Horse and Pony Show

Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules executives are holding hearings concerning seating delegates in Michigan and Florida at the DNC Convention in August. I think this is just a puppet exercise that holds no weight, and ultimately demonstrates nothing. I don’t think either of the Candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, truly cares about the voters in those States. And I think there are 4 levels of people to blame for this huge foul-up. Ultimately, no matter what is decided today, what has taken place already will render this nominating process unfair because the voters in these States have been inexplicably mistreated, and there is no fair way to include them.

I think the 4 groups to blame are Howard Dean and the DNC, the States of Michigan and Florida, all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates from Clinton and Obama to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and finally I blame Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama specifically.

1^st, Howard Dean and the DNC have really screwed this process up. Several States were threatening to move their contests up. Iowa and New Hampshire had threatened to move their contests into December of 2007. Given that, I understand the DNC wanting to put in place as harsh a penalty as possible for States that violated the rules. But what was lost in their ruling decision was the voters. The voters didn’t violate the rules, the voters are who are most important in November, and the voters in Michigan and Florida (two States threatening to move up their contests) have carried very heavy weight in the last several Presidential Campaigns. Ignoring the voters on the basis of party principle is the absolute opposite of democracy.

The DNC should have done what the Republican Party did in Florida. That is to say that they should have punished the Delegates in Michigan and Florida by only awarding them half of their Delegates, but allowing the votes to count. This way the Parties in those States are punished, while not disenfranchising the voters.

2^nd, the States are to blame for violating the rules. This is more of a Michigan problem than it is a Florida problem. That is because the State Legislature in Florida is heavily Republican, and so the DNC in Florida couldn’t do much to affect the date that their primary was held. However, Michigan has a Democratic Governor and many Democrats in the Legislature. They should’ve known better.

This gets to a larger problem with our so-called Democratic process. Michigan and Florida (and several other States) wanted their primaries to have heavy influence over who was nominated. This is done by having your primary early. It shouldn’t be like this, and in the future I hope we move toward having regional primary dates instead of this “Iowa always first” mentality which renders most States voiceless in nominating a particular candidate. But that is another blog-post for another day.

3^rd, the Candidate’s that signed the agreement to not count Michigan and Florida are guilty. They should’ve objected on the basis that the voters in those States that violated the rules would be disenfranchised. Of the 8 Candidates, no one could muster enough steam to object to this silly ruling by the DNC?

4^th and finally, Clinton and Obama are to blame.

Although I think she is on the right side of the argument now (count the votes, somehow), Clinton is only on this side of the argument now because it would help her out in her bid for the nomination. She is now famously quoted as saying that the Michigan Primary isn’t going to count for anything (New Hampshire Public Radio, 10/11/07), but now she cares about those voters? Yeah right. I think those votes should count somehow, and I know many of those voters are frustrated, but if she really cared about them, she should’ve spoken up about 9 months ago about it, not now when it’s politically advantageous.

And if there is any doubt that Obama is a politician, then look no further than his relative silence on the issue of Michigan and Florida votes counting. I am frankly pissed that no one has called Obama out on his silence. Clinton offered to have a re-vote in Michigan (which is lawful under DNC rules). She even offered up the money and the workers to do it, but Obama (who has raised infinitely more money than she) said and did nothing. He only offered to concede some Delegates to Clinton from those States when it appeared he had sown up the nomination. That is akin to a basketball game in which the team ahead by 8 points with 7 seconds left in the game gives the other team 2 points; you can have these points because it is inconceivable that we will lose to you even after lending you a few points this late in the game.

I know there are a lot of Obama supporters who don’t see it that way, but ask yourself, why wouldn’t he be for a re-vote in Michigan if he has the money and the staff, and his opponent offers the money and staff? Let me help you out: he figured that once he took the Delegate lead, he didn’t have to deal with that issue because he could effectively run out the clock in the race (as he has done) without having to do so (based on the polling and the media coverage). Counting Michigan and Florida would increase Clinton’s totals which would be a detriment to him.

In case you’re wondering, yes I know there were more factors in play than money as it pertains to re-votes, and I’m well versed in them. But as far as I can tell, in Michigan a re-vote could have been worked out. Florida had one significant kink (and it’s not paper ballots) that would be a hassle, but it too could have been worked through had the candidates (mainly Obama in this instance) demonstrated leadership in seeing that the voters in these States mattered. But far-be-it for me to think that politicians ever have the concerns of their constituents at heart.

Here’s my solution for Florida and Michigan as of today, May 31^st. I would approach this the same way a Math Professor would for a student who had to miss an exam. In Florida, I would count the votes as is, since both candidates were in the same situation. In Michigan, I would count Hillary’s votes as is, and I would pro-rate Obama’s votes (along with Edwards’, Richardson’s and Biden’s votes) based on the 2 contest before and after the Michigan primary, and allow him to have the percentage based on that pro-rated average, and make the total average of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden equal to 40% (the percentage that voted uncommitted).

But just like a Professor can’t know what a student would have gotten had they actually taken the exam, we can’t know what Obama (and the other candidates) would’ve gotten had his name been on the ballot. Furthermore, we can’t know if Clinton would have won by those large margins in Michigan or Florida since the voters in both States knew their vote wouldn’t count and many stayed home as a result.

I know that people write off Clinton’s votes in these States because many people didn’t vote at all, knowing that their votes wouldn’t count. But that is the same reason why I think it’s important that Clinton received as many votes as she did. Despite knowing their votes wouldn’t count, millions of people still went to the polls to vote for her. And to just give all the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama wouldn’t be fair either. I know America suffers from short term memory loss, but Edwards, Richardson and Biden were also still in the race at that time, and I’m certain that many of that 40% uncommitted also included a strong percentage of votes for those 3 candidates (especially Edwards and Richardson).

On the flipside of the coin, there were likely tens or hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters that stayed home. How can Clinton claim that she deserves all those votes that counted for her if people weren’t even voting because their candidate’s name wasn’t on the ballot? She can’t.

I have a lot more to say about changing perceptions over time based on prior primaries, and a whole lot of other things, but I’ll stop. In short, much like the Iraq war having no “win-win” exit strategy, there is no way to include these States fairly.

No matter how well the Democrats fare in this election season, Howard Dean and his entire staff should resign their posts as leaders of the DNC…they really messed this process up. And although I know I'll be sucked into watching some of the proceedings today, in my opinion it only amounts to a Horse and Pony Show.

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 1)

Yes, Yes, Yes! I’m really glad to have an open discussion concerning the comments I received on my last two posts. I will address the comments on “Racism vs. Sexism” first, followed by the comments from “Tell the Truth.” I will go through each of your points and offer my point of view on them based on the facts I’ve gathered. I will address each of your comments with care and respect. Thank you for reading “The Vortex!”

“Discrimination due to race and sexism is not the same, obviously…discrimination against race stays in a society for generations, discrimination against sex CAN be gone within a generation.”

I’m not sure if I’m fully grasping the distinction you’re making here. I read this as saying “because of the racist conditions of society, racism lingers for generations. But a female baby doesn’t have pre-determined conditions of discrimination awaiting her upon birth.” I would have to disagree based on everything I’ve witnessed, read and studied. If a set of boy and girl twins, born to the same parents, garnering the same level of education, and holding the same career post/title/position were to run life’s course, the research shows that the girl will end up being paid less and perhaps overlooked for further positions of advancement in comparison with the boy. So I would contend that women historically (from generation to generation) certainly are discriminated against. Within a generation, any exoneration of discrimination “CAN” appear to have disappeared for an individual, but not for the group as a whole.

As you (and I) both noted, racism and sexism aren’t the same, but I was keen to point out that there is incredible overlap between the two, and the opinions I expressed in that post were concerning that overlap. But once again, to demonstrate that women are “generationally” discriminated against, all you have to do is look at where women are today and consider they’re place in society historically. As I pointed out, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech could be considered prescient with respect to society today. Susan B. Anthony’s struggles are still present today. Finally, the notion of female inferiority is as old as Biblical times. 1 Peter 3:7-9 makes reference to women as the “weaker vessel.” If that doesn’t demonstrate discrimination against women from generation to generation, I don’t know what does.

“Sexism and racism works both ways…”

Totally agree, and that is a point that I made in my “Tell the Truth” post. In many primaries, Clinton garnered roughly 60-70% of the female vote, while Obama has accrued roughly 90% of the vote of African American in the last 4 months of primaries. Now I don’t know if your reasoning as to why more women vote than men, or even if that’s true, but that wouldn’t shock me, especially since there are statistically more women in this country than men. But both realities trouble me greatly. I hardly doubt that 70% of the female population has truly looked at the platforms of all the candidates and come to conclusion that Clinton is their candidate. And Black people, seriously, are a monolithic voting block in my opinion (despite decrying this notion for years). It is inconceivable that a single demographic could look at all the candidates equally and come out with the same opinion unless the other candidate had done something insidiously wrong to them. The Clinton’s have been advocates for Black people in many ways for dozens of years, so much so that it has been a running joke within the Black community for over 10 years that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. So 90% for Obama whom many still don’t know much about? Really?

“No host in any show would make a racist or sexist remark…the best policewomen on the sexist side are the wives…men might be leading the nation (publicly), at home women are”

Absolutely, positively disagree. I can roll out a laundry list of commentators who have made both racist and/or sexist remarks in print, on TV and on the radio over the years (and could easily start with Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus). But in this campaign alone, there have been countless overt sexist statements aimed at Clinton, as well as many that could easily be construed as such even if they weren’t intended to be sexist. Many of the statements seem to come from one of the news outlet I watch the most—from many of the commentators I’ve admired over the last several years—MSNBC. I reported on one such statement at this site a couple months back in my post “David Shuster and MSNBC” (please note that my angle was not only about the sexist remark, but was asking if there was perhaps validity to the assertion made by Shuster). Here are a few other examples:

Every time Hillary comes on t/v “I instinctively cross my legs”

–Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Hillary is “a patriarch with a vagina”

–Jane Fonda, Actress

“How do we beat the Bitch”

–old lady at McCain campaign rally in reference to Hillary Clinton

“She morphed into a scolding mother, talking down to a child”

–Jack Cafferty, CNN

“When she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside of Probate Court.”

–Mike Barnicle, MSNBC contributor on Hardball with Chris Matthews

“Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives.”

–Neil Cavuto, Fox News, during a segment about Clinton and Nagging Wives

“And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘take out the garbage’.”

–Man during Cavuto’s segment about Nagging Wives on Fox News

Male high profile politicians that were endorsing Hillary Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

–Chris Matthews, MSNBC

And if there are indeed a comparable number of “sexism police” and “racism police” out there, why didn’t we hear from any of them about such comments (by the way, can you name 1 such sexism policeman, I still can’t…certainly not 1 with as a high a profile as those on the racism side). On the flipside of the coin, even when race may/could be a lesser factor amongst a field of other more significant factors in any situation, you get someone crying foul on the basis of race (as I pointed out in my post concerning the New Hampshire primary).

Finally, I think the notion that the wives police the husbands who have commentator jobs only points to further sexism and so-called traditional roles for women in relationships/society. I find such a comment inherently sexist.

So on your comments we agree on a couple points, but overall, I tend to disagree. But like I said in the post, you don’t have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence I’ve presented, look toward those who have lived the life (like the Black Female Politician Shirley Chisholm), and call a spade a spade based on that.

-Maelstrom

PS: I should also say that I agree, Hillary coming out now and “pulling the sexism card” does make her look weak, no matter how true. However, I would caution against telling her to quit talking about sexism because there are tens of millions of women who are outraged at how she’s been treated in the media (whether they are correct or not). So it’s not just Hillary talking about sexism now, it’s a lot of women who are leading that charge on her behalf.

Racism vs. Sexism

I am kickin’ myself in the pants for not posting this a couple months back, because now it is the major talking point of every news outlet. Several weeks ago I had begun a post about two issues that severely affect the potential for equality in this country; sexism and racism. Since it is the talk of the news these days, I’ll give my synopsis of how I view it from a political perspective, in light of the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

There is a long history between fighting discrimination against minorities (largely led by Black people) and Women in this country. I’ll start by pointing towards two very famous Americans, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. We all know Douglass as that great Black abolitionist and thinker who sported a signature hair-style. Likewise, we know Anthony as the lady who raised the issue of inequality towards Women, which ultimately earned her a spot on a piece of American currency. Many of us, however, are unaware that Douglass and Anthony were close friends and viewed their struggles for equality as one-in-the-same. Indeed, in many of her early writings, Susan B. Anthony made it clear that both Women and “the Negro” were being inhumanely treated, under-represented, and unlawfully disenfranchised by America.

A huge shift in their relationship occurred in 1869 when the 15th Amendment was debated, and supported Black Men’s right to equality, but not Women (incidentally, several States still haven’t ratified this Amendment…how shameful). Douglass was in support of the Amendment, but Anthony took offense to it. Thereafter, she largely spoke only on the behalf of Women since men, even Black men and her friend Douglass, seemed not to care for Women’s rights to equality.

It is well known that Women did not “earn” the right to vote until 1920 (with the passing of the 19th Amendment), and Black people until 1965 (despite the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the 15th Amendment of 1869).

Today it is also well known that Women earn roughly 0.75 cents to every dollar that a man makes for doing the same job. Likewise, Blacks and other racial minorities are significantly encumbered by a system of social inequality (though not the only factor, but in my opinion the major factor) that punishes them longer for crimes that the majority population is also guilty of, often limits how high in the ranks one can climb at the job, and has left many behind with respect to education (among myriad other things).

“So who is more discriminated against?” many are now asking as a result of the race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nod. What I once thought was an incredibly great thing, a Black person and a Woman truly being considered for the nation’s highest office, has now turned my glee into disappointment. I suppose the only good thing is that this race has pulled the sheets off of some very ugly social realities we have in this country, and hopefully it will elicit action to truly resolve them.

I first had the idea to write on this topic back in January when Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary over Obama, whom many thought would win the Primary by double digits. The day after, I was watching Chris Mathews show, Hardball, on MSNBC. He had a guest on the show that I hold in the highest esteem for his incredible intellect and understanding, Michael Eric Dyson. Because Clinton won despite all the polling, Mathews and Dyson were vehemently trying to make the case that Obama lost because people are racist (or vote on racial lines), but wouldn’t dare admit their racial bias to a pollster. Now as often as I agree with Dyson, I recall thinking that he was totally off-base this time. There were numerous factors that could’ve caused the incongruence between the polls and the actual vote. In fact, it is my opinion that age was the greatest factor, with youths favoring Obama heavily. It just so happened that the NH primary occurred during the Winter break for many of the college students, so I imagine that had enough of an effect to give Clinton the victory (the same in other States, like Texas, where spring break may have played a role).

The case that Mathews and Dyson made that day became symbolic of how the remainder of the contest was going to play out in this sense; at any turn that race could be injected as a possible reason for opposition to Obama’s candidacy, it would be injected. It was at that time, back in January, that I began to point out to many people in my circle that there are many well known “race-police” (Jackson, Sharpton, Dyson, etc), but not many “gender/sexism-police” (can you even name one…I can’t).

I think it’s great that we’ve moved into an era where someone can’t just make racist remarks without backlash. Indeed I am certainly one who could be classified as a race-policeman. When someone makes a statement that is racist, or unnecessarily racially charged, I will call them out. But it cuts both ways for me racially, whether that’s for or against racial minorities. Furthermore, it cuts all ways for me: what’s wrong to say about racial minorities is wrong to say about Women; unfair treatment toward minorities is unfair treatment for Women too, in cases that are congruent (have to put that caveat on there so people don’t accuse me of saying that issues that face minorities are the same as issues that face Women or the Disabled or whatever…there is much overlap, and I’m referring to issues within the overlap).

Specifically speaking, there are people who have racial problems, and who have and will continue to be against Obama because of his skin color. Likewise, there are people who are against Clinton because she’s a Woman.

So we’ve moved from racism being the accepted reality, to it being lawfully unacceptable but publicly and privately accepted, and finally to it being lawfully and publicly unacceptable, while being privately practiced. There’s still work to be done on that last front, but there has been progress. Unfortunately Women are still one step behind. This primary season has made it clear to me that it is still publicly acceptable to be sexist against Women.

I always thought that we’d see a White Woman be President before we’d see a Black man be President. Of course I don’t know how this race will turn out, but I am rethinking that notion now. I have made the point countless times how sad it is that women are maligned in society, even here at this site, but I didn’t realize how accepted it was for Women to be so publicly discriminated against…I thought it was mostly private and institutionalized, not public and overt. I was wrong.

Many would still contend that race is the greater of the two evils. I would contend that depending on the arena, one or the other may be more explicit. Having done my research and looked through History, I would contend that Politically, Women may have it harder than Blacks. But you don’t have to take my word for it…

...the great Black Woman politician who ran for the Democratic Nomination for President of the USA in 1972, Shirley Chisholm, said the following in a 1969 speech before the House of Representatives:

“As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as "for men only."

By the way, I would recommend reading her entire speech. She makes numerous valid points about inequality toward women that are, sadly, largely true today even though she made the speech almost 40 years ago. (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/equal/)

I guess my point is that many in the media have indeed discriminated against Clinton, for whatever reason, but have been enabled by our lack of concern for the tone we take toward Women. The same types of statements made regarding her would rarely, if ever, be accepted if leveled at a Black person like Obama. And even now that she points out the incongruent treatment, many in the media are saying that she’s “just crying” because she’s losing instead of considering the wealth of evidence out there that is consistent with her point.

As a reader of this blog, don’t you join the chorus of media personalities that dismisses her point as her just being a cry-baby. Sexism is real too, and we’ve seen far too much of it in this campaign for it just to be overlooked.

-Maelstrom

Just look at how Clinton has been portrayed in all areas of our society during this race

DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER:

I absolutely DO NOT endorse the anti-Obama rhetoric or the comments posted for these videos. I just want you to consider some of the media comments within the videos that demonstrate the points I've made above!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUmbjoEp2lU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bacxWGk88L0&NR=1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjG-jdybbIg

Tell The Truth

During this very exciting race for the office of President, I have found it very funny what non-truths people are willing to hide behind in order to support the candidate they like. Likewise, I find it interesting how the candidates paint these less-than-realistic images of themselves in order to become “one of us.” I think it’s time for everyone to finally keep it real, speak up, and tell the truth.

To that end, let me help all of you out! Candidates first...

Senator Clinton, tell the truth, you certainly have a wealth of foreign policy experience, but you were no consistent peace-broker, war-mediator, or Under-Secretary of State. You could easily stand on your record without embellishments: Yes, you did play a role in bringing a level of peace in Ireland, yes you were listed as the US Ambassador/Delegate to some conferences, and no doubt you were on-hand for some of the most important foreign events in recent world history. So just say that! Instead you’ve chosen to overstate your experience and it has gotten you in trouble. Hopefully you’ve learned your lesson now and you will just tell the truth about your foreign policy experience.

Senator Clinton, tell the truth. You are rich. Far richer than most people could ever dream. Now to those of us who pay attention, we know that recently Bill O’Reilly of Fox News actually got you to admit that you are indeed rich, but still Senator, quit trying to tout your gun-toting prowess to demonstrate that you are one of us. You don’t need to throw back a couple shots of Vodka to make me feel like you are as destitute as I. I know you live a lifestyle that I can only imagine.

On that note, Senators Clinton and McCain, quit trying to paint Senator Obama as some kind of elitist who is super-rich and can’t possibly relate to the average person. The fact is that you are richer than he is.

And on that note, Senator Obama, you’re rich too. I know that now you keep trying to remind people that you grew up without a father and that you were raised by your grandmother and that you had a rougher upbringing than McCain or Clinton, but the reality is that you currently have more money in the bank at the age of 47 than most Americans will have in the bank after 50 years in the work force.

All 3 of you are rich and the lifestyles that you have lived for years, McCain and Clinton longer than Obama, are so far out of the mainstream of America that I do doubt that any of you can truly relate to the current struggles that many of “us” are going through these days; especially since the economy is in a much worse state today than when you were “one of us.” So stop playing these games, and just tell us the truth.

Here’s one that I know will shock everyone: Senator Obama, you are a politician. I know you’ve made everyone to feel like they can just sit down and talk to you. Yes, you can even play basketball with a few of us. But make no mistake about it, you are a politician. Now like everyone else, I hope that you are not just another politician, but with each passing week you’re sure lookin’ like it.

A brief aside…

I’m currently situated in a state that has been bombarded by campaign ads from both Dems in the race. In one of Obama’s TV ads he opens by prominently stating that “I don’t take money from oil companies,” with the implication that McCain and Clinton do. Well, he’s telling the truth…but not really. As the Associated Press pointed out, he hasn’t taken money from the oil companies, but neither have McCain or Clinton because (here’s what he left out) it’s against the rules for the Candidates to take money from the oil companies. They can, however, take money from the wives of the oil executives and other people connected to the oil companies.

So, has Obama taken money from people connected to oil companies you ask? Absolutely, to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars (Clinton had taken some 300 thousand at the time the AP ran their spot, by comparison). To that I say “Senator Obama, if you’re going to tell the truth, tell me the whole truth.”

I could point to his silence about the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida, the fact he left his name on the ballot in Florida but not in Michigan (which I think was a political calculation), his wavering position on the pullout of troops from Iraq (google “Samantha Power US Combat brigades”) or NAFTA (google “Austan Goolsbee NAFTA”) as other examples too. Just be clear, he too is a politician. And remarkably, he’s much more of a politician today than he was just 6 months ago.

…so dear Senator Obama, tell the truth, you’re a politician!

American people, tell the truth!!!

You aren’t voting for the remaining candidates because of the issues and their platform positions. You are voting for these candidates because of “stuff you’ve heard” but not investigated yourself, because of past perceptions, or because of emotional issues that frankly have very little to do with your everyday life. Many still think Obama is Muslim (he’s not), that Clinton has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign (many of whom likely unjustifiably hated Hillary long before this campaign began), and that McCain is old and incapable (ok, he is old).

The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is a good enough candidate that Women who were going to vote for her simply because she is a Woman can say that they support her because “she has the experience.” Millions of Black folks are voting for Senator Obama because he’s Black, but he is qualified enough that they can exclaim that he is the best candidate for the job. Droves of military servicemen and Veterans are voting for Senator McCain because he’s a Vet, not because they believe in the many (and often changing) positions he takes.

I know this is the factual reality because when I challenge most people on their Candidate’s positions, most can’t even articulate a single solitary position that their candidate has taken, and how it is better or even different than that of the other Candidate’s. This let’s me know that this election is likened unto every other election, where people vote on things that are emotional rather than the platforms the Candidate’s are pushing.

I must remind myself that this is politics, and politics is simply a game of psychology in which truths can be bent or largely ignored. Asking for truth in politics is like asking for eggs from a rooster...you ain’t gonna get it unless you look elsewhere. That said (and to keep with the analogy), American people and politicians alike, I know better than to ignore the hens, and I’m gonna find my golden eggs of truth, so quit trying to give me the once over; I know better.

To be fair, some people do tell the truth, and unfortunately it is laced with all kinds of unfounded rationales. Many people won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a Woman and, as I’ve heard several men say, other countries don’t even respect Women (this despite numerous countries having had Women leaders; India, Chile, Great Britain, Germany to name a few). Some 19% of Pennsylvania voters indicated that race played a factor in how they voted in their recent primary; most of whom voted for Clinton (I can only imagine how many more people were too ashamed to admit they wouldn’t vote for a Black person). And everyone has a problem with McCain’s age, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has several Justices over the age of 80, but apparently they’re virile enough to make precedent setting laws for everyone.

Although I disagree with many of the reasons people who actually tell the truth give, I’d rather have that than people delivering untruths veiled in a blanket of positivity or unsubstantiated basis.

So please, if you see me in the streets and you’re trying to push your pick for President, unless you can tell me about their positions, why those positions matter to you, and how your Candidate’s positions are different than the other Candidate’s, spare your breath, save me the time and just tell the truth.

-Maelstrom