Reply #23: that was a little bit of a blast from the past [View All]

[mythyc]

I was living in SF when Matt was in office and ran for Mayor against Gavin Newsome. He energized a lot of people, kind of had an Obama-like charisma on the small city schedule. The entire city, in its mid to lower class echelons that is, got Gonzales fever when he ran for mayor--I had never seen everyone so excited and inspired. you couldn't go into any store street cafe or friend's house without hearing people advocating his campaign and promoting the green party's causes. Everyone was positive he was going to jettison Newsome in the mayoral election, and actually, he did win a healthy majority of the votes among those that were cast on the day of the election. Problem was, Newsome had a strong strong majority of absentee ballots and early voter ballots, which in the end gave him his slight edge. everyone was deflated, and then life went back to "normal." for a little while all of the city was political and it looked like Matt's grass roots movement would change the complexion and direction of the city, but then business as usual resumed and the mundanes took back over. I've been thinking all along that Obama's campaign has a similar dynamic on a much larger scale, which is good for populist motivation, though should he lose in either the primary or general (I don't think he will) and the mass majority return to its apathy, it would all the more disappointing not just in the moment but historically. I'm digressing----point is, Gonzales was very savvy and popular, but failed because he didn't organize beyond the grass roots, or on a large enough time scale; if he had, he probably would have won; this as a side note is one area where I see Obama as being far superior and hence having more potential to achieve his ends. Despite his appeal (having met him, like many of the 20-30 somethings in my demographic, he had a galvanizing charisma and personal integrity that gave his good causes more credence and credibility---like Nader), his greater consequence at the large-scale political level up was short-lived and inconsequential (though he made a hell of a Board of Supervisors chair and admirably opposed Willie Brown's corporate policies). Like Nader. Both are good men and stand for something I think we all or at least most of us strongly believe in, but their causes are better served in other realms like civil law and consumer advocacy. That said, I don't think Nader is going to affect this election one bit. Compare the 2000 numbers to the 2004 ones. He earned less than 1/5 the votes the second time around and did not alter the outcome of a single state race because the people realized that the stakes were higher than a symbolic (albeit noble-minded) vote would merit. I'm interested in hearing Gonzales stump, but really, who cares? Nader will have no impact whatsoever and come November this will be a side-note.