WHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

After staying up until 5 am to see Obama's victory safely sealed, I slept through class until noon. When I woke up, the first thing I did was watch his victory speech, which made me cry. How incredible! Looking at all of the pictures from the rally made me wish I had been back in Chicago for the election, but I also noticed something else. All of the young people in the pictures were smiling and shouting, but the older people were crying. For them, this has been a long saga from the Civil Rights Movement to what many people are already calling a "post-racial America" and Obama's election is the culmination of a long, hard-fought battle for equality. At the same time, I was disappointed to see that my home state passed the ban on gay marriage. I couldn't believe that so many people had voted for something so clearly discriminatory at the same time that they marked their ballots for the first black president of the United States. It made me realize that, just as racial prejudice was the storyline of our parents' generation, homosexuality will likely have its own version of the Civil Rights Movement during our generation's lifetime. Think about it: almost all of us know people who are gay and have little problem with their sexual orientation, and many of us are for gay rights such as the right to marriage even though it doesn't affect us personally; meanwhile, people among the generations of our parents and grandparents are often the ones holding most tightly to anti-gay prejudices, just as their parents and grandparents clung to racism and fought the inevitable progress of civil rights for African Americans. Just some food for thought, I guess, on such an historic day.

In the meantime, I'm excited to see what the response will be in Spain. I already know what my uber-conservative (and pretty racist) senora is going to say. But I'd like to see what normal people are thinking and how this election might already be changing some opinions of America over here in Europe.

somewhere karl rove and dick cheney are celebrating

Ugh, this upcoming election has gotten even more frustrating and annoying than it was during that endless primary season. It's making me really glad that I'll be leaving the country tomorrow to study in Spain for the next three months. Besides the fact that Sarah Palin's voice is about the most grating, irritating sound in the entire world, she keeps repeating the same stump speech full of false assertions and dodging the issues entirely. Meanwhile, an old and bumbling John McCain keeps thumbs-upping (remind you of anyone?), riding the Palin wave, and flying under the radar (maybe he should have tried that tactic to avoid getting CAPTURED in Vietnam... ok that was bad of me, but come on, the man crashed like four airplanes. And none of that is relevant to his ability to govern). And now they've even hijacked Obama's change mantra, which simply does not apply to either McCain or Palin as the media has continued to reveal and the masses have continued to ignore. As his own campaign aide said, this election isn't about the issues; it's about personality.

You would think the American people would be smart enough to see through this facade. All the facts are staring Americans in the face: the scandals and ties to lobbyists, the voting records, the failed tax policies that promise relief to the very wealthiest and none to the middle and lower classes, the guarantee of continued Bush-Cheney policies on everything from the Iraq War to the economy, the skillful avoidance of discussing the actual issues. How can the Democrats even run an intelligent campaign when the opponent fails to engage? It's like trying to have a debate with someone who responds to every jab by sticking out his (or, more likely in this case, her) tongue and making googly eyes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans lack the interest and attention spans for politics and fail to truly consider the issues beyond the political charades. Personally, I blame this at least partially on the ridiculously long electoral process that leaves everyone mentally exhausted and tired of politics long before the election takes places. If I'm completely tired of hearing about Obama and McCain, there can't be much hope that the majority of Americans haven't hit the proverbial mute button. Unfortunately, Rove-ian politics work wonders in a situation like that, and the McCain campaign is banking on the fact that most Americans don't care enough to really think about this historical decision. They're banking on ignorance, stupidity, and carelessness to get people to vote against their own interests. By focusing on babies, God, and hockey moms, the McCain campaign has effectively diverted attention away from the real issues. And that seems to work.

If McCain wins this election, Americans deserve for our country to continue the downward spiral of the last eight years. Unfortunately, the enlightened among us will be along for the horrible ride.

michael jackson > barack obama?

According to Newsweek, at least 38.4 million people watched the Democratic National Convention this year, which is an all-time high thus far.

But that's not what caught my attention. I couldn't help but laugh at this line:
"Obama's speech was the fifth-highest-rated, non-sports event watched by blacks in the last 11 years. A 30th anniversary Michael Jackson special on CBS in 2001 was on top."

Hahahahahaha I can just see the journalist who wrote this article cracking up as he snuck that gem into an otherwise standard report...

playing the race card

Clearly, the McCain campaign is getting a little desperate, if that wasn't obvious enough by the recent slew of negative attack ads: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/mccain-campaign-says-obama-is-playing-the-race-card/index.html?hp
Personally, while I admire his moral uprightness or whatever you want to call it, I think it's time Obama started getting a little dirtier, too. I mean, most people are pretty stupid and have trouble discerning fact from fiction, so the fact remains that smear campaigns work pretty well on the masses. But that's neither here nor there. What struck me about this article was this:
"The McCain campaign’s decision to make the charge now that Mr. Obama was playing the 'race card' comes as it has adopted a far more aggressive, negative posture towards Mr. Obama in recent days, trying to tar him as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency with a series of statements by Mr. McCain and a series of negative ads – some of which have been condemned as misleading."

Think they meant to use that word?

why i don't watch network news...

I just spent almost four hours stuffing hundreds of envelopes with issues of SI and Golf, an experience made more miserable by MSNBC's inane news coverage blaring on the TV. I tuned in to catch the end of Obama's press conference in Paris, which was followed by reminder of why I can't stand watching network news (and MSNBC is particularly bad; at least FOX is funny to watch due to its laughably blatant bias and some of the ridiculous things that come out of its "correspondents'" mouths.)

First, the correspondent kept asking the same question: do you think that Obama's trip overseas will hurt his campaign and show that he is elitist because he's dealing with foreign policy instead of talking about the economy? This question was posed to several interviewees as well as rhetorically, as if asking it ten times would reveal its profound depth and insight. Argh! Even ignoring the leading nature of the question (it calls Obama elitist and questions his connection the American people, and, repeated enough even in question form, drills these ideas into people's heads), it's still stupid content-wise. Obama can't take a one-week hiatus from mourning the economy and promising to fix it (something no president is capable of alone, anyway...) in order to discuss some of the most pressing foreign policy questions facing our nation? America's reputation among the European nations MATTERS-- to our economy and to our future endeavors abroad. What's going on in the Middle East MATTERS-- to our national security, economic interests, and the well-being of the world as a whole. Hearing the MSNBC girl blathering for an hour just made me angry that 1) the majority of Americans are probably too stupid to care about serious issues such as these, and 2) the media is feeding them with idiotic questions like that one instead of informing them on the importance of addressing ALL aspects of the future role of president, including foreign policy.

Next, they moved onto something even more ridiculous in its absurdity: the search for Obama's thesis-like paper from his senior year of college. What? Who cares what he wrote 25 years ago? It's not like it's going to be anything radical, as conservatives are hoping it will be. It's an assignment. No one turns in a fiery, scathing criticism of the government for a major assignment, especially not someone who is interested in a career in law or politics like young Barack. So why bother talking about it? Hypothetically, even if it were inflammatory and inappropriate it was written decades ago, and Obama has certainly had plenty of time to hone his political views since then. Obama's campaign aide was right when he called talking about it a waste of oxygen. Gotta love how the correspondent read that quote while discussing the issue and then continued blabbering on about it for ten more minutes. Kinda wish she had run out of oxygen...

thank you, fareed

Finally someone is tackling the popular notion that Obama's worldview is too naive with intelligent analysis. I've always admired Fareed Zakaria for his political centrism, his unique take on issues of foreign policy and international diplomacy, and his ample yet appropriate incorporation of history in many of his arguments. So, while network news anchors and political pundits spend the slow news days of summer asking the same tired questions about Obama's experience, I prefer to get the unique perspective and smart commentary that is seemingly so rare:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763

I, for one, was baffled by the vehement castigation that Obama received when he proposed a diplomatic approach to the issues in the Middle East. Well, I suppose I wasn't surprised that hawkish conservatives accused him of buddying up with terrorists, more just shocked that so many people ate up such a ridiculous argument. Fareed refers to Obama as a realist, a term more traditionally applied to conservatives until George Bush trumped all semblances of reason with his high-flying--and blind--idealism. While this fits with the media's current storyline (Obama's shift to the political center), it also goes a step further in reaching out to traditional conservatives and foreign policy realists, encouraging them to take a step back from the ideological games and errant tossing around of buzzwords like "democracy" and "terrorism" that too often rule our country's foreign policy decisions. Nothing is simple, and Obama's approach is much more reasonable than the GOP vow to protect America from an imaginary monolithic enemy embodied by conveniently chosen countries (this time, it's Iran that is funding all global terrorism and anti-US hate, apparently, and we should apply some muscle instead of talking...sound familiar?). According to Fareed, "Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths." This is exactly the knowledgeable, reasoned approach that Fareed himself has been advocating for years, and it is one that combines realism and hope rather that idealism and pessimism. And it's exactly what we need.