Why Aren’t We Voting Online Yet?

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

Now that the election is finally over and history has been made, blah, blah, blah, let’s get the voting process fixed up.

Why should we have to leave home or work early, drive out of our way and fight traffic getting to some random elementary school just to wait in line for hours to cast a vote where some near-sighted grandma with a clipboard is the last guardian protecting the so-called sanctity of our democracy?

It’s time we take voting online. Security may have been a concern in the past, but the strides we’ve made in online security and identity verification have made the possibility of voting online a much safer alternative.

Nothing is 100% secure, but I’ve been doing my taxes online for almost 10 years and I can barely clear security to view my own information. I have to change passwords every other week to log on to my computer at work. I have to type in two barely legible words compiled of random letters to buy tickets on Ticketmaster. I can access all my banking information and pay all my bills from my cell phone, but I’m still filling out a Scantron card in some dank firehouse to elect the new leader of the free world?

Can’t we get Apple to take a year off from creating a smaller iPod to create some new proprietary voting software? I can’t get any of the stuff I downloaded from iTunes to play on a non-Apple devise. They probably already have the technology to allow you to vote from a Nano iPod, so why should I have to leave my house?

There are already several companies specializing in online voting. It would probably create jobs and help stimulate the economy if the government outsourced the creation and maintenance of its online voting methods.

Any company with a fat government contract should be motivated enough to ensure the security of your vote. To be sure, you could have their systems and results audited by other contractors. Sic PricewaterhouseCoopers on them and I bet they’ll keep their affairs in check. Throw a little cash around and there will be more than enough checks and balances in place to assure an accurate election.

At this point the list of benefits far outweighs the negatives.

There would be fewer avenues for tampering or error. Your ballot can’t mysteriously end up in the trash. Some absent-minded yokel won’t be scanning your ballot upside down or incorrectly instructing hundreds of people how to fill out their ballots. Even the most competent volunteers with the best intentions can make mistakes after 10 hours of manning a polling station.

You could vote from anywhere in the world online, and participation would increase. More college students, military personnel and travelers would be voting since there would be fewer hoops to jump through. Registration would be much easier or even done away with completely. Slackers like me would have fewer excuses not to vote. Poll results would be gathered in a fraction of the time. Less traffic f’ing up my morning commute.

No more navigating through crowded municipal parking lots like it’s Christmas season at Garden State Plaza (big up Jersey), trying to find a spot and standing in miserable November weather for hours.

Around now maybe you’re thinking “What about the people who don’t have Internet access?”

1. They won’t be reading this so I don’t care.
2. Everyone at least knows one person with Internet access.
3. You can go to a café, a library, a church ― pretty much everywhere in civilization, you backwater Neanderthal, get a computer already!
4. If you’re old and all this new-fangled technology goes over your head, we’ll keep the polls open for you on Election Day or send someone to your nursing home with a laptop to walk you through it.

While we’re at it, we should move Election Day to the weekend. The whole reason we vote on Tuesday has become irrelevant. With early voting becoming more popular we’re already moving away from a single-day election. It could even go from Saturday through Tuesday if you’re really that attached to the first Tuesday tradition.

Other countries have shown that multi-day elections increase voter participation. Also, holding an election online over a period of time would not be as costly as the elections we run now. Actually, there would be more money to be made.

SNL can run specials for a week straight. The 24-hour up-to-the-minute polling results bonanza would have every anchor, reporter, politician and pundit on the edge of their seats for days. Live television coverage and YouTube videos of people submitting their votes would canvas every media outlet. Election-themed parties would happen all weekend! Drink specials would be available at bars and clubs without the burden of having to go to work the next day! Candidates would be crisscrossing the country as results came in trying to boost their numbers in various states, like a coach making in-game adjustments! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

How ’Bout a Juicy McMac?; Celebs, Ads Don’t Sway Voters

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

What have we become when a vice presidential nominee has to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live two weeks before an election and a presidential candidate has to do a makeup appearance for getting on David Letterman’s bad side?

Why does David Letterman’s or any celebrity’s opinion matter to us? He can’t even beat out Leno, but scathing remarks after being stood up by a candidate causes a dip in the polls?

Celebrities don’t care about us. There are a few who are genuinely nice and care about mankind, blah, blah, blah. But most have had to step on the faces of rivals to get where they are and the most important thing to them is staying on top.

Have you ever stopped to think that the endorsing celebrity could have concerns about taxes, education or any number of issues in direct opposition to your own?

Let’s not forget that it’s also an issue of ego as well. Liberal celebrities have had it handed to them by the Bush administration for the last eight years. Their egos have been bruised because no matter how hard they’ve campaigned for the opposition or pointed out his obvious flaws, Ol’ Dubyah has kept right on truckin’. These self-important asses want to feel like they can actually have an effect on the direction of the country as much as, if not more than, they actually care about the well-being of the country.

As I watched Palin bobbing her head to the beat I wondered if Gerald Ford ever had to yuck it up with a few talking heads on some cheesy network morning show. I don’t recall Big Bush dropping by SNL and surprising Dana Carvey.

Just as I began to feel queasy over the thought that an appearance on late-night television could be a deciding factor in an election I realized something … that really hasn’t happened yet. Despite all the pulling and prodding by the media we always seem to elect whoever we want. Advertisements and appearances just serve as supplements to keep us interested until Election Day. I can’t think of a time in history when we’ve let outside opinions change our minds about candidates. Whoever you wanted to vote for when the nominations were accepted is probably the same person you want to vote for now.

Which makes me wonder, does any amount of campaigning ever change a person’s mind? We’re only interested in the evidence that supports the decision we’ve already made. We form our opinions based on the sum of our experience and don’t usually change our minds no matter how compelling the argument. So for now I have found some peace by convincing myself that people aren’t directed by the media when they cast their ballots.

So why was Palin on SNL this week?

I prefer Coke over Pepsi. The difference between the two is negligible, but I’m always choosing Coke. In my mind no amount of advertising is ever going to change that. That’s the point. Whenever I made my cola decision advertising played a big part in it. Now that I’ve picked my side it’s up to them to remind me of what a great choice I made. I want to back a winner and be affirmed that I’m a winner for making that choice as much as possible. I even go as far as to root for Coke to have better commercials and higher sales.

Of course no one is going to decide who to vote for because of a boat, but somewhere someone felt good about seeing it and said to themselves, “I haven’t seen any Obama sailboats out today.” The candidates need to keep reminding their supporters that they’ve made a good decision.

It’s our nature. We want our candidates to be superhuman. We want them to be the most amusing when telling jokes, the most eloquent when debating and the most intelligent when discussing policies. They do whatever they can to sustain that image. Whether it is charming late-night appearances, well-scripted commercials or kissing babies in minimalls. We will always love them for doing it.

Politicians know something that we don’t. In the end they are all just people like you and I. That’s why Palin can laugh off Tina Fey’s impression of her and kick it with Lorne backstage at 30 Rock. That’s how Obama and McCain can have a heated debate one night and act like a couple of open-micers the next. Most of us have this thought stuck in our heads that Democrats and Republicans are these two competing factions in an all or nothing battle for supremacy.

In reality, they’re no more different from each other then McDonald’s is from Burger King. Either way you’re still going to go get that delicious, fatty garbage in you. All elected officials have the same goals ― try to accomplish something positive and not get booted before you’re ready to go. They respect and relate to each other the same way employees at Mickey D’s relate to their contemporaries at BK.

They know we are as influenced by the image created around a candidate as we are by their actual accomplishments. Obama’s the smart, young, contemplative diplomat we need to unite the country and turn things around. McCain is the strong-willed, experienced, maverick that will buck the system and lead us to a better tomorrow. Big Mac, Whopper.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Problems with Voting “Pro-Race”

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

Be careful what you wish for.

The thing that bothers me the most about this election is the unapologetic “I’m voting for Obama because he’s black” sentiment that seems to be prominent among many African-Americans.

It’s not racist, it’s “pro-race.” If you’re going to accept that, then you can’t point the finger at anyone who says they’re voting for McCain because he’s white.

Caucasians still represent the majority in terms of those who vote. Even if 99% of registered black voters actually came out (stop laughing) and all voted for Obama, he probably would not win by a great margin, if he won at all.

Obama is smart enough not to be counting on black votes to win. He’s focusing his energy on getting votes for his ideas, not the color of his skin. He doesn’t need to pander to the black community. He knows no matter what he does his black constituency is not going anywhere.

Did you ever wonder about that 20-30% that still supports Bush? Those are the people who voted for him for their own biased reasons and make excuses for him no matter what mistakes he makes. Sound familiar?

So don’t say, “people in this country are racist,” if Obama loses. You can’t have it both ways.

Don’t get upset when you find out that he’s not looking out for you any more than any other politician. He isn’t going to win and start crip walking across the stage at his inauguration.

Don’t start feeling strong and getting too cocky either. Obama wouldn’t even be where he is if it wasn’t for the white people who are supporting him. If you alienate those people, you will see his popularity go down.

You may also be kissing goodbye to a big chunk of the “white guilt” that the many have been unwittingly benefiting from in this politically correct climate of ours. The pendulum, that has swung as far as to cost people their jobs for making remarks only a handful view as racist, can swing the other way very quickly.

Most of this country’s wealth is still owned by a small group that includes very few minorities, so it doesn’t have to stop at politics either. Affirmative action was established to counteract the same sentiment that is being expressed by many black voters. The other side of the coin is not very pretty. Skin color has as little to do with someone getting hired as ever, but if the field is even then it is always easy to side with your own, black or white. So when you eliminate the motivation to consciously make an unbiased decision you may end up losing much more than you bargained for whether Obama wins or not.

It’s also extremely hypocritical to participate in the same kind of thinking those in power have been admonished for using for so long. Nepotism, favoritism and preference are all in favor of the owners of the wealth. In times like these the ranks tend to close up tight, making it harder for anyone, especially minorities, to get higher paying jobs or even keep the jobs they have. It’s natural to rely on what you’re familiar with when times are tough, and when the wealthy turn to each other that will leave the rest of us out. But remember, it’s not racism, it’s just being “pro-race,” right?

It may be nearly impossible for Obama to improve the black image in this country. African-Americans are still suffering from a syndrome that associates them with every criminal on the evening news and none of the heroes that are profiled on the same programs. There are so many minority leaders at all levels of government and business that no one should need to point to Obama to say “I can make it.” If anything, the odds are more likely for someone to say “I told you so.”

Maybe that’s the real issue. Maybe before the country can be ready for a black president it needs to also be ready for a mediocre black president. I would like to think that successful or not an Obama term would provide evidence that we’ve ascended to a level of equality in this country that we will never relinquish; but that’s only a dream.

If Obama wins he needs to be successful or not only will the country not accept another minority candidate for a while, but African-Americans spirits will be diminished. Some will make the excuse that he was never given a fair chance. Some will bury their heads in the sand and not accept failure. But most will just be let down knowing that they would probably not see another minority-led administration for a long time.

It’s not an easy job. Many great men have had disappointing stints as the head of state. Given our current climate the odds are not very good. The outcome could have a vast effect on the world we live in.

So please, at least read a few articles and come up with a reasonable excuse to vote for Obama. Whether he wins or not, the future of the country may depend on it.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Ballin’ Palin Can’t Make a Wrong Move

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

If a bridge goes to nowhere does it really exist?

Despite barely watching any coverage of the RNC I saw this bridge to nowhere issue discussed on multiple networks.

From what I understand, Congress earmarked some money to build a bridge in Alaska. Palin was all for building it until Congress told her they would be going Dutch. Since Congress only gave Alaska around half the money they initially said they would, Palin voted against building the bridge, but kept the money.

And…

I don’t see a problem. Was this “bridge only” money? According to the reports I’ve seen Congress didn’t say ‘if you decide not to build the bridge send it back.’ So isn’t it a good move if she decided the cost for state was too great and it would be better to use the money on other projects that wouldn’t require any additional funding from the residents? What elected official in the country would have given back that money? Who is going to say, “We don’t have anything we could use this for,” or, “This is way too much?” Nobody. And if someone did, why would you ever vote for that dummy again?

As governor her primary responsibility is to the people of Alaska. It sounds like what she did was in the state’s best interest, which makes it a pretty good decision in my opinion. I want my governor to have a state-first mentality. She was elected by the people of Alaska, not the entire United States, so serving those who elected you comes first.

So why bring it up? I guess there isn’t much out there about her to discuss and mentioning it in her speech opens the door for scrutiny. So what, she changed her mind after she found out it was going to cost more than she originally thought? We’ve all done that. I don’t know if there’s enough there for her to be touting it as evidence of her bold leadership, but there definitely isn’t enough there to question either. So why does it keep coming up? I actually thought it was a dead issue until I saw a clip online of an interview on 20/20 where she had been asked about it again.

Am I the only one who thought Charles Gibson was kind of a dick? Why has “hard-hitting journalism” become to mean the reporter acts like a douche bag? You can address serious issues or ask difficult questions without being accusatory or ultra-confrontational. But it seems like few know how to do that anymore. Reporters turn each interview into an audition for their own show or a shot at an anchor’s desk. Everybody wants to be Geraldo. Eighties’ Geraldo, not the one giving away tactical positions or making a fool out of himself in the water.

Anyway, the online clips actually got me interested enough to watch the interview. Even though parts of the interview looked more chopped up than a Clue tape, it still seemed that Palin was not comfortable talking about some issues.

She painfully danced around the issue of homosexuality saying, “I’m not going to judge them.” Yes she does. But don’t worry Sarah, we all do, gay or straight. What else is she supposed to say anyway?

She lost me when talking about her national security creed. It didn’t seem like she answered the question at all. It sort of boiled down to being more secure by reducing dependency on foreign oil.

Then there was “Troopergate.” I actually wish there was something there. It would be interesting if it turned out the trooper was a really good guy and she was an evil governor unfairly wielding her power. Sort of like every political movie you’ve ever seen except with a woman in power and, you know, for real. But it probably isn’t going to amount to anything. If it were that big of a scandal we would have seen that trooper’s face all over like that parade of busted women Clinton felt up. Besides the Republican party would really be slippin’ if they let that one get by them. That dude is still a trooper. If she wanted him gone he would have been gone. If she couldn’t take out some random officer with a shaky record, how can you expect her to help mastermind the next national disaster needed to instigate war? When the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge goes down we’re going to know McCain and Palin were behind it in like a week.

I also thought it was interesting that she was a baller in high school. I bet she’s got way more handle than Barack. Despite his height advantage I bet she would house him in a game of one-on-one. He’s a black(ish) presidential candidate and he may not even be the best basketball player on the ballot. His little weekend games look like doo-doo next to a state championship.

All in all she looked too prepped in this interview. She stumbled through issues like abortion because she had been told to avoid saying certain things. I’m sure as she gets coached up more and learns the playbook she’ll learn to respond to those questions naturally. Then we’ll never be able to trust her again.

This whole Palin nomination is genius. She is Obama/Biden campaign cancer; the perfect decoy selected by the Republicans to distract everyone from the real issues and reflect the weakness of the Democratic Party. They can’t attack her for being inexperienced, they can’t attack her the way they did Hillary and, oh, that’s right, they’re not supposed to. She’s the VICE presidential nominee. By positioning Palin against Obama and evoking comparisons to Clinton the Republicans have set up the perfect stage to pull the upset. How bad does it look if your candidate for president is getting all he can handle from the JV squad? It looks like the Democrats finally woke up, but the media seems a bit behind and the more attention Palin receives the worse it will get for the Democrats. If we’re still talking about her children, bridges that weren’t built and employees who still have their jobs in November, then we’ll also be seeing McCain sworn into office in January.

Click here to see the whole 20/20 interview.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Running from Office: Presidential Loser Better Off

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

Two men enter, one man leaves. The presidential race might not be like Thunderdome, but it should be.

Sure it’s the biggest job in the world, but there should be more at stake. The loser should have to ride off into the sunset with nothing but the horse he rode in on.

America has spurned your advances for a more favorable suitor. If you propose to someone, you don’t keep dating for years after getting shot down. You may try to continue on, but that relationship is a wrap. Take your jewelry and hit the nearest pawn shop, loser.

There should be something tangible on the line in a presidential race, not just pride and dignity. Let’s face it, those two went bye-bye when you decided to get into politics.

How many jobs basically pay you to interview for a better job? McCain has run twice. How much time not serving on the Senate has he accumulated over the years? OK, he took a serious beat down in ’Nam so we owe him one.

What about Obama? He gets to use a position he’s barely spent time in as a stepping stone toward a higher office. Can you imagine a doctor peeking over his surgical mask as a patient is going under and saying, “You’ve got nothing to worry about sport, I served six whole months of my residency before obtaining my license last week, everything’s cool?”

If you’re going to spend more than a year running for president you should have to give up your job. You should also have to have served a certain amount of time before even getting to do that. You can’t get a new job and go on a paid vacation for two weeks shortly after. Usually you have to put in a good six months before earning some PTO. Can you imagine telling your employer, “I’ll be back if this other thing I got going on doesn’t work out, and by the way, keep the checks comin’?” Nope. You have to sneak out early, call out sick, use up some of your vacation time, or just quit.

It’s not like there aren’t any other options for these guys if they lose. They’ve both already got book-deal money in their pockets and they can always run for their old jobs again. If you weren’t a popular dude you wouldn’t have won the nomination. You were almost president; surely, you can beat out some Johnny-come-lately for your old gig. Better yet, join the private sector and make some hard-core cash.

Kerry should have sold out or gone back to the Senate for free. His wife has enough bank to support their family, he doesn’t need our money. If you do decide to keep your job you better show up and vote for every issue that comes up. None of that voting “present” crap. Does it matter anyway? You’ve already tried for the big job, you might as well vote the way you feel. You’ve probably peaked politically. There’s no “You’ll get ‘em next time kid.” Besides, getting booted as a senator is almost as hard as losing a job as a union rep. Unless you retire or get whacked, you’re probably not going anywhere.

Gore bounced and found a lucrative career guilting America into giving him money. Then, just to rub it in our faces, he copped an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his soporific voice-over work. He maniacally laughs himself to sleep on a bed of our money every night and probably “goes green” by burning cash for fuel. He’s getting his payback for getting screwed out of the presidency and pimping the country he once so proudly served. We’ve created a monster.

That movie trailer guy just died, Obama could nab that gig. Or, he could clean up on the lecture circuit. How many more times can you listen to Cosby or Vitale ramble on at a graduation? Maya Angelou should be about ready to hang ’em up. Might as well keep giving those speeches and make your pockets fat while you’re at it.

Even Dole got paid endorsing VIAGRA and Pepsi. Think of the numerous medical endorsements McCain could have waiting for him. There are probably no less than five pharmaceutical companies that would get fat government contracts if he’s elected, just to keep him alive for the duration of his term. If he loses, he could get some of that legal drug money.

Why not open a few businesses? Who wouldn’t shop at Honest McCain’s Lincoln/Mercury/Ford dealerships where they’re not afraid to shake up prices? Or, Crazy Barak’s electronics emporium where “change” is all you’ll need to walk out with the HDTV of your dreams.

Now that I think about it, the future is so bright for either one of these guys, who needs that lousy, underpaid government job?

Time for Voters to Take Responsibility

BY JASON WALKER, Columnist

I have a question for you…

What will you do if your candidate loses?

Actually, I’ve got several questions.

What will happen to all the excitement and interest in politics this “unprecedented” presidential race has supposedly generated after the election is over?

The public is fickle. It was in Rome; it was in England; it is today. Like those dynasties, we will eventually fall, and our lack of interest in our government may be the basis.

To avoid this fate, don’t the respective parties have a responsibility to help keep interest up even if they lose? Isn’t that what all the ads, celebrities, ministers and politicians are always saying? How much your vote means and how important it is to be a part of the political process. If that is true than no matter who wins isn’t it your responsibility to support the system even if you think the wrong candidate was elected? If you truly believe in the system it’s your duty to support whoever represents you.

So where has the support been the last few years? No, I’m not saying you should blindly follow your government and not acknowledge mistakes. But you should help be a part of guiding our country to a better outcome, not stall the process by constantly pointing fingers. That is what has happened.

You can blame Bush all you want, but everyone plays a part. It’s easy to be supportive when everything is going smoothly, but it is when times are the most turbulent that your representatives need your support and guidance the most. Unfortunately, during those times, they have been criticized the most and abandoned. Rarely is focus centered on the problem and not on the elected officials. This is a country full of fair-weather friends.

Who is to blame?

Politicians are cannibals. Each party expends so much effort pointing out the flaws of the other. Each candidate works so hard to discount his or her opponent. It should be expected that the public would adopt the same mind-set. Then politicians wonder why they are held under a microscope and why it is so hard to believe them when, after vigorously trashing their opponent for the last couple of years, they are “sincerely” endorsing the same person in a speech at the national convention. You can’t have it both ways. Negativity breeds negativity, and we have been on this path for so long that it may be impossible for a candidate to get elected using a different approach.

The public is not without blame either. It does not benefit the county when your interest only exists when your candidate is involved.

Presidential candidates are like teams in the Super Bowl. Your team probably isn’t playing, but for one reason or another there is one team you would rather see win. You want to see a hated rival defeated. You have money on the game. Maybe you just get caught up in the vibe at the party.

This isn’t a game. This is the presidency and it deserves to be treated with more importance. The average person can tell you more about any random athlete or actor than they can about the man who gets their vote.

Is the fate of the country better left to those who have a genuine interest in the process and not to the masses that only show interest every four years? No. The process only works if everyone can be a part of it. But there should be criteria beyond reaching a certain age and not being convicted of a serious crime to participate.

Maybe the candidates don’t need to endure more scrutiny, the people voting should. It’s more difficult to pick a cell phone and calling plan, more time consuming to join a social networking site and more costly to vote on a reality show than to vote for the leader of our country.

How valuable do you consider your right to vote? Value is determined based on what has to be endured, sacrificed or paid. There was a time when people were willing to sacrifice their lives for the privilege to vote, and it was priceless to them. Now that right is of little value to a majority of the public.

No wonder the rest of the world hates us. They see Americans taking for granted the rights they receive from birth, like an heiress squandering her family’s wealth while people work 60-hour weeks to feed their families. Most people never know how good they really have it.

There is a chance to parlay this momentum into a real interest in the political process. A chance to show those still watching after November 4 how their votes can affect their lives and get people interested in their local and state governments. A chance to motivate people by showing them the results of their contributions. The question now is, where do your loyalties lie? With your interest or with the process?

How Does Obama Avoid the Haterade?

BY JASON WALKER, COLUMNIST

Most people don’t have much in common with Obama. When was the last time you met a black guy from Hawaii?

Public, especially black, reaction to Obama’s candidacy is similar  to the O.J. trial except this time white people are invited. Welcome.

Back then black people were rooting for a face like their own to pull one over on the system that they feel has always shorted them. The same way they’ve seen several prominent white figures manage to do all their lives. I don’t know exactly what it is, but there’s a reason why people get a charge out of seeing Denzel win an Oscar for Best Actor or Tony Dungy coaching his team to a Super Bowl victory. However, excitement has dwindled as these “firsts” are happening a lot more frequently and there aren’t too many achievements of real significance left to accomplish. Maybe it took this, the highest achievement in our country, to allow this sentiment to transcend race. For possibly the first time ever, white people are getting to share in the pride that African-Americans feel when someone accomplishes something previously exclusive to Caucasians.

I don’t know how white people really feel. I hear a lot of politically correct and sometimes vague reasons like just wanting to see a change. Maybe that is true to some extent. I think, regardless of race, most people voting for him just want to see the first African-American elected to the most powerful office in the world. He’s beating “them” at their own game, for all of us.

That’s got to be the reason. Besides, do you really like any politician? Nope, no one likes them because no one really knows them. Everything you hear about a politician has been twisted so much it probably only vaguely resembles the truth. It has been spun to make them appealing to as many people as possible or presented by competitors to make you think he’s out to destroy everything you love. There’s no such thing as an unbiased, straight-forward opinion story about a politician because even the people trying to tell those stories have to rely on a biased source. Politicians are the nice guys at the office who bring in doughnuts, hold doors for you, gets his work done on time and has smiling pictures of his family all over his desk. At home he could be an alcoholic who beats his wife. You don’t really know that guy. Which when you think about it makes it so amazing that it appears people actually like Obama. For real. They don’t know why, but they do.

Usually we just vote, if we bother, for the guy that seems like less of a douche bag. Ask the average American where Obama stands on anything? Really ask them. I dare you. If you press them you’ll get the typical Bush-hating, change rhetoric or “he’s a good speaker” crap. Maybe one actual fact if you’re lucky. I guess being charismatic is as good as any reason to like someone. I’m not going to knock the guy for knowing how to get attention and sway opinions. That’s definitely a quality that’s going to be useful if you’re the president. There are plenty of people who start out getting to know someone for that exact reason but this isn’t the beginning of a beautiful friendship and you’re not going to get chummy with the senator. In fact, win or lose, in four years you’ll probably like him a lot less. Remember the last two presidential candidates? How ya like ’em now? The more you find out about a politician the more you don’t like them. Eventually, it will come out that he had an extramarital relationship, paid a hooker with a check, made an off-color remark, welshed on a bet, wore socks with sandals, pulled into the fast lane doing 30 or something that you will not like. He’s running for president. He’s not holding on to a story about saving five children from a schoolhouse fire for a possible second term. Everything good that will make you want to like him is being dropped on you right now to get your vote.

Whatever he’s doing is working. Almost magically, Obama has been immune to the typical, unwarranted, just don’t like the guy, ignorant, negative statements that have been made about every other politician. Nobody has ever said that big-eared, liberal, pansy sucks. Not in public anyway. But stick a camera in any John Q’s face and he’ll be quick to tell you that McCain’s a mummy, Hillary’s a fat-calfed bitch and Bush is a moron. Where’s the Obama hate? Who rises to prominence and wins the democratic candidacy without any significant backlash?

It kind of sucks. It’s also a bit condescending and further evidence of a racial motive behind voting for him. He is actually qualified to be president and has earned the right to be here. However, he’s being treated like he’s the affirmative-action candidate who’s capable but wouldn’t undoubtedly be the most exceptional person for the job if not for his skin color. Are people afraid that speaking any ill of him could possibly derail his candidacy and ruin their chance to witness history? Fearful he wouldn’t be able to withstand the criticism? Even people who aren’t voting for him can’t muster anything bitter or damaging to say about him.

People crave this “change” Obama promises after eight years of the Bush administration, but the truth is the most significant change that is going to happen if Obama gets elected is going to be his face in comparison to every other president that has come before him.

Pour this one in your dome. If Obama were white would he have more support? Then again, if he were, he probably would have never beat Hillary because we’d all be riding the bandwagon to see the first woman elected president. At least we’ve learned one thing so far ― race still trumps gender or black beats woman anyway, barely.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.