Is the race over?

According to an editorial by Danial Henninger at The Wall Street Journal, the race ended when Senator Obama received the endorsements of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma. While neither Nunn nor Boren are Super Delegates, the article suggests that they have sway with the Super Delegates that matter, as opposed to the younger, Freshman members of Congress or State Legislatures who have not declared.

Why Nunn and Boren? The article discusses their credibility by stating:

Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans."

In order to win the general, the Democrats need the center in the ideological spectrum. Senator Clinton attempted this by hedging on Iraq and declaring the need for abstinence [which by the way, when Senator Clinton adopts this position, women do not roll their eyes and claim she is not pro-choice]. Even though she was "inevitable" she could not win the primary.

Why did she lose? Money, Henninger argues.

Only one of the Democratic candidates can reshape the party through fundraising. While Senator Clinton raised $10,000,000 since her win, she needs to purchase airtime in Indiana and North Carolina, her campaign costs on average $1,000,000 a day, she needs to repay a $5,000,000 loan to herself, and has an outstanding dept to Mark Penn for $4,500,000. The article also suggests that the Democratic Party may have grown tired of the prior Clinton fundraising scandals, e.g. Lincoln Bedroom, Bill's 60th birthday gala, the 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal, and Hillary's 2007 Norman Hsu.

While her previous fundraising opportunities raise questions and her main donors can no longer contribute, Obama not only has money in the bank but his online, grassroots organization is unparalleled. And this is the key. Senator Obama can expand the party in more ways than the Clintons. And, he represents a new vision of democracy for the Democratic party.

Is the race over? Not yet. Senator Obama could still make a fatal gaffe; Senator Clinton will not back down. However, the signs are there.

The choices and potential between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very stark, especially for our vision of democracy. However, I think the discussion of electability pales in comparison then fundraising and electoral expansion in the eyes of the Super Delegates, especially if the Supers are convinced the Dems will take the White House in the fall. While I am certainly troubled that this decision may develop because of money, at least Senator Obama's vision of fundraising is much more democratic than Senator Clinton's.

This is why people get plastic surgery

Following up on Supa's post on picture books explaining plastic surgery to little kids, I want to direct everyone to this slide show on MSNBC entitled "How Celebrities are Aging." In this slide show, there are pictures of celebrities, including Nicole Kidman, Diane Keaton, and Clint Eastwood, in their "youth" and in 2008. A well-known plastic surgeon offers his opinion on whether any of these individuals has any surgical or non-surgical procedures and on how good those procedures were. One ostensible purpose of the slide show is to point out how many celebrities look so youthful without surgical intervention. But in these photos, one can see every line, every blemish, every mark on these individuals faces. Thus, it emphasizes that there are in fact ways that we can make ourselves look better, only if we hire the "right" plastic surgeon.

Aliza Shvarts and the Slippery Slope Argument

It is most assuredly not for lack of interest that Harrogate has hitherto stayed out of Situation's discussions about the Yale student's art project. It is that Harrogate still has no idea what he thinks about it. It is, shall we say, fraught with complications.

You hate censorship, but then it is the Slippery Slope argument that does you in, in the end. Yesterday Harrogate asked Sarah, a regular contributor to the Situation, if Yale oughtn't to ban staged suicides by invoking the safety clause. Of course, even a hard-core lover of spectacle like Harrogate was implying that yes, Yale ought to ban the use of its facilities for staged suicide.

And so what Harrogate felt left with, in the end, is his old go-to hatred of slavishness to Rules. There is no such thing as a catch-all rule. As much as possible in the Law and in the enforcement of Rules, and even moreso in the realm of cultural critique, things need to be approached in their own particular context. An 18 year-old getting a blowjob from a seventeen year old assuredly does not deserve to labor for the rest of life with the sex offender tag. An 18 year-old getting the same thing from a twelve year old, on the other hand.....

No law, no law, no doctrine can cover it all, there is always the unforseen chink in the armor, fly in the ointment, choose your cliche. We still need people. When a rule is broken, we need to be honest about it and intercede, rather than hiding behind that rule. Witness the Michigan and Florida debacles, what fools we have as a nation made of ourselves, on that score. Consider Cool Hand Luke's sage words, "Calling it your job don't make it right, Boss."

Rule of law is better than rule of men, this is true. But men and women make the rules, and very, very often fuck things up in the process. It is up to all of us to retain the ability to look at things with our own eyes, instead of bowing to doctrine.

But anywho. The Shvarts case is a unique thing and the Yalies need to treat it as such, rather than desperately looking for a clause to safely apply. And again, crucial to how this phenomenon has been playing out on the blogosphere is the Slippery Slope argument. Here is Ben Shapiro using that argument as part of what can only be described a pro-censorship performance. The article, entitled "No Bodily Fluids in the Public Square," includes many nuggets that Situationers might want to incorporate into their ruminations, such as:

All rights have reasonable limits. The right to bear arms does not include a right to own a nuclear weapon. The right to free exercise of religion does not include a right to ritualistic child sacrifice. The right to free expression in art should not include a right to film yourself having an abortion; neither should it include a right to use feces, urine or any other bodily fluid in public, nor should it include a right to engage in sex acts before live audiences.

All of us will find Shapiro's erudite reflections symptomatic of something very familiar: that is, when it comes to how Americans think about and talk about Art, the traditionalist affect--expressed in part through the strong desire for an objective standard of what constitutes worthwhile artistic expression, is very strong indeed.

In a different context, Harrogate was very recently and (sniff, sniff) brutally reminded how strong that affect is, in the community he currently occupies, although this is to say nothing against that community, which he has in his own way come to affectionately embrace.

Shapiro speaks for a huge chunk of the populace that spans the entire nation, blue, red, whatever.

Breast is ruled best

In a quick turnabout from today's earlier decision to part mother's from the BF babies, the courts ruled in favor of nursing mothers, allowing them to stay with their infants.

Breast is best, except for FLDS?

It's difficult to live in TX and not get swept up with the drama surrounding the FLDS women and children. On one hand, 400+ children have just been separated from their mothers and families and placed in foster care. As a mother, this breaks my heart. On the other hand, 400+ children have just been rescued from a potentially harmful situation as stories of underage marriage and abuse circulate. As a mother, I hope the children are safe.

The situtation raises an interesting question about the rights of nursing mothers in FLDS, who at the moment are innocent-until-proven guilty. Do nursing FLDS women have a right to stay with their children? Or, as they are possibliy complicit in the charges of child abuse is it best to separate them from their children? Texas judge Barbara Walther ruled in favor of the latter, using as part of her argument the excuse that "women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave." Thus, she does not see the big deal in separating a nursing infant from his/her mother. However, those of us who have BF understand that this is a very big deal. Furthermore, many women continue to pump well after they return to work, ensuring that their babies benefit from breast milk. Will the FLDS women be allowed the same privlege? Or, will their infants be forced to wean suddenly and be denied the continued benefits of their mother's milk?

Texas judge Barber Walther responded to the FLDS women's plea by saying that women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave; in other words, get over it, it's no big deal to wean. She then placed the decision making in CPS's hands, who will deal with nursing women on a case-by-case basis. Currently, they'll allow teenage nursing mothers to remain with their infants, but not adult women. A blog of BF advocates has sprung out of this mess: http://fldsbreastmilk.blogspot.com/

More Evidence that Boys are Better than Girls

A recent British study indicates that pregnant women "who skip breakfast and eat less are more likely to give birth to girls, while moms who consume more calories and a wider range of nutrients — including, specifically, those from breakfast cereal — are more likely to deliver sons." Hmmm. So, girls are the product of inferior nutrition? Then they really are the "weaker sex"! Proof at last!

Fortunately, actual scientists have pointed out that the sex of a baby is actually determined by genetics--not sexual positions, the moon's location at conception, the parents' desires, or nutrition. However, I ate the hell out of some breakfast cereal (and everything else), and I did give birth to a boy. Maybe it's true!

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

The Final Margin-- 9.4%.

As expected, Clinton wins Pennsylvania though the margin of victory is still unclear at this point, especially in terms of delegates won and final popular vote total. As of now, rough estimates suggest a 6% - 10% victory in terms of popular vote. According to the five scenarios I suggested earlier, this may fall in the worst scenario, the gray area where no one really wins. As exit polls suggest, the voters in Pennsylvania expect Senator Obama to be the nominee they just wanted to vote for Senator Clinton tonight. That makes sense, maybe.

Before tonight, Senator Obama possessed a 166 (rough estimate) delegate lead and a 700,000+ lead in the popular vote. After tonight, Senator Obama will possess a 150 delegate lead and around a 500,000+ lead in the popular vote if Senator Clinton wins by 10%. FYI- this does not include Florida.

Two weeks until North Carolina and Indiana. One will go to Obama, one is undecided.

So what will we hear from the candidates for the next two weeks?

Senator Clinton:
She is down in the the official standard (delegate count), the unofficial standard (popular vote), and the momentum from Super Delegates is not on her side. Her campaign raised questions on Senator Obama but could not provide a landslide in a state that heavily favors her. Most importantly, she is not only broke but she owes a lot of people & vendors millions. In addition, her campaign costs $1,000,000 a day to run.

But she did win tonight and that means the fundraising opportunities will open up for her. She needs enough to be competitive in Indiana and attempt North Carolina. For her to have a legitimate claim to the nomination, she needs to win both states on May 6th. According to Politico, since the news organizations called the elections, she raised $500,000.

She can only win the nomination by the Super Delegates, mainly on the grounds that only she can beat Senator McCain in the fall. To argue this point, Super Delegates will need to overlook the pledged delegate count, which she cannot conceivable win, and most likely the popular vote, which she will most likely not win as her campaign expects to lose North Carolina by 150,000. Yet, this means that the elections from the past six months matter little. Think about that.

She will also push for a resolution for Florida and Michigan so we can expect to hear arguments on every variation of "Count Every Vote" regardless of the legitimacy of the election. For these states to matter, she needs the popular vote and not the delegate count.

I imagine that she will attempt to push Senator Obama for another debate. Both candidates rejected a debate in North Carolina. If I were her, I would challenge him in her victory speech tonight. She must be aggressive if she wants to win. Tomorrow, The New York Times will publish an editorial, "The Low Road to Victory," that attacks her advertisements in Pennsylvania. As the first two paragraphs suggest, time is not on her side and she is not helping what time she has left.

Yet, while she must watch her techniques, she has to emasculate Obama by showing he cannot "close the deal." Look for every variation of this argument: can't reach Hillary Voters, voters are unsure, there are still questions, etc.

Finally, she needs the support of the Super Delegates. There are roughly 350 undecided right now. She will need well over 60% of them to break her way. If she goes negative though she may lose their support.

Senator Obama
First, hope that the margin of victory is under ten and as close to 6 as possible. If it is under six you still retain a symbolic victory though you lost a few news cycles.

Second, go to Indiana and campaign with your new best friend John Mellencamp. Engage in retail politics and talk to any person that will listen. But avoid the waffles. If you win this state, this ought to be enough to end this nomination process.

Third, ignore Senator Clinton and unofficially declare yourself the winner of the primary. Be very courteous and avoid the attacks on her. If Senator Clinton cannot win the pledged delegates and if some of her close supporters stated that they would support the winner of the pledged delegates at the end of the race, then the dynamics of the race will not change. This may mean ignore calls for debating and ignore the attacks from Senator Clinton. This will be must easier to do after North Carolina.

Fourth, turn your attention to Senator McCain and do a better job of saying that he will be better than Bush. I mean it is not exactly the Commander in Chief/ threshold comment but find other ways to define him.

Fifth, economy is looking to be the issue right now. Work on developing your policy and address it with a major speech. Gain a few news cycles.

Finally, provide a steady stream of Super Delegates beginning with your speech tonight.

Senator Clinton's Speech:
There are a lot of appeals to her audience (her father played football at Penn State) but she seems to be going through the motions. I know that she must be incredible tired but she does lack passion through most of the speech. The appeals to women (grandmothers and daughters) draw the biggest applause. This is the set up for her fundraising appeal- "the future of the campaign is in your hands" or, more literally, in your purse.

She spends the end of her speech attacking President Bush with the typical red meat issues for liberals (science, education, ending war, etc.) At the end of her speech, she has a few good puns with "Yes, We Will." "Hope will be reality." "Words will be solutions."

Too bad this was too late; it would have been effective in February.

Equal Pay Day

While today is Earth Day, it is also Equal Pay Day. What is Equal Pay day you ask? Equal Pay Day is:

Observed in April to mark the point in each year at which an average woman’s wages finally catch up to the wages earned the year before by the average man. And this year women, who make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes (63 cents for African American women and 52 cents for Latinas), reach that point on April 22nd.

According to Anna Marie Cox, Congress is working on legislation to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision that "restricted workers' ability to sue for pay discrimination to 'within 180 days after the original pay-setting decision, no matter how long the unfair pay continues.'" Here is a description of the legislation.

Neighborhood Breakdown of Manhattan

I needed to check out where the location of Hell's Kitchen was in Manhattan. In the process, I found two maps that attempted to explain the the location of neighborhoods. After examining this map, I am just amazed over how many neighborhoods exist in 22.96 square miles.

The Eyes of Texas are upon Pennsylvania?

Today is the day, the first day of the rest of your political lives. Or, maybe not. It depends mostly on how many people will get out to vote today, for whom will the undecideds break for in the primary, and what effect will the newly registered voters (350,000+) in Pennsylvania have on the primary?

If you are interested, The Washington Post has eight questions about the Primary today. Politico has five indicators for today's vote. From Slate, there will be no brokered convention because there are no brokers. Finally, from Ezra Klein at The American Prospect, if moderators were to conduct, a good, soft debate, read interview, (rather than the soft, ABC debate), the questions may focus on why Senator Clinton went from a Goldwater Girl to Wellesley radical (intellectual political development); ask Obama about lessons learned from working in an investment bank ("real world experience"); ask about the last book of fiction they read, an intellectual passion other than politics, a bad boss, major in college & why? These questions would reveal their personalities without focusing on gaffes.

For my purposes, I would like to focus on when is a "win" a "win"?

The scenarios for today are:

Scenario One: A victory by Senator Obama ends this game. This is unlikely. Though Senator Obama closed a 20 point gap from a few weeks ago and 33 from November, it is unlikely he could finish this game here. Senator Clinton has too much name recognition and institutional strength for a full victory. This has been the case for all large, Democratic strongholds (New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas) where Senator Clinton began with an incredible institutional advantage. For example, before the election started, Senator Clinton had a 100+ Super Delegate lead. Of her 262 Super Delegates, almost 100 Super Delegates are from New York alone.

Scenario Two: A small, one-point victory by Senator Clinton. In this case, a victory is not a victory as Senator Clinton will win the battle but lose the war. With this "loss," Senator Clinton will lose the ability to raise funds, which is important as she is in severe dept and, according to MSNBC's Chief Political Correspondent, Chuch Todd, she will most likely not contest North Carolina. This means Senator Obama will will push up his totals in North Carolina, which will most likely happen anyways, making the battle moot.

As for the Super Delegates, in scenario one and two, the Super Delegates will jump on mass to Senator Obama, as they will want to focus their attention on the general election. Further, if Senator Clinton does not leave the race, it would be best if Senator Obama acted as if she did and turned his attention to John McCain.

Scenario Three: Senator Clinton wins by 3 - 6 points. A victory in this range could mean anything though it still favors Obama. This may still be considered a victory by Senator Obama as he reduced the polls from a 20 point difference to a small difference. Senator Clinton will gain in the popular vote but this will be rendered moot by North Carolina. Further, it is unclear if Senator Clinton will be able to raise more money. Basically, Senator Clinton will win for another day.

Scenario Four: A Senator Clinton victory between 7 - 9 percentage points. This starts to look like a loss by Senator Obama but it is not a decisive victory by Senator Clinton. As Chuck Todd states, the $9 million spent by Senator Obama on advertising in PA would not have been as effective as it could have been. Maybe it would have been better spent in Indiana. Yet, a 7 - 9 point victory does not mean Clinton will pull ahead in the popular vote, gain more Super Delegates, or be able to gain enough funds to fight on to other states. When you are heavily favored and you receive mixed results, the campaign no longer looks like a wise investment, for political capital or monetary funds. The campaign will continue for another two weeks to await the results in North Carolina and Indiana but, without funds...

Scenario Five: A Clinton win by double-digits. With this, Clinton may seem viable, she may gain funds & Super Delegates, and she may raise doubts about Senator Obama. The most favorable result would be for the Clinton campaign to gain 200,000+ votes to reduce Senator Obama's 700,000+ vote lead and Pennsylvania is her best chance to do this. Further, she will need the "momentum" to win Indiana and decrease Senator Obama's victory in North Carolina. If she does not do the second, even a double-digit lead may not help her. Finally, Senator Clinton must press about Florida and Michigan, a battle she has not won because the elections were illegitimate under basic standards of fair and free elections. Senator Clinton may pick up delegates but they cannot include the popular vote. (Senator Nelson from Florida is on MSNBC now speaking will Mika and Joe and the discussion of Florida is just dishonest as they do not discuss what constitutes fair elections.)

Finally, according to Tim Russert on Morning Joe, in an interview on The Today Show, Senator Clinton stated that Super Delegates, I imagine, should make a judgment based on "feelings" and "history." At this point, when you abandon the official, legitimate standard of delegate count and even disregard the unofficial and inconsistent popular vote standard, you admit you cannot win either or both, disdain the democratic process, and do not have much "hope" for winning. If "feeling" and "history" is your standard, you do not have much argumentative ground left to argue your case. Why bother having elections in the first place?

This comment is just as asinine as former President Bill Clinton stating if the rules were different, the Clinton campaign would be wining.

If it weren't for those pesky rules, aye Bill?

Yale Art Projects

Two days ago, I wrote about s Yale Art Student's controversial art project concerning reproductive rights. According to Yale Daily News, the University will not allow Aliza Shvarts to display her art project unless she defines it as a work of fiction. Th school also disciplined two faculty members to allow the project to continue.

It seems that if Yale forces her to do declare this as fiction, then it diminishes the meaning of the art because, first, it ruins the ambiguity of the project-- is it real, is it not-- and diminishes the "shock value." Originally, I thought the art was only "shock value." Once you attempt to remove the "shock value," it, in a weird way, becomes art. Second, it forces a definition on her project, which reinforces her point about the rhetoric of definition, but eliminates the democratic nature of the work as the University tells us what to think. If the student expected this result, which I do no think she did, then she is very smart. However, I think her statement suggests she desired the shock value only. Third, it reflects why most people do not get to discuss this issue, reinforcing the view that politics, especially the culture wars, is a game only for elites.

Since Yale is a private University there are much different first amendment arguments in place as private universities possess a greater legal ability to restrict speech, though it would be unwise to do so, especially if this becomes "art" after the University's action.

The Volokh Conspiracy writes that first, a school can use content neutral approaches to regulate school projects, such as do not use human blood, protect the health of students, etc., however, because of the nature of modern art, there may not be a clear line; second, the school can employ a "tell the truth" policy i.e. students should state their projects are fiction or a parody, but this is much harder for a work of art (aren't representations, especially abstract representations, "lies") and eliminates the shock value of the message; and three, the university needs to set clear rules beforehand and it is not clear in this case if those rules were in place.

Though it seems that the University is attacking the student for her message and for a perceived lack of taste, I do not think that this will turn into a larger first amendment controversy. It certainly would not find a sympathetic ear with this Supreme Court. In fact, this controversy will soon go away as soon as people like me stop posting on it.

If there are further updates, I will let you know.

Thomas Frank on Class and Elitism in American Politics

Thomas Frank, author of What's The Matter With Kansas, a new editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, and the "inspiration" for Senator Obama's "Bitter" and "Cling" remarks, wrote an interesting column on the problem with "BitterGate:"

But I know one thing with absolute certainty. The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama's gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

Frank describes the complaints against Senator Obama as an attack on his "sensibilities," leaving him open to be attacked as an Intellectual (George Will), a Marxist (William Kristol), or an Anthropologist (Maureen Dowd). By providing presence to the attitude we can avoid examining the actual economic policies that ensure that people are elite. Instead, we focus only on attitudes.
The editorial attacks both the left and the right for overlooking the actually economic argument in contemporary American politics. Liberals, according to Frank, "perfume themselves with the essence of honest toil" to show solidarity but support programs that perpetuate the elite divide and deny that people could be bitter as, "That there is no place for such sentiment in the Party of the People."

Conservatives forget the democratic pretense and live for the bitterness: "hey have welcomed it, they have flattered it, they have invited it in with millions of treason-screaming direct-mail letters, they have given it a nice warm home on angry radio shows situated up and down the AM dial. There is not only bitterness out there; there is a bitterness industry." Yet, even though there is bitterness, economic equality will not develop from this spectrum.

It seems that Frank's candidate is not Senator Obama per se as his thoughts appear closer to supporting John Edwards. Unfortunately, while Edwards raised the class issue, one, very few bought his message and, two, he lacked some level of authenticity to pursue it, though his announcement message in New Orleans was excellent, even if highly staged. Here is the way the article ends:

The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don't care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I'll fly the plane myself.

The article is highly worth the five-minute read, especially as it implicates both parties in contemporary politics.

Big Day Tomorrow

To prepare for tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary, I suggest that all readers of the Rhetorical Situation head over to the Onion's page of PA coverage. Information abounds, most notably the following:

Pennsylvania and Ohio are usually compared to one another because they are both key hellhole states.

While the area's steel industry has struggled financially in recent years, it still wields a certain amount of influence over delegates who are suspended above vats of molten lead.

Pennsylvania has 188 Democratic delegates up for grabs, down from 211 following a tragic mine collapse in 2005.

Philadelphia, the state's largest city, is famous for its delicious, disgusting, delicious food.

Pennsylvania's late-April primary has traditionally been symbolic of the goddamn primary season almost being over.

Also useful are the site's issue pages, which cite, for example, Obama's position on abortion--" Did some crazy shit in the '80's, not going to lie"--Clinton's position on the economy--"We need to create new jobs in this country—green collar jobs that can help our economy and our environment. And I'd like to point out that that's my term—'green collar' jobs. See, I can come up with exciting phrases"--and McCain's position on foreign affairs--"Will not meet with with leaders of unfriendly states, unless it's to give them a head's up that the United States is about to bomb them."

Outsourcing in America

Following up on Supa's post on toxic toys made in China, I have been thinking a lot about outsourcing recently. Most of these thoughts manifest themselves when I must call the phone company or the credit card company. It seems that I, inevitably, end up talking to someone who is clearly not in this country, who doesn't speak English particularly well, and who is often unable to help me at all, especially when my problem deviates from the script the person on the other line has been given. My feelings about outsourcing are complex and varied. I really believe that many Americans simply do not want these jobs, and thus, as these are jobs that need to be filled, American companies have to outsource them. Outsourcing, of course, benefits corporate America in lots of ways--cheaper services + charging their customers the same prices=bigger profits. From their standpoint it is a no-brainer. From a customer service standpoint, outsourcing causes lots of problems.

Mr. M and I recently combined our phone, internet, and cable into one bill (yes, we decided to "bundle" all of these services), and I was told that the cable company would contact the phone company to turn off our phone line but I needed to contact the phone company to terminate our DSL service. I did all of this, but for months I continued to receive bills for DSL services that I had canceled and was no longer using. Every month I called the phone company and spoke with multiple people, each time my account was credited the amount they said I owed, and I was assured the account was closed. I was given confirmation numbers each time. With each phone call, I was bounced around the world, and I initially always spoke with some one who was clearly not American. Once this people realized I did not have a run of the mill problem they were wholly unable to help me. Each time I was transferred multiple times, and the problem was not resolved until I demanded to speak to a manager, who was then able to figure out the problem, put in the proper override codes (which makes me think that these companies intentionally make it difficult to cancel accounts), and cancel my account.

Here is my question: is outsourcing really so cost effective? My problem, which I would argue was aggravated by the fact that the initial employees were not prepared to deal with such a complicated problem and the fact that no one in these companies is cross trained (they have a separate department for everything, so I had to speak to someone about canceling the account and someone about crediting my account the amount the company said I owed), took over 5 hours during 4 separate phone calls to be resolved. Each time I spoke to at least 4 people. The $31 a month the company continued to charge me was barely enough to cover what these individuals earned in the amount of time they spent trying to correct this problem. Surely there has to be more cost effective way (and one that promotes better customer service) for companies to handle these sorts of issues.

Just in time for Mother's Day!

A new children's book, called My Beautiful Mommy, explains mommy's plastic surgery to kids--to "ease their fears." Seriously. I suppose it's a good idea, given the prevalence of cosmetic surgery these days, but it also teaches kids from a very young age that physical beauty is so important that we should go under the knife to achieve it. My favorite part, I think, is the mother's fantasy of being crowned Miss Beautiful Mommy in image #3--sets a great example for her daughter.

The Feminist Case against Hillary Clinton

Eons ago in the campaign, January to be exact, Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times making the case for Senator Hillary Clinton.

In the Telegraph (UK), Camille Paglia argues the feminist case against Hillary Clinton. This argument attacks Senator Clinton's experience and competence arguments.

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark.

In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.

Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record.

The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.

In the article, Paglia differentiates between the claims of sexism or misogyny against Senator Clinton and the claims against her abilities as a lawyer and politician, which have been muddled together on the campaign trail. It also juxtaposes her "anti-male" tone (boys clubs) with how she benefited from her husband.

Like Carl Berstein's piece against Senator Clinton, this seems personal. But, attacks on judgment and ability can be. Another Slate article, "For Better or for Worse," examines the marriage between Hillary and Bill reads the same way. The Slate article is good though as it attempts to explain how politics works as the bridge between the two.

But, does this just seem as another attempt to explain at how a group votes, or ought to vote, without considering a lot of other relevant information? How can one make a "feminist" case for or against a candidate? It makes solid points against Senator Clinton but that is all.

And just, think, in two days, Senator Clinton will win Pennsylvania and these Op-Eds will continue for at least another two weeks.

Hell, Yeah! (Or a Follow-Up to Carme Chacon)

Thanks, Supa, for alerting us to Spain's new Defense Minister. Since our discussion began, she has traveled to Afghanistan to review Spain's troops there. I think she's a superstar for taking the criticism in stride and getting on with the business of her new job. The linked article is interesting, however, for three major reasons:

1. Far from "silencing" critics, as the article claims, Chacon had to answer many questions regarding the safety of her unborn child on a trip like this:

The unannounced trip was criticised by some for potentially putting her child at risk. But Ms Chacon said her pregnancy was an easy one, and told journalists during a two-hour stopover in Kuwait "that she would never put her child's future at risk". Asked if she was tired by the 10-hour flight from Madrid, she replied; "The election campaign was harder, and longer".

2. The article notes that Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero received lots of criticism last week after appointing a mostly female cabinet. The most notable comments were summarized in the piece:

Comments by Italy's new President Silvio Berlusconi about Spain's cabinet being "too pink" and "difficult to control", coupled with photos of him aiming an imaginary gun at a female journalist, have produced incredulity and derision among Spaniards.

These comments were also interesting and troubling:

"Chacon moves on to the attack in Afghanistan," wrote the daily ABC, a conservative newspaper that a week ago had sneered at Mr Zapatero's "battalion of seamstresses".

"Chacon fulfilled her role as Defence Minister, and showed she could command the armed forces despite her circumstances," wrote the male reporter in the equally conservative El Mundo newspaper. "The soldiers said they were delighted with her; not one made any criticism.

3. Finally, I was amused and disturbed by the article's description of Chacon's clothing and attitude as she met with Spanish troops:

The minister wore a white smock, loose trousers and military boots, and was serious and relaxed, according to journalists who traveled with her. At no point did she affect a military air as she received salutes from the troops.

The Performance of Reproductive Rights

Since a few posts this week have addressed reproductive rights and a few have addressed art, I found a story that combines the two. I have been reading around this post for a few days now and, for some reason, I finally decided to clink on the link. Here is the story.

For her senior project, Aliza Shvarts, Yale Art student, documented a nine-month process whereby she inseminated herself and then took miscarriage inducing drugs. She then filmed certain aspects of the exercise and the film will debut this week. There have been some conflicting reports on the details. For example, a report from The New York Sun states she only took herbal medicine and she seems sketchy on other aspects of the story.

According to Shvarts, she believes "strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity." Here is her description of the project:

For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages. I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity. From the 9th to the 15th day of my menstrual cycle, the fabricators would provide me with sperm samples, which I used to privately self-inseminate. Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding.

To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used. Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original.

This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body. The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse.

It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership. An intentional ambiguity pervades both the act and the objects I produced in relation to it. The performance exists only as I chose to represent it. For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.

This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming — the act of ascribing a word to something physical — is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term “miscarriage” or “period” to that blood.

According to Associated Content, a University Spokesperson- the academic analogy to some say-- declared this was a hoax. The artists disagrees though she is unsure if she procured any miscarriages.

There seem to be quite a few points about this, ethical, aesthetic, and academic. If this story were true and not fictional, what would be the ethical standard for her audience to judge the performance? While the purpose of her piece makes sense (the last paragraph and not the other incoherent paragraphs), there are certainly other means to make this point. Of course, this would reduce her argument only to the shock value and emotional content of her piece.

Second, does this work advance the dialogue and debate of the abortion debate? While certainly provocative, The New Republic notes that this piece of art does not advance the pro-choice argument because it removes the safety and privacy aspects of the debate.

Finally, I would add that in terms of a debate, this performance art would offer the same effect as the large photos of fetuses from the pro-life group, Justice for All. Both "performative acts" apply the same appeal to pity fallacy in which the emotional aspect of the message cuts of debate on the topic. When relying on fallacies, it seems that dialogue won't advance. Consequently, her advancement of a political discourse would fail as no one outside her own community would engage her debate.

Paperweight writer, I expect your full attention on this post...

WTF?

Today I went to Target to stock on some essentials and to replace Supadiscotoddler's sippy cups, which are, apparently, poisonous. Strolling past the toy section, I noticed a display of inexpensive little toys, and I grabbed a package of three small bouncy balls--mini-soccer ball, mini-baseball, mini-basketball--because Supadiscotoddler loves him some balls (save your comments, dirty minds). Upon arriving home, Supadiscotoddler set to work bouncing the balls all over the house. Almost simultaneously, Supadiscodaddy and I noticed the smell of gasoline in the house. The source of the smell, it seemed, were the bouncy balls. Obviously, toys reeking of gasoline are not ideal. I checked the package for more info: "Made in China" was all it said. We distracted Supadiscobaby and were able to throw the balls away. So, I ask you, what the fuck? Why is it that, all of a sudden, we're discovering that everything our kids play with or drink out of or eat off of may be toxic?

In Support of the Reverend

Alright a little art lesson for you today: now to support the Reverend who finds P-duck's image disgusting, which one of you brainy-acts can tell me why I posted this image by David, "The Death of Marat" in relationship to P's image and to M's van der Weyden???? Trust me, the answer relates to the tenets of the TRS.

Sorry for the extended absence folks but been job hunting--think I got one but more to follow about the ordeals of academic job searches!

A Follow-up on Motherhood vs. Career

Apparently the citizens of Alaska do not ask the same questions of their governor that the citizens of Spain ask their Defense Minister.

Military Analysis and the development of Public Opinion

In tomorrow's New York Times, there is a very long article discussing the way in which the Pentagon employs "analysis" in an attempt to sell specific policies.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

The dangerous aspects of this is the way in which certain ideological perspectives establish certain cultures and policies. And all of this depends on the manipulation of information.

In theory, the Times study is not anything new. Noam Chomsky is most likely laughing at this article. Or cringing.

Motherhood vs. Career

MSNBC.com has an interesting article on Spain's (pregnant) defense minister.

I apologize for all of the lame link-only posts, but that's all I've got to give these days :)

Obama: Pro-Choice?

See this post at Bitch, Ph.D.

To follow the trend set by Harrogate, here is one of my favorite pieces...

Debate 21: Round Two: You mean there are some policy questions involved?

Round Two focused on Iran & Iraq, The Economy, The Second Amendment (because of Virginia Tech & the D.C. Case), Affirmative Action, Gas Prices, The Use of Ex Presidents, & Making Your Case to Super Delegates.

Iran and Iraq: Senator Obama did well on Iraq and Iran. As to when to withdraw, Senator Clinton attempted invoked the “Civilian Control” of the military but has little knowledge in this area (as most civilians do), meaning how can she ask the generals to leave when then present her with conflicting information. Senator Obama’s message was more direct (for the first time in this debate) “The Commander in Chief sets the mission,” which allows for input from the Generals. Senator Clinton comes across as the tougher, hawkish candidate, who will exceed constitutional authority; Senator Obama, better judgment. The question remains, who do you trust to get us in and out of war?

The Economy: Tax cuts for you, not for the rich. Obama ups the ante with a payroll tax cut. Capital Gain Taxes will increase. Can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China (good metaphor.) The right will attack Obama endlessly on the Capital Gains Tax though Hillary will raise them as well but only to a certain point. Do the middle class voters of Pennsylvania actually care about the Capital Gains Tax?

The Second Amendment: They have the same position: Clinton wants “sensible” legislation; Obama, “Common sense,” though, because of word choice, Obama basis his argument on traditional standards. Overall, draw, though I hear, from my apartment, Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy laughing to themselves. The GOP wins this question.

Affirmative-Action: Both candidates need to make this a class issue and then end it. Say “Even the poor deserves an education.” Clinton wins this question.

Gas Prices: Not much can be done on this issue. Sorry, $4.00/ gallon sucks. However, $5.00 is worse. Any alternatives? Nope.

How would you use ex-President? On a SNL skit…. End of story. No points awarded.

Final Question: how will you make your case to the Super Delegates? Disregard their answers as they will make their case however they choose, right Bill Richardson? No points awarded.

Their answers: Senator Clinton is a fighter and, if you believe that the Democrats need a fighter, Senator Clinton is you choice. If you desire the red/ blue game, choose her. Senator Obama argued that politics is about empowerment and building from the ground up; if desire a post-partisan country, even for a few years, Senator Obama is your candidate.

Score:
GOP: 5 (2nd Amendment, No Super Delegates, Iran)
Senator Clinton: 7 (Minus 1 for Iraq)
Senator Obama: 6 (Minus 1 for AA, Economy)

The GOP wins, as even though they tied Senator Clinton in points, they did not debate. Anytime you win while sitting on the sidelines, you win. Senator Clinton takes second place.

As for Senator Obama, good luck in North Carolina. Unless you hope for a Clinton/ New Hampshire backlash, you'll fare better in another venue. Also, I would avoid ABC in the future.

One A Side Note:
There were no questions on Global Warming/ Environment, Torture, Interrogation Techniques, Supreme Court Justices, Health Care, Education, Executive Authority, Israel/ Palestine, Spreading Democracy, Darfur, Alternative Energy, Michigan and Florida… etc. Oh well, Flag Pins are important.

Debate 21: Round One- Hey, Anyone Have a Life Vest?

When I first looked at the candidates, I swore I saw Fred Armisen and Amy Poehler. But, I digress…

Welcome to out 23,432 installment of better know a candidate. In this segment, we will focus on who holds the anchor. Who ever holds it for the longest, loses. Senator Obama, you held the anchor for much too long in the debate and, you lost.

The questions in debate number #21 were much tougher than recent debates, as were the follow ups. But this does not mean that they were better or address important topics, especially to the voters of Pennsylvania.

The first section focused on the Dream Ticket, Bitter-Gate, Jeremiah Wright, Bosnia, William Ayers (a member of The Weather Underground), and a Flag-Pin, which as you can imagine, these topics favor Senator Clinton. ABC attempted to use snippets of the Constitution throughout. However, the first question showed the futility of this approach and the debate. Moderator Charlie Gibson asked the two candidates about a Dream Ticket, invoking the idea that the Original Constitution stated that the person that received the most votes would be president, the second most, VP. Of Course, this question was predicated on a portion of the Constitution that was amended via the 12^th Amendment. If you don't know the Constitution, don't ask questions based on it.

Here is a recap: The Unity question, at the beginning, flopped and left the candidates with an uncomfortable silence. The moderators hit Obama hard on “Bittergate,” Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers from the Weather Underground, and Flag Pins. Senator Clinton hit Obama hard on these topics, throwing him an anchor every chance she could get. Obama responded, as best as he could, by trying to focus on the issues, which is surprising that a candidate would want to address the issues. When the media asks a question about the patriotism of a candidate, no one wins.

Senator Clinton got hit hard on losing a voter over Bosnia, though she admitted she made a mistake and moved forward. On the downside, she admitted she had baggage and acknowledged that President Clinton pardoned two members of The Weather Underground. On the plus side, she sat back and watched Obama drown, making her case to the Super Delegates through silence. When necessary, she provided good answers. Smart Move.

Obama attempted to argue these questions were just politics as usual and we needed to move forward and out of these petty issues to solve our issues (Iraq, Health Care, Economy). Senator Clinton argued that the Democrats needs a fighter and attacked Obama, showing the Super Delegates that his is unelectable because of Guilt by Association. If this were true, neither can win in November.

End of Round One: The Score (Two points for each question, 12 max)
GOP: 12
Clinton: 8 (Minus for Dream Ticket, Bosnia, and Baggage.)
Obama: 3 (Plus for feistiness, going easy on Bosnia, & surviving; otherwise, it would be a 0)

It will be interesting to see what degree Bitter, Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, & the Flag-Pin continue after this debate. Also, can Hillary use the "Obama can't win argument" any longer as she has denounced it? What about Obama standing up to criticism?

And for the umpteenth time, there will be no Unity Ticket.

Another of my favorites

It comes to no surprise to my fellow Situationers that I love art, but few paintings have elicited a physical reaction from me. Roger van der Weyden's The Deposition is so beautiful that I cried when I saw it in person. van der Weyden, a Northern Renaissance painter, puts the viewer on the same plan as Christ being deposed from the cross. The viewer is the same size as all of the figures in the painting, and from where it is hung in the Prado, I was at eye level with the Virgin Mary. I could easily read the painting as a commentary on grief and mourning, but I'd rather just share the beauty with my friends.

Bringing in a little "low" art; because I can

James Gillray; The Fashionable Mamma; or the Convenience of Modern Dress (1796)

Because I Don't Want to Be Left Out

Because Harrogate did it

Just 'cause

Pennsylvania, the New Texas

On April 22nd, Senator Clinton will most likely win the Democratic Primary in the Keystone State. Polls vary, but Real Clear Politics shows that in Quinnipiac she is up by 6% and, in Survey USA, she leads by 16%.

Yet, there is another angle to this story. Because this is a Democratic primary and, we know that Democrats adhere to fairness above equality, CQ Politics examines the congressional districts and argues that Clinton will take 53 pledged delegates to Senator Obama's 50. Like Texas, some areas receive more delegates than others.

The 103 district-level delegates are not distributed evenly. Democratic-leaning congressional districts are awarded more delegates than Republican-leaning districts. The state’s 2nd District, a Democratic bastion centered in Philadelphia, has nine district delegates to divvy up among Clinton and Obama. The heavily Republican 9th District, in the south-central part of the state, has just three.

Pennsylvania has 84 other delegates, divided between Super Delegates (29), at-large pledged delegates (35), and PLEOs (20) [a PLEO is a Pledged (Party) Leader or Elected Official]. It is this last category that Senator Clinton did not fill out a full ballot for before the deadline. According to a diary on MYDD, the at-large would split 20 - 15 Clinton and the PLEOs 12 - 8.

While I do not know how the Supers will split-- CNN reports the current Super split is, Clinton 14, Obama 5-- her pledged delegate pickup will be +11.

Combined, she will pick up 25 delegates, with 14 Supers undecided.

If she were to win the nomination, a 25 delegate pickup will not help as she is down by over 140 according to MSNBC, and this is her best chance to pick up delegates. She should do well in Puerto Rico (63) and Kentucky (60). However, Of course, Senator Obama will win North Carolina (134) and should win Oregon (65).

In the other states, Clinton will win the majority in West Virginia (39 total), Kentucky (60), while Senator Obama will win the majority in Guam (9), Montana (25), and South Dakota (23).

Indiana is the wild-card with 85 delegates and polls show this is close, meaning they will most likely split most of the delegates, leaving the winner only to pick up a few.

Senator Clinton will need to make her case to the Super Delegates through the popular vote, If that were the case, she would need at least to net 300,000 from Pennsylvania. Of course, you could make the "electibility," [who has a better shot of beating Senator McCain] if you dehistoricize the polls and ask the Super Delegates to choose within discerning what will happen or choose the nominee as late as possible, i.e. The Convention. Yet, this means you lose at least four months (May - August) to begin the fall campaign, which will hurt either candidate's ability to win in November. Is that irony?

I am starting to have other thoughts about the Democratic Primary: it is just a clever game based on Inoculation theory. I've had a feeling about this since March but I will have more on this later. However, if this were the case, then the Democrats would be serious about winning the election and would be smart about it. And, for some reason, I cannot believe this it is the case that they could play people like this as it may require a sophisticated level of coordination and organization not known to the Democratic Party.

Typo in Time

Time has listed the five best blogs and, somehow, the Situation was left off the list. In case you'd like to check out numbers two through six, here they are:

• The Huffington Post
• Lifehacker
• Metafilter
• Treehugger
• Postsecret

Enjoy.

Shallow But Frightening Thoughts

Is there a class of men among us in America who, were they to ever perceive the presence of a choice between a world Dominated by the United States and no world at all, would choose no world at all?

And if this class is among us, who are they? Does this class of men have any stroke in either major political Party? Does their likeness appear in any of the three Presidential candidates? etc.

For what it is worth Harrogate feels it is a cop-out to invoke the caricature of the "Endtimes" driven Social Conservative/Evangelical at this juncture. That is a separate issue, and for Harrogate's money, more founded in illusion than in fact.

Indeed. The most striking thing about Social/Religious Conservatives is that they draw off all the most precious imaginative energy of liberal Americans. We are so busy warning against this "element" that we don't seem to notice that the far more dangerous eco-cons have by now almost totally closed the circuit on our republic. Witness the fact that so many people, even after all that has happened with the country, conceive of George W. Bush in primnarily in terms of social conservatism.

But anywho. Perhaps even the eco-cons ought to be mildly freaked by the questions Harrogate poses above.

Yes. Some might argue that the questions are hysterical ones in the first place. And, perhaps they are.

(Although, the Wars keep mounting, the shit-talking keeps escalating, and even those few among us who cared enough to do anything about it, wouldn't know where to begin. Blogging from one's study, for example, probably aint making much headway).

Where does your money go?

From The New Republic, a look at where your tax money goes. As the brief article states, it is always helpful to known how the government uses our tax money, especially when politicians call for cutting spending and cutting taxes.

And, of course, the song of the day, "Taxman" by The Beatles.

Response by Clinton Supporter

Sunday, I posted The Case Against Senator Clinton. If you are interested, here is the response.

It seems the article by Carl Bernstein did not sit well with the Clinton camp. Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, fundraiser, or former Clinton lawyer, provided a response on CNN.

Davis attempts to minimize Berstein's argument by characterizing all of them as personal attacks without any facts and to suggest that Berstein uses the same methods he accuses of the Clintons without applying the standards to Senator Obama.

Visual Irony...

I decided to take a break from grading and visited The New York Times website. When I arrived, I saw this photo for the headline, "McCain Calls Obama Remarks Elitist."



While the photo looks straight out of Bat-Man, either the 1960s TV show or the lame, non-Tim Burton movies, because of the angles. I could not help to notice the irony of McCain, who appears as if he is pounding his fists on the podium while standing next to a very large projection of himself to his right. And since all Americans possess this ability and technology, the elitism label escapes him.

But, more importantly, if McCain were on Bat-Man, what would his villain name be? The other candidates?

Congratulations to Bret Michaels

Last night on the season finale of Rock of Love II, he found his soul mate . . . again!! Here's to Bret and his rock of love Amber.


For the record, the above picture is Bret, not Amber. (Her tattoo is on her left arm.)

The Case Against Hillary Clinton

I posted earlier on Senator Obama. Here is one for Senator Clinton.

"What a Clinton Presidency Would Look Like," by Carl Bernstein, Watergate discoverer, as if he found the hotel, & Clinton biography, for A Woman In Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It portrays her as a fighter, as anyone would expect. Yet, the article also makes the case that the fighter ethos harms her:

In fact, the demotion of Penn –- like the departure of Hillary’s acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager –- is a confession that, for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.

It is exactly under such circumstances that she usually resorts to the worst excesses that mark her in full warrior-mode — and all its scorched-earth, truth-be-damned manifestations. Bosnia, anyone? Smearing the women involved (or even thought to be involved) sexually with her husband. Responding to Barack Obama with the same mindset, disdain, and arsenal as she did Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, as if Obama’s politics and methodologies were as mendacious and vicious as theirs–and her own. Tax information kept secret (in 1992 to hide her profits from trading in cattle futures; in 2008 to shield the identities of Bill’s foreign clients.) A campaign that openly boasts of throwing “the kitchen sink” at her opponent.

This article is far more personal than the Politico article against Senator Obama as it attacks Senator Clinton on her strengths, in addition to her failure to learn from her mistakes, judgment on Iraq and her pandering, which Berstein suggests that she l0oathed this approach by Republicans, on such issues such as Flag Burning.

It also points to a mistake made by the Clinton campaign: the star-power as a Democrat developed with her changed demeanor in the Senate. A New Yorker article from January discussed this same theme. Of course, it is the campaign's failure to recognize this and, consequently, they lost enormous opportunity to increase her appeal.

Yet, the Clintons have a high floor. The attacks in the article carries weight with those who find themselves against the Clintons or undecided. Consequently, this article will just be another example of media unfairness or anti-Clinton bias.

Essentially, if you choose the Clintons, you know you will get a fighter who has some experience in the White House; however, as the article suggests, the fighter ethos may be the problem and the ghosts never stop haunting the House of Clinton.

Team Building Exercise, or, I learned it from watching Mr. VP

Any suggestions for a better team-building exercise? From The Washington Post:

No one really disputes that Chad Hudgens was waterboarded outside a Provo office park last May 29, right before lunch, by his boss.

There is also general agreement that Hudgens volunteered for the "team-building exercise," that he lay on his back with his head downhill, and that co-workers knelt on either side of him, pinning the young sales rep down while their supervisor poured water from a gallon jug over his nose and mouth.

And it's widely acknowledged that the supervisor, Joshua Christopherson, then told the assembled sales team, whose numbers had been lagging: "You saw how hard Chad fought for air right there. I want you to go back inside and fight that hard to make sales."

My Favorite line from the article is: "I don't know if this would even be an issue if it weren't for Guantanamo Bay," Brunt said. Sure, other than Guantanamo Bay, there is nothing wrong with the act.

On Being Chris Matthews

There is an interesting, albeit long, piece from The New York Times on Chris Matthews. I think that the piece is interesting for three reasons. First, the politics within NBC News seems quite divisive and mostly against Matthews, which means his time there (he has one year left on his contract) is limited. Matthews wants to be on the first team though he won't be. He faces threat from those under him, Olbermann and Gregory.

Second, the historicism of Matthews: Matthew is an element of a much different time and possesses a different sense of order, which makes for his comments about women as being awkward to say the least. It is interesting to see how one generation attempts to correct the errors of the past generation and hold the prior generation liable for their sins. I think we judge the news by left/ right etc., i.e. MSNBC or Fox, NPR or Talk Radio; yet, we often forget other important contextual factors such as historical context of the reporters...

Finally, it is interesting how we use Matthews. As the article states, Democrats love him as he stood up against Iraq, the Bush Administration, and other conservatives such as Michelle Malkin; yet, Democrats reject him because his is interpreted as being sexist, anti-Clinton, and a loose-cannon, as well as constantly interjecting himself into the story.

There is some speculation that when his contract expires, he will either move to another network or reenter politics in Pennsylvania. The article suggests the second and Mathews seems to support the conclusion at times.

In Case Your Interested: The Case Against Senator Obama

As I have done before, here is the recent case against the Super Delegates choosing Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee. I have also posted the cases against Senator Clinton here and here.

From Politico:

The concerns revolve around two themes.

The first is based on the campaign so far. Assuming voting patterns evident in the nominating contest continue into the fall, Obama would be vulnerable if McCain can approximate the traditional GOP performance in key states.

The second is based on fear about the campaign ahead.

Stories about Obama’s Chicago associations with 1960s radicals Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers landed with barely a ripple. So, too, did questions about whether he once backed a total ban on handguns (he says no but in a 1996 state legislative race his campaign filled out a questionnaire saying yes). Obama’s graceful handling of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy may have turned that into a net positive against Clinton.

I suggest reading the entire article as it raises some serious concerns. However, the concerns it raises against Senator Obama would be true for Senator Clinton. All three candidates remaining are strong; yet, all have fatal flaws. It depends on which poison you desire.

At Swampland, Joe Klein offers three, (I mean two sire) counter-arguments:

1.) Obama is a terrific politician and, compared to John McCain, he will have some distinct advantages--namely that his description of the country's problems, and his proposed solutions, will be closer to what Americans actually want than McCain's will be...

2.) Clinton isn't exactly a strong alternative. She's really offended a crucial Democratic constituency: African-Americans. She would bring out Republican voters in droves....

Klein adds that the argument that though Clinton supporters argue she has faced the right wing and won, she has not dealt with her baggage in the primary and the American voting public has yet to relive the ideological battles and political scandals of the 1990s, let alone the issues that developed with the Clintons from 2001 and on, such as donations to the Presidential Library and the pardons. In the past few weeks we just initiated the NAFTA debates and the connections to Columbia, which do not sit well for Senator Clinton. And this would be just the beginning.

A few side notes:
Now that we are getting closer to Pennsylvania, and the debate is this Wednesday, the full court press is back on. According to Ben Smith at Politico, the papers are covering the "bitter remarks" but the editorial boards are sticking with him.

I never realized about the Republican ties to Politico until writing this piece.

"No Pox on My House!!!"

Take that Bo-Sox fans. You cannot curse the House next to the House that Ruth Built.

Oh, and by the way, Megs, Sweet Baby J, and I went to our first Yankees game last Sunday. More importantly, Sweet Baby J ate her first hot dog. (And, yes, this is A-Rod at bat.)

If you don't care about the election....

Don't worry, there are other things that exist by man that may kill you.

In June, scientists in Switzerland will use, for the first time, the particle accelerator known as Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to create a black hole to study its effects. No, I am wrong. The scientists will attempt to replicate the conditions before the Big Bang and, by doing so, they may create a small black hole or two. The scientists promise that even if they create small black holes, they will be malignant, no wait, I mean benign.

The New York Times has the scoop, and an editorial against it, kind of but not really. And don't worry, there is a law suit against the use of the LHC, which means its operation status is in the hands of some judges, though I think the judge in Hawaii lacks the authority to stop scientists in Switzerland.

Governor of NY & the Morning Round Up...

The Chris Matthews Show
David Brooks, on The Chris Matthews Show, floated the idea that Senator Clinton's next job would be Governor of New York. This is not the first time in which the rumor has made its rounds. It also seems reasonable if you believe that she cannot win the primary or the presidency and would no doubt win a NY special election-- if one were to magically occur, somehow arranged, etc--, and her political style of partisanship works in the state of NY and current Gov. David Patterson may not be working out, especially with his "admissions" once in office and the failure of recent legislation.

The interesting question would be would the Clintons desire Senator Clinton becomming Governor Clinton? Currently, Senator Clinton and former President Clinton believe that only they can save the democrats from the "disaster in waiting" this fall as "naive democrats" don't see it and the media won't tell it.

Further, if the Democratic primary is about the legacy of the Clintons, then this may not be desirable choice. If the argument is that Senator Obama wins the presidency then he will diminish the legacy of President Clinton, wouldn't this also mean that Senator Clinton would diminish the legacy of the former President. On one hand, If Senator Clinton wins the primary and the presidency, then the family enhances its legacy. On the other, if she wins, she may diminish the legacy of former President Bill Clinton, especially if Senator Clinton becomes a better President than Bill, which would not be too hard as the bar if very low.

Meet The Press: w/ Carville, Matalin, Murphy, and Shrum
The first fifteen minutes of Meet the Press is quite hostile over Senator Obama's "bitter" remarks and other famous "gaffes" in the campaign: Obama and "cling;" McCain, the economy, and the Sunni/ Shi'ite distinction, Senator Clinton on Bosnia, former President Clinton on Hillary's Bosnia experience. James Carville was put in an interesting position as he attacked Obama for his comments, then attacked McCain about his comments on not knowing the economy, the Sunni/ Shi'ite mishap, which will be thrown against McCain, and then attempted to defend the comments by the Clintons over Bosnia, laughing while doing so as he knew he no longer possessed the legitimacy to attack Obama and knew the Clintons were in trouble. Carville could only offer his love for former President Bill Clinton, "I love the man."

Senator Obama's gaffe is just one of many by the candidates and may not prove to be the "representative anecdote" that hurts him in the long run, though he will suffer before Pennsylvania. If he had a chance to win the primary, he may not now, though he still may keep it close. Of course, the larger strategy of these comments may be to show how neither Clinton or McCain will improve the lives of those in the Keystone state and as the economy gets worse over the summer with the rise in the cost of gas and food, Senator Obama will look courageous for speaking about the realities in small towns back in April.

There is another interesting element occurring on MTP: the game of the elites, as all of the people on the show are, which makes them look just as foolish to determine the psychological and sociological characteristics of the voters in Pennsylvania (and I understand the irony, as all speculation about the minds of the voters seem foolish). Mary Matalin attacks Obama for his comments, forcing Carville to attack McCain's knowledge on the economy and the Sunni/Shi'ite divide. Yet, despite the ideological differences between Matalin and Carville they do not have any problems reconciling their differences. Where do we reify the ideological differences and why are the elites outside of these manifestations?

Oh, and all of the panelists threw Mark Penn under the bus and attacked the way in which her strategists ran Senator Clinton's campaign, diminishing her ethos as a "manager." After ten minutes of bashing Clinton, they opened the door to bashing Obama again, especially from Mary Matalin, who would like the Democratic Super Delegates to select Senator Clinton. But I cannot understand why?

Finally, a McCain/ Powell ticket and not McCain Romney? Did Carville read the news?

Any news on how Ralph Nader's campaign is developing?

Judging Crediility of the Foreign Press

Open Left has a post, from Kos and The Scotsman, that Former President Jimmy Carter and former V.P. Al Gore will approach Senator Clinton about dropping out of the primary race.

As you remember, The Scotsman is the paper that interviewed Samantha Power where the later called Clinton "A Monster" for election tactics in Ohio, though that story broke through an interview while this developed through reporting. This suggests the paper carries some credibility as it would not allow Powers to recant her statements and ran the story. But, the switch to a interview to a report carries different standards.

If you read Ihe Scotsman article, the information comes from "s source close to Carter" and "insiders say," which may be right up there with "some might say." The editors allowed the report to go through, which means there is a source and editors believe that the source does have close connections to Carter. Yet, still, there is no source named in the entire article.

As for evidence, it suggests that Gore and Carter want to protect the party and the damage done to the party's chances for the general election against McCain. Of course, neither Carter nor Gore are particular warm to the Clinton (which is a very generous statement) and they point to conflicts of interest with the Clintons (donations to the library, Mark Penn, not paying for campaign events, credibility w/anecdotes).

Of course, you can take this information either way as the information in the article seems plausible, however, the bias of Gore and Carter may cause further problems.

It will be interesting to see if this story gains attention this week because it is a foreign source and the credibility of the article seems undetermined at best. With nine days to go to Pennsylvania, if this catches on this may be a way to influence the vote, if there are any undecideds left, as it would show the long term prospects for a Victory for her would not be possible. Of course, with a big win in Pennsylvania, this conversation would die down for a week until the run up to North Carolina.