Linky links

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.

Media Bias?

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.

The path to equality

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.

Obama's speech on race

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.

Macho, macho (wo)man?

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...

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.

Yes We Can!

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.

Results! and a farewell to Dodd and Biden.

So, the returns are almost entirely in.

From the Iowa Democratic Party:

Senator Barack Obama : 37.55%
Senator John Edwards : 29.81%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.44%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.10%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.13%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1762 of 1781

On the Republican side, Huckabee is about 8 points ahead of Romney, who's around 10 in front of Thompson and McCain. So the Huckster pulled it out.

But after dismal showings, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have announced that they're dropping out. Biden will make a great foreign policy-oriented VP or else a Secretary of State, while Dodd has shown tremendous leadership in the senate and we'll see if he gets a leadership position there in the future.

All in all, it's a good start to primary season and should keep the news machines running till New Hampshire votes on Tuesday.

Op-ed

for those of you who don't read the nyt cover-to-cover (assuming i'm not the only one), this is an excellent op-ed piece by Frank Rich re: Huckabee, Obama, and all the candidates in between.

unlike my esteemed colleagues, i have no witty remarks to make or insightful analysis to give, i just wanted to give everyone the heads-up about an enjoyable read.

so ... enjoy :D

Hillary needs a horseshoe

Today's New York Times contained a lovely fluff piece on the rigors of the campaign trail and the toll it takes on presidential hopefuls' waistlines. In other words, besides eating out of vending machines, or not eating at all, poor Hillary and Barack have to scarf down fatty and strange local concoctions for fear of pissing off the locals. Ahh, the pettiness of local politics. People get pretty defensive about their hometowns (remember, I'm from Springfield, also known as the town that all it knows or cares to know about Blagojevich is that he still doesn't live there). All I'm saying is Hillary could sweep Springfield if she went down there and ate a horseshoe. They'd love her. What? Barack Obama's awesome announcement at the Old State Capitol? Psh, I don't see him eating a delicious pile of cheesy goodness. For those that have never dined on Springfield, Illinois' delicacy, a horseshoe is essentially an open-faced sandwich that consists of toasted bread, some sort of meat (usually hamburger, but buffalo chicken is surprisingly good), topped with fries and a cheese sauce. Pretty much a heart attack on a plate.

Yum. But in all seriousness, or at least as much seriousness as you can take from an article about food, I think this demonstrates a lot about the culture of the campaign trail. Photo opps, small talk, pretending to connect with the voters...it's all so fake, but it works, doesn't it? Part of me will always hope for a more genuine version of the political system we have now, but until then, the idiosyncracies of the current system are at least amusing.

Hillary wants to go to Mars.

(no word yet on whether she'll ask Dennis Kucinich to take her there in his UFO)


According to the WaPo today, "Clinton Favors Future Manned Spaceflight". Good to know. Why is this even an issue? Well, the article tells us that:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made clear that he is not enamored with NASA's effort to build a new spacecraft to take astronauts to the moon and beyond.

In a position paper on education unveiled in New Hampshire, Clinton's rival advocated delaying for five years the program to build the new multibillion-dollar Constellation spacecraft and using the savings to fund a variety of education initiatives.

Ah. While I'm a huge Obama fan on many many things, I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with delaying our manned spaceflight program (because it'd be pretty awesome to work for them, and that'd be easier if they're, you know, hiring), but I can see how it makes a great deal of sense. Contrary to what other people are saying, the Constellation Program isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of space exploration. For those unfamiliar with it,

The Constellation program was proposed by Bush in 2004 as a way to return Americans to space. His plan envisions the establishment of a settlement on the moon, in part to prepare for the lengthy voyage to Mars.

The plan, which is similar to one proposed by his father when he was president, was embraced by many in the space community as a worthy successor to the shuttle and space station, which are often described as expensive underachievers. Congress has generally supported plans for a new spacecraft, although Bush has not asked for additional money to pay for it, and some believe that NASA's many successful unmanned science missions will inevitably be shortchanged to pay for Constellation.

Let's set aside the subtle bias of the article. "Some believe" that this will affect the scientific mission of NASA. Right. Let's do a little math: you have a set number of dollars that's being split into science and manned spaceflight funding. You increase the amount of money you're putting into manned spaceflight without increasing the total amount of money available. Where's that money going to come from?

For those of you who guessed "science", you'd be right! It's that amazing?

Unfortunately, some republicans can't figure that out.

The Republican National Committee also criticized Obama. Spokesman Danny Diaz said in a statement: "It is ironic that Barack Obama's plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars."

Really. We're going to learn about stars by going to Mars? And while slashing funding for scientific stuff like, I don't know, the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's successor, or LISA, which would help us actually detect gravity waves? Wow. I love the republican way of seeing the world. Let's cut spending (and taxes!) and everything will be awesome.

So, basically, the Obama plan is to cut a bad program (but not, at this point, put more money into scientific research) for 5 years to pay for more education (which should give us many many more scientists). Hillary and the republicans want to cling to the good old days of the '60s--when the US saw spaceflight as a way of (eventually) beating the Russians, and the Federal Government was the only entity with the resources to do that.

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening now. The private sector is entirely capable of keeping the manned spaceflight alive during the 5 year wait for Constellation. Whether it's people shooting for the Ansari X Prize, or Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic or, my personal favorite, the people that want to build a Space Elevator (which would be totally totally freaking awesome. I swear. And it's doable), there's plenty of interest in the private sector that the US can survive a delay in their manned space program.

The only x factor here is China, who've been relentlessly pursuing a space program since Yang Liwei's Shenzhou V flight in late 2003. China's using spaceflight much the same way it was used in the cold war--to excite people and think the government is totally awesome. Yang got sent on a tour of the country after his flight--even stopping in Hong Kong to sing a duet with Jacky Chan (I am not making that up). If the US were to get involved in a new Space Race with China, it's not immediately obvious who would win. Obama's plan may hurt us if such a Space Race were to develop, but it's just as likely that a President Obama wouldn't be dragged into a race simply based on China's attempts at provoking the US. For the time being, the Obama plan doesn't seem to hurt any vital US interests in space, and has the added benefit of paying for an ambitious new education plan. [insert pun about Obama's policy being out of this world here]