So. Last night I was minding my own business and watching an old episode of Real Sex on HBO with my husband. Generally I would consider this a totally normal way for a married couple to spend a weekday night; the 'sex' - such as it is - on the show is usually pretty tame, and I typically find it more humorous than erotic in its depictions of alternate sexual practices.
After watching the first segment, dealing with a group of black erotic dancers called The Rumpshakers, I was relatively bored. The second segment, a group of middle-aged men and women who gathered together for mutual masturbation parties, was vaguely surreal. All in all, it was shaping up to be a rather lukewarm episode of the documentary series. Then came the ultimate segment concerning a German game show called Tutti Frutti.
Holy naked Deutschlanders, Batman!
Regular readers of this blog will know that I spent three and a half years living in the land of schnitzel and wurst; as such, I consider myself fairly savvy in my understanding of all things German. I'm familiar with the food. I can speak a smidgen of the language. I've traveled much of the country. I've seen many of the programs available on German television - I even watched the Eurovision song contest two years in a row. But I had never seen anything like this. Otherwise normal, early nineties era German folk stripping to their skivvies as part of some ridiculous quiz show. The tag line? "When the contestants lose, the audience wins!"
Trust me when I would say, as a member of the audience, that I would MUCH rather lose. These were normal folks. And if there's one truism about normal folks and nakedness it's this: unless you happened to be married to that particular married folk at that particular time, you really don't want to see them naked. It is horribly, terribly, cosmically WRONG.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Stephen King is officially voted off my island
Generally, I am not a Stephen King hater. I own a lot of his books. Many of them have scared the shit out of me over the years - not the least of which being Misery which gave me nightmares about being hobbled for weeks. That shit's got to HURT.
Has much as I enjoy his works of horror, I find King an even better writer when he's considering human beings in all their flawed and broken glory. This is what makes some of his later works, including Lisey's Story and Duma Key so successful. That and the fact that they're really long - I'm a fast reader, and when you need an opus to hold up to a long vacation on the beach, Stephen King is your go-to guy.
I say all this to make clear that I am not a Stephen King hater, a fact which made my shock and disgust that much more powerful when I read the following comment early last month, (I would have spoken sooner, but I was pissed and had to calm down) made by King while speaking to a group of high school students at a Library of Congress event:
Those who spout this nonsense always have an example to provide - usually it's a story about the son of their sister-in-law's gardener who joined the military because his test scores were too low to get into the local community college and who died a week after arriving in Iraq. Such stories are considered to represent the majority of today's armed forces, while the life of Pat Tillman - a man who had every option available to him and nevertheless chose to enter the military - is considered a noble but tragic cautionary tale, the exception that proves the rule.
The truth is, of course, more complicated. Most recruits have stories that fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. A recent Heritage Foundation study found that military recruits are drawn largely from the middle class, score a grade-level above others their age on reading tests, and have a significantly higher rate of high school education than the general population.
While 2007 numbers have indicated a drop in the military's percentage of recruits with high school educations, this drop is more indicative of the military's scramble to meet recruiting needs during a highly unpopular war than any overall trend in the type of recruits the armed forces regularly enlists.
Many commentators have attacked King's patriotism following this remark. I find this equally distasteful. Despite the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric of the Bush administration's tenure, I feel strongly that a citizen of this country has every right to voice their opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Patriotism is not exclusively bound up with supporting the troops. Patriotism, however, does demand that those who claim to love their country but abhor its policies do more than simply defame its volunteer soldiers in an effort to inspire change.
Has much as I enjoy his works of horror, I find King an even better writer when he's considering human beings in all their flawed and broken glory. This is what makes some of his later works, including Lisey's Story and Duma Key so successful. That and the fact that they're really long - I'm a fast reader, and when you need an opus to hold up to a long vacation on the beach, Stephen King is your go-to guy.
I say all this to make clear that I am not a Stephen King hater, a fact which made my shock and disgust that much more powerful when I read the following comment early last month, (I would have spoken sooner, but I was pissed and had to calm down) made by King while speaking to a group of high school students at a Library of Congress event:
The fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that.Taking the time to parse King's words - as I have done so often for remarks made by Hillary Clinton - I think I can catch a glimmer of his underlying meaning. He hopes that students will do well in school, will make reading a priority, so that they have the greatest number of options available to them as they leave high school and enter the job force. However, the noble aspirations of this underlying meaning hardly justify what King actually said, in effect suggesting - as so many have before him - that anyone who voluntarily joins the military is either mentally challenged or functionally illiterate and marking military service as the last resort of the inept, the unenlightened and the poor.
Those who spout this nonsense always have an example to provide - usually it's a story about the son of their sister-in-law's gardener who joined the military because his test scores were too low to get into the local community college and who died a week after arriving in Iraq. Such stories are considered to represent the majority of today's armed forces, while the life of Pat Tillman - a man who had every option available to him and nevertheless chose to enter the military - is considered a noble but tragic cautionary tale, the exception that proves the rule.
The truth is, of course, more complicated. Most recruits have stories that fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. A recent Heritage Foundation study found that military recruits are drawn largely from the middle class, score a grade-level above others their age on reading tests, and have a significantly higher rate of high school education than the general population.
While 2007 numbers have indicated a drop in the military's percentage of recruits with high school educations, this drop is more indicative of the military's scramble to meet recruiting needs during a highly unpopular war than any overall trend in the type of recruits the armed forces regularly enlists.
Many commentators have attacked King's patriotism following this remark. I find this equally distasteful. Despite the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric of the Bush administration's tenure, I feel strongly that a citizen of this country has every right to voice their opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Patriotism is not exclusively bound up with supporting the troops. Patriotism, however, does demand that those who claim to love their country but abhor its policies do more than simply defame its volunteer soldiers in an effort to inspire change.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Ode to the coffee shack
When I moved to the Seattle area - that cradle of coffee civilization that gave rise to the Starbucks empire - last February, I noticed that two things changed in my life almost immediately: I required significantly more water-wicking clothing, and I stopped drinking Starbucks. Stopped. Cold turkey. Why, you might ask? Because for the first time in my life I was utterly surrounded - on all sides and at every corner - by people who made coffee a hell of a lot better than anything Starbucks ever deigned to produce.
I had become acquainted with the coffee shack.
As far as I can tell, the coffee shack is a phenomenon exclusive to the general vicinity of the Pacific Northwest. I certainly have never seen them in such quantity anywhere else in the United States. They are legion here; small shacks with drive-in windows on both sides and no interior customer service space, existing solely to resupply the moist denizens of the local area with well-brewed caffeine injections at regular intervals. Although these shacks lack the atmosphere of your local Starbucks, they more than make up for it with the sheer variety that they afford. There are dozens of syrup flavors to choose from to spice up your lowly latte, from banana to coconut. And, should you decide that syrup would only unnecessarily muddy your brew, you're in luck - the coffee actually tastes good without it. And all this at prices that are generally 50 cents or more less than the comparable drink in the same size from Starbucks.
I love me some coffee shack. They are kitschy-good on-the-go fun and most seem to be locally owned. Just talking about it I've got a jones for a coconut latte.
I had become acquainted with the coffee shack.
As far as I can tell, the coffee shack is a phenomenon exclusive to the general vicinity of the Pacific Northwest. I certainly have never seen them in such quantity anywhere else in the United States. They are legion here; small shacks with drive-in windows on both sides and no interior customer service space, existing solely to resupply the moist denizens of the local area with well-brewed caffeine injections at regular intervals. Although these shacks lack the atmosphere of your local Starbucks, they more than make up for it with the sheer variety that they afford. There are dozens of syrup flavors to choose from to spice up your lowly latte, from banana to coconut. And, should you decide that syrup would only unnecessarily muddy your brew, you're in luck - the coffee actually tastes good without it. And all this at prices that are generally 50 cents or more less than the comparable drink in the same size from Starbucks.
I love me some coffee shack. They are kitschy-good on-the-go fun and most seem to be locally owned. Just talking about it I've got a jones for a coconut latte.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Nattering nabobs of negativism
With apologies to William Safire for the blatant plagiarism of my subject line, I am officially sick to death of the political pundolts who have nothing better to due than endlessly parse every word that passes through our presidential candidates' lips in hopes of making them sound as if they are A) closeted members of the KKK, B) pinko commie bastards, C) wife-beating misogynists, or D) Al-Quaida loving Nazi sympathizers.
Because I'm sick of all this, I firmly refuse to reiterate the latest kerfluffle over comments Hillary Clinton made to the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota. Google it and read that crap somewhere else. All I will say is this: for every one of these supposed "missteps" that occurs, there are at least two possible ways to interpret a candidate's remarks - the obvious interpretation that has been slightly obscured by poor choice of words or the worst case scenario interpretation that no one in their right mind would attribute to an individual who is politically savvy enough to have survived this far in a difficult primary season. The fact that the mainstream press invariably chooses the latter of these two possible interpretations whenever possible demonstrates better than any other measure the lengths to which they will go to make up the news on an otherwise slow holiday weekend.
If that makes me a pinko commie bastard, I can handle it.
Because I'm sick of all this, I firmly refuse to reiterate the latest kerfluffle over comments Hillary Clinton made to the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota. Google it and read that crap somewhere else. All I will say is this: for every one of these supposed "missteps" that occurs, there are at least two possible ways to interpret a candidate's remarks - the obvious interpretation that has been slightly obscured by poor choice of words or the worst case scenario interpretation that no one in their right mind would attribute to an individual who is politically savvy enough to have survived this far in a difficult primary season. The fact that the mainstream press invariably chooses the latter of these two possible interpretations whenever possible demonstrates better than any other measure the lengths to which they will go to make up the news on an otherwise slow holiday weekend.
If that makes me a pinko commie bastard, I can handle it.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The widow incumbency strikes again
Ted Kennedy has recently announced that, in the event his brain tumor precludes him from continuing in public office, he would prefer his wife Victoria Reggie Kennedy to succeed him in the Senate.
This coming from the same man who has railed against the Clinton dynasty and the Bush dynasty.
This coming from a man whose family has filled that same Senate seat almost without pause since 1953.
And somehow he thinks he has the right to name his successor in the United States Senate. If the last sixteen years of national politics have taught us nothing else in this country, it should have at least taught us that dynastic politics are the antithesis of democratic principles.
As for Victoria Kennedy, if she has any self-respect, she should refuse an appointment to fill her husband's seat in the unfortunate event of his death or resignation. The widow incumbency has been an important stepping stone for women into positions of political power in this country. But its basic assumption - that a woman's most important qualification for public office is matrimonial - is simultaneously ridiculous and insulting. If she wants the seat - and, more importantly, if the people of Massachusetts want her to have it - then she can run for it in a special election and win or lose as the public wills.
This coming from the same man who has railed against the Clinton dynasty and the Bush dynasty.
This coming from a man whose family has filled that same Senate seat almost without pause since 1953.
And somehow he thinks he has the right to name his successor in the United States Senate. If the last sixteen years of national politics have taught us nothing else in this country, it should have at least taught us that dynastic politics are the antithesis of democratic principles.
As for Victoria Kennedy, if she has any self-respect, she should refuse an appointment to fill her husband's seat in the unfortunate event of his death or resignation. The widow incumbency has been an important stepping stone for women into positions of political power in this country. But its basic assumption - that a woman's most important qualification for public office is matrimonial - is simultaneously ridiculous and insulting. If she wants the seat - and, more importantly, if the people of Massachusetts want her to have it - then she can run for it in a special election and win or lose as the public wills.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sex and the City redux
In twitterpated anticipation of the upcoming release of the "Sex and the City" movie, I've been re-watching the last few seasons of the series with my HBO On Demand (gotta love expensive cable). I wasn't quite sure what to expect of the series on re-viewing. It's easily been four years since I last saw an episode, and I had forgotten a lot of the story arcs that made up the show's final episodes. I had also been influenced by several editorials I had seen which suggested that the show's frothy storylines didn't hold up well in the harsh light of terrorism, war, environmental concerns and economic crisis. With all this in mind, I was prepared to find the show all a bit childish - a favorite of adolescence that I'd sadly outgrown.
It was perhaps more of a shock to realize how much of my life - a life I hadn't yet lived when it went off the air - the show represented. Charlotte's struggles with infertility. Miranda's difficult acceptance of a parent's declining health. Carrie's efforts to find her place in a foreign country. Having lived through these same experiences in the interim between the show's finale and the upcoming movie, I was struck by how true to life the show actually was. The key to that show was not the shoes or the clothes or the sex or even New York - it was the relationships between the show's four powerful, opinionated, complicated female characters. They may have had a lot of sex, but that's not why women watched (although it may have been why their boyfriends watched). Women watched because it was one of the few places of television at the time that they could see their lives - full of sex and fashion and men, but also full of infertility and cancer and heartbreak - played out in all its difficult beauty.
Economic crisis or not, that sort of thing never goes out of style. Although I did have to sell my Manolos to put gas in the car last week.
It was perhaps more of a shock to realize how much of my life - a life I hadn't yet lived when it went off the air - the show represented. Charlotte's struggles with infertility. Miranda's difficult acceptance of a parent's declining health. Carrie's efforts to find her place in a foreign country. Having lived through these same experiences in the interim between the show's finale and the upcoming movie, I was struck by how true to life the show actually was. The key to that show was not the shoes or the clothes or the sex or even New York - it was the relationships between the show's four powerful, opinionated, complicated female characters. They may have had a lot of sex, but that's not why women watched (although it may have been why their boyfriends watched). Women watched because it was one of the few places of television at the time that they could see their lives - full of sex and fashion and men, but also full of infertility and cancer and heartbreak - played out in all its difficult beauty.
Economic crisis or not, that sort of thing never goes out of style. Although I did have to sell my Manolos to put gas in the car last week.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
You learn something new every day
Although my technical city of residence is Olympia, the governmental seat of this fair state, I live quite near to some fairly rural parts of Washington. An upcoming function for my husband's work is to be held in one such rural town - Roy. The invitation for this event noted that cowboy boots and Canadian tuxedos would be perfectly acceptable attire for the evening. Which, of course, lead me to the question whose answer informs today's blog post:
What in the name of all that is holy is a "Canadian tuxedo"?
For those of you who have no ready answer to this question, allow me to provide two informative links: here and here.
All you Mac users out there aren't so smug now, are you?
What in the name of all that is holy is a "Canadian tuxedo"?
For those of you who have no ready answer to this question, allow me to provide two informative links: here and here.
All you Mac users out there aren't so smug now, are you?
Oregon/Kentucky to mirror Indiana/North Carolina if anybody cares
The thing is, I'm not sure they do. Which is puzzling in a way.
Let's go ahead and get the necessary prognostications out of the way. Kentucky is Clinton's handily; I'm going with Clinton by a wide margin of 25-30 points. The polls are mixed in Oregon although it should still be Obama's show there; I say Obama by a narrow margin of 5 to 10 points.
The crazy thing is, no one in the country seems to care anymore. For Democrats, horse race fatigue has set in well and good. Seemingly all anyone can talk about with regard to the Democratic nomination for president is when Hillary Clinton will acknowledge that it's over - that indeed it has been over for weeks now. She is impossibly behind in the delegate count, her campaign is hemorrhaging money, and her victory speeches have started to sound positively eulogistic. Even she seems to think her race is coming to a close.
Here's the puzzling part - for all the media insistence that her campaign is drawing its last wheezing breathes, people are still voting for her. Not only that, but in places like Kentucky and West Virginia, she's beating the pants off Obama. Hell, in the last week or so she's even managed to reduce Obama's lead in Oregon polls. If ever life called for a WTF moment, this would be it. It seems that the voting public - or at least some very specific sections of it - is not at all ready to give up and name Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee. This has got to be giving Senator Obama pause. One would hope. Or maybe not. Here's his response when asked about the fact that he continues to struggle in states like Kentucky (as quoted in Kausfiles):
Obama's continued failure to perform in "some of those states in the middle" should strike abject terror in the hearts of his campaign staff. It hints at a larger problem that could very well cost him the election come November. For whatever reason - whether it be racist white voters who won't vote for a black man no matter his qualifications, or disenchanted female voters who are fed up with the sexism and misogyny that have characterized the attacks on Senator Clinton are now taking it out on her male opponent, or downtrodden middle class voters who balk at installing Obama's air of elitism - Obama is tanking in a small but significant portion of the country. And he's tanking at a point in the primaries when it looks as if a vote for Senator Clinton is basically a vote wasted.
What should be the Obama campaign's answer to his probable failure in Kentucky today? If, indeed, the problem is that he is not well enough known in states like Kentucky, then it seems he should be working to increase his profile there. Hold some of those famous rallies. It probably wouldn't make a difference in Kentucky per se - they usually vote Repbulican - but it might give the campaign a chance to confront some of the skeptical voters it so desperately needs to win over and craft a message that might appeal to them.
Let's go ahead and get the necessary prognostications out of the way. Kentucky is Clinton's handily; I'm going with Clinton by a wide margin of 25-30 points. The polls are mixed in Oregon although it should still be Obama's show there; I say Obama by a narrow margin of 5 to 10 points.
The crazy thing is, no one in the country seems to care anymore. For Democrats, horse race fatigue has set in well and good. Seemingly all anyone can talk about with regard to the Democratic nomination for president is when Hillary Clinton will acknowledge that it's over - that indeed it has been over for weeks now. She is impossibly behind in the delegate count, her campaign is hemorrhaging money, and her victory speeches have started to sound positively eulogistic. Even she seems to think her race is coming to a close.
Here's the puzzling part - for all the media insistence that her campaign is drawing its last wheezing breathes, people are still voting for her. Not only that, but in places like Kentucky and West Virginia, she's beating the pants off Obama. Hell, in the last week or so she's even managed to reduce Obama's lead in Oregon polls. If ever life called for a WTF moment, this would be it. It seems that the voting public - or at least some very specific sections of it - is not at all ready to give up and name Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee. This has got to be giving Senator Obama pause. One would hope. Or maybe not. Here's his response when asked about the fact that he continues to struggle in states like Kentucky (as quoted in Kausfiles):
"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."I am truly amazed at Obama's ability in such a short statement to simultaneously A) appear absolutely clueless about American geography, B) subtly but thoroughly suggest that the rubes who inhabit "some of those states in the middle" are too stupid to have figured out who he is, and C) adopt the Pollyanna-ish attitude that this will somehow change before the November elections.
Obama's continued failure to perform in "some of those states in the middle" should strike abject terror in the hearts of his campaign staff. It hints at a larger problem that could very well cost him the election come November. For whatever reason - whether it be racist white voters who won't vote for a black man no matter his qualifications, or disenchanted female voters who are fed up with the sexism and misogyny that have characterized the attacks on Senator Clinton are now taking it out on her male opponent, or downtrodden middle class voters who balk at installing Obama's air of elitism - Obama is tanking in a small but significant portion of the country. And he's tanking at a point in the primaries when it looks as if a vote for Senator Clinton is basically a vote wasted.
What should be the Obama campaign's answer to his probable failure in Kentucky today? If, indeed, the problem is that he is not well enough known in states like Kentucky, then it seems he should be working to increase his profile there. Hold some of those famous rallies. It probably wouldn't make a difference in Kentucky per se - they usually vote Repbulican - but it might give the campaign a chance to confront some of the skeptical voters it so desperately needs to win over and craft a message that might appeal to them.
Friday, May 16, 2008
McCain invokes Neverland; Bush invokes National Socialists
A smattering of quotes from today's news, and my commentary:
An AP story available here on MSN and headlines "McCain: US can win Iraq war within four years," leads off like this:
A bit later in the article, McCain denied that by suggesting the war would be won in 4 years he was setting a timetable for troop withdrawls:
Speaking of World War II, consider President Bush's recent remarks on those who would "appease" terrorists:
An AP story available here on MSN and headlines "McCain: US can win Iraq war within four years," leads off like this:
John McCain, looking through a crystal ball to 2013 and the end of a prospective first term, sees "spasmodic" but reduced violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden dead or captured and government spending curbed by his ready veto pen.Tell us, oh great wizard, what else you see in your crystal ball! A chicken in every pot? A money tree in every yard? A world in which fairies are saved from death if only we all clap our hands and truly believe?The Republican presidential contender also envisions April's annual angst replaced with the option of a simpler flat tax, illegal immigrants living humanely under a temporary worker program, and political partisanship driven by weekly news conferences and British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.
A bit later in the article, McCain denied that by suggesting the war would be won in 4 years he was setting a timetable for troop withdrawls:
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," McCain said. "I'm not putting a date on it. It could be next month, it could be next year, it could be three years from now."Despite the fact that this is an election season, and I shouldn't be surprised by the unmitigated gall that a candidate will demonstrate in his (or her) quest for victory, this still chaps my ass. What evidence can McCain produce - what plan towards "victory" - that would suggest that the next four years will be any different in Iraq than the previous five have been? When I put on my flowing robes and gaze into my crystal ball, I see our occupation of Iraq stretching on unimpeded for at least another forty years. This has not been a war that could be won for at least four and a half years; it has long been a responsibility we must endure or a disaster we must remedy. It's not World War II or even Vietnam - it is, I think, Korea and we are on the long road not to victory but to interminable and uneasy stalemate. Any man who seeks to be president and sees victory coming from that morass is either a deeply deluded Pollyanna or criminally stupid.
Speaking of World War II, consider President Bush's recent remarks on those who would "appease" terrorists:
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."This is all so ridiculous it's almost not even worth mentioning, but in honor of my current sojourn in Germany I just couldn't let it slide. Why - oh why? - I must ask does everything political argument almost always have to boil down to how much of a Nazi you are? It's not unlike the goat digression: as I think I have mentioned before, every argument against gay marriage always comes down to the poor goat. If we allow two men or women to marry, the naysayer asks, what's to stop someone from marrying a goat? If our first inclination with regard to terrorism and its causes is not to bomb the sons of bitches into oblivion and ask questions later, Bush argues, then we're only steps away from pencil thin mustaches, goose-stepping and gas chambers. If I must make the point again, I will: Iraq is far from World War II. America no longer has the luxury of a war that allows for simple distinction between good and evil. And such "with us or against us" reasoning does little to aid in the war or its resolution.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Does West Virginia mean much?
My prediction that Senator Clinton would win WV by a blow-out margin turned out to not even be close - she won it by a margin even bigger than that, taking 67% of the vote to Senator Obama's 26% (John Edwards took the other 7%, a fact which I find truly bizarre, but is neither here nor there). Does this huge win change anything for her campaign? In my earlier post, I suggested that it doesn't, and I stick by that statment with one caveat. The win means little, especially considering that it only meant a 12 delegate pick up for Clinton (she gained 20 delegates, Obama gained 8). However, the polling data continues to be disturbing for the Obama camp. He consistently fails in state after state to secure the blue collar demographic - Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public of the "hard-working white Americans" controversy from a few days ago. As I pointed out then, although Clinton's comments were largely excoriated, she wasn't really wrong. Those blue collar Americans - many of whom, for whatever reason, happen to be white - are not voting for Obama is droves and have been relatively consistently not voting for him even as Clinton's campaign has been repeatedly eulogized in the media.
On his own, I do not think this is a demographic that Obama can win back, making his veep choice that much more important in the November election. Although I said just the other day that Bill Richardson might be a candidate, I think now that he simply wouldn't deliver the demographics that Obama really needs. Instead, I think that he's going to have to pick a white veep with some Nascar cred and a working class background.
It's either that, or choose a veep that he already knows blue collar voters will pull a lever for. Hillary Clinton
On his own, I do not think this is a demographic that Obama can win back, making his veep choice that much more important in the November election. Although I said just the other day that Bill Richardson might be a candidate, I think now that he simply wouldn't deliver the demographics that Obama really needs. Instead, I think that he's going to have to pick a white veep with some Nascar cred and a working class background.
It's either that, or choose a veep that he already knows blue collar voters will pull a lever for. Hillary Clinton
Monday, May 12, 2008
Not the catering ovens! Anything but the catering ovens!
Usually I feel that Laura Bush is the relatively sane one in her family, but a quote picked up by the AP (you can see it here) regarding first daughter Jenna Bush's weekend wedding strikes me as particularly asinine considering the circumstances:
Sheesh.
Storms that spawned violent tornadoes over the weekend slammed into President Bush's Texas ranch and threatened to disrupt wedding plans for Jenna Bush and Henry Hager, first lady Laura Bush said Monday.Well! Thanks be to God that a storm system that spawned tornadoes in three states and killed 22 people over the weekend didn't ruin Jenna's wedding. Now that would have been a true American tragedy. At least the caters could salvage the opens for the canapes."We did have a little — one setback on Friday night. While we were off in another town at the rehearsal dinner there was a tornado. ... All the catering ovens were turned over and the sides were ripped off the tent," she told a luncheon at the White House.
"But everyone worked wildly and you couldn't even tell the next night. It was just perfect, everything was great."
Sheesh.
Let the veepstakes begin
I'm generally loathe to throw my lot in with Tim Russert et al., but I think I've made clear in my recent postings that I, too, am of the impression that Hillary Clinton's campaign is effectively over. This despite the fact that she will more than likely win West Virginia by a healthy margin tomorrow (my prediction: blow-out margin of victory between 25 and 35 points). The tide of superdelegate endorsements has decisively turned in Obama's direction (with the AP claiming that he has now surpassed her in superdelegates by their count) and although her existing superdelegate endorsements have been slow to change horses, that should also increase in the next few weeks.
So - now that everyone is sick up to their eyeballs with hearing about the Democratic nominee, it's just about time to start talking about another horse race altogether - the race for the Democratic number two spot. As I see it, Obama faces a minefield in choosing his running mate for three reasons that I'll try to distill here:
The experience factor - For all Obama's charisma, it's hard to deny that he is fundamentally lacking in the kind of executive experience and foreign policy expertise that Americans usually expect from their commander in chief, especially during times of war. The impulse when picking a running mate, then, will probably be to choose someone who gives the ticket the foreign policy gravitas that Obama so lacks. The campaign will be walking a fine line here, however; choose someone with significant foreign policy or executive experience and you risk leaving the ticket bottom-heavy and further highlighting Obama's I've-got-nothing-but-audacious-hope policy weaknesses. Choose someone with less foreign policy/executive experience in order to mitigate this discrepancy, and you end up with a ticket that looks hopelessly weak and ineffectual next to John McCain and company.
The novelty factor - To white man or not to white man? This is the question. The campaign's other big choice is whether or not continue the diversity at the top of the ticket through the choice of VP. Do you pick the traditional white male to appease rural voters scared of diversity in office, or do you continue the history-making ride of Obama's campaign and try for a twofer first? Bill Richardson would seem an interesting choice. I found it odd that the long-time Clinton friend threw his support behind Obama early this year. Could Obama have offered him the vice presidency as a quid pro quo? There is danger here, of course; if we assume that the Republican ticket will be a picture of lilly-whiteness, the contrast between the two tickets on election day might be a little too much for some voters to swallow. As for a white woman on the ticket (sorry ethnic American political ladies - that is definitely more diversity than this country can handle), I think it would be nigh on impossible for Obama to consider a female running mate without first giving serious consideration to...
...The Senator Clinton factor - To the extent that much of the women's vote has crystallized behind Senator Clinton during the primary season, I think it would be bedlam for Obama to consider anyone other than Senator Clinton if he wants to choose a woman for VP. Although New York is a state Obama would more than likely win anyway, she has a proven record of bringing in demographics that Obama is historically weak with and a host of donor names to pad the war chest. And as anyone who studies fictional representations of female presidents can tell you, ladies are always welcome in the number two position.
So - now that everyone is sick up to their eyeballs with hearing about the Democratic nominee, it's just about time to start talking about another horse race altogether - the race for the Democratic number two spot. As I see it, Obama faces a minefield in choosing his running mate for three reasons that I'll try to distill here:
The experience factor - For all Obama's charisma, it's hard to deny that he is fundamentally lacking in the kind of executive experience and foreign policy expertise that Americans usually expect from their commander in chief, especially during times of war. The impulse when picking a running mate, then, will probably be to choose someone who gives the ticket the foreign policy gravitas that Obama so lacks. The campaign will be walking a fine line here, however; choose someone with significant foreign policy or executive experience and you risk leaving the ticket bottom-heavy and further highlighting Obama's I've-got-nothing-but-audacious-hope policy weaknesses. Choose someone with less foreign policy/executive experience in order to mitigate this discrepancy, and you end up with a ticket that looks hopelessly weak and ineffectual next to John McCain and company.
The novelty factor - To white man or not to white man? This is the question. The campaign's other big choice is whether or not continue the diversity at the top of the ticket through the choice of VP. Do you pick the traditional white male to appease rural voters scared of diversity in office, or do you continue the history-making ride of Obama's campaign and try for a twofer first? Bill Richardson would seem an interesting choice. I found it odd that the long-time Clinton friend threw his support behind Obama early this year. Could Obama have offered him the vice presidency as a quid pro quo? There is danger here, of course; if we assume that the Republican ticket will be a picture of lilly-whiteness, the contrast between the two tickets on election day might be a little too much for some voters to swallow. As for a white woman on the ticket (sorry ethnic American political ladies - that is definitely more diversity than this country can handle), I think it would be nigh on impossible for Obama to consider a female running mate without first giving serious consideration to...
...The Senator Clinton factor - To the extent that much of the women's vote has crystallized behind Senator Clinton during the primary season, I think it would be bedlam for Obama to consider anyone other than Senator Clinton if he wants to choose a woman for VP. Although New York is a state Obama would more than likely win anyway, she has a proven record of bringing in demographics that Obama is historically weak with and a host of donor names to pad the war chest. And as anyone who studies fictional representations of female presidents can tell you, ladies are always welcome in the number two position.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mother's Day, Schmuther's Day
So. Tomorrow is mother's day. For all you mothers out there, I applaud you. Congratulations on doing the hard work of raising your children, day in and day out. Congratulations on doing it while working full time (or part-time or not at all), making a mere 70 cents of the dollar that a man would get paid to the do the same work (seven cents less, incidentally, than a childless woman makes for the same work). Congratulations on accomplishing all the little things that it takes to keep your household running, things most people (your husband's/life partners/boyfriends) included don't even notice. Congratulations on all that.
But, great as you are, why do we need a national holiday to celebrate you? Is procreation really that spectacular of an achievement that it deserves federal recognition? Really? On par with, say, single-handedly reinvigorating the struggle for civil rights (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day) or - even better - rising from the dead (Easter)? Seriously, if any of you mothers out there manage to raise yourself from the dead, I'll single-handedly lead the charge to have you immortalized with your own national holiday. Otherwise, however, why can't we let this mother's day thing die?
I'm not just asking for myself. I'm asking for all those women who by choice or biological default can't become mothers themselves. Why must we celebrate the life choice of motherhood but brush aside the other possibilities as invalid? Why is it that, among women of a certain age, single and/or childless women are made into pariahs, their only worth seemingly entirely vested in their reproductive future?
We childless women, we never quibble. We bring a baby gift to celebrate the birth of your children whether or not they were planned or unplanned. And we honestly rejoice in the addition to your family. So why can't you do the same? Whether planned or unplanned, please respect our childless state. Don't rub your motherhood in our faces. And don't look down your noses if we celebrate your holiday the best way we can - by celebrating ourselves and the pets or the friend's children that hold the place in our hearts that our own children have not filled.
Thanks.
But, great as you are, why do we need a national holiday to celebrate you? Is procreation really that spectacular of an achievement that it deserves federal recognition? Really? On par with, say, single-handedly reinvigorating the struggle for civil rights (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day) or - even better - rising from the dead (Easter)? Seriously, if any of you mothers out there manage to raise yourself from the dead, I'll single-handedly lead the charge to have you immortalized with your own national holiday. Otherwise, however, why can't we let this mother's day thing die?
I'm not just asking for myself. I'm asking for all those women who by choice or biological default can't become mothers themselves. Why must we celebrate the life choice of motherhood but brush aside the other possibilities as invalid? Why is it that, among women of a certain age, single and/or childless women are made into pariahs, their only worth seemingly entirely vested in their reproductive future?
We childless women, we never quibble. We bring a baby gift to celebrate the birth of your children whether or not they were planned or unplanned. And we honestly rejoice in the addition to your family. So why can't you do the same? Whether planned or unplanned, please respect our childless state. Don't rub your motherhood in our faces. And don't look down your noses if we celebrate your holiday the best way we can - by celebrating ourselves and the pets or the friend's children that hold the place in our hearts that our own children have not filled.
Thanks.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Oh, damn. Did she just say "white people"?
Having been a Hillary Clinton supporter right up until the point about a week ago when it looked to me as if her winning either a) was impossible or b) would require biblical intervention on the order of the parting of the Red Sea (props to Moses!), I have to say that I am honestly shocked by her statements to USA Today as quoted here. I'm pulled out the relevant passage below:
The too-many-words-and-way-too-many-commas argument: This is the most likely meaning, but also the one that's most difficult to explain because it involves pulling the old "she misspoke" line out of the dustbin. You could make an argument that the entire phrase "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" really probably started out in her head as "hard-working white Americans." In trying to get that thought from head to mouth, she duplicated some of the words and her speech suggested commas that really weren't there in the concept's inception. My parsing of the statement is easily defensible; for better or worse, blue collar white Americans aren't really voting for Obama. 'Nuf said.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop? I think it just did. What about...
The those-commas-should-have-been-dashes argument: This is the argument that's not exactly going to encourage the African-Americans who have long been part of the base of the Clinton machine - and who have been deserting it in droves to vote for Obama - to come rushing back. It would suggest that the commas surrounding the statement "white Americans" should really be dashes, signaling that the phrase "white Americans" is a renaming of the phrase "hard-working Americans." Meaning, in other words, that the only Americans who are hard-working just also happen to be white. I don't think it makes sense to argue that this was Clinton's meaning; however, I can imagine that the statement might be taken this way. Bad news for the campaign among black voters.
Can it get worse? It CAN. What about...
The commas-equal-and argument: Uh-oh. As most of us remember from our high school grammar classes, the mighty comma is most often used as a substitute for the word and. That's why it's not necessary to use a comma before the last item in a list, for example: the and and the comma mean the same thing, so it's not necessary to use both. It could be argued, then, that the comma between "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans" really sets those two groups apart as separate entities; you've got your hard-working Americans in one corner and your white Americans in another and never the twain shall meet. This makes it sound as if hard-working Americans and white Americans are mutually exclusive. Granted, I don't think this is a parsing that many people are going to take from the quote, but it sure is interesting to think that Clinton could have, in a single sentence, alienated almost her entire base.
Now if she can just work something in there about "lazy white American bitches," we'd all jump ship!
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."There are several ways to read this quote, most of them predicated on what we might call Senator Clinton's "inner punctuator." Let me run through them quickly:
The too-many-words-and-way-too-many-commas argument: This is the most likely meaning, but also the one that's most difficult to explain because it involves pulling the old "she misspoke" line out of the dustbin. You could make an argument that the entire phrase "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" really probably started out in her head as "hard-working white Americans." In trying to get that thought from head to mouth, she duplicated some of the words and her speech suggested commas that really weren't there in the concept's inception. My parsing of the statement is easily defensible; for better or worse, blue collar white Americans aren't really voting for Obama. 'Nuf said.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop? I think it just did. What about...
The those-commas-should-have-been-dashes argument: This is the argument that's not exactly going to encourage the African-Americans who have long been part of the base of the Clinton machine - and who have been deserting it in droves to vote for Obama - to come rushing back. It would suggest that the commas surrounding the statement "white Americans" should really be dashes, signaling that the phrase "white Americans" is a renaming of the phrase "hard-working Americans." Meaning, in other words, that the only Americans who are hard-working just also happen to be white. I don't think it makes sense to argue that this was Clinton's meaning; however, I can imagine that the statement might be taken this way. Bad news for the campaign among black voters.
Can it get worse? It CAN. What about...
The commas-equal-and argument: Uh-oh. As most of us remember from our high school grammar classes, the mighty comma is most often used as a substitute for the word and. That's why it's not necessary to use a comma before the last item in a list, for example: the and and the comma mean the same thing, so it's not necessary to use both. It could be argued, then, that the comma between "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans" really sets those two groups apart as separate entities; you've got your hard-working Americans in one corner and your white Americans in another and never the twain shall meet. This makes it sound as if hard-working Americans and white Americans are mutually exclusive. Granted, I don't think this is a parsing that many people are going to take from the quote, but it sure is interesting to think that Clinton could have, in a single sentence, alienated almost her entire base.
Now if she can just work something in there about "lazy white American bitches," we'd all jump ship!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
How'd you like a "female trouble" where the sun don't shine?
This is what I'm talking about, people...
In a story posted on MSN here and entitled - of all things - Female Trouble? (don't you love that question mark?), John Mercurio suggests that Clinton is trying to justify her seeming failure this campaign season by blaming her gender. Allow me to quote Mercurio himself:
There are two things you can count on when you're arguing with people about politics in this country. The first: if you're debating gay marriage with someone, they will always pull out the goat card, as in "but if two men get married, then what's to stop a man from marrying a goat?" No straight for the throat will do here; it's always straight for the goat. The second: if you're debating women and political office - especially women and the presidency - someone will always pull out the uterus card, as in "a woman president? That's hysterical!"
This is, of course, exactly what Mercurio himself has done in an effort to simultaneously deny that the uterus card even exists. Fancy footwork there, Mercurio, but I'm on to you. Deniers need only reference the media's constant use of "Hillary" when referring to Clinton and "Senator Obama" when referring to Barack; or the dirty little snipes at Clinton's fat ankles and propensity for wearing pantsuits; or the hilarity with which the news that someone had stood up at a Clinton campaign event and yelled "Iron my shirt!" (try "Eat some watermelon! at an Obama event and see if it sounds as funny); or google the Hillary Clinton nutcracker with spikes between its thighs.
Female troubles? Yes, indeed. But not the kind that two aspirin will ever fix.
And for the record, the success of women in Congressional races - and gubernatorial races for that matter - offer little corollary to the office of the presidency, an office which has been traditionally masculinized in a way that the Senate or the state house never have. If the past hundred years have proven nothing else, it's that women's past success in Congress means bupkis when considering their future potential in the White House.
In a story posted on MSN here and entitled - of all things - Female Trouble? (don't you love that question mark?), John Mercurio suggests that Clinton is trying to justify her seeming failure this campaign season by blaming her gender. Allow me to quote Mercurio himself:
When political obituaries are written about Clinton’s campaign, supporters will try to make the case that, as a woman, she faced enormous — and ultimately insurmountable — hurdles. That’s partly true. Listen to any cable news talk-show anchor, if you can, and you’ll come to appreciate how fundamentally acceptable it still is to treat Clinton in a way few would dare discuss Obama. And yet, given the historic success that other women are enjoying at the ballot box this year, in competitive races against well-funded men, it’s hard to see how Clinton, given her own strengths, will be able to lay much blame for her imminent defeat on her gender.This from a man who just titled his piece "Female Trouble?" Puh-leeze.
There are two things you can count on when you're arguing with people about politics in this country. The first: if you're debating gay marriage with someone, they will always pull out the goat card, as in "but if two men get married, then what's to stop a man from marrying a goat?" No straight for the throat will do here; it's always straight for the goat. The second: if you're debating women and political office - especially women and the presidency - someone will always pull out the uterus card, as in "a woman president? That's hysterical!"
This is, of course, exactly what Mercurio himself has done in an effort to simultaneously deny that the uterus card even exists. Fancy footwork there, Mercurio, but I'm on to you. Deniers need only reference the media's constant use of "Hillary" when referring to Clinton and "Senator Obama" when referring to Barack; or the dirty little snipes at Clinton's fat ankles and propensity for wearing pantsuits; or the hilarity with which the news that someone had stood up at a Clinton campaign event and yelled "Iron my shirt!" (try "Eat some watermelon! at an Obama event and see if it sounds as funny); or google the Hillary Clinton nutcracker with spikes between its thighs.
Female troubles? Yes, indeed. But not the kind that two aspirin will ever fix.
And for the record, the success of women in Congressional races - and gubernatorial races for that matter - offer little corollary to the office of the presidency, an office which has been traditionally masculinized in a way that the Senate or the state house never have. If the past hundred years have proven nothing else, it's that women's past success in Congress means bupkis when considering their future potential in the White House.
Obama announces intention to play "Let's Pretend" with the delegate count
Let's be honest - in all fairness, the Clinton campaign has been playing "Let's Pretend" with the delegate count for weeks now. Up until now, however, Obama has largely stayed above this, preferring to allow his heretofore commanding delegate lead - and the DNC rules regarding how the nominee is chosen - to speak for itself.
However, a story that I first saw on MSN today and which has been widely covered (here it is at politico.com) suggests that Obama is tired of messing around with this reality crap, and has decided that "Let's Pretend" is the game for him. The story, headlined "Obama Plans to Declare Victory May 20th," at first blush doesn't seem all that interesting. The pundits have been declaring for weeks that Clinton's campaign was in the weeds, more than likely never to return. Just yesterday I myself made the prognostication that Clinton would be forced to pull out of the race once primary season ran its course on June 3rd. So it would seem that Obama's decision to declare victory is de rigeur at this point.
Or is it? Reading through the story, it seems that Obama's decision to declare victory is based on the fact that after May 20th he will have a majority of the pledged delegates (1627 out of 3253 total). A majority? Since when does a majority matter? As anyone who has been conscious during the past 16 months of campaigning can attest, a majority of pledged delegates doesn't get you a stale glass of champagne at the DNC convention, much less the nomination of the party. Unless we've entered another campaign bizarro world in which 50% + 1 suddenly constitutes victory- as opposed to the bizarro world in which a majority of the popular vote equaled victory as Clinton's campaign seemed to espouse - Obama is completely in la-la land on this one on both rules and math:
Rules: The DNC is a magic number kind of an organization, meaning that neither Clinton nor Obama will be the nominee until one or the other reaches the magic delegate number of 2025. Obama won't be anywhere near this number of May 20th - in fact, there's a real possibility that, unless Clinton drops out of the race and some of her delegates are released, no one will have reached this magic number by convention time. No magic number, no nomination. That's the way it works around these parts.
Math: But wait a minute...that 2025 number might not even be correct. If Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention, then 2209 is more likely the magic number. And this isn't just my way of playing "Let's Pretend." DNC chair Howard Dean has suggested that both Florida and Michigan will be seated at the convention in some as-yet-to-be-determined capacity. And this is only fair; party rules or no party rules, it seems ridiculous and inherently undemocratic to disenfranchise several million people out of spite.
The real kicker here is that Obama will undoubtedly be the Democratic nominee. Now, if he can only keep his hands to himself long enough to allow that mantle to be placed on his shoulders instead of ripping it out of the hands of the people like a recalcitrant child.
Hope be damned! Let's just settle for avarice and call it a day.
However, a story that I first saw on MSN today and which has been widely covered (here it is at politico.com) suggests that Obama is tired of messing around with this reality crap, and has decided that "Let's Pretend" is the game for him. The story, headlined "Obama Plans to Declare Victory May 20th," at first blush doesn't seem all that interesting. The pundits have been declaring for weeks that Clinton's campaign was in the weeds, more than likely never to return. Just yesterday I myself made the prognostication that Clinton would be forced to pull out of the race once primary season ran its course on June 3rd. So it would seem that Obama's decision to declare victory is de rigeur at this point.
Or is it? Reading through the story, it seems that Obama's decision to declare victory is based on the fact that after May 20th he will have a majority of the pledged delegates (1627 out of 3253 total). A majority? Since when does a majority matter? As anyone who has been conscious during the past 16 months of campaigning can attest, a majority of pledged delegates doesn't get you a stale glass of champagne at the DNC convention, much less the nomination of the party. Unless we've entered another campaign bizarro world in which 50% + 1 suddenly constitutes victory- as opposed to the bizarro world in which a majority of the popular vote equaled victory as Clinton's campaign seemed to espouse - Obama is completely in la-la land on this one on both rules and math:
Rules: The DNC is a magic number kind of an organization, meaning that neither Clinton nor Obama will be the nominee until one or the other reaches the magic delegate number of 2025. Obama won't be anywhere near this number of May 20th - in fact, there's a real possibility that, unless Clinton drops out of the race and some of her delegates are released, no one will have reached this magic number by convention time. No magic number, no nomination. That's the way it works around these parts.
Math: But wait a minute...that 2025 number might not even be correct. If Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention, then 2209 is more likely the magic number. And this isn't just my way of playing "Let's Pretend." DNC chair Howard Dean has suggested that both Florida and Michigan will be seated at the convention in some as-yet-to-be-determined capacity. And this is only fair; party rules or no party rules, it seems ridiculous and inherently undemocratic to disenfranchise several million people out of spite.
The real kicker here is that Obama will undoubtedly be the Democratic nominee. Now, if he can only keep his hands to himself long enough to allow that mantle to be placed on his shoulders instead of ripping it out of the hands of the people like a recalcitrant child.
Hope be damned! Let's just settle for avarice and call it a day.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
This pundit got it (half) right
Although I'm having difficulty finding a source that nails down the numbers conclusively for IN, I'm going to go ahead and call myself half right on yesterday's primary prognostications. It appears that Clinton has won IN by a narrow margin (51% to 49%). I was a bit short on my Obama guess however - he won by a wide margin of 15 points (57% to 42% - 1% actually didn't care. Seriously? In this race?) rather than the medium 5-10 margin I predicted.
So - do my other predictions still hold? I think they do. Without some sort of intervention of a biblical magnitude (locusts, anyone?) I don't think Clinton has a realistic chance of being able to continue her nomination bid past June 3rd and the end of primary season. MSN claims that she has once again been forced to loan the campaign money, more superdelegates are agitating for her to drop out of the race, and the math for both superdelegates and voters has become effectively impossible for her to win.
This all means that even those sunny-eyed optimists among us who thought Clinton could still pull the rabbit out of her hat should start looking toward a McCain v. Obama contest come November. Honestly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the Democrats wanted a good shot at losing this November, there's only one candidate they could have chosen that would have given them a better shot than Hillary Clinton - and that's Barack Obama. With Clinton out of the race, the Republican machine is going to start working overtime ferreting out the skeletons in Obama's closet that - between the Obama personality cult and the Hillary hating - no one's been looking for during the Democratic primary. That's not to suggest that I think Obama is a dishonest guy. It is to suggest that I think the vetting process is far from complete, and for a guy that many seem to think is this country's political Messiah, any small foibles are going to read as larger than life.
I think Obama's wife might turn out to be one of his biggest liabilities in a national campaign. While he seems to have spent his life trying very hard to rise above the stereotype of the angry black man, she seems to have spent the same amount of time attempting to cement her role as the angry black woman. I envision her making more statements in the future similar to her "this is the first time in 20 years that I've felt pride in my country" mess. And I don't envision that such statements will be of any help in endearing Obama to the large number of lower middle class and working class voters who are suspicious as hell of his "hope" rhetoric - a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
It should be interesting.
So - do my other predictions still hold? I think they do. Without some sort of intervention of a biblical magnitude (locusts, anyone?) I don't think Clinton has a realistic chance of being able to continue her nomination bid past June 3rd and the end of primary season. MSN claims that she has once again been forced to loan the campaign money, more superdelegates are agitating for her to drop out of the race, and the math for both superdelegates and voters has become effectively impossible for her to win.
This all means that even those sunny-eyed optimists among us who thought Clinton could still pull the rabbit out of her hat should start looking toward a McCain v. Obama contest come November. Honestly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the Democrats wanted a good shot at losing this November, there's only one candidate they could have chosen that would have given them a better shot than Hillary Clinton - and that's Barack Obama. With Clinton out of the race, the Republican machine is going to start working overtime ferreting out the skeletons in Obama's closet that - between the Obama personality cult and the Hillary hating - no one's been looking for during the Democratic primary. That's not to suggest that I think Obama is a dishonest guy. It is to suggest that I think the vetting process is far from complete, and for a guy that many seem to think is this country's political Messiah, any small foibles are going to read as larger than life.
I think Obama's wife might turn out to be one of his biggest liabilities in a national campaign. While he seems to have spent his life trying very hard to rise above the stereotype of the angry black man, she seems to have spent the same amount of time attempting to cement her role as the angry black woman. I envision her making more statements in the future similar to her "this is the first time in 20 years that I've felt pride in my country" mess. And I don't envision that such statements will be of any help in endearing Obama to the large number of lower middle class and working class voters who are suspicious as hell of his "hope" rhetoric - a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
It should be interesting.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
North Carolina and Indiana vote
Commentators and pundits will try to tell you that today's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana will make or break the candidacies of one or both of the Democratic challengers. Don't believe them. No matter what happens today in either state, no one is going to be dropping out of the race anytime soon. However, depending on the outcomes of today's primaries, the momentum of the race could change significantly. Here's the breakdown of today's possible outcomes and their potential impacts on the Clinton and Obama campaigns:
Most likely outcome: Clinton wins IN by narrow margin (1-5 points); Obama wins NC by medium margin (5-10 points)
This is what I would expect to happen based on the polling data through today. Clinton and Obama are polling in a statistical dead heat in IN, but I think blue collar voters will help her win narrowly there. Helped along by African American voters, Obama continues to poll well in NC; unless the Jeremiah Wright controversy has had a bigger impact than we know, I expect he will still pull out a win here. A one-and-one showing today will make no discernible impact on either campaign although the pressure will be on Clinton to do well in the other upcoming contests. Otherwise, however, it will mean a wait-and-see until next Tuesday.
But what if: Obama wins IN by narrow margin and NC by medium margin
Again, this wouldn't put Clinton totally out of the race. Her campaign is clearly prepared to hold on at least until early June. However, if Obama could pull out a win in both states, it would be a signal to the country that the Jeremiah Wright flap and Bittergate have more than blown over and that his campaign has weathered those storms. This would probably be enough for most of the undecided superdelegates to firmly place their support behind him; they could argue that his ability to get past these two tests of his candidacy meant that he had now been battle-tested and ready to face McCain in November. Expect Clinton to end her run at the White House no later than June 15th. The race is too close in IN for Obama to pull out a huge margin of victory there. However, if he only narrowly wins NC, he leaves the door cracked for Clinton who could rightfully point out that his numbers plummeted there over the last several weeks.
But what if: Clinton wins IN by any margin and NC by any margin
Clinton has the upper hand here; if she could pull out wins in both IN and NC by any margin of victory, it would be a huge boost to her campaign. Although it wouldn't do much to the delegate math, it could put her in a position to surpass Obama in the popular vote and I think enough superdelegates have been hinting that the popular vote should be the decider of victory in this primary that it could mean a huge windfall for Clinton's chances of securing the nomination. It's a HUGE long shot; but if she can pull it off, I think there's better than a 50% chance she could best Obama and become the nominee at the convention. It would certainly justify her hanging on that long.
We'll see how things go and I'll give a primary recap tomorrow.
Most likely outcome: Clinton wins IN by narrow margin (1-5 points); Obama wins NC by medium margin (5-10 points)
This is what I would expect to happen based on the polling data through today. Clinton and Obama are polling in a statistical dead heat in IN, but I think blue collar voters will help her win narrowly there. Helped along by African American voters, Obama continues to poll well in NC; unless the Jeremiah Wright controversy has had a bigger impact than we know, I expect he will still pull out a win here. A one-and-one showing today will make no discernible impact on either campaign although the pressure will be on Clinton to do well in the other upcoming contests. Otherwise, however, it will mean a wait-and-see until next Tuesday.
But what if: Obama wins IN by narrow margin and NC by medium margin
Again, this wouldn't put Clinton totally out of the race. Her campaign is clearly prepared to hold on at least until early June. However, if Obama could pull out a win in both states, it would be a signal to the country that the Jeremiah Wright flap and Bittergate have more than blown over and that his campaign has weathered those storms. This would probably be enough for most of the undecided superdelegates to firmly place their support behind him; they could argue that his ability to get past these two tests of his candidacy meant that he had now been battle-tested and ready to face McCain in November. Expect Clinton to end her run at the White House no later than June 15th. The race is too close in IN for Obama to pull out a huge margin of victory there. However, if he only narrowly wins NC, he leaves the door cracked for Clinton who could rightfully point out that his numbers plummeted there over the last several weeks.
But what if: Clinton wins IN by any margin and NC by any margin
Clinton has the upper hand here; if she could pull out wins in both IN and NC by any margin of victory, it would be a huge boost to her campaign. Although it wouldn't do much to the delegate math, it could put her in a position to surpass Obama in the popular vote and I think enough superdelegates have been hinting that the popular vote should be the decider of victory in this primary that it could mean a huge windfall for Clinton's chances of securing the nomination. It's a HUGE long shot; but if she can pull it off, I think there's better than a 50% chance she could best Obama and become the nominee at the convention. It would certainly justify her hanging on that long.
We'll see how things go and I'll give a primary recap tomorrow.
The best part of summer...
...is the BBQ grill. After having left our last one in Germany (too hard to clean to get past the agricultural inspectors) and not being able to buy one in Georgia (second floor apartment with a very small balcony), we were finally able to get a new one yesterday. Matt put it together and we got it going this evening with New York strip, grilled corn covered in pesto and baked sweet potatoes. It was amazing. I love the grill, and I love summer in the Pacific Northwest.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Another derby tragedy
Yesterday's Kentucky Derby ended in tragedy this year when the second place filly, Eight Belles finished the race and then broke both her front legs and had to be put down on the track. This isn't the first tragedy to strike a Triple Crown race recently. The nation was transfixed by the attempts to rehabilitate Triple Crown challenger Barbaro in 2006 after he severely broke a leg in the Preakness. Despite valiant efforts to preserve his life, he was put down in early 2007 due to continued infection. In 1993, horses were put down at both the Belmont (Prairie Bayou) and the Preakness (Union City). In 15 years, four horses destroyed after running in horse racing's most glamorous sweepstakes.
But such tragedies are hardly reserved for the Triple Crown - the week before the derby, a colt collapsed on the track at Churchill Downs - the same track Eight Belles ran on Saturday - and its chances of survival are as yet unknown. And these are just the horses that were irreparably injured that I was able to locate after a brief internet search. I have no idea how many more there might be at tracks across the United States during the season. In any sport involving humans, such consistent injuries would result in a call for increased safety precautions to prevent - or at least reduce - these injuries. Unfortunately, horse racing has made no such move.
As a Kentuckian, I am proud of my state and the beautiful thoroughbreds that are raised in her rolling hills. But I am appalled that the state that raises such creatures has done so little to protect them. Perhaps it's time to rethink how the Triple Crown is run and to make stricter rules regarding the owners, trainers and jockeys that participate to ensure these tragedies are mitigated. I'm tired to watching an amazing race run by phenomenal athletes end with one of those athletes dead on the track.
UPDATE: In all fairness, I should point out that the title of this posting could be considered misleading. The last time a horse had to be put down at the derby itself was in the 1930's. Barbaro was, as mentioned above, put down following an injury at the Preakness. Thanks, Angie.
But such tragedies are hardly reserved for the Triple Crown - the week before the derby, a colt collapsed on the track at Churchill Downs - the same track Eight Belles ran on Saturday - and its chances of survival are as yet unknown. And these are just the horses that were irreparably injured that I was able to locate after a brief internet search. I have no idea how many more there might be at tracks across the United States during the season. In any sport involving humans, such consistent injuries would result in a call for increased safety precautions to prevent - or at least reduce - these injuries. Unfortunately, horse racing has made no such move.
As a Kentuckian, I am proud of my state and the beautiful thoroughbreds that are raised in her rolling hills. But I am appalled that the state that raises such creatures has done so little to protect them. Perhaps it's time to rethink how the Triple Crown is run and to make stricter rules regarding the owners, trainers and jockeys that participate to ensure these tragedies are mitigated. I'm tired to watching an amazing race run by phenomenal athletes end with one of those athletes dead on the track.
UPDATE: In all fairness, I should point out that the title of this posting could be considered misleading. The last time a horse had to be put down at the derby itself was in the 1930's. Barbaro was, as mentioned above, put down following an injury at the Preakness. Thanks, Angie.
Great young adult fiction
I think that calling someone a great writer of Young Adult fiction is often like calling someone a great writer of Science Fiction - a bit of a backhanded compliment that suggests perhaps the writer in question can't quite manage more serious works worthy of adults. Let me be clear, then, in my praise of Ellen Emerson White. She is an outstanding author of fiction - young adult or otherwise - who never allows the fact that she is titularly writing for a younger audience discourage her from confronting difficult topics with realism, intelligence, thoughtfulness and wit.
I first discovered White, writing in The President's Daughter, as part of my ongoing research into the portrayal of female presidents in American pop culture. Meg, the daughter of the title, is the oldest child of Katherine Powers, America's first female president. A young pundit in the making, Meg is a nuanced and deeply realized character, and her observations of her mother - both a deeply ambitious and a deeply scrupulous person - offer a fascinating case study into female political power in this country. Written in 1984, more than likely in response to Geraldine Ferraro's brief foray into national politics, The President's Daughter offers America the fictional realization of the president many thought we would have had by now - one without a Y chromosome. The fact that White is able to do this without flinching from the realities of a woman trying to balance work and family - especially when work involves the defense of the free world - is especially notable.
White has continued to add to the story of Meg and Katherine Powers over the years with the most recent installment, Long May She Reign, published just last year. If White makes any concessions to her younger audience in these later books, it is in the family's continual brushes with death - an assassination attempt against the president and Meg's kidnapping. However, the subjects are always handled with such tact and realism and the threats so easy to imagine in an administration run by someone other than a white male, that I think she can be forgiven. Pick one up if you get the chance.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The New Republic pulls out the old uterus argument
Anyone seen the new issue of The New Republic? The one with Hillary Clinton looking kooky as hell with her arms thrown up in the air and her face all screwed up and whacked out? The one that just screams, "Look at me, I'm a female politician and I'm hysterical! Don't you want me to have my finger on the button? If I run out of Midol, I might just push it! Estrogen makes me THAT nutso!"
If you're unaware of the etymology of the word "hysterical," please allow me fill you in - it's not just a crazy coincidence that both "hysterical" and "hysterectomy" have the same prefix. Read this article from slate.com - http://www.slate.com/id/2190282/ - and get back to me. I'll wait.
Do you get the none-so-subtle point The New Republic is aiming for? Hillary Clinton's uterus makes her full-on BATTY. Isn't that a sunny opinion to have of women in positions of political power? Don't you just love a country where the use of racial stereotypes are grounds for termination and the use of gender stereotypes gets you the front cover of a national political publication? Why does this double standard make no one else crazy? Is it just me?
Maybe my uterus is acting up again. I suppose I should go take two Midol and lie down.
Sexist bastards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)