Change

Imagining the "mark of the beast,"
man cuts off his hand, and
puts it in the microwave.

Everyone is talking about change. Everyone. Even the Brafia. No one seems willing to credit the status quo, although some of the Brafia candidates insist that Bush has done a fine job and they wish to more or less continue the "war" and so on. Change, in the abstract, is pretty meaningless. Some seem to think change means continuing the "war" but doing it better. Some seem to think that starting new "wars" might be a good idea. Democrats are more outspoken about change than anyone else. But they could mean anything from changing the administration, to changing health care, to changing education, to changing economic conditions, to whatever. Speaking of change without specifying precisely what it is you have in mind to change is not really very helpful. Changing the administration would be very helpful, however, no matter what else was involved. Just prattling on about change is pretty ridiculous. Of course there is going to be change no matter who wins the election. There are good changes and bad changes. Which is it to be?

One article on Truthdig today points out what seems to be the fact that Hillary did better in counties where Diebold machines were used than in counties where the votes were counted in the old fashioned way. The difference was not great but great enough to be noticed. Are we to make something of this. I don't think so but it is apparently true. One suggestion is that where votes were hand counted was mostly in rural areas where Hillary would not expect to do so well. Maybe.

Another article I saw suggests that racism may have proved to be involved. As I suggested earlier, people who have to vote in public, as in the caucus system in Iowa, would be less inclined to vote as a racist because they would be exposed. In New Hampshire, where the ballots are cast in the privacy of the voting booth this would not be a factor - hence some New Hamphire voters may have voted against Obama in spite of what they might have previously claimed. Maybe. I doubt this by itself would account for the difference but maybe in conjunction with the former, the two claims might have been part of the unexpected result.

Clinton received a much larger percentage of female votes in New Hampshire than she did in Iowa. This is a matter of fact. But why? Some think the voters in New Hampshire simply resented claims that they would vote like Iowa and were just contrary. Some think Clinton's performance (her tears, etc.) aroused a great deal of sympathy for her and exposed her "human" side which made a difference. Some think that Edwards and Obama ganging up on her made women angry so they came to her rescue. Maybe.

Still others blame the pollsters for just not getting it right. There were too many undecided voters that were not considered, the election was held too soon after Iowa for adequate polling, and etc. Maybe.

I suspect that the answers will come as the contest moves into other states. Obama is widely expected to win, in spite of New Hampshire. If Clinton continues to win we will know that at least some of these factors are wrong. I predicted long ago that Clinton would win because the powers that be wished it. The Diebold claim and the racism claim would fit right in with my beliefs about this. But I do not claimHere that is what is involved. At least not yet. There is, however, no doubt in my mind that racism will raise its ugly head from now on. The roviating will surely be terrible, certainly on the right-wing blogs. I am told it has already begun although I have not seen it myself as yet (I don't read right-wing blogs). I sincerely hope it will be resisted wherever it appears. Racism has no legitimate place in America. Not now. Not ever. I am reserving judgment on the Diebold machines.

LKBIQ:
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politicians corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered
and slanged,
I wept; for I had longed to see him
hanged."
Hilaire Belloc