I digress. What I describe in Palo Alto was not unique to this area. All over California, this type of grassroots organization and mobilization was occurring. And while we were all distracted, the Yes on 8 organizers were taking advantage of that. The amount of Yes on 8 (for those who don’t know, a Yes vote means that you want to amend the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman) volunteers was simply stunning. I work in Cupertino, and right out my office window, I watched a parade of Yes on 8 people that stretched several hundred yards. They were on the busiest street corners for days. They were infrequently matched by "No on 8" volunteers. In short, the Yes on 8 grassroots was about as big as I’ve ever seen for a state proposition.
Furthermore, and I think this is just as important, there is speculation that people voted against their intent. In other words, they were confused and voted "incorrectly" as to what outcome they ultimately wanted. What does a Yes vote mean? After all, the California Supreme Court had already validated gay marriage. So voting yes means that we just affirm that decision, right? Wrong. You had to actually read the proposition, not the massive mailers and door hangers that you received at home that were purposefully misleading. The commercials didn’t help either. You had to do your own research (even talking with friends!) to figure it out. Other states like Florida and Ohio got saturated with presidential commercials. We got Yes/No on 8.
On another matter, it will be fun to watch what happens to the Republican party. They’ll be back, of that I have little doubt. Never underestimate the power of the Democratic party to shoot themselves in the foot. It is amusing to watch all of the pundits and GOP leaders trip over themselves to say things like "I knew it, but couldn’t tell you." Yeah, right. Sarah Palin turns out to be worse than we expected. Yikes. Had McCain actually wanted to become president and put up an actual fight, she may have had a chance to be president herself. I think that chance will never return for her. She’s political toast.
Lastly, I find it interesting to listen to the "analysis" of McCain’s concession speech. Everybody speaks of it in such glowing terms. I remember pausing the TV while he was giving that speech and saying to my wife, "Man, if this is the McCain that ran, the outcome might have been different." Indeed, that is the McCain that people in the primaries voted for. That is the McCain we saw in 2000. He completely abandoned his principles and let the party operatives define his campaign. And it was the old Rovian slash and burn politics that nobody wanted to hear. People are also saying it was the economy that doomed his candidacy. I think that is a complete red herring. If he had been a better leader on this issue, people would have said to themselves, "I trust him with this huge crisis." But he didn’t and wasn’t. He floundered, stumbled, became "erratic" and just didn’t shine as a leader. Contrast that with Obama, and you see why some Republicans voted for him.
In the end, I’m proud of our country’s choice and have a sense of renewal. I told friends about a year and a half ago that the next president MUST be inspirational. After W leaves, this country needs to be lead. We chose wisely.
Comments are closed on this story.