I am annoyed. Seeing as it’s finals week, I bet may of you are too.

Quick question for those of you familiar with Butler: why is it that the one time I actually come to the library and leave a notebook and two paperbacks, they have disappeared by the next day, but laptops, hardcover books, food, clothes, and other items of actual value are always left safely unattended–mainly so people can stake out desks for days on end?

Anyway, if any of you listened to Hillary’s speech in West Virginia tonight, you may share my annoyance with the damage she continues to inflict on the Democratic party. Senator Clinton, please stop bragging about winning swing states. This is not the general election- and you really haven’t been winning them by as much as both camps had previously anticipated. Bottom line: metrics do not lie! And by the metrics, the primary should be over by now.

Speaking of annoying people on TV-one person who frequently makes me want to throw things at the screen is Bill O’Reilly. So, when my friend shared this video, I couldn’t help but extend this opportunity to laugh at him making a fool of himself to all of you. Please enjoy!

Proving that an appeal to fear will trump a call to our highest virtues, Hillary Clinton pulled off career-saving victories in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas last night. While she gained a net 17 delegates (three times the total of tiny Rhode Island), she demonstrated that her ship has not sunk entirely. After last night’s primaries, Barack Obama is still the clear mathematical leader, but HRC isn’t to be counted out. Heaven help the Democratic party!

After dinner, the owner of a nearby Dominican restaurant explained why he is for Hillary:

1. Barack’s middle name is Hussein. “Hoo-sain, Hoo-sain,” he repeated. Clearly, he must be receiving contributions from Islamic terrorists.
2. The economy was in tatters when William Jefferson Clinton took over from George Bush, who started a war in Iraq. Now that another Bush started a war in Iraq and the economy is roiling, the only person capable of solving the problem is another Clinton.

This sort of choose-your-own-adventure, street corner politics is akin to spotting aliens on the back of a $20 bill. Absurd, right? Masonic conspiracy theories and hidden councils of the illuminati seem ridiculous, but only because we go to school with them–and they ain’t such bad blokes. Clearly, the issues don’t matter. Swiftboating and Internet rumors are a much better way to decide the fate of the free world.

The real winner is John McCain, who locked up his party’s nomination with a four-state sweep. While Hillary and Barack continue trashing each other until the Democratic Convention in June, Mad Mac can have more Sedona barbecues and build a war chest while “the kids” fight it out over Pennsylvania. The outcome is sure to be a bitterly-divided Democratic party and legions of disenchanted independents. With that to look forward to, I can only say Democracy is great, if it works in my favor.

Well, well, well. It looks like the comeback kid is back…again.

I can’t say I didn’t see it coming when I felt a distinctive aching in my left calf muscle yesterday, which always seems to indicate a surprising turn of events. No, just kidding, I read this article in the Times on Monday and haphazardly predicted tonight’s results to myself. Too bad I didn’t stake any money on it.

Looks like a long race is getting even longer. Could this continue all the way to the convention? If so, what happens to the vice-presidential selection process?

Feminism and femininity are not mutually exclusive; I realized recently that this is not an obvious statement.

Hillary Clinton is the female most in the public eye of the United States right now, and she represents this paradigm to a limited extent. Her femininity is constantly under cross-examination, whether overly apparent or barely perceptible. Her detractors will both taunt her for displaying any sign of womanhood and proclaim that she is overcompensating for her gender by behaving in a masculine fashion. The implication of the former is that Clinton is undermining the feminist cause by wearing a low cut blouse; of the latter that she is not comfortable enough with her gender to express it on the campaign trail, stacked up against a group of men. She can’t win either way.

That the media constantly remarks on Clinton’s clothing and appearance, and not on the necktie selections of her male colleagues, for instance, is a function of mainstream sexism and the innate assumption that one cannot be both feminine and feminist.

Because Clinton is a woman filling a traditionally male role, she is held up by some as a figurehead of the feminist movement. But her gender alone does not qualify her for this title; while she is paving a path for other women to follow, she is not the champion of gender equality that she might be.
Read the rest of this entry »

American politics is a dog and pony show of the lowest order. Despite the worldwide coverage our presidential elections generate, the attention is hardly deserved. It’s not rocket science; it’s not even political science.

The high-minded among us would like the democratic process to be a contest of ideologies fought in the halls of power. Instead, a presidential campaign is a bare-knuncle brawl between two beauty queens with enornous sums of cash and a legion of expensive stylists. Are you smarter than a 5th Grader? If so, try to tone it down. All that fancy policy talk won’t fly at the Iowa State Fair or Koop’s Frozen Custard.

How do I know? I worked on the frontlines of the 2004 presidential race in Seattle, Washington. Seattle is the most educated city in the United States, where more than 25 percent of residents have at least a bachelors degree. It’s also one of the bluest enclaves on the West Coast. In spite of these fact I heard an unimaginable litany of irrational, inarticulate reasons why people were voting for George W. Bush and why they couldn’t stand John Kerry. Ideas had nothing to do with it.

Pop quiz: how did the Kennedy clan first make its money? If you answered bootlegging and other questionable activities, you are a winner. While we love the notion of Camelot or the image of John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father’s casket, the reality of our politician’s private lives is something different entirely. We should be distrustful of any person who claims to want to lead us, but instead we follow politicians like sunflowers in the early morning light.

Read the rest of this entry »

Let’s hope it works again.

Clinton released the now-ubiquitous “3am ad” that reminds voters that when something terrible happens, it is up to us to decide who answers the call.

The ad is distinctly reminiscent of Lyndon B. Johnson’s famous 1964 “daisy campaign,” considered to be one of history’s most terrifying advertisements. During these 30-seconds of horror, a mushroom cloud is superimposed over a young girl plucking the petals off a daisy.

Similarly, the Clinton ad (officially aired only in Texas, but thanks to the internet, aired everywhere) superimposes impending doom—“ Who do you want answering the phone?”–over peacefully sleeping children. 

Frankly, I hope it works. I hope it rallies enough people behind her to win the nomination. I don’t care if she is employing so-called “scare tactics.” During campaign season, we call that “repackaging an old campaign theme.” So good for her. She knows what works and she’s using that knowledge – unlike the guys who used to work for the Giuliani ’08 Campaign. There is obviously a reason that bizarre tactics  (like not campaigning) don’t work.

Clinton seems to have gained some financial ground, although it’s unclear to pinpoint the cause. Nevertheless, in February she raised $35 million. Obama, promptly reacting to this declaration, claimed that he raised even more money last month but failed to disclose the amount. This is classic Obama: just shove some words in our faces and expect us to kneel down before him.

Clinton is much more qualified to lead the country than Obama (of course, McCain is more qualified than the two smushed together, but that’s another kettle of fish.), and as we inch closer to the election, I hope that people will seriously begin to consider that the name they pull the lever for will be sitting in the White House representing our country, making the kinds of 3 a.m. calls Clinton portrays in her video. Sure, it’s all good and fun to tout “Obama for change!” or any of his other vacuous slogans. In fact, his only defense against alleged ignorance about national security is the numbers he has rallying behind him. “Sure, I don’t know anything, but look at all my fans!”

Obama is constantly applauded for his courage. No, real courage involves an actual proclamation of sorts, and I can only hope that Americans can come to grips with reality before blindly jumping on the bandwagon.