The Red State Obama Couldn't Win

One of the most impressive aspects of Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential Election is that he won NINE "red states" that had gone for Bush in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

Obama won Virginia. Amazing.

Obama won North Carolina! Incredible.

Obama won INDIANA!!! Only two other Democrats have won Indiana in the last 96 years: FDR in 1932 and 1936, and LBJ in 1964.

But there was one "red state" Obama couldn't win. . . . One of the five boroughs of New York City: Staten Island.

Staten Island has always been the dirty little secret of "Liberal" New York City. For the last eight years, I have listened to liberal New Yorkers raging furiously against the dumb idiots in the Red States. They have joked about letting the Red States secede from the "real" U.S. They have sent around a map of this "real" U.S. made up only of "blue states." Never once have I heard a New Yorker even whisper that part of their own city was a "red state." (Unless an asshole like me brought it up.)

[Is Staten Island why "Liberal" New York City has had a Republican mayor for the last 15 years? Even Salt Lake City, Utah, can elect a Democrat for Mayor.]

Obama managed to win Nassau and Suffolk counties out on Long Island - not exactly hotbeds of radicalism. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama won rural counties out in WEST TEXAS, for God's sake. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama won rural counties in UTAH, a state that went 63% -34% for John McCain. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama even won a rural county in bloody WYOMING, a state that went 65% -33% for John McCain. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

(By the way, that's Teton County, whose seat is Jackson. Better known as the home of Dick Cheney.)


In the end, Staten Island voted in this election by exactly the same percentages as the state of Georgia: 52% for McCain to 47% for Obama.

I've always thought the whole Red State-Blue State dichotomy was false and unhelpful. Grade-school-level political analysis that was actually disrespectful to people in more conservative states who worked their asses off to get progressives elected.

Kudos to all those people in the nine former "red states" who worked hard to show that the very concept of "red" and "blue" states is just not viable.

And instead of raging against the dumb idiots in the Red States, New Yorkers might want to consider getting in touch with the good folks out in Culberson County, West Texas, where Obama won 65%-34%, about helping them win back their own city.

Republican Hypocrisy in All Its Naked Glory

Clinton and theTerrible, America-Hating, Elitist Economists

I do love the way YouTube has transformed politics.

Here's a Golden Oldie from 1992:

"Bill Clinton's economic plan, endorsed by over 600 economists, including ten Nobel Prize winners [gasp!] . . . Over 400 of America's most respected business leaders . . . A panel of independent experts [OMG!!!] . . ."



600 bloody arugula-eating economists!!!

(And she can't even find one who supports her gas-tax plan?!?!)

Accepting a Unity Ticket

Whatever my reservations about a compromise/unity ticket in the past, I think it's clear by now that both Obama and Clinton need to be considered on a ticket.

I had a sudden revelation while listening to some of the candidates pander talk about the gas tax this weekend:

From Talking Points Memo Election Central:

George Stephanopoulos asked her a direct question: Could she name a single economist who agrees with her support for the gas tax holiday?

Hillary sidestepped the question, and tried to use the complete dearth of expert support for the idea to her advantage, pointing to it as proof that she's on the side of ordinary folks against "elite opinion" -- a phrase she used twice.

From The New Republic's blog, The Stump - Hillary vs. Pointy Heads:

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said... We've been, for the last seven years, seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans."

Anti-intellectualism, success in obscure rural areas--when exactly did Hillary become Mike Huckabee?

And from The Plank, "How To Beat Gas Tax Demagoguery":

The Clinton and McCain campaign have defended their plan to suspend the federal gasoline tax in strikingly similar terms.

John McCain, when asked about New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's opposition to the tax suspension, replied:

"I understand in New York City that you don't really drive a long way most of the time," McCain said. "But -- and then maybe you're chauffeured."

The common thread here is anti-intellectual, populist demagoguery.

A flash of understanding! In addition to the gas-tax pandering, consider the following:

1) Hillary wants to "obliterate Iran." John McCain wants to "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran."

2) They both voted to invade Iraq and supported the war long after most Americans wanted us to withdraw our troops.

3) Hillary made it clear that only she and McCain have passed the "Commander-in-Chief threshold."

4) Hillary is already running a Republican-Karl-Rove style campaign. She wouldn't even have to change her current strategies.

5) Hillary and McCain are said to genuinely like each other. And both are said to genuinely dislike Obama.

6) After 15 years of railing against Richard Scaife for coordinating the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her and Bill, Hillary reconciled with the conservative hit man in order to win the Pennsylvania primary. Think of the possibilities of a Clinton-Scaife team in taking on Obama!

7) The Clintons already have ample experience ramming Republican policies down our throats: See NAFTA, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and efforts to privatize government, the military, etc. Bill has been called "The best Republican president since Eisenhower." Now Hillary won't have to worry about that being a joke.

8) Hillary Clinton's chief strategist (until recently) Mark Penn is CEO of the DC-based PR firm Burson-Marsteller (Blackwater's PR firm!). Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, Burson-Marsteller's lobbying firm. Imagine the savings on lobbyists and campaign advisers!

9) The Clintons and Joe Lieberman are all part of the Democratic Leadership Council gang, whose objective was always to turn Democrats into Republicans Lite. Lieberman finally ditched the Democratic Party and is currently campaigning hard for McCain. Now, he and Hillary and Bill could all be together again as one big happy family!

10) By joining McCain, Hillary and Bill won't have to hide their race-baiting anymore, which has to be stressful, trying to keep so many Liberals from figuring out what they're doing. She's already locking up reactionary beer-drinking, gun-toting bowlers. Now she can really tell those intellectual arugula-eating, latte-drinking Obama-loving elites to kiss her white, "working-class" ass.

McCain-Clinton 2008!

Romney and Huckabee

And now, for some thoughtful, well-considered political discussion.

Liam was right all along about Romney:



Huckabee on how he'll beat McCain:

Primary Results - Hot Off the Press!

In in the exotic Indonesian Primary:

Seventy five percent of the nearly 100 votes cast by expatriate Americans a minute after midnight Indonesia time (12 p.m. Monday EST) went to Obama. The rest were cast in favor of Clinton, said Arian Ardie, country committee chair for Democrats Abroad.

Ardie said he was not permitted to disclose the exact number of votes cast, and added that the results were preliminary and still need formal verification.

Ardie said that Obama's time in Indonesia was part of his appeal among expatriate voters in the southeast Asian country.

Whatever. We'll take it.

The West Virgina Caucus (Republican)

You know, the Media has told us the Republican race is over, and McCain will win the nomination. But in the winner-take-all primary system among the Republicans, Huckabee has won West Virgina and looks like he could win in Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and is competing in Georgia. If Romney were to drop out of the race after today, many of his voters would probably go to Huckabee. Just an interesting scenario to consider.

Huckabee Rising

According to a new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP Caucus Goers, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has taken the lead in Iowa, with 28% of the vote, just ahead of Mitt Romney, who has 25%. (Rudy 12%, Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 5%, everyone else <5%.)

Hendrik Hertzberg's article on Huckabee in this week's issue of The New Yorker is one of the Most Read on the magazine's web site.

The New York Times featured three articles on Huckabee over the last few days, including yesterday's "Success Is Testing the Huckabee Campaign" and Michael Luo's article on Wednesday: "In Iowa, Mormon Issue Is Benefiting Huckabee.

"Mr. Huckabee’s rise in Iowa — some recent polls now put him in a dead heat with Mr. Romney, who had led surveys for months — has been fueled by evangelical Christians, who believe Mormonism runs counter to Christian orthodoxy."

This morning's Associated Press's article "Huckabee Hopes for New Hampshire Boost," starts off thus:

"Barely a blip on New Hampshire's political radar screen a month ago, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is generating buzz, curiosity and speculation that a decent showing here could secure his spot in the top tier of GOP presidential contenders."

In fact, Huckabee is suddenly all over the media, with everyone talking about his sudden rise in Iowa - he was polling around 2% in Iowa back in May. Longtime political analyst Mark Halperin, now at Time, said Huckabee did the best at this week's Republican debate, and other conservatives agreed. National Journal has even come up with the term "Huck-a-mania" to describe what's happening. Everybody, it seems, now hearts Huckabee.

Oh yeah, he's also got Chuck Norris campaigning for him. Chuck's in Huckabee's new ad, and he showed up at the debate the other night as well, drawing more attention to Huckabee. The Norris angle is interesting enough that the Los Angeles Times wrote about it yesterday: "Is Chuck Norris Huckabee's secret weapon?" [First line: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse candidates, he kicks them into the stratosphere."] Author Tina Daunt says that after Chuck announced his endorsement,

"Huckabee became the presidential example of tough-guy cool. You thought Fred Thompson was going to be the law-and-order candidate? He was looking like a worn-out hound dog Wednesday night as Huckabee strode into the debate with the still buffed-up, 67-year-old Norris by his side."

I've been puzzled all along why Huckabee wasn't doing better, especially when you look at the other Republican candidates. For months there were media reports about Evangelical "leaders" like Dobson not knowing which Republican to support. These hypocrites wouldn't even consider Huckabee, even though he's a Baptist minister and solid evangelical, because he didn't have enough money. Look for stories in the next week or so about God suddenly telling them to endorse Huckabee.

What's interesting is to see how many Liberals actually respect Huckabee, even though they disagree with him on various issues. He's been called likable, thoughtful and well-spoken (though not "articulate"). This has been going on for months in the Liberal blogworld, and the trend has carried over into the mainstream media pieces on Huckabee. I recommend reading Hertzberg's article for what he has to say bout Huckabee - it's a good introduction to the man - and how he says it. His conclusion, for example:

To all appearances, Huckabee’s gentle rhetoric is a reflection of temperament, not a stylistic tactic. Arkansans caution that he is capable of churlishness. But his history suggests that he prefers consensus to confrontation, that he regards government as a tool for social betterment, and that he has little taste for war, cultural or otherwise. He seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with. That may not seem like much, but it makes a nice change.

The money issue is real - Huckabee hasn't been able to raise much at all. Despite going up against Romney's millions, however, he's now in the lead in Iowa or close enough in other polls to call it an even race. More importantly, he's getting serious media buzz at just the right time. What might he accomplish if he does start to raise real money?

A likable and conservative white male versus Hillary Clinton. Evangelicals energized by a Baptist minister running for President and Hillary being the opponent. A large group of Democrats and Independents discouraged by Hillary getting the nomination. (And I'm sorry - it's not just me. I talked to about a dozen people over Thanksgiving - New York area liberals from various backgrounds, many of whom didn't know each other. Not a single one liked Hillary. Her high "unfavorable" numbers don't come from the vast right-wing conspiracy alone - they often come from within her own party.) Could Huckabee actually be competitive against Hillary in the general election? In a Zogby Poll released this week, Huckabee defeats Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, 44% to 39%. Hillary actually loses to all five major Republican candidates, but she loses to Huckabee by the widest margin. [Obama beats all five Republicans, including Huckabee 46%-40%. Edwards beats four of the five, tying with McCain.]

I'm not sure Huckabee can win the Republican nomination. His lack of money will hurt him in the long run. He's going to need a win in Iowa, a good showing in New Hampshire, the fists of Chuck Norris, and the continued love of the media. But the Republican rank and file are still looking for someone they can get behind. That much is clear. Would it really be that surprising to see them turn to Huckabee?

Romney Leads All Candidates in Surprising New Poll

It's really hard to keep track of all the policy positions of the various Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, or to remember who's leading who in whichever up-to-the-minute and totally inconsequential poll. I hope this report helps clarify your choice for the next Godfather President of our country.

What Will It Take?

UPDATE: The death toll from the car bombings in the Yazidi villages in northern Iraq has now reached 400, making it the worst attack of the war.

Over 250 people were killed in a series of car bombings in Iraq yesterday, with 300 to 350 wounded, and the death toll likely to continue climbing as they dig through the rubble.

I don't know what's more depressing - the continuing apocalypse in Iraq or the growing sense that the Democrats won't get us out of there even if they get elected. (A huge if.) They seem too busy burnishing their own chicken-hawk/warmonger creds, arguing over which ally to nuke, or saying we'll probably be in Iraq forever. I couldn't even read this New York Times article when I first saw the headline: Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years.

The Democrats and some of their supporters have an endless number of excuses for why their hands are tied over the war. They have to be cautious. Bush is still in power. They have to develop "political will." We don't want a bloodbath. Have to support the troops. Public not ready. We have interests in the region. Yadda-yadda-yadda.

Meanwhile, on the right-hand side of my blog, there is a ticker that shows how much we've spent on the war so far. It says at this moment: $452,232,691,279. If you click on the link below it, you can see the cost for your community and what else could have been done with the money. I tried Brooklyn, which showed a cost of $3,903,401, 415, and Public Education, since Brooklyn could definitely use a little help with its schools. Instead of that $4 billion going to war, "we could have hired 67,646 additional public school teachers for one year." Or 6,765 teachers for the next ten years. And that's just one small part.

We're not even talking, of course, about the lives lost, mangled and permanently damaged. Both American and Iraqi.

There is already a bloodbath in Iraq, and it's going to have to run its course, whether our troops remain there or not. To say that we have a responsibility to stay, now that we've started this apocalypse, sounds good on the surface. We broke it, we have to fix it. Except for one small problem. We can't fix it. We can't even solve the problems in our own country. Why do we think we'll be able to fix Iraq if we stay longer? When we obviously don't understand their history, their culture, their religion, their language, etc. In the end, this argument is just a thinly disguised cover for age-old paternalistic colonialism. I'm sure the British, when they were doing such a great job of screwing things up in the same part of the world in the 1920s, said the same thing. "The natives are too stupid to do it right. Only we can." It's the "civilized" white man's pride. Nothing more.

I'm well aware of the potential for regional chaos and the danger of a weakened nation-state being a harbor for terrorists. I recognize very well the threat of groups like Al-Qaeda. One of the reasons I was against this war in the beginning was because I thought it would be a disaster in any genuine campaign to take on Islamic militants.

But keeping U.S. forces in Iraq isn't going to change the dangerous situation, and, according to the CIA's own reports has actually made things worse in the fight against terror. If we want - finally - to wage a real war on terror, we need to get out of Iraq.

It's interesting to me that Bill Richardson, the one Democratic candidate with real foreign policy credentials and who has negotiated with the Taliban and a host of other bad dudes, is the one who remains the most forceful on getting U.S. Troops out of Iraq. And he seems to understand why it's important. Here's part of what he says:

The Iraq War is costing Americans $8 billion each month. By implementing my plan to de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops in six months, we can start redirecting these funds toward what matters most for Americans: improving education, expanding access to quality health care, and addressing the REAL security threats like the Taliban, nuclear proliferation, and global warming.

No Residual Forces Left Behind

We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by Al Qaeda, other insurgents, and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove ALL troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool. And once all US troops are out of Iraq, Al Qaeda foreigners will no longer be able to justify their presence there, and the Iraqis will drive them out.

Promote Iraqi Reconciliation

We should promote an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the factions together to seek compromises and to begin confidence-building measures, including the end of militia violence. Our redeployment will give us more leverage than we have now, caught in the crossfire, to get the Iraqis to reconcile.

Work With All Neighbors and Allies

We should convene a regional conference to secure the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- in promoting peace and stability. Among the key objectives of such a conference should be guarantees of non-interference, as well as the creation of a multilateral force of UN peacekeepers. The US should support such a force, but it should be composed of non-US, primarily Muslim troops.

You can read the rest of his plan here. (Again, this isn't meant as an endorsement.)

Yesterday was another day of Hell in Iraq.

More than 200 [250] people were slaughtered when four suicide truck bombs targeted the ancient Yazidi religious sect in northern Iraq amid growing fears Wednesday that more dead were trapped under the rubble.

In one of the bloodiest single incidents of the four-year war in Iraq, bombers detonated four explosive-laden trucks in two villages in the province of Nineveh inhabited by members of Iraq's Yazidi minority late Tuesday.

Victims were ferried to hospitals across northern Iraq as local clinics struggled to deal with the overwhelming number of dead and wounded, with rescue workers to continue searching for survivors in the rubble of pancaked homes.

"The casualties are expected to rise as many victims are still trapped under the debris," Hassun told AFP by telephone.

I'll let Juan Cole give you the rest of the day's highlights:

The situation in Iraq is so horrific that merely bad news is drowned out by the truly awful. Thus, on Tuesday, guerrillas bombed a major bridge connecting Taji and Baghdad with the north, throwing several cars into the river and killing some 10 persons. I.e., this is a Minneapolis-scale event. But it will barely get mentioned given the massive bombings of the Yazidis.

10 US troops have been killed in the past two days, including 5 who died in a helicopter crash Tuesday. Ten. That's worth a headline all by itself.

Likewise this story about "US raid on Shi'ite slum sparks anger on streets". It is suspicious that the US military claims never to kill civilians in Sadr City, while the Shiites are always having funeral processions for children.

The Deputy Oil Minister and several of his aides were kidnapped at gun point by 50 men in the uniform of the Iraqi security forces on Tuesday. This incident speaks volumes about the lack of security in Baghdad still, since the deputy oil minister should have had the resources to protect himself.

So, what will it take to end this nightmare?

I said to Liam the other day that the politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike) weren't going to do anything about Iraq until the dirty masses were at the palace gates with torches in hand. Before the war began, I helped organize four events for Brooklyn Poets Against the War. It felt like a feeble effort at times, despite good turn-outs and good poetry. I got discouraged after the war started and haven't seen the point in doing events like this again. But I think I'm ready to do something.

My aunt asked me the other night why young people didn't seem to have the same urgency to end the war this time as they did during Vietnam. There have been some protests, but the movement doesn't seem as energetic or empowered to her. We put it off in the end to the lack of a draft. Who knows why? But it made me realize that I can't hope that college kids or anti-war protesters will do my work for me. The responsibility for stopping this madness is up to all of us. Even if they get elected (again, a huge if), the Democrats are still politicians, and they're not going to stop this war until they're forced to. Waiting for January 2009 in the hopes that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are suddenly going to bring about a big change in Iraq, instead of - say, nuking Pakistan - doesn't feel like a wise and mature decision. It feels like delusion.

It's time for something else. I don't know what that entails yet. But I need to get off my ass and do my part.

Independents and Independence

Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia 1787

[NOTE: This is a revised version of the original post from 07/04/2007.]

The Washington Post published a front-page article last Sunday entitled "A Political Force With Many Philosophies," which summarized the results of an extensive survey on Independent voters conducted by the Post, Harvard University, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. According to the survey, 29% of voters now identify themselves as Independents, more than Republicans (27%) but still less than Democrats (36%). I've considered myself an Independent for a while now, and I've been thinking lately about what that means, so I found the article and survey interesting.

Here's part of the article:

Strategists and the media variously describe independents as "swing voters," "moderates" or "centrists" who populate a sometimes-undefined middle of the political spectrum. That is true for some independents, but the survey revealed a significant range in the attitudes and the behavior of Americans who adopt the label.

The Post-Kaiser-Harvard study was designed to probe more deeply into this increasingly influential portion of the electorate: who these voters are, why they remain independent, what they think about major issues and, of particular importance, how they differ from one another.

The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.

Here's the percentage breakdown of the five categories: Disengaged (24%), Disguised Partisans (24%), Disillusioned (18%), Deliberators (18%) and Dislocated (16%). You can read through their descriptions be clicking on the links for each one.

Not surprisingly, I fall (mostly) into the category of Disillusioned Independent:

These independents are deeply dissatisfied with politics today and antagonistic to both parties and the two-party system itself. Nearly seven in 10 are angry.

Only 14 percent are satisfied with the political system; eight in 10 express little or no confidence in government. Nine in 10 say the two-party system does not work for them, and most think Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same.

Many say “neither party” better represents their views on key issues, including more than seven in 10 who say so about their positions on Iraq.

Bush and the war are crucial components of the disillusionment.

Three-quarters say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and just two in 10 think it is still possible to stabilize the country. Fifty-seven percent call Bush the worst modern president.

For 2008, this group leans Democratic, but high levels of disenchantment could keep them home. They would also welcome an independent candidacy.

"Nearly seven in 10 are angry." Buddy, you don't even know the half of it. Bush and the war may have been "components" of my disillusionment, but it's been going on a long time. I will not stay home in 2008, however. And I will not support an Independent candidate this time. I want the Republicans to be severely punished in the next election. I want to see their cowardly, pseudo-macho, chicken-hawk selves on their knees in tears. This administration has wrought hell upon our country, not to mention upon Iraq and other parts of the world. I'll work with the Democratic Party - because I feel like I have no choice.

Some other interesting results from the study:

• Fifty years ago, independents accounted for about a quarter of all adults. Today, that proportion is between three in 10 and four in 10, depending on the survey. In most states that have party registration, independents or those who decline to state a party preference are the fastest-growing segment of voters, according to Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
• Independents mirror the population in terms of age, income and education. But they are disproportionately male.
  
• Independents also are more secular than the overall electorate. Four in 10 in the new study would like to see religion have less influence on politics and public life than it does now. Almost a fifth say they have no religion.
  
• Three-quarters said voting on the issues, not a party line, is a "major reason" they claim the label, while seven in 10 said a prime factor is that they vote for individual candidates, not parties.
  
• About half said a major reason for their independence is that they agree with Democrats on some issues and Republicans on others, and that they are not comfortable with either party.
  
• Four in 10 said not wanting to put a label on their political views is a principal reason for calling themselves independents.
  
• One pig-headed SOB from Texas with an obvious chip on his shoulder, talked nonsensically about a party platform that incoporated the likes of jazz, Yves Montand, Tex-Mex food, a touch of anarchism, Monty Python, John Lennon, Guillaume Apollinaire, Zapatistas, the New York Jets, Tom Waits, and a radical redistribution of wealth, Coltrane CDs and Spanish vino tinto.

Okay, maybe that last part wasn't in the article.

We have 323 kinds of breakfast cereal, 473 kinds of beverages, 500 channels of television, millions of websites . . . and two political parties.

How, I wonder, can over 300 million people from nearly every cultural, ethnic, and religious background in the world be represented in such a dualistic system? I look at the Senate, and I don't see representation of the people of the United State of America. I see rich white men. And while the House is a little better, I still don't think it comes anywhere close to true democratic representation. I don't know if having other parties would change that, but I don't think it's working the way things stand now.

If my spiritual journey, environmentalism, and life in general have taught me anything, it's that all things are interconnected. I am a part of my community and my actions affect all. In that regard, I ask myself why I don't participate more fully in the existing political system in this country by joining a party. On the other hand, I've also come to believe that life doesn't have to be so dualistic. Why should I be forced into an Either/Or situation between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to making decisions that have major consequences on our society and on the world? What about multiplicities? We're creative beings. Is it really impossible to create other alternatives?

Still waiting for a party that represents me

What I really resent is that these two monolithic parties have helped create a system in which there is no other choice. Unless some kind of change occurs, you will never again see the likes of Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote, as he did in 1992. After that experience, the parties have rigged things even more. One example is that they took over the debates from the League of Women Voters after 1992 and changed the rules, so that it's nearly impossible now for an independent candidate to participate. Also, big-money Independents like Perot, and now possibly Bloomberg, don't really care about establishing a viable, long-term alternative. It's an ego thing for them, it seems, more than a real concern about how the system works. They think that they as individuals can run things better than the two parties. And, sadly, Ralph Nader didn't seem to care about establishing a long-term alternative in the end either.

We as a country fought a revolutionary war in order to free ourselves from a corrupt political system that didn't correspond to our genuine needs. It was an inflexible system run by the wealthy mostly for themselves. As long as the Democratic and Republican parties maintain their stranglehold on our political system, I'm not sure how much real independence and fair representation we're going to feel. Disillusioned as I might be, I still yearn idealistically for a party that acts out of true vision and strength, one that shows genuine concern for creating a just society for all. On a grey, dreary Independence Day (what a drag!), I guess I'll have to settle for being an Independent.

Happy Fourth of July.