So Ralph Nader is in the race again. And people are all up in arms about it? Why? Here's my prediction--Ralph Nader will be the second-biggest non-event of this election. The first being, of course, Rudy Giuliani.
For parts 1 and 2 of this thrilling series, please scroll down.
People have been using the internet to get together for as long as the internet has existed. Lord knows that's how I met my husband. So it makes sense that candidates would use this free advertisement to organize events and allow users to search for and attend events in their area. In-person support is, of course, a key of grassroots, or really any campaign effort. Nothing looks more impressive than hundreds of people waving signs with a candidate's name on them. Bonus points if those people are bundled up in several layers of clothing and it's clearly cold as Canada outside. Californians just don't tend to look impressive in those ways.
At any rate, I decided to check out what my involvement options are for each candidate. Since I'm lazy, I limited my search to within 20 miles of my home. With this criteria, I found that I could attend the following events for Barack Obama:
* Very near where I live, I can join fellow Obama supporters and phone bank Texas tomorrow
* I can celebrate Black History Month on March 1st, which will include a speech about Obama. That's just one short trip to Norwalk!
* Some guy in Irvine is also holding a Texas phone banking party tomorrow. The Texans are going to just LOVE us!
* This one's my personal favorite--on Saturday the 1st I can go to Long Beach and sign a petition to Barack Obama to select Hillary Clinton as a vice-presidential running mate. Yeah--good luck with that, guys.
* Also in Long Beach, on Friday, March 7th, for a minimum donation of $100, I can attend a concert/fundraiser for Obama
* If my feetsies are getting cold, I can go to Jenean's house on April 1st and participate in a raffle for an afghan knitted by the "Ravelry Knitters for Obama." If I don't feel compelled to show up in person, I can also buy raffle tickets on the internet.
* For those girlie moments, on Sunday, March 9th, I can go to Suddenly Slimmer Spa and become suddenly slimmer, secure in the knowledge that 10% of their total sales for the day will be donated to Obama
* Hot damn! On Tuesday, March 4th, I can gather at Chris's house, sit on his leather couches, and watch the results of the OH and TX primaries roll in on his big screen tv. He assures us it will be the "big mothership Obama houseparty." Unfortunately, it's BYOB.
On the Hillary side, I can:
* Gather at Maribel's house tomorrow for a festive reception with Hillary supporters from around the region. There is a suggested $50 donation.
Not that I want to beat up on Maribel, but Chris's leather couches and big screen tv sound just a wee bit more appealing, even if I do have to provide my own libations.
I can't really place this part in Hillary's hands as much as the other two. She can't exactly demand that her supporters start throwing kickass chili cookoffs for her. However, I find this emblematic of her campaign strategy on the whole.
Hillary's strategy all along has been to take the big states with a few token smaller ones and win on delegate count. This approach, which is just about the oldest in the book, is pretty rich coming from someone who advocates change. The fact is, people want to feel important. They want to feel like their voice counts for something. And they've become terribly disillusioned by the establishment. They've become disillusioned by an electoral system that says that a candidate who wins California, New York, Texas, and a couple other ones can win the election. Or that a candidate that wins the popular vote can still lose.
People want to feel empowered. They want to feel like their chili cookoff can make a difference. In order to inspire this kind of feeling, a candidate needs to reach these people with their message. A candidate needs to communicate and allow people to participate in that communication. It seems to me, then, that the obvious avenue would be the internet.
How else do you inspire that kind of loyalty and desire to act? Obama lost California, but there are still 8 events I can take part in. Hillary won California and then moved on, having gotten what she needed--leaving me with one expensive reception to attend. They say that to get your message across, you need to reach people where they are. I think Hillary vastly underestimated the number of people for whom that location is at home in front of a monitor.
I think one of Hillary's greatest blunders in this election is her inability to recognize and exploit the power of the internet. Since the invention of television, elections became a one-way street. A candidate talked at you from a screen and you sat in your living room soaking it in. Some would put a sign on their lawns and a tiny fraction would get out to a rally every once in a while, but for the most part, it was completely passive. When all the candidates are speaking at you, you simply pick the one you think you like the best and cast your vote.
But it's 2008 now. We have a medium--a huge medium--that allows people to talk back. We can interact. We can question and demand answers. We don't have to have a large living room to get together. We can send a message to 300,000 people at the same time at no cost. And suddenly, as each of those people become empowered, they feel like they are a part of something important. Like they can be an agent of change rather than a victim of the status quo.
We have one candidate who says "yes we can" and another who shows by her actions that she can do it without most of the states as long as she has the big, populated ones and a bunch of superdelegates. Is it any wonder why her claim of change comes off as disingenuous? Where the entire platform of "vote for me over him" is based on a transparent, bogus claim of "greater experience?" Where the deficit she can't seem to grasp is that a lot of people just don't like her?
I'm not saying that the internet is the be-all-end-all of election success, but I do believe it has played a huge part, at the very least subtextually, in this election. 6 months ago everyone thought HIllary was unbeatable. Now she's as good as SOL. Running against an opponent with a strikingly similar platform, how did this happen? When push came to shove, people voted for Obama. I'm sure political scientists will be examining this for years. I'd suggest they start with the internet.
Obama said, "...nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change." It looks like he's right. As I wrap this up, Obama has 964,568 people who own his campaign. When I started this series this afternoon, he had 964,145--a gain of 423 donating supporters. I'd call that pretty darned impressive.
Scroll down for Part 1 of this fascinating series brought to you by Shelby's Life and Whatnot.
Part 2: Social Networking
We've all heard of social networking sites, the most popular being MySpace. It's a website where you create a personal profile and then you can have conversations, blog, share pictures, leave messages, and whatever else you want to with other people who have profiles on the site. They're a kind of clearinghouse for keeping up with your friends, provided your friends are all on MySpace (or Facebook, or whichever site you're on).
Both Obama and Hillary have some profiles up. The mystery comes in again with sheer number. I took some screen captures from both campaign sites with links to their social networking pages.
Bottom center of Hillary's page:
I know the first thing all of you are thinking is, "whoa, that is some crappy visual presentation, Hills. Shoulda gotten a real website designer!" But visual standards aside, for the purpose of this discussion the thing I'd like you to notice is the number of sites she has linked. The writing got fuzzy in the shrinkage, so in case you don't have super-vision or recognize all of the avatars, here are her linked sites:
Contrast that to Obama's page (bottom right):
That would be 16 sites to Hillary's 5. Looking through Obama's list, I only recognize half of the sites he has listed (I knew 4 out of 5 of Hillary's). But that's not the point. The point is that other people recognize those sites--in fact, are quite active on them--and they get to see Obama's happy face right there on their friends list.
Now here's the really confusing part. Why isn't Hillary all over those sites too? It's free to sign up. Additionally, there's no maintenance fees. What the Obama campaign has done is simply set up profiles on those sites and then encouraged active site members who are also Obama supporters to blog, start polls and discussions, and basically keep Obama's profile up front and center. He doesn't even have to do any work!
Have you ever heard of Faithbase? I haven't, but Obama has 2,948 friends linked there. That's almost 3,000 people who get messages from Obama and his supporters at least once a day. Think about it--reaching 3,000 people a day, every day, with your message tailored to their interests, for free. Free! It's free, Hillary! FREE! And without Hillary on there, Obama has their undivided attention. He can chat about anything he wants. Did I mention the free part? Why would you not be doing this???
But even on the sites where Hillary is active, Obama is still kicking her butt. Over on MySpace, Obama has 295,424 friends linked to Hillary's 186,718. That's a lot of people. Approximately 100,000 more on Obama's side. With a site like MySpace, you're looking at a questionable cause/effect here. We all know that more young people are Obama supporters, and most MySpacers are young, so does Obama have a solid young vote because of sites like MySpace, or does MySpace merely reflect his existing support?
With that question I turn to eons, a site I didn't know existed until approximately 10 minutes ago. Eons, as I have come to learn, is essentially MySpace for old people (no offense, old people). Its tagline is "Lovin' life on the flip side" and describes itself as, "the online community for BOOMers!" Much like other social networking sites, eons has a discussion section, so I scrolled down to see what the hot topics of the moments were. I thought I hit political paydirt with the topic titled, "Progressives..." (hot damn! They're talking my subjects!) but I read on to learn that the topic was a "Rant about new progressive lens glasses." I don't want to make any snide remarks, so I'll leave it at that. That said, this seems to be Hillary's base, and the friends list does support that. Hillary has 325 friends to Obama's 216. Still, a 109-person net difference is quite a stretch from a 100,000-person difference.
The most mind-boggling for me, however, is the DNC Partybuilder. I had no idea what the DNC Partybuilder was (I learned about it approximately 30 seconds after I learned about eons) but the link goes to the official DNC website, so I'm thinking if there's any place in the world Hillary should be, it's on the DNC website, no? Well good news--she's there. I did, however, have to search for her, since she doesn't post a link on her own website. Strange. Like the other sites, the DNC Partybuilder is a networking sites for other Democrats. Obama has 961 dedicated Democrats calling him their friend. Hillary has 197 friends. Hillary, honey, COME ON. Pick up the Clue Phone! Get a ride on the Clue Bus! Catch a moo from the Clue Cow! Obama's blog on that site is active--not daily active, but present. Hillary has no blog there. Obama is a member of several groups. Hillary doesn't belong to a single group. WTF?
Once again, these sites are not hard. Here's your social networking political strategy:
Step 1: Recruit a volunteer who is a member of your target site. Cost = Free
Step 2: Have volunteer create a profile, upload pictures, cut-and-paste bio information. Cost = Free
Step 3: Have volunteer Invite site members to add to your friends list. Cost = Free
Step 4: Have volunteer update your blog daily by cutting and pasting information distributed by your staff. Cost = Free
Step 5: Have volunteer and friends start discussions and conversations about you. Cost = Free
Step 6: Watch your friends list grow and the donations and votes come in. Cost = Free
Step 7: Read and follow Shelby's advice. Cost = Free
Talk about your lost opportunity, Hillary. Sheesh.
And related to Part 1: Fundraising, Obama gained 141 campaign-owners in the amount of time it took me to write this post.
Don't leave those desk chairs--the third and final part of this series is up next, after these messages. And after I eat dinner.
The more I browse teh interwebs, the more I'm utterly and completely baffled by Hillary's campaign strategy. How is it possible that this shoo-in 6 months ago is now most likely curled up in a fetal position, rocking back and forth muttering, "how can this be happening? how can this be happening?" Well, Hills, you completely underestimated the power of thousands of people with computers and a lot of free time on their hands. Like me, for example.
The fact is, Obama's strategy is all about empowering the individual. He doesn't use the word donor--rather he refers to them as "people who own this campaign." His catchphrase is "Yes We Can." Right at the top of Obama's homepage he's got a quote that says, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours." Over and over Obama rallies the people to his side.
Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't really have a handy phrase people shout at her rallies. She doesn't have an inspirational group-oriented phrase at the top of her page. She does have the unfortunate Up With Hillary video I blogged about earlier, but it's nothing like the Yes We Can video.
I decided to explore and compare aspects of the Clinton and Obama campaigns as they have taken place on the internet. The funny thing is that most of the things I'm about to describe are either free or are at an extremely minimal cost. It's truly hard to understand why Hillary has not harnessed these very basic aspects of internet campaigning. Even if she didn't think of them, why didn't she just
steal borrow the ideas from Obama?
I'll start with fundraising, since this is the issue that got me started on this line of comparison. As multiple news stories have reported, Obama's fundraising capacity has been unparallelled in election history as far as recruiting the greatest number of contributors. This would be one of the first major differences. Hillary's contributors are the heavy hitters, many donating the full $2,300. Obama's contributors are much smaller, but more in number. Obama's publicly stated goal is to gain one million
donors people who own his campaign. He's currently at an impressive 964,145. In fact, he gained 64 owners of his campaign in the amount of time it took me to write this entry.
One brilliant thing Obama has done with his campaign is set up a matching donation system. Much like NPR fund drives (insert the NPR commentator voice of your choosing saying, "A dollar for dollar challenge..."), a matching donation system is where one person pledges to donate a certain amount of money if another person does too. That is, I give the Obama campaign my credit card, donate $25, and pledge to donate another $25. As soon as someone else donates $25, the campaign charges my card and gets $50. The matching happens, in my experience, in under a minute.
The real brilliance of this plan is that Obama takes it one step further--you get to send the person who pledged your match a note. So I go online and donate $25. Immediately I get a little message that says that John Smith donated a matching $25 turning my donation into $50, and I get a note from John Smith that says, "I donated to Obama because I think he's a real great guy. Thank you for donating too!" Now I'm left with a very warm, fuzzy feeling. My little $25 donation turned into $50 and wow, this guy in Nebraska who's just like me also made his money count. Plus I get his email address and I can have a new pen pal if I like (you can opt out of sharing your email address). It's close, it's personal, and it's motivating, because now I really, really want to match someone else's donation. I want them to feel warm and fuzzy too! And I want to send them a note about why Obama is the beagle of presidential candidates!
Does it really work? I'd say hell yeah, given that the man only needs less than 36,000
donors campaign-owners to reach a million. Of course there are people like me who think ahead and split their intended donation so that half is donated and half is pledged, and I end up donating exactly the amount I wanted to in the first place, but I have to say it did give me such a great feeling to be "matched" that I wanted to do it again. The pull to donate even a small additional amount is very strong.
Hillary's contributions work in the traditional way--click here to give me money. It seems cold and removed compared to Obama's. Obama's matching system is really very easy and a great way to pick up additional donations from small contributors, but Hillary hasn't picked up on it. I don't really know why.
Stay tuned for Part 2 in this intriguing series...
http://thomas.loc.gov/, that is. THOMAS (it's not an acronym so I'm not sure why it's always capitalized), named after Thomas Jefferson (the inventor of the internet--or was that Al Gore?), is the Library of Congress's website. You can go to THOMAS and ask him in a user-friendly manner what Congress is up to, and he'll give you a very complete answer--everything from the texts of bills and resolutions to comittee reports, roll call votes, and what is currently going on on the Floor (Mr. Peterson of Minnesota got to lead the Pledge of Allegiance for the last few days. Do they take turns?).
At times like this, however, the congressional records of individual candidates and the texts and co-sponsors of their bills and resolutions are particularly useful--if you can wade through them. Fortunately it's 2008, so that means that some blogger somewhere has done the wading for us. God Bless the Internet! And Mr. Peterson of Minnesota!
The purpose of this particular blog entry is to link you to another one of those bloggers. Found on the very liberal Daily Kos, a contributor went through THOMAS looking at the bills that both Clinton and Obama authored and introduced, along with their co-sponsors (indicating an ability to gain consensus and work with others) to get to the heart of that pesky "experience" thing. Even as a staunch Obama supporter, I was surprised by her findings. Of course one would not expect this blogger's research to be unbiased or comprehensive, but I did think that many of her observations were very astute and was pleased with her findings. Check out her entry here.
I did look something up on THOMAS just a few days ago, to support an discussion I was having with another online person. If you're interested, it's in the extended entry.
Is there anything worse than a person quoting herself? Well, here goes. Cross-posted from an argument elsewhere regarding Hillary and her vote for war...
Clinton has claimed that she didn't know her vote was a vote for war. Here's the quote from MSNBC and her interview with Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do.
While I'd love to give her props for using the word "Jesuitical," I gotta cut straight to the issue. So Chuck Hagel says it's not a vote for war, and the White House tells her they intended to put inspectors in and permit them to finish their job, and so she votes for it. Did she read the resolution? Like, for example, the title? From the Library of Congress website, the summary of the resolution is:
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
*snip of administrative details*
SUMMARY AS OF:
10/11/2002--Passed Senate without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
I mean it's all fine and well to believe Chuck Hagel and the White House when they say it's not a vote for war and that they're sending in the inspectors first, but that last part seems pretty damned clear that this was a vote for war. Granted I don't have 35 years of government experience (although in June I'll have 35 years of experience breathing outside of the womb!), I feel kind of confident drawing that conclusion. It's a bit disconcerting to hear that she relied more on what Chuck Hagel said the intention of the resolution was than the actual text of the resolution itself. What kind of conclusion are we supposed to draw from that? That she didn't actually read the thing?
I don't believe she did that. I think she knew full well it was a vote for war and authorized it. She's not an idiot. So it bothers me that she's playing the fool now. Girlfriend needs a new strategy.
Does anyone else remember Up With People? Up With People is a performing group started in the late 60s to spread the message of peace and cooperation, or something. It consists of a cast of multi-national singers and dancers who travel around the world, do service projects where they land, and spread the message of peace and tolerance everywhere they go by putting on a show. It's the ultimate in feel-good entertainment.
I had thought that UWP was defunct, but gladly I was wrong. UWP is still going strong! Their website highlights some of their greatest moments, including a number of Superbowl halftime shows, performing for the Pope and presidents, and the summer of 1983 spent performing at Sea World in San Diego. But the most surprising thing for me was that they performed quite recently--at the 2008 Rose Parade in Pasadena! And to compound my surprise, the marching band accompanying them is from the university where I got my graduate degree! Here's a video of Up With People from the Rose Parade to show you how Up they are.
Which brings me to Hillary. While Obama has supporters who make kickass movies like the Yes We Can video, and spawns equally kickass spoofs like the McCain takeoff, Hillary has a group of supporters who, in September 2007, made their own very unfortunate video. Far from inspiring, this one makes you cringe and feel sorry for Hillary, even if you hate her. Seriously--nobody deserves this. This video is so Up With People-esque it's hard not to draw the obvious comparison. Sadly, Up With People solidly wins this round.
Uno takes Best in Show!
He received a standing ovation! Follow the link in this article to see a video of his historic win.
I had a root canal just a few short hours ago. I had to debate for a long time over whether or not I wanted to go fully under or just get some wheeeeeeeeeeee drugs. I decided on the drugs. That turned out to be a mistake. The dents was actually very nice and very skilled, which is good. But I started sobbing uncontrolably at two different parts, and when the dental assistant goes over and closes the door to your exam room, that's not usually a good thing. Anyway, this has solidified my resolve to get general anthesthesia for the rest of my dental work.
Here he is--Uno the beagle!
When we lived in Germany there was no end to the admiration and praise that Scout received from complete strangers. Beagles are very uncommon there, but very recognizable. And luckily for me, the German word for beagle is "beagle." When Kevin was out one day, he had a conversation with a guy who said gruffly--"Beagles--best damned dog in the world!"
Well the beag's time may have come. Uno the beagle took best in breed at the Westminster kennel club. His next step will be the hound group competition, and then best in show! It sounds like Uno is 100% beagle-behaved too.
While best in show will be presented Tuesday night, the playful 15-inch beagle certainly earned one title at Madison Square Garden: noisiest in show.
Uno sounded off every chance he got and clearly became the early crowd favorite, wagging his white-tipped tail and taking a flying leap at one of Wilkerson's cooked pork loin treats.
Let's go Uno!!
A group of celebrity Obama supporters got together and created a moving video distributed on the internet, particularly on YouTube. It's the Yes We Can video here:
A group of McCain "supporters" got together and created their own video. I laughed so hard tears were streaming down my cheeks and the dogs became very concerned. BUT, you have to watch the Obama Yes We Can video to fully appreciate the joke:
Well isn't this exciting? Polls haven't closed here in California yet (I voted earlier) but it's been fun to watch the results come in. Too bad I don't have tv--I think the audio might be more interesting than just updating my cnn.com. Perhaps I'll tune into some NPR.
I've been emailing back and forth with online friends of mine. One friend said the funniest thing all night. To sum up the election:
"So a woman, a black man, Methuselah, and a Christian fundamentalist walk into a bar...."
I have been married to a computer programmer for over 6 years. Much of that time he has worked in the home in which I also live. I also have 4 years of experience working in the computer field, in a slightly different capacity. I didn't program, but I worked with programmers. I didn't write code, but I wrote about code. I gave programmers lots and lots of feedback and advice about their code. And I also lived the day-to-day life of a programmer, in the same house as a programmer. I know firsthand how stressful programming is. I have over 6 years of experience living with someone working in an upper-echelon corporate environment. My opponent worked for 8 years in what can best be described as a middle-echelon corporation. It was kind of like that upper-echelon corporation, but it was smaller and therefore less important. He was actually a programmer who wrote code, unlike me, but he's only worked for the upper-echelon corporation for 2 years. Clearly my experience vastly outweighs his.
You may notice a new widget over there ------------------------------>
That's a 3-ruling update from the nonpartisan fact-checking site PolitiFact.com. PolitiFact is run by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly, whose reporters and researchers analyze speeches and statments from each candidate and rates them on how true or false they are.
There are lots of accusations flying from all candidates (which is typical), and it can be difficult to sort through what's true and what's not. I think PolitiFact is a good source of analytical information about which statements are substantiated and which are not.
A Disneyland meme from elsewhere on teh internets...
Do you ever go shopping in the shops in Downtown Disney?
You could say that
Do you often use the restroom next to City Hall?
Absolutely not. I only use the restroom in Adventureland right past the gate as you walk in. Why? Because everyone uses the City Hall restroom.
Do you walk through the shops on Main St. before going on a ride?
Nope--I'm usually on a mission to get on a ride.
Do you prefer the day time or the night time?
Every time is the right time, baby.
What is your favorite place to eat?
The corn dog stand--best value for your money in the park!
Have you ever been to the House Of Blues? Who have you seen there?
Yes--I've seen multiple people--several servers, a huge number of guests, and one time I caught a glimpse of a cook. Didn't get his autograph though.
Do you have an annual pass?
Something like that
How often do you visit Disneyland?
Inside the park? Every fortnight or so (a fortnight is 2 weeks. I'm currently on a campaign to bring back this very useful term into the English language)
How often do you go to California Adventure?
Almost never, cause it's kind of lame.
13. Do you fly or drive to get to Disneyland?
I haven't been able to master that flying thing, so I drive. Also, why is this question numbered? What was wrong with 1-12 that they didn't get numbers? I think they're probably very sad right now. Oh--I just counted--there are 9 questions before this. So 10, 11, and 12 are probably very, very sad.
14. What is your favorite hotel to stay at?
15. Do you own any Disney DVDs?
Not a one. Ha.
When was the first time you visited Disneyland?
Who knows? I was a baby. Also, it looks like only 13, 14, and 15 were special enough to get numbers. That's not very Disney-friendly at all.
Do you enjoy visiting California Adventure?
No, it's kinda lame
What is your favorite attraction at Disneyland?
Do you attend the parades?
Sure--now that I go a lot I have extra time on my hands.
What's the longest amount of time you've had to wait to get on a ride? Was it worth it?
I've waited for a lot of rides. I think the longest was probably just under 5 hours when Splash Mountain first opened (like, the first week it opened). Was it worth it? HELL NO. I mean it's a great ride and all but COME. ON. Learned that lesson when Finding Nemo opened. We waited until no one was there and only waited 35 minutes to get on that one.
Do you like to visit Disneyland when it's hot and crowded?
Absolutely! What's there not to love about standing around with sweat pouring off of you next to hundreds of other people who are all in a bad mood with horribly whiny children waiting ridiculous amounts of time for an unsatisfyingly short ride? Why, it's almost as much fun as waiting five hours for Splash Mountain! Almost.
How much do you normally spend on 1 visit?
Usually nothing, unless I visit the corn dog stand
3 attractions that are a must every time you visit?
Space Mountain, Buzz Lightyear, and something that takes place in a boat (pick one)
Would you like to work at Disneyland?
I'd rather work just outside of Disneyland
Do you have a picture of yourself in front of the Castle?
Yep. It's mandatory. Like if you don't take one, I'm pretty sure there's a Death Squad of cast members who hunt you down and kill you.
Who is your favorite character?
Bambi's mother. Sadly, her career was very short-lived.
Have you ever met Walt Disney or anyone related to him?
Well, Walt's been a bit on the deceased side for over 40 years, so it's a negative on that one. His surviving daughter is a recluse, and his nephew Roy only comes out for photo shoots (to avoid the Death Squad by taking an occasional picture in front of the castle) so I'm going to give that one a "no" too.
Who is your favorite cast member?
I have a lot of respect for the guy who cleans up the horse poop after the parades or the streetcar thingy. Anyone who can do that with a smile should be making well over minimum wage.
Have you ever been backstage?
Yes--there was this one time where I saw a character walking around with no head and I was so emotionally traumatized I sued Disney and am a millionaire today.
Do you like the Jungle Cruise?
Only if the guide is funny. If he or she is not, I contact the Death Squad
Have you ever been unhappy at the happiest place on earth?
Only once, and I got really winded running from the Death Squad
Have you ever done anything naughty at the Happiest Place on Earth?
Let's just say that it's not really such a small world after all
Have you ever been to Walt Disney World in Florida?
Yes--I was very unimpressed. But I still want to go again.
Would you go on a day that you knew it was going to be very crowded?
If it were a very unique day, but only to mock the people who paid huge amounts of money to wait in very long lines, like for Splash Mountain or something
Have you ever had a corn dog from the cart on Main St.?
Do you enjoy the Barbershop Quartet?
I strongly suspect that the "Barbershop Quartet" is a clever disguise for the Death Squad