Context: Last week President Obama (ooh, it still makes me feel all tingly when I say that) gave a speech to Congress regarding the state of the Union, but it wasn't officially a State of the Union speech because apparently you have to have been president for at least a year to give one of those. Regardless of the semantic distinctions, they had a prominent member of the opposing party give a response, as is customary. They picked Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana where, as you might recall, they had a big ol' hurricane a few years ago, a harrowing experience that taught Bobby Jindal that spending money on natural disaster preparedness was a bad idea. This, for some reason, caused Jon Stewart to take a sausage link wrapped in a pancake and dip it into bacon-flavored mayonnaise and attempt to eat it. None of this made any sense.



Governor Jindal, allow me to explain to you why we need to monitor volcanoes:

Perhaps you've heard of Yellowstone National Park, in the northwest corner of Wyoming. What you might not be aware of is that Yellowstone Park--nearly all 2.2 million acres of it--is a gigantic volcano caldera. A caldera, in case you are not aware, is the hole in a volcano where the lava comes out. Let me reiterate, because this is very important: the caldera is not IN Yellowstone Park; Yellowstone Park IS the caldera--that's how big it is. To put it another way, Yellowstone Park is a volcano, but not just any volcano; they call it a supervolcano. And it's still active. In point of fact, it's the largest active volcano in the world. They figure that it erupts every 600,000 years or so, and the last time it erupted was 630,000 years ago.

So basically, our great nation is sitting atop a huge ticking time bomb, which could theoretically go off at any time. If, God forbid, it does so during our lifetimes it won't just be a national emergency, it will be a worldwide emergency. As bad as Hurricane Katrina was--and I in no way mean to minimize the devastation and suffering that it caused--if, God forbid, Yellowstone were to blow during our lifetimes it would make Hurricane Katrina look like a refreshing April shower.

Now, to be fair, I can kind of see an argument against monitoring it; if, God forbid, it were to blow, it would be a catastrophe unlike anything the homo sapient race has ever experienced, and how do you possibly prepare for something like that? And if we can't prepare for it, maybe we're better off not knowing. On the other hand, if there IS something that we can do to prepare for it, we're probably better off doing it. And part of preparing, if any preparation is possible, is monitoring the situation so we have an idea of when our preparations will have to be put into action, just as meteorologists monitor hurricanes to try to predict where and when and with how much force they are going to hit. Of course, that doesn't always mean that they predict correctly, and it doesn't always mean that people are prepared for every contingency, but the knowledge that comes of monitoring the situation is a vital part of the preparation process.

Bottom line, Governor Jindal; if, God forbid, Yellowstone blows within our lifetimes, it probably won't make much difference to me, nor to most of us who live in the western and midwestern states, whether or not the government spent money on trying to prepare because, if we're lucky, we'll be killed instantly. Make no mistake about it; those killed instantly would be the lucky ones. But those of you in the southern and eastern states might be unfortunate enough to survive long enough to see the aftermath, and if you do survive, you just might be grateful that the federal government took the time and spent the money to monitor the situation and prepare for it. Or, if you and your Republican cohorts succeed in bankrupting the effort to monitor the Yellowstone situation, you might just live to regret it.

And a happy Mardi Gras to you, sir.

Incidentally, the source I have cited in this little essay is A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, published by Broadway Books, copyright 2003. It's a very well-researched and accessibly written book, an excellent read if you want to have the ever-loving crap scared out of you.

"Maria" from West Side Story:

"Obama, my president's name is Obama.
And suddenly that [...] will never be the same to me..."

Now, you could just use "name" in that space that I left as it is in the original song, but I'm trying to think of a one-syllable word that can refer to the office of the presidency, and I'm drawing a blank. Any ideas?

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 )

Just in case there were some people who didn't watch the interview who would like to: it's in two parts, so I don't feel like embedding it.

I didn't find it to be that remarkable, really; I don't felt that he really answered the questions Jon was asking, and I don't know if it's because he genuinely didn't understand the question or he was deliberately trying to sidestep the issues.

His class that he's teaching sounds interesting, though.

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.

I was just on the Daily Show website trying to find out if the "Benjamin Franklin" who just got married is the same one who once shared a Philly cheesesteak with Rob Corddry, and I think so, but I can't find the actual video so I've stopped caring.

But they're featuring other "patriotic" themed videos today, and I particularly like this one:



Although it's mainly about flag burning, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision about the Second Amendment.

I have mixed feelings about said Supreme Court decision: I'm glad that they heard a Second Amendment case, but disappointed in the decision itself. Those of you who know me well know that gun control used to be one of my touchstone issues, but in light of the liberties that the government has been taking in taking liberties away from citizens, I'm not as comfortable as I used to be with the idea of the government mucking around with the Bill of Rights.

I was just thinking about the word "patriotism", and how I'm not really sure what it means anymore. I kind of like Charlotte Perkins Gilman's definition from her novel Herland:

Patriotism, red hot, is compatible with the existence of a neglect of
national interests, a dishonesty, a cold indifference to the
suffering of millions. Patriotism is largely pride, and very largely
combativeness. Patriotism generally has a chip on its shoulder.

Of course, in Gilman's case, she was constructing "patriotism" as a male concept ("combatativeness", for her, was an essentially male trait), but I think that, gender politics aside, it applies pretty well to what we now define as patriotism, and I would agree with her that that emotion is not constructive and potentially dangerous.

I'd rather be a Jon Stewart-style patriot, one who loves the country so much that he's not afraid to point out its flaws and foibles.

So happy 4th of July, everyone!

Excellent coverage from the Daily Show yesterday about the legalizing of same-sex marriage in California:



First, I want to say congratulations to George Takei (Star Trek's Sulu) and his adorable new husband. And because Jon ridiculed the "heartless, insulated, myopic grandstander[s]" protesting the same-sex marriages, I can forgive him for the Star Trek fellatio joke; that and the fact that it was pretty funny, mostly because of Jon's poor impersonation skills (not that it's difficult to do a funny Shatner impression; even the bad ones are funny).

Anyway, back to the heartless, insulated, myopic grandstanders. Jon ridicules them briefly and beautifully, as is his wont, but I just wanted to point out that their rhetoric is getting harder and harder to swallow follow. They seem so desperate to attach Jesus' name and authority to their little protest that they've taken to referencing quotes from the Gospel that, when placed back into their original context, bear little to no relation to the argument they're meant to support. For example, at about 1 minute 16 seconds of the above video, someone is holding up a sign that says, "Jesus said, 'Go and sin no more.' John 8:11" Which is an accurate quotation, but I'm completely flabbergasted why anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the Bible in general and the Gospels specifically would use that particular verse to argue against same-sex marriage. It's like they literally Googled "Jesus" and "sin" (or searched for those keywords in an online version of the Bible) and slapped the first verse they found on the sign. Unless, of course, it was a conscious decision based on the assumption that their audience would not be familiar with the Bible, but that seems like a risky rhetorical strategy because your intended audience could easily look up the verse and its context and say, "Oh, well that doesn't apply to their argument at all," and just continue gaily along their way.

( Read more... )

I also wanted to point out that one of those hateful and disingenuous signs also shows a picture of two male plugs, which would be an appropriate analogy if sexual intercourse was the way we obtained the nutrients required to sustain ourselves. Again, I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the Bible does it say "he created them as electrical appliances."

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.