Two in-depth pieces hit cyberspace ahead of the long weekend and they are a study in contrasts.
One, from Vanity Fair, focuses on the infighting in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. A cross between bad Shakespeare and well…more bad Shakespeare, it’s a telling look at the ultimate demise of the junior senator from New York.
The other is a long profile story from the New York Times magazine on legendary AM talker Rush Limbaugh. Interesting reading on two of the most divisive figures in American politics.
Kelley Quinn, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Office of Management and Budget called me Friday about this editorial. She characterized it as “frustrating.” Come to think of it, so do I.
Anyway, she mentioned that Illinois First Lady Patti Blagojevich has been a big supporter of 4-H in the state. As mentioned in the editorial, 4-H is one of the programs that is in serious jeopardy because of the governor’s threats to University of Illinois Extension office funding. I asked Quinn what the First Lady thought about this. Quinn said she didn’t know and that the two haven’t even met. That’s fair enough I suppose, but surely that might be a pretty relevant question to ask, especially considering that the First Lady got a degree in economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Turns out I’m not the first to think this. From Sharon Mosley via The Herald & Review:
University of Illinois Extension Unit Leader Jim Looft asked the board to support a letter writing campaign to urge Gov. Rod Blagojevich to return $12.5 million to the Extension budget. Shelby County’s share of that money is $82,000 and without it, Looft said Extension would not be able to stay open in Shelby County.
“Our future has a lifecycle, and I can tell you it won’t be long,” he said.
Looft said 4-H families, farmers and members of its HCE program also would be contacted to urge Blagojevich to release the funds.
“The governor has done this sort of thing before and backed down, but we don’t know if he’ll back down in this case,” he said.
The board noted that First Lady Patti Blagojevich has been active in encouraging 4-H participation throughout the state.
“Perhaps we should contact her,” Amling said.
“I’m sure it couldn’t hurt,” Looft agreed. “But without this money you won’t see 4-H at the State Fair, something she has taken an active interest in.”
This past Tuesday, my roommate and I were sitting in our room when we heard a sudden knock on our door. “Come in,” I said. Suddenly, the door swung open. Two students, who looked to be a year or two older than me, walked in. “Have you voted yet?” the taller one asked. Thinking of the on-line ballot I completed just moments before their arrival, I proudly replied, “Yes.”
“Great, who did you vote for for student trustee?” the taller one prodded. “Isn’t that supposed to be private” I thought to myself; however, I hesitantly replied, “Rob Main.” “That’s great,” he replied, “because you do know that the other candidate has never had a drink, smoked, or kissed a girl. And he’s trying to shorten winter vacation.” Quickly, after noticing that my roommate and I weren’t buying into their hardball antics, the two Main supporters left our room, leaving me speechless.
When having slander being leveled against them, it is important to give a candidate the benefit of the doubt. In the case of Paul Schmitt, he wasn’t there to defend himself; and until I hear it from his mouth, never will I believe that he wants to shorten winter vacation. Moreover, unless the personal life of a candidate directly affects his or her ability to facilitate action, never should we bother ourselves with it. If anything, fretting about a candidate’s personal life only distracts us from what really matters: the wellbeing of our university and our country.
I was browsing the Web, when I ran across a neat mini-series called Purple States. The series is run by the New York Times, and it documents the stories of five everyday Americans as they criss-cross the country covering the 2008 primary season. Each of the series’ subjects represent a key primary state (Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and California), and, more importantly, each subject portrays a different facet of American society.
During each episode — which is no longer than ten minutes — two or three of the Purple State subjects grapple with an issue that is both directly affecting their lives and currently being debated by the 2008 presidential candidates. I will warn you; the series is a bit out-dated, being that the majority of it was filmed throughout the weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. However, the topics of each episode and what the subjects have to say about them are still relevant.
In a blog I posted February 1st, I argued that Obama and Clinton must not settle for a VP position; for if they did, the Democratic Party would not reach the “pinnacle of its political potential.” Instead, I suggested that either Clinton or Obama, depending on who wins their party’s nomination, take a cabinet position, while the former senator from North Carolina and former Democratic presidential candidtate, John Edwards, fills the role of VP.
Now, I still stand by this strategy; however, after reading Dan Streib’s column in today’s DI, a gap in its logic has became apparent to me: How do you rally Obama’s supporters (moderate Democrats and independents) and Clinton’s supporters (traditional Democrats) under a single candidate? The answer is simple: the losing candidate must campaign on the winning candidate’s behalf.
Although John Edwards’ southern charm and good looks may win over some apprehensive voters, they simply do not compensate for the experience Clinton’s Democrats are looking for, nor do they make up for Obama’s fiery rhetoric and inspiring persona. Thus, in order for the Democratic ticket to be seamless, either Obama or Clinton must stand firmly by their party’s choice for the president. Then, once January ‘09 rolls around, they can assume the cabinet position they rightfully deserve.
I partially buy into the kingmaker argument. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards waiting until the democratic convention in August to support Clinton or Obama, and thus, determining the nomination.
But what I don’t buy into is that he’s going to wait until August. After an essential split of the Super Tuesday states, the upcoming contests favor Obama since they’re caucuses (cauci?) 6 days from now is Chesapeake Tuesday with Virginia, Maryland and D.C. up for grabs. I think the beltway goes for Obama. So where does that leave Clinton?
Wisconsin on Feb. 19. and then Ohio and Texas on Mar. 4th. Obama’s Chicago strength will be felt in Wisconsin and Hillary has been polling strongly in Ohio. Texas is a wild card but I would be willing to bet there would be a stronger anti-Hillary sentiment among state democrats in one of redder states in the union.
But Ohio, which has a lot of blue-collar workers, will be huge, HUGE for Clinton. But what better state can one of the most pro-union politicians in this country be a factor? I think Edwards endorses Obama before Ohio and blunts whatever victory Clinton has there.
I don’t think he CAN wait for the convention to be kingmaker, he’s got to make his move now.
Also, another senator likely to be a factor in the coming weeks is Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold. Obama has Wis. Gov. Jim Doyle backing him already. Feingold is a darling of the left, and he may be too far left to actually endorse Hillary Clinton. Add in strength in neighboring Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri and Obama’s chances look extremely good.
I said it earlier before Iowa and New Hampshire, I think Obama and McCain will be the nominees. McCain is going to come true. I think Clinton is in serious trouble and Edwards and possibly Feingold will put Obama over the top within the next few weeks.
This column, written by New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, argues against the claim that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to become our next president. I would have written on this topic myself, but Kristof’s words exemplify my opinion perfectly. I especially enjoy his ability to extract historical evidence and make it relevant to the reader — journalism at its finest!
