Do I Have A Crush On Obama?

Yes. Yes I do. And Frank Rich gives some of the reasons as to why I do. Obama could still win this thing. Message to Senator Edwards: I have a love for you and your message. But if you do not top Iowa then drop out immediately and endorse Obama.

What's the DEAL with the Nineties?

Bill and Hilary (they’re politically pregnant and this time, it’s a girl!)

Jerry Seinfeld (Bee Movie)

O.J, (failed book, successful arrest)

And now Rodney King (he was just shot)

I don’t understand what’s happening but none of these nineties icons have been as prominent in the last seven years as they have in the last year.

I will be on the look out for Kriss Kross, House of Pain, and an impersonal high school report card in the mail.

Newt Gingrich on Obama

Somehow I sometimes believe Newt Gingrich. I don’t know why. How can I? How is this guy even allowed on tv? He was having a fucking affair during the Lewinsky hearings? Why isn’t he wearing a red A on his chest?

This shit is always so interesting. Do pundits like Gingrich say what they actually think to provide an objective opinion or do they have alterior motives? Okay, obviously the latter. But sometimes, in some cases, do they just say their opinion flat out? I mean Gingrich is insane and terrible but can be smart and there’s good reason to believe that Obama will take Iowa. He’s tied there right now and his supporters seem more dependable than Hillary’s. Then again, Edwards’ supporters are apparently the most dependable, so let’s not count him out.

Mark Halperin: Journalist or Image Obsessed Politician?

Halperin says here that Oprah's star power won't contribute much for Obama.

It’s well reasoned. But is it his honest opinion or is he trying to just to show everyone that he is being consistent with his recent renouncement of his own obsession horse race politics and valuing style over substance? In other words, did Halperin just write a news article or an article that says, "hey look at me everyone! I can be smart and against tabloid politics! Wheeeee! Like me, like me, like me!"

The Press Seem Happy

The press seem happy about the Democratic primary. At first their homogenized plot arc was that Obama was an exciting newcomer who was outraising Hillary. Then it was that Obama doesn't know how to keep momentum and that Hillary is the inevitable candidate. Now the story is that Obama has been catching up and that the race is a "nail biter." I mean, that's the story the press wants right?

It's kind of perfect: intro the newcomer who is going to take down the Man (in this case the Man being Hillary Clinton) then show how the newcomer looks like he's going to lose to the Man. Then in the final stretch, the newcomer gets closer and it looks like we have a race. How exciting!

It's hard to decipher what's actually happening and what is just an engineered story but for the very fact that the Iowa caucuses carry so much weight because the press then give the winner momentum, what's really happening is that it is an engineered story.

The press and the pollsters are like chess players moving the candidates across the board. It's so weird and it's pretty sad.

Oh and in the story, they generally mention John Edwards as a possibility. But they beat him down early in the race because he challenged poverty and isn't poor. Our country is being run by a club of gossipers who look nice in suits sending stories to their editors via their blackberries. It's very tiring.

Kerry Versus Edwards

I think Kerry comes off better in this article.

What's Bush Playing At?

Okay so GWB and his wife Laura are in an interview with ABC where they say that Hillary Clinton understands the pressure of being president more than any other candidate. That might be true, but why are they saying that? Are they being polite, are they being honest, or is there more to this?

Do they want Hillary to look good because they want her to be the Democratic nominee because they think she'll lose?

Or do they want to say something positive about Hillary and because it comes from them think Dems won't like her for it and then not vote for her in the primary?

My guess is the former.

Whistleblowing

Way to go Ms. Fitzgerald. This could be a landmark case.

Down Or Up With Patriarchy?

A lot has changed since the Sixties. Back then it was bad to be considered, “the Man.” Now it’s something to strive for. “You The Man!” In the last fifteen years, being "the man" has somehow become a compliment.

It's really a brilliant sign of counter culture co-opting it's own language in a dysfunctional way. Pretty soon you're going to have young people saying things like, "Dude! That is so square!" I mean, you got to love how the anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist mantras of the "Fight the Man" era have been replaced with Fifty's "Get Rich or Die Trying."

I know this is a tired point that people have been talking about since the eighties. But come on already. Albums with the title "Get Rich or Die Trying" have people saying that Fifty is da Man and meaning that in a positive way. Meanwhile, his message, I think, is helping to add to a greedy culture that perpetuates inequities based on race and class. And so yes, Fifty is a hip version of the Man.

Sweetheart, I Never Meta Politician Who Could Play Politics Like You!

Don't you just love it when politicians play politics by accusing other politicians of playing politics?

You don't hear doctors accusing other doctors of "practicing medicine." Or cops accusing their colleagues of "police work." Some how it's bad for a politician to admit that they are "practicing politics." What are they supposed to be practicing then? Quantitative biological analysis? (if there is such a thing).

I mean, here you've got a career that brings forward the most ambitious and egotistical kind of people...the kind of people who want nothing more than to get ahead as politicians.

YET a crucial part of that career is pretending that they're NOT politicians.

So when George Bush accuses Congress of playing politics, when George Bush says "the politicians in Washington" what does he think he is? A firefighter?

I guess he thinks, if he thinks at all, that there's a difference between a politician and a leader, and that he is a leader not a politician: a rose that has grown out of a mud puddle.

And the media generally likes to go with that claim. For one, it would make their self-important jobs look stupid if everyone realized that all of these folks in Washington are obsessed with "playing politics" rather than leading. For two, acknowledging such an idea would revolutionize the culture....it would make people realize that neither the Republicans or even the Democrats have the courage or the vision to "take back America." Rather, it's going to be communities of constituents with hot pokers jabbing these politicians in the ass and getting them to move. That's where the leadership and the vision come into play. And lastly, telling a politician that they are just a politician, etc. would be as cruel as telling a little girl that the doll in her arms is not really her baby, it's just a doll.

And so here's my point: what do politicians aspire to be when they are claiming that it's bad to play politics? What are they saying about themselves? Do they hate themselves? Or do they think that they are not politicians but some vague word that no one has yet really defined as separate from politicians: "leaders."

I think that's what's happening. Every politician hopes to one day be considered a leader. And leaders aren't politicians. Because leaders lead. They don't look at opinion polls. They are too busy "leading" for that. I don't even know how so many poll companies stay in business with all of these leaders who don't look at the polls.

Look, the basic point is that most of these guys and gals care so much about what people think that they don't want people to think that they think about what they think.

Who's Behind the Push Polling Against Romney?

Here's the story right here. New Hampshire and Iowa residents are reporting calls from a polling agency that asks a number of questions directed against Romney. Example of a question:

"Some people say the Mormon Church is a cult, would that make you more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney?"

Later the questions take a positive tone toward McCain. Apparenly questions such as this followed: "If you knew that John McCain was a Navy pilot, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him? If you know he had 300 carrier landings would that make you more or less likely to vote for him? If you knew he was prisoner of war in Vietnam, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him? "

Now someone is behind this push polling, right? So the question is: who?

The easiest person to target is McCain. After all, McCain is the one who ends up looking good from the whole thing. Further, he was the victim of push polling back in 2000 when Karl Rove and George Bush made up lies that he had an "illegitimate" black child in South Carolina. Throughout this current campaign, McCain seems to have "learned" his mistakes from the 2000 campaign. Trying his best to embrace the religious Right as just one example. Another may have been: "the next time you run for president, use push polling."

So it could be someone involved with McCain but my guess is that it's not. My guess is that it's Guiliani. This could simply be paranoid of me but I think it makes more sense. Guiliani has a ton to lose when it comes to how well Romney does in Iowa and New Hampshire. He currently commands a huge lead in national polls, but the first states that vote are where he is seriously lacking. His campaign must be aware that the momentum Romney will get from Iowa and New Hampshire will boost his name recognition and could allow momentum for him to cut into Guiliani's lead in other states. So the idea behind this push poll could have easily been to target Romney and sort of, frame McCain. At this point, Guiliani doesn't have much to lose by a push poll that supports McCain in Iowa and New Hampshire. But he has much to gain by a push poll that attacks Romney in those states.

Any way, it's nice to see these GOP candidates at each other's throats or ranting about how we have to nuke people and virtually ignoring, side stepping, creating spurious arguments around, or oversimplifying every real issue. The GOP primary is kind of like watching a contest on who is the biggest embarrassment to the human race...and strangely everyone one of them wants to win that prize.

Is Pink The New Gay?

Some may say that the lay out of this blog is a bit "gay." After all, it's pink. But here's my question for them: what if I was gay? Would that mean that I am pink? No. You see, pink is not gay because gay is not pink. I don't think any one who believes otherwise has ever gotten above a C in algebra, which miraculously, I think I did. Though I averaged a 70 in Algebra 2. But seriously, that's more than double Bush's approval rating. I think we should change the pass/fail average in schools to whatever approval rating the president has. It really makes a lot of sense. About as much sense as pink being gay. You know what pink is mother effers? It's Gatsby. Gats effin' by.

Dr. Watersmouth

Do any of you know my father, Dr. Theodore Watersmouth? The man has three PhD's. It's very intimidating to be living in the shadow of such an intellectual giant yet he always seems pleased as punch when it comes to me. He's fascinated by everything I do. Then again, that's not saying much as the man is fascinated by everything. But it's nice to have this genius always smiling at me warmly and asking what I think about certain things. Well Dr, that's why I've started this blog. For you. (ahhhh...I know, how sweet).

On Hillary

I often like Hillary. Really do. But what's with this national security is more important than human rights? What kind of jingoistic crap is this? I was under the impression that all humans are human. Nations are arbitrarily composed of other humans. To say that one nation's security is more important than the rights of other humans makes humans look stupid. And we have enough people making humans look stupid for Hillary to go on and do that.

At the same time, I am afraid to admit that I think as president she may actually carry this attitude. As much as I like her and Bill, this is why I voted for Nader in 2000. I was disgusted with this attitude that nationalism comes before humanism. It is not progressive and it is not pro-American. Ultimately it is not in the best interest of our nation if it is not in the best interest of the human race.

I suppose that Hillary believes that a person in another country is less valuable than someone in the US. Ah, once we do that we enter quite a slippery slope don't we? Is there a ranking order of which nations' citizens are most important. Like the US is in first place. Then the UK, Israel, and Canada. Then France, Spain, and Germany. And somewhere on the bottom is Sudan and Uganda, right? Come on. This is ridiculous.

How could it still be considered a radical notion that the loss of human life any where is
just as important any where in the world? Because humans are silly.

But it's no shock. Hillary Clinton referred to the death of civilians as collateral damage. I know that's the standard military term for these things, but that's just insane. The loss of civilians is more than collateral damage. I don't even know how this can be up for debate. Oh wait. It barely is up for debate since so many Americans tend to like Hillary's "hawkish" language on these things (except for those who already hate her and will hate her regardless of what she says).

Other than all this bull shit, I like Hillary. But I am for Obama. Cool?

UPDATE: I just want to point out that if Hillary is president and we continue to build a grassroots structure of progressive activists she will be forced to value human rights above other matters. Of course, I'm not saying national security isn't important, but human rights is essential. And a president who doesn't acknowledge that in a world that demonizes the US is not doing a service to our security.

Me and Wolf Blitzer

In a recent email correspondence with a friend, I told him that while I missed the Democratic debate that I heard that Hillary Clinton held her own. His reply goes as follows:

"Eh, what really happened was that Wolf Blitzer held his own, if by 'held his own' you mean 'held his own penis in his hand and jerked it off into his mouth."'These debates are worse than useless."

What's incredibly interesting to me is that the reason I missed the debate was because I was quite literally doing the same thing as Wolf. It was a feat I had never accomplished and I am quite proud.