argh

I had another odd thought where the Colbert train was derailed. Supposedly some of Obama's supporters came out against this 'farce'. On the theory that they draw support from the same audience (mostly people who know what facebook/myspace is because they're of the age bracket that popularized them). Here's the problem right now with that theory. Nobody has been able to show that twenty-somethings vote in large proportions. Something strange like the Colbert candidacy is needed to energize their attention towards politics enough to act and carry out a vote. So I'm not hopeful that any candidate who is relying on the broadest support base of twenty-somethings is a viable candidate nationally.

Next thought which occurred to me is that if this was such a farce, and something that was unnecessarily silly during what should be (and I agree here, it should be) a relatively serious issue, it occurs to me to ask what's so screwed up about the current system that people were at all interested in this. In fact, it looks to me like the farce is the popularity/beauty contests that candidates go through to become elected. Very little of their own opinions and thoughts are shown on any issue. Questions are rarely insightful and meaningful, answers are even less so. Rote prattling on about how bad America has it or how great America would be if only they elect 'me' does not impress me. Debates used to be meaningful forums where ideas were dissected for the impressment of the audience of a particular forum and the subsequent involvement (and perhaps manipulation) of public sentiment. Now they become free mudslinging events where the slightest misstep of any real idea emerging is treated as a cause for assault.

The main reason Hillary deserved to be berated after her response the other night for example wasn't that she is right or wrong on that issue (I think she's wrong, but I'm like everyone else, not quite sure what she really thinks of it). It's that she waffled on it within seconds. She didn't seem to have any idea what she wanted to do with it, and it's an issue that didn't just appear out of thin air. It's been around for the past several years, where she was supposedly in Congress to deal with it at the federal level. At the very least however, the fact that something emerged which appeared to be a real answer should have been sufficient. Instead she caved to what she thought (or rather what she knows) public sentiment is rather than understanding what might be in the public's best interest (which is probably not quite the way they're doing it in NY). I'm not quite certain she knows much about that public beyond which event she is speaking at on a given day and which organization she has to pander to that moment. But then that was a formula for successful election before. I don't consider Bill Jeff a poor presidential period on the basis of the various 'scandals'. I'm still miffed about his foreign policy track record and lack of integrated trade and labour policies. I would think a Rhodes scholar would understand more than just how to run a balanced budget and claim success for it (and the stock bubble). There were some flashes of ideas that might have been more useful socially, such as a series of debates on the topic of race and racial disharmony. But that's not enough for me to feel any better about the future under his wife's reign instead.

In any case, I suppose we're not electing any comedians anytime soon. Which probably means that the whole farcical scene will play on rather than anyone getting up to shout out that the emperor has no clothes. It almost feels like we should just clad a young lady in pure samite and have her lob a scimitar at random and whoever catches it would be king rather than a mandate from the masses.