated Barack Obama as their nominee to run for the Presidency of the United States of America.

This makes him the first African American to receive a nomination from one of the two major parties. Regardless of politics, this is truly wonderful. And I would be saying this if it were one of the Republicans. My father called shortly afterwards and he was clearly humbled by the whole situation. He said recalling the race riots in his School’s (Brooklyn College) cafeteria, that it seems unreal to him that in his life this could happen.

What is most amazing to me is that it almost doesn’t matter. It wasn’t until a few hours later, when I was falling asleep, that I remembered his race.  There are only two people left who can be president, and one of them is black. Yet we are still a racist country (look no further then Eric Shive’s article in the Cornell Review’s current issue).

I suppose that despite our failings, we should find hope in what happened last night no matter where on the political spectrum we find ourselves.  We are after all moving forward.

Why must we be forced to watch a horse race? When you think about what this term implies you realize how off base our news coverage is. We frankly should not even care about polls. News stations should not even report polls. Why do news stations report polls? Do the polls actually have any bearing on how we vote?

A poll tells us nothing about Obama or McCain. I have watched hours of political news over the summer and learned nothing important. I know some many irrelevant things now. I know the trend of polls in Ohio, the names of the campaign managers, and the internal predictions of each act on the polls. But I still haven’t learned one damn specific detail about how either of these guys is going to do anything they say they will.

I must take that back. Last week I read an op-ed by Obama’s economic adviser in the Wall Street Journal. So I actually know what the effect of Obama’s tax policy would be on me. But this information was not repeated once on network news.

It is day two of the Democratic convention and it has been a bust. It was a bizarre mix of the inability to read Teleprompters, electronic feeds breaking down, and misguided speeches promising warm and fuzzy notions of sugar plum and fairies dancing in my head.

Government affects our lives. But unless the political parties explain to us the effect of their policies on us we have nothing else to vote on except personality, patriotism, and sadly race.

What is worse than this unspecific bull crap emanating from the convention is the media coverage. If the Democrats can’t tell us what effect they will have on our lives it is up to the media to tell us. That is their job. They are supposed to investigate for those of us who do not have time. They are our shortcut, our heuristic, our insight into the sprawling beast we call government.

Watching the convention has been like watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics. The news does little more than point the cameras at famous people and talk lucidly about grudges between people. MSNBC, which has been the lightning rod for criticism this year, isn’t even covering the convention. They only televise a few of the speeches – otherwise it’s just a bunch of talking heads raging at each other focusing on highfalutin issues that tell use nothing about what the candidates intend on doing. Though I am sure MSNBC would argue that they aim for a more educated and decided audience. Both Fox and CNN should be commended for at least showing more speeches but again they do little to explain what this means for us. Frankly Fox probably does this best, although in a very biased way.

The Democrats have not even had the chance to go on message because the media has only been covering the disappointment of the Clintons, the effect of the Clintons, the anger of the Clintons. The Clintons aren’t running for president. The policy difference between Obama and McCain should be what drives former Clinton supporters’ decisions of who to vote for. But if they are never exposed to coverage of policy differences they are left up the creek without a paddle. So is the falling of cable news a slave to profit.

I hope Clinton’s speech last night will shut up the media. The election is far too important for us to be wasting time on personal feuds. The media has a job to do and they need to stop reporting on high school style psychodrama and start telling us what effect an Obama or a McCain presidency will actually have on our lives. I, like most Americans, would like to vote on the issues and so far the convention has made it clear that the Democrats have no intentions of telling us what effect they would have on us so we must turn to the press. The media owes it to this country to forget the horse race and do their damn job.