I love it!

http://infiniteataraxia.blogspot.com/2008/04/may-they-beat-merth-out-of-her.html

Ok, all good points, I may have to retract my endorsement...has the NYT ever changed its mind?

I just want more meat and less potatoes from Obama, that's all....or more potatoes and less meat...I'm not good with animals...either way, its bad.

Cole Hamels is beautiful.

Hilary Clinton for President

Ok, I was saving this, but I had to egg Linden on:

For her passionate, studied knowledge of policy issues, for her life long dedication to public service, for her insistence that Presidential campaigns address crime and poverty in a concrete fashion, for her determination to end the war in Iraq as responsibly and expediently (in that order) as possible, and for her proven desire and ability to work with the opposition when prudent and possible, this blog enthusiastically, though not unconditionally, endorses Sen. Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.

When was the last time the word "embarrassment" was used to talk about Democratic Presidential campaigns but was followed by "of riches?" There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama would make the kind of President that I would be proud of and, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think you should know that I did indeed pull his lever (thats what she said). But I did so less because I think he has run the better campaign and more because he has, in my mind, more actively courted the constituencies to whom I hold the greatest allegiance: namely, college youth.

Yet, ultimately, Obama's campaign to me represents an enormous contradiction that makes it difficult to imagine what his Presidency would look like. On the one hand, Obama has criticized not only Bush's policy decisions, but the mindset that informed them: namely, the elevation of the irrational and narrow-minded over the reasonable and progressive. In other words, Obama has chastised Bush for abandoning the long and important tradition of American Pragmatism. And yet, since Iowa, Obama has seemed to do the same, cultivating a Liberal (and yes, Obama is more Liberal than HRC) ideology, exploiting economic fears, and grandstanding on abstract principles that have ballooned far out of proportion.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has shown an intelligence and, yes, tenacity, that suggests that she is indeed the one to move the commas and build the coalitions that are going to be necessary to tackle these enormous policy problems. I agree whole-heartedly with Obama that political prudence is not enough to move Washington if it is not accompanied by a groundswell of support that starts at the grassroots level and filters up through the representative system and into the legislature. And it is for that reason I hope to see him on the ticket, and in the oval office come 2017. But, in my best estimation, HRC will produce the kind of government we have so sorely lacked for the last, oh, 60 years: one that is careful and conscientious, important and compassionate, smart and limited.

Now, short of winning NC and Indiana by significant margins, and somehow getting a legit revote in Michigan and Florida--and winning--I don't see how the convention can nominate Clinton without splintering the party (which I don't think is true of the reverse), and I also believe very strongly that Hilary should accept the bottom of the ticket should that be the best the party can do, and that she should spend eight years--as she has her last 40--serving the public, and will then be in a position to be elected the first female president of the united states at the age of 69 (too easy), and the Clinton's can retire at 78, old, accomplished, and remembered, and this union will be better for it.

competitive blogging

is there anything better?

The blog-let has officially been thrown down: http://infiniteataraxia.blogspot.com/

First question: what is ataraxia?

Now, to respond:

What did I mean by "a hunger that was born of all things in this country that can... be better?" Good question, Linden. Here's my take. Let's leave Mac out of the equation for a while--because I do believe his bio will and should be a big selling point for the GOP. But look at GWB for a second, and I think its pretty clear. W was born into a rich family; obama and hil into the middle class. W spent college getting drunk and getting C's; Hil and Obama were both academic superstars. W spent his 20's drinking some more, doing coke, and glad-handing at HBS (which I can't imagine he was admitted into based solely on his GMATs) while Hil and Obama continued their academic success at the two most prestigious academic institutions in the world. W used his degree to drink more and run his daddies' companies into the ground; Hil and Obama--both of whom could have taken 200k+ jobs--worked for peanuts in public service.

Now, I for one think there is something to these differences (maybe not the first--theres nothing wrong with being rich, per se), and that they are not inconsequential to the types of presidents they would be. Now, Mac, for sure, believes too in the value of sacrifice, but I don't think that jives with his governing philosophy as well as he would have us believe (but more on that in coming days).

So yes, Obama smoked some pot, and Hil did alot of what she did in hopes of being president one day, but the fact is that they both gave up a tremendous amount to better their country (as too did McCain) whereas George Bush lived a life of privilege and entitlement that avoided the hard questions and, in this humble bloggers opinion, help gestate a seriously warped view of government within his mind that that of his minions.

Wrap-up....mmm, wrap-up

From Michael Cooper:
"I just checked your blog hoping for some cogent insider analysis of the PA primary (Pholitics?). Sadly, there was no post. Give me some procrastination material for finals studying man. "

Ok, Cooper, whatever you say...

So whats a Democratic Presidential candidate to do? Yesterday's Huffington Post declared the winner of the PA primaries to be...John McCain. ie, the dem race is officially going all the way to convention, with more bruising in store for both our wanna-be's.

The NYT declared that, despite her decisive win, HRC is still the underdog in the overall race, but I guess we have to see what Indiana has to say about that. (BTW, Indiana Jones is only 28 days away)

As for Barack, well, he outspent Hil dog 4-1 in this state. I mean, for three weeks, literally every show on TV, literally every single commercial break, he was like "I don't take money from lobbyists" this, and "I opposed the war from the start" that. My honest-to-god, I want to be the next mark penn prediction was that Hil was gonna win by 3.5, but in the end Barack doesn't appear to have made any inroads with PA voters, a fact that could be troubling to superdelegates who know that PA (or, likewise, OH) cannot, under any circumstances, go to JM. As Hil herself says, “It’s very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states.” The NYT deconstructs that argument here, and also points out the ways in which either candidate could put into play states that have been voting red since that last time we were in an unwinnable war, wages were stagnating, and the price of consumer goods was skyrocketing.

Speaking of deconstruction, Stanley Fish has added another section to his NYT feature: "French Theory in America", which is a great read for anyone looking to kill an hour, get a bunch of weird names confused, and learn nothing. As he sums it up: "the degree to which our conviction of a truth is firm or soft will depend on how massive and conclusive the relevant evidence is, and an account of truth that flies far above any set of facts on the ground will not be relevant." Sounds eerily Aristotilean, no? Maybe thats why Fish concludes that "Not only does deconstruction not threaten anything or deliver anything, it doesn’t change anything." But, don't worry, all you have to do is wikipedia Derrida to know that Fish probably means that as a good thing.

also from Michael cooper: "How's the law search going?" Well, it seems like its down to Duke or UVa. I like UVa's big class size. More variety of personalities, classes, extra-curriculars, profs, etc. Any suggestions?

And finally, from Linden: http://cbs3.com/topstories/officer.robert.melia.2.706410.html

Blogs and kisses,
jordan

P.S. With Carly Smithson's exit, and with no Michael Johns (or is it John Michaels) or Kristy Lee Cook (although for different reasons), AI is officially not worth watching anymore, and America is officially retarded. Ah, Carly, you were awesome.

Dispatches from the front part 4: Why should you be president? you have 10 seconds to respond

Well, after 15 months of blah blah blah, it all comes down to me! Well, it all comes down to them, really...

So, after that horrible debate the other night, what's a young primary voter to do? Maybe i should just call up my good friend Larry Farnese and ask him what i should do?

Well, lets try to summarize these bloated candidacies into one distinct message...here goes...

Barack Obama: Change we can believe in!
HRC: Ready for change on day one! And fuck you john mccain.

Barack's message (and google, is Barack really not in your spell check dictionary yet?) has remained fairly consistent When some headwind has tried to knock him off course, he has mostly just resorted to ignoring it, saying that the politics of the future is to stay on message, a message of hope and progress, not only despite politics, but because of it.

Now Hil-dog has had to make some adjustments. Her experience argument didn't quite do it (see: Iowa). But really all along she's been selling herself as a candidate, not only on policy but also on resume. Why is she prob gonna win PA? Is it because all those fat cheesesteak loving union blokes just can't deny a chick in a pantsuit? Is it because women will vote for her no matter what? Or is it because people in a state that has been disproportionately burdened by George W's failed economic and national security strategies, voters are genuinely timid to bet all the marbles on a guy who lacks the mettle to change the world (read: defeat John McCain)?

So Hilary's message seems to be two-pronged on this primary eve: first, that she is READY for CHANGE! and second, that she can beat mccain through coalition building (less attractive then grass, er I mean net, roots, but nonetheless effective) and can weather the storm that is the GOP attack machine.

Now, I think, when all is said and done, there will be a dream ticket, and I think, no matter what, Hil's career is far from over. But change is in the air, no matter what the reservations held by ed rendell. I don't think mccain has made gains these past weeks though, and the dems continue to party-build, so until the convention, I see nothing wrong with playing this thing out (which includes letting superdelegates vote counter to the popular vote, if they see fit).

In the end, I think dem primary voters will ultimately have voted for a personality, as the policy held by all the candidates have been fairly similar. And Barack and HIl do have remarkable stories. I see nothing wrong with selling and buying this bio-politics. I think if we'd considered the fight in the dog of candidates a little more we would've avoided some costly errors in the past. W was never hungry, not one day in his entire life. Barack and Hilary, on the other hand, have been starving since they knew how to talk, a hunger that was born of all the things in this country that can, and should, be better, and I think that makes them better candidates, and will make them better presidents.

As for me, I look forward to exercising my American right to a secret ballot, so while I can't tell you whose lever I will pull (thats what she said), I can tell you this: I expect April 22, 2008 to go down as one of the best days of my life, fo sure.

Blogs and kisses, jordan

Dispatches from the front part 3: food for thought

From CNN:
"In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas."

From Newsweek:
"In 2006, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Indonesia, you spoke about America's overbearing foreign policy. How is America doing now? {sic} You [the United States] are white. You are Christian. You are rich. Your technology is superior. All of these countries are not … It's a phenomenon Americans cannot understand.

If you could vote as part of the American global polity, who would you vote for?
Right now? I would vote for Obama. I think he has this message of decency, of fairness, of transcending racial hatred, which cuts across all countries, all nations."


From Slate:
"if the white working class's interest in "guns or religion" indicates derangement or bitterness, then the white working class isn't very deranged or bitter. According to Bartels, there is no evidence that social issues outweigh economic ones among white voters lacking college degrees."