Life Update

I feel like a perpetual workhorse.

I guess it's not a bad thing. It means I'm generally being productive at any given time (or I'm sleeping things off. Every week after Spring Break, I've had or will have, an exam every Thursday, which is lame). But that also means I'll be having ridic weekends like the one I'm having right now. I took my test Thurs, spent Friday in lab til like 6 PM, came home, ate dinner, papered well into the night, got up this morning to fix the paper and turned it in before the 9AM due-time, and then slept some more. Then I got up at around 10:30, helped out Dr. Field for the Disease Detective Event this week (on Wednesday....I'm really looking forward to it....AMAZING speakers, schools of public health (Hopkins, Emory, UT system, etc. (woo Emory, that's the one out of state school I'm for sure applying to)), free books (literally all of the books being given out are on my summer reading list, how badass is that), graduate school fair, basically my career dreams come true). I'll be working the Public Health Internship booth/volunteering wherever Dr. Field puts me. And I hope to get a chance to chat with a few speakers, like Dr. McCormick and Dr. Sanchez, pretty much my heroes.

So anyways, that was nice, got to have lunch with her, and then helped out a bit in Painter, now I'm sooo sleepy. But, Swing Out interview for DS at 4 (holla), and then I can call it a Saturday/sleep/do something productive. And then get up tomorrow and Capture the Forty Acres is all day, which should be fun as long as I sleep tonight.....

hooray weekends, kinda.

Oh and I also STILL, have NO IDEA what I'm doing this summer and it's DRIVING ME UP THE WALL. I've gotten rejected from one place for not having any international experience, had two interviews last week (one of which I'm not sure went so well...another one was with a Harvard epidemiologist with Partners in Health who works on clinical XDR-TB outcomes (AMAZING! I died talking to her), and then one this Monday. I've kinda decided I think I want to be either in DC or Atlanta. I just really really really hope I get in to SOMETHING. Or, I can always ask Dr. Field to hook me up with the epi Texas-Mexico border health project in Brownsville with Dr. McCormick (but Atlanta/DC>>>>>>Brownsville!)

ughhhhhhhhh

Also, if you haven't noticed from my posts, I'm kinda more obsessed with election politics still, even as much as most of my friends are obsessed with March Madness...can't help myself

strangelings

A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 19 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. McCain in the general election if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. More startling, 28 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama were the nominee.

Weeeeird. Of course, Gallup polls can never be trusted. Asking something about opinions in a Gallup poll is like asking if it's going to rain in eight months.

STupid

"In truth, I don’t expect much from John McCain, who has both admitted not knowing much about economics and denied having ever said that. Anyway, lately he’s been busy demonstrating that he doesn’t know much about the Middle East, either." Um, yeah.

So wait a minute, why hasn't the media been ON this?? Last week John McCain said that Iran was training Al-Qaeda operatives and sending them into Iraq, and good 'ol Joe Lieberman had to point out to him that he was muy incorrecto. And this man wants us in Iraq until the end of time. Great scenario we got here.

Well, Richa, it's because the media is still reeling from Obama's speech on race, (which I really, really enjoyed......but it is, of course, infusing race into the election (almost to the point where I feel like many individuals, of all races, are just DYING to vote for Obama because he's black), which it's totally detracting from ISSUES yet again.....which is again and again the most frustrating thing about this entire primary.....absolutely. NO. focus. on. policies. whatsoever.....).

So the speech was awesome, even if it did turn race into an even bigger issue in the election. But what it also did, was spark Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama. James Carville (one of my favorites) makes me laugh: "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing if appropriate is ironic."

Wowwww, didn't the Clintons, like, make his career? Oh well. An Obamaphile is an Obamaphile is an Obamaphile. OR, Richardson is vying for that VP spot, and he was like "Oops Hillary is losing this, and damn, Obama says some good stuff about race, and I want VP, so time for an endorsement, sorry Hillary, ADIOS CHICA."
In other words, I have an inkling that Bill Richardson, since he (and all of us) know that Obama is virtually going to be the nominee, made this endorsement because he wants Obama to consider him for VP.

We'll see what happens. In the mean time, I continue to hate on the media, and it's style of either overlooking McCain's blunders or ignoring the things that should be important on the policy front. And for Hillary, things are looking more and more dismal every day, even though she definitely won't back out before Pennsylvania, and I'm not sure that she will even after that, which is just going to prolong this entire parade.

I love it when stuff I'm writing about pops up in the news

Yeah. 100%. This editorial is totally what my paper for my grad class at the school of public health is on. How awesome is that. And a huge chunk of it: "why abstinence-only interventions DO NOT WORK." Ahem dear Bushie. Ok, so yes President Bush has done a few good things for Africa. He really has. I admire him for what he's done with PEPFAR, and that needs to be said. He's done good, in his last-ditch attempt to leave some sort of legacy as his time (thankfully) comes to an end. Yes, I just said I admire W for something.

BUT not distributing condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, not giving people access to contraceptives and only promoting abstinence is reeeally not his brightest idea.
Face the research, Bushie . . . it DOESN'T work.

And I'm getting my HPV vaccine. As mandated and paid for by my crazy mother who tells me story after story after story about all the cervical cancer/STD nightmares she gets to see everyday. Yeah, literally, see. Scary things. Merck will get my dinero.

Not that I'm sexually active, you sillies!!

Anywho read:

Editorial

One in Four Girls

Published: March 17, 2008

Teenage girls and their parents need to read the latest government study of sexually transmitted diseases. The infections are so prevalent they are hard to avoid once a girl becomes sexually active. One in four girls ages 14 to 19 is infected with at least one of four common diseases. Among African-American girls in the study, almost half were infected.

The data, drawn from a sample of 838 girls who participated in a broad national survey in 2003-4, was presented last week by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By far the most common of the four S.T.D.’s was the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which infected 18 percent of the girls. Chlamydia infected 4 percent, trichomoniasis — a common parasite — 2.5 percent, and genital herpes 2 percent.

The study did not look at such feared diseases as H.I.V./AIDS, syphilis or gonorrhea, but the four it did look at are worrisome enough. Although most HPV infections cause no symptoms and clear the body in less than a year, persistent HPV can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. S.T.D.’s can cause infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and other painful symptoms.

It will not be easy for sexually active teenagers to avoid any danger. Even among girls who said they had had only a single sexual partner, 20 percent were infected. With more than three million teenage girls infected, it is imperative to find ways to protect others.

The new findings strengthen the case for providing HPV vaccine to young girls and for regular screening of sexually active girls to detect infection. There is also a clear need to strengthen programs in sex education. Exhortations to practice abstinence go only so far.

Teenage girls who are sexually active need access to contraceptives and counseling. They need to understand that the numbers are against them and that a serious infection is but a careless sexual encounter away.

____________________________________________

Ugh, whatever

The way this entire Democratic primary has been working out is making me frustrated, at both Clinton's and Obama's campaigns, and at the media.

The way the whole process has played out has been disappointing. Both sides have said things about the other that make me cringe. Some things that candidates have said have made me wish that campaign aides had said them rather than the candidates themselves, and some things campaign aides have said make me wish they never said them at all. That holds for both sides. These only obscure the issues at hand, the very crucial issues upon which voters ought to be basing their decisions at polls.

Moreover, I feel like the Democratic party is extremely divided right now (as in, Obama supporters wouldn't rally behind Hillary, and Hillary supporters wouldn't rally behind Obama), and that is really troubling. And these allegiances, these stubborn loyalties, are becoming more than ever a matter of personal pride. Nevermind that the two candidates have essentially the same political platform, that they're both centered liberals. Again, this applies to supporters of both candidates. It makes me so incredibly frustrated to hear people say that they'd vote for McCain over Hillary, or even to hear Hillary people say they'd vote for McCain over Obama. The differences between McCain and Clinton/Obama are so ideologically fundamental, that I don't understand how people can support either Clinton OR Obama (only one or the other) as their first choice and place McCain as second in front of whoever the other Democratic candidate may be, without feeling like a total hypocrite. It's clear that in these cases, such supporters on both sides don't care about anything beyond personal pride and hero-worship. Obviously they don't care about the actual issues that distinguish the two Democratic candidates from John McCain. And this is something I find really threatening, come the general election.

In spite of all this, I still support the candidate I've supported all along. I've endorsed Hillary Clinton ever since the very first few debates aired, when I started researching the candidates. And that's when the knowledge gap that exists between Clinton and Obama became apparent to me. For me, those first debates really left an impression. Hillary would routinely sweep the floor with her command of the issues, with explanations of her policies and a texture of knowledge and substantive detail that Obama's explanations simply lacked. Granted, Obama has been getting better about this in recent debates and rallies, and he's an inspirational speaker. But at the end of the day, being president isn't about empty rhetoric and talking about change all the time. It's about having the personal knowledge to make your own decisions and act with sound judgment, rooted in that knowledge, consulting with advisers as necessary (but not completely relying on them because you have no experience yourself (a la George W)). And for me, picking the nominee should be based on those kinds of qualities, and on the very slight differences in policy and platform between the two, which when I look at, Hillary clearly comes out on top. These are important to me. Not the way they've conducted their campaign, not who is more "likeable," not how the media has portrayed them, not based on whatever crap their aides or loudmouth fundraisers throw at each other, as stupid and unwarranted as some of their statements may be (Geraldine Ferraro should have known way better than say something super idiotic like that).

Of course, it never works out that way, and this is where I differ from most people who find those things all important to them.

And so, Obama will be the Democratic nominee, I'm almost positive. And that's ok, because I don't believe in sacrificing the ideologies that I believe in for hero-worship or personal pride. But until Hillary claims defeat, I am completely behind her.

Ugh, how many days 'til April 22nd?

Gloria Steinem's got some things right

A few things first--I'm no hard-line feminist. I am totally all about women in powerful positions and that's something I've been exposed to my entire life (from my mom, of course, who is the breadwinner of the family, and really, the "man" of the family in the traditional sense both at home, and in her profession . . . I'll post an article a local magazine wrote on her later, I'm so proud of her/she's the most amazing person in the world . . .). Anywho, while I think a lot of people would call me sorta stubbornly independent and while I'm all about women in high profile roles, I'm not a femin-nazi and never have been (and don't think I've ever come off as one!).

But I think that Steinem points out a couple harsh truths. Sexism seems more of a factor than race does in general, and in this election. Americans have typically said in polls that they are less willing to vote for a woman than a black man. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in '72, always said that she encountered more prejudice because of her sex than her race. What Steinem says reflects these notions and really shows the extent to which women are held up to double standards. She says "there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what." A bitch. Or people say she's not the "right" woman for presidency, because of the bitch factor or because of the baggage she carries (i.e. former president Bill). And she's right when she points out that this country is one that "polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy." You look at democracies all around the world, and a female president or prime minister is nothing revolutionary at all, from Benazir Bhutto to Margaret Thatcher to Indira Gandhi.

Just to be fair though, the same argument might be said about electing minorities to high public policy positions. Even though sexism is more of an issue for the American public than racism, racial roles are definitely more polarized than the average democracy as well. I know I keep going back to India, but it's such a good example. In India, you've had prime ministers that have been Hindu, that have been Sikh, that have been Muslim. Still, Steinem points out some of the distinctions between Clinton and Obama and how gender and race, have treated the respective candidates. It's kinda sad.

There's something though, that Hillary said that made me cringe a lot. When I read that she vehemently denied that Obama was a Muslim, and then added as an afterthought, or maybe it was subconscious, "as far as I know," I definitely cringed. She shouldn't have said that. Both she and John McCain should be above that and both denounce (and reject, hahah I'm so funny) all the accusations and pointed racial slurs that Obama's been facing from wherever, whether its Repubs calling him "Hussein" or what not. I also cringed when Hillary essentially said that McCain would better handle national security than Obama would with that statement on experience. Beyond these few slip-ups though, I think Clinton is playing her cards right by running an aggressive and "dirtier" campaign than Obama is. The criticism directed from Obama's camp to Hillary's has definitely just been coming from some pretty bad statements made from his advisers. So it's working both ways. But Hillary's not so pure campaign isn't anything out of the ordinary. It's how politicians traditionally have done things. And unlike Obama, Hillary hasn't made any promises to run a totally clean campaign so it doesn't hurt her to not do so, while it would hurt Obama if he started being a bit meaner (and he has been a bit meaner, especially his campaign advisers, and I have a feeling that he's going to have to start getting meaner, which may hurt him). Why would he have to? Well, Hillary's playing this way because it works. Americans can be not so smart sometimes and will definitely buy into her direct attacks on him. Plus there's nothing wrong with her highlighting contrasts between the two. While she shouldn't have made the kind of statements I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, everything else she's doing is legit. And the bigger question to ask, is whose tactic is actually working?? Texas and Ohio go to show that apparently, hers is. Now that the media are becoming a little more conscious on how they're portraying Hillary, in light of the SNL stuff (which was a godsend for her and a wake up call for the press), and now that Obama's camp has sort of been flinging around stuff like the NAFTA thing (telling Canada that Obama as president really wasn't going to do what he said he was going to do in the campaign), the Powers incident (who foolishly said "Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan was merely a “best-case scenario,”") and other things, these have been working in her favor as well, and maybe her campaign style just goes to show that she's tough. And you can't deny that she's tough. But she's a woman, so she HAS to be tough!! MoDowd's got some stuff right too (for once. only some stuff though. She, unlike Krugman, has made it a point to bash Hillary like crazy in the past. Krugman just talks about why Hillary's more qualified, no Obama bashing.): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09dowd.html?th&emc=th

Anywho, as I've said before I don't support either candidate because of the way they run their campaign. They're both running their campaigns well within the norms of how politicians wage their campaigns and have done nothing out of the ordinary. Whatever. It doesn't matter to me. What matters to me, and I sound like a broken record, are the issues, her more substantive knowledge of policy points, her healthcare plan, her qualifications.

And back to the article. Unlike Gloria Steinem, I don't support Hillary because she's a woman. If she was a white male Protestant, I'd support her just the same because of the issues and values she stands for, and her background.

______________________________________________________

Op-Ed Contributor

Women Are Never Front-Runners

By GLORIA STEINEM

Published: January 8, 2008

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

I should really just turn this blog over to Paul Krugman

Op-Ed Columnist

The Anxiety Election

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 7, 2008

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

Democrats won the 2006 election largely thanks to public disgust with the Iraq war. But polls — and Hillary Clinton’s big victory in Ohio — suggest that if the Democrats want to win this year, they have to focus on economic anxiety.

Some people reject that idea. They believe that this election should be another referendum on the war, and, perhaps even more important, about the way America was misled into that war. That belief is one reason many progressives fervently support Barack Obama, an early war opponent, even though his domestic platform is somewhat to the right of Mrs. Clinton’s.

As an early war opponent myself, I understand their feelings. But should and ought don’t win elections. And polls show that the economy has overtaken Iraq as the public’s biggest concern.

True, the news from Iraq will probably turn worse again. Meanwhile, a hefty majority of voters continue to say that the war was a mistake, and people are as angry as ever about the $10 billion a month wasted on the neocons’ folly.

Yet for the time being, public optimism about Iraq is rising: 53 percent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals. So anger about the war isn’t likely to be decisive in the election.

The state of the economy, on the other hand, could well give Democrats a huge advantage — especially, to be blunt about it, with white working-class voters who supported President Bush in 2004.

Even at its best, the Bush economy left most voters unimpressed: only once, in January 2007, did a slight majority of those questioned by the USA Today/Gallup poll describe the economy as “excellent” or “good,” rather than “only fair” or “poor.” A year later, only 19 percent of voters had a good word for the economy.

This collapse in economic confidence has occurred even though the full economic effects of the implosion of the housing market and the freezing of the credit markets have yet to be felt. As more things fall apart, perceptions will only get worse.

All of this should work to the Democrats’ advantage. They can contrast the Clinton boom with the Bush bust; they can make the case that Republican economic ideology, with its fixation on privatization and deregulation, helped get us into this mess.

And John McCain can be ridiculed as a man who has declared on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — only to insist, straight-talker that he is, that he never said any such thing.

But first, of course, the Democrats have to settle on a nominee. And the shift in electoral focus from Iraq to economic anxiety clearly plays to Mrs. Clinton’s strengths.

According to exit polls, Mr. Obama narrowly edged out Mrs. Clinton among Ohio voters who consider Iraq the most important issue — but these voters cast only 19 percent of the ballots in the Democratic primary. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton led by 12 points among the much larger group of voters citing the economy as the most important issue — and by 16 points among those who cited health care. Mrs. Clinton’s winning margin was twice as large among those who were worried about their own financial situation as among those who weren’t.

Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care — which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security — there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger.

More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique — his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure — has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he’s interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things. Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them — but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country’s problems.

And Mr. Obama’s attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere — an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual.

Thanks to Tuesday’s results, the nomination fight will go on to Pennsylvania in April, and probably beyond — and rightly so. It’s now clear that Mrs. Clinton, like Mr. Obama, has strong grass-roots support that cannot be simply brushed aside without alienating voters that the party will badly need in November. So the Democratic National Committee had better get moving on plans to do Michigan and Florida over, to give the eventual nominee the legitimacy he or she needs.

And, as the Democrats ponder their choices, they might want to consider which candidate can most convincingly ask: “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?”

__________________________________________________________
Sometimes, I feel like I'm the only person I know who just looks at the little slight ISSUES that distinguish the two, their qualifications, and their command of these issues and specific policy points in debates and otherwise. And that's what I've based my decision to support Hillary on. Not on the way they've run their campaigns or the slander they or their aides throw on each other (it's politics, people. you have to be mean, get OVER it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?th&emc=th), not on personality, not on who's more likeable and less polarizing. And I think that this is where I differ from most of my pro-Obama friends, who seem to always constantly emphasize those latter three qualities. These just aren't as important to me! Am I wrong to place too much value on qualifications and policy points and their knowledge and command of the issues?? I can't help it! It's what I feel most strongly about when looking at a President. And I think it's why I find Krugman's Op-Eds so refreshing. Krugman is an economist. He looks at policy, and can match that with the issues important to America today, and with the candidates' understanding of them. Hillary waited until she was ready to run for President. While she could have run in 2004 (and, according to an article I read in the Atlantic Monthly, would have handidly defeated all presidential hopefuls at the time), she waited out another four productive, if unglamorous, years in the Senate so that she'd have the keen understanding of issues that she has today, which has been reflected in that texture of knowledge that comes out when she speaks about her policies, since day one.

I also think, that another point on which I differ with a lot of my pro-Obama friends is the degree to which I dislike the other candidate. Explanation. Well, I wouldn't be devastated with Obama for a president, even if I think he's best as Hillary's VP. I think he would do a good job. He can rely on experienced people to make up for his lack in that department and eventually he'll gain that knowledge and command of issues that Hillary has now (you can see his slight improvement in recent debates, even). BUT Obama supporters, it seems, are shy to say that they would rally their support for Hillary if she becomes the nominee. And this disturbs me. If Obama supporters care about Democratic Party ideals and, as Krugman said, "care anything beyond hero-worship," they better damn well support her, and vote accordingly. We'll see if it comes down to this, but Obama supporters....keep that in mind!

Does anyone read my blog?? I'm sure TONS of people wholeheartedly disagree with everything I (and Krugman) say!! If so, SPEAK UP!!! I think I only have this blog because it makes me feel better to write my opinions out, especially those opinions that I tell people around me, who subsequently and irritatingly just ignore whatever I say or block it out and forget it.

The Dream Ticket

A Clinton-Obama ticket would make me EXPLODE with happiness.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/clinton-hints-at-shared-ticket/

Note: CLINTON-Obama. Not the other way around!!
YES YES YES!!!

I'm going ape shit

Ok first of all I found this thing:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/john-mccain-ent.html

And I quote from it:
"At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment."

WTF John McCain. wtf. Way to totally disregard the scientific community and medical establishment's views. Speaking as a student in public health, this kind of statement is appalling and only goes to perpetuate misconceptions that the science has dispelled. Misconceptions that are causing parents to not frickin vaccinate their damn kids against diseases we SHOULDN'T be seeing in the developed world.

So, it's 9:55 PM Texas time, and according to CNN, Obama and Hillary are deadlocked 49/49 in our great Lone Star State. Obama has Vermont, Hillary has Rhode Island and OHIO (HOLLA!!). Insane in the membrane.

No matter what happens tonight, if McCain becomes 44th president of the United States, I will cry. And then proceed to kill a cute furry animal. Not just because of this vaccine statement (although that makes me even more irate), but because of other fundamental differences we have as well, which should be apparent if you read this blog. (Does anyone read this blog?? I doubt it . . .)

Oh well, back to staring at CNN. (And screaming for Hillary. And ignoring the fact that I have two exams on Thursday).

I swear to god, me and Paul Krugman have the same brain...

Op-Ed Columnist

Deliverance or Diversion?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 3, 2008

After their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections, it seemed a given that Democrats would try to make this year’s presidential campaign another referendum on Republican policies. After all, the public appears fed up not just with President Bush, but with his party. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows Democrats are preferred on every issue except terrorism. They even have a 10-point advantage on “morality.”

Add to this the fact that perceptions about the economy are worsening week by week, and one might have expected the central theme of the Democratic campaign to be “throw the bums out.”

But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election.

Unless Hillary Clinton wins big on Tuesday, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And he’s not at all the kind of candidate one might have expected to emerge out of the backlash against Republican governance.

Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.

But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity.

That — along with his adoption of conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care — is why Mr. Obama’s rise has caused such division among progressive activists, the very people one might have expected to be unified and energized by the prospect of finally ending the long era of Republican political dominance.

Some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken: they wanted another F.D.R., yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead.

Others, however, insist that Mr. Obama’s message of hope and his personal charisma will yield an overwhelming electoral victory, and that he will implement a dramatically progressive agenda.

The trouble is that faith in Mr. Obama’s transformational ability rests on surprisingly little evidence.

Mr. Obama’s ability to attract wildly enthusiastic crowds to rallies is a good omen for the general election; so is his ability to raise large sums. But neither necessarily points to a landslide victory.

Polling numbers aren’t much help: for now, at least, you can find polls telling you anything you want to hear, from the CBS News/New York Times poll giving Mr. Obama a 12-point national advantage over John McCain to the Mason-Dixon poll showing Mr. McCain winning Florida by 10 points.

What we do know is that Mr. Obama has never faced a serious Republican opponent — and that he has not yet faced the hostile media treatment doled out to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.

Yes, I know that both the Obama campaign and many reporters deny that he has received more favorable treatment than Hillary Clinton. But they’re kidding, right? Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”

If Mr. Obama secures the nomination, the honeymoon will be over as he faces an opponent whom much of the press loves as much as it hates Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton can do nothing right, Mr. McCain can do nothing wrong — even when he panders outrageously, he’s forgiven because he looks uncomfortable doing it. Honest.

Bob Somerby of the media-criticism site dailyhowler.com predicts that Mr. Obama will be “Dukakised”: “treated as an alien, unsettling presence.” That sounds all too plausible.

If Mr. Obama does make it to the White House, will he actually deliver the transformational politics he promises? Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else.

And some Illinois legislators apparently feel that even there Mr. Obama got a bit more glory than he deserved. “No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit,” one state senator complained to a local journalist.

All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart.

________________________________________________________

Take Home Points:
1. Obama is no more liberal than Hillary.
2. If people think Obama isn't going to be polarizing, isn't going to get eaten alive by Republicans, or isn't going to start getting shit from the press, then people have got some SERIOUS misconceptions.
3. Hillary has been getting a disproportionate amount of bad press, whether about her past, her "bitch" persona, everything. You can't deny that. Even frickin SNL has pointed that out, and rightfully so. And it's because she has a history, Obama doesn't. She's aggressive, Obama is charismatic. No matter that she has a better command of issues, or better qualifications.
4. Hillary still has the clear upper hand in healthcare, which is a progressive agenda item I value tremendously.
5. This Democratic primary is totally based on personality, not their slight policy differences, not their qualifications, not their command of issues. And if Obama wins tomorrow (which is my gut feeling that he will), it will have been totally based on that, (personality), and that makes me depressed and wish that America would look beyond Obama's pretty face and smooth talk.
6. I can't believe tomorrow is March 4th. aaaaaaaahhh
7. I don't know why I'm blogging right now, I have tests to study for. ugh.