Recycling a poem I wrote for the 2012 Presidential election.

This time around, the poem is applicable to the city election happening in Los Angeles on March 5th.

POEM FOR THE UNDECIDED

don't be afraid to research the issues
don't give in to the electric shocks of
exaggerated TV commercials
and three-color ad pages of papered insults
in your mailbox
don't give a damn about which candidate
your workplace says
you "should" vote for
just read, think and decide
and be confident in your informed beliefs
when you use the inkstamp
in the voting booth
on Election Day

Mitt Romney explained in just a few lines.

Passage from Charles Blow's November 1st NEW YORK TIMES column "Liberty To Lie" highlighted by me:
Unfortunately, there is some evidence that facts and the people who check them don’t carry the same weight that they once did.
First, the right’s disinformation machine is, explicitly and implicitly, making the argument that facts (science, math, evidence) are fungible and have been co-opted by liberal eggheads. They have declared war on facts in response to what they claim is a liberal war on faith.
This is an utterly false and ridiculous argument, but it works on some people.

I'm presuming these people look the other way when Romney sputters/falters after being challenged (i.e. the third debate) because they hear his voice and badly want to believe the Third Coming of Ronald Reagan (George W. Bush being the Second Coming) is among them.

Bruce Springsteen performs solo "We Take Care of Our Own."

The song, recorded at an Obama rally in Parma, Ohio, works quite well as a Guthrie-esque anthem in non-band context.

Clear-eyed, unsentimental endorsement of Barack Obama from Daniel Ellsberg.

Excerpted from article written by Daniel Ellsberg for COMMON DREAMS:

The only way for progressives and Democrats to block Romney from office, at this date, is to persuade enough people in swing states to vote for Obama: not stay home, or vote for someone else. And that has to include, in those states, progressives and disillusioned liberals who are at this moment inclined not to vote at all or to vote for a third-party candidate (because like me they’ve been not just disappointed but disgusted and enraged by much of what Obama has done in the last four years and will probably keep doing).
They have to be persuaded to vote, and to vote in a battleground state for Obama not anyone else, despite the terrible flaws of the less-bad candidate, the incumbent. That’s not easy. As I see it, that’s precisely the “effort” Noam is referring to as worth expending right now to prevent the Republicans’ rise to power. And it will take progressives -- some of you reading this, I hope -- to make that effort of persuasion effectively.
The traditional third-party mantra, “There’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “The Republicans are no worse, overall.” And that’s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It’s crazily divorced from present reality.
It will take someone these disheartened progressives and liberals will listen to. Someone manifestly without illusions about the Democrats, someone who sees what they see when they look at the president these days: but who can also see through candidates Romney or Ryan on the split-screen, and keep their real, disastrous policies in focus.
It’s true that the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. It’s even fair to use Gore Vidal’s metaphor that they form two wings (“two right wings” as some have put it) of a single party, the Property or Plutocracy Party, or as Justin Raimondo says, the War Party.
Still, the political reality is that there are two distinguishable wings, and one is reliably even worse than the other, currently much worse overall. To be in denial or to act in neglect of that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet presently avoidable, victory of the worse.
The traditional third-party mantra, “There’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “The Republicans are no worse, overall.” And that’s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It’s crazily divorced from present reality.
And it’s not at all harmless to be propagating that absurd falsehood. It has the effect of encouraging progressives even in battleground states to refrain from voting or to vote in a close election for someone other than Obama, and more importantly, to influence others to act likewise. That’s an effect that serves no one but the Republicans, and ultimately the 1%.
It’s not merely understandable, it’s entirely appropriate to be enraged at Barack Obama. As I am. He has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or “disappointingly.” If impeachment were politically imaginable on constitutional grounds, he’s earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors!) It is entirely human to want to punish him, not to “reward” him with another term or a vote that might be taken to express trust, hope or approval.
But rage is not generally conducive to clear thinking. And it often gets worked out against innocent victims, as would be the case here domestically, if refusals to vote for him resulted in Romney’s taking key battleground states that decide the outcome of this election.
To punish Obama in this particular way, on Election Day -- by depriving him of votes in swing states and hence of office in favor of Romney and Ryan -- would punish most of all the poor and marginal in society, and workers and middle class as well: not only in the U.S. but worldwide in terms of the economy (I believe the Republicans could still convert this recession to a Great Depression), the environment and climate change. It could well lead to war with Iran (which Obama has been creditably resisting, against pressure from within his own party). And it would spell, via Supreme Court appointments, the end of Roe v. Wade and of the occasional five to four decisions in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The reelection of Barack Obama, in itself, is not going to bring serious progressive change, end militarism and empire, or restore the Constitution and the rule of law. That’s for us and the rest of the people to bring about after this election and in the rest of our lives -- through organizing, building movements and agitating.

Another clear-eyed, unsentimental Presidential re-election endorsement.

From editorial "Four More" in the October 25th issue of THE NEW REPUBLIC:
"At times, Barack Obama has failed to appreciate the virulence of the modern Republican Party.  He has earnestly entered negotiations with adversaries interested in breaking his presidency, not splitting the difference.  It took him paninfully long to arrive at a realistic assessment of his foes.  But over the course of this campaign, he has emerged as a different kind of politician--a populist bruiser capable of skillfully and passionately assailing his opponents, while remaining indifferent to the hand-wringing of establishment opinion.  Perhaps this is a style better suited for the next four years, in which his primary task will be managing a fiscal crisis that his opponents will cynically exploit.  Having extended the safety net, he must now protect it.  Without a second term, the accomplishments of his first would evaporate.  This is not a poetic rallying cry, but there is human suffering to be minimized and a new foundation to defend."

GOP-believing friends/acquaintances from my youth grumbling about Biden debate laughter.

As with a week ago, I didn't witness more than a sliver of the televised debate.  So I can't make any informed commments at this time (though I read opinions from both sides of the ideological divide).

A lot of people who I grew up with in Electra, TX were carefully taught to support the Republican Party and its candidates.

And here is what one person [name withheld] who grew up in my hometown said publicly on Facebook regarding Joe Biden's laughter at Paul Ryan's debate comments:
 "...I think he thinks that if he laughs at what Paul Ryan is saying than the people will think that what Ryan is saying is nothing but a joke. Little does he realize that we the people have sense enough to realize that all he is showing is just how out of touch and rude he is."

Brief thoughts on Bill Clinton's marathon DNC speech.

Re Bill Clinton's 48-minute reprise of his Number One spoken-word hit from 1992, PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST:

I thought Clinton's too-long speech had its effective moments in making case for Obama's re-election--though it's too much to expect either Clinton or Al Gore (who touted his friendship with JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon on Current TV) to apologize for NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagal, helping create the mess Obama has tried (albeit mildly) to clean up and Romney/Ryan would only make worse.