I remain unimpressed. I remember when cities lost their morning or evening newspapers and continued to function. I remember when small towns lost their papers and everyone still seemed to know everything that was going on. No, the concern about the possible demise of local newspapers sounds an awful lot like the possible demise of banks or car manufacturers, and I expect that we’ll get through all of these events just fine.
Rick Green, of the Hartford Courant has an interview with Steve Collins, who is a reporter for one of the newspapers facing potential demise. Rick writes, “News blogs, which are popping up all over, aren't the answer, Collins said, because they can't possibly provide the breadth of a local paper.”
I appreciate Collins’ situation. He may be out of a job soon. Yet, I’m not sure that I agree that blogs can’t possible provide the breadth of a local paper. I’m not finding much in the local papers around here about the Woodbridge Board of Education meetings or the Woodbridge Democratic Town Committee meetings. With the exception of the videotaping of the Board of Education meetings for the government channel, I don’t believe there is anyone besides me reporting on these meetings. As to finding news about local births or high school sports scores, I’d much rather read the blog post by a grandmother whose daughter has just delivered a new grandchild or the father who has just seen his daughter win a swim meet.
]]>I remain unimpressed. I remember when cities lost their morning or evening newspapers and continued to function. I remember when small towns lost their papers and everyone still seemed to know everything that was going on. No, the concern about the possible demise of local newspapers sounds an awful lot like the possible demise of banks or car manufacturers, and I expect that we’ll get through all of these events just fine.
Rick Green, of the Hartford Courant has an interview with Steve Collins, who is a reporter for one of the newspapers facing potential demise. Rick writes, “News blogs, which are popping up all over, aren't the answer, Collins said, because they can't possibly provide the breadth of a local paper.”
I appreciate Collins’ situation. He may be out of a job soon. Yet, I’m not sure that I agree that blogs can’t possible provide the breadth of a local paper. I’m not finding much in the local papers around here about the Woodbridge Board of Education meetings or the Woodbridge Democratic Town Committee meetings. With the exception of the videotaping of the Board of Education meetings for the government channel, I don’t believe there is anyone besides me reporting on these meetings. As to finding news about local births or high school sports scores, I’d much rather read the blog post by a grandmother whose daughter has just delivered a new grandchild or the father who has just seen his daughter win a swim meet.
<!--break-->
I’m not the only person to disagree. Rick Hancock comments, “I guess I have more faith in the entrepreneurial spirit of people, even reluctant newspeople, than most.” I think Rick has good reason to disagree. It seems to me that his blog is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit.
There are plenty of other good examples of the entrepreneurial spirit being alive and well in journalism. Today, I received an email from Doug Hardy, an Associate Editor at the Journal Inquirer. Doug is working with efforts to help the Journal Inquirer survive better in the new media landscape, including working with radio and television stations as well as with others in the online world. The Connecticut and Politics sections of my blog now include links to recent stories from the Journal Inquirer thanks to Doug’s efforts.
Doug is well connected to other folks showing an entrepreneurial spirit in journalism. His wife, Christine Stuart runs CT News Junkie which is a great source of reporting in the state and CT News Junkie has close ties to the New Haven Independent which is often cited as an example of the future of journalism at so many of these media conferences.
On the national level last week came news that Gannett is acquiring Ripple6. Gannet is one of the large newspaper publisher fighting to survive in this difficult environment and Ripple6 is a “team of social media marketers and developers [that] combine the disciplines of knowledge management, software development, online media and brand marketing”. It looks like the folks at Gannett understand what they need to be doing to survive.
Lewis Green has a great article about the acquisition.
Lewis writes,
According to a Ripple6 paper, research shows that people feel a stronger connection with, and are better served by, companies that interact with them online in a social environment. They want companies to help solve their consumer problems, to solicit feedback on products and services, and to develop new ways for customers to interact with the brands.
This takes me to my thoughts about the Cs and Ds of the newspaper industry. It seems like everyone is focusing on the delivery of news, the dollars that are not longer being generated, and the subsequent demise of the industry. Instead, it seems like getting back to the basics is a starting point.
First, there is content. In this world of user-generated content, content is everywhere. CNN is trying to capture content from citizens through its iReport website. Various public radio stations have experimented with gathering content online, such as the highly successful Primary Place Online run by New Hampshire Public Radio.
If all you are doing is competing with all the citizen journalists out there, you might have a slight edge because your reporters are a little better trained, but that edge is shrinking. If you’re laying off your good reporters, that edge is shrinking even more quickly.
The second C of a successful media operation is context. In this endless stream of content, some of it user generated, some of it generated by professional journalists, what matters is providing context, is helping readers understand the full story and how it relates to their lives. This is what the successful projects that tap user generated content are doing. This is what can give reporters at newspapers an edge.
The third C is community. It looks like Gannet understands this and is why they acquired Ripple6. It feels like sites like CT News Junkie and New Haven Independent get this as their readers become more involved in the sites. It seems like Doug Hardy gets this as he tries to connect the Journal Inquirer community with other media communities around the state. It isn’t about distribution. You can argue about the pros and cons of paper distribution versus radio versus television versus online. Personally, I get my information from a mix of all of these distribution channels and will as long as I can.
It has often baffled me why more local newspapers don’t get this. The local papers are the people that have the closest ties with the local communities. This is incredibly valuable and should be leveraged. In online advertising, the big bucks are going to people that can target specific communities. Newspaper organization that can help local businesses build community around their brands through smarter advertising seems to me to be ideally suited for thriving in the twenty first century.
Of course, all of this requires getting past the gloom and doom of the current crisis. It requires getting past the hubris of thinking that only professional reporters can provide quality content, and instead embracing how your understanding of content can help provide context and community. All of this requires the entrepreneurial spirit that Rick Hancock, myself and others still believes is out there in the journalism community.
]]>Everyone is talking about ways to bail out the auto industry now, so I thought I would share my socialist plan.
First, I would not lend the automakers $50 billion, or $25 billion, or what they are currently asking for. It just sounds a little bit too much like the No Income, No Asset (NINA) loans, that are the current whipping boy in the housing crisis.
That said, I do not believe we should abandon the workers or the industry and we should come up with some solutions.
One of the complaints of the U.S. automakers is there larger healthcare and pension costs. So, the Government should simply take those over now. Provide every autoworker and retired autoworker the same healthcare policy that congress gets. This would most likely result in better coverage for workers in a program that is probably better run and more cost effective, and it would relieve the automakers of a major burden, giving them a chance to be more competitive.
Other companies and industries will scream, ‘No Fair!’ and ask that their employees get added to this national healthcare plan and the camel’s nose under the tent will lead to a national healthcare plan that is long over due. If, on the other hand, we allow the car companies to fail, all of the workers will end up out on unemployment and getting their healthcare, again at the expense of the government, but in less effective methods. Let’s just do it right, right now.
Next, the government should take over the pensions of the autoworkers. I’m not talking about the safety net of social security, which some people wanted tied to individual investors decisions in the stock market. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average now at 61% of its 52 week high, yeah, that looks like a good idea.
Nope, we need full pensions guarantied by the Government. Of course, like universal healthcare, we already have it. It is the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This is the federal corporation that currently protects around 44 million Americans whose private pension plans failed. If we don’t do something about the automakers, their plans are likely to end up there, so why not move them there now, with a major infusion of capital from the government. Maybe all that bank stock that the government is buying can be given to the PBGC.
The final thing I would do is buy out the research departments of the big three. Years ago, Chrysler was bailed out by the government. Part of the argument was that Chrysler made vehicles crucial to our national security.
Well, if we want national security, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to fund research that will move us towards energy independence and this is especially important in the transportation sector. If the government was to create an energy independency research agency built in part from researchers gleaned from the auto industry and then start ordering cars for the Federal Fleet based on this research, we could turn around the auto industry a lot more quickly than simply giving more loans to failing companies. For that matter, perhaps the Federal government could even give loans to the State governments so they could update their fleets with much more efficient vehicles.
Instead of a $50 billion loan, how about a larger order for plug-in hybrids or other vehicles that will help our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
So, let’s think very carefully about who we are bailing out, the auto industry, the workers, or our country. This could be an opportunity to bail out our country with some real change.
]]>Everyone is talking about ways to bail out the auto industry now, so I thought I would share my socialist plan.
First, I would not lend the automakers $50 billion, or $25 billion, or what they are currently asking for. It just sounds a little bit too much like the No Income, No Asset (NINA) loans, that are the current whipping boy in the housing crisis.
That said, I do not believe we should abandon the workers or the industry and we should come up with some solutions.
One of the complaints of the U.S. automakers is there larger healthcare and pension costs. So, the Government should simply take those over now. Provide every autoworker and retired autoworker the same healthcare policy that congress gets. This would most likely result in better coverage for workers in a program that is probably better run and more cost effective, and it would relieve the automakers of a major burden, giving them a chance to be more competitive.
Other companies and industries will scream, ‘No Fair!’ and ask that their employees get added to this national healthcare plan and the camel’s nose under the tent will lead to a national healthcare plan that is long over due. If, on the other hand, we allow the car companies to fail, all of the workers will end up out on unemployment and getting their healthcare, again at the expense of the government, but in less effective methods. Let’s just do it right, right now.
Next, the government should take over the pensions of the autoworkers. I’m not talking about the safety net of social security, which some people wanted tied to individual investors decisions in the stock market. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average now at 61% of its 52 week high, yeah, that looks like a good idea.
Nope, we need full pensions guarantied by the Government. Of course, like universal healthcare, we already have it. It is the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This is the federal corporation that currently protects around 44 million Americans whose private pension plans failed. If we don’t do something about the automakers, their plans are likely to end up there, so why not move them there now, with a major infusion of capital from the government. Maybe all that bank stock that the government is buying can be given to the PBGC.
The final thing I would do is buy out the research departments of the big three. Years ago, Chrysler was bailed out by the government. Part of the argument was that Chrysler made vehicles crucial to our national security.
Well, if we want national security, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to fund research that will move us towards energy independence and this is especially important in the transportation sector. If the government was to create an energy independency research agency built in part from researchers gleaned from the auto industry and then start ordering cars for the Federal Fleet based on this research, we could turn around the auto industry a lot more quickly than simply giving more loans to failing companies. For that matter, perhaps the Federal government could even give loans to the State governments so they could update their fleets with much more efficient vehicles.
Instead of a $50 billion loan, how about a larger order for plug-in hybrids or other vehicles that will help our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
So, let’s think very carefully about who we are bailing out, the auto industry, the workers, or our country. This could be an opportunity to bail out our country with some real change.
]]>At the podium, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs adopted a phrase that has now become a key part of our political lexicon. “We said, Yes We Can to Marriage Equality,” he stated, and continued, “Yes, We Did.”
He also noted what has gone on in other states and talked about sending a message of hope and inspiration to people across our country that are committed to marriage equality. He noted that Connecticut has a long tradition of treating citizens fairly.
On the walk over to City Hall, one opponent shouted out something like, “Fags on Parade”. The only other opposition I heard was from a man who compared the allowing of same sex marriages in Connecticut to the introduction of the state sales tax back in 1991. I’m not sure I understand the relationship, but I suspect it was his hope that it would bring about such a backlash that we would see a change in political leadership. Somehow, I just don’t see that sort of reaction. Even if we do, we it means we’re still likely to have marriage equality for at least the next seventeen years.
The entrance to city hall was festooned with white balloons and long stem red roses. People passed out bubbles to blow for the folks getting their marriage licenses. Inside the clerk’s office, they still had the old marriage license application forms.
Outside, one woman was holding a sign saying, “Love is Love”. The media loved it and took many pictures. When asked about how she felt about the picture of her holding the sign being show across the country, she noted that she was heterosexual, but that she felt it was important for all people, whether straight or gay, to get out and support marriage equality.
It seemed as if there were efforts by various activists to keep the proceedings on schedule, the news conference at the court house, the application for the marriage license, the individual press availabilities, and so on. Yet the media and the crowds don’t always cooperated, and people would try to herd the crowds to the next location.
One piece of serendipity occurred when Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman emerged from the City Hall. It was at the moment that the clocks in New Haven chime ten o’clock and many commented on the bells serving double duty as wedding bells.
Slowly, the crowds dispersed. One person asked a friend, “All right, should we go back to work now?” Off to the side radio news reporters spoke into their microphones describing the festive scene as they talked about this important day.
]]>At the podium, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs adopted a phrase that has now become a key part of our political lexicon. “We said, Yes We Can to Marriage Equality,” he stated, and continued, “Yes, We Did.”
He also noted what has gone on in other states and talked about sending a message of hope and inspiration to people across our country that are committed to marriage equality. He noted that Connecticut has a long tradition of treating citizens fairly.
On the walk over to City Hall, one opponent shouted out something like, “Fags on Parade”. The only other opposition I heard was from a man who compared the allowing of same sex marriages in Connecticut to the introduction of the state sales tax back in 1991. I’m not sure I understand the relationship, but I suspect it was his hope that it would bring about such a backlash that we would see a change in political leadership. Somehow, I just don’t see that sort of reaction. Even if we do, we it means we’re still likely to have marriage equality for at least the next seventeen years.
The entrance to city hall was festooned with white balloons and long stem red roses. People passed out bubbles to blow for the folks getting their marriage licenses. Inside the clerk’s office, they still had the old marriage license application forms.
Outside, one woman was holding a sign saying, “Love is Love”. The media loved it and took many pictures. When asked about how she felt about the picture of her holding the sign being show across the country, she noted that she was heterosexual, but that she felt it was important for all people, whether straight or gay, to get out and support marriage equality.
It seemed as if there were efforts by various activists to keep the proceedings on schedule, the news conference at the court house, the application for the marriage license, the individual press availabilities, and so on. Yet the media and the crowds don’t always cooperated, and people would try to herd the crowds to the next location.
One piece of serendipity occurred when Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman emerged from the City Hall. It was at the moment that the clocks in New Haven chime ten o’clock and many commented on the bells serving double duty as wedding bells.
Slowly, the crowds dispersed. One person asked a friend, “All right, should we go back to work now?” Off to the side radio news reporters spoke into their microphones describing the festive scene as they talked about this important day.
]]>I'm rushing off to other things, so for now, I'll simply post a link to the slideset on Flickr.
Note: As with pretty much everything I post on online, these pictures are shared with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Basically, if you want to use them, feel free. Just let people know where to find the originals.
]]>I'm rushing off to other things, so for now, I'll simply post a link to the slideset on Flickr.
Note: As with pretty much everything I post on online, these pictures are shared with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Basically, if you want to use them, feel free. Just let people know where to find the originals.
]]>Over the past couple of days, I’ve encountered incredible jubilation about the election of Barack Obama to be our next President. Yet in the background, I hear concerns expressed. Even in President-Elect Obama’s speech on Tuesday night, he spoke about the difficult task ahead. I’m on a mailing list of group psychologists that I often turn to, to try and make sense of the dynamics which are going on, and this list, too, has been overrun by jubilation. To them, and to all of you, I want to ask, why is this jubilation so great? Are we missing something by not heeding President-Elect Obama’s words about the difficult task ahead? What might we be missing?
It seems that there are probably many intermixed causes for this and that if we understand and name better, we may be better prepared to protect it. Here are some of the thoughts I shared with the list.
]]>Over the past couple of days, I’ve encountered incredible jubilation about the election of Barack Obama to be our next President. Yet in the background, I hear concerns expressed. Even in President-Elect Obama’s speech on Tuesday night, he spoke about the difficult task ahead. I’m on a mailing list of group psychologists that I often turn to, to try and make sense of the dynamics which are going on, and this list, too, has been overrun by jubilation. To them, and to all of you, I want to ask, why is this jubilation so great? Are we missing something by not heeding President-Elect Obama’s words about the difficult task ahead? What might we be missing?
It seems that there are probably many intermixed causes for this and that if we understand and name better, we may be better prepared to protect it. Here are some of the thoughts I shared with the list.
<!--break-->
The reasons I've heard include jubilation that a feeling that race is no longer an issue in America. I'm sorry, I simply don't believe that. Yes, an extremely important milestone was passed. The quote that summed it up nicely for me was "Kids born from this day forward will never know a world when a black man hadn't been President. That's awesome". Yet race remains an important issue. As a few people in mixed race marriages mentioned, President-Obama's mixed race background has remained mostly undiscussed, and people in mixed race relationships often receive similar treatment as those in relationships that are not mixed gender.
I think the recent article in the New York Times, Tolerance Over Race Can Spread, Studies Find is extremely important. How do we take the joy and hope and spread better racial relations across our country? To those who view the most important aspect of President-Obama's victory as an indicator of a better racial climate in our country, I would like to hear more about how we take that and not only protect it, but build on it.
Perhaps the better racial climate in our country is a part of a bigger victory, a repudiation of the divisiveness that has so damaged our country. I sure hope that is the case, but based on the rhetoric I'm hearing behind the scenes, I am very dubious. What do we do to make sure that the political divisiveness doesn't come back in another form?
In a recent blog post, I noted that many want to see members of the Bush/Cheney administration tried for war crimes. They want full investigations into the deals made behind closed doors that led to our energy policy, and that led to the politicization of the justice department. I worry that such moves could bring back the nasty old divisiveness in even worse formats, and I suggest looking at the example of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after Nelson Mandela was elected President in South Africa.
This is the Sisyphusian boulder of politics. One party takes the reins as the other party loses and regroups. While I am a strong Democrat myself, I don't find much to rejoice about in this shift. Already, I've received (indirectly), the email the head of the Connecticut Republican party has sent out to supporters. It is nasty. In one section he writes,
"Still, Democrats smell more blood. Having taken some Republican legislative seats that have long been in our column, they believe they can have more. They want the Governor’s office to complete their run of good fortune at the polls. But before that happens, they will focus on our Mayor’s and First Selectmen, particularly in cities which they see as their divine birthright."
Yes, there may be some Democrats that 'smell blood' and view certain seats as part of a 'divine birthright', but I hope and believe they are an exception, just as I hope that the Republican Chairman's view expressed in the letter are an exception, and not the rule. He puts the Sisyphusian boulder into context,
"2010 is the Election. It will decide everything. We need people to do their part where and whenever they can and with a sense of commitment and zeal that has never been seen. Democrats think we are done for and they are out to take more. Democrats think Republicans have been repudiated and will never recover. They have made that mistake before – in 1964, 1976 and 1992."
I am guessing for readers of this blog that are either not from the United States or travel abroad frequently, this may be an important aspect of the victory. As a person who protested the U.S. led military invasion of Iraq, before it started, it is an extremely important aspect to me. Yet over fifty five million people voted for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin's embrace of American Exceptionalism was lauded by many.
In fact, many who have lauded President-Elect Obama's victory have done so in terms of American Exceptionalism. It is America as a 'city on the hill' showing the world, yet again the triumph of democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. It is America as a 'city on the hill' showing the world the triumph over racism. Yes, we should celebrate this, but using it to reinforce American Exceptionalism seems awfully close to clinging to a defense of U.S. Military Pre-emption.
I do not view this as black and white thinking of Hope versus Cynicism. I just have a very long list of concerns and questions. I hope that by discussing this on mailing lists and on blogs can help us all find ways to sustain and broaden President-Elect Obama’s victory.
]]>Many of my liberal friends want to see Bush, Cheney other members of their administration tried as war criminals. They want to see people that they believe have subverted the constitution by secret meetings with lobbyists to establish policy, particularly energy policy, that have used the powers of the Judiciary to pursue opponents and disrupt voting, and a list of other offences brought to justice. They want to see titans of Wall Street that have contributed to our current financial malaise face prosecution.
Such actions might bring gratification to many, but will it bring about the change that President-Elect Obama has called for? Or will it be just another chapter in a long list of victors punishing the defeated?
Instead, if we follow the example of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, we could find ways to get to the bottom of many of the problems that have faced our country over the past eight years. We could make progress in curbing the divisiveness and petty partisanship that has so damaged our democracy.
How much change are we willing to take on? Are we willing to change ourselves as part of this change? It will be interesting to see if President-Elect Obama can get partisans to sacrifice some of their partisanship for the good of the country.
]]>Many of my liberal friends want to see Bush, Cheney other members of their administration tried as war criminals. They want to see people that they believe have subverted the constitution by secret meetings with lobbyists to establish policy, particularly energy policy, that have used the powers of the Judiciary to pursue opponents and disrupt voting, and a list of other offences brought to justice. They want to see titans of Wall Street that have contributed to our current financial malaise face prosecution.
Such actions might bring gratification to many, but will it bring about the change that President-Elect Obama has called for? Or will it be just another chapter in a long list of victors punishing the defeated?
Instead, if we follow the example of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, we could find ways to get to the bottom of many of the problems that have faced our country over the past eight years. We could make progress in curbing the divisiveness and petty partisanship that has so damaged our democracy.
How much change are we willing to take on? Are we willing to change ourselves as part of this change? It will be interesting to see if President-Elect Obama can get partisans to sacrifice some of their partisanship for the good of the country.
]]>The evening went by. We talked amongst ourselves. We took tours of NPR studios. We made snide comments about some of the gimmicks the major networks were using to fill the time before the results were known.
The storyline proceeded as expected and the story about a substantial win by Sen. Obama wasn’t really unexpected news. The bigger news, the bigger story, is what our reactions have been. The conservative bloggers morosely closed up shop soon after Sen. Obama was declared the winner. The liberal bloggers, many of them adjusting to the new moniker President-Elect Obama, hugged one another, and then sat transfixed as he addressed our country. When the speech was over applause erupted amongst the bloggers.
On Twitter, I had received news that U Street was awash with jubilant Obama supporters. The Metro stops running at midnight, and there seemed to be no available cabs, so I walked a mile and a half from NPR studios to a friend’s house on T Street. As I walked, I heard endless horns honking and innumerable shrieks of joy. I ran into my friend on the street as he and some of his other friends were heading from one celebration to the next.
As I got closer to U Street, the cacophony of horns and shrieks as compounded with the sound of fireworks going off. It felt like New Years, a time when everyone celebrates a chance to start over. It felt like being in Little Italy years ago, when Italy had won the World Cup, one of those long and hard fought battles where people wondered when victory would ever be grasped. It felt like St. Patrick’s Day on Fifth Avenue, when everyone is at least a little bit Irish.
Yet before I had left the studios, I had spoken with a few of bloggers. Two mixed race couples were part of the group and they noted how as we talk about racial issues in our country, and have made a significant step forward, the issue of mixed race couples has been avoided. We talked about the many difficult challenges that face President-Elect Obama and our country over the coming days.
I, too, have been overwhelmed by joy at this momentous turning point. Yet I remain keenly aware of the difficulties making ends meet and I wondered about all this jubilation.
Today, I spoke with my daughter who has a friend from Japan that has been confused and frightened by all the jubilation. No, this isn’t normal. This is a unique election. It is the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech. It echoes Nelson Mandela’s election as President of South Africa. It is a profound change of course from the last eight years. It is a triumph of hope over fear. Perhaps it is the response to September 11th that we have been waiting for, for so long.
Yet, I too, have wondered about this outpouring of exuberance. What does come next? Will this energy be focused into a new type of civic service? What will happen when the problems we face are not fixed as quickly as some would hope? What about all of the conservatives who are disappointed, bitter or angry at the results? After all, over fifty million Americans did vote for Sen. McCain. One conservative activist encouraged his friends online stating that the 2012 campaigns start today.
Back home, I have read through a smattering of the emails that have piled up while I was gone. I was struck by the raw emotion without a lot of reflection by many of my friends who are group psychotherapists. It seems everyone is caught up in the moment. It is a very special moment, and I hope everyone savors it, but I also hope that we can reflect on what all of this really means and what we need to do next. What are your thoughts?
]]>The evening went by. We talked amongst ourselves. We took tours of NPR studios. We made snide comments about some of the gimmicks the major networks were using to fill the time before the results were known.
The storyline proceeded as expected and the story about a substantial win by Sen. Obama wasn’t really unexpected news. The bigger news, the bigger story, is what our reactions have been. The conservative bloggers morosely closed up shop soon after Sen. Obama was declared the winner. The liberal bloggers, many of them adjusting to the new moniker President-Elect Obama, hugged one another, and then sat transfixed as he addressed our country. When the speech was over applause erupted amongst the bloggers.
On Twitter, I had received news that U Street was awash with jubilant Obama supporters. The Metro stops running at midnight, and there seemed to be no available cabs, so I walked a mile and a half from NPR studios to a friend’s house on T Street. As I walked, I heard endless horns honking and innumerable shrieks of joy. I ran into my friend on the street as he and some of his other friends were heading from one celebration to the next.
As I got closer to U Street, the cacophony of horns and shrieks as compounded with the sound of fireworks going off. It felt like New Years, a time when everyone celebrates a chance to start over. It felt like being in Little Italy years ago, when Italy had won the World Cup, one of those long and hard fought battles where people wondered when victory would ever be grasped. It felt like St. Patrick’s Day on Fifth Avenue, when everyone is at least a little bit Irish.
Yet before I had left the studios, I had spoken with a few of bloggers. Two mixed race couples were part of the group and they noted how as we talk about racial issues in our country, and have made a significant step forward, the issue of mixed race couples has been avoided. We talked about the many difficult challenges that face President-Elect Obama and our country over the coming days.
I, too, have been overwhelmed by joy at this momentous turning point. Yet I remain keenly aware of the difficulties making ends meet and I wondered about all this jubilation.
Today, I spoke with my daughter who has a friend from Japan that has been confused and frightened by all the jubilation. No, this isn’t normal. This is a unique election. It is the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech. It echoes Nelson Mandela’s election as President of South Africa. It is a profound change of course from the last eight years. It is a triumph of hope over fear. Perhaps it is the response to September 11th that we have been waiting for, for so long.
Yet, I too, have wondered about this outpouring of exuberance. What does come next? Will this energy be focused into a new type of civic service? What will happen when the problems we face are not fixed as quickly as some would hope? What about all of the conservatives who are disappointed, bitter or angry at the results? After all, over fifty million Americans did vote for Sen. McCain. One conservative activist encouraged his friends online stating that the 2012 campaigns start today.
Back home, I have read through a smattering of the emails that have piled up while I was gone. I was struck by the raw emotion without a lot of reflection by many of my friends who are group psychotherapists. It seems everyone is caught up in the moment. It is a very special moment, and I hope everyone savors it, but I also hope that we can reflect on what all of this really means and what we need to do next. What are your thoughts?
]]>The 2nd CD is showing incumbent Joe Courtney leading Sean Sullivan at 64 to 32 with only 8% in. The fifth CD is showing Chris Murphy leading David Cappiello 52 to 46 with only 5% in. The most interesting race is the 4th CD, where with 16% in, challenger Jim Himes is upsetting Congressman Chris Shays 63 -36. However, that is only with the large cities reporting.
In the State Senate races, there aren’t a lot of results yet, but a couple interesting developments. The 22nd State Senate Race with 19% in has Anthony Musto taking back Bill Finch’s old seat from Robert Russo 66-34. Even more striking is with 17% of the votes counted, Democrat Mark Diamond is leading Republican Scott Franz in the 36th State Senate District. This is a district that had been held by Republican State Senator Bill Nickerson for ages. There had been some in fighting between Stamford and Greenwich Democrats about who should be the candidate and Mark Diamond did not qualify for public funding. It is worth noting, however, that the only districts reporting are from Stamford where Mr. Diamond lives, and none of the Greenwich Districts where Mr. Franz and Mr. Nickerson live have reported.
Update: News 12 is reporting "Voters at Reed Elementary School in Bridgeport were told by a poll worker that they could not vote unless they had ID".
Republican Registrar of Voters, who filed a complaint against ACORN "says he will try to get to the bottom of why some voters were misinformed."
]]>The 2nd CD is showing incumbent Joe Courtney leading Sean Sullivan at 64 to 32 with only 8% in. The fifth CD is showing Chris Murphy leading David Cappiello 52 to 46 with only 5% in. The most interesting race is the 4th CD, where with 16% in, challenger Jim Himes is upsetting Congressman Chris Shays 63 -36. However, that is only with the large cities reporting.
In the State Senate races, there aren’t a lot of results yet, but a couple interesting developments. The 22nd State Senate Race with 19% in has Anthony Musto taking back Bill Finch’s old seat from Robert Russo 66-34. Even more striking is with 17% of the votes counted, Democrat Mark Diamond is leading Republican Scott Franz in the 36th State Senate District. This is a district that had been held by Republican State Senator Bill Nickerson for ages. There had been some in fighting between Stamford and Greenwich Democrats about who should be the candidate and Mark Diamond did not qualify for public funding. It is worth noting, however, that the only districts reporting are from Stamford where Mr. Diamond lives, and none of the Greenwich Districts where Mr. Franz and Mr. Nickerson live have reported.
Update: News 12 is reporting "Voters at Reed Elementary School in Bridgeport were told by a poll worker that they could not vote unless they had ID".
Republican Registrar of Voters, who filed a complaint against ACORN "says he will try to get to the bottom of why some voters were misinformed."
]]>Here is a list of many of them, including their blogs and their Twitter addresses.
(Tag: nprbloggers)
]]>Here is a list of many of them, including their blogs and their Twitter addresses.
(Tag: nprbloggers)
]]>(Tag: nprbloggers.)
]]>
(Tag: nprbloggers.)
]]>