Fun Fact #50: Palin is from Alaska? Really?!

Today was a big day in politics. Now, thanks to Palin becoming McCain's running mate, getting either McCain or Obama into the White House will be a historical event. A lot of people have issues with Palin considering her stances on abortion and off-shore drilling. Personally, I think it's an obvious ploy to try to get the disgrunteled Hilary voters and I hope those voters will realize that though Palin is a woman, she might not be the best person to push a lot of the "women's" issues forward. And while it's always nice to see a woman "break the glass ceiling", it's also kind of uncomfortable to realize that the main reason Palin got her position is due to her gender. I don't see how a man with the same experience (or lackthereof) would've even been considered by McCain.

McCain's choice of Palin seemed like it took a lot of the media by surprise. The NYT.com seems to have been going through all their footage of Palin to try and find one that conveys the proper image as their main picture has been changing constantly. They seemed to have settled on one and it's certaintly an intersting choice:


I love how Palin is dwarfed by both the bear carcass she's sitting on and the giant crab in front of her. It's really just such an awkward picture for the NYT to chose, though I guess they could be trying to showcase her Alaska roots. I'm not a fan of Palin, but I think a lot of their earlier picture choices were more appropriate. Maybe, if we're lucky, tomorrow's picture will have her frolicking in the Alaskan wilderness with some huskies and polar bears while wearing an Eskimo outfit!! Because what could get more Alaksan than that?!

Fun Fact #29: Politics can be utterly confusing

I don't really know what I think should happen with politics. Things are really messed up right now and I cannot imagine anyone coming in and making everything "all better". People talk about the Clinton days as though they were the best times ever, the glory days of our recent political history. But people were complaining and bitching about things then too, politics was just as dirty and fake then as it is now. The Clinton days just look good relative to what Bush has done.

I think the vast majority of Democrats would be more than content with either Obama or Hilary, but I think they're also going to be disappointed. People are expecting huge changes and, as you say Gabe says, that's just not going to happen. Massive changes, the kinds people are are naively demanding and even thinking are going to happen, are way more of a risk than any politician will be willing to take. Big changes can be met with success but they can also be be met with total failure.

People say that Obama is not part of the "political elite" and his presence will shake things up, but I think that's total bullshit. He may not have started as a member of the "elite" but he sure is one now. He's smart and he knows our country wants an "outsider" but that he needs to be an insider to be elected. There's no way the Washington power players would be willing to accept someone like him if he wasn't going to play by their rules. Politics is all about playing the game correctly and Obama has proven to be a master at that with vague statements that provide assurance and hope but no actual promises or plans.

Democrats will get the same outcome with either Hilary or Obama. They'll be happy with finally having a Democrat as president for awhile but soon their hopes for something different will be crushed and they'll realize it's the same as always. Our country goes through cycles; right now we're in a downswing and people will get all excited when the economy inevitably picks up again whoever is in office will be praised and glorified. But our economy will start to falter again and then that person will be vilified.

Also, people seem to think that the President holds more power than he (or she?) actually does. The President is the figurehead of our country, the actual power lies in the cabinet that they pick and the officials that they appoint. And Hilary and Obama will probably be drawing their choices from the same, small pool of Democratic elites.

I would like to see changes, like some form of universal healthcare, but I just don't know how possible they are. The universal health care thing seems to be more of a dream than a reality and I will be amazed if it actually happens. It will take an amazing amount of compromise between all the key political players to even get something feasible on the table.

People often ask me what I would do and how I would change things, but, the truth is, I really have no idea. I don't even know much things can be changed. I don't even know if I like Hilary or Obama better. I really like following politics but it's not because I'm passionate about one candidate or another, I do it because I like watching the "game" that politics have become.

Fun Fact #26: There's an obession with being "PC"

I've always been a news junkie and I like being informed of what's happening around me. The news for the past days has either been focused on the recession we are probably entering (or, according to some sources, already entered) or the current primaries. Economics isn't really my strong point, so I tend to focus more on the political side of things. Though those are admittedly tied together as voters realize that, once again, "It's the economy, stupid".

But while all the candidates are trying to explain how they'll fix the economy, Obama and Hilary have also been engaged in mudslinging fight against each other. They've each brought up the issues of race and sex, and, though they claim they want to focus on the issues, the personal attacks don't look like they're stopping.

The Weekly Standard, a neo-con magazine, printed an article entitled The Wages of Sensitivity. I don't usually read The Weekly Standard, as I find their ultra-conservative rhetoric too extreme, but this article touches on some interesting points about the Hilary v. Obama battle we're currently witnessing.

The article argues that the Clinton's helped define the political correctness in the 1990s that now defines much of the party's rhetoric, but they're being forced to undermine their own ideals in this current race. As the article states:

"In its campaign season from hell, the party of sensitivity has found itself in a head-banging brawl between a black man and white woman, each of them visibly loathing the other, in a situation in which anything said in opposing one of the candidates can be defined as hateful, insensitive, hurtful, demeaning, not to say bigoted, and, worst of all, mean."

I don't agree with everything the article says, but it's a good read that deftly analyzes the cut-throat atmosphere of the Democratic primaries among both the candidates and their supporters. All in all, it seems that people can, and will, take offense to almost any comment if they realize it can benefit.

Fun Fact #24: I don't want to get burned

The upcoming election has caused a lot of attention to be focused on my generation, the Millennials (ages 18-29), as we make about 20% of the registered voters. People are saying that our participation in the election could make or break a candidate like Obama. And while that is certainly a notable fact, I find the articles that seek to analyze the various attributes of the Millennials to be far more interesting. I like to compare the overall analysis of the group to myself and other Millennials that I know; it's almost like reading a horoscope, some parts seem right on but other parts just are just painfully off base or seem like idealistic thinking.

One of the better articles I've read was one MSNBC, "'Youthquake' Shakes Up Electoral Politics". I personally feel that the article does a nice job of looking at the various anxieties that seem to shape our generations views. People often wonder why our generation is not taking to the streets to protest the war, but I think that the lack of extreme protesting (at least relative to the social movements of the '60s) can be partially attributed to the growing focus on domestic problems that we're just watching get worse. We've seen our parents get burned by the economy and we don't want that to happen to us. These excerpts from the article summed up a lot my personal feelings about the current state of affairs.

They grew up during the greatest period of wealth creation in modern history, but watched their elders consume resources and run up deficits as if the party would never end. Then came the dot-com crash, terrorism, war, climate change. Epic uncertainty informs their world view. When asked to name the issues they care most deeply about, bread-and-butter concerns such as the economy, health care, and education routinely rank high.

As the government and employers shift more responsibility for benefits like health care and retirement onto the shoulders of individuals, many Millennials see themselves as unwitting victims. Although that trend has been building for decades, this may be the first generation to fully feel the great shift of risk in their bones.

Millennials, like many Americans, may have lost faith in the political Establishment, but they have utter faith in themselves and their wiki-inspired abilities to get things done.

People often ask me why I'm so "obsessed" with getting everything done so quickly and taking the most practical route (often at the expense of something more fun or exciting). A lot of people with a year to kill will travel Europe or do something exciting, I chose to work for a real estate company in Pittsburgh where I'd make good money but live a dull life. The article above discussed many of my reasons.

I've watched people get burned when they're too idealistic. I believe that I can achieve my dreams, but my dreams are based in reality. I'm not pretending that I could magically become a Supreme Court Justice, that just isn't in my reality. I want to do great things in my life, but everything is just so full of uncertainty.

People jokingly mock me for saying that I'd be willing to work for various "evil corporations", but I totally would assuming they offered me a benefits package and salary that would allow me the financial security that seems to be becoming more and more of rarity in today's world.

I consider myself to be a Democrat. I believe the health care and educational systems in our country are in dire need of repair and that we need to do something to revive the middle class. But I also believe we need to watch out for our own well-being because it looks like we're not going to have anything to fall back on but ourselves when the going gets tough.

Fun Fact #3: We have really only known a Bush or Clinton in the White House

I'm still relatively friendless out here, so this blog is one of the only ways for me to share my "fun facts" with people. I've tried with my grandmother, but she's pretty hard of hearing and it basically resorted to me shouting random facts at her.

I have plenty of time at work to cement my status as a "news junkie" since my job has me attached to the computer for much of the day. I read this article, which I've linked to at the bottom, in "The Economist" a few weeks ago and a certain section has stuck with me. The article concerns Hilary Clinton and devotes a lot of time to analyzing the gender gap among her supporters and her of becoming president.

But the key quote, for me at least, wasn't about the gender gap, but was the following statistic: "Over 100 million Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House," suggesting that "American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organized around semi-royal families."

It's an obvious fact when one looks at the presidential record, but it never really hit me until now. I know that Reagan was in office when I was born, but the only presidents that I truly remember are either a Bush or Clinton. And it increasingly looks like this trend is going to continue.

Obama continues to falter in the polls and the Republicans are struggling to find a candidate that the entire party could support. I personally believe that Giuliani is the only candidate that could beat Clinton in the national arena. I think he could easily siphon off enough liberal votes, especially against somethings as divisive as Clinton/Obama ticket (which many people are predicting), to take the White House. But a lot of Republicans don't even like Giuliani and the likelihood of him winning the Republican primaries is in no way a sure thing.

But then again, I really have no idea how this election is going to turn out. All of the front-runners have a potential major political liability attached to them. Clinton is a woman, Obama is black, Edwards will forever be associated with failed Kerry campaign, Romney is Mormon, Giuliani is socially liberal in a lot of regards, and McCain (who can barely qualify as front-runner these days)comes across as a flip-flopper.

Politics have always both fascinated and repulsed me. I would never pretend to be an expert in regards to them, but they're always interesting and make me think.

Article Link: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9904609