skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Seriously. This place is hot. And wet. And tho in some instances that might be a good combination, for my taste this environment is nowhere near hospitable. The physical environment, that is. The emotional, human component makes up for a lot, tho. That, and the unbelievable food.
Since I've spent just about every minute of the last 4 days thinking about the lasting devastation of Hurricane Katrina, I think I'll use this opportunity to think about something else. Like Hillary Clinton. I'm hoping that despite the fact that I'm Mississippi I'll still be able to watch the Logo/HRC debate tonight (god bless wi-fi). But because I was up to my neck in boiled shrimp at the Imperial Palace Casino buffet last night, I missed the AFL-CIO debate.
I haven't had a lot of time to dig around for feedback on what went on, but I do see on Feministing that there's a little bit of outrage brewing over the fact that Hillary referred to herself as a "girl" during the debate And it's funny: though under normal circumstances I might have the intellectual space to delve into the ins and outs of what that kind of slip of the tongue might mean--to the women's movement, to the political sphere, etc.--something about all the freakin' reality down here makes it a little bit harder to get riled about something which, in the grand scheme of things, is really so minor.
Nobody who was planing on voting for Hillary is not going to vote for her simply because she called herself a girl on one occasion; and frankly, it's probably a wise move for a woman who gets painted as "too hard" by the media to try to soften that image as she gets closer to having to woo voters who are not her natural constituents. It's all a game, right? And Hillary's as expert at playing it as anyone else (and so far, better than any other American woman). So why are we liberals so constantly surprised when she "fails" the various purity tests we put to her? She's out to win a general election, and sadly enough, in order to that she's going to have to sell her soul...again. Time to either get used to it--or find a way to back a different candidate to win the nomination.
Interesting and evocative post on HuffPo today, written by a champion debate coach, on who really won last night's election. Looking at the technical aspects of the thing, the author finds that Richardson was the winner overall, and if I had been paying any attention to what he was saying, rather than gabbing to Jess about one or the other of Hillary, Barack, or John Edwards' preceding statements, I might actually agree. Shoot--that really wasn't fair of me, was it? Does it make it any better that I spent a lot of time talking about how damn cute Dennis Kucinich is, too?
Tonight's You Tube/CNN debate, which wrapped up just moments ago, crystallized one thing for me once and for all: John Edwards won't be getting my vote. Why? Because despite the fact that I think his wife is dope:
1. I don't have any interest in hearing again about how "difficult" the gay thing is for you personally. Struggle with it all you want; let your little Southern baptist heart twist and bleed over who Jesus really meant when he preached for the care and inclusion of the least among us--I just don't want to hear it. And anyone who can't come to a place of equality for all, especially in the secret recesses of his heart, would never get my vote anyway.
2. Picking on Hillary Clinton's wardrobe is a petty, stupid thing to do. Does it matter that she's the only woman on that stage? Yes, it does. And to go after a woman like that, even in a joking manner, makes you, John, look small and mean. Not to mention that smirk. That you don't like her is made clear enough in other ways; spare yourself the embarrassment of looking like--and acting like--a chauvinist by dismissing her choice of outfit. A moronic move, any way you cut it.
I'll say it one more time: I sure wish it was Elizabeth Edwards, not John, who was up there running for office. Now, that would be an interesting race.
I bet it feels to you like it was just last night you were watching a debate between the candidates for the presidency of the United States. It certainly feels that way to me. But lo and behold, it is now time for those motley crews to gather together again and try not to offend each other too much while tearing apart the policies of their colleagues on the other side of the ideological divide. And this time, they've gone all techie on us: tonight at 7pm ET tune your channel to CNN and check out the first debate hosted by our friends at YouTube, which will take place in good old Charleston, SC.
And because YouTube is the bigwig behind this particular debate, you, netizen, have your very own shot at having your searingly sharp question be deflected by one of the major candidates: just visit YouTube to submit a question (note: you've gotta have a video or web camera to do this) and from there a crack team of CNN producers will whittle the pool down to the 75-100 questions they imagine Anderson Cooper will feel most comfortable sharing with the candidates (so nothing too too gay, please).
Since it's the closest most of us will ever get to being in the ring with the big boys, I highly advocate giving it a shot. (Though interestingly enough, I actually got somewhat of an invite to travel to Charleston to blog the event... and sadly enough, the fact that I have a j-o-b kept me from being able to go. Which brings me back to my earlier point: the YouTube debate is a godsend for most of us.)
Democracy (sorta) opened up to the demos? Pretty rad.
Or, sort of for real: Eric Alterman, columnist for The Nation and sometime HuffPo blogger, explains the how and why behind his arrest last night at the Democratic debate hosted by CNN. The story that was originally reported by CNN spins a much feistier tale of Alterman's arrest; Alterman's own clarification on the HuffPo paints a picture of a rather milder sort of "misunderstanding." Best part of the whole thing? When Congressman Ed Markey sees Alterman being handcuffed and essentially does nothing to help him. You can't make this stuff up!
I'm sure the first question is: why should we care? Well here's the hook: the event is being sponsored by MSNBC and Politico.com (which you should be reading if you aren't already) and will allow for viewers watching from the Politico website to submit their questions to the candidates in real-time, via email. It'll take place May 3rd, and represents the first time the Reagan Library will be used for a debate. This is your chance to ask the slippery little dudes the hard questions... or at least its our best shot at flooding the question pool with hostile inquiries about war, health care and the economy. Be there!
Seriously. This place is hot. And wet. And tho in some instances that might be a good combination, for my taste this environment is nowhere near hospitable. The physical environment, that is. The emotional, human component makes up for a lot, tho. That, and the unbelievable food.
