Observations From Primary Season

1. The people chanting “USA” at McCain rallies are idiots. While chanting in general doesn’t signal much in the way of brain activity, chanting “USA” (á la Homer Simpson) in a race between Americans is just silly.

2. A sleepy Tim Russert begins to look like a Muppet. He’s the love child of Statler and Waldorf.

3. CNN’s gadget budget is out of control.

4. The media love a good sports analogy, whether or not it makes sense. “This is the ninth inning, bases loaded. Clinton’s at bat, Obama’s on deck. The pitcher, the American mom, throws the curveball of independent voters through the air of possible recession…”

5. Wolf Blitzer is a condescending jerk.

6. Brian Williams is a dreamboat and I love him.

7. Most voters have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. The “man on the street” interviews are arguments against democracy.

8. What’s with all the diners? Are these people campaigning in 1955?

9. Most common phrase coming from a candidate: “Now I don’t know about you, but I think… [insert common sense idea here].”

10. It’ll be a long, painful road to November.

The Clintons... racist? C'mon.

Although I’m far from being a Clinton apologist, Hillary and Bill Clinton are getting unfairly slammed right now. Obama compared himself to MLK recently, setting himself up for a pretty tough comparison. Obama can inspire a crowd and his skills as an orator are undeniable. Obama’s record, however, is pretty sparse; even his supporters must allow for that. Hillary Clinton made a fair point: she said that MLK did more than give inspiring speeches. King led a movement, he actively worked with politicians like LBJ to transform ideas into law. On his own, MLK inspired Americans and ignited a movement; with LBJ, he created laws and immediate change. (Her full quote to the NY Times: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.") MLK worked with LBJ (a civil rights hero in his own right) and got things done. It is also true that Obama hasn't passed much in the way of the sweeping reform that he's spoken of; however, this charge can be refuted based on many things. Semantics, though, should not be among them.

Some have turned Clinton's into a swipe at MLK. (Obama's reply: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that.") I am very disappointed in Obama as he encourages this implication. Obama has not ran on race and I don't want to see him use race to injure Clinton. She refuted the comparison Obama made between himself and King, and Obama should be strong enough to answer it instead of merely dodge it under insinuating comments.

Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark is another example of this. The “fairy tale” remark was in context of Obama’s anti-war record, not on Obama’s candidacy. Again, Clinton makes an excellent point – Obama made a wonderful speech against the Iraq War in 2002, but once the war had popular support, Obama yanked the text of that speech from his web site in 2003. During the Kerry campaign in 2004, Obama voiced doubt over his vote. Obama proceeded to vote to fund the war over the following years. Bill Clinton wasn’t saying that it was a “fairy tale” that a black man could be president, but only questioning his credentials as a staunchly anti-war candidate. It is a very valid point. People who want to be offended by him are choosing to be. (My boy Edwards is another one unfairly jumping on the knee-jerk bandwagon on this one. Watch it, Johnny; your response to the “emotional” episode in the NH campaign was another disappointment. These responses reek of desperation.)

It is a huge deal that a black man and a woman have won presidential primaries. Women haven’t even been able to vote for 100 years, and black Americans faced Jim Crow just sixty years ago. But it seems that Obama and Clinton are becoming reduced to being merely a black man and a woman, instead of the very worthy candidates they both are. Raise the fighting to the level of their credentials, their stances, and leave race and gender out of it.

Banging my head against the wall

I don't mean to sound elitist, but it makes me cry that my vote counts just as much as the vote of this man, quoted today in the Charlotte Observer:

"Smith is a fishing-boat captain and he just got back from two weeks at sea. He didn't watch the debates on TV, but he spent a lot of time on the water thinking about what he wants in a candidate. Barack Obama intrigues him, but Smith says Obama has two red flags: 'One, that name. That's going to give him trouble. And the other thing is his father leaving him when he was so young. That kind of thing has an effect on you your whole life. When you're talking about a president, all the details matter.'"

Meanwhile I'm wrestling with the question of how many/what kind of military personnel to leave in Iraq. Yet Smithy up there will be among the voters in the crucial South Carolina primary. Aaaagghhhh.

Primary Bingo!

First off... If you know CNN is tripe but find yourself watching it anyway on Tuesday night for the New Hampshire primary results, feel free to play CNN New Hampshire Primary Bingo, as created by yours truly. There’s a card for you and one for whomever you force to play along.

And now, time for my rant…

Americans are suffering from the delusion that we're voting for the candidate we want to come over for dinner or to be the leader of our clubhouse. People discuss which candidate seems the nicest, most sincere. Who seems polished, but not artificial. Who would get a haircut where we would or go to church with the fam and fit in OK.

Ask a random person who they’ll vote for, and chances are that their response will involve a “seem.” Obama seems to be the voice of optimism, Clinton seems to have the experience needed for the job, Huckabee seems to have the confidence to refute basic science as he reflects upon the origin of the universe. I want to ban the word “seems” from electoral discussions. The only reason that candidates seem to be anything is because their campaign manager deemed it so. They’re all politicians. They’re all that way. Some are just better at playing their part.

So a modest proposal – let’s vote according to issues. It boggles my mind that some people don’t yet know if they’ll vote for a Republican or a Democrat. The parties couldn’t be more different. One wants to end to the Iraq war, one supports it; one urges universal healthcare, one deems the idea socialist; one wants to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the other wants to uphold them. How could anyone not see a difference? There is a core difference in values between the two. For those of you not knowing which party to vote for, I want to flick you in the forehead. For those who know their party of choice but haven’t yet settled on a candidate, you’re spared the flicking but directed towards the NY Times chart offering a basic guide to where the candidates stand on issues.

For more on this, I turn to The Onion.

The official FeministChick endorsement goes to John Edwards. I have been a curious spectator of his for some time, but his early specific stances he voiced on Iraq, climate change. and taxes wooed me and made me a believer. I dig a candidate who admits that taxes will have to go up in order to accomplish his goals; I’m willing to pay more taxes if the money goes toward healthcare, alternative energy sources, and other things that aren't war. I think gleefully of the idea of Edwards repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and directing the dollars toward his healthcare initiative. Edwards does get a deduction in cool points for his lack of support for gay marriage, but everyone shy of Kucinich does as well. (Kucinich has my heart – for being as short as he is, he has the biggest backbone of any candidate.) However, my support tends to be the kiss of death – ask the Redskins, Howard Dean, and nearly everyone on my Oscar ballot last year. So sorry about that, John.