‘08 Race: Confusing Enough?
January 11th, 2008 by KimSince this blog started a few days ago, I’ve received a couple of emails and comments from people who are interested in voting in November and finding out more about the candidates — they’re just baffled as to where to start.
I don’t blame them. This is an important election, and being bombarded with that much information can make anyone want to run and hide.
Plus, there are lots of other things that may occupy your mind besides the election, especially if you’re a student. Making sure you pass a class, for one.
So, where to start.
If you like your information to come to you, I’d suggest going to sites like The New York Times (now free!), The Washington Post, ABC News or CNN.com, registering (free!) and signing up for their email alerts and daily full emails of news.
The service often lets you customize what kinds of news you receive — you can choose politics, sports, entertainment, etc. — and how often the articles are emailed. You get news about the election delivered right to your inbox.
Also, check out VoteGopher.com. The site tries to zero in on where the candidates stand on different issues. It’s a good place to start and easy to use. It was also created by a 20-year-old Harvard student.
The site’s motto is, “We dig, you decide.”
Where do you get your election news? Other suggestions are welcome.
___________
Cat Toth has a good post in her blog, The Daily Dish, today on the significance of Hillary Clinton’s showing her emotion in New Hampshire earlier this week.
Going along with that is this Washington Post article that looks at how young women at Clinton’s alma mater, Wellesley, are actually split on whether or not to support Clinton — “Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?”
Wellesley, an all-girls liberal arts college in Massachusetts, has produced a number of strong-minded female graduates over the years. It’s also the alma mater of former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Madame Chiang Kai-shek, the former first lady of China.
Tags: 2008 election, Hillary Clinton
January 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
If a woman votes for a female candidate simply because she is female and wants to shatter the glass ceiling, is that vote actually a blow against gender equity? The answer isn’t as simple as one would think.
And as a Taiwanese-American, I’m going to pretend that I didn’t see the reference to Madame Chiang Kai-Shek. Haha!
January 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I knew a Wellesley girl in the mid Fifties. She was totally brilliant and able, yet she was not even granted an interview by the State Department. No women allowed. If the Wellesley student body doesn’t favor Hilary Clinton, I just wouldn’t know what to make of it. Being for Hillary Clinton seems like a no-brainer to me for Wellesleyites.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Thanks for the link to Vote Gopher =). Interesting and easy to read.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
No candidate is everything you want them to be. You should focus on the issues that are most important to you. Wading through the information can be treacherous but at least your vote will be based on your final analysis and not some superficial reason such as gender or race. Main thing you vote…haven’t missed an election for the past 40 years.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Thanks for the info Kim! The votegopher website is exactly what I’m looking for. I’ll be sure to sift through it over the following months.
As for the Wellesley women, it is very honorable that they look beyond any bias of being of the same gender and from the same school as Clinton.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I think that a person who is not informed on the issues and the candidates or a person that simply votes for reasons like, “my parents voted for X so I will vote for X too” or “this candidate is the same gender as I am so I pick X” or “candidate X grew up in the same state as I did so X must be my candidate” would do the country a service by not exercising their right to vote. You wouldn’t choose your family physician based on these “qualities” so why use this rational to pick the person that is supposed to lead our country.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“an all-*girls* liberal arts college”
Considering the topic of your post, wouldn’t “female” or “women” be more appropriate?
I want to ask Robbie Fowler: are you still snorting chalk?
January 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
After the Iowa results, the Clintons were desperate. They saw their momentum slipping away and they suddenly saw the loss of the next four contested primaries. Obama was greatly favored in New Hampshire. They needed a drastic change in strategy. The Clintons are cold, calculating campaign professionals. What should they do?
They needed youth, so Chelsea was in and Bill was out. They started talking “change”, just like Obama. They badly needed the woman’s vote. Many have suggested that the “Iron My Shirt!” guys were a plant. They actually bussed supporters in from New York and New Jersey (mentioned in the Wall St. Journal). So what does this have to do with Hillary’s “crying”?
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the reporter who asked the question was also a plant, as a way to set up “the warm human side” of Hillary–which her campaign people KNEW was her major problem. Hence the tears; and hence the victory…no doubt about that.
By the way, you might have noticed that on the victory stand, old people were replaced by the young; there were more ethnic types; and Bill was off-stage. This was a total reversal of Iowa. In politics, one might say, nothing is accidental.
In sum, I don’t know whether the tears were real or not. But anyone who knows the ruthlessly ambitious Clintons, knows that the possibility exists that they were not. Anyone who denies this could happen in the “take-no-prisoners” world of political campaigning is incredibly naive.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Seersucker -
Sorry if you were offended by my word choice. I suppose “female” might be the proper terminology, but I didn’t think the word “girls” was inappropriate.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Seersucker-
Are you still eating chalk?
January 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Richard,
It wasn’t a reporter who asked Hilary how she does it all, it was a woman, a voter, a 60-year-old, who was later interviewed by the press when they inquired her about the answer Hilary provided.
You could be right about Chelsea coming into focus for Hilary. Why not? What can be more endearing in this world than a mother supported by her daughter? Remember the Reagans? The Clintons are using a mechanism that works, and that’s what candidates do.
I sit here and wonder who our next president is. It’s all so fuzzy in this January, 10 months prior to our elections. And I’m also in awe of a young 20-something who can trigger so much fuel for thought on various subjects. The Divine Kim Fassler is a credit to her generation. I look forward to reading more of her insights!
January 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
http://glassbooth.org/ has a quiz that asks about certain issues that appeal to you. They then take your answers and compare them to the issues that the presidential candidates find important and tell you which candidate was the best match. Also, if you don’t know much about the issues, or if one of the questions has an allusion that you might not understand, they have links to additional information that will help you make your decision.
Not that your presidential vote should be determined by an online quiz, but it might help if you have no idea who you will be voting for.