Giving 'Smart Ass' a Whole New Meaning

This is hilarious

2008-06-21T01:39:00.001-05:00

Just thought I'd share something I saw on the Washington Post online about likely McCain VP pick Tim Pawlenty:

And, Pawlenty has already shown signs that he may not be ready for prime time. To wit: In a radio interview last month with a local station, Pawlenty said of his wife: "She loves football, she'll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say: Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me." That's not the typical tone of a vice presidential candidate.

I literally laughed out loud. The full article is at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/the_case_against_tim_pawlenty.html?nav=rss_blog

Mo' money, mo' problems?

2008-06-20T21:21:00.004-05:00

As you all may have heard, Obama has decided to forgo public funding. There is a bunch of hoopla over this, of course, because having been spoonfed all optimism and ideals for the past several months--as true and necessary as these feelings may have been--it is probably shocking for some people to see Obama take the pragmatic route. I mean, the guy raked in a cool 21.9 mil in May alone. Clearly, he has got the fundraising thing down. Anymore, I hear from Obama more than I hear from my parents.

As a student of rhetoric, I feel obliged to point out Obama's new emphasis on the fact that public funding was "tax payer money." Niiiiiiice. Obama has himself some excellent communication folks. Everyone knows 'tax payer money' is a cue in voters' heads for 'my money.' And although some may support such a system of public funding pools for all candidates, this is still America--the land o' capitalism, the plethora of buying choices. Thus, by framing it as 'tax payer money' (which it is, but it hasn't always been framed that way), people can justify Obama's switch with reference to the ability to choose what your money is supporting.

I don't know if this is what the Obama campaign is going for, but that line of thought in the hypothetical voter's mind is flawed. We don't get to choose what our tax dollars support for nearly anything else. Hell, if so, I'd be like Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Stranger Than Fiction," getting audited by Will Ferrell for not paying the part of my taxes that paid for the war.

In other news, Move On closes down its 527 because Obama wanted them too. See? He is trying to play a clean game. He just needs more money to get his message out there.

Thoughts?

Linky links

2008-06-04T13:25:00.002-05:00

So...we've been pretty much downright awful about updating the blog. Seriously. And since I'm sitting at the voter registration drive, I figured I'd pass along two links for procrastination.

First, isbarackobamamuslim.com seeks to answer one question: is Barack Obama Muslim? Hint: you can get the same answer by going to isitchristmas.com on any day but December 25.

Second, the wonderful thingsyoungerthanmccain.com compiles a list of things younger than John McCain, including Zip Codes, Nachos and Alaska.

Finally, not a link, but how bad was John McCain's speech last night? Seriously. You can watch it at thingsyoungerthanmccain or just look at the summary:

McCain: I'm not bush. The Surge is Working. I'm ooooooooollllddd[cut]
Wolf Blitzer: We're interrupting McCain to bring you this...CNN projects that Barack Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

Edwards joins "the movement"

2008-05-15T00:10:00.003-05:00

Obama supporter that I am, it still creeps me out when people refer to his campaign as "the movement." This is not the 60s. Much as our generation might need a "movement," can we not refer to it as that please? Thanks.

Anyway, so, John Edwards adds his support for Barack. Exciting, but I don't really see this as a surprise, as I saw their campaigns as identical, but I guess I thought he might hold out and not endorse anyone. Maybe he's hoping for a VP slot, but that would be a bad move on Obama's part--much as I love Edwards. As I said, Obama/Edwards=same person, maybe some different rhetorical emphases, but roughly the same base. I myself flip-flopped around from candidate to candidate in the early stages (when I wasn't being a hippie radical and supporting Kucinich).

What are everyone's thoughts about this? All in all, it seems like things are tilting toward Obama in the public mind now. I mean, delegate counts aside, we are talking about how people think. This might have put a damper on Hillary's West Virginia win.

what actually counts

2008-05-06T09:19:00.001-05:00

Only one vote really matters: the 50-something conservative registered democrat who's not independent but not a part of the base who skipped college so they could go straight into teaching rather than become a casino worker, who votes on domestic issues, but not in a primary or caucus in a big state that doesn't border Illinois that has elected female governors and members of congress but didn't vote republican in 2004 and won't vote republican in 2008 and didn't vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984 or 1988 during an all day vote except during the hours of 7 and 7:15pm. And they don't object to their vote being overruled by superdelegates.

a political reprieve

2008-05-01T14:41:00.002-05:00

With so much controversy in the news lately I thought this website would be a fun addition. It is like LOLcats but with politics. Seriously, take a look. HILARIOUS.

:D

plus, there's always a bit of truth in a joke. spot the truth in these "Political LOLz".

http://punditkitchen.com/

Because nothing much has been posted lately...

2008-05-01T09:01:00.001-05:00

...I figured I should at least throw something on. More later after midterm hell. But enjoy:

Have I mentioned that some times the media is stupid?

Media Bias?

2008-04-23T11:15:00.004-05:00

Obama may have been the media darling for a while--I'm willing to concede that he was in a number of different places/networks/etc. But the PA debate last week should have you question how sound that was, granted that ABC was clearly pretty awful in just about every imaginable way. But even so, whether you think the debate was biased or not, how can you even remotely endorse that question about patriotism? That was a cheap trick. I wonder if Karl Rove wrote the question for George Stephanopolous.

However, I saw an article headline in the NYT today. "Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania." Never mind that polls showed him losing there by twenty points only four weeks ago; never mind that he lost by slightly less than ten points; never mind that one good Medill friend tells me that only assholes use adverbs in headlines. What's going to be the headline after North Carolina? "Obama Crushes Clinton in the Tar Heel State?" or "Obama Is New Southern Belle?" No. I'd imagine it will be something like, "Obama Gets Expected Win in North Carolina"--because he's been ahead there forever.

If I were Hillary Clinton's strategist--you know, the one who isn't on the sly promoting sovereign trade deals--I'd be scared, more than anything. She still hasn't come close to explaining the fundraising gap, Barack Obama is ahead by ten points or more nationally, he beats McCain in most head-to-head (granted, these are soft at best), and he eroded ten percent of her supporters in PA. This is hardly cause for victory.

However, she needs to give the speech about how rosy everything is--that she's a fighter, etc. (On another note, it feels like each one of her speeches can be categorized by words she uses too often: we have "experience" speeches, the "fighter" speeches, the "comeback" speeches.) Senator Clinton needs a photo-op with balloons and streamers to prove that she's still relevant in the race, and that she can pitch herself to superdelegates, and all will be righted again. Never mind that she's still trailing substantially in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

And the New York Times will be there to cover it all.

Why McCain is So Beatable

2008-04-22T11:55:00.002-05:00

I just came across a great opinion piece in the Washington Post talking about why McCain is such a flawed candidate, and that right now the only thing that is helping him is the Democratic primary and the candidates themselves (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102552.html). McCain has jokingly stated that he isn't an economic expert, which manifests itself in his belief that tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting spending on everything but the military will help the economy and the average joe. Not true. Some say that McCain is strong on foreign policy, but for some reason I think that his position on the Iraq war and on Iran will undercut that somewhat. Well, even if he's weak on issues, he is a war hero, right? The last time a war hero won was in 1953, and that time it was an actual war hero: Eisenhower, who won WWII. McCain's winning qualities also include a fiery temper, which the Dems will hopefully coax out, or will rear its ugly head sometime during the campaign, and a less than comfy relationship with the right-wing evangelical base. Good luck, buddy. You're gonna need it.

When I was your age...

2008-04-19T15:13:00.003-05:00

Aww, this article reminds me of my days campaigning for Bill Clinton as a fourth grader for the class straw poll. However, I was up against a lot. Never underestimate comic appeal of a diminutive man to a bunch of giddy school children (Ross Perot won in a landslide).

After reading the article from the NYtimes about school children in Pennsylvania and their classroom campaigns, I can't help but feel that the youth of today have so much more sophistication than we did as kids. While involvement and interest is great - beyond great - I have to wonder about at what cost this heightened access to information comes without the lens of experience. Will grade schoolers that can jump on CNN.com buy everything they read word for word? Is it a bad thing if they do? Should their teachers and parents give them guidance in how to interpret the information? Would that be worse? Now I'm starting to sound old, talking about young whippersnappers. Oh well, I suppose as long as they don't let the kiddies watch The O'Reilly Factor, it can't be too bad.

Here are some gems from the article:

“I remember something I learned about Hillary,” Elizabeth told her
classmates. “It’s not like a marriage between Hillary and Bill. It’s more
like an agreement. She helps him. He helps her.”
Asked where she had gleaned this information about Mrs. Clinton, from New York, and her husband, the former president, she said, “I saw it on AOL.com.”
. . .

But to their teachers, the children’s preferences were less important than
their embrace of politics.
“I feel better about our future,” said Mrs. Stefano, 62. “I’m getting to the point where I’m going to need these kids to take care of me. This gives me hope.”

The path to equality

2008-04-10T21:41:00.004-05:00

I came across an article that actually fits in perfectly with our discussion of civil rights and politics we had at the last meeting. Gary Younge wrote a great op-ed in The Nation about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama's candidacy. I know a lot has been said about that, but this is a really fresh take, and makes a really important point. Younge notes:

"There can be no progressive coalition in this country that does not include black men and white women. But that coalition must be based on antiracism and antisexism. Feminism that does not embrace antiracism, like antiracism that does not embrace feminism, is little more than a campaign for sectional interests masquerading as a struggle for equality. It seeks not an end to inequity but just a different division of the spoils."

If you get a chance, check out the article. It's well worth the read.

What it means to be patriotic...

2008-04-08T10:24:00.002-05:00

There's been a lot of talk in the news lately about patriotism. As the election draws nearer every day, candidates are expected to increase their song and dance of flag-waving and kissing babies (although to be honest, I've never witnessed a candidate do either one of these things...but google images assures me that this does actually occur).

Obama has gotten the most flak about patriotism. Emails about him being a terrorist. Observations that he did not put his hand over his heart during the pledge of alliegence (he alledges it was actually during the singing of the national anthem). Admitting to not wearing a flag lapel pin!!

What is this country coming to?!?!

So USA Today pens an article about how Obama is "seeking to stress his patriotism" in his latest speeches.

From the article: "Obama said he thinks true patriotism is demonstrated by a person's actions, not his lapel." I might add, and true patriotism is not just slapping a sticker on the back of your car.

I'm glad that Obama is putting forward a Democratic version of patriotism, one that actually focuses on actions for one's country, unlike the actions the Republicans just take for themselves and call it patriotic. Wearing a flag lapel pin to up their own image instead of working to get troops out of harm's way. Putting "support our troops" stickers on the backs of their cars, but irresponsibly and dangerously continuing involvement in Iraq.

So the Republicans take patriotism to be all about themselves, or the Id. So I'd have to say, that's not patriotic, that would be...id-iotic.

(Ok that was a stretch :P )

King, 2008 and beyond

2008-04-06T14:09:00.002-05:00

This article from the LA Times gives a really good analysis on how MLK's speeches post-1965 mirror some of the sermons given by Jeremiah Wright. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dyson4apr04,0,1840793.story

This one talks about how it's the progressive movement behind Obama that has the real promise of change, not Obama himself, and that the movement must continue after November. http://www.progressive.org/mp_ransby040308 -- I had some trouble using that link today, so I also pasted the article below if you can't reach it there.

We haven't seen this many students actively engage in the political process in 40 years. From now through the fall, we need to focus on continuing to involve students in the Democratic Party; increasing political activism on campus and recruiting tons of students to volunteer for Democrats. As students, we can have a huge impact helping take back the White House and electing more Democratic members of Congress from Illinois.

But as the Hayden article and Ransby note, the real work will begin after November. After a hard-fought campaign, most volunteers will be exhausted. In late November and December student leaders need to plan for 2009 while letting most activists rest. Starting in January 2009 there needs to be a huge wave of national campus activism on tons of progressive issues.

Student Democrats and progressive student activists as a whole talk a lot about how to build a national progressive student movement. After Hurricane Katrina, people looked to the mishandling of the rebuilding efforts as something that would finally wake people up and get them involved. People said the same thing about the War in Iraq, and about the Jena 6. Where progressive leaders failed to capitalize on those issues, Obama has succeeded -- over a million people have donated to his campaign and tens of thousands are volunteering. Regardless of whether you support Obama or Hillary, or what you see as the reason for this phenomena, this is a golden opportunity for progressives and students to really create a huge wave of activism that will reengage students across the country in politics and help bring about significant social change.

Reflections on King, Candidates and Movements

By Barbara Ransby, April 3, 2008
<http://www.progressive.org/mp_ransby040308>

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr., we would do well to remember an
observation by the civil-rights organizer Ella Baker:
"Martin didn't make the movement, the movement made
Martin."

The same can be said of both Sens. Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. Veteran organizers from around the
country have lent their experience, wisdom and passion
to both of these campaigns, and a history of struggle
for civil rights and women's rights has catapulted them
forward.

Interestingly enough, both candidates lay claim to the
mantle of the civil-rights movement.

Clinton, the admitted Goldwater girl, went to Selma and
recalled the impact of hearing King speak in 1963 in
Chicago as a transformative moment.

In January, on Martin Luther King Day, she also stood in
the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church and told her
audience that it was she who was the daughter and
beneficiary of the movement's victories. She offered her
own telling analysis of what she viewed as the linchpin
of victory for the civil-rights movement: It was having
a president willing to put into law the demands of a
mass movement led by King.

Obama laid claim to the inheritance of the civil-rights
movement by deeming the freedom fighters of the 1960s as
the "Moses Generation" that led black people out of
slavery. That makes Obama and his peers the "Joshua
Generation."

At one debate, the candidates were asked why Martin
Luther King would endorse them. Obama's answer was also
telling and quite true.

"I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us," Obama
said. "I think what he would call upon the American
people to do is to hold us accountable." And he added:
"I believe change does not happen from the top down. It
happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that."

We forget that lesson at our peril.

Many Americans are so hungry for an end to the
horrendous Bush administration that like a love-starved
person they view their new prospect through rose-colored
glasses.

The lesson from King's life is that King was not the
answer. As Obama often says in his speeches, "We are the
leaders we have been waiting for." Nothing could be more
to the point.

Barack Obama won't save us.

Hillary Clinton won't save us.

Through our own determined efforts, we have to save
ourselves.

That process will continue well beyond November 2008 no
matter who is in the White House come January.

Barbara Ransby is an associate professor in the
department of African American Studies and History at
the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is the author
of the award-winning biography, "Ella Baker and the
Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision."
She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

Two articles worth reading

2008-03-31T14:04:00.004-05:00

Hope everyone had a good break! These two articles from The Nation were really awesome. The first is an op-ed supporting Obama written by four big-name progressive leaders: Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Danny Glover and Barbara Ehrenreich. They talk about how the huge grassroots movement that has sprung up in support of Obama is very promising for progressives as a whole.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/hayden_et_al

The second is Howard Zinn's reasoning why Democrats should look to FDR and offer a huge New Deal-like platform in the 2008 elections.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/zinn

Obama's speech on race

2008-03-18T15:28:00.002-05:00

I know it's exam week, and people have things to study for, but if you're done or procrastinating, you need to watch and/or read Obama's speech on race from earlier today.

It's awesome. Beautiful. Brilliant. Etc. I'm very glad I watched it instead of studying for my contemp african worlds final, because I'm pretty sure it'll stick with me a lot more than the stuff from that class.

The only real issue is that it's like 37 minutes long. But if you've got time, watch it.

Keith Olbermann takes down Hillary

2008-03-12T23:31:00.001-05:00

Also, Ron Paul? Seriously? 100%?

Obama article in NYT

2008-03-08T21:49:00.001-06:00

Obama in Senate: Star Power, minor role

Great NYT article about Obama's time in the Senate so far... the article balances the positive and negative, but reinforces my doubts about the junior senator. Enjoy!

Why I'm a Democrat

2008-02-25T18:15:00.003-06:00

At some point it's healthy to have a crisis of faith. I couldn't have imagined that I would have had so many, but they keep up stronger, priming us for the intellectual oddities of life and the contradictions so prevalent in it.

Recently, I fought my way out of one. For a while, I've found it hard not to look at the Democratic Party as a motley mob of insipid show-horses, jockeying to put their best faces forward rather than themselves or the policy interests that the party represents. The intrinsic mediocrity and even outright revulsion characteristic of people like Rod "Blago" Blagojevich, Jim McDermott, and so, so, so many others wears on me. I can't stand that I share a platform with these people--these people that, despite even their accomplishments, have got it so terribly and awfully wrong.

A crisis of faith is a sort of latent but potent force--you only start to notice when the problems have become so obvious to you that you can no longer avoid the problems that your own rationality and better self is now posing to the baser elements of your instincts. I was very comfortable being a liberal (that was another crisis entirely), and I knew that theoretically, the positions should match up. But I still didn't buy it--even the highs of my political life weren't enough to assuage me: standing seventy feet away from Barack Obama when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, shaking Ted Kennedy's hand surrounded by evidence of his many, many, many accomplishments everywhere, the come-from-behind, anti-establishment victory of the rightful now governor of Massachusetts.

Enter, Barbara Jordan. If you don't know much about her, she's an example worth knowing and loving. She was a Congresswoman from Texas who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1976. She truly was a lion of the Democratic Party, and her address in 1976 is generally remembered as one of the best speeches in American history. But for me, reading it and re-reading it, it's a manifesto for Democratic beliefs. Not policy, mind you--the more philosophical core beliefs that define how Democrats think and act.

Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief -- This is a belief that each American, regardless of background, has equal standing in the public forum -- all of us. Because -- Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.

Here we have some justification of just why I have to share a party with Blago. It really is the "catch-all" party. We cannot have party discipline, because we encourage freedom of thought. We encourage the right to speak out even when the discouragement is dissuasive.

We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances, when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed. We believe that.

Here again we see that we can never, never be satisfied with the American Dream. It can always be better--we can always be better, as individuals and a citizenry.

And now -- now we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans. Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders, and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work -- wants; to satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces -- that we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual; each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

I believe in America of higher ideals, one of continuous improvement. It's never perfect, but surely we can all agree that with effort and the agreed goal of making America the best society for its citizens, we're sure to be the envy of the world, and nation legendary in history.

Speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordan1976dnc.html

Macho, macho (wo)man?

2008-02-24T12:58:00.003-06:00

We're pretty much all political feminists: we believe in the equal rights of women before the law. You won't find anyone worth a damn who thinks otherwise.

Having grown up to a mother who always asserted, and vigorously, that women were not at all intrinsically different from men, I think I overlooked the more moderate way of looking at things. There are inherent differences between men and women. These differences have nothing to do with the law and equality in society, and they don't mean that we can't all be friends.

However, are these differences so concrete that they impact leadership style? Is Hillary Clinton not true to women when she advocates a leadership and campaign style that is considered more obstinately... male?

So I don't know what to think of this talk I hear of Hillary Clinton wanting to be "one of the guys." I really don't know that I buy any of this, but I was curious on your thoughts about this column that Maureen Dowd wrote the other day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=4b989bb5febb28a6&ei=5087%0A

for all the obama kids baracking and rolling...

2008-02-20T13:06:00.002-06:00

so here is the better quality, bigger version of "Yes We Can" by Will.I.Am

http://www.dipdive.com/

but the even cooler part: this link is the video made with thousands of images that people have uploaded who support obama

http://www.hopeactchange.com/

check it.

Darfur and the Olympics

2008-02-13T09:34:00.001-06:00

Steven Spielberg is boycotting the Olympics.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-olympics-china-darfur.html

Will this influence others?
Should the U.S. boycott the Olympics or is there a better way to influence China about Darfur?

On Hillary-bashing

2008-02-12T22:24:00.010-06:00

At the last college dems meeting, despite my complete lack of technical skillz (sorry again everyone), we managed to discuss issues of media bias in this, as well as past, campaigns. The meeting ended on a discussion of Hillary Clinton's treatment by the news media. Some of us, myself included, argued that Clinton has faced a lot of challenges and discrimination, perhaps surprisingly to some, because she is a woman. Issues brought up were the whole 'cleavage' debacle, talk about her wrinkles, wardrobe, questions about if she's had plastic surgery, criticisms of her voice, demeanor, etc. that I believe frankly wouldn't be issues of discussion if she were a man. Some people at the meeting opposed these assertions.

However, it seems that two Hillary-supporting NYTimes columnists have raised the same concerns about the venom being directed at Hillary Clinton. Stanley Fish and Paul Krugman both wrote columns/blog posts decrying the treatment of their favored candidate. I agree wholeheartedly with both columnists that over-the-top Hillary-hating is ridiculous and absurd.

An important distinction must be made, however, that Fish and Krugman, for their devotion to Hillary, I suppose, fail to make. Both Fish and Krugman seem to imply that there can be no legitimate criticism of Senator Clinton and that supporters of Senator Obama are just suckers for fancy language, and ignorant of the 'dangers of inexperience.' Here I depart from their assessment and take offense.

While it may be easier for Krugman and Fish to paint all those that oppose Hillary with a broad brush, it is also intellectually dishonest and ethically questionable for columnists of their reach and power. It may astonish Krugman and Fish, but it is possible to hold legitimate reasons for disliking Hillary Clinton. Personally, her foreign policy plan and support of healthcare mandates does it for me (not to mention her comment that 'there are certain things presidential candidates cannot say when they are running for office'). See? I accomplished that without any hate or venom! Furthermore, there are many of us that don't just blindly support Senator Obama, but have chosen to support him because we believe his policies and qualifications will serve the country better. I join Krugman and Fish in asking Americans to join in this rational, hate-free discourse, but in making this call, the columnists would do better to avoid the blatant generalizations they so decry in their opposition.

Also, because this post was so serious, I feel the need to lighten it up. Enjoy these blasts from the past:

McCain 08: Like Hope, But Different

2008-02-11T16:22:00.000-06:00

Romney Out? Excuse me while I go cry in the closet

2008-02-07T14:37:00.000-06:00

I wouldn't have decided to rant on the blog about this, but Romney's given reason for "suspending his campaign," that "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror" pissed me off. I get it, all Democrats want terrorists to attack America. That's why Bill Clinton prevented countless terrorist attacks and tried to set up meetings with President Bush about the threat of Al Qaeda. That's why congressional democrats actually wanted to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, which the Republicans were loath to do. And that's why we want to end a war that's creating terrorists far faster than it's eliminating them. How about giving us the real reason you bowed out, Mitt? Could it have anything to do with the fact that you were a horrible Governor, and that you're suddenly pro-life and anti-national health care now that you want conservatives to like you? Or what about that every time you open your mouth, people think about what a phony, scripted politician you are. Face it, Mitt, that's what everyone is thinking.

Yes We Can!

2008-02-03T11:21:00.000-06:00

Yes We Can...the music video:

Note: Northwestern University College Democrats do not endorse, advocate or promote any political candidate.

Illinois and 21 other states vote on Tuesday. If you're registered to vote, go and vote (especially those of you in Evanston Ward 1 Precinct 6 (Parkes Hall), where the nice people at the county clerk's office informed me this morning that I'll be hanging out all day). If you're not registered, do something to support a candidate or tell people to vote.