Clinton, Obama, and Political T-Shirts

Like Harrogate, I'm intrigued by the political t-shirt, and while I can't see myself purchasing one (that would be making my choice of candidate a little too public for me), I have been doing a little shopping. After a quick search at a popular on-line t-shirt site, I am horrified (yes, that is right--horrified) at some of the t-shirts out there. I was so horrified, in fact, that I had to keep looking to see if I could find one about Obama that was equally horrifying as all of the ones about Clinton. Here are a few of the most horrifying. Oh, and lest Solon accuse me of limiting people's right to free speech, I want to make it clear that I am not horrified that such t-shirts exists; I am horrified by the inflammatory rhetoric and speech that is behind these t-shirts. (*Note: for some reason I can't upload the most horrifying; go to cafepress.com, and you can find them simply by searching for Hillary Clinton. Interestingly enough the negative Hillary shirts show up on the first page, but if you search for Barack Obama you don't see a negative shirt until the 10th or 11th page.)

So I actually think this one is fairly innocuous.

There is an entire line of shirts calling Hillary the devil and the anti-Christ.

I find the use of Rosie the Riveter particularly troubling--can't we leave this image of female strength alone?
Here is another image of Hillary as the devil. And the really horrifying ones read: "If only Hillary had married OJ instead"; "Just Remember, Even Bill Didn't Want Her"; and "Bros before Hos" with an image of Obama above an image of Clinton. And to be fair there are a few horrific anti-Obama shirts out there, most of which play on his supposed Muslim connection. The most horrifying in my mind has an image of Obama's face superimposed over an image of Osama Bin Laden and reads "Osama Obama." I find all of these particularly troubling because the American public keeps calling for an end to "negative campaigning." What is this, if not negative?

Harrogate Goes on The Record : A Voting Narrative Wherein the Lovely Mrs. Harrogate, and Project Runway, Factor Prominently

Last week on Project Runway when the loathesome Tim Gunn visited (the now Aufed) Chris, one of "Sissybear's" friends was sporting a tee shirt proclaiming, "I'm hot for Hillary." Mrs. Harrogate was delighted, and given the Harrogate household's plethora of disposable income, will likely be purchasing one of these tee-shirts in the near-distant future.

Harrogate, too, went on the record today as "hot for Hillary." For those interested in a ground-level snapshot of Primary Day in South Central Texas Town, this one's for ye.

On the way to his precinct, about a mile away from it actually, Harrogate passed a large roadside gathering of jubilant Mexican-American men and women sporting Clinton banners and soliciting drivers to Honk for Hillary. As Harrogate told Mrs. Harrogate on the phone, this spectacle was interesting to behold after listening for weeks to television pundits talk up Clinton's strength with that demographic. There it was in the flesh, as it were.

At the actual polling site, there were no people celebrating Hillary Clinton. There were small gatherings of Obama partisans, as well as Ron Paul partisans. An Obama guy approached Harrogate and handed him an Obama bumper-sticker as well as a pamphlet. Harrogate cheerfully accepted both. Obama guy asked, are you voting for Obama? Harrogate replieth no, but Harrogate hereby accepts these signifiers, the bumper sticker to be displayed in case Obama wins the nomination. Obama guy laughed good-naturedly,and the two interlocutors take a moment to ventilate themselves about the importance of Republicans losing.

Harrogate proceeded to go inside and get himself on the record as "Hot for Hillary." Afterwards, he logged a complaint to a poll worker about the caucuses. We have a small child, Harrogate whined. Caucusing from 7:15-9:15 is difficult stuff. The poll worker understood, she herself has a small child and will not be attending the caucus, though her husband will.

But then, on returning home, Harrogate and Mrs. Harrogate had a telephone conversation in which they decided they will caucus anyway. It's once every blue moon, they reasoned, and besides, word is if you get there early, you can sign in your choice, and get out of there before the little one gets too cranky about Democracy getting in the way of "Nigh-Nigh" time. So, little Harrogate will make an official appearance at a red-blooded American caucus!

So, solon will get his much-coveted frontline reportage of what happens at the caucus, perhaps from Mrs. Harrogate.

Eyes of Texas are upon you..

Good morning Texas. Happy Voting Day!!! Here are a few quick hits:

Senator Clinton appeared on The Daily Show last night and did well. She pushed the big state argument, noted that primaries normally continue into June, and state we should let the people vote. She also stated she would like a bi-partisan cabinet and called for unity. Hmmmmm.

Also, Senator Clinton learns the language of empowerment, finally. Her new slogan in Ohio, "Who would you hire?" which plays to her experience and her economic message. She also shows she can hear the people. While I don't agree with mixing business metaphors with politics-- I also hate it in education and cringe when students say they are consumers-- at least Senator Clinton learned to focus on the moment and displayed that she may be able to develop a movement.

At Slate, Christopher Hitchens laments the decline of our political language.

According to TNR: The key numbers for tonight-213 and 52. 213 is the number of delegates Senator Clinton needs tonight and 52 is the delegate advantage that she needs to win to catch up. According to The New Republic, Senator Clinton needs to win over 57% of the delegates in every contest to catch up.

Enjoy the day!!!

Paying Back Phish and Barack Obama for an Earlier Post

Recently Harrogate compared his experience with Barack Obama to his past experience with Phish. Throughout the 90s, Harrogate avoided listening to Phish because the fans got on his nerves, you couldn't get them to talk about most other music, all they were interested in doing was coming up with a way of getting on board the next Phish tour.

And the Rhetoric these fans deployed, you'd have thought Phish invented not just Rock N' Roll, not just the concept of the Jam Band, not just Psychedelic Rock. No, you'd have thought they invented Music itself. More, they invented Art. Lo, like John Cusack's character in Being John Malkovich, their Art "raised issues."

As Harrogate said, it tended to get on one's nerves, to make one throw up in one's mouth, a little bit.

But time went by and Harrogate, on Pete's Couch and on the sly as it were, made time to listen to the band, and he distinctly enjoyed it. And still does.

Here is a wonderful performance by Phish, of one of the Beatles' greatest songs, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." Actually, this post is Poetically Profound, for it also tethers into the tensions between plagiarism, channeling, and tribute, all of which has been addressed by the Board Members of the Rhetorical Situation.

Phish does not plagiarize "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," but they sure as hell do it justice.

Enjoy, Readers. Enjoy.

All Quiet on the Central Texas Front

Tomorrow is the day that voters in Rhode Island and Vermont will choose the Democratic Nominee for President. Oh, and voters in Ohio and Texas may have some say in the matter as well though most people are quite unsure of how the vote in Texas will go tomorrow. The Texas Observer has a "How To" guide on the caucus portion of the Texas vote. It seems that it involves voting once, going home & drinking, then returning to a caucus site, a dodgeball tournament, followed by a two-step competition, and then a final round consisting of a Rochambeau tournament.

By the way, if anyone caucuses tomorrow night, please post your observations and comments about the process. I would love to be there for the caucus portion.

MSNBC is billing tomorrow as the Second Super Tuesday. However, what is more interesting is that during almost every commercial break FOX has been running commercials on MSNBC for its own election coverage tomorrow night.

To review: here is what we know about the Democratic campaign.
According to MSNBC, the delegate count is 1,194 - 1,037. CNN posits that the delegate count is 1,378 to 1,269. Senator Obama has 1,184 pledged delegates and 194 Super Delegates; Senator Clinton has 1,031 pledged delegates and 231 Super Delegates. The New York Times has the count as Senator Obama 1,303.5 and Senator Clinton 1,212.

Including Super Delegates, there are 444 delegates at stake tomorrow though some of the Super Delegates have committed their vote. On March 8th, 18 delegates will be available in the all important Wyoming caucus. On March 11th, Mississippi will hold its primary with 40 total delegates available. Based on demographics and previous support, Senator Obama is expected to win both Wyoming and Mississippi.

After March 11th, there will only be seven more contests with 693 delegates available and, unless one candidate drops or or suspends his or her campaign, neither will reach the magic number without some help from Super Delegates. If both candidates stay in the race, both candidates will need more help from the Super Delegates. It is also important to note that Senator Clinton needs over 65% of the delegates in the remaining states just to catch up with Senator Obama. This includes everything from Rhode Island tomorrow to Puerto Rico on June 7th.

Tomorrow night will most likely be a split in terms of delegates. Here are the likely scenarios: Senator Clinton will win Rhode Island and Senator Obama will win Vermont, giving Senator Obama a slight advantage in delegates (5 at the most). As for Texas and Ohio, it is very unclear. A storm moving through Ohio may decrease some voter turnout or people will risk it because of their passion. In Texas, Obama has a slight advantage because African American districts will give him more delegates than the Latino districts because the delegate count is based on how the Texas state districts voted in the 2004 Presidential Election. Though President Clinton may be ahead in the popular vote because of a high Latino turnout, the delegate count in the primary will be close and it will not give either candidate an advantage.

As for the caucus, plan for chaos. Or maybe a riot. A report from The New Republic is not promising as some caucus sites are at senior activity centers that have only 35 parking spots and have scheduled bridge and ballroom dancing when the caucus will take place. I think dodgeball would be a better choice.

It is believed that no matter who wins the primary portion of Texas, Senator Obama will win the caucus. This makes sense because of Senator Obama's ground game. But this means that Texas will be a wash, leaving Ohio as a small or moderate win for Senator Clinton.

A best case scenario for Senator Clinton: she wins the popular vote in three states and she diminishes the delegate lead by 10 - 15. Further, she adds two more big states to her cause and helps her argument with the Super Delegates. Three victories would change the narrative about her campaign (that it is not the mess that it seems like) and allows her more support with Super Delegates or at least prevents more from leaving her. Finally, Michigan and Florida enter the conversation, again. But, a victory only allows her to continue to Pennsylvania, which means two more losses before this vote in April.

Best case for Senator Obama: A 2 - 2 split, giving Senator Obama the advantage in the delegate count for the night at around 10. This means that Senator Obama holds off Clinton in two states she led by over 20% two weeks ago. This also means that he continues with the momentum and dries up some of Clinton's donors who become skeptical of her viability. Additionally, he win will the next two and have a 15 - 2 winning streak as he heads into the Keystone state, where his ground troops are already in play. It is highly unlikely that Senator Obama wins 3 - 1. I don't think he will take Rhode Island and he will most likely not catch up in Ohio.

Other than the vote, here are a few important factors to consider:
(1)Senator Clinton announced that she has no plans to drop out after the vote Tuesday. Of course, why would she say anything else and chance the fact that some voters may not vote for her and donors turn away from her.

(2) Former President Bill Clinton and Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell state Senator Clinton needs to win both Texas and Ohio though it is unclear if this is delegate count or popular vote i.e. like Iraq, the meaning of victory is unclear. Gov. Rendell's comments may be more credible as former President Clinton's comment may just be politicking for the vote.

(3) In February, Howard Dean declared that the nomination would be secure by March or Mid April to avoid a fight at the convention. A fight is to be avoided at all costs.

(4) After Super Tuesday, concerned Super Delegates for Senator Clinton told The New York Times that she needed to win Texas and Ohio comfortable or they would switch their support. This will not occur, though "comfortable" is certainly undefined.

(5) Former Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson stated that tomorrow is "D-Day" and that the candidate with the most Delegates after Tuesday would be the presumed nominee while the candidate with fewer delegates should suspend or drop out. This is interesting since Richardson owes his career to the Clintons and, I would argue, may be one of the Super Delegates in number three above. This means that after the voting on 3/4, there will be a break on the uncommitted Super Delegates in favor of the candidate with the most pledged Delegates.

Knowing all of this: What is the best Narrative/ Argument After Tuesday?
(1) Both candidates continue the primary contest. If this is to occur, the negative tone between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will diminish the chances of either candidate in the fall.

(2) An extended race means that the DNC will not be able to fundraise. While both candidates will raise money, this may hurt the DNC for the fall.

(3) An extended race means that the negative ads by the Democrats (the 3:00am ad)will haunt the Democrat candidate in the fall. A negative race now provides the Republicans with fodder for the fall.

(4) A consideration of the opposites: The attacks between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will help the nominee because all of the attacks and refutations means that these arguments will be settled and off the table for the fall. Further, if they stay in they will only sharpen their political skills for the General Election.

(5) If both candidates stay in on the Democratic side, then they will get all of the news coverage, which is important because over the next seven weeks they will get all the attention while Senator McCain gets very little. This is key because Senator McCain may only be able to spend $5 million before the convention if he is pledged to public financing.

(6) Let all of the voters decide, this means Michigan and Florida though I am unsure as to what would happen in terms of the vote already taken and a possible new vote.

(7) It is best for someone in the party to have a Berry Goldwater Conversation with Senator Clinton to tell her that if she continues in the race it may lead to the destruction to the party's chances in the Fall. A similar argument is that if she attempts to take the nomination at the convention, then she will destroy the party (Senator Goldwater approached President Richard Nixon and told him he needed to step down because the Senate would no longer protect him for Watergate and an impeachment would occur.)

(8) Senator Clinton needs to stay in the race, especially if she wins 3 states tomorrow, because voters in the Democratic Party will have "Buyer's Remorse" with Senator Obama.

(9) If Senator Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, and then Pennsylvania, then she would have won the big states (except for Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, and Most likely North Carolina.) The Big state theory means the Super Delegates should vote for her. Though, this means Democrats in non-big states possess a vote that is not worth that of a Democrat in a big state. A similar argument is that Senator Clinton receives the authentic "Democratic" vote, while Senator Obama receives the support for Independents and some Democrats. Another similar argument is that Senator Clinton receives the beer drinking vote while Senator Obama receives the wine drinking, latte vote.

(10) Follow the math- The Senator Clinton campaign will never be able to catch up in delegates since they need to win each contest by a 60% - 40% or 65% - 35% split in delegates. Slate has a delegate calculator if you would like to do the Math. This means the Super Delegate should support Senator Obama. This has an "inevitable" feel to it, which is ironic for the ways in which the candidates ran their campaigns.

Did I miss anything?

Finally, a question: is it bad that the Super Delegates determine the race on Wednesday, before the vote in Pennsylvania and before the DNC determines what it needs to do in Michigan and Florida? The party knows it needs to settle things in Florida and Michigan to have a chance there in fall. An extended campaign makes this unlikely, which means that the DNC will give up the state in the general election.

Update on our friend Jack...

It didn't take long, but someone created a Jack Nicholson video for Obama. Well, um, there are a few clever spots and it is funny that someone took the time to do this. But, its still not well done. See for yourself.



What I want to see is who do the Nerds or the Griswalds endorse? The cast from Laugh In?

Thank you, Oxymoron

I had no idea that The Onion had it's own Youtube site. As per Oxy's recommendation, here's the latest report, "How Can We Make the War in Iraq More Eco-Friendly:



(If you're interested in the 2008 election results, you might want to click here.)

"The average woman spends 11 years out of the workforce taking care of family."

Leaving her without enough retirement money to take care of herself. Those 11 years are spend doing important work, caring for children or elderly parents. But they can also hurt her ability to retire.

Fact is, women are still earning less than men do, and they live longer. So they need to save even more for retirement. Unfortunately, those 11 years out of the workforce put a woman even further behind, costing her an average of $659,139 in earnings.

Granted, this comes from an Allstate ad on the back of this week's New Yorker, but it really got my attention. Allstate recommends three ways to close the retirement savings gap:

1. Employed woman should participate in a company retirement program. (According to the ad, only 47% of employed women do.)
2. Unemployed women should invest in a Spousal IRA. (If they don't have their own income, where is this investment coming from?)
3. Employed women who participate in retirement programs become educated about their options, which often leads to increasing their contributions to said options.

Here's a web site, based on a book called Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, that has a more comprehensive set of links about this issue and many others. And the book, by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal and John Goodman and Celesate Colgan of the National Center for Policy Analysis, looks like a good read.

Nicholson and Clinton

Recently, Jack Nicholson endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for President and released this commercial to how his support. If you have not seen it, it features Nicholson in his famous roles and asks questions about which candidate is best to lead from Day One, etc.

I always love campaign commercials and rely on them in class. This one falls under the odd and terrible side though, like the recent will.i.am "We are the Ones" endorsement. Why is the Jack ad bad? Well, consider that it features him as a psycho, a psycho, a gangster, a rebel, and an army officer that denigrates women (i.e sexism from an approved source is okay, right?). It seems to be more of a tribute to Jack than Hillary.

But here is the commercial and maybe I am wrong, which happens more often than not.

A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy....

It is a Fight Club kinds of morning, as in "I am Jack's lack of imagination."

Saturday Night Live turned into simulacrum last night and charted us further into the electoral abyss as its opening sketch parodied the last Democratic Debate from MSNBC. We have now reached the point where last night was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Overall, the skit was not too funny as it repeated the charges from last week's skit, which was much stronger. However, the sight of "Russert" and "Williams" playing the violins in response to Senator Clinton's complaints was a good moment.

After, the skit, Senator Hillary Clinton appeared and delivered an "Editorial Response" that looked forced & awkward, as if the writers and her campaign provided a scripted moment for her voters to see that she is human after all, which has helped her before. The important thing to take away: the Democratic race may likely not be over after Tuesday, even as they split the states 2 - 2, as Senator Clinton used her appearance to campaign for the votes in Pennsylvania.

TV Funhouse developed a cartoon about Senator Obama preventing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson from campaigning for him and with him. You can watch it here. Again, it has its moments but the joke never develops.

America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani appeared on Weekend Update. He delivered the best line of the show as he compared his campaign to an SNL skit: "It started off strong and had no ending."

Unfortunately for SNL and the dear Ellen Page, who hosted the show, the entire episode was terrible. While watching Megs asked if the writers really were back from their strike.

On a side note, according to Time, after Tina Fey's "Bitch is the New Black Editorial," former President William Clinton called Tina Fey to thank her for her support.

Here are the Clinton clips:




Interesting: you can only get the clips from NBC. Apparently, NBC is prevented You Tube from broadcasting the clips.

#1 Political Issue: Bullshit

Kairos and The Rhetorical Situation

The influence of the Situation is beyond our knowledge. Our power even woke the dead with the return of the Good Rev. Todd...But I digress.

Last week, I mentioned the experience of former Presidents to show that experience may not matter as much as we think it does. This week, Time Magazine's cover Story is on whether or not experience matters. And guess what- character and judgment matter more.

And, on Tuesday, M wanted our gracious writers to discuss what issues mattered to them, especially the issues that were not being discussed. In Sunday's New York Times, the editorial board asks the presidential candidates no longer in the race to discuss one issue that is important to them.

Kairos readers, Kairos.

I like to play games....

As long as we are playing the delusional trick....

Open Left has a very insightful post on the correct metaphor for the Democratic campaign. It appears that we should understand Senator Clinton's Campaign from the perspective of the Black Knight. Between the Super Tuesday contests and the Pennsylvania Contest, the Clinton Campaign may have a record of 2 - 13 or 3 - 12, which puts you in position to draft first and not win the Super Bowl. It certainly will not allow the campaign enough delegates to catch Senator Obama. Consequently, with a 2 - 13 or 3 - 12 record, Senator Clinton will be unable to hold of the Super Delegate Defection since, as you remember, Senator Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio comfortably, according to some of her Super Delegates, to prevent a Super Delegate Exodus.

Ahh... but it gets better. According to the Clinton Campaign, if Senator Obama does not win all four contests on 3/4 he is the candidate that has problems since it will be a sign that Democrats are having second thoughts.

To return to football speak: talk about moving the goalposts. It goes from the Super Delegates sating that Senator Clinton needs to win Texas & Ohio comfortably, to former President Clinton saying that Senator Clinton needs to win both Texas and Ohio to stay in the race, to the Clinton campaign arguing that Senator Obama needs to win all four on 3/4 to stay electable. It is good that the NFL does not move goalposts like this since the kickers would not know where to aim.

Now, how shall we speak of delusional? This is a fun game but does not help the overall goal.

And Now For Something Completely Different, for your viewing pleasure.

There Are Obamamaniacs, and Obamamania IS Delusional

There is rational pro-Obama rhetoric. And then there is the Other stuff. It is hard sometimes not to hold his supporters against him. Like the way Harrogate used to feel about Phish, rejecting really good music because at the time, the behavior of the fans made Harrogate a little sick.

Listening to these people for so long, it becomes something of a chore not to Loathe the candidate himself. Last night's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher represented the greatest struggle yet, in Harrogate's ongoing effort not to puke when listening to the Obama Narrative. Dan Savage gets on there talking about how nervous he was being at his first Obama rally, how he'd heard about what it was like, but you just can't know until you're there to see it for yourself. Maher legitimizes the tripe, indeed he himself is a believer: Oh, please, Savage and Maher jointly cried out in the night, don't let Obama get shot, or otherwise taken from us fallen clay mortals.

Because in case you hadn't heard, Barack Obama is Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy all rolled into one, now.

Oh! We fall upon the thorns of life! We faint! We bleed! We die! Oooo, how we grow afraid! Let no shot ring out in the night and take away our Joseph Campbell hero with a thousand faces.

If only Barack Obama is allowed to remain with us for a little longer on this Fallen plane of material existence, he will transform everything. But we are all at risk, for the Great One is not a human being with flaws, but rather he is simply too good for this earth.

Blech and Blech.

Why Women Should Rule the World

Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers has been doing the press circuit for her new book, Why Women Should Rule the World. I'm really interested in her viewpoint, since she seems to be acknowledging (not in the book, per se, but in political interviews) both that Clinton has had to fight a sexist media and public and that her campaign hasn't handled that situation to the best of its ability. One quote: "Hillary Clinton is better than her campaign." YES!

I'm heading out today to buy this book, which is billed as "Blending memoir, social history, and a call to action. Dee Dee Myers challenges us to imagine a not-too-distant future in which increasing numbers of women reach the top ranks of politics, business, science, and academia." I'll report back on my findings!

More Plagiarism

Apparently a Bush aid accused of plagiarism has admitted that he plagiarized more than 20 articles he wrote for Indiana newspapers and has, thus, resigned. He has apologized for "not upholding the standards expected by the president." It seems like every day another person who should know the definition of plagiarism is being accused of plagiarizing. As a teacher, this really intrigues me. I mean, the vast majority of my college freshman know what plagiarism is, and although on the rare occasion I have had a student plagiarize, I actually think they (by and large) have more remorse for their actions than people like Timothy Goeglein and others who are publicly accused of plagiarizing. So here is my question: do these individuals really believe that in our electronic age, when one can find original sources on the internet in seconds, that they really won't be found out? Or do they really not understand what plagiarism is? What I find really offensive about this particular case is that Goeglein only apologizes to the president, not to his readers or to the individuals he plagiarized.

Campaign Update...

We just finished watching Eastern Promises, which is an incredibly tense movie throughout-- a mob movie, which unlike The Sopranos, you find very little redeeming about the mob. Imagine that.

But here are a few interesting items from a relatively quiet day in the campaign:

There is a new will.i.am video out and, in all honesty, it is quite creepy. The first 2 1/2 minutes misses the point of Senator Obama's campaign. Unfortunately, it ends up being just another celebrity endorsement. It does not compare to "Yes We Can."

The Clinton campaign, according to the Kansas City Star, is threatening a lawsuit to challenge the process of how the delegates will be chosen in Texas, i.e. the caucuses. It may be a tactic to slow down the reporting of the caucus count, which Senator Obama is expected to win. When the Democratic candidates turned their attention to Texas, the Clinton campaign was unaware of the caucus portion of the Texas primary, which seems odd since former President Clinton ran in two Texas State Primaries. Though maybe there are No Surprise[s] with this since Senator Clinton told George Stephanopoulos it "would be over on February 5th."

Senator Clinton will be on The Daily Show, not A Daily Show, on Monday, March 3rd.

MSNBC uncovered problems with a Clinton Donor and, so far, she will not return the money or donate it to charity. Of course, Senator Obama has his own campaign problems as the jury selection for the Rezko Trial will begin on Monday.

Both camps released new ads today for Texas. Senator Clinton targets the security mom vote with a comforting fear appeal. Senator Obama questions her judgment on the same issue. Here is another Clinton ad, One in a Million: one million Texas women for Senator Clinton. Surprisingly, I am unaware of who the target audience is for this ad.

Have no fear Senator McCain: Senator Obama is working on making sure you can run for president even though you were born outside the United States in the Canal Zone. This just sounds funny: McCain, birth and canal zone in the same sentence. Oh well. At least it is not the Love Canal. Of course, to get back on point, Thomas Jefferson may have been the first constitutional president and Zachary Taylor the last. Seriously, according to originalism.

And speaking of Senator McCain: don't you have some denouncing or rejecting to do with one of your supporters, Rev. John Hagee, who seems to have his own problems with the religion of others. According to Salon, the Good Rev. Hagee told NPR: "Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews." It gets better with this quote from the same interview: "All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

Interesting Fact: George Romney, father of our favorite candidate Mitt Romney, was born in Mexico. It seems that George's grandfather, Miles Park Romney, moved to Mexico in 1884 because.... cue up the Big Love theme song by rock legend David Byrne from the Talking Heads.... Oh, you know why Romney family left the country. Yet, he still ran for president in 1968. And even knowing his family history on immigration and his own employment practices, Mitt Romney still chose to bash the issue during his unfortunately short-lived campaign. Does the man know the meaning of hypocrisy? By the way, are the Five Brothers still helping their father get elected or is there something they could do now to help fill the time?

And, finally, Angelina Jolie has an editorial in The Washington Post about helping Iraqi refugees. Is there anything this woman does not do? Post-script: Sorry, Brad did not help write this as I am sure he was too busy making movies with Jimmy and Ben.

Introducing the "Paperweight" and the question of ethics

So now that I have entered into this realm of madness that I have long avoided from the fear of obsession of never signing off, I guess I should introduce myself: I'm the practical one that would rather sit around drinking beer and BSing after softball rather than actually forcing myself to actually conduct a class. We will hold off with my obsession for college football for now, allowing "Harrogate" to begin his digression into "March Madness."

With that said, I have received some bit annoying news today with regards to my job search. An unnamed school in CA has been forced to "suspend" my on campus visit that was planned for next week because of the state's in ability to maintain a working budget. Basically "suspended" is a nice way to say the job is no go. These things happen but the quirk of this whole thing is that administrative assistant at unsaid university told me I know have a nonrefundable airline ticket just sitting around that will be good for the next year (there would be a charge to change the ticket date and location). Now the question is, can I actually use this ticket after the official word finally comes down that the job has been killed??? Part of me feels that using the ticket for any other trip accept to visit unsaid university would be ethically wrong, but on the other hand, the money is spent so why not use it to compensate for the mental stress of building up for a climatic moment that never arrived. Just looking for some feedback on this.

Speaking of Women Running in Heels...

The theatrical trailer for the Sex and the City movie has been released! I'm so freakin' excited.

Congratulations, Texas!

Bravo, Texas, for being the world's eighth largest emitter of of carbon dioxide! Fuck the environment. Let's see who has the biggest and loudest truck! Yee haw.

Ann Coulter...

Does not believe in wearing pant suits or even suit pants, what ever that means.

Thanks to Megs for the inspiration...



There are more here: Bush, Clinton, Elvis, Kinky, Dr. Laura, Uncle Sam, "Turkey Dinner" Bush. Collect Them ALL!!!

Why is there no Good Rev. Todd figure yet?

Poem of the Day: Claude McKay's "The Harlem Dancer"

Everywhere issues relating to gender and race are bandied about, these days. What is there more of racism, sexism, we have all asked it. Sometimes we are tempted to wax Pollyanna, and focus on how much better off we are as a country in these areas than we ever were. After all, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vying for the Demo nomination.

Sometimes we brood, and focus on South Carolina ground games and toilet seats ornamented by a prominent female politician's face. In these moments we are not so Pollyanna, but in strange fevered dreams we imagine our enemies as bigoted caricatures utterly devoid of human content, callow beings who love neither children nor puppies, whose greatest sense of purpose emanates from parroting language specially designed to denigrate.

But let us step back and revisit one of the masters, Claude McKay, the poet many credit with kickstarting the Harlem Renaissance in 1922 when he released Harlem Shadows into the public discourse. No Pollyanna, McKay used the cultural hammer of the Sonnet, perfectly executed, but within those lines obtains a riot of social and aesthetic protest, not only on behalf of African Americans and women, but in sympathy with oppressed peoples throughout the world. Harrogate provides it here, free of charge.

APPLAUDING youths laughed with young prostitutes
And watched her perfect, half-clothed body sway;
Her voice was like the sound of blended flutes
Blown by black players upon a picnic day.
She sang and danced on gracefully and calm,
The light gauze hanging loose about her form;
To me she seemed a proudly-swaying palm
Grown lovelier for passing through a storm.
Upon her swarthy neck black, shiny curls
Profusely fell; and, tossing coins in praise,
The wine-flushed, bold-eyed boys, and even the girls,
Devoured her with their eager, passionate gaze;
But, looking at her falsely-smiling face
I knew her self was not in that strange place.

Should voting be public or private?

Tonight, Harrogate and I discus discussed the virtues and vices of public/ private voting, especially in relation to Primaries and Caucuses. Because of my desire for greater participatory democracy, I do not mind caucuses, especially when the alternative may be pulling a lever. Now, I know that caucuses can only be limited in nature and they would not work on a national level, though changes in communication and technology may make this possible, yet, I admire that caucuses require a certain level of political conviction necessary for some aspects of society or for some controversial issues.

This leads me to a question: should voting be public or private in your respective community? Should this passage apply in contemporary times?

Here is a passage by Currin V. Shields on the political thought of John Stuart Mill as Mill discusses the necessity of a public vote:

Should voting be in public, or by secret ballot? The secret ballot, Mill says, is undesirable; it encourages the pursuit of selfish interests. The vote is a public trust, and the voter's duty is to give his best opinion of the public good. This duty should be performed in the public eye and subject to criticism, because a person's need to justify his act conduces to more responsible conduct. The claim that public voting allows the voter to be subjected to sinister influences is unfounded. The secret ballot is no longer necessary; the power of the few over the many is so declining in western Europe that there is now no need to fear class dictation. At the same time, persons who may not be fit to be electors (such as members of the working class) may still be fit to exert influence on electors; this they can do best if_voting is public.

The Race Turns Ugly, Again

According to Politico, Super Delegates are being targeted to switch from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, especially after the defection of Civil Rights Legend and Super Delegate John Lewis.

Of course, this article is playing the game as well since the pressure comes from....

Oh, it doesn't say, explicitly.

Yet, the question remains: As the Democratic Race winds towards the convention with the strong possibility that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama will reach the super-majority number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination, what are the ethical limits of persuasion with the Super Delegates?

I watched an excerpt from the John Lewis interview with Andrea Mitchell of NBC. He stated that his decision to switch from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama was worse for him than the beating he took in Selma, Al for fighting for Civil Rights.

Visual Rhetoric, or, Why Fashion Matters

While these photos have nothing to do with pant suits, these raise an interesting question: what is the best caption for each?

When Fashion Speaks

I peek at you Shyly and with Great Hesitation, Gentle Reader, from my niche in Chez Reads. The Most Constant of Readers here at The Rhetorical Situation have been Kind Enough to invite me to play in their sandbox, and I am Most Grateful. For those of you who are, perhaps, not Constant Readers of my blog Arrogant Self-Reliance, a brief introduction: This Humble Author tends to discuss All Things Feminist, Fashion, and Pop Culture, all the time. Also, as you may have surmised, This Humble Author also adores All Things Victorian, All The Time, and thus begs your humble pardon for her archaic--yet, she believes charming--speak.

But as I have just--just, Gentle Reader!--watched last night's Chris/Rami showdown on Project Runway, and as I have just--just, Gentle Reader!--been invited to contribute to This Humble Blog on All Things Rhetorical, All The Time, I ask you: How does our Fashion Speak?

There has been Great Humbug over Senator Rodham Clinton's fashion choices, and to this, This Humble Author cries foul. There can be disconnect between what our Fashion Says, and what we intend our Fashion to Convey. Yet the visibility of women's bodies, and thus, the fashion those bodies portray, in our society forces us to reexamine the constant connection of women with their bodies. By discussing Senator Rodham Clinton's fashion choices, the media is thus constantly calling attention to Senator Rodham Clinton's body. Why, then, do we not see similar discussion with our Brother Politicians?

The briefest of brief Questions, Gentle Reader, as a means of greetings, and I Confess that I Must bid you farewell. Lost beckons, after all!

Campaign Finance Update for February

According to Politico, the Clinton campaign will announce that it raise $35 million in February and that Senator Obama's campaign "raised considerable more than that" and will beat its January mark of $36 million.

A Patriotic Response to the Good Reverend Todd; or, Female Beauty is Multifaceted

Harrogate gives you a Memory, Kerri Strug's Olympic Vault, 1996. On a bad wheel, she brought home the Gold.

A New Bitch in Town

(even Barbie wears a pantsuit when she's on the campaign trail)

Paging Mitt Romney, Paging Mitt Romney

The Republican National Committee may want to speak to you before the Convention in Minnesota.

It seems John McCain has many problems. First, can he be President since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and, hence, not a "Natural Born Citizen?" I am sure the strict constructionists he wishes to appoint would need to rule against him.

Second, if we can settle the constitutional issue, McCain has some financial issues over campaign financing. It appears as if he accepted a loan for his campaign, which means he may need to use public funds for both the Primary and the General Election. Consequently, he may not be able to spend a dime until the general election begins after the conventions. The New Republic has more on his problems.

Also, a TNR Bonus: Why the NY Times chose to endorse Senator Clinton over Senator Obama. Man does TNR have it out for the Times.

Oh the Irony...

A certain, unnamed, progressive website ran an article by the San Francisco Progressive Matt Gonzales criticizing the Obama campaign.

But, well, the funny thing is Gonzales may have a conflict of interest since he is Ralph's Running Mate.

As i said before, if you do not like Senators Clinton or Obama, there is always Nader and Gonzales.

There's Blood in the Water

All along, it has been Manifest that Open Primaries are not Hillary Clinton's friend. Some argue that the Independents and GOP Crossover Advantage Obama hath enjoyed will sustain, at least somewhat, in November. Indeed, some point to this phenomenon as Exhibit A that Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Well, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton herself, after gamely attempting to fulfill the Sphinxlike Tim Russert's demand that she pronounce the new Russian President's name: WHATEVER. Verily it is too bad that Republican voters are getting any say at all regarding who the Democrats are nominating to carry their banner.

Be that as it may, reality is what it is. And regardless of what happens in Ohio, Texas's Open Primary might well represent Hillary Clinton's Presidential Death Knell. Indeed, do any Republicans hate Hillary Clinton with the zealous intensity with which Texas Republicans hate her?

For Texas Republicans, this is a Pollyanna moment of sublime proportions. They smell blood in the water, and they very much hope to finish her once and for in the Lone Star state.

So without further ado, Harrogate humbly asks Texans not to drink the water, for forsooth, there is blood in the water. As this, one of Harrogate's Top Twenty Songs, eloquently told us round about a decade ago.

A Word on Party Loyalty: Wherefore Harrogate Cringes at Bloomburg and, Albeit to a Lesser Extent, Obama

Why does Harrogate Cringe? Wherefore Party Loyalty? A matter of a little something Harrogate likes to call If-Then propositions.

If ye understand, as Harrogate does, that the mainstream GOP as it is currently configured represents what is most base about America. That it is a Party Demarcarted by Violence and Repression on the economic, social, and foreign policy fronts equally.

The list is long. That some require its listing is unfortunate, after all this nation has been through. That some continue to believe in GOP officials as individuals rather than as representatives of something bigger than any one of them, is unfortunate also. That people want to say it is Bush that we rail against, when really it was always the GOP writ large and for which he so magnificently stands, may be the saddest of all.

There is in the GOP an intrinsic loathing of government programs, excepting the police and military element. Hell, they run for office on platforms preaching that government can solve no problems except military ones. They appoint incompetents to head agencies, and then when the agencies screw things up, they say see, government doesn't work. Draconian faith in mandatory minimum sentencing defines the Republican Party from the top down.

A kick the door in foreign policy that maintains you are a dove if you don't buy into their warped cravings for ideological manifestation. Harrogate, like most Democrats, is no dove. He only humbly requests that military action be driven by necessity, not saving face, or experimentation, or economic aggrandazation, or as a method of consolidating political power stateside.

There are of course the "Values" Republicans, who exploit working class peoples throughout the nation by preying on what is worst in us. Hatred, fear of difference: Homophobia, racism, sexism, loathing of the arts except in their most commodifiable form, these are a few of their favorite things.

But the Heritage Foundation contingent, the economic conservatives--and yes, this includes George Will (and from what Harrogate knows about him, Bloomburg) are the worst of all. Consolidate media into fewer and fewer hands. Champion more and more concentration of wealth, in fewer and fewer hands. Drawlers of the bootstrap narrative, preeners of individual responsibility as they continually manufacture and exploit loophoples in the tax code. Ralph Nader, ass that he is, had a point when he asked, why don't we tax speculation? Indeed. A symbolic question that can be extended to interrogate the entire eco-con movement. Hatred of unions. Hatred of the FCC except in its capacity for punishing wardrobe malfunctions. And yea and verily, the list goeth on.

If ye understand all this. Instead of pinning it all on George W. Bush. Or instead of stupidly conflating the Clinton and Bush Administrations. If ye grasp that for all its flaws, cowardices, and Right of Center tendencies, the mainstream Democratic Party at the very least offers sanity, and shreds of decency in the way of foreign, social, and economic policy. But this election is not about the Democratic Party as much as it is about getting off the reckless course we are currently pursuing. It is all about endgame. "My friends," we must remove the indecency, the insanity, from the White House.

If ye are in touch with these truths, THEN ye will not be able to help but smile at arguments that say hey, they just have different ideas, let's get together and work things out. The notion of the GOP coming to the table in good faith because Bloomburg or Obama or anyone else asks them to.

Now, it is important to note the biblical truth of forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. Many Republican voters are being gamed. Only a cacophony of pissed-of voters in their own ranks, is going to make them change their ways, from the bottom up. Citizens tired of being exploited. The best thing Harrogate can say about Barack Obama is, he is the best possibility for effecting that particular result that we have left.

But conversely, Hillary Clinton has consitently demonstrated an exponentially more comprehensive grasp of the dangers the GOP poses, and has made a far more cogent case for why the Democratic Party is better. Yes, like all of them, she is ambitious and believes. Yes, she believes, like Harrogate, that she is the best most competent available choice left for President. But in the end, she is also a Party Loyalist through and through, and God love her for it. She knows that Obama, for all his immense political skill (obviously his political skills are more pronounced than hers, he may even be more skilled than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush--time will tell), simply isn't going to get that result solely by being positive.

At some point Obama will have to let his "claws come out," and tell these Red State voters the truth about what is being done with them. And the truth aint purty.

More on this in the not-so-distant future.

A Comfortable Revision

I suspect that no one will cringe at the idea of our dear Forrest.


(Original source)

To descend is honorable.

Just watch. Ben would want you to. As well as Jimmy, Sarah, and Matt.

Michael Bloomburg will....

not seek the presidency. In an op-ed in The New York Times, Bloomburg writes that he will not seek the office but nonpartisan solutions to our troubles.

I think I just heard Harrogate cringe. Why?

As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is....

If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out.... These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.

Interesting audio problems

We are watching some of the Sabres game (yes, that is hockey) and Megs noticed a problem with the audio. It is at the end of the first period, the broadcast, which is coming from MSG out of Buffalo, just cut to commercial break. The commercial shows a ride at an amusement park and people screaming. Yet, Megs hears something and tells me to rewind (the magic of a DVR).

Sure enough, MSG did not cut the mic from the players and has the audio going during the commercial. So as people are screaming on the commercial about the ride as the following words go by, one at a time until the last phrase: electrifying, petrifying, joyous, nauseous, extreme, sublime, awful, awesome....we all see the world from different points of view...", you hear audio, from what has to be the players in the hockey game or maybe from people in the production booth, come on when the word "extreme" flashes across the screen

Person A: You went down pretty good there.
Person B: Yeh, there's blood.
Person A: yes there will be blood.
Person B: There is blood.
inaudible comments....
Person A: Fucken wipe some on your face. Go with it out on your face.

Inaudible vocals continue talking about the game as the next few commercials go.

The Race Card in the Democratic Primary

Sean Wilentz, a Princeton Historian, an editor at The New Republic, and family friend of the Clintons, has a interesting and controversial article in The New Republic: "Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."

This seems to be an very important article that we should read and discuss. Any takers?

Harrogate's Thoughts on the 2/26 Demo Debate, Unfiltered (Except by way of Solon)

Solon has written pretty thorough analyses of the show from last night. Harrogate wants to add a few thoughts of his own. He has, so far, resisted visiting any websites or television segments analyzing what happened.

.5)Harrogate was very, very pleased by Obama's repudiation of his own inaction with respect to Congress & Shiavo. Because what Congress did there, was not only unconstitutional. It was just plain demagoguery at its worst, and the American people saw it for what it was, and it didn't work.

1)The most enduring memory might well be, for Harrogate, Russert's hypothetical sequence, where he spun an elaborate set of what-ifs. Here was the scenario he posed: What if you pull out of Iraq in a year, like you both say you're going to, leaving only a residual, smaller force to protect the Giant Embassy. And then, the Iraqi government says hey, if you're not going to protect us any better than that, then get the hell out altogether. What will you do?

Answer (both candidates, actually): They're a sovereign government. If they insist we get out, that's what we've gotta do. Back to Russert's hypothetical: Well, let's say then that you draw everything out, and then the ter'ists regroup and set up shop in Iraq, will you reserve the right to reinvade?

Hillary Clinton attempts to remind Russert, rather kindly Harrogate thought, that he's painting a rather simplistic picture. She then tries to engage the Iraq Tar Baby in a Reasonable Manner. Russert interrupts: But this is Reality! Then Clinton nailed him. No, Tim, this Isn't Reality, its a series of hypotheticals.

And then she went ahead and said that it was she wanted to say about our great misadventure in Iraq. Harrogate cheered. Sayeth Harrogate, screw you, Tim Russert, and your willingness to invoke, and legitimize, neocon framing.

2)Unlike Solon, Harrogate actually thought the Farrakhan question pefectly legitimate. As was the follow up about Obama's church, which is going to become a bigger deal the longer he chooses to ignore it. Yea, if there is a "hate whitey" element to Obama's church, then Houston, we've got a seruous freakin' problem. That is, if you care about actually winning the election. Obama needs to address this issue, repudiate any connection his church may have to that mentality. Period. He is not "above this." We are not "above this." Kerry tried that with the swiftboaters, it's lily-livered and doesn't work.

These issues infest the subsurface of Obama discourse. Neither Obama nor the rest of us Democrats get to act like it isn't there. The impulse to cry out, but we shouldn't Even Be Having to Deal With This, will not cut it. And Harrogate thought Obama made one of his biggest Rhetorical Blunders of the entire campaign during this sequence, in that he ignored Audience, instead talking down both to Clinton and the moderators, deigning to explain to them that there is no difference between denouncing Farrakhan and Rejecting his support outright. It made matters worse that Obama tried to play cute, saying that the minister "thinks I'm a good guy." No, Senator. Clinton was right, you've got to address this head on, reject the endorsement, don't rely on your supporters to convince their family members and underinformed friends that you are not in league with Radical Islam.

3)Has everyone else noticed that with the exception of Ron Paul, every other candidate for President glazes over when the subject of Israel comes up, and defaults to Talking Points? You know you're in Talking Points land, when you hear stupid-ass phrases like "we have a special relationship," "their security is sacrosanct," Etc.

Now, Harrogate is no Ron Paul suppoter, as faithful Readers know. Because Libertarians tend to think in crayon. But at least Paul has the guts to point out that Israel is fair game for debate, and that in fact, it is a central issue if you want to understand what is happening in the Middle East. And at the end of the day, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush, and everyone else needs to have the guts to come out and say, in direct language, if they believe it, that if you don't support our military alliance with Israel, that you re an anti-Semite. That if you don't believe we should be wagering the lives of our young men and women on Israel's behalf, then you are an anti-Semite.


4)Like solon, Harrogate hopes there are no more debates. He thought Clinton was excellent last night, and he wishes her well in the primaries/caucuses to come, and he pledges his own vote to that end. He also thought that while Obama was considerably weaker (Obama's much better at stump speeches than at debating), the Illinois Senator didn't do himself any real harm and will win this nomination.

Does life imitate art or art, life?

From The New York Times: a review about the terrible debate last night, focusing on the relentlessness of the media and the SNL quality of last night's debate.

Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post has a more substantive review, but most of this article consists of quotes from media folks about the debate and the campaign.

ACT III: Please, no more debates....

If this is my punishment, I promise to be good....

ACT III:

Senator Obama and the liberal question. He replies that independents support him. Well, that's over for the fall. No, really.

Senator Clinton and Obama on Russia: neither can pronounce the President’s name correctly. Clinton fails and Obama ducks. No one wins on this question. Why do people in Ohio care? maybe when WWIII (or is it IV or V) breaks out?

The second last question on regrets: I have many of them and most of them developed while watching this debate.

Interesting, Obama hurts himself because he showed he lacked judgment on Terry Schiavo, especially as a Professor of Constitutional Law. He then appropriates her answer from the last debate, which why would you?

Also interesting, does Hillary regret her Iraq vote? Which would really hurt her, only because she chose now to admit her vote was wrong. Kerry, Edwards recanted long ago but she held out.

Last question: to Obama, what question does Clinton need to answer to the American people. Obama, rightly, answers the question he wants to answer, praises her and then talks about his experiences. To Clinton, same question… "A Sea of Change." She also asks, who can change the country? Wrong question to ask the voters Senator Clinton, though she still gets to run on gender when she said on Meet the Press she would not.

Afterwards, Chris Matthews "attacked" Brian Williams and Tim Russert for not asking the right question.

Overall, thankfully this will be the last debate since neither candidate would be in his or her right mind to agree to another one, especially if it is done by MSNBC. After twenty debates, no one needs this form of gotcha questions.

Who ever wins the nomination should stay away from NBC in the fall. If there is a Vice Presidential Debate, let the VPs fight it out with the junior varsity network.

ACT II: How many viewers turned the channel...?

Unfortunately, I did not.

After the break, we saw Senator Clinton's Rhode Island clip-- BY MISTAKE-- and we listen to answers. This is not worthy of a debate, though it does provide Senator Obama with a chance to say “I would giver her points for delivery."

Russert asks Obama on public financing, Obama backtracks, side-steps. Oh no one cares since the question appeared on a questionnaire and he is not the nominee. It looks bad, but no one cares.

Russert asked Clinton on Tax Returns and releasing records from the Clinton library. This may be important & it may look bad, but oh, no one cares.

Russert asked Obama about the co-presidency, which may be an important Constitutional question, but it should have gone to Clinton. And, not too many people, and certainly not Tina Fey, care. Oh not wait. She does care. [this was meant to be a Russert Gotcha question against Obama by showing him with an embarrassing clip. It did not turn out this way.]

And, then we have the Farakhan, Wright (Obama's pastor), (Israeli Lobby?), and Denounce and Reject question. Obama denounces the support but is perceived as not being strong (though, if he denounces something, does anything else need to be said?). Hillary attacks him on this that he has not rejected Farakhan. Obama provides a very good response: "If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce."

BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THIS QUESTION? The people of Texas? No. The People of Ohio? Nope. Vermont? Hell No? Rhode Island? They turned the debate off twenty-five minutes ago. Wait, Ron Paul may care, that's who, since he is always asked questions like this.

Brian and Tim, your questions still suck. I have waisted twenty some minutes of my life because you have the opportunity to ask legitimate candidates and you decided to do snow angels all day.

Because I Care: Debate Recap....

Act One: Did SNL hurt Senator Clinton's chances in the first part?

Over the weekend, SNL ran two very pro-Hillary pieces,
Bitch is the New Black and Media Treatment of Obama. Since the Texas debate, Senator Clinton seemed to channel SNL in her campaign and attacked in a new way. See the clips: "Shame on You" andClouds Parting, though her "Shame on You" aired before SNL.

Yet tonight, Senator Clinton mentioned the SNL skit, stated to the moderators/ Obama, "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow," and complained that she received unfair treatment since the moderators asked her the opening questions the previous (MSNBC) debates.[ Side note: David Schuster researched this and stated she received the first question in six of the last ten debates.] Now, this is preemptive tactic, to show that it is three against one on stage (Senator Obama, Tim Russert, and Brian Williams). This worked for her in New Hampshire and it is important for her since she has been unable to claim that others are teaming up against her since Senator John Edwards opted out of the race. Yet, this does not make sense and she will get panned for this… If she is ready to answer the question-- she is more than knowledgeable-- then why does this matter who is asked what when? To call attention to unfair treatment is not going to help you either.

To review: the opening question on Senator Clinton’s change in tone seemed appropriate since it was a drastic change and a major attack on Senator Obama, though the picture question was silly and there are better issues to discuss, especially at the beginning of the debate.

The next set of questions on Health Care, favored her so she should welcome this—she always wins on Health Care. The questioning on NAFTA seemed to favor Senator Obama as they grilled Senator Clinton and did not grill Senator Obama as bad. But, this occurred after Senator Clinton’s comments and the preemption was most likely planned to be in the beginning, maybe to defuse the tension on NAFTA. But, invoking sarcasm here is not going to help her because it allows Senator Obama to "stand above" the bickering, which plays to his strength and to his argument: Vote Clinton, this is what you get; vote me, I will be above this.

After NAFTA, the questioning turned to Iraq. Russert asked questions that mattered about leaving and I am not sure if anyone provided a good answer because that is just a political mess. Was it here that Senator Obama relied on John Stewart’s 2004 metaphor on Iraq and the need to elect Kerry because you do not elect or reelect the person that drives you into a ditch?

Overall: Hillary wins on Health Care but hurts herself with her media comments. No one wins on NAFTA. Senator Obama wins on Iraq. The viewers realize they are on the losing end of this debate.

And Tim Russert and Brian Williams look like fools because they have no control in the debate, the candidates have interrupted them and each other, and one of the candidates challenged their credibility. And their questions suck… Why are Americans low information voters… Never mind.

Revisiting "Fuck You, Tim Gunn": Women in Pants

Last week, Tim Gunn received from Harrogate not a "wag of the finger" but a giant "fuck you" for claiming that Hillary's fashion sensibility is indicative of gender confusion. Quick to follow Harrogate's lead, several contributors to our humble award-winning blog echoed the "fuck you."

While I do not necessarily disagree with these sentiments, perhaps they are rash. Had Gunn not been under the time constraints of late night television and been allowed to support his claim, his logic would be more transparent. Under more favorable circumstances, I believe that Gunn's comments would have elicited more positive reactions from our corner of the blogosphere.

Consider a similar claim by the Reverend John Todd in the mid-nineteenth century:

Some [women] have tried to become semi-men by putting on the Bloomer dress. Let me tell you in a word why it can never be done. It is this: woman, robed and folded in her long dress, is beautiful. She walks gracefully. . . . If she attempts to run, the charm is gone. . . . Take off the robes, and put on pants, and show the limbs, and grace and mystery are all gone.

The Mount

Edith Wharton's home, The Mount, is in danger of imminent foreclosure. This makes me sad and angry, and since I already wrote about this at Separation of Spheres, I direct you to go there if you want to read more. I know this isn't the sort of thing we normally blog about at The Rhetorical Situation, but this is something that is important to me, which fits the call I myself posted yesterday.

More on the C-Word Wars

Hat Tip Feministing.

Last Debate...

Please, let the debates end. But, from The New York Times, the editorial board asks a each member of a panel of experts what five questions have yet to be answered by Senators Obama and Clinton.

The experts cover: the War on Terror, One the Economy, One on Information and Education, Health Care, & Foreign policy, and one interesting question on Bill Clinton and the 22 amendment (third term).

What question would you ask?

Issue Number Two: The Supreme Court

Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic has an article that discusses from where the Supreme Court will choose Supreme Court Justices. Since the Democrats have been out of presidential power for two terms, if Senator Obama or Clinton were president, they would have a hard time filling positions on the Supreme Court because of the age of the justices former president Clinton appointed.

The solutions, according to Rosen: appoint from Private Practice, a legal academic, or current/ former politicians.

The conclusion of the post is interesting, though I don't think it would work for Senator Clinton, who should remain in the Senate because of her skills and age

The current justices, though, are a group of technically accomplished lawyers, and, in order to be their intellectual match, any Democratic justice appointed from politics would have to be book smart as well as a ruthlessly determined politician. All of which means that the next Democratic president may have only one obvious candidate for the first Supreme Court vacancy: Once Obama has beaten Clinton, or vice versa, and gone on to the White House, the winner can appoint the loser to the Supreme Court.

I'm Shocked....Shocked....

From Inside Higher Education about the new President George W. Bush Library at SMU:

the Bush library complex will also feature an institute — independent of academic governance of the university — to sponsor research and programs designed to promote the vision of the president. At the press briefing announcing the agreement, Donald Evans, who chairs the president’s foundation, said that the complex would “celebrate” the president and his tenure in office.

Imagine that, no oversight from a governing body. While almost all of the other Presidential Libraries follow University standards, this will follow...um, nevermind.

Speaking of the C-Word

Citizens United Not Timid: an anti-Hillary 527. Seriously? This does not even make sense. Oh. I see.

One of My Issues: "No Taxation without Representation"

Voting Rights for Citizens in the District of Columbia.

In Honor of Harrogate...

...and his longtime interest in Cormac McCarthy, I'd like to congratulate No Country for Old Men, which cleaned up last night at the Oscars.

An Issue I'm Interested In

In the spirit of M's previous post--albeit a few hours early--here's an issue I'm very interested in that hasn't been addressed to a degree of my liking in the current political campaigns: the environment, in general, and the safety of my home and family, specifically.

My best friend is a government employee in the environmental and public health field, so perhaps I'm lucky to have a bit more information a bit earlier than the average American. But several stories have recently made it into mainstream media that have been scaring the crap out of me for a while.

First, the toy recalls got my attention. Toxins in my daughter's toys don't appeal to me, obviously. But then, I did more reading. What about the chemicals in plastics--like baby bottles--that can screw up our hormones? (Here's a February 4 Newsweek article about household toxins by Anne Underwood.)

And what about the food we eat? The pet food recall last April started getting me worried once again about our consideration of our animal friends. (I am a vegetarian and try to use household and personal products that haven't been animal tested but, let me tell you, they're expensive and often difficult to find!) Now the beef recall--the largest in US history--makes me cringe both in terms of animal cruelty and food safety. The G-H household eats only organic, free-range meat and dairy at home, but who knows what we're eating in restaurants. (We G-H's love our takeout!) And the videos of those poor, poor cows being kicked makes me cringe way more than the c-word.

This is a systemic problem. And I know that each candidate gives lip service to environmental issues, which these are, in a broad sense. And they give a lot more than that to the issue of health care. But what about public health? Will it take another Love Canal to get this issue back into the forefront, where it obviously needs to be?

Censoring 60 Minutes

Last Night on 60 Minutes, the program examined the case of Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, who was imprisoned on charges of corruption though last night's report suggested that the former governor (a Democrat in a Republican state) was imprisoned because of political beliefs. According to Scott Horton at Harper's, the former governor was convicted on evidence that the prosecution knew to be false and the prosecution failed to turn over important evidence to the defense. Further, the report implied that Karl Rove was involved in this controversy.

While the report itself was interesting, it seems that Northern Alabama did not see this portion of the episode because of "technical difficulties." You can read more about it here and here and wonder to yourself it if is terrible luck or censorship.

A request to my fellow bloggers

In an attempt to vary what it is that we blog about at The Rhetorical Situation, I'm calling for a one day moratorium on all things directly related to the current presidential campaigns for a 24 hour period, beginning at midnight tonight and ending at midnight on Tuesday. My friends, let's remind the world that we actually are interested in things beyond Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. I'd really like to see us get beyond our fascination with individual candidates and talk about the issues for awhile. Why am I asking for this? Because it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that a lot of the issues I'm interested in are not being addressed by the candidates at all, and I'm curious to know if that is similar for the rest of you. To learn this, however, I have to ask you all to go beyond discussing the finer points of individual candidates and start talking about the issues that are important to you--without getting into a discussion of which candidate best supports your individual views. I fully expect an outcry over this request, but I humbly ask that you humor me for a single 24-hour period.

An issue I care about

In April, NOW will sponsor the 2008 Summit on Women's Economic Equality. This is an issue I'd like to see all the candidates address, but something tells me (yes, it seems I'm becoming increasingly cynical like my friend Harrogate) this is another important issue that will get ignored.

Questioning the Prevalence of Rape

The fact that reporters (particularly female reporters) continue to write articles that question the prevalence of rape in the country only affirms the fact that sexism is alive and well in America. How people can actually believe that feminists "cry rape" is beyond me.

Clinton Accusses Obama of....

inexperience.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle...

Farrakhan Endorses Obama: Democrats Shocked!!!!

And so it begins in earnest. 'Whaaaatttttt'?, exclaim Obama and his supporters. A radical Muslim endorsing Obama? Whoever could have seen this coming?

Well, the good news is, Islam isn't a hotbutton topic in the United States. The corollary good news is, American voters are invulnerable to rumor and innuendo, and indeed, they can be totally trusted to fact-check.

Combine this with the fact that the Other frontunner is irrationally hated by almost half the electorate, and you get the tried and true maxim: Democrats are wonderful at losing elections.


But hey, at least we have historic candidacies, and we get to talk about Hope for a while!!!! That will be excellent consolation when the GOP place more Judges, including at least two Supremes. And when they get hundreds of thousands of more people killed in America's Excellent Arab Adventure.

Another Super Delegate Op-Ed

This time from Geraldine A. Ferraro. Her reason for Super Delegates: the Democratic voters need parents to guide them.

These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee....

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

So there are Democrats and then there are Democrats. The Super Delegates are in place to determine who are the authentic Democrats.

The conspiracy argument on the second page is also nice: It's the Republicans who are choosing our nominee because the Dems have open primaries.

I just love the party of the people.

Ominous article

From The New York Times:

There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

Yet worry they do, with the spring of 1968 seared into their memories, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in a span of two months.

Speaking of Conservapedia...;.

There is a liberal style of ...? Sorry, it is just a liberal style.

May favorite right now is Point "30: Using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason."

The Citation for this comes from a San Francisco Chronicle article that discusses Evolution/ Intelligent Design in Dover, PA.

No, wait. My new favorite is Point 14: "calling conservative humor 'unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia.'"

This doesn't even make sense and the citation goes here.

Full Range of Endorsements

So, I dislike the Oscars. I saw only three or four movies (Michael Clayton, Bourne Ultimatum, Transformers, Juno) on the entire list.

But, in case you were wondering who has endorsed which candidate, I thought I would give an update. But then I found out that Wikipedia already did it for me (and the list includes: Senators, Reps, Staffers, Governors, Mayors, State and Local Officials, Newspapers, Writers, Academics, Business People, Labor Unions, Labor Leaders and Union Officials, Social and Political Activists, Political Groups, Entertainers, Athletes, Family Members of Political Figures (Yep, Charlie Rangels' Wife
), Other Individuals (there is not a group for them- they must be jackasses) and Foreign political Leaders.

Harrogate is not on Obama's list.

Here are the links:
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator John McCain
Lost Nomad, Celebrity Wonk, and Sometimes Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee

And, yes, Senator Obama's site is better organized than Senator Clinton's. No Shock there.

And, and, yes, while Senators Clinton and Obama have separate entries, Senator McCain and wandering Nomad Mike Huckabee does not. That must be Wikipedia's liberal bias.