S.C. Primary

Obama Wins South Carolina Primary

You know, I find it interesting how a candidate who speaks of uniting the American people is undoubtedly dividing America by - you guessed it - race. I know the Clintons have the support of many blacks and African Americans, Bill Clinton labeled as "the first black president," but come on, I think everyone knew that the outcome was going to be fairly obvious.

Oh, I'm also getting sick of what CNN calls, "jumping on the Obama bandwagon." Apparently, even though I haven't seen the article on the NYTimes yet, Caroline Kennedy has just endorsed Obama. How meticulous of them. Vicious, really. Manage to get her down on one knee and they spit on her. I mean, I admit I'm not following this obsessively, and maybe it just so happens that when a candidate wins a primary/caucus a subsequent endorsement makes the news, but I just feel like when something bad happens to Hillary, there is always something there to make it worse. It's clever, yes, but I just think these double attacks are so cruel. But I guess that's the game of politics, n'est pas?

And about the NYTimes endorsement, since I just found this article while trying to research the candidate endorsements, I just want to say that I can knock down every one of those arguments:

A) Black was particularly upset over newspaper editorial boards' endorsement policies, and wondered why people can't be left to make a decision on their own.

Um, do you know how many endorsements there have been? There weren't any overt complaints when Oprah endorsed Obama (and Oprah is a hell more influential than the NYTimes will ever be). Besides, even though endorsements are meant to influence others, it's still up to the person and his or her values to decide for whom to vote. People, especially those who read the NYTimes, are NOT going to simply vote for Hillary merely because the editorial board has chosen to endorse her, yourself a clear example. Endorsements are a way to voice one's opinion, and this is the NYTimes's opinion, one that should be respected like any other.

Oh, and the whole burning your socks thing? Yeah, a little extreme, don't you think? Just a little, of course.

B) "I can't describe the disillusionment I feel from reading the Times endorsement of Clinton," Kress wrote from Austin, Texas. "The primary reason was her 'experience' which the editorial failed to delineate.

Well, yeah. The NYTimes must assume that their readers have at least some awareness of the world. Who really doesn't know that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced out of all the candidates? Why do you think Obama runs under the facade of change? He's acknowledged her experience himself, and has been attempting to counter it. Where have you been this past decade or two? Under a rock?

C) "Further, the editorial made clear that the divisiveness of the Clintons would have to end in order to not to damage the Democratic party. With that, it basically stated that there was not much difference with the Obama campaign and gave much credit to Obama for his call for unity and the inspiration he has brought to the race."

I really don't understand that flow of logic, but anyway... Along party lines, there hardly ever is a difference between what candidates promise and want. And the credit to Obama? Doesn't that just prove that the NYTimes has attempted to make a very informed decision, and that it attempts to address all options? Way to weaken your own argument, Sweetie.

Sigh... Anyway, on to Super Tuesday! While nearly the entire nation votes, I'll be stuck somewhere explaining the potential of nanofibers in administering anthrax vaccine.

Yeah, at least I'll have my soul back from ISR (my science research group) soon...

P.S. As my coworkers put it... SECOND-TERM SENIOR, BABY!