Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Free of President George W. Bush, that is. From now on, and forever, he is Ex-President George W. Bush. That is how I prefer to think of him, although it's probably more respectful to say "Former President Bush", but the "ex" makes such a stronger statement (also it would be a handy way to differentiate him from his father).

Oh, what a joyous day this is! Although I knew intellectually this day would come eventually, part of me was afraid that it would never come.

This would, of course, have been a joyous day no matter who was Ex-President Bush's successor, but the fact that it is Barack Obama, a man whom I truly respect and admire, makes this a day of unparalleled delight. Except that "delight" is a bit too capricious an adjective, because there is a tremendous solemnity to this joyous and wondrous occasion.

I recorded the proceedings from NBC, for no particular reason other than that's the channel I happened to be tuned to; all the networks carried it, so it didn't really matter. But because I picked NBC I was able to hear my fellow South Dakotan Tom Brokaw's commentary on the occasion (Tom Brokaw being another man I truly respect and admire). He and his fellow commentators were talking about the civil rights leaders that paved the way for Barack Obama to be the president, and Tom Brokaw said, "I don't think we can pay enough tribute to Dr. King," and I completely agree. Sometimes as I face the various personal struggles of my own life, in my moments of weakness I wonder if it's possible for Good to overcome Evil without compromising itself, and therefore if it's possible for Good to triumph at all, because if Good triumphs by compromising itself, then it's no longer Good. And in these moments of weakness I remember Martin Luther King Jr., and Mohandas Ghandi and all those who stood by them and worked with them and I remember that it's possible to fight without resorting to violence and that Good can overcome Evil without compromising its integrity.

At this moment, friends and strangers, anything seems possible; sometimes that is a terrifying thought, but at this moment it is exhilarating.

My, what a grandiose post title! I'd like to say something really profound to match it, on this the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration, on this the last night of George W. Bush's presidency EVER!

All I can think to say, however, is that I think it's tremendously fitting that Barack Obama's inauguration is coming on the heels of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. You know, I'm sure I knew at some point that Dr. King was only 39 years old when he was killed, but it's only at this moment that I fully realize how young he was, how much he accomplished in such a short span of time, and how much more he could have accomplished had he lived. Perhaps he could have been president himself, although that seems unlikely because, even putting aside the whole race issue, he was an Idealist and according to David Keirsey, who wrote a book analyzing the temperaments of all the presidents, there has never been an Idealist president, and he briefly explains why he thinks there probably will never be one in this excerpt. He and his other temperament analysts conclude that Barack Obama is a Rational, and I'm sure that they're right because as far as I can tell he does seem to have the strategic intellect, but he also talks a lot about idealism and he seems to share some values with us Idealists, like altruism and authenticity. In fact, the more I think about it, the more perfect he seems for the presidency in the current times: visionary enough to see the potential for a better future and pragmatic enough to conceive and actually implement plans to achieve it.

Over the course of the last election I've had difficulty articulating why Barack Obama appeals to me so, because so much of it are things that I've picked up intuitively, which are very hard to put into words, especially if you're trying to make an argument to persuade those who are skeptical, if not outright hostile, to your viewpoint. But I think now I can at least express my intuitive knowledge, even though it will still necessarily be in very abstract terms. First of all, putting aside for the moment all question of politics and ideology and believe, I get a sense from Barack Obama that I haven't gotten from the last two presidents and indeed get from very few politicians in general, which is that Obama is motivated by a genuine desire to help people and improve the country, whereas with most politicians in general and particularly with counting-down-the-hours-still-President Bush and Bill Clinton, the sense that I got was that their first priority was to do whatever they thought was going to benefit them, and only after that concern themselves with whether or not it was the best thing to do for the country. I get that sense from both Bill and Hillary Clinton, by the way, and I believe that that's the main reason that their marriage survives; whether their attachment is purely pragmatic at this point or whether there's some emotional attachment I couldn't say, and it's really none of my business, but regardless of what they feel, they need each other in order to survive politically. Anyway, the point I was trying to make it that, even if I don't agree with Barack Obama on some things, I trust him to do whatever he sincerely believes is best for the country. Which brings me to my second and slightly less abstract point: even when I disagree with Barack Obama about certain issues or what have you, I can understand why he takes the position that he does. There's an internal logic to his value system; therefore I am able to respectfully disagree. Whereas with counting-down-the-hours-still-President Bush it's exactly the opposite: even when I agree with him, his reasoning makes no sense; even when it seems to make sense, it makes no sense within the larger context of his ideology.

Anyway, I would really love to watch the inauguration tomorrow, but unfortunately I have to work, so I'll only be able to watch a little bit of it over my lunch break (and that only if they have the TV tuned to the right channel, but most of the networks will be covering it so chances are pretty good that it will be on). ( In which I am a forgetful neo-Luddite and digress about figure skating )

Four years ago, I wrote the words "Hope is dead."

Sometime in the 19th century, Emily Dickinson wrote the words, "Hope is the thing with feathers"

For a long time I didn't understand what she meant by that. This was because I was in high school and college at the time, still growing, still learning, but still sheltered and innocent enough to be idealistic. In those days I could never understand why someone would want to lock herself away from the world. Having lived out in the world, gaining experience through first-hand exposure to its wicked ways, I understand better now.

I also understand a little bit more about the nature of hope. Ms. Dickinson, being a poet, was not overly specific when she said that hope is a thing with feathers, but now I understand...

Hope is a phoenix.

No matter how many times it seems to be completely destroyed, it rises again from the ashes. It continually resurrects and rejuvenates itself.

Four years ago was the beginning of the darkest period of my life, which was due to a number of factors--mostly in my personal life--that were in play before the 2004 election, but that election is a convenient marker because after that is when it all really started to go downhill. Am I better off now than I was four years ago? I am indeed, but it is in spite of the current lame-duck administration, not because of it. Likewise, my personal life started to improve months ago, independent of this election, but now I feel more confident than ever that more and better things may be coming for me soon. I've always believed that anything is possible, but now that thought excites and energizes rather than terrifies me.

Four years ago, in the depths of my despair, I sought solace from a wise mentor, trusted counselor, and valued friend; he comforted me in part by the mere fact that he shared my pain, but he also said something else that helped a lot at the time, and comes back to me now: time is cyclical. Four years ago was a low point in the cycle (though not the lowest point for me, personally). Now the cycle is back on the upswing.

This was only the third presidential election that I have been eligible to vote in and (I'm ashamed to admit) only the second one that I've voted in. I count myself fortunate that I should have a candidate that I genuinely and wholeheartedly wanted to vote for, that I didn't have to resign myself to weighing the lesser of two evils. Barack Obama is a man after my own heart, or--if not my heart--whatever is the best and purest part of me. That he won is incredible enough, but that he won by such a definitive margin seems nothing short of miraculous.

Jon Stewart said something last night that I felt was particularly profound: "There are very few countries in the world that live up to their creed [...] America tonight lives up to its promise." I'm reminded also of Jon Stewart's speech following September 11, 2001--harbinger of dark days to come--when he said the aftermath of the attack was "a dream realized, and that is Martin Luther King's dream." Barack Obama's election is also Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream realized; not just because we elected a black president, but because we judged him--I believe--not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Even if it is just momentary, I have never been prouder of my country than I am at this moment.

Four years ago we elected the president that we deserved. Now we've elected the president who is most deserving.

I'm just not sure that McCain Taps Alaska Gov. Palin as Vice President Pick was a wise choice of words.

As for the news itself, I don't know enough about Gov. Palin to comment in any but the most general terms--although if I may be facetious, she does seem sort of like Diet Hillary with a Twist (sorry, but that line was too good to pass up). In general terms, it does make the election a bit more interesting, in that whichever side wins it will be historic and momentous and unprecedented, etc.

I don't mean to minimize the significance of these nominations; they are magnificent and ground-breaking (or ceiling-shattering, if you prefer). And yet, I can't help but think of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the anniversary of which was yesterday, in which he exhorted us to judge people "by the content of their characters"--not by the color of their skin, and not by their childbearing-capacity or lack thereof.

So here's what I propose: let's set a day aside, say oh...September 6th, and let's all go out and cheer and congratulate ourselves and one another for the great strides we've made toward a truly equitable society. And then let's not mention the race or sex/gender of any the candidates again for the duration of the election. In fact, let's not mention it after the election either; the game of Who's the Most Wretchedly Oppressed is one that no one can ever really win.

For myself, I still support Barack Obama, because he is a man after my own heart; or if that is not so, then he is the kind of person I want to be.

Hey, somebody I like/voted for actually won an election! Congratulations, Barack Obama! And thanks to Hillary Clinton for "suspending" her campaign, although my understanding is that "suspending" it means she retains her delegates and could, theoretically, start it up again. Hopefully that won't happen. I sincerely admire her "it-ain't-over-til-its-over" attitude; truly I do, because it made the South Dakota primary important for the first time since I've been eligible to vote (which, granted, has been a comparatively short amount of time), but once the primary's over, I think it's time to throw in the towel. I know there's the controversy about the Florida and Michigan thing and emotions are still running high, but I think they came to an equitable arrangement (while they shouldn't have broken the rules and should suffer the consequences, the rules aren't entirely fair to begin with; the big states shouldn't get to have all their primaries at once and decide things before we little states get to have our say), so hopefully everybody can agree to just let it go, but I won't breathe entirely easily until after the convention when the nomination is formalized and finalized.

( Close Encounters of the Political Kind )

I came home from the library to a message on my answering machine from someone "calling on behalf of Hillary Clinton" and claiming to be "one of [my] neighbors in Canton," which is a town roughly 20 miles south of here.

However, when I checked the caller ID (which I love and want to make out with) it revealed that the area code was 803, which is an area code in South CAROLINA!!!

Being one word off doesn't make you close!

Now, while this is suspicious, I have to admit that an out-of-state area code doesn't necessarily mean that the caller was not calling from Canton, SD. She could have recently lived in South Carolina, had a cell phone there, and brought her cell phone here and never bothered to change the area code. People do that all the damn time, and--like most things pertaining to cell phones--it really annoys me. Moreover, at the end of the message there's another voice either speaking Chinese or giving a political disclaimer, so it's possible that someone in Canton recorded a message, submitted it to some campaign center in South Carolina, who fed it into a computer and programed the computer to spew it forth all over South Dakotan phone lines.

I checked the phone book, and while I couldn't find an exact entry for the mysterious caller's name, there were a few entries under her last name which is not an unusual name around here. On the other hand, when she was rattling off a local phone number I could call for more information if I was interested, she pronounced the area code as "six zero five" whereas most South Dakotans pronounce it as "six oh five," especially amongst ourselves, when we feel the need to mention the area code at all, which we don't usually because we only have one in the whole state. Now, to be fair, I try to say "six zero five" when talking on the phone (especially to outsiders) because "zero" is easier to hear and understand on the phone than "oh". Moreover, she was clearly reading off of a script, and when the campaign gave their volunteers their scripts, they might also have given hints such as "pronounce 0 as 'zero' rather than 'oh'." Her dialect did sound more like southeastern South Dakota than it did like southeastern U.S. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything either; she could have been raised around here without necessarily living here now. Anyway, the bottom line is that it struck me as an annoyingly deceptive campaign tactic and just added to my long list of reasons not to vote for H. Clinton. (Or I could adopt my oldest brother's philosophy and refuse to vote for anyone who makes automated campaign calls, but I value my suffrage too much for that.

By the way, the reason for the call was that apparently B. Clinton is going to be in Canton, of all places, on Saturday morning for an event, which I couldn't attend even if I wanted to because I have to work. But man, the Clintons have been popping up all over this state lately. If they're not careful, some rancher's going to mistake them for a pair of unusually articulate prairie dogs and shoot them.

Seriously, it's really annoying to me the way she's spending all this time in South Dakota because she thinks that it might benefit her, yet in the unlooked-for event that she becomes the nominee--or in the even more unpalatable event that she becomes president--do you think she'll come see us or talk to us or even think about us ever again?

Doubtful.

Unfortunately it won't be very impressive in print until I think of lyrics for the verses, but it's "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof. That might seem like an odd choice to some, as Obama is running on a platform of change, and the short version of my response is "Hey, there's no tradition like a new tradition!"

The reason I bring this up now is that Obama came to speak at the Sioux Falls Arena last night, and I overcame my intense fear of crowds to go hear him. I'd never been to a political rally before, and it was a memorable evening. Since I'd already voted for him, I didn't expect to be persuaded to change my mind about anything, but I certainly felt that my choice was vindicated. You can read a newspaper report of the event here; what follows are my impressions of it.

( Obamaaaaaa! Obama! *deedle deedle deedle deedle dee* Obama! )

My feelings about Obama can probably best be expressed by lyrics from another show-tune, this one from Man of LaMancha: "I like him, I really like him ... I don't have a very good reason ... still I'll yell to the sky, though I can't tell you why, that I like him." Well, I could tell you why, but my reasons are based less on logic and reason than they are on intuition and emotional thinking. I can't make a good argument based on pathos, so I can't say why anyone else should support Obama, I can only describe my feelings. Among other considerations, Obama reminds me of a former professor of mine, whom I consider a friend and mentor, because the things they say are similar and because they have somewhat similar backgrounds. And as I would trust my former professor to counsel me if I needed help or advice about something, so I would trust Obama to do so, should the situation arise.

I won't recount my long and complicated history with political parties yet again, because it's boring, but suffice it to say that I've never felt that any political party has adequately represented how I feel and what I think. So when I moved to Sioux Falls I registered as an independent voter, knowing that South Dakota independents can't vote in the presidential primaries, but not caring at the time because in my experience South Dakota primaries are pointless because so many big states have their primaries earlier than we do that by the time it gets around to us most of the people I would want to vote for have dropped out anyway.

( Long story short: I registered as a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama today, and it felt good. )

I actually have a lot of exciting things that happened over the last week to talk about, but unfortunately, I also have a paper due on Friday. So I suppose I should probably work on that.

But I did want to share with you some non-partisan political comedy by the brilliant Mike Nelson. He took some political ads for...it looks like four of the candidates (the four technically still in the race as far as I've heard: H. Clinton, Obama, McCain and Huckabee) and either riffed them or dubbed in a completely new voice-over soundtrack (with surprisingly good synchronization; well done, Mr. Nelson).

You can view them all here, but I wanted to include my favorite. It's from the Hillary Clinton campaign about the Iowa caucuses, and it's goofy enough even without the riffing. Please enjoy:

( Transparent self-deprecation is easy )

Actually, caucusing sounds like fun! I wish I could do it. According to this ad, all you have to be is 18 or older; I think Mr. Nelson voiced over the part where it said you actually have to be from Iowa. Oh well; having to live in Iowa wouldn't be worth it.

In related news, Hillary Clinton is going to be on the Daily Show on Monday (and, as per usual, the Daily Show website is celebrating by not letting me find any of her previous interviews). That should be interesting. Jon is always a gracious host even with people he's severely lampooned, and in the past Ms. Clinton has always been a good sport but...the stakes are a bit higher now, so I suspect that things may be a bit more tense. But maybe not.

No, I've not shifted in my political allegiance; I just haven't yet been able to find a show-tune into which I can comfortably work Barack Obama's name (although I'm getting close to a workable revision of the title song of The Phantom of the Opera).

I'm just starting to feel really good about this upcoming presidential election. With the Republican nomination all but decided, we have three front-runners whom I rank as follows: (1) Obama; (2) McCain; (3) Clinton. And while McCain has disappointed me in the past and I have certain issues with Clinton, all of these candidates seem worthy and none of them make me feel as though I would want to flee the country if they became president.

( Read more... )

Again, as much as I sympathize with the striking writers, and as much as I hope they can soon resolve their grievances equitably and come back to work, I have to say that I really like the Daily Show as much without them, because with them gone we get more of Jon Stewart's righteous indignation ... and I looooooooove Jon Stewart's righteous indignation.

Anyway, the following clip is Jon reporting on Mitt Romney's dropping out of the Republican race:

( Throughout his campaign he'd seemed to many a cypher...devoid of principle...a salt-and-pepper, man-shaped casing for a spiritual vacuum )

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Mitt Romney dropping out of the race means that he cannot, under any circumstances, be elected president (I must grudgingly concede a positive point for the electoral college: no write-in votes), and that's a good thing because I reeeeeeeeeeeeally didn't want to see that man become president. Why? Well, as usual, my boy Jon expresses it a lot better than I do, so I refer you back to the clip, but in a nutshell, Romney doesn't seem to have a single sincere bone in his body, nor a drop of sincerity in his veins...as well as the fact that his views are nearly the exact opposite of mine.

But on the other hand, Romney seems to believe that his continuing to run would help the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, to win. So by the same logic, his dropping out of the race would help the Democratic candidate to lose. Which sounds bad on the surface, but it depends on the candidates. As I've said, Barack Obama my candidate of choice, but on the other hand, if it was a choice between the female Clinton and McCain, I'm kind of leaning toward McCain, but if it was between the female Clinton and any other Republican candidate, I'm backing Hillary all the way.

Anyway, it was a good Daily Show all around, well worth watching. I've noticed that, with the advent of the writer's strike, they've had to re-use some "classic" segments, but the one for yesterday was actually quite appropriate...and, of course, funny.

As for the presidential primaries, I'm reeeeeeeeeeally annoyed because, for once, the Super Tuesday was not decisive in choosing the candidates, so there's the slim chance that South Dakota's primary won't be completely pointless...and here I am, registered as an independent so I can't vote in the primaries! Damn! Some evil, malevolent, electoral sprite (possibly related to Coily) is bent on blocking my democratic perogative at every turn! Oh well, I registered as an independent because I was sick of the repressive, reductive, rigid rhetoric of political parties in general, and I'll stand by that decision and remain a free agent. And anyway, South Dakota's primaries aren't until June, so it'll probably be decided by then anyway.

I have to say, first of all, with all due respect to the writers, because I'm in sympathy with them and I want them to get everything that they want and need and deserve and come back to work...but with that being said, I don't notice a huge drop in the quality of the Daily Show (or "A Daily Show", as they're calling themselves in solidarity) since before the strike. I don't mean that as any sort of slam against the writers; I just think that Jon Stewart, unlike most people, is good enough to carry it on his own. And, of course, he's not doing it entirely on his own either; the graphics department is still there, for example.

Anyway, it was a particularly good show, featuring a report by John Oliver from Mitt Romney's campaign headquarters, which seem to be located in a 1950s educational film, but I think the best part was the interview with writer named Peggy Noonan, of whom I had never heard, but she and Jon had a very thought-provoking conversation about the people (specifically Giuliani and Edwards) dropping out of the presidential race:



I don't get why Ms. Noonan referred to the female Clinton as the "first woman to run" or whatever she said; I think she meant the first woman to run this far, to last as long as she has. Either that or she just doesn't remember the 2004 race; I know I've tried very hard to forget it. But I did like that she referred to Barack Obama as "intellectual," because it was such an epiphany, an epiphany of how dumb I've been; of course, that's why I like Barack Obama! Duh!

( Read more... )

( 'I wanna be president agin!' )

This video is about the Democratic primary in South Carolina, which was won by Barack Obama, and in it Jon Stewart is criticizing Bill Clinton for trash-talking Obama. I can't really describe my favorite part of this segment because it involves a lot of visual television magic and really has to be seen to be fully appreciated, but my second favorite part is when he points out, "If his wife weren't running, [Bill Clinton] would be all over Obama!"

Speaking for myself, if I weren't already against Hillary Clinton in the first place, I would be now after seeing her husband behave like such a douchebag. I mean, I can understand why he's actively campaigning instead of just sitting supportively on the sidelines, by why can't he just say good things about her?

And then I answer myself, "Well, it wouldn't be very convincing if he just said good things about her, would it? Because he's her husband, what else is he going to say?" I don't know; I just think--or maybe I hope--that Obama's going to win the nomination, and then Billy-boy's going to have to do some major back-pedaling...or he could just shut up and go away, which would be kind of nice too.

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to these preliminaries because (a) as registered independent, I'm not eligible to vote in the South Dakota primaries and (b) South Dakota primaries are a farce anyway. So while I know that I should be paying attention to where the candidates stand on the issues and make a decision based on intellectual considerations rather than other considerations, including circumstantial ones such as a candidate's race and/or gender, I've been really lax in gathering that kind of information. Right now I'm going with my gut, and my gut is going with Barack Obama. And while I haven't really discussed this at length with my gut, I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that he's black (or a man, for that matter). Call it what you want: irrational, emotional, weak-minded, irresponsible...it's probably all those things and more, but when Barack Obama speaks, I feel happy...and hopeful. I also think it has something to do with one of the very criticisms that Bill Clinton is making against him; his comparative lack of experience in Washington...oh, it's getting late so I'll use a cliché: it makes him seem like a breath of fresh air. And around the Clintons hangs the stench of corruption, deception, manipulation, and decay.

I've said before and I'll say it again: I'm all for having a woman president, but I don't want us to have one just for the sake of having one. Moreover, I think it would be just as sexist to vote for someone based solely on the fact that she's a woman as it would be to refuse to vote for someone solely because she was a woman.

I haven't been paying that much attention to the preliminaries of the presidential campaign, which I admit isn't very smart or responsible of me but (a) as a registered independent I can't vote in South Dakota's primaries anyway and (b) The Daily Show just recently returned to the air after being shut down by the writer's strike, and I have neither the time nor the emotional stamina to process everything that's going on in the campaigns.

Anyway, today I was in the break room at work, and the TV was on and tuned to the news, as is its wont, and I saw Mitt Romney say this about Barack Obama (I paraphrase slightly): "I saw Barack Obama standing in front of a big banner that said 'Change'. If you elect him president, that's all you're going to have left in your pocket is change."

Clever little wordplay, but you can't give Romney credit for it because I heard the elder Bush say the exact same thing about the male Clinton in 1992. Sixteen years later that joke isn't as funny as it was the first time, and if I'd had any intention of voting for Romney I certainly wouldn't now that I know him to be a man who can't come up with his own material (or who can't hire speechwriters who in turn come up with their own material).

Now I'm forced to wonder; often you hear people use the phrase "the Republican playbook" or "the political playbook," and I'd always assumed it was a metaphor, but maybe there's an actual book that says, "If your opponent runs on a platform of change, here's a quick and clever way to use that message against him..." Maybe it goes all the way back to Machiavelli.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for having a woman president, in theory. Heck, I'm still holding out hope that Nancy Pelosi will become president after we come to our collective senses and impeach Bush and Cheney (technically we have until January 2009). But by the same token, I don't think we should have a woman president merely for the sake of having a woman president, or merely for the novelty of it because we've never had a woman president before. We've never had a dog president before either, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And no, I don't mean to imply that women in general or Hillary Clinton in specific are as incapable of governing as a dog. My point is that there are certain people, male and female, who have no business being president. George W. Bush is one. I happen to be another one. While he and I have many fundamental differences, we share similar traits that make us similarly unsuited to the job of president, such as a hot temper and a tendency to hold grudges, or an unwillingness to listen to criticism of ourselves of the people we care about. Despite what some essentialist pyschologists might say, these traits have nothing to do with our respective sexes.

But I digress. I was speaking of Hillary Clinton. It's not that I think she would be a bad president. I think she's probably capable enough to be a good president. It's just that, if she's elected president and barring any sort of domestic upheaval between her and her husband, Bill Clinton will be back in the White House. And she'd probably want to give him something to do while he's there; I know I would if I were her, because idle hands are free to grope interns. And that, to me, almost seems like cheating, almost seems like giving him another chance to be president by proxy. Maybe I'm not being fair; I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton doesn't have her own thoughts and her own mind and her own agenda. On the other hand, a married couple is a unit, and this particular unit already spent eight years in the White House, and we have term limits for a reason. Term limits are protection of minority rights within a majority rule. Term limits say to the minority, "Even though you're hopelessly outnumbered and may never succeed in getting your candidate of choice, at least you're not stuck with the same creeps you voted against in perpetuity." I believe in term limits and I think they ought to be applied across the board, in the Senate, in the House, and in the state governments. Again, I digress, but whether it's intended or not, Hillary Clinton for President seems to me to be flouting the Twenty-second Amendment.

In a similar vein, if we elect Hillary Clinton, that means that the last four presidents will have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. If we're just going to elect dynasties of presidents from the same families, then what's the point of having elections, or indeed democracy, at all? We might as well give up and go back to monarchy.

Maybe it's not fair to say that no one related to a former president should be president. Maybe such a person might have some good ideas and their relationship to a former president is incidental and would have no bearing on their fitness to be president. Some might even say that it's anti-democratic to suggest such a thing, that the president should be the people's choice, and if the people keep choosing people from the same family, then that's democracy in action (although it strikes me more as democracy inaction). I don't necessarily mean to suggest that no one related to a former president should ever be president ever; I don't necessarily mean to suggest that we have a constitutional amendment to that effect (that'd be quite a headache to draft, because you'd have to decide how close is too closely related). But I do think that our democracy is languishing, and I think that to revive and revitalize it at this point we need an infusion--a transfusion, if you will--of new blood. And that is why I don't support Hillary Clinton for president.

Actually, it's always time for a Daily Show lovefest, but unfortunately I have a day job.

Videos behind the cuts.
( Sen. John McCain )
This Sen. John McCain looks like the one I voted for in the 2000 primary, but he doesn't sound anything like him. I can only assume that John McCain died and was somehow reanimated as a conservative cyborg.

I was a little disappointed in Jon because one thing I respect about him is that he's always such a gracious host even with people who disagree with him, and he's always so disdainful of newstalk shows where people just talk, often at increasing volume levels, but don't ever listen, so I was a little disappointed that this descended to the Crossfire level of discourse. To be fair, though, I think that part of the reason he felt he could let go a little is because he and John McCain are friends and they have a relationship and a mutual respect that he hasn't established with, say, Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. (Which interview, by the way, is well worth watching and my boy did indeed hold his own, as well as getting some good rebuttals in after the fact.)

But that disappointment aside, I was glad to see Jon standing his ground and not letting McCain just go off on his tangents, his non-sequitur rants, his pre-programmed philibuster. Good job, Jon; I'm proud of you. And Sen. McCain, if you are indeed the man I voted for in the 2000 primary and not a re-animated cyborg...I want my vote back. I wish, in the name of all that is good and decent in this world, that I could take back that vote I cast for you and give it to Al Gore (not that that would have made a difference, but let's not open those wounds right now).

In all seriousness, McCain was such a jerk in this interview that I had to physically restrain myself from punching the computer monitor. I don't know that I've ever felt so betrayed by a political figure.

(Also, the Daily Show studio audience needs to stop clapping at everything. Yes, Jon's brilliant; we're all aware of that fact, but your clapping at everything actually impedes the brilliance, so knock it off.)

( Only the Lonely )

This is the third segment of a three-part story on some sex scandal in Washington. The other two segments are well worth viewing as well although, predictably, they do get a little raunchy. But I wanted to talk about this clip because it was Jon laying two smackdowns (smacks down?) in one.

First, Sean Hannity: Bite me. Bite every single inch of me and then lick me where I pee, you bitch of a partisan hack. You know damn well that if a Democrat had been revealed to be on that list before any Republicans they'd have to extend your show by another half an hour just so you could express all your outrage and righteous indignation about the depravity and the debauchery and the corruption.

As for Tucker Carlson, there's only one thing I can add...how do you like being Jon Stewart's monkey?

( Trail of Cheers )

There's really not much more I can add to this; it was all done so beautifully well and made such excellent use of all the most persistently and annoyingly stereotypical American Indian clichés. As for the story itself, praise be to God that that school finally got rid of that mascot, and let us just hope and pray that the officials stand by their decision and are not swayed by the determinedly myopic whining of a bunch of insensitive blow-hard sports fans.

I became aware of this particular controversy in 2001 in Human Relations class (hands down the most rewarding class I ever took in my entire academic career) when we watched a video about it. And I was shocked and amazed at the time, energy, and effort people put into retaining this mascot. It was incredible and horribly fascinating; they made speeches and they held rallies and...as we were watching this video I just wanted to say to these people, "Don't you people have anything better to do...like maybe studying, or waging wars over which end of a hard-boiled egg to break first?"

To be fair, I suppose if you'd attached your ego to a particular team identity, and that identity was suddenly taken away from you, that would probably be a bit disorienting and unpleasant. However, I don't think it would be anywhere near as unpleasant as having your entire cultural identity all but stripped away and made a mockery of for the amusement of others.