Because nothing much has been posted lately...

...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?

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.

Keith Olbermann takes down Hillary

Also, Ron Paul? Seriously? 100%?

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

On Hillary-bashing

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:

"Nuh uh, I'm more feminist than you."

Now this is a fight I'd actually like to see. There was an article in the NYTimes today that really caught my eye, "Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama."

I should preface this all, I suppose, by saying 'the College Democrats don't endorse candidates before the primaries, blah blah blah, Democrat Love, etc.' Besides, a lot of us are supporting different candidates at the moment, which I think is awesome, so It'd be pretty difficult for us to endorse someone anyway. I'm officially undecided, although I'm leaning towards certain candidates.

At any rate, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about one of the simultaneously most loved and hated candidates (or is that just how she's been framed?) in the field--Hillary Clinton.

Is she the 'women's candidate'?

Should a 'true feminist' vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?

Well, I hope everyone discusses amongst themselves, but for now, here is my two cents:

We've come a long way from the era where old, white men were our only option for president. Now we awesomely have a woman, a black man, and a Latino man running for president. And a mormon, if that excites you. Now this isn't the first time a woman or an African-American has run for president (as Obama would kindly remind you, Sen. Biden), and actually, I'm not sure if this is the first time we've had a Latino candidate (unless you count Matt Santos...and I do), but according to the MSM and pundits, this is the first time any of them have had a real shot at actually getting elected.

So, it's complicated. Do we vote for these candidates because we want a more diverse presidency? Or do we vote for them on their own merits? Luckily, the choice isn't hard...I think that every Democrat in the field has something to recommend them. However, to demonstrate 'just how far we've come' towards diversity, I think it's important that people don't just vote for say, Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman.

Hostages Taken in Hillary Clinton's NH Office

I assume you've all probably heard about this. All in all, this is pretty frightening stuff. If you want to keep updated, here is an article on the situation. I'm sure they will update the blog (NY Times' The Caucus) as the situation progresses.

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]