Is it true that there's a correlation between beauty and success? I've heard it before. I'm sure you have too. But my guess is that it probably matters what field a person is in.
For example:
--> You want to be a model? Sorry honey, you probably won't make it big if you're ugly.
--> So you want to be a politician? As a man, I'd say it probably helps. But as a woman, does it take anything away from a candidate's credibility?
Hillary Clinton - perfect way to test it out. Take the poll now!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
PETA would be mad: Funny quotes on the campaign trail
Which quote is funnier??
1) "When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper," said Mike Huckabee (see the video below)
--OR--
2) "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air," said Mit Romney laughing about strapping his dog to the top of his car. (see video below)
Presidential candidates are always talking about how to get us out of Iraq, fix the economy, and improve health care. At least while they're not reminiscing about popcorn-fried squirrels and strapping they're dogs to the roofs of their cars. PETA would probably not be too happy with either Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee for their confessions. Perhaps that's why they're out of the running. However, quotes like these remind us that politicians arent always (or were'nt always) straight-faced fighters. It's always nice to be reminded that politicians are humans too - with a sense of humor and some funny memories to reminisce about.
1) "When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper," said Mike Huckabee (see the video below)
--OR--
2) "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air," said Mit Romney laughing about strapping his dog to the top of his car. (see video below)
Presidential candidates are always talking about how to get us out of Iraq, fix the economy, and improve health care. At least while they're not reminiscing about popcorn-fried squirrels and strapping they're dogs to the roofs of their cars. PETA would probably not be too happy with either Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee for their confessions. Perhaps that's why they're out of the running. However, quotes like these remind us that politicians arent always (or were'nt always) straight-faced fighters. It's always nice to be reminded that politicians are humans too - with a sense of humor and some funny memories to reminisce about.
Vouge'n
Hillary Clinton is a fashion plate on the go. She's a coffee, neckerchief and croissant kind of gal. Hilary can answer calls at 3 in the morning while balancing her checkbook and filing her nails. She doesn't bake her own cakes, she buys them at Ralphs. She doesn't need to please her man by sewing on his loose buttons, she'll just buy him a new one from the Regis Philbin collection! As both a senior citizen and a FASHION citizen, this prezzy lady has to think long and hard about what to wear everyday. So what do you think? Which pantsuit and necklace combos best suit this presidential fashionhopeful?
The poll to end all polls
What's the most important quality in a presidential candidate?
So there are a lot of ways to answer this question. The middle class may want someone dependable; the rich probably want someone that would make them even richer; the elderly just want a nice shady place to read and talk to themselves.
And what about you kids out there? I know.
You want to fight. But that could be painful so you'd rather watch someone else fight. So put this in your UFC Octagon and smoke it:
Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton in a no-holds barred cage match.
Who wins?
You decide.
So there are a lot of ways to answer this question. The middle class may want someone dependable; the rich probably want someone that would make them even richer; the elderly just want a nice shady place to read and talk to themselves.
And what about you kids out there? I know.
You want to fight. But that could be painful so you'd rather watch someone else fight. So put this in your UFC Octagon and smoke it:
Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton in a no-holds barred cage match.
Who wins?
You decide.
A defeat for Bush? Maybe he doesn't care.
In the wake of one of the few Supreme Court rulings that go against the president, many are calling the defeat a huge one for President George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court issued its opinion this week, barring the president of the United States from enforcing International Treaties on U.S. states without Congress' approval.
While countless political pundits have called the decision a major defeat for Bush, who tried to force Texas to acknowledge Vienna Convention and reconsider a death penalty sentence for a Mexican foreign national, it seems it's really a win-win situation for the U.S.
Maybe Bush really didn't agree with the international treaty, but knew the supreme court would assert its global supremacy in the ultimate world arena. That way, without having to take the fall for disregarding the laws of the world court, he could shift the burden onto the supreme court while saying, "I did everything I could." After all, it's better when SOMEONE wins.
So maybe the set up was ripe for American political muscling, and in fact it was a victory for Bush, not a defeat.
Either way, it's not clear he really cares.
The Supreme Court issued its opinion this week, barring the president of the United States from enforcing International Treaties on U.S. states without Congress' approval.
While countless political pundits have called the decision a major defeat for Bush, who tried to force Texas to acknowledge Vienna Convention and reconsider a death penalty sentence for a Mexican foreign national, it seems it's really a win-win situation for the U.S.
Maybe Bush really didn't agree with the international treaty, but knew the supreme court would assert its global supremacy in the ultimate world arena. That way, without having to take the fall for disregarding the laws of the world court, he could shift the burden onto the supreme court while saying, "I did everything I could." After all, it's better when SOMEONE wins.
So maybe the set up was ripe for American political muscling, and in fact it was a victory for Bush, not a defeat.
Either way, it's not clear he really cares.
Pew-Wee
How much do Obama’s pastor’s comments matter? There are pundits now convinced that the Pastor Wright YouTubes have rendered Barack Obama unelectable. Some initial polling suggests the Wright controversy may indeed influence voters. Others believe the controversy has been rightly handled or mostly amounts to a distraction and will have little effect on the election.
Some issues on the table: (1) Was Obama lying when he said recently that he wasn’t aware of the nature of Pastor Wright’s comments and/or was he lying earlier in characterizing his relationship with Wright as “deep”? Could the relationship be both deep and unwitting? (2) Would perceptions that Obama is lying in either case— in the matter of the true beliefs of his pastor— significantly affect perceptions among Americans of Obama’s character and his fitness to be president? (3) Are there a significant number of voters disposed to vote for Obama who have now taken enough offense at Pastor Wright’s comments and Obama’s reaction to them to not vote for Obama in the general election… to either not vote or to vote for McCain instead? (4) Does Obama’s relationship to Pastor Wright and Wright’s church, Trinity United, significantly undercut the legitimacy of Obama’s appeals to a post-racial America? (5) Are Pastor Wright’s comments racist and, if so, should they be subject to the same scorn by Obama supporters as have been the witless comments made and repeated by the Clinton campaign’s Geraldine Ferraro?
Obama’s answer to the Pastor Wright controversy was to provide background on how he came to know and respect Reverend Wright and gave assurances that he never heard the man make these kinds of inflammatory comments; never while Obama was “in the pews” of Trinity United Church nor in personal conversation… Already, of course, the nation’s journa-trashdigger-lists are poring through the church calendars and Obama’s travel schedule to see if Obama might have been in a pew and neither daydreaming nor dozing for some of the reverend’s riffs on “Amerikkka.” So far, neocon New York Times columnist and proven hack William Kristol used his perch at the Paper of Record to declare that, indeed, Obama was in attendance for one of the sermons. Kristol wrote a whole column based around this nugget of information-gotcha, only to be proven wrong and made to write a three-sentence retraction complete with typo (“camapaign”)— the retraction as tossed off as the column, because what else would it be? Pee-ew stanky.
A much more insightful and carefully researched analysis was delivered by Tracy Morgan on SNL...
Some issues on the table: (1) Was Obama lying when he said recently that he wasn’t aware of the nature of Pastor Wright’s comments and/or was he lying earlier in characterizing his relationship with Wright as “deep”? Could the relationship be both deep and unwitting? (2) Would perceptions that Obama is lying in either case— in the matter of the true beliefs of his pastor— significantly affect perceptions among Americans of Obama’s character and his fitness to be president? (3) Are there a significant number of voters disposed to vote for Obama who have now taken enough offense at Pastor Wright’s comments and Obama’s reaction to them to not vote for Obama in the general election… to either not vote or to vote for McCain instead? (4) Does Obama’s relationship to Pastor Wright and Wright’s church, Trinity United, significantly undercut the legitimacy of Obama’s appeals to a post-racial America? (5) Are Pastor Wright’s comments racist and, if so, should they be subject to the same scorn by Obama supporters as have been the witless comments made and repeated by the Clinton campaign’s Geraldine Ferraro?
Obama’s answer to the Pastor Wright controversy was to provide background on how he came to know and respect Reverend Wright and gave assurances that he never heard the man make these kinds of inflammatory comments; never while Obama was “in the pews” of Trinity United Church nor in personal conversation… Already, of course, the nation’s journa-trashdigger-lists are poring through the church calendars and Obama’s travel schedule to see if Obama might have been in a pew and neither daydreaming nor dozing for some of the reverend’s riffs on “Amerikkka.” So far, neocon New York Times columnist and proven hack William Kristol used his perch at the Paper of Record to declare that, indeed, Obama was in attendance for one of the sermons. Kristol wrote a whole column based around this nugget of information-gotcha, only to be proven wrong and made to write a three-sentence retraction complete with typo (“camapaign”)— the retraction as tossed off as the column, because what else would it be? Pee-ew stanky.
A much more insightful and carefully researched analysis was delivered by Tracy Morgan on SNL...
Cleaning up a mess from the media:
Obama responds to coverage of Rev. Jerimiah Wright with an honest speech about race relations in America. What was the effect?
The Storm...
This is a clip of one of Wright's sermons that appeared on FOX
The Clean-Up...
This is a clip from Obama's national addrees where he responds to the media's coverage of his minister
The Effect...
After Obama made his eloquent speech about race, the reactions were mixed. Some said the speech was an honest look at the real condition of race relations in America that would help his campaign. Others thought the media coverage of his pastor would severly hurt his campaign. Here's what the numbers say from usnews.com:
To watch Obama's entire speech on race relations click here.
To read an interview with Obama conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about his minister's sermons, click here.
Obama responds to coverage of Rev. Jerimiah Wright with an honest speech about race relations in America. What was the effect?
The Storm...
This is a clip of one of Wright's sermons that appeared on FOX
The Clean-Up...
This is a clip from Obama's national addrees where he responds to the media's coverage of his minister
The Effect...
After Obama made his eloquent speech about race, the reactions were mixed. Some said the speech was an honest look at the real condition of race relations in America that would help his campaign. Others thought the media coverage of his pastor would severly hurt his campaign. Here's what the numbers say from usnews.com:
"Before the Wright revelations, Rasmussen in its nightly tracking showed Obama ahead of Clinton nationally 48 percent to 41 percent, a statistically significant 7 percentage point lead. On March 18, the day of Obama's Philadelphia speech, that was reduced to a 45 percent to 44 percent lead. The most recent results, reported March 24, showed Clinton ahead 46 percent to 44 percent. In other words, over two weeks, Obama was down 4 percentage points, Clinton up 5 percentage points—major movement, given the usually glacially show movement in Rasmussen numbers."
To watch Obama's entire speech on race relations click here.
To read an interview with Obama conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about his minister's sermons, click here.
Obama in the Tabloids:
Misleading article smears Obama in the National Enquirer,
which is owned by a key financial backer of Clinton.
When wandering up to the check-out line at the grocery store, my eyes feel an attraction with magnetic-like force to the colorful, bold tabloids that boast the newest celebrity secrets. Generally it's some superstar on the cover who is either pregnant, is going to rehab, has cheated on their husband, or has gained a lot of weight (it's always pleasant seeing a superstar's cellulite jiggling out of their bikini. I guess celebrities aren't immune!)
Misleading article smears Obama in the National Enquirer,
which is owned by a key financial backer of Clinton.
When wandering up to the check-out line at the grocery store, my eyes feel an attraction with magnetic-like force to the colorful, bold tabloids that boast the newest celebrity secrets. Generally it's some superstar on the cover who is either pregnant, is going to rehab, has cheated on their husband, or has gained a lot of weight (it's always pleasant seeing a superstar's cellulite jiggling out of their bikini. I guess celebrities aren't immune!)
I think tabloids are America's guilty pleasure. We all glance at the ridiculous headlines and try not to seem too interested in public, but secretly want to tear through the tabloid and read all the gritty gossip.
I don't see too much harm in reading about Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades, but when tabloids creep onto political turf, my heart starts beating a little faster.
This is what happened when I saw this on the front of the National Enquirer:
After reading the article online from someone's blog who had scanned the article and posted it (which has since been removed), I realized that the headlines, like most that appear on tabloids were misleading. This scared me. I saw many customers reading the headlines, but not the article, and as of now, I can't find the article online anywhere. Luckily, I printed it out before it was removed and have investigated the accusations further.
If readers read the entire article, however, it would become apparant that the word terrorist is actually referring to Bill Ayers who was a former member of a 1960's anti-american group the Weatherman who was involved with the hippie-era bombings of the Pentagon.
Yet the article included a photograph of like this one of Obama wearing a turban and Somali clothes that burn a middle eastern image into the minds of paranoid readers.
I wondered why the Enquirer would run such a story, so decided to look up who owns the Enquirer. I found this on politico.com: "the key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary."
Business Week said this about Altman: "As a former Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton, he is a player in Washington."
Interesting.
Anyways, the article made me wonder what kind of effect the tabloid attention would have an affect on the public's opinion of Obama. I was shocked, however, when over a week went by before I heard anything about it. I thought, for an instant, that maybe Americans had written it off.
That hope quickly dissolved when Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pictured and briefly mentioned in the article, became the focus of a media frenzy.
I'm not sure that the Enquirer was what led people to look the radical reverend up (although it may have - the article came out the 1st and ABC first ran the videos of Rev. Wright on the 13th), but whatever the cause, people sure have gone nuts. Videos of the minister's passionate sermons are all over the news and web. Googling Rev. Wright and Obama got 638,000 hits and searching Rev. Wright on YouTube pulled up 1,830 videos. The coverage is what prompted Obama to make his national address concerning race relations in America.
Whatever role the Enquirer played in all the mess that has become the democratic race, I have concluded that tabloids should stick with news about Brittney.
Are you hearing this?
Is anybody out there listening to Barack Obama?
I mean really listening to the words that are coming out of Obama's mouth lately. Had I no idea who the man was, you would have had a better chance convincing me that he was a Martian diplomat than an aspiring POTUS.
I will say this: Obama's recent speeches have seemed like they did come from outer space. And damn, has it been refreshing.
First there was his March 18 speech on race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. His eloquent, magnanimous and rich inquiry into the state of racism in this country was the most moving political speech given since John or Bobby Kennedy. It is a little out of date, but I implore anyone who hasn't seen it to sit down for half and hour and watch it. Reading quotes or transcripts does not do it justice.
Up to this point, "A More Perfect Union" has been the Obama campaign's defining moment. And right it should be. It was eloquent without being long-winded, it was intelligent without being pretentious, it spoke to both sides without once patronizing either, it was concise and powerful. We've certainly come a long way since Richard Nixon told the American people about his dog Checkers.
Put it this way: could you imagine President Bush trying to give a speech like that? Pigs would fly Concordes before that ever happened.
What's most striking about the speech is that it was given by a presidential candidate in the middle of a neck-and-neck campaign. We tend to expect pandering from our presidents, not to be spoken to, as Jon Stewart recently put it, like we're adults.
Racism tends to be a political buzzkill, but Barack went for it anyway. Of course, it was necessitated by the P.R. firestorm created by his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who's heated diatribe/sermons have gone viral on Youtube. Of course, in our media saturated culture, his comments were immediately disseminated on television, where they have been taken out of context and scrutinized for the past month.
Pastor Wright seems to me to be an overzealous, bombastic and polarizing figure. But to call the man a racist or an enemy of unity—and to call Obama the same by extension— as many in the media have suggested, belies a type of ignorance and misunderstanding that's precisely what Barack's speech addresses.
I may disagree with some of the things Wright has said, I might even be offended by others. But that's doesn't give me the right to criticize the man or call him racist. Because the truth of the matter is, I couldn't possibly understand where he's coming from. He's right when he says that Hillary's never been called a nigger. Neither have I and I'm sure most of his detractors haven't either. Perspective is everything.
Let me take you on a trip to the No Spin Zone for an idea. Take a look at how Wright is treated here and then tell me you understand where he's coming from.
I'm not saying that anyone is as obnoxious or disrespectful as Sean Hannity. But his thought that Trinity United is prejudiced because they advertise themselves as a black church is something that many people agree with. But who is Sean Hannity to be calling Wright prejudiced? Who is Sean Hannity to be quoting MLK to a black pastor? It's a shame.
My point is that the issue of race is a complex problem. Debasing it as a public spectacle will only halt the type of dialog that Obama has courageously opened up. Simplifying the idea of race was exactly the problem in the first place.
We have an incredible opportunity to address an issue that has been fundamentally ignored since the 1960's. I know there are other problems in this country right now. Perhaps some of them are more pressing needs than discussing it.
But there may never be a more perfect time than the present to progress race. Barack Obama went out on a limb. Will we follow as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
