How do some voters decide?
"At least this time I want to vote for a candidate who will win the primary!". People like to vote for the winning horse.
"I will probably decide on the last day". Sigh. I guess this is why we have only about a third of the voters who have absolutely made up on their mind.
Post-Christmas everyone is in Iowa (Edwards is spending a couple of days in New Hampshire before heading to Iowa). After the January 3 Iowa caucus they are all going to descend on New Hampshire ....... This election there is more emphasis on Iowa than on New Hampshire, because the race is so fluid still - no clear front-runner really, so Iowa is up for grabs, and the winner of Iowa might get tremendous momentum (some people decide on the last day, and some like to vote for a winner .....)
The Edwards campaign MUST win in Iowa. As my fellow Nashua Peace group member said, "if Edwards wins Iowa, we will deliver him New Hampshire!".
The New Hampshire Edwards campaign team is focusing on New Hampshire - we are not trying to make calls in Iowa. There is so little time between the two (5 days), and every day counts.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Peace, Justice, and the Environment
My picture with the next President of the John Edwards was in
Then we volunteers got to sit on stage, which gave me a good view of the happenings behind the stage so to speak. Bonnie and Jackson sang four songs, and then Edwards came on, right on cue, shook hands with people on stage on his way to the center of the stage. His demeanor was somewhat different from when he had met volunteers in a side room – he was more ‘natural’ there. On stage it was a bit more of being part of the show. Bonnie and Jackson are very active in the anti-nuclear movement, and are part of a group “Musicians United for Safe Energy”. They summed up their support for Edwards in one phrase – they support him because his ideology fits in with theirs’ – Peace, Justice, and the Environment.
Edwards’ speech was more simple (compared to when I had heard him before) in putting its points across. The campaign has modified its stump speech and settled on a version which clearly identifies corporations as an enemy. I guess having a specific enemy makes a message very clear and enables people to easily identify with the speaker – whether it be “islamo-fascism” or corporations. The speech focused heavily on fighting against exploitative forces and also on very progressive topics such as nuclear disarmament in the world (in addition to the standard democratic topics). Edwards was passionate, forceful, and urged people to vote for him, work for him, and get their friends to their polls. The evening ended with Edwards putting his arms around Bonnie and Jackson and all three receiving applause from the audience. Good fun!
And it snowed, and snowed, and snowed ……….!
(More snow pictures are at:
 |
| Snow Photos, December 2007 |
We have been buried in the snow, and how! Its been a lot of 6-8 inch snow storms, within a couple of days of each other, and continuous sub-zero temperatures. The result - 4-5 feet high snow banks, much higher where the snow plows have piled up snow.
The snow on the ground is higher than the Edwards sign on my lawn. I cleaned the snow off the front of the sign, took this picture, and by next morning it was buried again!
The campaign offices are functioning as usual though. I went in to the Edwards campaign office for my
At the office we were discussing some polls that showed
“Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate”
I have to write at least one note on Mike Gravel, who is ideology is so close to mine! It would be nice to work for someone like him, but unfortunately he is not a viable candidate.
One ad reads:
Reduced income taxes.
American Independence from foreign oil.
Goodbye
Hello energy independence.
Mike Gravel for US Presdent.
Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate.
Another ad:
A table listing the candidates and the issues “Supports Abortion Rights”, “Opposed Invasion of Iraq”, “Supports Fairtax”, “Veteran”. Only Mike Gravel has check marks on all of them. And the ad ends with:
Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate.
Another ad:
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare” – James Madison.
Friday, December 14, 2007
People's Opinions
After reading my blog post on people's thoughts being influenced by various means - news articles, family, friends, books, editorials - rather than by what candidates say, a friend asked me what was a good example of something that could influence people. That reminded me of a recent documentary I had seen.
I had picked up the "Voices of Iraq" from the local library, happening to see it when I walked by. "Filmed and Directed by the People of Iraq" the cover said, interesting me at once. My long years with Asha and similar organizations had exposed me to the critical importance of listening to what people had to say. Nothing can come close to what the people have to say about themselves, their lives, their travails, their goals. In the Asha's context it is the people whose children we are trying "educate", but it applies everywhere. This is the basis premise of projects like "Kids with Cameras" (www.kids-with-cameras.org) which gave cameras to children in a red-light district giving the opportunity of expressing themselves, and is also the reason why digital story-telling is rapidly catching on.
So I picked up the DVD immediately, thinking this would be a great documentary to see. Learning about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqis themselves - nothing could be closer to the truth. The producers had distributed 150 video cameras in the entire country of Iraq, to "enable everyday people - mothers, children, teachers, sheikhs, even insurgents - to document their lives and their hopes amidst the upheavel of a nation being born". I was going visit my parents that weekend, and they would enjoy it too.
We sat down to watch the video, and it started by presenting the perspective of people living in the marshes who had been persecuted under Saddam's regime, then described how the poor did not have access to education under Saddam and about how some had been very poor, it showed various injustices some had had to undergo under that regime - all described by the people themselves. It was moving. Saddam indeed had been a tyrant ......all these people had suffered so. And there was hope that came through in the film - that with Saddam out of the way, there was real hope of a truly democratic nation being born, of a better life for them and their children. The thought crossed my mind - had I realized how brutal Saddam was till I heard the Iraqi people themselves speak? I guess not. There was excellent footage about the Iraqi countryside, Iraqis celebrating their festivals, having fun, living their way of life.
Halfway into the documentary several Iraqis applauded the US government for ridding them of Saddam. I began to think that there might be some who think that way, but did they all? Weren't there some who did not like the US government's actions? Maybe not, if all 150 film makers across the country liked what the US government had done. This was a new view for me - I had not realized that so many Iraqis felt this way. Then Abu Ghraib came up. "People who were tortured and humilitated deserved it, since they were the jailors in the prisons under Saddam's rule", said one. That didn't somehow ring true. Really? I had not heard that before (keeping aside the question of whether that made torture OK). It then began to dawn on me ...... that the voices of the Iraqi people were the voices of _some_ Iraqi people. Was it really a representative sample? Didn't seem like it. Who were the cameras given to? How were they selected? Were other differing opinions edited out? As the documentary progressed, it became more and more obvious that this was convervative propaganda - that it was a documentary put together to put forth one point of view, the view that the US did the right thing in invading Iraq and "freeing" the people from the dictator Saddam. But the way it was done was diabolically clever. I would never, never, never have doubted anything that proclaimed itself as being the 'voices of Iraq'. I would have never have attributed anything but the finest of motives to something that gave video cameras to people so that they can tell their story their own way. I was stunned that even I, who was opposed to every reason the US gave for invading Iraq, could get fooled for a whole hour. It was so convincing, so well done, seemed so representative of what the man on the street felt that it was hard to believe it was propaganda, except for some obvious falsehoods in the second half of the documentary.
I was mad. I wanted to write a strong note to the public library for carrying such a documentary without saying it was propaganda. I was annoyed that propagondists would use methods which are honored by grassroots activists as means of giving people a voice.
Here is how public opinion can be influenced.
I had picked up the "Voices of Iraq" from the local library, happening to see it when I walked by. "Filmed and Directed by the People of Iraq" the cover said, interesting me at once. My long years with Asha and similar organizations had exposed me to the critical importance of listening to what people had to say. Nothing can come close to what the people have to say about themselves, their lives, their travails, their goals. In the Asha's context it is the people whose children we are trying "educate", but it applies everywhere. This is the basis premise of projects like "Kids with Cameras" (www.kids-with-cameras.org) which gave cameras to children in a red-light district giving the opportunity of expressing themselves, and is also the reason why digital story-telling is rapidly catching on.
So I picked up the DVD immediately, thinking this would be a great documentary to see. Learning about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqis themselves - nothing could be closer to the truth. The producers had distributed 150 video cameras in the entire country of Iraq, to "enable everyday people - mothers, children, teachers, sheikhs, even insurgents - to document their lives and their hopes amidst the upheavel of a nation being born". I was going visit my parents that weekend, and they would enjoy it too.
We sat down to watch the video, and it started by presenting the perspective of people living in the marshes who had been persecuted under Saddam's regime, then described how the poor did not have access to education under Saddam and about how some had been very poor, it showed various injustices some had had to undergo under that regime - all described by the people themselves. It was moving. Saddam indeed had been a tyrant ......all these people had suffered so. And there was hope that came through in the film - that with Saddam out of the way, there was real hope of a truly democratic nation being born, of a better life for them and their children. The thought crossed my mind - had I realized how brutal Saddam was till I heard the Iraqi people themselves speak? I guess not. There was excellent footage about the Iraqi countryside, Iraqis celebrating their festivals, having fun, living their way of life.
Halfway into the documentary several Iraqis applauded the US government for ridding them of Saddam. I began to think that there might be some who think that way, but did they all? Weren't there some who did not like the US government's actions? Maybe not, if all 150 film makers across the country liked what the US government had done. This was a new view for me - I had not realized that so many Iraqis felt this way. Then Abu Ghraib came up. "People who were tortured and humilitated deserved it, since they were the jailors in the prisons under Saddam's rule", said one. That didn't somehow ring true. Really? I had not heard that before (keeping aside the question of whether that made torture OK). It then began to dawn on me ...... that the voices of the Iraqi people were the voices of _some_ Iraqi people. Was it really a representative sample? Didn't seem like it. Who were the cameras given to? How were they selected? Were other differing opinions edited out? As the documentary progressed, it became more and more obvious that this was convervative propaganda - that it was a documentary put together to put forth one point of view, the view that the US did the right thing in invading Iraq and "freeing" the people from the dictator Saddam. But the way it was done was diabolically clever. I would never, never, never have doubted anything that proclaimed itself as being the 'voices of Iraq'. I would have never have attributed anything but the finest of motives to something that gave video cameras to people so that they can tell their story their own way. I was stunned that even I, who was opposed to every reason the US gave for invading Iraq, could get fooled for a whole hour. It was so convincing, so well done, seemed so representative of what the man on the street felt that it was hard to believe it was propaganda, except for some obvious falsehoods in the second half of the documentary.
I was mad. I wanted to write a strong note to the public library for carrying such a documentary without saying it was propaganda. I was annoyed that propagondists would use methods which are honored by grassroots activists as means of giving people a voice.
Here is how public opinion can be influenced.
Ron Paul
Hmmm....... Ron Paul's supporters are *really* on the move. I hear that liberatarians from all over the country have descended on New Hampshire, sensing a real opportunity for Ron Paul to cause an upset in New Hampshire. I guess these supporters are all working hard - I am getting at least one call a day, often two, with a recorded message from the Ron Paul campaign (when I was home with a cold it began to get a bit annoying). I like Ron Paul a lot, and think he says exactly what he believes in, but one message put me off - his stance on illegal immigration which included saying that children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens and a few other things (reminded me of a cartoon in my local town newspaper a while back - a native American was sending European settlers away saying they are illegal immigrants :)).
There have been tons of mailings as well - literally one every alternate day. Not to mention flyers stuck in my door, and canvassing volunteers I run into while canvassing for Edwards. Clearly his supporters are going all out. Will be interesting to see what happens in the Republican primary!
There have been tons of mailings as well - literally one every alternate day. Not to mention flyers stuck in my door, and canvassing volunteers I run into while canvassing for Edwards. Clearly his supporters are going all out. Will be interesting to see what happens in the Republican primary!
Straight Talk Express
John McCain had my deepest respect as someone who had been a POW for 5 years. I had seen him in 2000, and had been impressed with what came across as a very honest demeanor – straight talk it was. I hoped he would win the nomination rather than Bush, but politics does not always work that way.
This time around, I of course completely opposed his stance on the war. I still liked several of the values he stood for, for campaign finance reform which he attempted, for his commitment to not have torture, for his humane look at illegal immigrants. But I simply did not understand his stance on the war. When I heard his son was in the marines, I began to realize that he really, really believed in the war – having his son fighting and supporting the war made him better in my eyes than someone supporting the war from one’s cushy home, though it did alter my position against his candidacy.
He was speaking at the senior citizens center in Nashua, and I took care to park several blocks away (the anti-war stickers make my car stand out in Republican candidate events J). The atmosphere in the room had a lot of energy (a bit like an Edwards’ event actually), with people from a cross-section of society, many with a strong belief in the candidate. The woman sitting next to me was undecided, though strongly leaning towards him, and had voted for him 2000. I was lucky to get a seat in the third row, a great place to be in to ask a question. The New Hamsphire Peace Action had left a message for me to try and bird-dogging questions, and I was intending to try (though I was a bit nervous ;)).
He came in, and it struck me that he was old (I believe he is 71). He was feisty and started by saluting all the veterans in the room, who clearly adore him. A POW, who had been tortured, who spent 5 years in prison not knowing whether he would ever get back home, right there in front of me. It felt good to applaud him.
His talk came across as straight talk. Then it was time for questions. One man, who had lived in Arizona before, asked, “Senator, I like you very much, and I would really, really like to vote for you. But I need to hear some strong statements on illegal immigration. I think it is a serious problem, and all security at our front door would be useless if we left our back door open. You will have to convince me on your stand on that issue if you want my vote”. Oh my. New Hampshire town hall meetings can be tough! McCain answered outlining his stance, that a wall would work in some places, but we would never several other things, like sensors, cameras, a beefed up border patrol etc etc., and faulted the federal government for not having done much to stem it. But it was not a strong statement bashing illegal immigrants as law-breakers, and I doubt the man decided to vote for him.
Another person said that she had read that he was in favor of social security for illegal immigrants. He answered, “No”, which is all the questioner wanted to hear. He went to say that we should think of them in a humane manner, as God’s children, but he did not think we should give them amnesty. I did a double take on that – I thought there was a whole section during an early Republican debate where he talked about the definition of amnesty, and said that giving amnesty was not the same as rewarding them, which the other candidates were accusing him of. Had he changed his stance?
I pondered for a few moments on why illegal immigration is such a scary issue. It is not as though New Hampshire is burdened by a lot of people coming in and making use of public services. Why did it bother people so much? What was the fear? A fear that a way of life would be changed? After all, tons of immigrants had come in to the US, and tons from all cultures were coming in “legally”. Or was it a fear that an “open” border was not good for security? And there are not really a whole lot of illegal immigrants doing landscaping and snow-plowing and car-washing in New Hampshire. All these jobs are still done by New Hampshire folks. The whole immigration issue did not strike me as a critical question that needed to be addressed immediately from New Hampshire’s point of view, but fear is a great political tool. If people felt fear they will lean towards someone who they think will help make that fear go away. Thus it has become a campaign issue!
Several questions revolved around the Iraq war and the larger “idealogical war”, and how military intervention was necessary to put an end to this threat to the US. He clearly blurred the lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, talking about the brutal dictator Iraq had been under and saying in the same breath that we have to win the war in Iraq to make sure that Al Qaeda was defeated. At one point he talked about the cold war, and about how it was won not by force but by “being a superior civilization”. Then I thought I should ask the question – why did he think this “idealogical war” should be won by force? And a good addition to the question would be – if it is Al Qaeda we are after, why did we go into Iraq? He also talked about nuclear energy being very useful as an alternate means of energy. Why were we objecting to Iran having a nuclear program then?
I raised by hand, but by then it was apparent that there were 3 other peace activists in the room, raising their hands with bird-dogging questions (two I recognized as being with the Nashua Peace Group and Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq). They were veterans in asking questions, and I did not want to interfere with their chances of being called on, especially because they were both sitting close to me. So they asked their questions and I did not get to ask mine.
At the end of all this, what stood out was that for all the straight talk there were inconsistencies when he talked. Did he honestly and truly believe that this was an ideological war? Did he honestly believe it was alright to have the “collateral damage” of Iraqi civilians when he talked about basic, inalienable human rights of every human being? In answer to a question he had talked so much about the basic, inalienable rights of every human being in the world - how does the reconcile the Right to Live and the “collateral damage” in Iraq? Did he honestly and truly believe thee was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? And how come he changed his position on amnesty? Finally even McCain seemed to be giving in to positions which would help win the election. It was a bit disappointing, and my initial mild euphoria in seeing him rapidly vanished. I could not feel that McCain truly believed in the connections he was making regarding the war….. so was he just saying that to win the election?
This time around, I of course completely opposed his stance on the war. I still liked several of the values he stood for, for campaign finance reform which he attempted, for his commitment to not have torture, for his humane look at illegal immigrants. But I simply did not understand his stance on the war. When I heard his son was in the marines, I began to realize that he really, really believed in the war – having his son fighting and supporting the war made him better in my eyes than someone supporting the war from one’s cushy home, though it did alter my position against his candidacy.
He was speaking at the senior citizens center in Nashua, and I took care to park several blocks away (the anti-war stickers make my car stand out in Republican candidate events J). The atmosphere in the room had a lot of energy (a bit like an Edwards’ event actually), with people from a cross-section of society, many with a strong belief in the candidate. The woman sitting next to me was undecided, though strongly leaning towards him, and had voted for him 2000. I was lucky to get a seat in the third row, a great place to be in to ask a question. The New Hamsphire Peace Action had left a message for me to try and bird-dogging questions, and I was intending to try (though I was a bit nervous ;)).
He came in, and it struck me that he was old (I believe he is 71). He was feisty and started by saluting all the veterans in the room, who clearly adore him. A POW, who had been tortured, who spent 5 years in prison not knowing whether he would ever get back home, right there in front of me. It felt good to applaud him.
His talk came across as straight talk. Then it was time for questions. One man, who had lived in Arizona before, asked, “Senator, I like you very much, and I would really, really like to vote for you. But I need to hear some strong statements on illegal immigration. I think it is a serious problem, and all security at our front door would be useless if we left our back door open. You will have to convince me on your stand on that issue if you want my vote”. Oh my. New Hampshire town hall meetings can be tough! McCain answered outlining his stance, that a wall would work in some places, but we would never several other things, like sensors, cameras, a beefed up border patrol etc etc., and faulted the federal government for not having done much to stem it. But it was not a strong statement bashing illegal immigrants as law-breakers, and I doubt the man decided to vote for him.
Another person said that she had read that he was in favor of social security for illegal immigrants. He answered, “No”, which is all the questioner wanted to hear. He went to say that we should think of them in a humane manner, as God’s children, but he did not think we should give them amnesty. I did a double take on that – I thought there was a whole section during an early Republican debate where he talked about the definition of amnesty, and said that giving amnesty was not the same as rewarding them, which the other candidates were accusing him of. Had he changed his stance?
I pondered for a few moments on why illegal immigration is such a scary issue. It is not as though New Hampshire is burdened by a lot of people coming in and making use of public services. Why did it bother people so much? What was the fear? A fear that a way of life would be changed? After all, tons of immigrants had come in to the US, and tons from all cultures were coming in “legally”. Or was it a fear that an “open” border was not good for security? And there are not really a whole lot of illegal immigrants doing landscaping and snow-plowing and car-washing in New Hampshire. All these jobs are still done by New Hampshire folks. The whole immigration issue did not strike me as a critical question that needed to be addressed immediately from New Hampshire’s point of view, but fear is a great political tool. If people felt fear they will lean towards someone who they think will help make that fear go away. Thus it has become a campaign issue!
Several questions revolved around the Iraq war and the larger “idealogical war”, and how military intervention was necessary to put an end to this threat to the US. He clearly blurred the lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, talking about the brutal dictator Iraq had been under and saying in the same breath that we have to win the war in Iraq to make sure that Al Qaeda was defeated. At one point he talked about the cold war, and about how it was won not by force but by “being a superior civilization”. Then I thought I should ask the question – why did he think this “idealogical war” should be won by force? And a good addition to the question would be – if it is Al Qaeda we are after, why did we go into Iraq? He also talked about nuclear energy being very useful as an alternate means of energy. Why were we objecting to Iran having a nuclear program then?
I raised by hand, but by then it was apparent that there were 3 other peace activists in the room, raising their hands with bird-dogging questions (two I recognized as being with the Nashua Peace Group and Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq). They were veterans in asking questions, and I did not want to interfere with their chances of being called on, especially because they were both sitting close to me. So they asked their questions and I did not get to ask mine.
At the end of all this, what stood out was that for all the straight talk there were inconsistencies when he talked. Did he honestly and truly believe that this was an ideological war? Did he honestly believe it was alright to have the “collateral damage” of Iraqi civilians when he talked about basic, inalienable human rights of every human being? In answer to a question he had talked so much about the basic, inalienable rights of every human being in the world - how does the reconcile the Right to Live and the “collateral damage” in Iraq? Did he honestly and truly believe thee was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? And how come he changed his position on amnesty? Finally even McCain seemed to be giving in to positions which would help win the election. It was a bit disappointing, and my initial mild euphoria in seeing him rapidly vanished. I could not feel that McCain truly believed in the connections he was making regarding the war….. so was he just saying that to win the election?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Door-to-door again
My car showed a temperature of 24 F. And it was windy. Bitterly cold. Not an ideal day for campaigning at all, but the Edwards campaign is relentless - rain or shine or snow or cold, folks are out there.
This time there were more people for Hillary than last time, though there were still many undecideds. Sigh. Lot of work to do before we can get Edwards elected.
We did half the streets we had to do on that day, and on one street we were right behind a Ron Paul campaigner. On another street we saw Obama's campaign a couple of houses ahead of us, at which point we decided to give up and go home and come back the next day - we didn't think voters would take kindly to 3 campaigns visiting them in the space of 15 minutes. This is going to be the trend till January 8th I think, as all the campaigns become more and more aggressive.
The Edwards campaign (and all other campaigns I am sure), have grassroots campaigning down to an art. Every voter has to be visited at least twice. If they are not home, we leave a booklet by the door, and the campaign follows up in a couple of days with a call asking whether the voter has any questions on the booklet. Jack, the staff member in charge of wards 1 and 3, knows practically every Edwards voter in his wards. Edwards voters are called to see whether they would be volunteers. All the data we collect on who will vote for whom is meticulously stored in the database, and will be used on election day - when we make sure that everyone who has said they will vote for Edwards makes it to the polls. Every vote counts!
This time there were more people for Hillary than last time, though there were still many undecideds. Sigh. Lot of work to do before we can get Edwards elected.
We did half the streets we had to do on that day, and on one street we were right behind a Ron Paul campaigner. On another street we saw Obama's campaign a couple of houses ahead of us, at which point we decided to give up and go home and come back the next day - we didn't think voters would take kindly to 3 campaigns visiting them in the space of 15 minutes. This is going to be the trend till January 8th I think, as all the campaigns become more and more aggressive.
The Edwards campaign (and all other campaigns I am sure), have grassroots campaigning down to an art. Every voter has to be visited at least twice. If they are not home, we leave a booklet by the door, and the campaign follows up in a couple of days with a call asking whether the voter has any questions on the booklet. Jack, the staff member in charge of wards 1 and 3, knows practically every Edwards voter in his wards. Edwards voters are called to see whether they would be volunteers. All the data we collect on who will vote for whom is meticulously stored in the database, and will be used on election day - when we make sure that everyone who has said they will vote for Edwards makes it to the polls. Every vote counts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)