I'm going to interupt my publishing/book focus for a moment and talk politics.
Just kidding. Sort of. I don't follow politics closely enough to be able to speak intelligently on any of the issues, so everything I know is what the common disinterested 3rd party would know. I figure that either Obama or Hillary will win the Democratic Nomination, and I'll likely vote for whomever it is. [To be fair, I do fully intend to figure out their platforms at some point when I'm not busy with apps, writing, and planning for the Super Bowl at work. I don't like to be one of those ignorant Americans...]
The only reason I wanted to say anything at all is because, as a person who as yet really has no preference, and as a person who is very cognizant of how this media circus works, all this affects me in a very different way. So I thought I'd put down a couple of thoughts:
Clinton: This article on NY Mag rounds up a bunch more from either side involving the "crying" thing. I checked the clip on YouTube after hearing about it and, um, she doesn't even cry. She got choked up a little bit and the media is having a circus. I agree wholeheartedly with people who say that there's a bit of a doublestandard. I mean, a woman gets a little emotional and people go crazy. Some people want to say that it shows she's coming undone (of course, when woman are emotional, they're irrational, or whatever), others say she just won because of sympathy votes, blah blah blah. As a female, I really do believe that a woman can do just as good a job as a man can, and why not? It's interesting that this article says that this "makes her a minority candidate again". I don't know. It bothers me that so much weight should be put on her "womanness" now because of a little choked-upness, and I'm also irritated that things must be judged based on a man's world. I'll be the first to agree that for the most part women tend to be a little more emotional than men, but does that make them worse leaders? Who made that assumption anyway? Men? Woman make up 50% of the human race, which means that if we were to do a study of human response, female response should make up 50% which means that if you're going to judge candidates on something, please don't do it on a scale created for men (does that make any sense?). Besides, I am of the strongest belief that a candidate should be voted on because of their ability and platform... and all this crap about minority or not shouldn't come as a factor. I don't really consider myself a feminist, so I would never vote for someone just because she's a woman. But if I felt aligned with Hillary's platform? I'd do it for that. And I think a woman could do just as good a job as a man could. Ridiculous.
[edit: Okay, I just read this article on the Wash Post about this issue. And all right, that makes sense. I can see why to feminists this is such a big deal. I don't know if it's a big enough deal for me to vote purely based on that alone though.]
Obama: Everyone's been talking about his Iowa caucus speech. So I took a listen last night, and you know, the hype is justified. His speech is incredibly inspirational, totally stirs my sense of patriotism, my young ideals. Completely separate from whether or not practically I think he can get the job done, his speech brought me back to the very reason I love this country, and my immediate reaction was to think how long it's been that we've had a public figure that practically embodied the American ideal. I consider myself a patriot, I really do, in the sense that I believe for what this country stands for. So in the moment listening to his speech, I understood why so many people, especially young people, have rallyed behind him with such exuberance. He gives them hope, because he promises them, beyond things like taxcuts and healthcare, but an embracement and return of a dream of what America could be. He offers hope to a generation of young Americans who have only known Bush as they became cognizant of the world around them, who are still young enough to believe they ALL hold the power to make great changes, who are only entering their first or second election. I get that. The practical side of me (the writer side of me) also understands that some people are just good with words. And words don't mean that a person will have the skill and experience necessary to execute. But if I were to vote on heart alone, I'd vote for Obama, probably. His heart is in the right place, his vision is something I understand and share. But can he execute? I don't know about that. I'm not being rhetorical; I really do not know because I lack the knowledge to make that judgment.
Huckabee: I first heard of Huckabee while working on a PR campaign to reduce weight in children in the US, and we were looking into maybe approaching him to partner with him in some way, since childhood obesity was one of his big platforms. I recently caught him doing an interview on TV (while in Bangkok) and he seemed reasonable to me. Of course, I've overheard other things that I don't really agree with him on, so I'd probably never vote for him. But either way, Alex sent me this link to a Chuck Norris/Huckabee commercial that was so funny and absurd, I had to link it. You know. To end this post on a lighter post. I have no idea what I think of Huckabee now, except that, I'm glad he has a sense of humor. I wouldn't mind being buds with him.
Okay, I'm going to try to be good and read up on all this stuff at some point. I feel so left out since I know nothing.
p.s. I went on Wikipedia just to get a quick overview of the campaign, and it lists all the candidates including third parties. I didn't know we had so many third parties, but reading up on THOSE is incredibly intriguing. Like the Libertarian Party? And the Constitution Party? And there's actually still a Socialist Party and a Prohibition Party? It's really strange and intriguing....