The Washington Post ran an interesting article detailing the inner workings of Clinton’s campaign. Lots of drama. It’s long, but worth reading to the end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html
Check out these hilarious anaphora machines:
Here’s the one for Obama.
Here’s the one for Hillary. You can even add your own to the mix.
Personal favorites:
Barack Obama skated all the way from the beach just to see you.
Barack Obama took off when he heard you weren’t coming.
Barack Obama listened to your MP3.
Barack Obama parsed your error.
Barack Obama spent the afternoon setting up your router.
And a few from Hillary’s site:
Hillary wants you to add the Zombies application
Hillary killed HD-DVD
Hillary is a Duke fan
Hillary timed out
Hillary asked when your baby is due
Daily Koz outlines the cult of obama. Hilarious.
The Obama Prayer
posted by ‘internationaljock’
Our Obama, who art in Wisconsin,
Hallowed be thy hope.
Thy victory come, with votes you’ve won,
in Iowa as you have in Kansas.
Give us this day our “Yes, we can.”
And forgive us our hopefulness,
as we forgive those who hope against us.
And lead us not into intraparty squabbling
but deliver us from those who vote against us.
For thine is the party,
and the money,
and the organization,
for ever and ever.
O-men
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/18/04016/9401/874/458820
It’s refreshing to see the feminists rising above issues of gender. Crenshaw and Ensler report on the Huffington Post:
“Because we believe that feminism can be expressed by a broader range of choices than this “either/or” proposition entails, we again find ourselves compelled to say “no”–this time to a brand of feminism that betrays its inclusive and global commitments. We believe we stand in unity with many feminists who will say, “Not in Our Name” will this feminism be deployed.”
Yes, you read that correct. She even beat Romney for most donations from lobbyists and special interest groups. Read about it here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik
In other news, Obama has taken zero dollars from lobbyists, although he’s received around $86k from individuals at lobbying firms. Get out and vote!
The New York State chapter of the Nation Organization for Women had this to say in regards to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama . . .
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.
“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”
It seems clear enough that NOW advocates blindly following *any* female candidate regardless of qualifications. Feminists should vote for the best leader - and the most sympathetic to their agenda. With many prominent feminist cultural theorists speaking out about Hillary, and her willingness to play the part of the submissive, long-suffering wife, why is NOW so upset? No demographic should vote for a candidate simply because he or she is like them. Pick the best and then let others do the same without being so whiny when others don’t agree.
Since eight years as a first lady counts the same as eight years of executive, presidential experience, I say we all go to the polls and do a write-in for Laura Bush! She’s been a two-term first lady, just like Hillary. Ergo, she is just as qualified as Hillary. But, she is just now finishing up those eight years, so she has momentum already. Hillary may be ready to go “by day one”, but Laura Bush has already started! Her “day one” was seven years ago!
I’m sad to see that our country is full of such mindless morons. Lets hope Nevada doesn’t screw up what New Hampshire already did. I could defend my positions, but you might as well just read what’s in the news and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Thoroughly disgusting.
This was in a CNN story covering the democratic race -
“Pre-caucus polls in Nevada make it a close race among the three, an event spiced by a lawsuit filed by several Clinton supporters hoping to challenge the ground rules.
Their objective was to prevent several caucuses along the Las Vegas Strip, where thousands of Culinary Workers Union employees — many of them Hispanic or black — hold jobs.
The rules were approved in May, when Clinton was the overwhelming national front-runner in the race. But the union voted to endorse Obama last week, and the lawsuit followed.”
This is funny - especially after she criticized Iowa’s caucus system of disenfranchising blue-collar workers unable to take time off work to attend.
More here -
“The state teachers union, which hasn’t endorsed a candidate but whose members are among Mrs. Clinton’s core supporters, has asked a federal court to halt the casino caucuses because it gives casino workers greater voice in delegate selection. The court hasn’t yet heard the suit, but it already has created bad blood between the culinary union and the state’s elected Democrats, who have been largely quiet.
D. Taylor, the union’s secretary-treasurer, calls the suit “an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of union members,” who will be working on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. He and other Obama supporters point out that all the campaigns signed off on the plan months ago.”
Yikes
Not that Arianna Huffington is in anyway unbiased, but this is still worth a look. As the race gets dirty, it’s nice to have a record of things people are saying. You might be able to find something like this on Obama, but I haven’t seen it myself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html
I did my part in the Iowa caucuses. Now it’s up to South Carolina to get out there and vote Obama.
Rogue cultural critic and postfeminist Camille Paglia has some interesting perspectives on Hillary Clinton. It’s a quick read and worth your time.
Incidentally, Steve of “Steve’s Stuff”, author of an unpopular, rarely read CRATEL blog, endorses Obama. As if anyone cared.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/
Gennet on HuffPo raises some interesting points . . .
On average, in 2003 roughly 11 percent of all pregnant women in the US smoked during their pregnancy and in some states, the numbers soared to over 26 percent (way to go West Virginia!). Breaking down the figures, we see large differences in ethnic, economic and educational statistics . . .”
Abortion is problematic either way, but I can confidently state my opinion that any mother who refuses to give up tobacco or alcohol during her pregnancy is unbelievably selfish.
I’m always amused and slightly disturbed when a celebrity takes it upon themselves to advise me on politics. When you think about it, these tend to be amongst the least educated and probably the least in touch with reality. Lets take actors as an example. If they even go to college, it’s for acting. Having gone through an arts program myself, I know that one must really seek out critical thought if so desired because most public institutions sure aren’t going to force it on you. The majority of popular entertainers have little or no college experience. Not that a college degree guarantees the ability to think critically, but it does imply academic experience, which is typically the path to knowledge and rational thought. Of course there are a few exceptions such as James Woods who studied at MIT or David Duchovny who has a masters in English lit from Yale. These are rare cases and I have yet to hear Duchovny step up and tell me who to vote for. I might consider his opinion if he did - I’m sure he’d have a good reason for it.
Musicians are another example. I have no idea why I should listen to the political views of a trio of guys that wrote “Fight for your right to party”. The Beastie Boys write some fun music, but their popularity in no way says anything about their knowledge of things other than beer, bongs, and boners. I think it’s hilarious that so many magazines mistakenly think I care what they have to say.
It’s the same with Sean Combs (aka - Puff Daddy - aka - P Diddy - aka - Diddy - aka - something else by now I’m sure). He didn’t necessarily force his opinion on me (although the “get Bush out of office” message was clear enough), but he did tell me to “Vote or Die”. It was great to see such important world figures as Mariah Carey and 50 Cent (aka - Fiddy) attempt to educate youth on the power and importance of voting.
One could argue that it’s admirable for these celebrities to use their access to a large public forum to raise awareness about certain issues. Sometimes this is probably true, but it’s not like they have the gift of discernment. They voice support for whatever they’re told to. Very few go hunting for causes to support. Tim Robins is an exception - he has a gift for showing up at every protest staged anywhere.
One excellent example of a celebrity supporting a worthless cause is Kevin Federline showing up to speak at a protest to keep the penny in circulation. He says of his appearance, “I ain’t down with the metric system, yo. That’s why I pimped so hard to get the penny back”. I doubt he had any idea the penny was in jeopardy, but I’m sure his manager thought it would be a good idea for him to have an opinion on something and this was the fastest, easiest way for him to get his opinion out there. (random digression) Interestingly, during his widely publicized divorce settlement he told a British new source that he was demanding “50 million dollars or, like 70 million pounds.” Apparently the dollar is doing rather well according to K Fed.
My point is not to rip on celebrities, KFed notwithstanding, but to point out how completely stupid it is that they have such a prominent political voice. The scary thing is, young people DO listen to their opinions when they should be listening to others. I’m not arguing that we listen to the intellectuals either. If everybody followed Chomsky’s ideology, America would be dead and we’d be in anarchy right now. The intellectuals always posit great utopian ideas, but they never work because the world is not perfect, nor is it capable of becoming perfect at any time.
One could also argue that since the 60s, art has become increasingly political as seen in the music of Bob Dylan and others. This is a whole other debate. Art is one thing - popular recording “artists” are completely different. Where Dylan may have spoken for a generation, there’s no way that Diddy is speaking for me. Same for the Dixie Chicks. Actually, same for anyone who has appeared naked on the cover of a magazine.
What we really need are some rational, critical thinkers to help us understand issues - preferably free from party politics, but I’ll take what I can get. We need a balance between accessibility and intelligence. Maybe Jon Stewart is a good example. He seems to know what he’s talking about most of the time and he’s wise enough to point out the idiots in *both* parties. In the meantime, I guess it have to do the leg work and educate ourselves. That’s actually not such a bad idea. Thinking for yourself? nah - it would never work!
Recent Comments