http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/02/29/notes022908.DTL&nl=fix
"See, unlike Hillary, Obama can't be effortlessly demonized. He doesn't have Hillary's infamous laundry list of faults and transgressions, the enormous built-in wall of hate the right already has for her, her gender, her husband, everything she represents and carries forward from the Bill Clinton era. Smart as she is, Hillary has truckloads of baggage. Obama has but a tiny carry-on."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/politics/29oppo.html?th&emc=th
"Should Mr. Obama win the nomination, his candidacy could well be a test of whether these tactics still work or whether, used against a candidate who is trying to cultivate an appeal that transcends policy specifics, would fall flat this time. The fact that Mr. McCain felt compelled to rebuke some critics of Mr. Obama over the past few days suggests he might see a danger in attacking too aggressively."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wait, WHAT?!
"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."
A reaction is coming, believe me. But right now, too much work to do!
*from the Wall Street Journal (thanks Jasmine for e-mailing this article)
THE DECIDERS
White Men Hold Key for Democrats
Contest May Hinge On Blue-Collar Vote; Opening for McCain?
By JONATHAN KAUFMANFebruary 19, 2008; Page A1
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio -- In a Democratic presidential nomination race that pits a black man against a woman, the victor may well be determined by white men.
The working-class white men who toil in the steel mills and auto plants here are part of a volatile cohort that has long helped steer the nation's political course. Once, blue-collar males were the bedrock of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. They became "Reagan Democrats," helping to propel Ronald Reagan into office in the 1980s. Bill Clinton won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992. Two years later they were "angry white males," resentful of affirmative action and the women's movement, who helped Republicans capture Congress.
'It seems like someone else should be there,' says Dan Leihgeber, a smelter in a Youngstown steel plant.
Now this group of voters is set to help determine the Democratic nominee, and the next occupant of the White House. Working-class white men make up nearly one-quarter of the electorate, outnumbering African-American and Hispanic voters combined. As the Democratic primary race intensifies, some of these white men are finding it hard to identify with the remaining two candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
"It seems like someone else should be there," says Dan Leihgeber, a smelter in a steel plant here, who is supporting Sen. Clinton. "It's like there's someone missing."
As the Democratic race moves toward primaries in blue-collar strongholds -- today in Wisconsin, Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22 -- the allegiance of blue-collar men is up for grabs. While Sen. Clinton runs strongly among working-class women, she and Sen. Obama are perceived equally favorably among working-class men, according to a January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The two candidates have seesawed among blue-collar men in the primaries: Sen. Clinton won them in Georgia, Missouri and New York, while Sen. Obama captured the working-class male vote in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.
Blue-collar men could also emerge as an important swing constituency in November -- either backing the Democrats' eventual nominee, or shifting to some degree toward Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, whose war record and straight-talking approach could make him appealing to many working-class men.
Marc Dann, Ohio's Democratic attorney general, frets about the reluctance of some of these blue-collar Democrats to embrace either of his party's candidates. "I worry about [the appeal of] McCain," says Mr. Dann, who lives in Youngstown. "It's not like watching an episode of Archie Bunker -- but there are real issues" that white male voters here have with Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.
Working-class men are generally defined as those without a college degree, including union members and workers with service and technical jobs, typically making less than $50,000 a year. They are especially crucial in Ohio, where they make up about 28% of the vote, as well as other battleground states including Michigan (about 27%), West Virginia (33%), Missouri (27%), Minnesota (27%), Pennsylvania (27%), Wisconsin (29%) and Iowa (34%).
In Youngstown, many working-class men say they will vote according to issues, especially economic ones including health care, free trade and the loss of manufacturing jobs. But in conversations in union halls, bars and factories, race and gender are never far from the surface.
"I don't think the country is ready for a woman president yet," says Duane Tkac, a burly vocational instructor at a prison here and a member of the local branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. "The country is in too much turmoil. I don't think she can handle the pressure, the terrorists." He plans to vote for Sen. Obama.
Don Pompelia, retired from the Air Force, supports Sen. Clinton. "I'm hoping Hillary gets the nomination. But if she doesn't, I'm not voting for that guy. I'm going Republican," he booms as he picks up his morning coffee at McDonald's. "There are going to be a lot of people crossing over to the Republicans because he's black."
Back Into the Fold
After decades in which Republicans often successfully wooed blue-collar men, many Democrats see 2008 as a chance to bring them back into the fold, motivated by the worsening economy and their disaffection with President Bush. In the 2006 midterm election, union members and other working-class men voted for Democratic candidates by a margin of almost two to one, helping the Democrats win control of Congress.
Youngstown has been battered over the past 30 years by job losses and plant closings. Buoyed by unionized steel jobs that paid as much as $20 an hour, the city once had one of the country's highest per-capita incomes. But as companies have shuttered steel and auto plants, outsourcing jobs to nonunion parts of the country and overseas, the city's population has fallen by 50% since 1960, to about 80,000.
Few young people stay here; the average age at one steel plant is 55. Families survive because women have poured into the work force out of necessity, changing the dynamic within traditionally conservative families where women used to stay at home.
'Poster Child'
"For a lot of blue-collar guys over 40, Hillary Clinton is a poster child for everything about the women's movement that they don't like -- their wife going back to work, their daughters rebelling, the rise of women in the workplace," says Gerald Austin, an Ohio political strategist.
Mr. Leihgeber, the steelworker, says he supports Sen. Clinton for her experience and positions. He carries a book bag to work every day with his lunch and a newspaper inside and a Clinton button pinned to the outside. Some days, he says, he turns the bag around so the Clinton button doesn't show; he says he doesn't like dealing with his co-workers' derogatory comments. Mr. Leihgeber says he wouldn't be heckled so much for an Obama pin.
"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."
In national polls, white men overall have been more favorable than white women toward Sen. Obama. In a survey done in September by Pew Research, white men overall gave Sen. Obama more positive ratings than did white women, in categories including whether he was tough, smart, friendly and honest. In the same categories, white males gave Sen. Clinton consistently lower marks than white women did.
For some women, that confirms that sexism runs deeper than racism among many men. "My mother, who was the first woman lawyer in a big D.C. firm, always said that blacks got in before women," says Caryl Rivers, a professor at Boston University who supports Sen. Clinton. "Then the white guys figured everything had gone to hell anyway, so they might as well let the women in."
In Youngstown, Sen. Obama is seen through the prism of the city's changing racial makeup. Over the years, as Youngstown has become poorer, many whites have moved to surrounding towns and the minority population has increased. The Youngstown area is now one of the most segregated communities in the country, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
Everyday racial tensions and animosity run high. A white cook at a local bar says he won't bother voting in this election. "What's the point," he says, rubbing his skin. "We're already a minority."
But for some white men here, Sen. Obama's appeal is that he is different from many black leaders they have seen in the past. "The guys I work with, they know Jesse Jackson and they know Al Sharpton. They call them all sorts of terrible things," says Robert Hagan, a locomotive engineer and a state representative, referring to these politicians' sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric and focus on black causes. "They don't talk about Obama like that."
Those here who dislike Sen. Obama tend to criticize what they call his empty rhetoric, his lack of experience and the fear that he would favor blacks and other minorities.
Many working-class men here say they are being lobbied by their teenage and young adult children to vote for Sen. Obama. And some of the area's newer businesses, such as its growing hospitals and the privately run prison, break down some of the racial and gender barriers found in the mills and auto plants that are still overwhelmingly white and male.
At a Teamsters hall here, a dozen burly men in gabardine jackets and baseball caps gather over coffee and overstuffed donuts for a union meeting of prison workers. "There is a misunderstanding that older white guys aren't going to vote for a black man," says Jim Marcum, a job counselor at the prison. "That's not true." Mr. Marcum says he voted for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. This time he plans to vote for Sen. Obama. "He's a breath of fresh air."
Natalie Grant, a black woman who works with Mr. Marcum at the prison, walks in and grabs some coffee.
"You really voting for Obama?" she says.
"Yes," says Mr. Marcum.
Ms. Grant laughs. "I knew there was some brother in you," she says. Mr. Marcum smiles.
Three years ago, Youngstown elected its first African-American mayor, Jay Williams, a 36-year-old with little political experience who ran as an independent promising to unite the city. Mr. Williams won with the heavy support of the city's black community -- about 40% of the vote -- but also drew white votes from working-class and college neighborhoods.
"A lot of people thought Youngstown was 20 or 30 years away from this kind of change," says Mr. Williams, who has endorsed Sen. Obama.
Women, too, have made inroads in local politics. In 1994, there were no women elected at the county level, where real power lies. Today, women serve as county commissioner and treasurer, and hold several elected judicial seats.
"We deal with women at work," says John Lesicko, a teamster official. "We deal with HR people. She might be a" -- he raises his hands to form imaginary quote marks and silently mouths a slur -- "but we deal with her."
Leaning Toward Clinton
Across town, 14 steelworkers brought together to talk about the election say they predominantly supported Sen. John Edwards before he dropped out of the race. Now 13 of them say they are leaning toward Sen. Clinton. They praise her experience and toughness in withstanding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Former President Bill Clinton remains enormously popular here, with many blue-collar men saying that they like the fact that he would be in the White House as well.
"I think she has the right person in the bedroom with her," says Joe Marion, who works at the local prison.
Betty Ingramn doesn't buy it. The lone African-American in the room full of steelworkers, she works as a secretary in the steel mill and is the head of the clerical workers union.
"It's a race thing," she says of her colleagues' support for Sen. Clinton. "They can't handle it, an African-American being over them." As an African-American union official, Ms. Ingramn says she has battled constantly to be included in meetings and decisions.
Both Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's campaigns say race and gender shouldn't be a consideration, and that they are targeting blue-collar voters with appeals to economic issues that hit working-class families.
"Some may call this the 'rust belt,' but that's not what I see," Sen. Clinton said in a visit to the General Motors plant here last week. "I see some of the hardest workers in the world. I see great universities and strong communities. I see a 21st-century manufacturing belt. An innovation belt. An opportunity belt."
Sen. Obama, in a visit to a GM plant in Wisconsin, similarly laid out plans to help workers and create jobs. "I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas," he said. "But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements."
The real test will come in November.
"I think if we nominate one of these two, we are talking about McCain as president," says Bob Rodkey, a firefighter who doesn't like either candidate but plans to vote for Sen. Clinton in the primary. "I talk to a lot of my Democratic friends and they are going to cross over in November or not vote at all. We don't have a viable candidate. Neither of them is one of us."
Mr. Rodkey says he will vote for a Democrat in the fall. He plans to urge his friends to do the same. "Hopefully they will listen to the message, and not who's delivering it," he says.
Write to Jonathan Kaufman at jonathan.kaufman@wsj.com
A reaction is coming, believe me. But right now, too much work to do!
*from the Wall Street Journal (thanks Jasmine for e-mailing this article)
THE DECIDERS
White Men Hold Key for Democrats
Contest May Hinge On Blue-Collar Vote; Opening for McCain?
By JONATHAN KAUFMANFebruary 19, 2008; Page A1
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio -- In a Democratic presidential nomination race that pits a black man against a woman, the victor may well be determined by white men.
The working-class white men who toil in the steel mills and auto plants here are part of a volatile cohort that has long helped steer the nation's political course. Once, blue-collar males were the bedrock of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. They became "Reagan Democrats," helping to propel Ronald Reagan into office in the 1980s. Bill Clinton won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992. Two years later they were "angry white males," resentful of affirmative action and the women's movement, who helped Republicans capture Congress.
'It seems like someone else should be there,' says Dan Leihgeber, a smelter in a Youngstown steel plant.
Now this group of voters is set to help determine the Democratic nominee, and the next occupant of the White House. Working-class white men make up nearly one-quarter of the electorate, outnumbering African-American and Hispanic voters combined. As the Democratic primary race intensifies, some of these white men are finding it hard to identify with the remaining two candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
"It seems like someone else should be there," says Dan Leihgeber, a smelter in a steel plant here, who is supporting Sen. Clinton. "It's like there's someone missing."
As the Democratic race moves toward primaries in blue-collar strongholds -- today in Wisconsin, Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22 -- the allegiance of blue-collar men is up for grabs. While Sen. Clinton runs strongly among working-class women, she and Sen. Obama are perceived equally favorably among working-class men, according to a January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The two candidates have seesawed among blue-collar men in the primaries: Sen. Clinton won them in Georgia, Missouri and New York, while Sen. Obama captured the working-class male vote in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.
Blue-collar men could also emerge as an important swing constituency in November -- either backing the Democrats' eventual nominee, or shifting to some degree toward Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, whose war record and straight-talking approach could make him appealing to many working-class men.
Marc Dann, Ohio's Democratic attorney general, frets about the reluctance of some of these blue-collar Democrats to embrace either of his party's candidates. "I worry about [the appeal of] McCain," says Mr. Dann, who lives in Youngstown. "It's not like watching an episode of Archie Bunker -- but there are real issues" that white male voters here have with Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.
Working-class men are generally defined as those without a college degree, including union members and workers with service and technical jobs, typically making less than $50,000 a year. They are especially crucial in Ohio, where they make up about 28% of the vote, as well as other battleground states including Michigan (about 27%), West Virginia (33%), Missouri (27%), Minnesota (27%), Pennsylvania (27%), Wisconsin (29%) and Iowa (34%).
In Youngstown, many working-class men say they will vote according to issues, especially economic ones including health care, free trade and the loss of manufacturing jobs. But in conversations in union halls, bars and factories, race and gender are never far from the surface.
"I don't think the country is ready for a woman president yet," says Duane Tkac, a burly vocational instructor at a prison here and a member of the local branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. "The country is in too much turmoil. I don't think she can handle the pressure, the terrorists." He plans to vote for Sen. Obama.
Don Pompelia, retired from the Air Force, supports Sen. Clinton. "I'm hoping Hillary gets the nomination. But if she doesn't, I'm not voting for that guy. I'm going Republican," he booms as he picks up his morning coffee at McDonald's. "There are going to be a lot of people crossing over to the Republicans because he's black."
Back Into the Fold
After decades in which Republicans often successfully wooed blue-collar men, many Democrats see 2008 as a chance to bring them back into the fold, motivated by the worsening economy and their disaffection with President Bush. In the 2006 midterm election, union members and other working-class men voted for Democratic candidates by a margin of almost two to one, helping the Democrats win control of Congress.
Youngstown has been battered over the past 30 years by job losses and plant closings. Buoyed by unionized steel jobs that paid as much as $20 an hour, the city once had one of the country's highest per-capita incomes. But as companies have shuttered steel and auto plants, outsourcing jobs to nonunion parts of the country and overseas, the city's population has fallen by 50% since 1960, to about 80,000.
Few young people stay here; the average age at one steel plant is 55. Families survive because women have poured into the work force out of necessity, changing the dynamic within traditionally conservative families where women used to stay at home.
'Poster Child'
"For a lot of blue-collar guys over 40, Hillary Clinton is a poster child for everything about the women's movement that they don't like -- their wife going back to work, their daughters rebelling, the rise of women in the workplace," says Gerald Austin, an Ohio political strategist.
Mr. Leihgeber, the steelworker, says he supports Sen. Clinton for her experience and positions. He carries a book bag to work every day with his lunch and a newspaper inside and a Clinton button pinned to the outside. Some days, he says, he turns the bag around so the Clinton button doesn't show; he says he doesn't like dealing with his co-workers' derogatory comments. Mr. Leihgeber says he wouldn't be heckled so much for an Obama pin.
"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."
In national polls, white men overall have been more favorable than white women toward Sen. Obama. In a survey done in September by Pew Research, white men overall gave Sen. Obama more positive ratings than did white women, in categories including whether he was tough, smart, friendly and honest. In the same categories, white males gave Sen. Clinton consistently lower marks than white women did.
For some women, that confirms that sexism runs deeper than racism among many men. "My mother, who was the first woman lawyer in a big D.C. firm, always said that blacks got in before women," says Caryl Rivers, a professor at Boston University who supports Sen. Clinton. "Then the white guys figured everything had gone to hell anyway, so they might as well let the women in."
In Youngstown, Sen. Obama is seen through the prism of the city's changing racial makeup. Over the years, as Youngstown has become poorer, many whites have moved to surrounding towns and the minority population has increased. The Youngstown area is now one of the most segregated communities in the country, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
Everyday racial tensions and animosity run high. A white cook at a local bar says he won't bother voting in this election. "What's the point," he says, rubbing his skin. "We're already a minority."
But for some white men here, Sen. Obama's appeal is that he is different from many black leaders they have seen in the past. "The guys I work with, they know Jesse Jackson and they know Al Sharpton. They call them all sorts of terrible things," says Robert Hagan, a locomotive engineer and a state representative, referring to these politicians' sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric and focus on black causes. "They don't talk about Obama like that."
Those here who dislike Sen. Obama tend to criticize what they call his empty rhetoric, his lack of experience and the fear that he would favor blacks and other minorities.
Many working-class men here say they are being lobbied by their teenage and young adult children to vote for Sen. Obama. And some of the area's newer businesses, such as its growing hospitals and the privately run prison, break down some of the racial and gender barriers found in the mills and auto plants that are still overwhelmingly white and male.
At a Teamsters hall here, a dozen burly men in gabardine jackets and baseball caps gather over coffee and overstuffed donuts for a union meeting of prison workers. "There is a misunderstanding that older white guys aren't going to vote for a black man," says Jim Marcum, a job counselor at the prison. "That's not true." Mr. Marcum says he voted for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. This time he plans to vote for Sen. Obama. "He's a breath of fresh air."
Natalie Grant, a black woman who works with Mr. Marcum at the prison, walks in and grabs some coffee.
"You really voting for Obama?" she says.
"Yes," says Mr. Marcum.
Ms. Grant laughs. "I knew there was some brother in you," she says. Mr. Marcum smiles.
Three years ago, Youngstown elected its first African-American mayor, Jay Williams, a 36-year-old with little political experience who ran as an independent promising to unite the city. Mr. Williams won with the heavy support of the city's black community -- about 40% of the vote -- but also drew white votes from working-class and college neighborhoods.
"A lot of people thought Youngstown was 20 or 30 years away from this kind of change," says Mr. Williams, who has endorsed Sen. Obama.
Women, too, have made inroads in local politics. In 1994, there were no women elected at the county level, where real power lies. Today, women serve as county commissioner and treasurer, and hold several elected judicial seats.
"We deal with women at work," says John Lesicko, a teamster official. "We deal with HR people. She might be a" -- he raises his hands to form imaginary quote marks and silently mouths a slur -- "but we deal with her."
Leaning Toward Clinton
Across town, 14 steelworkers brought together to talk about the election say they predominantly supported Sen. John Edwards before he dropped out of the race. Now 13 of them say they are leaning toward Sen. Clinton. They praise her experience and toughness in withstanding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Former President Bill Clinton remains enormously popular here, with many blue-collar men saying that they like the fact that he would be in the White House as well.
"I think she has the right person in the bedroom with her," says Joe Marion, who works at the local prison.
Betty Ingramn doesn't buy it. The lone African-American in the room full of steelworkers, she works as a secretary in the steel mill and is the head of the clerical workers union.
"It's a race thing," she says of her colleagues' support for Sen. Clinton. "They can't handle it, an African-American being over them." As an African-American union official, Ms. Ingramn says she has battled constantly to be included in meetings and decisions.
Both Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's campaigns say race and gender shouldn't be a consideration, and that they are targeting blue-collar voters with appeals to economic issues that hit working-class families.
"Some may call this the 'rust belt,' but that's not what I see," Sen. Clinton said in a visit to the General Motors plant here last week. "I see some of the hardest workers in the world. I see great universities and strong communities. I see a 21st-century manufacturing belt. An innovation belt. An opportunity belt."
Sen. Obama, in a visit to a GM plant in Wisconsin, similarly laid out plans to help workers and create jobs. "I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas," he said. "But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements."
The real test will come in November.
"I think if we nominate one of these two, we are talking about McCain as president," says Bob Rodkey, a firefighter who doesn't like either candidate but plans to vote for Sen. Clinton in the primary. "I talk to a lot of my Democratic friends and they are going to cross over in November or not vote at all. We don't have a viable candidate. Neither of them is one of us."
Mr. Rodkey says he will vote for a Democrat in the fall. He plans to urge his friends to do the same. "Hopefully they will listen to the message, and not who's delivering it," he says.
Write to Jonathan Kaufman at jonathan.kaufman@wsj.com
Olafur Eliasson
Finally caught the exhibit at the SFMOMA (it was the very last day) and boy, am I glad I did! If this Icelandic artist's work comes to a gallery near you - check it out. It's very interactive and somehow makes you feel like a child again, just discovering light and the color spectrum and texture and well, everything. I went with a friend and our favorite part was a monochromatic room - basically the walls, ceiling, etc. were all yellow, but people and objects only came through in black and white. It felt very much like an old film. Here's a selection from the SFMOMA exhibit:
Independent Hope
*from The Economist (I plan on posting a reaction sometime over the weekend, so stay tuned!)
A declaration on independents
Feb 14th 2008
Independents are back from the wilderness and ready to determine the outcome of the presidential election
Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher
Independent voters have been marginalised over the past decade. Armies of partisans have marched over the political battlefield. Elections have been much more about energising the faithful than reaching out to wavering voters. The 2004 election was the electoral equivalent of the Somme—trench warfare between the blue army and the red army enlivened by the occasional daring raid.
There are growing signs that this era of American politics is coming to a close. George Bush, America's polariser-in-chief, has an approval rating of little more than 30% at a time when Arnold Schwarzenegger, an advocate of “post-partisanship”, scores double that. Colin Powell, no mean judge of the American mood, has declared that he will vote for the presidential candidate who can “do the best job for America”, whether that candidate is “a Republican, a Democrat or an independent”. Michael Barone, the co-author of the indispensable “Almanac of American Politics”, speculates that we are moving from an era of “trench warfare” to an era of “open-field politics”.
Over 30% of Americans call themselves independents—more than call themselves Republicans and about the same as call themselves Democrats. These independents are younger and better educated than the average American. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labour and Big Government but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming.
Over the past decade or so, independents have been forced to act like either “soft” Republicans or “soft” Democrats—reluctant conscripts into one or other of America's armies. But in this election the opposite is happening—more and more partisans are thinking and acting like independents. Polls show that at least two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. A Washington Post poll last year showed that 77% of voters would consider voting for an independent.
By a chapter of accidents the Republicans have ended up with their one presidential candidate ideally suited to attracting independents. The party's thumping in the 2006 mid-term election was almost entirely due to its waning fortunes among independent voters. Conservatives pulled the Republican lever in the usual numbers. But independents voted for Democrats by 57% to 39%. John McCain is thus a gift from heaven.
The very qualities of Mr McCain that infuriate Republican loyalists endear him to independents. He has frequently clashed with Mr Bush, a man whom independents loathe. He has wrestled with special interests in Washington, and repeatedly gone into battle with his own party, particularly over immigration reform. Mr McCain has demonstrated his strength among independents: he led the field among them by ten points in New York, 23 points in California and 31 points in Illinois.
This gives him a chance of pulling off a surprise upset in the general election. Most analysts expect the Democrats to carry all the states John Kerry won in 2004, plus Ohio, which has shifted to the Democratic column. But Mr McCain might scramble these calculations by winning New Hampshire, where more than 40% of the electorate are independents and where the Arizona senator is almost an honorary citizen. That would give him a 270-268 victory in the electoral college.
A case for Obama?
This suggests Democratic primary voters need to pay close attention to independents. The polls suggest hard-core Democrats would be happy either with Hillary Clinton or Mr Obama. But there is no doubt who does better with independents. Until this week, Mrs Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as-usual.
In contrast, Mr Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents—frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide. And independents have not disappointed him. Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Mr Obama has a 62% approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate.
This should weigh heavily on the minds of the Democratic “superdelegates” (office holders and party elders who have an ex officio vote in the convention) if they are called upon to break a tie in the delegate race. Mrs Clinton's biggest problem is not that she is being out-campaigned by the silver-tongued Mr Obama. It is that she seems to belong to the previous era of American politics—the one of battling political machines. Republicans have accidentally stumbled through to the next age of politics, although the message has not yet reached the backwoods wing of the party. The big question now for many Democrats is whether their party can do likewise.
A declaration on independents
Feb 14th 2008
Independents are back from the wilderness and ready to determine the outcome of the presidential election
Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher
Independent voters have been marginalised over the past decade. Armies of partisans have marched over the political battlefield. Elections have been much more about energising the faithful than reaching out to wavering voters. The 2004 election was the electoral equivalent of the Somme—trench warfare between the blue army and the red army enlivened by the occasional daring raid.
There are growing signs that this era of American politics is coming to a close. George Bush, America's polariser-in-chief, has an approval rating of little more than 30% at a time when Arnold Schwarzenegger, an advocate of “post-partisanship”, scores double that. Colin Powell, no mean judge of the American mood, has declared that he will vote for the presidential candidate who can “do the best job for America”, whether that candidate is “a Republican, a Democrat or an independent”. Michael Barone, the co-author of the indispensable “Almanac of American Politics”, speculates that we are moving from an era of “trench warfare” to an era of “open-field politics”.
Over 30% of Americans call themselves independents—more than call themselves Republicans and about the same as call themselves Democrats. These independents are younger and better educated than the average American. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labour and Big Government but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming.
Over the past decade or so, independents have been forced to act like either “soft” Republicans or “soft” Democrats—reluctant conscripts into one or other of America's armies. But in this election the opposite is happening—more and more partisans are thinking and acting like independents. Polls show that at least two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. A Washington Post poll last year showed that 77% of voters would consider voting for an independent.
By a chapter of accidents the Republicans have ended up with their one presidential candidate ideally suited to attracting independents. The party's thumping in the 2006 mid-term election was almost entirely due to its waning fortunes among independent voters. Conservatives pulled the Republican lever in the usual numbers. But independents voted for Democrats by 57% to 39%. John McCain is thus a gift from heaven.
The very qualities of Mr McCain that infuriate Republican loyalists endear him to independents. He has frequently clashed with Mr Bush, a man whom independents loathe. He has wrestled with special interests in Washington, and repeatedly gone into battle with his own party, particularly over immigration reform. Mr McCain has demonstrated his strength among independents: he led the field among them by ten points in New York, 23 points in California and 31 points in Illinois.
This gives him a chance of pulling off a surprise upset in the general election. Most analysts expect the Democrats to carry all the states John Kerry won in 2004, plus Ohio, which has shifted to the Democratic column. But Mr McCain might scramble these calculations by winning New Hampshire, where more than 40% of the electorate are independents and where the Arizona senator is almost an honorary citizen. That would give him a 270-268 victory in the electoral college.
A case for Obama?
This suggests Democratic primary voters need to pay close attention to independents. The polls suggest hard-core Democrats would be happy either with Hillary Clinton or Mr Obama. But there is no doubt who does better with independents. Until this week, Mrs Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as-usual.
In contrast, Mr Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents—frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide. And independents have not disappointed him. Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Mr Obama has a 62% approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate.
This should weigh heavily on the minds of the Democratic “superdelegates” (office holders and party elders who have an ex officio vote in the convention) if they are called upon to break a tie in the delegate race. Mrs Clinton's biggest problem is not that she is being out-campaigned by the silver-tongued Mr Obama. It is that she seems to belong to the previous era of American politics—the one of battling political machines. Republicans have accidentally stumbled through to the next age of politics, although the message has not yet reached the backwoods wing of the party. The big question now for many Democrats is whether their party can do likewise.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Oh, the things we take for granted...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“Every man looks at a woman in a bathing suit when he sees her,” he said. “What can I do? I’m a normal man.”
Note: To the uptight women with the money to frolick around Dubai in a swimsuit - stop complaing. Seriously, what do you expect?
“Every man looks at a woman in a bathing suit when he sees her,” he said. “What can I do? I’m a normal man.”
Note: To the uptight women with the money to frolick around Dubai in a swimsuit - stop complaing. Seriously, what do you expect?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
New blog to keep an eye on...
http://www.itmustbenortherncalifornia.blogspot.com/
Also, read this article on urbanization and check out this cartoon (somewhat controversial, but as for its truth... I haven't decided yet - thoughts?):
Also, read this article on urbanization and check out this cartoon (somewhat controversial, but as for its truth... I haven't decided yet - thoughts?):
Boulder Party
Note to self: post select photographs from this party. Also, feel free to check out this video, from the night's madness.
Bicycles
Excerpts from the Stuff White People Like blog:
Bicycles
"And of course, it goes without saying that white people who ride bikes like to talk about how they are saving the earth. If you know a person who rides to work, you should take them aside and say “Hey, thanks. Sincerely, The Earth.” Then give a thumbs up. That white person will ride home on a cloud."
Sarah Silverman
"WARNING: under no circumstances should you EVER list Dane Cook as your favorite comedian. The wrong kind of white people like him. And mentioning him will cause white people to lose all respect for you."
Bicycles
"And of course, it goes without saying that white people who ride bikes like to talk about how they are saving the earth. If you know a person who rides to work, you should take them aside and say “Hey, thanks. Sincerely, The Earth.” Then give a thumbs up. That white person will ride home on a cloud."
Sarah Silverman
"WARNING: under no circumstances should you EVER list Dane Cook as your favorite comedian. The wrong kind of white people like him. And mentioning him will cause white people to lose all respect for you."
Unanswered questions for the candidates
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26debate-questions.html?th&emc=th
There are some GREAT ones in here, but this is probably my favorite:
"Franklin D. Roosevelt, a president you both have evoked, said Americans need fear only fear itself. Under President Bush, Americans have been told to so fear terrorism that the executive branch has been permitted to snoop on citizens, hijack the powers of Congress and torture foreigners. Do you agree that fear of terrorism has been pushed too far, and if so, what measures would you adopt to return the United States to a more normal civilian life?"
There are some GREAT ones in here, but this is probably my favorite:
"Franklin D. Roosevelt, a president you both have evoked, said Americans need fear only fear itself. Under President Bush, Americans have been told to so fear terrorism that the executive branch has been permitted to snoop on citizens, hijack the powers of Congress and torture foreigners. Do you agree that fear of terrorism has been pushed too far, and if so, what measures would you adopt to return the United States to a more normal civilian life?"
Nader
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I'll confess, I don't remember much about elections prior to 2004, mostly because I was too young to vote, therefore, I delayed my caring. However, this article does a great job of summing up (or providing an introductory summary to?) the accomplishments of Ralph Nader. However, it faults him for running for president - "ruining" Gore's chances in 2000. This is one more example of how the two-party system consistently fails the American people. Anyone should have the chance to run for president - and neither they, nor the American people, should have to play a game of prisoner's dilemma by attempting to predict who will run, who will win what votes, will it hurt "our side", etc. As the campaign process has unfolded thus far, does anyone honestly think we can predict this stuff anymore?
"Mr. Nader has every right to run for president. But given the issues he cares about, it’s all too clear why Republicans are delighted that he’s making the race, and there is not a Democratic smile in sight."
Fair enough, Herbert - but I can't helping hoping that more people do throw their hats into the ring - for both parties. C'mon Ron Paul. C'mon Nader. I honestly don't care about specific party politics, and I don't really think most Americans do. (The only people that seem to focus their arguments on what's best for the party etc. are party leaders, not everyday Americans.) Perhaps a preponderance of candidates will spread out the vote more - maybe proving that Americans cannot be classified into two groups - us v. them. I don't really think that would be a bad thing.
I'll confess, I don't remember much about elections prior to 2004, mostly because I was too young to vote, therefore, I delayed my caring. However, this article does a great job of summing up (or providing an introductory summary to?) the accomplishments of Ralph Nader. However, it faults him for running for president - "ruining" Gore's chances in 2000. This is one more example of how the two-party system consistently fails the American people. Anyone should have the chance to run for president - and neither they, nor the American people, should have to play a game of prisoner's dilemma by attempting to predict who will run, who will win what votes, will it hurt "our side", etc. As the campaign process has unfolded thus far, does anyone honestly think we can predict this stuff anymore?
"Mr. Nader has every right to run for president. But given the issues he cares about, it’s all too clear why Republicans are delighted that he’s making the race, and there is not a Democratic smile in sight."
Fair enough, Herbert - but I can't helping hoping that more people do throw their hats into the ring - for both parties. C'mon Ron Paul. C'mon Nader. I honestly don't care about specific party politics, and I don't really think most Americans do. (The only people that seem to focus their arguments on what's best for the party etc. are party leaders, not everyday Americans.) Perhaps a preponderance of candidates will spread out the vote more - maybe proving that Americans cannot be classified into two groups - us v. them. I don't really think that would be a bad thing.
This is crap.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-bankrupt26feb26,1,3097774.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Beware many of these "mortgage crisis" fixes. In the end, it's going to hurt those of us who don't yet "own" (I use quotes because it turns out that many people now owe more on their homes than they're worth) homes. Friends ask me, why should I care about politics? Because of stuff like this. Ultimately, political choices (particularly in regard to the economy) will affect all of us. Just accept it and start caring. It's in your best interest, believe me.
Beware many of these "mortgage crisis" fixes. In the end, it's going to hurt those of us who don't yet "own" (I use quotes because it turns out that many people now owe more on their homes than they're worth) homes. Friends ask me, why should I care about politics? Because of stuff like this. Ultimately, political choices (particularly in regard to the economy) will affect all of us. Just accept it and start caring. It's in your best interest, believe me.
Monday, February 25, 2008
I'll say it again...
Superdelegates are SUCH B.S.
The claims that only 15% of Democrats may be represented and that independents and Republicans turned out to sabotage the Democratic primary seem ridiculous to me:
"Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
"If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate."
"More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.
"In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.
"He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee."
First of all, if Democrats felt passionately about a certain candidate, they would no doubt go to the polls on their respective primary dates and make their voices heard. Since they didn't, assuming they would have voted for Hillary Clinton seems a little presumptuous, no?
Secondly, Ferraro claims that superdelegates "were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country." It seems clear what active Democrats have thought is best for the country up to this point. It seems clear what independents and wavering Republicans have thought is best for the country up to this point (given both groups' reactions to the McCain candidacy, I seriously doubt they're trying to sabotage the Democratic Party's chances). Considering the wishes of both of these groups would no doubt give some indication as to what the people believe is best for our country (and the last time I checked, Republicans, independents, and all other citizens, affiliated or not, are still part of our country, no?). So why argue against superdelegates choosing positions that represent their constituencies? At least there's a pure, traceable reason for that. To me, it also seems the safest political route. Without a clear history of agreement with a certain candidate over policy and practice (which, considering the similarities between the two candidates' policies, I imagine would be hard to find), one could seemingly wonder what sort of backroom agreements had been made in exchange for support. I'm not going to lie; this worries me.
Thirdly, I find the entire concept a bit insulting. As a voting American, I like to think that those who are charged with the stewardship of our democracy respect my choices, and those of my fellow Americans. I understand that a need for superdelegates (or some other solution) was required in the past, but I do not believe that it was a recurring problem that necessitated the permanent superdelegate fixtures. Why complicate the party system for voters?
Speaking of the overly-complicated party system, I doubt if half of Democrats in the shafted states of Florida and Michigan really understand why they're votes (which Ferraro, among other HC supporters, are now fighting to include in the delegate count) were not counted. That being said, arguing for inclusion at this point seems both fiercely hypocritical and tragically pathetic. No one can really say what the count in those states truly represents - considering voters were told they wouldn't be counted, my educated guess is that many of them stayed home. Perhaps only those with nothing better to do on a Tuesday (like, say, senior citizens - a demographic segment that Clinton has a commanding lead in), actually took the time to go to the polls. While I believe that Florida does have a high concentration of these folks, and perhaps Hillary still would have won if it were a legitimate primary, no one can know for certain. So why retroactively count those votes if it were not an act of desperation? But I'm sure all of you know this already.
In short, I found Geraldine Ferraro's entire argument a bit flat. Particularly as a woman, I respect her and all of her accomplishments, but I cannot help but exercise my mind, as a woman, as an American, as a human being - and my mind believes the entire concept of superdelegates to be both wrong and offensive. For further explanation, see my rant on the two party system. I think if we are to start trusting ourselves on matters of national policy, first we need our governmental leaders to trust us as well. Seeing our choices enacted is a thrill that many Americans have sorely missed during the previous administration's tenure. I think a reversal of the will of the voting public would be devastating at this point, both to the upcoming political competition and to the very future of Americans. A large demographic group is just beginning to flex their political muscles, and to shut them out now, early in their lives, is to encourage apathy and disengagement in the future. Despite what they try to tell me on the news, I still believe most human beings are good people, most Americans are good people. I trust them. The ones I don't trust are those who think they know what's best for the country, without listening to the country at all.
The claims that only 15% of Democrats may be represented and that independents and Republicans turned out to sabotage the Democratic primary seem ridiculous to me:
"Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
"If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate."
"More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.
"In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.
"He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee."
First of all, if Democrats felt passionately about a certain candidate, they would no doubt go to the polls on their respective primary dates and make their voices heard. Since they didn't, assuming they would have voted for Hillary Clinton seems a little presumptuous, no?
Secondly, Ferraro claims that superdelegates "were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country." It seems clear what active Democrats have thought is best for the country up to this point. It seems clear what independents and wavering Republicans have thought is best for the country up to this point (given both groups' reactions to the McCain candidacy, I seriously doubt they're trying to sabotage the Democratic Party's chances). Considering the wishes of both of these groups would no doubt give some indication as to what the people believe is best for our country (and the last time I checked, Republicans, independents, and all other citizens, affiliated or not, are still part of our country, no?). So why argue against superdelegates choosing positions that represent their constituencies? At least there's a pure, traceable reason for that. To me, it also seems the safest political route. Without a clear history of agreement with a certain candidate over policy and practice (which, considering the similarities between the two candidates' policies, I imagine would be hard to find), one could seemingly wonder what sort of backroom agreements had been made in exchange for support. I'm not going to lie; this worries me.
Thirdly, I find the entire concept a bit insulting. As a voting American, I like to think that those who are charged with the stewardship of our democracy respect my choices, and those of my fellow Americans. I understand that a need for superdelegates (or some other solution) was required in the past, but I do not believe that it was a recurring problem that necessitated the permanent superdelegate fixtures. Why complicate the party system for voters?
Speaking of the overly-complicated party system, I doubt if half of Democrats in the shafted states of Florida and Michigan really understand why they're votes (which Ferraro, among other HC supporters, are now fighting to include in the delegate count) were not counted. That being said, arguing for inclusion at this point seems both fiercely hypocritical and tragically pathetic. No one can really say what the count in those states truly represents - considering voters were told they wouldn't be counted, my educated guess is that many of them stayed home. Perhaps only those with nothing better to do on a Tuesday (like, say, senior citizens - a demographic segment that Clinton has a commanding lead in), actually took the time to go to the polls. While I believe that Florida does have a high concentration of these folks, and perhaps Hillary still would have won if it were a legitimate primary, no one can know for certain. So why retroactively count those votes if it were not an act of desperation? But I'm sure all of you know this already.
In short, I found Geraldine Ferraro's entire argument a bit flat. Particularly as a woman, I respect her and all of her accomplishments, but I cannot help but exercise my mind, as a woman, as an American, as a human being - and my mind believes the entire concept of superdelegates to be both wrong and offensive. For further explanation, see my rant on the two party system. I think if we are to start trusting ourselves on matters of national policy, first we need our governmental leaders to trust us as well. Seeing our choices enacted is a thrill that many Americans have sorely missed during the previous administration's tenure. I think a reversal of the will of the voting public would be devastating at this point, both to the upcoming political competition and to the very future of Americans. A large demographic group is just beginning to flex their political muscles, and to shut them out now, early in their lives, is to encourage apathy and disengagement in the future. Despite what they try to tell me on the news, I still believe most human beings are good people, most Americans are good people. I trust them. The ones I don't trust are those who think they know what's best for the country, without listening to the country at all.
Fresh ideas
This article examines the claim that what we need isn't good ideas, it's a political process that supports them (made by Barack Obama). The columnist argues that we need both, particularly regarding climate change.
"As it happens, a publication called Democracy: A Journal of Ideas has a neat climate proposal in its next issue. Instead of charging drivers for car insurance at a fixed rate, why not link the insurance cost to the number of miles driven? That would create a new incentive to drive less, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by around 130 million tons per year, according to author Jason Bordoff. Obama should be celebrating this sort of creative thought, not pretending that we have enough of it already."
"As it happens, a publication called Democracy: A Journal of Ideas has a neat climate proposal in its next issue. Instead of charging drivers for car insurance at a fixed rate, why not link the insurance cost to the number of miles driven? That would create a new incentive to drive less, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by around 130 million tons per year, according to author Jason Bordoff. Obama should be celebrating this sort of creative thought, not pretending that we have enough of it already."
Sunday, February 24, 2008
How do you choose?
This article put into words a lot of the concerns that seem to simmer in my subconscious all the time. I have personally, made a lot of these decisions on a whim, justifying my choice with, at the very least, the opportunity to learn what I really want. So I move to San Francisco - at the very least, I'll learn if it's a city I could spend my life in. Obviously, there are many other factors that come into play, but I often feel overwhelmed by options. I know many others of my generation feel the same. If you have additional thoughts, please share. **And thank you Garima, for e-mailing me this article and sharing your story (your early twenties are even harder when you have a family/culture pressuring you about marriage as well -- my parents are, fortunately, quite content with my decision to delay that part of life).
I CAN DO ANYTHING, SO HOW DO I CHOOSE? WITH COUNTLESS OPTIONS AND ALL THE FREEDOM I'LL EVER NEED, COMES THE PRESSURE TO FIND THE PERFECT LIFE.
NEWSWEEK
For the most part, my women friends and I were kids of upper-middle-class privilege, raised to believe that, with hard work and a little courage, the world was ours. We climbed mountains at summer camp, went to Europe on high-school class trips and took family vacations to New York City and the Grand Canyon. Our parents, like theirs before them, told their kids they could go anywhere and do anything. We took them at their word.
By the time we hit adulthood, technology and globalization had brought the world to our doorstep. Now in our mid-20s, we're unsteadily navigating a barrage of choices our mothers never had the chance to make. No one can complain about parents who started sentences with "When you're president..." But we are now discovering the difficulty of deciding just what makes us happy in a world of innumerable options.
Three years ago my friends and I barreled out of the University of Wisconsin ready to make our mark on the world. Julia headed to France to teach English. I started law school in Minneapolis. Marie and Alexis searched for work in San Francisco. Bridget started an internship in D.C. Kristina landed a job in Ireland. The list goes on. Scattering to our respective destinations, we were young enough to follow our crazy dreams but old enough to fend for ourselves in the real world. At a time when our lives were undergoing dramatic changes, so was America. Three months after receiving our diplomas, the Twin Towers came crashing down. We realized that, in more ways than one, the world was scarier and more complex than we'd ever imagined.
Since graduation, we've struggled to make our own happiness. It seems that having so many choices has sometimes overwhelmed us. In the seven years since I left home for college, I've had 13 addresses and lived in six cities. How can I stay with one person, at one job, in one city, when I have the world at my fingertips?
Moving from one place to the next, bouncing from job to job, my friends and I have experienced the world, but also gotten lost in it. There have been moments of self-doubt, frantic calls cross-country. ("I don't know a soul here!" "Do I really want to be a __?") Frustrated by studying law, I joined friends in San Francisco to waitress for a summer and contemplate whether to return to school in Minnesota. Unhappy and out of work in Portland, Molly moved to Chicago. Loni broke up with a boyfriend and packed her tiny Brooklyn apartment into a U-Haul, heading for Seattle. Others took jobs or entered grad school anywhere from Italy to L.A. Some romances and friendships succumbed to distance, career ambition or simply growing up. We all lost some sleep at one point or another, at times feeling utterly consumed by cities of thousands, even millions, knowing that even local friends were just as transient as we were.
Like so many women my age, I remain unmarried at an age when my mother already had children. She may have had the opportunity to go to college, but she was expected to marry soon after. While my friends and I still feel the pressure to marry and have children, we've gained a few postcollege years of socially accepted freedom that our mothers never had.
The years between college and marriage are in many ways far more self-defining than any others. They're filled with the simplest, yet most complex, decisions in life: choosing a city, picking a career, finding friends and a mate--in sum, building a happy and satisfying life. For me and for my group of friends, these years have been eye-opening, confusing and fabulous at the same time.
The more choices you have, the more decisions you must make--and the more you have yourself to blame if you wind up unhappy. There is a kind of perverted contentedness in certainty born of a lack of alternatives. At my age, my mother, whether she liked it or not, had fewer tough decisions to make. I don't envy the pressure she endured to follow a traditional career path and marry early. But sometimes I envy the stability she had.
Once again I've been unable to resist the lure of a new city. So, as I start my legal career in Chicago, I'm again building friendships from scratch, learning my way around a strange new place. Yes, my friends and I could have avoided the loneliness and uncertainty inherent in our journeys, and gone back to our hometowns or stayed in the college town where we had each other. But I doubt any one of us would trade our adventures for that life. I have a sense of identity and self-assurance now that I didn't have, couldn't have had, when I graduated from college. And I know someday I'll look back on this time--before I had a spouse, a home and children to care for--and be thankful for the years that just belonged to me.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/55960
I CAN DO ANYTHING, SO HOW DO I CHOOSE? WITH COUNTLESS OPTIONS AND ALL THE FREEDOM I'LL EVER NEED, COMES THE PRESSURE TO FIND THE PERFECT LIFE.
NEWSWEEK
For the most part, my women friends and I were kids of upper-middle-class privilege, raised to believe that, with hard work and a little courage, the world was ours. We climbed mountains at summer camp, went to Europe on high-school class trips and took family vacations to New York City and the Grand Canyon. Our parents, like theirs before them, told their kids they could go anywhere and do anything. We took them at their word.
By the time we hit adulthood, technology and globalization had brought the world to our doorstep. Now in our mid-20s, we're unsteadily navigating a barrage of choices our mothers never had the chance to make. No one can complain about parents who started sentences with "When you're president..." But we are now discovering the difficulty of deciding just what makes us happy in a world of innumerable options.
Three years ago my friends and I barreled out of the University of Wisconsin ready to make our mark on the world. Julia headed to France to teach English. I started law school in Minneapolis. Marie and Alexis searched for work in San Francisco. Bridget started an internship in D.C. Kristina landed a job in Ireland. The list goes on. Scattering to our respective destinations, we were young enough to follow our crazy dreams but old enough to fend for ourselves in the real world. At a time when our lives were undergoing dramatic changes, so was America. Three months after receiving our diplomas, the Twin Towers came crashing down. We realized that, in more ways than one, the world was scarier and more complex than we'd ever imagined.
Since graduation, we've struggled to make our own happiness. It seems that having so many choices has sometimes overwhelmed us. In the seven years since I left home for college, I've had 13 addresses and lived in six cities. How can I stay with one person, at one job, in one city, when I have the world at my fingertips?
Moving from one place to the next, bouncing from job to job, my friends and I have experienced the world, but also gotten lost in it. There have been moments of self-doubt, frantic calls cross-country. ("I don't know a soul here!" "Do I really want to be a __?") Frustrated by studying law, I joined friends in San Francisco to waitress for a summer and contemplate whether to return to school in Minnesota. Unhappy and out of work in Portland, Molly moved to Chicago. Loni broke up with a boyfriend and packed her tiny Brooklyn apartment into a U-Haul, heading for Seattle. Others took jobs or entered grad school anywhere from Italy to L.A. Some romances and friendships succumbed to distance, career ambition or simply growing up. We all lost some sleep at one point or another, at times feeling utterly consumed by cities of thousands, even millions, knowing that even local friends were just as transient as we were.
Like so many women my age, I remain unmarried at an age when my mother already had children. She may have had the opportunity to go to college, but she was expected to marry soon after. While my friends and I still feel the pressure to marry and have children, we've gained a few postcollege years of socially accepted freedom that our mothers never had.
The years between college and marriage are in many ways far more self-defining than any others. They're filled with the simplest, yet most complex, decisions in life: choosing a city, picking a career, finding friends and a mate--in sum, building a happy and satisfying life. For me and for my group of friends, these years have been eye-opening, confusing and fabulous at the same time.
The more choices you have, the more decisions you must make--and the more you have yourself to blame if you wind up unhappy. There is a kind of perverted contentedness in certainty born of a lack of alternatives. At my age, my mother, whether she liked it or not, had fewer tough decisions to make. I don't envy the pressure she endured to follow a traditional career path and marry early. But sometimes I envy the stability she had.
Once again I've been unable to resist the lure of a new city. So, as I start my legal career in Chicago, I'm again building friendships from scratch, learning my way around a strange new place. Yes, my friends and I could have avoided the loneliness and uncertainty inherent in our journeys, and gone back to our hometowns or stayed in the college town where we had each other. But I doubt any one of us would trade our adventures for that life. I have a sense of identity and self-assurance now that I didn't have, couldn't have had, when I graduated from college. And I know someday I'll look back on this time--before I had a spouse, a home and children to care for--and be thankful for the years that just belonged to me.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/55960
Friday, February 22, 2008
Things to remember
A coworker recommended the band The Noisettes - described it as Billie Holiday backed by the White Stripes. Check them out.
Also, remember how adorable your little sister is. Here is today's anecdote, from an e-mail I sent out earlier:
I just got off the phone with my little sister Katie and I forget why, but I jokingly threatened to divorce her as sisters. She responds with: "You'd never do it. You'd die without my love." I laughed and said, "You think so?" Katie: "It's going to be a long, cold winter."
Also, remember how adorable your little sister is. Here is today's anecdote, from an e-mail I sent out earlier:
I just got off the phone with my little sister Katie and I forget why, but I jokingly threatened to divorce her as sisters. She responds with: "You'd never do it. You'd die without my love." I laughed and said, "You think so?" Katie: "It's going to be a long, cold winter."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Barackula
"Barackula is a short political horror rock musical about young Barack Obama having to stave off a secret society of vampires at Harvard when he was inducted into presidency at the Harvard Law Review in 1990. Obama (Justin Sherman) finds that he must convince the vampire society that opposing political philosophies can coexist or else the society may transform Obama to the dark side. Reminiscent to Michael Jackson's Thriller and a slight infusion of Jesus Christ Superstar, the film solely depicts Obama’s strengths, merits and genuineness while being quietly respectful towards the other presidential candidates."
Wow. Thanks Brigit for sharing.
Wow. Thanks Brigit for sharing.
Thanks Evan
Stuff White People Like
Clearly I don't agree with all of them (I personally hate knowing what's best for poor people, but there you go!), but amusing nonetheless.
Clearly I don't agree with all of them (I personally hate knowing what's best for poor people, but there you go!), but amusing nonetheless.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I don't even know what to think.
First of all, there are quite a few mistakes. "No Experience" being one (he was a senator. Also, I'm pretty sure it would be "a Hawaiian" not "an Hawaiian". Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
