Little Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

One of the benefits of living in an ultra-swank building in one of those cities where developers spent the last five years thinking, "What will attract these young hipsters to our condos?" is that you can watch CNN (does this reveal my city or what?) while waiting for the elevator and can even program your key fob so the TV inside the elevator switches to a channel of your choice.

But imagine my dismay when my daily dose of CNN informs me that my darling, my golden boy, nay, my man has decided to drop out of the Presidential race. Oh, little Johnny. With your John Ritter-style good looks (before he got all pudge), your charming smile, your gold Dodge Grand Caravan, your brilliant and humble wife, you were my last great hope for this country.

*Tear*

It's not every day that someone who occupies a position of privilege actually takes the time to think about the people who really make this country, its economy, and the great machine of capitalism tick. A political platform, certainly, but also an understanding of the types of programs and policies we really need to sustain our labor force. And by sustain, I'm not talking about keeping the workers alive. What I mean, instead, is that these people deserve respect, dignity, and access to health care, jobs, and education--all of these things that so many of us (including me) enjoy uncritically.

When I was holed up in my Ivy League tower, drinking my education through a funnel (that's a joke, Mom), I really didn't think much about how and why I got there. Yes, I knew that my immigrant parents took a great risk, came to America and worked very hard. Yes, I knew that I had worked hard enough to get into college. But I never thought about why people didn't get college educations, didn't have health care, didn't have jobs.

These are things that became urgently important to me, particularly when I began to work in education, saw and heard about what can happen in classrooms, and read more about the state of the public education in the United States, Every Child Left Behind, and everything by Jay Matthews (for what that's worth). Later, when I went to graduate school and took a course on pedagogy, I read Paulo Freire's Literacy and, later, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. While Brazilian adult education might not seem germane to the problems ongoing in the United States today, Freire had his finger on the pulse of the ideological state apparatus:

Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not an historical vocation. Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as an historical vocation would lead either to cynicism or total despair. The struggle for humanization, for the emancipation of labor, for the overcoming of alienation, for the affirmation of men and women as persons would be meaningless. This struggle is possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.

John Edwards showed a commitment to the enterprise of being human instead of a commitment to corporations more interested in the enterprise of dehumanization. He realized that those of us who have the means can be noblesse oblige, in the true sense of the word--nobility obliges, with great privilege comes great responsibility. Critics derided Edwards for that soundbite we've all heard: his father was a mill worker as was his grandfather before him. But even though Edwards--a first-generation college student--got the education his father and grandfather never could have and earned amounts of money of which his forefathers only could have dreamed, he remembered where he came from. He remembered the people he came from.

For a brief moment, I had great hope that we might have a leader who was willing to put his money where his mouth was, cared about invisible labor and exploited workers, and demonstrated a commitment to the sort of progressive populism that we so desperately need to make the world a better place. Perhaps you're thinking, "Oh, that'll never happen" and, believe me, I've heard it before. But John Edwards believed that it could happen and offered us a politics of hope.

Obama Kicks Hillary's Ass: South Carolina

I'm flabbergasted that CNN is reporting that Obama won without emphasizing the gigantic victory he had over Hillary. Even more interesting is that 61% of the Dem. voters were female, yet Obama won. I think this is a great sign that we're not allowing identity politics to determine our votes.

Someone I know posted a message which indicated that one could not call herself a feminist if she didn't vote for Hillary. I found this statement completely appalling. I told her as much. A mild debate ensued, and she finally gave up when I suggested that a feminist might, you know, actually think about *all women* (to say nothing of all people!). Is Hillary Clinton good for *all women*? I don't think so. Maybe glass-ceiling-breaking professional women and corporate women in particular. But does she care about working-class women? She doesn't appear to care about working-class people at all. Some other people--including avowed feminists--jumped in to agree that her original statement was offensive. Am I a feminist? Well, I believe that there should be equality between all sexes (and ethnicities, class-status, etc.), so I guess so. Do I believe that Hillary is the best choice? No.

And neither do the women of South Carolina.

John Edwards made a third place showing, and he is vowing to stay in the race. Is this a good plan? Well, I think it is. Perhaps he'll have some kingmaker-style leverage at the convention--though since I just don't understand this "superdelegate" business, who knows. But his presence calms me. And anyone who can calm me is good in my books.

H-Bomb Representin'

And the Fishmonger shall don the robes of Cain.
Esther 121:2

Johnny Edwards Just Wants Some Love

Let's give it to him!

Recount! Recount!

In case you haven't heard, there's going to be a recount for the New Hampshire Primary.

Some of us right here at American Other suggested that there might have been something hinkey going on with New Hampshire, so we're pleased that officials will be reconsidering the ballots. Of course, if some sort of tampering or unfairness occurred in the first place, I have difficulty believing that it wouldn't happen with a recount as well.

Of course, this whole situation recalls the 2000 election, though there's a lot less at stake at the moment.*

I have no doubt that the election results will change in some way, though I doubt they will change much for Kucinich (who is instigating the recount with Republican Albert Howard--they fronted the $2,000 needed to start the process).

I think the recount will give Ron Paul a boost and, in fact, I find his primary results to be most suspicious. I also think that percentages will change for both Obama and Edwards and that Hillary Clinton will prove to have less support.

Why is Kucinich doing that? Clearly, his 1.4% won't be increasing to the levels that would make him a viable candidate. I think he has a few reasons:

• The Principle--Aren't you inherently skeptical of most polls? I know I am. Having a recount would give us another data set to consider. Of course, it'll probably just make me continue to distrust results, and I'll want another recount. If, however, the results are close enough, then maybe I'll have more faith in the act of election (though certainly not in the morons doing the electing!)
• Folk Heroism--If Kucinich's recount initiative uncovers some dirty laundry, he will gain my admiration. He might even gain my vote! Okay, since I've been considering electability in my voting (and apparently the large body of Obama and Clinton voters don't care about this and are willing to turn over the reigns to President Huckabee), I probably wouldn't go vote for Kucinich, but I'd certainly tell everyone how cool he is. Maybe I'll put a picture of him on my wall, next to all my Star Wars paraphernalia.
• Making Votes Count--Have all the voters had their votes counted? Kucinich wants some assurance.
  

What do you think will happen?

*Much is at stake in the election proper, but this is only the beginning. There is still time for America--and Edwards--to rise.

Rani Calls Richardson

Does anyone remember yesterday, when I predicted that Richardson would (a la Wilson-Phillips) "hold on for one more day"?

Well, some day somebody's gonna make you want to turn around and say goodbye. Until then, baby, are you going to let them hold you down and make you cry?

I was right! Richardson dropped out of the election today.

Everyone's a Comback Kid

No, seriously. In The Washington Post this morning, at least two people have been labeled "Comeback Kids": Hillary Clinton and John McCain. No doubt that after South Carolina, Edwards and Obama will become "Comeback Kids," as will Huckabee when he takes another state.

I'm not sure how far back this "Comeback Kid" business goes, but it's definitely a term that got applied to Clinton the first before the 1992 election. I think Bill gave himself the moniker after he lost to Paul Tsongas in the New Hampshire primary but wound up taking the state on election night--by a large percentage.* And this is why Hillary *isn't* the new "Comeback Kid."

Now, I'm not exactly sure what the people of New Hampshire were thinking, but clearly some of them must have been smoking the wacky tabacky last night when they went to the polls for Clinton. (Don't think Rani doesn't know what goes on at Hampshire College--or at Dartmouth for that matter.) But even though Clinton won the primary, it was hardly by a large percentage. In fact, CNN held off on projecting the winner because the primary was pretty close. This wasn't some Comeback Kid, large percentage victory.

Don't be fooled by these tactics being employed by the Hillary camp.

Hate to tell you, but Hillary really is a robot from a galaxy far, far away. After all the horrors of the past eight years, it's easy to imagine that the Clinton years were this halcyon time when we all rode horsies and unicorns through the puffy clouds. Not so.

Remember Hillary's failed health care policy?
Remember Black Hawk Down and Somalia?
Remember Whitewater?
Remember campaign-finance investigations?
Remember Don't Ask Don't Tell?
Remember the Federal Government Furlough (during which our President was getting a visit from Ol' Blue Dress's Presidential Kneepads--and no, they weren't playing volleyball)?
Remember when Billary claimed they'd be adopting a (special needs) child but conveniently changed their minds after the 1996 election?
Remember Vince Foster (murder or suicide, your guess is as good as mine)?
Remember Bosnia and exaggerated claims of genocide--sounds familiar, eh?
Remember that the Clinton administration brought us the extraordinary rendition used to torture "suspected terrorists" in Syrian black prisons today?

I mention these things because Hillary predicates her experience on her tenure as First Lady. And by all accounts, she wasn't some shrinking violet First Lady who picks out new draperies. She was running the show and telling her husband what to do.

First Lady Macbeth.

Well, I say, "Out, out damn Hillary."

*And by "taking," we might wonder if Bill finished himself off in a sink... as he is wont to do.

Rani picked the Repubs!

CNN projected McCain as the winner, with Romney in second, and Huckabee in third.

Edwards has been projected to come in third, with a tight race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton appears to be leading. Snarff has declared his intentions to commit seppuku.

Election drop-outs

We spend so much time on the top contenders here that I'd like to give a shout out to the less-successful candidates. To that end, here are my predictions on who will drop out and when.

Richardson: No stranger to snark from our blog, Richardson will hold on for one more day (in the words of Wilson Phillips).

Kucinich: He *should* drop out (aw, little Yoda) but I think he will never know when to quit and will soldier on until he flat out runs out of cash.

Gravel: Dropping out tonight, mark my words.

Rani's NH Predictions

Any guesses on what might happen tonight?

For the Repubs, I'm predicting: McCain, Romney, Huckabee. Buoyed by their NH stats, all three will stay in the race.

For the Dems, I'll say: Obama, Edwards, Clinton. All three will stay in as well.

First to Vote Dixville Notch in NH Hates Clinton

Check back in with American Other today for periodic updates on the New Hampshire Primary.

Nothing much going on at the moment, except for little Dixville Notch making their disdain for Clinton known. So it's not the most important news of the day, but it's early. Polls close at 8pm.

In the meantime, feel free to entertain yourself with the following video, in which Hillary pretends to be human. When asked how she does it, Hillary lowers her voice and speaks hesitantly, as if trying to convince voters that she really isn't the freaky robot that we know her to be. Note the melodramatic crack in her voice and the desperate attempt to blink some tears into her eyes. Boo hoo, Hill. Boo hoo.

Dem Debate: Slam Book Style

Charlie Gibson asks, "What do you wish you hadn't said in a debate?"

Hillary: Waffles, no comment.

Richardson: Claimed to love a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade. Bo-oring.

Edwards: "I made a horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. And I want her to know--you look terrific tonight."

Obama: Lots of words, no substantial comment.

This pretty much sums up tonight's debate. Who do you think is the winner?

Newsflash: "I have feelings too!" -Hillary

Charlie Gibson notes that people like Obama better. Hillary replies, "Well, that hurts my feelings!" [Cue laughter.]

That's news to me! Feelings? From the woman who once noted that she pities unthinking emotion? Whose daughter once told her school chums that emotions are for the weak?

Please Step Aside, Pervez

I'm watching the Dem Debate right now--after a horrible, crushing Redskins loss--and I'm struck by Bill Richardson's optimism.

Charlie Gibson asks what Richardson would do if there were credible evidence of Pakistani awfulness.

Richardson replies, "I would ask Musharraf to step aside."

Um, yeah, that'll work.

Elizabeth Declares John in Second Place

John Edwards gave a most awesome speech after the Iowa results. Ballsy Elizabeth Edwards declared second place for John, and it seems that her prognostication is coming to fruition.

As I listened to Edwards speaking, I realized that he is positioning himself for VP, and I think there might be some deal-brokering, phone calls, and horse trading between Edwards and Obama coming soon. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

Meanwhile, I'm watching Hillary speaking, and she just seems so lackluster. In fact, she keeps jacking Edwards and Obama phrases and passing them off as her own with a very flat delivery. To make matters worse, she's framed on the right by Madeleine Albright and by Bill on the left. It's one of the ugliest sights ever to grace my television. This woman just has no charisma. To make matters worse, I'm reading this book, and it's really not improving my vision of Hillary. Neither is the mullet she appears to be sporting currently.

How does President Huckabee sound?

I don't like it either.

Make it stop. Go vote for Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's 8:59 EST.

Only three minutes ago, CNN projected Huckabee as the winner with only 15% reporting. I guess they're pretty certain, but it's so early.

EDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDSEDWARDS

We *can't* have eight more years of this crap.

The Truth About the Election

You probably realize that I don't pull many punches. In that vein, I'm going to share something that I think of as each new election draws near. While some of us might be doing frantic calculations to determine who will be the next president, it all comes down to one thing: the BBQ factor.

When Americans go to the polls to pick a president, they're not thinking about taxes, foreign policy, or kindergarten transcripts. They're thinking, "Now which of these candidates would I want at my BBQ." Ideally, the president will arrive clad in a plaid shirt, grab a Pabst Blue Ribbon from the cooler, and sidle up to the grill to flip some meat with his buddies.

Now, do Americans really want Hillary at their BBQ? Just imagine--she'd show up, demand shiraz, and wrestle control from the host. Before you know it, she's thrown out the beef and pork in favor of more healthy chicken and fish. No condiments allowed either.

Will Obama be invited to the BBQ? Only for some post-BBQ lynching.

Giuliani? I'm not sure America will take too kindly to someone trying to work his Italian sausage into things.

Romney? Can you trust a man who won't drink a beer?

What it comes down to here is Huckabee and Edwards. Both electable. Both suitable for BBQ invites.

I'll take Edwards. After we grill our plethora of meats and ride around in the fluffy clouds and dazzling rainbows on our unicorns, we'll be handing out leftover meat to the poor.

Fool Me Twice: The Hillary Clinton Nightmare 3--The Final Chapter--President Huckabee

Or Giuliani...doesn't matter. Hillary Clinton in unelectable. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Huckabee and here's why:

According to a recent Zogby poll, Edwards and Obama beat (or in one case tie) every Republican candidate. Senator Hillary on the other hand would lose to EVERY MAJOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE including--brace yourself--Fred Thompson! This is with the least popular Republican administration in the history of time occupying the White House. This is with Hillary barely starting her "charming" angry paranoid meltdowns.



There's more: despite Hillary's effort to mimic Republican positions on everything save Abortion, Hillary is unbelievably hated amongst Republican voters. According to a USA Today poll, 84% of Republicans say they would never vote for her. The numbers for Obama and Edwards are in the 60% range.

And then there are the other "negatives." People that just can't stand Ms. Abrasive. 45% of all Americans would never vote for her. Compare this to Edwards' 31% and Obama's 30%. Men are especially high with a full 50% against Hillary no matter what.



Why do any Democrats support Hillary anyway? Some fondly remember the '92 Clinton victory but forget the Ross Perot 3rd-party good fortune that got him there with only 43% of the vote. Bill Clinton never had Hillary-like Negatives, and always had charm and an ability to connect with Americans that Hillary can't even approach.



Another reason she garners Dem support is what I like to call the "Dukakis Factor." Simply put, the Dukakis Factor is the Democratic Party's ability to pick the least electable candidates (president and vice president) possible for reasons that still baffle me. I think it starts in 1968 with Hubert Humphrey, then McGovern, with a break for Carter (who's 1980 victory was stolen by Reagan's "October Surprise.) Next Mondale and Ferraro, Dukakis, then Clinton another exception, followed by Gore (He wasn't very warm back then [maybe it's global warming] and let's not forget how many in the Democratic base still feel about Tipper's censorship crusade) and ol' Bloodthirsty Joe Lieberman. This ticket DID WIN of course but kept what should have been a landslide close enough to steal. Kerry ALSO WON, but was once again devoid of charisma and a landslide slid into another stolen election. Republicans like to win more than anything. Whereas Democrats, with a platform that benefits 95% of Americans, somehow figure out a way to lose.

While whatever fascist Repub plays to his base, Hillary plays to the Republican base that can't stand her. So vote for another Democrat, any Democrat. Or maybe just cast a vote in the Republican primary.