it's but minutes into the state of the union address and already a man has kissed the president, and the president has rubbed a (different) man's bald head, presumably for good luck. no comment from brian williams on the later, but he pointed out the kiss, seeming a little taken aback, or perhaps just wistful.

update @ 8:08pm: brian williams just described bush as a president who "likes the trains on time." he said it, i didn't.

update @ 8:10pm: the president seems extra slurry tonight, and uncharacteristically pale. i will attempt to adjust my set.

update @ 8:22pm: slightly funny pronunciation of POE-ten-tial. also apparently there are some poor kids trapped in an old school. i think that the firefighters are going to get the out.

update @ 8:25pm: dick cheney and nancy pelosi look like the parents from hell. if you ever go to pick up your date and mom and dad look like this, just turn around and don't stop running till your lungs are ready to burst... OK, there's a hilarious close up on a sleeping fat man. nbc has amazing state of the union coverage.

8:28pm: there's POE-ten-tial again. consistency is the david letterman of small minds.

8:31pm: oh shit, "the armies of compassion" are marching towards the gulf coast. not the same army that operating near the persian gulf coast, i suppose.

8:37pm: 9/11 plug, followed by shot of hilariously shifty-eyed soldier. looked like he was getting ready to make a break for the bathroom.

8:41pm: do you ever wonder if there's a big international PR firm behind this "iraqi awakening" thing? it just sounds damn good rolling off the tounge.

8:53pm: message to iran: "but know this... [bullshit excised] ...we will defend our vital interests in the persian gulf."

9:02pm: you can always tell when one of these things is about to end, just like mass. too bad the state of the union address doesn't close with church organ.

obamarama

i've been talking to people about the clinton years lately, so in case you're intersted here's presidential hopeful Obama's take on that time, though it might tell you a bit more about the candidate than the history in question.

there's a lot of good news on the beachwood reporter, including a nice column on transit by my friend kyle, and plenty more dirty, dirty info on Obama.

The cost of identity

I think it should be unsurprising that this is the ugliest primary that i can remember. But if there's any positive outcome here, it may be that recent events have shown with stunning clarity the folly of identity politics. Gloria Steinem's op-ed was perhaps the first high-profile effort to use Obama's race against him, though less sickening than the barrage of racist slander from the Clinton campaign.

The Clintons have deployed tired (and yet, ever relevant) racial stereotypes against Obama, portraying him as a drug dealer and a snake oil salesman/huckster-preacher. The media has been more than complicit in this, and has often employed a hypocritical double-pronged attack of demanding that Obama both pay his "dues" to his people, while not becoming a rabble rouser or pandering to minority interests.

Obama has gone to pains to appeal as a "uniter" and allay fears of racial strife. In doing so he has largely promised to take race "off the agenda" and has been greatly praised by some conservative commentators (like George Will) for doing so.

It looks like Obama's honeymoon with the media is over. Although it was always obvious that race would be a factor in this election, early on it seemed that no one wanted to speak of it openly, in contrast to the gender issue. Now the issue has exploded, and it has tied Obama's hands to a large extent. On the one hand, he must not seem to be denying or ignoring his heritage and "his" people. On the other hand, he must distance himself from the image of the minority demagogue, which to some extent prevents him (or at least threatens him) from making proclaimations about racial inequality and promising action to address this.

This seems contrary to the treatment of Clinton; no one has implied (that i have seen) that she will be under the sway of a special interest, and she was celebrated for crying, showing some kind of feminine solidarity with all her sisters out there. On the other hand, i find it unlikely that she will actually do much for women. Whoever wins or loses the election, it seems unlikely that people of color will stand to benefit.

वह कोई दूसरा काम कर सकता है न?

the new york times took the tata group to task today in an editorial that suggests रतन टाटा (Ratan Tata,) the group's chairman, direct his attention towards something other than providing cheap ($2500) and fuel efficient (50 mpg) cars to auto-hungry indians.

though the editorial board makes a gesture towards the inherent hipocrisy of denying the citizens of poor countries the luxuries americans freely enjoy, they make no reference to the political situation, that american politicians have refused to enter into a global agreement on pollution, and until recently, have largely denied or ignored the existence of global warming. not to mention the futility of beeseeching a capitalist to forego a hugely profitable product in exchange for a moral and social good.

it will be an environmental disaster when the chinese and indians produce and drive cars in massive quantities, but we'll have ourselves to blame for not taking the opportunity to engage in a global effort against climate destruction.

don diasco

Election

I'm officially baffled that otherwise rational people are starting to ruffle their neck fur on the Obama/Clinton thing. It's baffling for a few reasons. For one thing, neither of these two have many positions on issues that are particularly progressive. I'm gonna let that stand on it's own, the burden of proof is on you if you disagree. Second both have pretty nasty skeletons in the closet, though it's hard to say these skeletons are in the closet, given that anyone who wants to know about them found out long ago. Clinton was involved in tons of shady dealings, both personal and political, and is supposedly responsible for some of the worst blunders of the Clinton years, at least in a public relations sense. Obama has mercifully had less time to incriminate himself, but he's clearly hooked into dirty Chicago politics and who knows the extent of the Rezko-thing.

So this isn't to say that you shouldn't think about which of the two would be better, (or worse, more to the point) cause the media has already declared Edwards out of the race and none of the other candidates have a prayer. But i can't understand getting too committed to either one of the these candidates. The fact that we're left with a choice between them at a time when Americans are more liberal than they've been in, i don't know, decades, is depressing. If anything it's representative of the fact that we on the left have already failed to effectively formulate an agenda that would force politicians to reckon with things like single-payer universal health care. Why invest too much emotionally in a candidate that is bound to disappoint?