Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he will run again for president, and groans echo around the country by Democrats who believe that he cost us the last two elections. If you haven’t seen An Unreasonable Man, I reiterate my belief that you should watch the film. I won’t speculate as to what those voters who voted for him might have done had Ralph not been running like others do, and Nader’s main point, the drum he pounds consistently, is that Democrats are too disorganized or downright timid to take up the issues and create change.

I agree with him on this - if Democrats were really speaking the language of the people, the election results wouldn’t be so close all of the time. Obama and Clinton supporters are split down the middle with many saying they can’t distinguish between the two; on the issues, yes but on spirit and personality, I support Obama. Both candidates are beholden to a party that lacks strategic vision as well as solid short and long-term goals. If you think the Democratic party is doing a good job, raise your hand. No? That’s Nader’s point!

Honestly Nader would be a great president on domestic policy. He would balance the budget and be the kind of responsible parent this country needs so desperately. I agree that it is disheartening to think that any votes might go astray in this next election, but if the Democrats could get their shit together and present something that Americans could get behind, Nader wouldn’t be an issue. Let’s focus our energy on pushing the party to be better rather than moaning about Nader. He is trying to provoke a different discussion, he’d just not doing it successfully because he doesn’t have enough campaign money to buy the right message.

I had the Sundance plague, so please excuse my not posting for a week. I have to write a wrap and publish a few more reviews from Park City… hopefully this week. In the meantime, coming out from a haze (perhaps it has been longer than a week?) has re-introduced me to politics. I haven’t been keeping up with the primaries because I was not willing to expend the energy it would require to pay attention. The political season feels like a marathon as these elections hold more at stake, but I tuned into Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report tonight and am reminded about those stakes.

These shows are some kind of show biz interpretation of the world we are living in by posing as news, and also showing clips from Nightly News that display the same cavalier regard for the problems of the world. I realize how funny they are because they seem to be at once reporting and satirizing others who take war, famine, hurricanes, so lightly. But at the end of it, it still feels like white, upper-class folks poking fun at other white, upper-class folks. I’m not really sure why I posted this here, except to wonder about this gaze? Some documentaries cut through or beyond this myopic world view of American television, while others try to mimic this aesthetic (can we call it that?) or at least hope to deliver their alternate message in disguise. I’d be curious to hear my friends’ thoughts on that.

This feels so SNL, yet people are watching these shows for news!

I heard today that $2.8 billion will be spent by political campaigns for advertising on network television. Hmm. The frequencies on which television is broadcast are considered to belong to us all, the “commons.” Consequently, our government grants the networks licenses to broadcast upon our airwaves providing they contribute the “public good.” How is it that political campaigns must raise millions from special interest parties in order to pay for ad campaigns over airwaves that belong to us all?