This Is Just Eerie

The last season of the West Wing totally predicted this election. Watch for yourself- Hillary never had a chance


(pragmatic? really? Barack?! wha?!)
So maybe if I had watched the West Wing during that time I'd actually be happy with what's going on right now.
I guess this just goes to show television has a huge impact and influence on us
as does this Slate XX blog (which I usually avoid because of their Barackian vibe) post about what happens if you turn off the t.v. and actually pay attention. Issues not image, much?

I'm afraid to even say that among in this crowd, but I'm just trying to be fair. I mostly read the transcript of the debate, because I got home too late to watch it. And from the transcript, one gets a whole different impression. For one thing, you don't get the full force of her pettiness when you don't see it delivered from her pinched mouth. For another, she is just much more impressive, intellectually. Time and time again, she comes up with a smart and, more importantly, specific response that seals the argument, like the line: "It would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary." That is a perfect and pithy summary of what her plan does, and it kills his complaint. And in this case, it was Obama who whined no fair and appealed to the moderator: "Brian, I'm getting fillibustered here." Whereas usually he just resorts to generalities, or refers to his days as a community organizer, or some version of the hope riff.

It's hard not to like him more than her. When I'm watching him, I'm thinking about his first book, and some of his great lines, and his wife, and all the things I like about him. When I'm watching her, I'm thinking of Bill's Jesse Jackson line, and her incredibly tedious books, and that embarrassing "Hillary" jazz-hands video. Unlike her, Obama seems constitutionally incapable of losing his cool. But he does not win these debates. On nearly any subject—health care, Iran, Korea—she's more impressive. So, I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would admit they prefer him just because they prefer him, and not give him points he didn't earn.

word. Poor Hillary if she'd run before 1960 (and been a man I guess) she totally would have won. Beauty before brains :(

Sphere: Related Content

Even Jesus Was Questioned More Than Barack

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe (John 20:24-25)

And it’s not like I’m comparing Barack Obama to Jesus Christ, but…

Here’s Dan Balz (hehe) of the Washington Post’s take

The focus will be on Hillary Clinton tonight when she and Barack Obama meet here for their last debate before next week's primaries in Ohio and Texas. But should it be Obama who comes under closer questioning?

The political community and the press are consumed, understandably, by the horse race. Obama is at worst tied with Clinton in Texas and, while he still trails in Ohio, he has narrowed Clinton's once-hefty margin.

Two new national polls out Tuesday morning show Obama now leading Clinton among Democrats by double digits for the first time in this long nomination battle (though some other national polls show Obama and Clinton running much closer).

Pollsters know that if those national numbers are moving rapidly away from Clinton, Ohio is not far behind. In past general elections, the Buckeye State has come close to mirroring the final outcome, and it's likely that Democrats here reflect overall national trends as well.

All this spells big trouble for Clinton, whose advisers know the consequences of losing both states next week. If that were to happen, there would be a rising chorus within the Democratic establishment for her to end her candidacy and embrace Obama for the good of the party. Even a split decision may not be enough to prevent a groundswell for shutting down the Democratic contest. Certainly Bill Clinton believes that.

Pre-debate talk has been consumed with the question of which Clinton will show up here in Cleveland -- the magnanimous candidate from last week's Texas debate or the angry Clinton who demanded on Saturday that Obama meet her to answer questions about his conduct during the primaries and caucuses.

Much, obviously, rides on her performance, but rarely has a debate truly changed the state of the race. The clear exception was the Philadelphia debate in late October, when Clinton stumbled over the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and opened herself up to attacks from her rivals that ultimately helped Obama. What Clinton needs may be less a stellar performance on her own part and more one by Obama that raises, in dramatic fashion, questions about his fitness to be president or his positions on important issues.

In what could be a decisive week in the Democratic campaign, the rising candidate is receiving accolades for big crowds, the enthusiasm of his supporters, his apparent ability to inspire a new generation to become active in politics and his facility to have captured the desire for change after eight years of the Bush presidency and more than a decade of polarized politics.

Those are not insignificant accomplishments, but more than that will be required to actually win the presidency in November and then to govern this still-divided country. Which is why Obama ought to face rigorous questioning in these final days before Ohio and Texas.

Can he truly be the candidate of MoveOn.org and red-state politicians alike? Have those at different ends of the Democratic political spectrum attributed to him positions -- on issues ranging from Iraq to health care to the economy -- that are compatible with their own views, but not with the other's?

Is there any major issue upon which he parts company with the big labor unions, or has he adopted their agenda in totality? More broadly, where has he shown a willingness to take on some of his own party's constituencies, and if he's not willing to do so, how can he suggest that he can bring Republicans and independents into a governing coalition?

Does his anti-NAFTA rhetoric of the past few weeks reflect his true feelings about trade, or has this been a mostly tactical exercise to attack Clinton? Is he turning his back on what has been a general consensus on trade issues and turning toward a significantly more protectionist stance for the United States?

What are his real priorities were he to become president? Ending the war, certainly, but exactly how? Health care for all Americans within his first term, though with how much compromise with the Republicans to get it done? Beyond that, where will he focus his attention in his first year in office?

When would he take on the entitlement challenges of Social Security and Medicare? What does he really think about budget deficits and fiscal discipline? What would he give up to lower the deficit, or does he not think that that matters? What taxes would he raise, other than rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which would largely be eaten up paying for health care?

If President Bush failed to change the tone in Washington, in part because he sought to govern as a conservative, would a President Obama be prepared not to govern as the liberal he has been in the Illinois and U.S. senates in order to change politics in Washington, as he has promised?

Obama's success against Clinton to date speaks to his considerable gifts as a politician, but that success does not wash away hard questions that he, or anyone else who seeks to lead the country, should face at such a challenging time.

A really good article all around but I’m surprised the Obamacans haven’t denounced Balz yet. I mean this article is indicative of a pre-Barack political mindset- who needs to actually have the presidential frontrunner answer questions about, y'know issues when he speaks so pretty? it's that kind of dissent that should not be tolerated in this New America.
To question Barack is to question Hope and Progress and the Future itself.
Plus every time you do question Barack a kitten dies- you're not a kitten killer, are you?

Sphere: Related Content

Bitch Is The New Black

Tina Fey is totally a new feminist icon

Bitches get things done!
Word!

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Should Do This More Often

Hillary unveils a great new campaign strategy at a Rhode Island rally-open mockery


I personally enjoy mockery and sarcasm- it goes a long way with me and since L'État c'est moi it goes a long way with everyone else. And since she is trailing and everyone is writing her off she should just keep mocking and like during debates just roll her eyes or maybe smuggle a halo on stage to hold above Barack's head like bunny ears.
At least it would be incredibly entertaining and people seem to want entertainment more than policy nowadays so have at it.

Sphere: Related Content

We All Knew This Already, Right?

just call Hillary Ms. Subliminal
Obama Is a Cyborg From the Future Sent To Destroy Us All!

I knew there was a reason he made me uneasy

Sphere: Related Content

That Would Explain A Lot

I had never thought about it this way but I guess that just shows way Thomas Edsall is actually paid and smart
from an article titled "Is Bill Deliberately Sabotaging Hillary's Campaign?"

No one better understands both the subtle politics of race and the acute sensitivities of Democratic primary voters than Bill Clinton.

Why, then, did the politically dexterous former president raise the issue of race during the South Carolina primary in a manner offensive to many blacks and whites, putting his wife's presidential bid into a potentially fatal downward spiral? And why did he incite the animus of countless voters by appearing to angrily and cavalierly dismiss Obama's anti-war credentials?

The question of motivation, always a minefield, will very likely go unanswered -- but consider this possibility:

Bill Clinton either does not want his wife to become president, or he is deeply ambivalent about the prospect of Hillary taking over the Oval Office where he once held court.
[snipped]

Posing the question of Bill Clinton's motivations to a number of Democratic and Republican political analysts produced a wide range of answers.

Some did not want to venture into the murky area of motivation. All three of the top partners at the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, for example, begged off:

Bill McInturff, "Above my pay grade as a pollster"; Glen Bolger, "I'm not the best person to speculate about Bill Clinton's state of mind on this, so I'll have to respectfully decline"; Neil Newhouse, "OMG - so her win diminishes him in some way. Interesting. But my BA in Psych doesn't qualify me to address this one."

Others, however, were not so shy.

Democratic media consultant James Duffy acknowledged that he is "not capable of making that type of psychological determination, but," he noted, "it seems like every step of the way, whether wittingly or unwittingly, he does things that are very destructive to her. Now she has a chance to get what she obviously wants more than anything else, the Presidency, and he steps forward and louses things up for her."

Republican media specialist Alex Castellanos, a man who takes pleasure in speculation, replied to a query with an intriguing email:

"What an interesting idea. 'Who's the fairest of them all?' Cain and Abel. Could be... I would have no way to know... but....I wonder if perhaps it is perhaps the opposite: in trying to prove he wants her to have it 'more than self,' he may be trying too hard... and that explains the loss of his golden touch, which he has certainly and for the first time in his charmed life, lost.

"This is why they don't allow doctors to operate on family members. Like most of us, perhaps he is torn and both impulses are true. Is he diminished if his unique accomplishment is duplicated by his wife, who was the wizard behind the curtain of his success? Yes. Would he do anything to see her elected? I would guess so.

All so human, isn't it?"

In a more down-to-earth commentary, Democratic campaign adviser Dan Gerstein said:

"Possible? Technically yes. But I don't like doing too much sideline psychology, especially when it comes to the Clintons, and trying to guess their motivations. That said, it does seem, at a minimum, that he has lost objectivity/perspective about the campaign, and that his emotions are guiding his behavior as much as if not more than the most gifted political mind of our generation is."

Colby political scientist L. Sandy Maisel said "that certainly is a question that has occurred to me, but I cannot really go there. It seems to be that he was so used to being able to slip out of any hole he dug for himself -- and he is so self-indulgent -- that he could not imagine not saying what he really felt and getting away with it."

Maisel added, however, that he agreed with the premise that Bill Clinton's comments during the South Carolina primary may have proved to be "the major cause" of Hillary Clinton's defeat:

"Up until then, she was holding her own with African-American voters and had alienated none of the African-American leadership. After that, she was on the defensive, losing votes and losing confidence. Add ten percent more of the African-American vote in a number of states and she turns losses into wins or lopsided losses into close ones. Given the tight ties she (and he) had with the African-American community before that time--deservedly so in my view--it is hard to place cause elsewhere."

The strongest disagreement with the notion that Bill Clinton might be torpedoing his wife's bid came from the American Enterprise Institute's Norman Ornstein:

"I honestly do not think so. I think he deeply wants her to win. It may be part atonement for what he put her through in the White House, partly to advance and cement his presidential legacy. And it is also, believe it or not, that he loves and truly respects her (of course, in his own inimitable way.)"

Asked to comment on the suggestion that Bill Clinton either does not want his wife to become president or is deeply ambivalent, Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson replied succinctly, "Oh, please."

I don't think he intentionally tried to sabotage it, but like one of the respondents said I think he's just too close and too passionate and passion blinds you sometime to reason and obscures objectivity.
Or maybe, just maybe Bill is still smarter than us all and just wants to save Hillary the indignity of winning the Presidency only to have it taken away because, constitutionally "a woman can't be elected president"

Most people believe not only that the 19th Amendment permitted women the right to vote but that since women serve in Congress, the courts and other offices of government, the office of president of the United States has been de-genderized.

Not true. This important legal question exists now and has not been constitutionally addressed. The language and syntax of the 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting. It did not identify women to be qualified to become elected president.

The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place.

The Susan B. Anthony Amendment (as it was then known, because the words were actually drafted by the suffragist in 1875) passed in the House by a vote of 304 to 89. The Senate then passed it, 56 to 25. The text of both the House and Senate deliberately avoided any language that would allow or permit women the right to seek the highest office in the land! It was the considered opinion of senators on both sides of the aisle that if language de-genderized the presidency, the amendment's ratification by the necessary 36 states would be in great doubt.

Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

so yeah this whole "campaign" thing has just been a farce. At least that constituional scholar helped to explain why Hillary is losing...

Sphere: Related Content

What psychological personality tests reveal about Clinton, Obama, and McCain

A ridiculously interestingly article by Emily Yoffe.
I tried to edit it down for this post but like every morsel is important and delicious. And all the italicized comments are mine of course.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, I applied the principles of personality assessment, based on the theories of psychiatrist Carl Jung, to candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore. Forgive me if it sounds like gloating, but here's what my research revealed about the personality type of the future 43^rd president of the United States: "They are decisive and little bothered by second thoughts and self-doubt." "Since [they] do not reflect very much on their errors or analyze their mistakes to any great extent, it is difficult for them to learn from their errors, and so they can become caught in a loop, repeating their mistakes."
It's time again to apply the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to our presidential candidates. (I did not include Mike Huckabee in my evaluations, because I couldn't bring myself to imagine a Huckabee administration.) The MBTI was developed by a mother-daughter team that wanted a practical application for the ideas of personality developed by Jung. By mixing and matching four poles of personal style—extravert and introvert being the best known—the women came up with 16 personality types.

Such personality testing is often derided by academia, but it's used widely by corporations, the military, and government to understand different leadership styles and the dynamics of working in groups. Finding out your personality type requires answering dozens of questions. Figuring the candidates wouldn't fill out their own questionnaires, I studied their biographies and came to my own conclusions.

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton is a Guardian, and her specific type is an ESTJ, what Keirsey calls "the Supervisor." Supervisors are, Keirsey says, steadfast, cautious, methodical. They are the reliable, detail-oriented people without whom organizations and society fall apart—which is something ESTJs won't hesitate to point out. "[T]heir first instinct is to take charge and tell others what to do," says Keirsey. They are "devoted public servants, seeing their role in government … in almost sacred terms of self-sacrifice and service to others." This service is an obligation, not given "freely and joyously." As columnist Richard Cohen observed about Hillary, "Whether she meant to or not, she has presented herself as a model of caution, of experience hard-earned and not enjoyed. …"

Keirsey says Guardians' "self-esteem is greatest when they present themselves as dependable, trustworthy or accountable in shouldering their responsibilities." In other words, an ESTJ wants everyone to know she's "ready to be president on Day 1." According to Please Understand Me II (all the quotes are from the books), about half of our presidents, from George Washington to George H.W. Bush, have been Guardians, with Harry Truman being an ESTJ like Hillary (she loves to quote Truman's "The buck stops here.").
[Point for Hillary]

Guardian leaders are not the big thinkers or the bold doers (although they can take bold action if they carefully conclude that's what the circumstance requires). They have, says Keirsey, "a stabilizing and consolidating effect." In a New Yorker profile of Hillary, George Packer wrote that her now-infamous remark that it took a president to realize Martin Luther King's dream reflected Hillary's belief that "the Presidency is more about pushing difficult legislation through a fractious Congress than it is about transforming society."

ESTJs are most comfortable in the world of the specific. Keirsey says they will listen politely to "theoretical or fanciful" conversation—what an ESTJ surely thinks of as a certain other candidate's gasbaggery—then "shift to more concrete things to talk about, more solid and sensible topics" using their ability to call up at will "an enormous fund of facts." (Ever heard a Hillary speech?)

It is this ESTJ-ness that may explain the failure of Hillary's health-care initiative as first lady. ESTJs like nothing better than digging deep into the specifics of a system and batting out proposals with trusted staff, then presenting the perfect fait accompli to a grateful public. As Kroeger points out, ESTJs can be stunned when the plans fail: "Having packaged the argument so neatly and precisely, how could anyone possibly disagree?" Keirsey says this blindness comes from the concrete-thinking ESTJ's pronounced weakness at the abstract arts of strategy and diplomacy. Hillary neither foresaw the attacks by competing interests nor had the people skills to win over her opponents.

Referring to ESTJs, Kroeger says, "[O]f all the sixteen types this is the most conventionally masculine." The New York Times' Maureen Dowd pointed out that actor Jack Nicholson called Hillary "the best man for the job," and Hillary said on David Letterman, "In my White House, we'll know who wears the pantsuits." But Hillary also revealed the struggle of the ESTJ woman when she told Packer, "[T]he world is only beginning to recognize that women should be permitted the same range of leadership styles that we permit men."
[Point for Hillary]

The Guardians' steadfast posture also applies to their marriages. Keirsey writes that they are "extremely loyal to their mates and feel obliged to stand by them in times of trouble and help them straighten up and fly right. As a result, Guardians more easily than any other temperament can be hooked into becoming the rescuer of troubled mates." (Bill Clinton is an ESFP, what Keirsey calls "the Performer"—"thriving on the excitement of being on-stage." ESFPs are also "inclined to be impulsive and self-indulgent, which makes them vulnerable to seduction.")

The ESTJ can, to her detriment, says Keirsey, see the world as inhabited by good people and bad people. Think of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" or how Hillary touts her "battle scars." In The New Yorker, a former friend said of her, "Hillary needs enemies."

Kroeger writes that ESTJs "do not cope well when things don't go as planned." They have a "short fuse when anything suggests they are losing control. The ESTJ can become loud, rigid, domineering, and can induce a great deal of stress within anyone nearby." If Truman was "Give 'Em Hell Harry," then the current ESTJ seeking the highest office could end up nicknamed "Go to Hell Hillary."

Barack Obama

Barack Obama—no one will be surprised to learn—is an Idealist. His specific type is an ENFP, what Keirsey calls "the Champion." ENFPs, says Keirsey, are "filled with conviction that they can easily motivate those around them." Champions work to "kindle, to rouse, to encourage, even to inspire those close to them with their enthusiasm." Idealists "usually have a tongue of silver" and are "gifted in seeing the possibilities" of institutions and people. Here's Obama on leadership: "[W]e need leaders to inspire us. Some are thinking about our constraints, and others are thinking about limitless possibility."

This ability to move people through imagery and rhetoric carries a danger for the ENFP, says Keirsey—a belief in "word magic." "Word magic refers to the ancient idea that words have the ability to make things happen—saying makes it so." This is the basis of the critique of Obama by his less-soaring opponents. Hillary complains that people ask her to "give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and then, you know, get everybody all whooped up." (As if she could.) Says John McCain, "To encourage a country with only rhetoric is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

Keirsey says Idealist leaders should be called catalysts because "[t]he individual who encounters such a leader is likely to be motivated, animated, even inspired to do his or her very best work." The New Yorker's Packer writes, "Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship. …"

Idealists are deeply introspective. According to Keirsey, their "self-confidence rests on their authenticity," which makes them "highly aware of themselves as objects of moral scrutiny." Idealists, such as Thomas Paine, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., tend to be leaders of movements, not office-holders. If Obama is elected, not only would he be the first black president, but according to Keirsey, he'd be the first Idealist president. (Kroeger speculates that Lincoln may have been an Idealist.) Idealists are rare in any executive position. In a survey Kroeger did of the personality types who make it to top management, less than 1 percent were ENFPs—while almost 30 percent were Hillary's type, the ESTJ. But the 16 types are not evenly distributed in the population and ENFPs themselves are rare—Keirsey estimates only about 2 percent of people are ENFPs. Kroeger says the ENFP can be an effective boss. "At their best they bring a refreshing alternative style to top management and decision making."

Keirsey says that the Idealist is the unusual leader who is "comfortable working in a climate where everyone has a vote." In a Vanity Fair profile, Todd Purdum quotes a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama's describing his collaborative style as editor of the Law Review. Obama was "someone who wanted the group decisions to reflect the group's intent, not Barack's intent." (This classmate added, "I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, 'This is how we're doing this, and shut up!' ") Wanting inclusiveness has been a hallmark of Obama's career and his campaign. Purdum noted that in the Illinois Legislature, "Obama made friendships across the aisle" and used his people skills to get some difficult legislation passed. In a speech, Obama described this ability: "If you start off with an agreeable manner, you might be able to … recruit some independents into the fold, recruit even some Republicans into the fold."

As leaders, Keirsey says, the Idealists possess a "diplomatic intelligence." They "seek common ground," want to "forge unity," arrive at "universal truths," and are "trusting." Given these qualities, it should be no surprise that Obama says that as president, he would quickly sit down with our enemies. He told Paris Match, "I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don't believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions."

Plans such as this have resulted in Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and others accusing the possible next commander in chief of naiveté. Keirsey says the Idealist has to be careful not to make errors in judgment by projecting "their own attributes onto others." Because they tend to have a positive outlook, they can be "surprised when people or events do not turn out as anticipated."

The ENFP can have a problem with "restlessness," says Kroeger. "As a task or responsibility drags on and its mantle becomes increasingly routine, the ENFP can become more pensive, moody, and even rigid."[Which means that two years after he's elected he'll get bored and want to run for King of the World] Obama himself referred in a debate to his disorganization and dislike of paperwork—and his self-knowledge that "I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run." But as Purdum writes, it is Obama's "restlessness" that prompted him "to take a chance, to aim higher—when others told him to wait his turn."

McCain

John McCain is an Artisan, and his specific type is an ESTP, what Keirsey calls the Promoter. The ESTP is, according to Keirsey, "practical, optimistic, cynical, and focused on the here and now." If the ESTP portrait gives you a feeling of déjà vu, it's because George W. Bush is an ESTP, too. They are a common presidential type: Both Roosevelts, JFK, and LBJ were ESTPs. "Artisans need to be potent, to be felt as a strong presence and they want to affect the course of events," writes Keirsey. They hunger to "have a piece of the action," "to make something happen" whether "on the battlefield" or "in the political arena." So many politicians are Artisans because "politics allows not only for maneuvering, excitement, and risk—but for powerful social impact."

In a Newsweek profile of McCain, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said, "He's a real player in the Senate. He has tremendous impact." As McCain said to Esquire, "I get attacked everyday because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done."

"Artisans also make everyone else look like amateurs when it comes to improvising survival tactics," writes Keirsey. Their wily ability to make do in dire circumstances makes them "successful scroungers as prisoners of war." Newsweek describes how "McCain survived in prison camp by sheer cussedness."

Artisans "are not threatened by the possibility of failure in themselves or others, so they are likely to take risks and encourage others to do the same." That is how a man whose election prospects were dim only a few months ago can say to the Washington Post of the campaign, "Actually, it's been very invigorating, it really has been."

Promoters have strong people skills, but it is not the warm sense of connection one gets from an Idealist like Obama. "Promoters are so engaging … that they might seem to possess an unusual amount of empathy, when in fact this is not the case," writes Keirsey. "Rather, they are uncanny at reading people's faces and observing their body language." Or as the Wall Street Journal recently wrote, "When Mr. McCain took the stage in Sun City, the applause was polite. When he finished, he got a standing ovation. … [H]is ability to sense and ride the emotional flow of an audience is astonishing."

Grand theories are not for the ESTP. "No high-flown speculation for the Artisan, no deep meaning or introspection. [They] focus on what actually happens in the real world, on what works, on what pays off, and not on whose toes get stepped on." This is how you get labeled a "maverick" and "Sen. Hothead." This is why the Wall Street Journal writes, "Mr. McCain's great political strength has also been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological."

Keirsey says Artisans "are the world's great risk-takers. They delight in putting themselves in jeopardy, taking chances, facing hazards." (Does this sound familiar? See: Iraq.) When times call for careful planning, or consistent, long-term management, you don't call on the ESTP. Keirsey writes that they "may be careless about details" or "they can be unprepared at times when preparation is called for, and can spring the unexpected on colleagues." "They are like firemen who, having nothing to do set fires so that they can put them out."

I had hoped that would lead to some conclusion about who would be best but alas.
What I do know is that I used to be an ENFP…then I grew up and old.
I don't know what I am anymore
That's sad...

But you...you can test yourself here

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary is the new John Kerry

from Top of the Ticket

In an amazing coincidence just days before another crucial Democratic primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Wisconsin -- where thousands build their annual vacations around deer-hunting season -- has let it slip that she went hunting once.

"I know you don't believe it," she told an enthusiastic audience at Kenosha's Brat Stop over the weekend, "but it's actually true. My father taught me to shoot 100 years ago."

According to The Times' Nicholas Riccardi, who was there, she then launched into an explanation of how school shootings can be stopped without infringing on gun owners' rights. She declined to elaborate on her hunting career later except to say that she had nailed a duck.

But anyway here's a photo of another Clinton holding a dead duck like the one his wife recalls shooting down.

But then today, on the eve of voting in the Badger State, the New York senator remembered more details about hunting once in Arkansas with male colleagues and standing in chilly water early one morning.

"They said, 'We won't shoot. You shoot,' " Clinton told reporters. "They wanted to embarrass me. So, OK, the pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck. And I was as surprised as they were."

and of course that story reminded me of John Kerry's infamous hunting trip in Ohio of 2004, though I do believe Hillary's was more genuine- I mean she did live in Arkansas, a state where, if Mike Huckabee is to be believed, fried squirrel is good eating.


But i wasn't interested in all that originally- the only reason I actually cared about the article was the title:
"Hillary Shot a Duck Once"
brilliant.
Welcome to the Presidency, Mr. Obama.

Sphere: Related Content

In Maggie She Trusts

After a series of defeats and setbacks Hillary has decided it’s probably best to dance with the one who brung her

From the L.A. Times

When crisis would strike the Clinton White House, senior staff would meet at 7 a.m. in a kind of war-planning session. Sometimes an uncomfortable truth would waft silently about the room, like steam from the coffee mugs.

Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, recalls that one person in those meetings would often speak the truth when others hesitated: Maggie Williams.

"She would raise it and she would deal with it directly," Panetta said of Williams, who was then the first lady's top aide. "I never got the sense that she was holding back."

More than a decade later, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to win the Oval Office for herself, and this week she turned to her former chief of staff to reinvigorate her campaign.

"People know that when Maggie says something, it's because she believes it and she doesn't have another agenda," Panetta said. "In politics, that's a very unusual set of traits."

Clinton has known Williams since the early 1980s, when Clinton was on the board of the Children's Defense Fund and Williams was the advocacy group's communications director.

Since then, the two have developed an intense personal loyalty, but not a blind one -- Williams is known as someone who is able to tell Clinton what she doesn't want to hear.

"She is a consigliere to Hillary and always has been," said Lisa Caputo, who was press secretary to Clinton as first lady and who is informally advising the Clinton campaign.

Caputo said Clinton, 60, and Williams, 53, treat each other more as peers. By contrast, Clinton's former campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, while equally trusted, is 42 and had related to her boss more as an employee than as an equal.

After college [Williams] worked in the press office of the Democratic National Committee and for Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) before landing the job at the Children's Defense Fund.

At the White House, Williams was the highest-ranking African American, and she became an integral part of the Clinton inner circle. The mere fact that she attended Panetta's high-level meetings was unprecedented. Hillary Clinton was the first presidential spouse to have an office in the West Wing, and she installed Williams next door with a dual title as "assistant to the president."

Friends say her self-deprecating manner allows her to focus those around her on the task at hand and the principles at stake. She is passionate and persistent and -- rare for someone in politics -- not egocentric. And that's one reason she inspires others.

One friend tells a story from her time at the Children's Defense Fund when the nonprofit was trying to start a public service ad campaign to discourage teenage pregnancy. Williams tried to persuade a cutting-edge advertising firm to work for free.

She got "no" for an answer, but continued to phone the Minneapolis firm's director for months. Eventually, he told her he would be in Washington -- for 15 minutes to change planes -- and would see her then. Williams met him at the airport, made her pitch and sealed the deal. The firm worked pro bono for the organization for the next five years, until Williams left

No one is saying how long she will run the campaign.

But her return has already made a difference. Said Caputo: "Morale is up."

Well win or lose she’s had a phenomenal record- maybe Hillary should announce Maggie would be her v.p. That would be one handy way to sew up the black women’s vote…if not the height of hubris considering that she’s behind right now. But no risk no reward
(though Maggie would have to step out from behind the scenes which I don’t feel she’d enjoy-besides the picture accompanying the Times article these are the only other images I found of the right Maggie Williams though you can watch her welcome message as a JFK School of Government Fellow here

Sphere: Related Content

In Case You Didn't Know, Barack Hates Women

or is at least, possibly using sexist language
From ABC's "Political Punch" blog

Earlier this month, speaking at Tulane University, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said this about the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY:

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

The CLAWS come out? Really?

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton's latest attack ad, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

That prompted some female TV reporters to question the language he was using.

According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive.

Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."

Nora O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down, that she makes these kinds of attacks.' It's getting a little personal."

Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being 'down' and 'striking back,' I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?"

Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."*

Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh writes that words like this, in her view, indicate "a way of thinking about women. A way of demeaning women in power; even saying we're not up to the job. Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she's depressed she broke a nail."

"Claws"…"feeling down"...I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.

But what do you think?

Of course he wouldn't because he's too much of a pussy. And if everyone is overly sensitive to racial issues and race is not to be brought up then sexism is that thing that people don't even acknowledge is real or important enough to even warrant a dangerous undercurrent of discussion breaking into a spring [Ed. Note- I had an idea for a metaphor there but...it didn't work, at least this early]
But of course I'm sure if this somehow does become big he'll explain it away with flowing words dripped in rainbows and honey because after all Hillary is likeable, enough

Sphere: Related Content

Trap Shots of the Candidates

(sorry I couldn’t think of a better title maybe The Candidates Unmanaged?
CBS 2 Chicago has a really fun gallery of unflattering photos of the Presidential Candidates, all of which the candidates must want to have back

Here’s a small sampling and just remember one of these people is guaranteed to be the next President of the United States (we’ll except for Mitt but he’s so fun and Ron Paul really, but he’s big enough on the internets to be President there)







found through Top of The Ticket

Sphere: Related Content

Whither the White Man?

After all this talk and hype about history being made in this election, what with the first female candidate, first half black candidate and the oldest candidate something has been lost in the shuffle.
Oh yes, the white man, who seem for the first time in the history of Western Civilization to be losing their power. But if you think that you're perhaps a tad naive- power keeps power and the white man still controls the show from behind the scenes, and no we're not talking about the Masons or Illuminati or Tri-Lateral Commission or some other organization that conspiracy theorist rail against but rather in that newest cabal "super delegates!"

from Politico

In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African-American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.

According to a Politico analysis, close to half of the 700-plus Democratic superdelegates who could end up determining the party nominee are white men.

One Obama superdelegate, a House member, had sharp criticism for the superdelegate racial and gender makeup, a reaction that reflects the sensitivities surrounding the issue.

“It’s still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome,” the superdelegate said. “But this time, they won’t be able to do it.”

That strong response could portend a messy intraparty fight in the event that superdelegates cast the decisive votes for the nominee.

The exact percentage of white males varies slightly depending on whether the penalized Michigan and Florida delegation superdelegates are counted, but the overall percentage is at least 46 percent. Overall, men of all races represent 64 percent of the party’s superdelegates.

Unlike traditional pledged delegates, superdelegates are unbound by the outcome of any primary vote or caucus. They are allowed to make their own choice for the nomination, and this year, the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are aggressively courting their support in the event that superdelegate votes are needed to determine which candidate wins the nomination.

Representing about 20 percent of all delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the superdelegate roster is composed of members of Congress, other elected officeholders and party officials.

The percentage of white male superdelegates is disproportionate to the share of white males who make up the overall Democratic electorate. According to a January 2008 national poll by Zogby International, 28 percent of Democratic voters are white men. Women account for 55 percent of Democratic voters.

But superdelegates have never reflected the diversity of the Democratic party as a whole, nor were they designed to. They represent the party insiders, a group that white men still dominate.

Among the superdelegates, including Michigan's and Florida's, there are 28 governors (21 white men), 49 senators (33 white men) and 228 representatives (137 white men). Members of the Democratic National Committee are also superdelegates, and among this group, there is more diversity.

Many superdelegates were not surprised that there were so many white males in their ranks.

“Obviously it’s an imperfect system. It smacks a lot of the old state legislatures electing senators,” said Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter. “I do think you’ll see some kind of reform after this to make it binding with the majority of votes.”

It seems on the Democratic side "whitey" will have to choose someone not like them (unless Mike Gravel pulls out the greatest miracle since that one guy but this Fox News personality Bob Beckel (former Democrat) lays it all out on the line when discussing the general election and the ever important cracker vote and the two kinds of people "crackers" will never vote for and...you guessed it! blacks and women

Yup. Shed no tears for whitey, at least not today

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Valentine's Day from the RNC

And they want you tocelebrate with some of these oh so witty cards. Who says Republicans have no hearts or humor?
(I think my favorite is the first one)

Sphere: Related Content

There Will Be Blood

spilled in the Democratic Party no matter who wins the nomination. Paul Krugman’s column from earlier this week (that I fully agree with, btw)

Hate Springs Eternal

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Well that article sparked quite a response as the Times printed Letters to the Editor either in supporting and understanding of Paul Krugman’s column, or whatever Barack supporters think.
I’ve separated them into two sections (because nuance doesn't have a place in our society anymore

Obamans

Re “Hate Springs Eternal,” by Paul Krugman (column, Feb. 11):

Mr. Krugman, a consistent critic of Barack Obama, did not produce a shred of evidence for his categorical statement that the “venom” being displayed in the Democratic campaign comes from Obama supporters, “who want their hero or nobody.” And it seems to perpetuate the same bizarre bitterness that he derides in his column.

Even worse is his assertion that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.” I am surprised and saddened that a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr. Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in national politics.

Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a “cult of personality.”

William Julius Wilson
Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 11, 2008

The writer is a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard University.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman decries the “bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination” and then proceeds to contribute to the name-calling by comparing Obama supporters to members of a “cult.” I find that offensive.

I am passionately in favor of a change from the current administration. Does that make me a member of a cult? I am passionately opposed to a Clinton presidency. Does that make me a member of a cult?

Like thousands of other voters who lean Democratic, I don’t pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party. I will vote for the candidate I think will best serve the nation.

I don’t have to give Mr. Krugman or anyone else my strong assurances that I will support the Democratic nominee, and I don’t have to apologize to Mr. Krugman or any Democratic Party apparatchik for passionately opposing Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Robert Bonello
Edina, Minn., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

As a self-identified progressive, I often find useful insights and information in Paul Krugman’s columns. Not so in “Hate Springs Eternal.”

Mr. Krugman paints supporters of Barack Obama with too broad a brush when he alleges that they “want their hero or nobody,” and therefore engage in venomous attacks on Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I am an Obama supporter, as are many people I know. Every Obama supporter I know wants to see a Democrat next in the White House first, and Mr. Obama as that Democrat only second. The “examples” Mr. Krugman cites demonstrate that Clinton-bashing is popular sport, not that Obama supporters (rather than the media or isolated individuals) engage in it.

To top it all off, Mr. Krugman compares Mr. Obama’s ability to inspire and organize to George W. Bush’s demonstrated penchant for conceit and self-indulgence in Operation Flight Suit. Who’s perpetuating “Nixonland” now?

Brian W. Stull
Durham, N.C., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

I believe this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with Paul Krugman. The source of vitriol is not to be found in the putative “cult of personality” among supporters of Barack Obama. The source is not to be found among supporters at all. One needs to look at the leaderships of the campaigns.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign keeps careening between sweetness and scorched-earth policies. Mrs. Clinton has created an impression that she will do anything and say anything to win, from sponsoring flag-preservation legislation to the bizarre racial innuendo by her campaign in South Carolina. (Does South Carolina bring out the worst in every campaign?)

The vitriol is not the result of a cult of personality in the Obama camp. The vitriol is a reaction to very real deficiencies in Mrs. Clinton’s personality.

Bill Morris
San Diego, Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Can’t Paul Krugman see that there is a growing number of Americans who do not want to relive the days of Clintonian testiness and right-wing vitriol? Former President Bill Clinton alerted many of us to the dangers of a Hillary Rodham Clinton victory by his arrogant behavior in the week before the South Carolina primary.

The fact that many Democratic voters would simply stay home in November rather than vote for Hillary Clinton is not a sign of “hate” or “venom.”

Mr. Krugman brings up his preference for Mrs. Clinton’s health care agenda, but why should we think she could achieve it after a bitter campaign, without enough Democratic senators to break a Republican filibuster and with the same old team back in charge?

Bill Dawers
Savannah, Ga., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman, in his account of the strong emotions that the Clinton-Obama race has raised among progressives, doesn’t mention one notable fact.

Many antiwar Democrats continue to view with suspicion Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s attitude toward the Iraq war. Her clarifications for her support of the various pro-war bills proposed by President Bush revolve around her criticisms of the execution of the war, not around the thinking that led us into the war in the first place.

Progressives have found Senator Barack Obama’s more specific denunciation of the whole mind-set that created the war much more helpful. I believe that it continues to be a leading explanation for why he is doing so much better against Mrs. Clinton than anyone originally predicted.

Jon Landau
Purchase, N.Y., Feb. 11, 2008

I agree with Paul Krugman’s assertion that the attitude “their hero or nobody” is divisive and silly. But just because both Democratic candidates are strong doesn’t mean I find them to be equal.
I resent the implication that “hero worship” is inherently dogmatic or without substance. I long for a day when I can name a sitting American president as my hero. [Ed. Note: How old are you that you would ever look up to a politician as a hero? Become someone else’s hero don’t look for someone to elevate as yours. Call me a cynic but I've never "found a hero" in far off places]

For me, one of Barack Obama’s biggest strengths, both as a leader and as a candidate, is that he inspires people to participate in politics who otherwise wouldn’t get involved.

If voters fail to respond to Hillary Rodham Clinton in that way, I think it’s much more a legitimate flaw on her part than it is an example of Americans falling prey to “Clinton rules.”

Though Mr. Obama is my preference, if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, I will campaign for her 100 percent because I want to see a Democrat in the White House. For the moment, however, this is still a contest, and I feel no obligation to come to the defense of someone who is my second choice.

If Mrs. Clinton can’t stand against me, who sees her merely as the lesser of an embarrassment of riches, how will she ever last when the opponent gets much tougher?

Suzanne Joskow
Los Angeles, Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

The Barack Obama supporters I know would ultimately be happy to see any Democrat become president. “It’s an embarrassment of riches,” I’ve heard from my fellow Democrats countless times. Both candidates are smart, experienced and capable.

I voted for Mr. Obama, but I will support his opponent with unmitigated enthusiasm should she win the nomination. Where Paul Krugman sees a “cult of personality” forming around Mr. Obama, I see involved citizens who are deeply excited about their candidate.

Mr. Obama is not L. Ron Hubbard. If there’s an Obama cult, then there’s also a Hillary Rodham Clinton cult, a John McCain cult, a Mike Huckabee cult and so on. [Ed. Note- Scientologists don’t believe their in a cult started by a crock either. And I don't see anyone getting tattoos for any other politician especially before he's even nominated.]

Mr. Krugman, usually so dead-on, is way off in this case.

Laura Cummins
New York, Feb. 11, 2008

The Leader is good, the Leader is great, we surrender our will as of
       this date!

Realists

To the Editor:

Cult of personality, indeed. Barack Obama has style, but no substance. He has been in national politics only a couple of years. And the media have given him a virtually free ride.
But we did “likability” and inexperience eight years ago with George W. Bush and look where that’s gotten us. It is frightening how easily some of us are persuaded by hype, especially when we are confronting such serious problems as a nation and in the world.
Hillary Rodham Clinton does have substance: knowledge, experience, intelligence, sensitivity, stamina. She has withstood attacks from all sides and come out whole. She is the only candidate in this race in whom I have complete faith and confidence to do the right thing. With all that is at stake, I can only hope that the media will start doing their job and that the American people will see the light this time around.

D. Murphy
Merrick, N.Y., Feb. 12, 2008

To the Editor:

I see nothing illogical that a close competition for the most important leadership role in the world would be extremely competitive. But venomous? We’re not even close. Just this year, the Republicans (John McCain versus Mitt Romney) have been much more combative than Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Perhaps Paul Krugman is closer to the point in recognizing that we are a nation focused on personality; much of what passes for public discourse is driven by celebrity, hyped-up conflict, and the trend for news and sports coverage to resemble each other.

Barack Obama’s supporters certainly did not create this trend, nor can they be faulted for recognizing that character and inspiration are as important as ideas in picking a leader. This is not a result of some irrational spell, and implying that we’re joining a cult of personality really misses the point about our recognizing the qualities our nation needs to effectively move forward to collectively meet our challenges.

Richard C. Hubbard
Evanston, Ill., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign reminds me of a series of revival meetings. There’s the charismatic speaker who uses emotional words to raise the audience to a fever pitch, followed by conversion to his ideas and the passing of the hat.

Supporters who wrap themselves in these emotional promises find that it works for a while. But then it grows quiet, and looking around, the converts see that the revival tent has moved on and everyday life intervenes.

Where is the critical thinking here about how to achieve getting out of Iraq? To help the economy? To solve the health care crisis? There’s just the emptiness of the emotional words, ringing hollow in the air.

Sue Roupp
Evanston, Ill., Feb. 11, 2008

My stance has long been clear on this but they're both b.s. though one is more so than the other but maybe it’s things like this, where Michelle Obama who should be a leader in her husband’s movement says “she’d have to think about supporting Hillary if she were the nominee”
while everything from the Clintons has been of course I’ll support the Democratic nominee, it’s about taking back the white house
And maybe Krugman’s ideas about the cult of personality and the Messianic fervor that Barack is cultivating stems from stuff like this in the media as documented in Slate's Obama Messiah Watch

Is Barack Obama the Nazarene? To answer this question, Slate has periodically gathered gratuitously adoring biographical details from newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of the U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review president, Men's Vogue cover model, two-time Grammy winner, efficient note-taker, physics wunderkind, descendent of George Washington's great-great-great-great-great grandfather, teenage jazz enthusiast, possible telepathic communicator with space aliens from distant galaxies, improvement on all civil rights gains since 1957, calmer of turbulent Iownas, and front-running candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I merely suggested that a few excitable souls in the media bear the apparant conviction that Obama is the Redeemer. To this growing list we must now add the Reuters photographer who snapped this

Hail Michelle,
full of grace,
the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women
and blessed is [he that made holy your] womb
Holy Michelle, consort of God,
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death
Amen.

Sphere: Related Content

Two Minutes Hate

Remember that pro Barack anti Hillary big Brother ad from sooo long ago? Well if you don’t

(ps- January 14th? Must not have heard about the moved up primary dates)

But now doesn’t it seem like Barack would be the one whose face would be on the screen? At the end of the two minutes after [Goldstein] morphs, finally, into the face of Big Brother at the end of the two minutes. At the end, the mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted viewers chant "BB" over and over again, ritualistically.
Who seems to be cultivating a cult of personality with his acolytes and zealots all staring reverently and rushing to protect him against any slight or criticism (which they term “the old politics” or “racism” as they indulge in their daily dose of Two Minutes Hope (like the Daily Hate but all warm and fuzzy and hopeful and bs. ) Or in the following clip Hillary’s face on screen as the Barackians vent and spew their venom in their Two Miute Hate

And isn’t a lot of the appeal with Barack because he seems like a really cool friend or for his younger supporters a really cool… big brother?

It's not that I'm so horribly pro Hillary it's just that I'm intensely anti-Barack and...this scenario makes me...who would be who?

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, ... And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies.

Sphere: Related Content

It's time to meet the Muppets

This campaign really has sparked a ton of interest and enthusiasm and in some cases that interest and enthusiasm is shown by: deciding which actors would play the candidates http://midnighttransmission.blogspot.com/2008/01/casting-inevitable-2008-campaign-movie.html, or which candidate looks like which breed of dog http://midnighttransmission.blogspot.com/2008/02/dog-lovers-guide-to-presidential.html, well now we have a new entry into the Presidential Twinnies extravaganza- which Muppet looks the most like each “candidate”
I’ve always wondered this myself.

(Charles Grodin is a muppet? That explains so much.)
Oh Barack, you really are the most sensational inspirational celebrational Muppetational

Sphere: Related Content

I Just Had a Nightmarish Vision of The Future

Courtesy of Patt Morrison of the LA Times

Los Angeles, I've always got your back, don't I? So here's how I see this election going down for us:

Say that Hillary Clinton does get the Democratic nomination -- and, with the Iraq war stalling and the economy free falling, she wins the election. Boom, she's got a Cabinet to fill. And who's her California main man? Who was there for her way back, before Obamamania, bringing in Latino votes in sheaves?

Antonio Villaraigosa. Mr. Future Secretary of Education or Labor or HHS Villaraigosa. Instead of running for reelection in 2009, he's out of the Getty House and off to the Beltway. Adios, City of Angels and psychotic traffic; hola, City of Lobbyists and cheap taxi rides.

But what happens to us? L.A. will need a mayor, pronto.

I have just the man.

The mastermind mayor, the man who can whip a civic entity into shape faster than Richard Simmons on crack. He's tanned, he's rested and he's ready for some Hollywood prime time -- Rudy Giuliani!

What's that? Is he available? Not long ago, he was reeling in six figures for a single speech. Two weeks ago, he couldn't entice a hundred people out to hear him talk for free in Florida.

Of course he's available.

Sure, he's got that security consulting biz but like a lot of New Yorkers -- including the people he expected to vote for him in Florida -- he has to be looking for more fun and sun. The Big Apple has soured on him, so he needs a fresh crowd to hobnob with, and to a New Yorker, the only hob that's conceivably nobbier is Hollywood.

What would Rudy bring to L.A.?

He's deliciously mean. Maybe Villaraigosa can deliver the political shiv with the best of them, but even when Giuliani smiles, he scares me. In L.A., where traffic flow is the yardstick of a leader's success, Giuliani will make us behave. If the sign says, "No parking 7 a.m. to 10 a.m.," the Scourge of Squeegee Men, the Avenging Angel of Times Square will tow your illegally parked car and ticket your butt. Not just here and there, not just now and then, but all over town, and every day. The same goes for red-light runners and other scofflaws.

This has many advantages. One is that it will make shed-loads of money for a city on its uppers. The other is that it would make law-abiders out of habitual lawbreakers. The police chief has gotten a grip on the felonies with the "broken windows" theory -- traffic zero-tolerance is the broken windows theory for the lesser assaults on L.A.'s daily life and livability.

With an ex-New Yorker in charge, the legions of other ex-New Yorkers here might pay more attention to the city they live in rather than the city they left. Some couldn't tell you the name of their L.A. City Council member or find City Hall without MapQuest -- but they remember their borough president from 30 years ago, when they lived in that SoHo walk-up. Mayor Rudy would engage them with L.A. and get all those acidulous political juices flowing again. And if he'd issue a proclamation forgiving the Dodgers for abandoning Brooklyn, he could entice fellow Big Apple expats to Chavez Ravine.

His amusing jealous feud with ex-NYPD Chief Bill Bratton might be renewed. But it could be short-lived. Bratton, who has made himself part of the civic fabric here in a way many of his predecessors didn't, might be on that plane to D.C. with Villaraigosa. As he told Playboy, "In terms of Homeland Security and the FBI, those are very significant positions. And when the president of the United States knocks on the door, you certainly have to respond to the knock and give it consideration." Pity, though. It's harder to find a good police chief than a good mayor, and we'd miss the fireworks redux.

Giuliani loves a fight as much as many L.A. politicos try to dodge one. He'd be the guy with the bullhorn at the MacArthur Park May Day melee. He'd pick fights with Cardinal Roger Mahony. He'd find something at LACMA he'd want taken off the walls. He banned news conferences and protests on the steps of New York's City Hall. I'd love to see him try that here. Nothing revs up activism like telling people they can't do something.

Giuliani could unite L.A. Earthquakes do too, but maybe we wouldn't have to go that far. The local TV news wouldn't have to depend on poor Britney Spears for video drama -- not with the Giulianis in town. They'll cut ribbons and pose with huge cardboard checks and swan along the red carpet at the Oscars even if ethics rules make them pay for their own tickets. Someone once said of Teddy Roosevelt that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. Ditto Rudy and Judy.

The big theater of L.A. would be irresistible to Giuliani; I'm just afraid the little things would send him scurrying back East. I can just hear him griping about how terrible the knishes are -- when what he's eating are empanadas.

The only reason I make fun of Rudy is because now he has no power but if he were to actually be in control of a place I cared about I’d be terrified. He scares me and seems like a very mean and vindictive person. I’m just glad L.A. doesn’t really go for the “tough guy” strong man leader- mayors I can remember were an old guy Tom Bradley, a cuddly old rich guy who liked reading, Richard Riordian, James Hahn who…whose dad was apparently really influential and Antonio who cheats on his wife and used to be in a gang. Rudy would totally harsh the vibe. Plus people with too much power and too much anger would have to remind people of Daryl Gates, and that didn’t work out well, for anyone. And Donna Hanover seems way too clingy and bizarre for the west coast.
Though we do now have his BFF, Joe Torre as manager of the Dodgers so he’ll have a paisan at least.
Ugh, I hate how I’m actually devoting time thinking about this. Damn you Patt!

Sphere: Related Content

Maybe I’m Not Actually the Only One

From James Wolcott’s Vanity Fair blog

So spurn me, I voted for Hillary.

I have many faults and quirks, but one thing I'm not is a narcissist. My vote isn't about Me. Who I am, how I conceive myself, how my vote positions me in the pulse of the moment. The tab I flip in the voting booth isn't intended as a dramatic gesture to pin in my lapel like a carnation and sniff during intermission, like some Clifton Webb character. I don't accept being lectured or morally browbeaten into voting for one candidate over another in order to prove my virtuous intent and appease Kurt Andersen's peculiar, posturing racial anxieties. Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria.I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification. I agree with NYCweboy: "Win or lose, Barack Obama has changed the landscape of American culture and politics - bringing the perspective of mixed race to the table, and finding validity in both white communities and communities of colors. That's huge. It's just not, in itself, a reason to make him President. Voting for Obama, for me would be about picking an idea, not a person, or a set of specific plans... I need more than that. And Hillary Clinton is the person, with the specifics, who offers more."

I feel the exact same way. Sometimes I think I’m the only person under thirty (and like the only black person) that isn’t totally in love and worshipful of Barack. I’m just very wary of his “transcendence” and his campaign which is devolving into a rock star tour and a Cult of Personality. And his promise to rise above the whole thousand year old history of partisanship. It’s very unsettling. I don’t do well with Messiahs. And I really don’t want my politicians to inspire me and be paragons of virtue, or whatever- I have enough idols and there are far too many god; I just want someone who knows what they’re doing and will do the nitty-grittyness of running a government. But I guess I’m the only one. So go ahead and worship your Shining New Electric God.
I'm tired of blowing against the wind.

[UPDATE: Others who are with me outside of the Church of The Obama, and who are a little creeped out by it]

Sphere: Related Content

The Dog Lover’s Guide to the Presidential Election

Aka “What Dogs Look Like Each Candidate”

I’m afraid of what this says about the direction of the newspaper industry but it’s still bizarre enough to be entertaining, and because I know you racked your brain thinking of this very same topic.

From the Baltimore Sun (the same newspaper currently getting shredded on The Wire”)

Today the Mutts blog brings you Part One of "The Dog Lovers' Guide to the Presidential Election," a special report that asks, and answers, the question, "If the presidential candidates were dogs, what breed would they be?"

Today, we bring you the Democratic front runners. Tomorrow, in addition to wishing you a Super Tuesday, we'll unveil the Republicans. And on Wednesday, in the belief that every candidate should get his doggie due, we'll show you the lesser-knowns and also-rans.

The decisions on which breed the individual candidates most closely resemble were based both on physical appearance and personality, and the breed descriptions and behavioral characteristics that follow all come directly and without alteration from reputable sources including the American Kennel Club, the Kennel Club in London and Petplanet.co.uk.

This may even tell you who Mike Vick would support, if he actually voted
You can click on the link to learn more about the characteristics of each breed, and perhaps what the Mutts editors perceive in each respective candidate

On with the Dog Show:

Hillary Clinton – Labradoodle



Barack Obama - Great Dane



John McCain - Pug




Mitt Romney - Smooth Fox Terrier (this dog’s breed really sounds like the name of a pimp)




Mike Huckabee – Beagle (that description makes me think that my dog’s part beagle…who knew?)





Duncan Hunter - Standard Schnauzer





Alan Keyes - Standard Poodle




Fred Thompson - English Bulldog (I’ve always wanted a bulldog. I’d name him Winston)




Mike Gravel - Samoyed





Rudolph Giuliani - French Bulldog




John Edwards - Golden Retriever





Ron Paul - Welsh Corgi




Dennis Kucinich - Jack Russell Terrier




via Radar

Sphere: Related Content