Saturday, June 24, 2006
IMHO
Everyone, these days, has an opinion.....I spent this last week being interviewed by endorsing groups. It is a bit of an intimidating experience, because there is one of you and nine or a dozen of them sitting around a table asking you the answers to questions where there's probably a "right" answer but you don't know what it is! Or, you know what it is, but everyone they're interviewing is giving the "right" answer so how do you distinguish yourself? I had four of these interviews face to face in Beantown and one by phone. One group has already reported in and, while they thought I was charming, (I mean, who couldn't love me?) they are backing the candidate with a pre-existing voting record. This actually doesn't surprise me. It may happen again. All I can do is show up and give it my best shot. ON THE OTHER HAND, Blog Comments just rated my blog a FIVE STAR!!!!! Top of the Heap! So take THAT all you other blogger candidates (of which there are few.....) Off to buck up my self-esteem and convince the insiders that I can, believe it or not, win. I am going to win. It's just not the conventional wisdom right now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hmm, speaking of group endorsements--has Berkshires for Progressive Change begun the process of candidate interviews/reviews for endorsement purposes, or have they not yet indicated whether they're even doing endorsements?
I'm assuming they will and should as the precedent was set for primary endorsements in the special '05 winter state rep. campaign.
I always KNEW my opinions were probably far different from other people's.....but if you are a "private citizen" it just stays like that. Once you are even a semi-public figure, then others can not only have differing opinions, but publish them for all to see and begin a "discussion!" Which for the cause of democracy is good. But it's one of the reasons that SOME individuals choose not to put themselves up for political office, because living with/dealing with the judgments of others isn't always a piece of cake!
In re: B4PC....They claim they are still planning to endorse. The longer they wait, the smaller effect the endorsement will have....but again THATS JUST MY OPINION. Reasonable people could disagree!
If I may, I'd like to share with Mr. Cjtrem my own opinion which may or may not help to bring a dawning of light on what Marge is really saying here and how he may have misunderstood the principle issue she's raising because the extent of his review apparently only goes so far as to take every word Margie wrote for its literal meaning while disregarding the possible intention on Margie's part to deliver an overall frustration with a problem thats implicitly (though not too hard to see and understand) communicated in her post:
1. If I am accurately sensing what seems to be base sarcasm comprosing the tone of your glib response, I'd suggest that any conceit you might have of personally being a serious and thoughtful participant in this race be a pretention that's abandoned ASAP; If the only intent you have is to childishly make responses that not only reveal a misunderstanding of what's said but also do nothing to contribute to a serious political discussion, then you should sit on the sidelines for the remainder of this race or behind the closed-doors of whatever opposition's campaign, if any, you may be working for or affiliated with.
2. No, of course the fact that people may be of an opinion that differs from her own is NOT news to Margie. That wasn't really the problem she was raising.
What she's basically talking about is a broader and more fundamental problem these days that sees people and organizations, if they get involved in politics at all even to a MINIMAL extent, are almost, unfortuntely, always only doing so because they were motivated by temporal interest in a single (or small number of) issue(s) and aren't necessarily looking for the strongest candidate OVERALL but rather the candidate who is saying the most to reinforce a pre-existing personal bias (regardless even if new information is learned from a candidate that in an honest effort to be truthful and comprehensive by said candidate's part results in providing examples that weaken or disprove the citizens little self-anaylzed bias).
This shouldn't be a problem that is unique to Margie's list of pet-peeves, but a universally acknowledged problem that exists within the awareness of all serious politicians as something to impede objective consideration of all candidates in a given race and what their legitimate qualities are(illegitimate qualities, being, in my opinion, things like being distantly related to a candidate or a person closely affiliated with the candidat--or having friends who support a candidate--with such illegitimate factors being things seriously influencial in a persons own determination of who to support while having NOTHING practical to do with the candidate in terms of personal ability and effectiveness)--legitimate qualities being things like depth and breadth of relevant experience, positions on the big "DO/OR DON'T SUPPORT" issues like gay marriage, and effectiveness as a communicator.
This is what Marge was talking about: too many people and organizations not being genuinely open-minded but merely instead seeking to have their personal biases (or personal, typically financial, interests) validated (or "protected") by a candidate and that's all, as if an official candidates support of their own opinions, correct or not (that doesn't matter), is material enough to cement them in the hall of legitimacy and seal their decision of who to support.
Now, of course, this manner of selection by people regarding who they are going to support is entirely within their rights to use; all that's being asked in Marge's post is whether, in the end, this method is really the best thing for democracy when so few people experience politics with open minds and with consideration of comprehensive amounts of various details before making important decisions on who to elect as members of our governing political bodies.
Okay, whoa... boy is that comment LOADED with inaccurate assumptions like
1. you're assuming a. my family extremely rich; b. my family is liberal; c. I live off my families wealth
2. your assumption that I am trying to say you can't express differing opinions from me or Marge
3. a. I am trying to "fight" you and b. I was trying to demean you or make you feel inferior.
All those assumptions are wrong. I was just trying to explain what I thought Margie was trying to say and how you might have misunderstood it (or perhaps you were only looking for something to take a jab at), as well as giving you my OWN opinion (which so doing is something YOU made the sarcastic point of endorsing) that there are better ways to add to the discussion than by being glib, angry, and insulting if you REALLY want to discuss what the issues are.
You need to STOP with the ad hominem attacks that aren't even remotely based on any real personal knowledge of me.
OK, guys, take it outside....
cjtrem, whoever he is, is not voting for me.
If you'll leave your name and community, I'll mark you as "do not mail, do not email, do not call, do not contact" and we won't bother you again.
I do, however, think I get two points for having a blog where you can express your opinion, for or against me. It's the essence of democracy.
And I get MANY points for having been endorsed by the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. It is a great honor and an outside validation that my candidacy is worthy of support by people who may not know me yet.
best of luck, cjtrem.
Post a Comment