Muddled Middle

Thought I'd beat the lines by voting early.  The early voting line turned out to be 1.5 hours long.  And Norman being a small town, there were at least 8 other people I knew in that line.

On the national races, I voted for two Democrats (Barack Obama, Andrew Rice) and one Republican (Tom Cole).   Counting all the local races too, my votes ended up being 5-4, one more Republican than Democrat.

Of course, this being Oklahoma, my vote is pointless.  The incumbents will all win. And where there is no incumbent, the Republican will walk away with the election.

The Economist's Choice

The Economist, the thinking person's magazine, endorses Obama.  It's uncanny how much the endorsement captures my thought process through this election season. I started out undecided between McCain and Obama; it was McCain's lurch to the right and choice of Palin that pushed me to the other side.  And Obama's amazing political skills make it possible that his could be a transformative presidency.  Why settle?

Why not McCain?

Mr McCain ... has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.  That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday ... The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Why Obama?

Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham ... There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right ... On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

The final choice comes down to the greater promise:

... this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

It's also interesting that the Economist's choices have almost matched mine over the past few elections except for their choice of Dole in 1996.  I would have been for Clinton (1992), Clinton (1996), Bush (2000: yes ... what can I say?), Kerry (2004), Obama (2008).

How I plan to vote

The League of Women Voters has a non-partisan voter's guide with candidates' answers to questions that are relevant to the office they are seeking.  For example, the presidential candidates lay out their positions on climate change, health care and China & Russia policy.  Senate candidates answer questions on energy policy and immigration.

This is how I plan to vote ... let me know if you think I'm making a terrible mistake.

President:  Barack Obama (D)  need a steady hand at the till

Senator:    Andrew Rice (D) any one but Inhofe

Congress:  Tom Cole (R) moderate Republican, leader in the House, good constituent services

Corporation Commission:  Jim Roth (D):  proponent of wind energy, which has great jobs-potential for Oklahoma and diversifies our economy

                 Jeff Cloud (R)  mainly to keep the corporation commission bipartisan

Judicial Ballot:  retain all.

State questions:

735:  No.    Don't add more Rube Goldberg contraptions to the tax code

741:  No.    Why add to the bureaucracy? If a person/business is eligible, give it to them

345:  Yes.   Such regulations are needed for effective conservation

346:  Yes.   Anything to reduce the horrendous restrictions around the sale of alcohol in Oklahoma

Not outraged, but saddened

This feature, about a negative ad attacking an Indian American running for Congress, was produced by a Minnesota TV station.   To some extent, every negative ad darkens the image of the opposing candidate.  And as you can imagine (given my African/Indian background), dark skin doesn't carry much of a negative connotation for me.  So I'm not sure what to make of this.

I'm not outraged by the negative ad itself -- the darkening of images does nothing for me and I can not imagine why or how it would affect other people.  But I want to see a healthy and strong Republican party, not liberal overreach.   If a local TV station is picking up on this, I would imagine that a lot of other people are picking up on it too.  Since this is being done by the national Republican party, not some rogue candidate running in Appalachia, I'm afraid that all this dirty short-sighted racism is going to permanently alienate the next generation of voters.

Not outraged by the tactic.  But saddened.

Infomercial or documentary?

The family's in bed, so watched Obama's informercial on You-Tube.

A few things that struck me:

1. He talks about how his mother woke him up at 4.30 in the morning every day from the time he was eight and made him study.  When he grumbled, she'd say "It's no picnic for me either, buster."  The camera cuts away to his nomination speech in Invesco field.  Extremely powerful, for what's unsaid: that this is the promise of America: work hard and you can be anything you want to be.
2. I expected a rousing speech. I wasn't prepared for a documentary.  A documentary with excellent photography, scripting and narration (by Obama himself) ... Wouldn't be surprised to see this one do an Al Gore with an Emmy/Oscar nomination. 
3. Is Wednesday a little early for this?  With the election on Tuesday, any post-informercial bump will die down a bit.  But then the weekend has poor viewership, and Monday is too late.
4. Some good ideas (energy efficiency, alternative energy, conservation) but still nodding to lousy ones (clean coal?).  At least, no mention of ethanol.
5. His health care plan is not universal.  All the information technology in the world is not going to save $2500/yr per family.  Hope Congress comes up with a better alternative.
6. Such careful diversity for a supposedly post-racial candidate.  Equal numbers of men and women.  One black person for every five whites.
   
7. No attack on McCain/Palin. Not even a subtle aside.
8. He had Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who mentioned Warren Buffett. But no Warren Buffett!

Insurance without doctors

The university is changing health insurance providers again.  This time to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and ... the lowest cost (HMO) plan on offer doesn't have any pediatricians in Norman enrolled. None!

Pediatricians are among the medical specialties that make the least amount of money and perform the fewest high-cost procedures.  If even pediatricians wouldn't go for what Blue Cross's HMO plan is offering to pay, I have no expectations onf the quality of surgeons and the like who will go for the plan.  Of course, it's a deathly spiral.  The university can't afford to pay for health insurance, so they try to get premiums reduced. In turn, the insurers turn the screws on doctors. Medical practices are so inefficient that they balk.

Why is health insurance tied to employment, again?

The vet who did not vet

I found this video awesome -- captures the rhythm of a children's book: