Kim Flournoy

(Can’t believe I spelled that right on the first try…)

Missouri still hasn’t finalized their presidential results yet. I know it doesn’t matter to the outcome, and yes of course they should take as much time as they need to get it right, especially for a race this close. But it still seems very odd…

I doubt he’s going to change anyone’s mind, but it’s nice to see this issue still getting airtime outside of San Francisco:

I understand his reason for not voting in presidential or other big races (like mayor or governor), but I can’t believe that there’s never a local race or proposition on his ballot that he wouldn’t be covering on his show but could still vote for or against - he could leave the more important races blank if necessary. It just kind of seems like a cop-out to me.

How Keith Olbermann Stays Objective (No, Really)

For the first time in my life, I voted for a Democrat for President. About time they ran someone that was worthy of my vote.

(Of course, for all of those presidential elections I safely resided in a non-swing state, so I had the luxury of voting with my principles instead of worrying about the lesser of two evils…)

I don’t know how much good ads like this do, but they do help lighten up this increasingly depressing campaign cycle:

I actually have no idea how my parents are voting this year, but they live in a heavily blue state and thus it doesn’t really matter one way or the other…

(Thanks to Maggie):

I watched the first 15 minutes or so of the VP debate, and then just couldn’t take it anymore (I started shouting the first time Palin winked - winked! - at the camera, and just got more steamed the longer it went on). Eventually I found a few minute-by-minute commentaries, which allowed me to skip ahead to the important points and ignore most of the blathering.

Anyone else think these debate broadcasts should employ Pop-Up Video technology? Especially during the McCain/Obama debate last week, I really wished for running citations or some other method of fact-checking - perhaps a scroll at the bottom of the screen, or some kind of picture-in-picture with the debate in the top corner and the facts presented in a slideshow.

Otherwise, it’s really difficult to make an informed decision when two candidates are calling each other liars about who voted for what, and how many earmarks their district received. If you don’t feel like waiting until the next day and then wading through multiple articles trying to find something relatively unbiased, then all you’re left with is to try and read body language and listen for who makes a more persuasive argument. This unfortunately tends to reinforce any preferences you already had, so if you were leaning towards Obama, you’ll probably give his statements more credit (whether or not they are factually correct).

I think Jamie has the right idea - save yourself two hours of annoyed viewing, and just read a summary article about the debates the next morning and then go on with your life.

I thought that San Francisco’s paper ballots were kind of archaic when we first moved here, but now they’re reassuring in a way. The malfeasance that can arise is mostly the traditional kind (like throwing out the ballots).

Here’s a funny illustration of what can go wrong with electronic voting (thanks Lary!) - Homer tries to vote for Obama:

Aaron Sorkin Conjures a Meeting of Obama and Bartlet

Love this “No on 8″ video (starring Maggie!)