Elections, Elections Everywhere

So as not to be ego-centrist I think it is important to note that there are places all over the world that have had or will have elections in the recent past or near future. These elections are so important to the relations with America and the stability of the countries themselves.

Just look at Kenya. A brutal killing spree verging on ethnic-cleansing/civil war has been raging all because of a disputed election. It looks like now there may be an agreement as the party that "lost" the election has negotiated a prime minister position supplementing the presidency (the powers have not been decided but but it is a step in the right direction).

Then Cuba had an "election," actually should be called an appointment but that's besides the point, that could change the entire dynamic of Cuban-American relations. Even if Raul Castro has been called "Fidel lite"

Pakistan just had an election replacing Musharraf. Bush continues to back the unpopular leader to the chagrin of Pakistanis. This will be something for Americans to watch carefully. Democracy is democracy. Bush has to be aware of the fact that he has touted government by the people for so long (even using it as an excuse for war). If the citizens of a country want a new leader Bush better be prepared to work with that person to negotiate a new anti-terrorism policy.

Russia has an election coming up where Putin has all but ordained his successor.

Check out all the upcoming elections here.

The Week in Short

~Both McCain and Clinton have been linked with attempts to "muslim-ize" Obama. His name, his heritage, his upbringing and all the non-existent roots that go along with those attributes.

First this picture was leaked to the Drudge Report ...
When accused of being the one responsible for putting it out, Clinton did not deny it but her spokesperson said this, ""If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

Sounds fishy to me.

Then a Cincinnati radio jockey introducing McCain used Obama's full name, "Barack Hussein Obama" at least three times in an introduction and more or less outrightly called him a Muslim.

I have never seen such obvious fear and hate mongering since...well, ever. This tactic hasn't been used since we were duped into a war in Iraq. At least Bush made his attempt appear legit, to some people.

This was just pathetic. The only people that will buy this are the crazies that already wouldn't vote for Obama for "being" a Muslim, anyway. Even if he was who cares, maybe Barack could end the war even more effectively that way.

~The debate also was more interesting than I expected. There was some fighting and some whining on top of the same old sameness. Oh, and poor Hillary got the first question again, poor thing. Isn't she the one that wanted to have these debates in the first place? After her performance the other night I can't fathom why.


~Mitt Romney's son is running for Congress in Utah.

~The United States may be facing stagflation. A fun word, but it isn't so fun for the economy.

~Bloomberg isn't running for president. (I didn't think he ever announced, but whatev.)

That's about all that happened on the domestic front this week, besides the Oscars. Here's Jon Stewart's hilarious opening monologue from his stint as host...

Debating the Details

The first of two post-Super Tuesday debates took place last night in Texas. Debates are a great opportunity for candidates to hash out their policy positions and really get to the nitty-gritty, substantive details. Yet Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don't have much to debate in that arena. At this juncture in the Democratic primary, for voters, it is more about electing a candidate based on the type of leader they want, not really on the issues.

These candidates are virtually the same on every issue, making it difficult to have a real debate. There were only two minuscule differences discussed on the CNN/Univision debate stage.

The first was the difference that has been leading Clinton to say that Obama's health care plan would leave 15 million people uninsured- something that is not completely true. The difference between the two plans is that Clinton mandates everyone to buy health insurance. Obama's plan operates under the assumption that if people can afford insurance they will buy it. The only mandate is for parents to buy insurance for their children.

Personally, I think Obama won this portion of the debate when he discussed Massachusetts' mandated health care plan where people are still not able to afford health care and then have to pay fines on top of it because they don't have a plan. Fines would only be implemented in his system when people try to abuse the system by going to the hospital when they are sick without insurance, etc.

The other difference was that Obama said he would meet with the new leader of Cuba with a set agenda, but Clinton would only meet with the Raul Castro (or whoever the new leader is) if Cuba has already started democratizing. A fairly minor, somewhat unimportant distinction.
The next debate will probably be pretty boring because it will be the same thing again. These candidates don't have much to debate. I can't even imagine if they had the 5 or so that Hillary had wanted to have. Talk about a snooze-fest.

I think its safe to say neither candidate won or lost voters from their camps. They may have won over some independents- either Obama with his cool, confident, on-top-of-his-game air, or Hillary with her touching answer to the last question- but chances are swing voters weren't given any ammunition to make a decision if they were already on the fence.

Check out the Google News Results for other analysis of the debate.

A Word on Feminism

The other day I mentioned to a friend that I consider myself a feminist and their reaction was surprising. It was kind of a look of shock. Now this is not necessarily the startling part because people don’t tend to see modern women as feminists unless they- if I may play on a phrase from Little Rascals- are a member of the “she-woman man-haters club.” What really surprised me is that this person knows me. Personally, I feel like I express my feminism on a somewhat daily basis. It is just kind of part of me, or at least that’s how I see it.

Feminism, of course, has evolved over time. It started out that feminists were suffragists just trying to get woman recognized as thinking, rational human beings. Then feminists became known as people like Gloria Steinem, outspoken and in-your-face about women’s rights. Today, although I feel like it is still essential for people like Steinem to keep women’s issues and women’s rights at the forefront, I feel that feminism has taken on more of an everyday kind of aspect.

For me, being a feminist is just knowing that I can do anything as well as, if not better than, a man. I may not be able to do it in the same manner for obvious- and less obvious reasons- but I will get it done. Being a feminist doesn’t mean making yourself masculine either. It means embracing your sex and all the wonderful aspects that come along with being a woman in whatever way you feel is appropriate.

To be a feminist does not mean that you shouldn’t have children or aspire to be a mother and have a family, but it also doesn’t mean you should have to compromise your own goals and dreams for any role because you feel like it is your duty as a woman. You shouldn’t feel like you can’t do laundry or be domestic, but you shouldn’t, as a woman, be pigeonholed into certain duties. If you want to mow the lawn while your husband cooks dinner, all the more power to you. Feminism means being who you are as a person and a woman all at once, not one before the other.

Another misconception about me as a feminist is even more prevalent with this year’s presidential primary election. As I have made fairly evident, I support Barack Obama for president. Most people would hear that I was a feminist and assume I support Hillary Clinton. For me there is no correlation from being a feminist to automatically supporting a woman candidate.

I chose to support Obama because he is the best political fit for me and what I feel is best for the country at this important juncture in out present and future. My choice of Obama defines my feminism. I voted for him because I do not feel obligated as a woman to vote for a woman for that simple and minor fact. Gender should not be a defining characteristic, just as race or sexual orientation should not be. A person should be judged individually not by the labels society attributes to them.

This is my feminism, and I have an inkling that it is others' as well. It is about embracing your womanhood but not being defined by it.

Get out out the broom...

...Obama swept the Potomac! While the polls somewhat predicted this going in, the margin of victory was larger than what the pollsters saw coming. According to CNN, in yesterday’s so-called Chesapeake, Potomac or Beltway primary (depending on which station you were watching or paper you were reading) Obama won with 60% of the vote or greater in each location and picked up 70 delegates to Clinton’s 33, an amount which puts him further ahead in the popular vote and officially gives him an edge in the delegate count. (!!!!)

Even with this marginal lead and huge momentum of consecutive victories the nomination is not in the bag. There are conflicting messages coming out of the media and both camps, neither of which tell the whole story.

One is that Obama is now the inevitable candidate, a message once tossed around by Clinton. The other is that Clinton still has time in the upcoming primaries in states that aren’t as predisposed to Obama as D.C., Maryland and Virginia were. As Politico.com reported, “Clinton will be forced to answer with not just victories, but landslides of her own, in the big states on which she is staking her hopes – Ohio and Texas, which vote March 4.”

When it comes down to it, as a report this morning illustrated even if Obama continues to wage an incredible fight or if Clinton really does win in both Texas and Ohio neither will be able to attain the magical number of delegates needed to clutch the nomination without the Super Delegates or without Florida and Michigan (both options being controversies in and of themselves).

The only alternative would be if Obama won both Texas and Ohio by very large margins and in all the big delegate districts, something that would, just days ago have seemed impossible. The difference now lies in another interesting detail that emerged from yesterday’s primary. That detail is exit poll data.

Obama put a wedge into the voting blocs that have been, in this campaign season, historically Clinton faithful: older women and Hispanics. Another huge victory for him was the portion of white men who cast their ballot in his favor, all facts noted in a story from ABC’s “Polling Unit.”
Hispanics, though not overwhelmingly, sided with Obama amid suggestions in the media that Latinos would not vote for a black man and were predisposed to vote for Clinton, despite the fact that it is Obama that supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and not Clinton.

The Polling Unit reports, “Obama's overall vote margins in the two states were his widest, outside his home state of Illinois, in any primary where fewer than four in 10 voters were African-Americans. He won women in both states, something he's done outside states with larger black turnout only in Delaware, Iowa and his home state of Illinois. Indeed, in Virginia, Clinton won white women by a scant 6-point margin; he won them by 18 points in Maryland.”

All in all, despite a rocky road that remains ahead, Obama’s victory in the D.C. metro area was noteworthy not just for the hard results that came in but also for the demographics he won. Both of which are facts that should make Hillary Clinton afraid, very afraid.

Really Mitt Romney? Really?

As I predicted in my last post, Mitt Romney has dropped out, oh wait, I mean "suspended" his bid to become president of the United States. You know you have to sympathize on some level with these candidates when their bid fails, even if you don't agree with their values and stance on the issues. They live on little sleep, literally zig zagging across the country making speech after speech and spending, in Romney's case millions of his own fortune just for a few seconds of fame without any of the glory.

However, I currently have more resentment towards Mitt Romney than I did before he dropped out (in all honesty I didn't have any resentment toward him, he was kind of a non-issue in my mind). I was watching his speech where he declared that he would no longer campaign and I was getting visibly and physically angry. This man who gave a form of universal health care to his constituents in Massachusetts (I know because I did a research paper on it) and who presided over the most liberal state in the union now sounds like one of the jihadists he so fervently denounces. Essentially, Mitt (is that even a name? because I thought it was a piece of baseball equipment...) wants to turn America into a place where the poor are left to fend for themselves, while the rich, porn-free, straight-laced and uber-Christian, will bathe in dollar bills. You think I am over-exaggerating like I have a tendency to do, but really his speech makes it sound like this is what he wants.

So much for his talk of change and bringing folks together. It's his way or the highway. When he swoops down in 2012 to "save" the Republican party I wonder if this speech will come back to bite him? End of a political career anyone? Well maybe not the end but I doubt if he would ever be elected in the Northeast anymore or by anyone that isn't a fascist.

I have talked to some Republican friends of mine and even they were surprised at Mitt Romney's pandering to the Limbaugh's and Coulter's of the party, seemingly so they won't get on him like they have been getting on McCain for not being conservative enough.
Granted I have my political views, but I think it is so important for America to have a president that will seek to bring us together. McCain, though not my first choice, would be a solid option because-- although his views on the war aren't in line with my own-- he is someone that realizes the worth of everyone working together rather than setting an agenda that leaves behind half of the American population.

Forget sympathy, good riddance Mitt Romney.

Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly as only he can. Check it out.

Results but No Conclusion

The hype leading up to Super Tuesday is starting to settle down but, as was half-expected, neither party has a clear winner.
Super Tuesday results came rolling in late into the night and early this morning on the east coast. In spite of this fact, the puzzle became no clearer than it had been on less super days.

Here is where everything stands by my analysis:

Republicans are much closer than Democrats to picking a nominee. At least they have a front-runner in John McCain who took a large chunk of the states, especially most of the key winner-take-all states. The big shocker was Huckabee carrying Southern states (I don't care about how optimistic he says he was, he had to have surprised himself) , much- I'm sure- to the chagrin of Mitt Romney. Some people are saying Huckabee is a "spoiler," and he's staying in the race just to take votes away from the former Massachusetts governor (word on the street is Huckabee and McCain are buddies and the Huck-man is looking for a veep nod).
All told, Mitt Romney from my estimations is finished. California is his only flimsy hope, and in my humble opinion, even with that, his chances are slim to none of beating McCain.

On the donkey side, Obama and Clinton are probably more gridlocked than ever before simply because Obama is keeping a steady stride. Obama won more states (including a big fish in Missouri) and more delegates, but the big wins for Hillary (namely California and New York) left them in a virtual tie. The good news for the Obama camp is that the primaries coming up are in states (and a District) that are heavy in B.O. supporters.

So, with no clear end in sight, we will have to continue to wait with bated breath.

For all the primary and caucus results broken down state-by-state, click here.

It Sure Is Super!

"Super" is the word of the week. First there was Super Bowl Sunday and now, tomorrow, is Super Tuesday. For those of you unaware of what kind of super-ness will take place tomorrow- Super Tuesday is a big day in presidential primary season. Over half of all the delegates are up for grabs in elections across 24 states. Usually, the nominee is all but written in stone after this super-duper day (this year may be different given the close races on both sides but that’s a story for a later day).

So given the convenience of the two Super-est days falling so close together I think this is a perfect opportunity for me to take some time to explain my love of politics and maybe win over some converts to the dark side of campaigns and power-seekers.In my last post I paralleled Obama to the Patriots (which I would now like to amend... Obama is like the New York Giants- ahem). I think football, or really sports in general, is a perfect comparison for why everyone should love politics.

Really, when it comes down to it, politics is just a game. “Horserace” coverage is what the insiders call it when the media covers poll data. We are all just choosing the horse we think will win, maybe they’re an underdog with a big pay out or maybe it’s the sure thing with the easy money, but no one ever knows 100% who will cross the line first. To strengthen my argument, the types of elections we hold in the U.S. are referred to as “First Past the Post.” The reason for this is because the person with the most votes wins as opposed to other democracies that use a plurality,- representation by percentage of votes- but when you look at the basis of it one can see that politics is a gamble. It may get ugly sometimes, but if you like to watch a good fight to the top or keep track of the teams throughout the season then you will probably get something out of an election or the struggle to pass a piece of legislation.

What sets politics apart from sports, though, is that you have a say in who wins and loses. Just as important, the impact of a loss or a win for your team and the consequences therein are much more dire and felt for much longer. The New England Patriots just watched a perfect season get stolen with one catch of a ball. They were sent away to lick their wounds, but other then the letdown feeling the players and fans are currently experiencing there are no other repercussions. There is always next season. In politics you can still say, “Well, there is always the next election,” but you have to wait a lot longer. And more than that, at the start of the next football season there is a clean slate. In the beginning of the next election cycle there is the fact that you have to beat an incumbent, a challenge, as most know, in and of itself. Then, if you can win the proverbial Super Bowl, you have to figure out a way to implement your policies and possibly try to undo the policies of the last political champion. Politics is a sport that touches every aspect of your life whether you realize it or not. It determines your taxes (how much or how little), your healthcare (unaffordable for many Americans or available to everyone), your (or your children’s) education, and even if you’re allowed to pump your own gas… everything.

So pay attention people! Learn about the candidates, cast a vote. It’s a game and you control who wins.