I do it every year and so should you.

I used to be of the Political Type.

Now that I’ve lived in San Diego for nearly two years, I have quite a few close friends here. They’re wonderful, and I adore them, and I usually find that they tend to know me rather well. However, they have yet to see a different side of me. See, 2012 is sneaking up on all of us, and it might as well already be 2012 – you’d think so, at least, if you tune in to any cable news channels and absorb the incredible amount of political news aired daily. Twenty-twelve means an awful lot to the Political Type: it’s the next presidential election, and even if the Mayans are right, it’s still gonna happen.

Most of my friends here in San Diego probably haven’t seen evidence that I used to be very, very political. (For the sake of simplicity, “political,” in this blog post, will refer to the overall American political scene.) I was quite adamant in my political beliefs, and it showed; I conducted most conversations in pol-speak, always seeking out the political nature behind any topic, cultural phenomenon, or newsworthy event. In high school, journalism became my most serious interest, and politics seemed to fit hand-in-hand. Although I still wanted to be a sports journalist at some point, I often found myself dreaming of that coveted front seat in the White House Briefing Room (if I can’t have Helen Thomas’ seat, I’m glad the AP does). My father and I also connect rather well over politics; he involved me in our local party’s activities from a very young age and we still talk about politics pretty much anytime we pick up the phone to chat.

The thing is, I’m not terribly political anymore. Well, at least not like I used to be. Okay, so I still post some things of a political nature on my Facebook, but that gets harder all the time; it’s tough to please everyone, and while that’s not really my goal when posting political items on Facebook, I like to keep my wall more happy and friendly than political and angry. I’ve seen some horrendous firestorms on Facebook walls, and while intelligent discussion is fantastic, it can easily spiral down into flame wars.

I don’t know exactly why I’m not as willing anymore to be political, but I think my political nature began to decline with a few developments:  I dated a political opposite at one point in college, a presidential candidate I supported actually won, and – like mentioned above – social media has seemed to change the ways I communicate.

When I was in a bit of a transition mode between maintaining a Xanga blog, my old Year in Sweden blog, and the WordPress blog that has become this blog, I wanted to switch gears a bit. At the time, WordPress blogs seemed far more flexible, but there seemed to be less of a community; I felt that I could generalize my writing, go back to my journalistic instincts, and document life rather than editorialize it (as I did on Xanga, where community interaction and privacy characterized the functionality). I worked on refining my opinions, if I were to introduce it quite plainly (as I did in pinpointing Hillary Clinton’s failures in 2008), all the while documenting my own experiences during the 2008 presidential campaign (as I did when Forest Whitaker visited my campus or when I participated in the caucus). This very slowly worked my less-articulate and more-personal (gossipy, even?) writings out of my blogging routine.

While by its definition, being “less political” doesn’t  entirely equate with “apolitical,” I’ve noticed that, on a case-by-case basis, I’ve gone against my political tendencies. I’ve sacrificed my eagerness to debate for my desire to avoid conflict. I can’t say I’ve turned down all good opportunities to debate, but I can say that I’ve become better at picking my battles (unlike in high school, when I was notorious for taking up anyone at all willing to argue it out). Honestly, I think it’s made me a better writer and a calmer person, and it’s also made my friends who disagree politically a little less afraid to bring up the issues with me.

So will I blog about the 2012 election? Will we see my dormant Political Type resurface? I’m not so sure about that. There’s plenty out there to read when it comes to criticizing the Republican field or speculating on the President’s strategies. Could a headline or particular topic grab me enough to write something? I wouldn’t count that out completely. But now that social media has been established as a ‘must’ for candidates, I think we’ll learn more than ever about our political climate and the way social media users react to politics much in the way I learned about myself during the last few elections.

Source: dailykos.com

Kids, bear with me: I haven’t decided yet if this is a very well-thought-out post or not. I tend to over-think things in the first place, so the difference between well-thought-out and over-thought can be a very fuzzy line at times.

But here’s the thing. It’s been gnawing at me for a while now, and came up again today.

I got called out today for something I posted on Twitter. It looked like I had been out on the town, except that I had actually been sick that day, and the day before, and the day after. What really happened is that while I was sick, a friend stopped in to say hi. It had been years since I’ve seen my friend, so I took a pic. And I posted it on Twitter. The photo made it look like I was well, but I wasn’t, and I’ve been hiding out and easing up on activities and work to get well.

See, I’ve been in rather mediocre health lately. Among other ailments, I had a sinus infection and bronchitis that stretched over two weeks. I’ve called in sick, bailed on parties, etc., not just in the last few weeks, but over the last few months. I feel (mostly) fine, but you know, it’s a drag to not feel well. I’ve had a lot of doctor’s appointments and visits to urgent care, and it feels like I’ve been sick all of 2011 so far.

No, this isn’t really about being being sick. And it’s not about perception, though it really could be. (Also, I’m sure my boss will eventually read this. What up, boss man? Your bracket is killin’ it right now, holy moly.)

This isn’t even about what I post on Twitter.

It’s more what I don’t post, and why. It’s what I don’t talk about. It’s what women shouldn’t have to talk about. However, it’s about what women should be able to talk about if they want to.

When someone (a woman) bails on something, whether it be work or plans, on the premise of being sick, sometimes it isn’t cut-and-dry (sorry for the unfortunate pun). Sometimes there are things in play that aren’t straightforward, like the flu or a migraine, and those things — yes,  that… and more — aren’t ailments for which you pop a pill (or in some cases they are), nor are they straight-up, bona-fide, stay-in-bed illnesses. But they aren’t convenient for work, a vibrant social life, or just about anything that demands a particular level of attention and uninterrupted put-togetherness.

Now, I’m not going to burden you with graphic details about reproductive health, intimate details about sexual health, moaning about ovaries and uteri and whatnot (sorry, had to throw it in there for effect), because… that’s exactly what I don’t want to do.

Not in social media.

Not in real life.

No, ladies. Nobody wants to hear about your ovaries. Nobody wants to hear about you being on the rag. Not even your boyfriend. And certainly not your boss.

Tampon pillows. Or something. Source: The Art and Craft of Toy Design

There are privacy reasons for not wanting to talk about these things, even excluding the gross-out factor. But when you call in sick or revoke your RSVP to your best friend’s birthday party, those people who were expecting you there are going to want to know why you won’t be showing up. Sometimes a simple “I can’t make it” just doesn’t work. Quite often, love interests / dates / boyfriendish males don’t get it, either. For example, a few weeks ago:

Him: “You aren’t going to make it? But why not? I thought you wanted to go.”

Me: “I can’t, I’m sorry. I’ll make it up to you.”

Him: “If you’re broke, I can pay for you. I was going to pay for you anyways.”

Me: “No, it’s not that. I have money, it’s all good.”

Him: “Really? Wait, are you mad about that one thing I said?”

Me: (thinking) Effing heck. Come on, seriously? What do I have to say? Jeez, do you want a lie at this point? You’re going to think the truth is gross. You’re going to figure it out anyways… or are you? Remind me, why am I dating you?!

(awkward pause)

Me: “Tee. Em. Eye. T-M-I. Too much info. You don’t want to know.”

(more silence)

Him: “Oh. Okay. Um, I’ll call you tomorrow.”

click.

Sure, that’s easy. Sometimes it works. I’m not one to push even a white lie on anyone — I’m a lousy liar — but I’m also not one who wants to share with you every detail of my personal experience living in a female body.

But when it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. And you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even if that initial avoidance skates you past once, eventually — when you bail for a second time, or your authenticity and credibility are questioned — it comes up again. Then what do you say? Can you really avoid it one more time?

And what if you actually do want to talk about it, minus the grizzly details, but it’s not about privacy?

I, like other females, have reproductive health issues, whether we like it or not, that can make or break health, but can also change (or create!) entire lives. (Okay, I know, that’s the point, right? All wordplay aside, it’s true.) Men have reproductive health issues, too, it’s the human condition — but they aren’t facing the same politicization, social stigma, or punishment regarding those issues. So this really isn’t about just me, either; it’s about other women out there. But I can’t speak for everyone, so I’m speaking for myself:

It isn’t really an issue of whether or I want to talk about it or not, it’s that I don’t want to be judged on how I handle reproductive health issues.

And a woman can and will be judged on it whether she chooses to remain discreet or not — damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

While a society that is almost entirely open about reproductive health is nice — I found that such a thing exists while living in Sweden — America does not constitute as one of those societies. Even in a typical, daily situation, minus the gore, the very mention of an innocent topic regarding reproductive health is bound to catch some flak. Some “ewws.” Some utterances of “gross” or “TMI.” And it really shouldn’t be that way — but it is.

And it won’t be changing anytime soon.

I’ve whittled it down to two three questions now:

1. Is it that we, as a society, as evident in our treatment of Planned Parenthood and Roe v. Wade, simply ashamed to maturely and reasonably discuss women’s reproductive health?

Or is it that…

2. …we, as a society (again, as evident in our treatment of Planned Parenthood and Roe v. Wade), are just that unwilling to treat reproductive health (and all things “down there”) as a legitimate, important, and reasonable health issue that demands care and attention?

3. Then I asked one just for myself: do I want this privacy because of social consequences, or have I adopted the view that this is unacceptable to discuss, only because society has decided it’s unacceptable? It’s a fine line, but the distinction is important.

The short answer: yes, yes, and both. The long answer is more about asking, “To what extent?” Who knows? But I think those of us who are asking those questions are not the ones who should be self-critical about the matter.

Unfortunately, the more I think about that long answer, the more I don’t like the answer, which brings me back to the reality at hand. What can I do if I can’t talk about it? Besides vote, sign petitions, and, well, vote?

Quite frankly, it leads me to think I can’t do anything. Because if I or any other woman can’t talk about even the smallest female reproductive issue without social stigma, without being afraid to merely mention how I as a woman fit into this puzzle of living with the goods I’m given, then there isn’t going to be any change happening. We might as well be stuck in the 1960′s, asking the red-headed office manager about the best – wink, wink — doctor in town.

Source: artofmadmen.wordpress.com

Too much information, right?

Hardly. Too little. And if it doesn’t change soon, well — too late.

This week is not much different, except that I’m extremely happy to be starting out a new week after getting locked out of my car, spending loads of time on a perfect job application for a position that was filled anyways, and almost running out of gas on the freeway. This week just has to be better than the last!

Anyhow, I figure some politics, gigantic iPhones, and a great song from an awesome Denver band will make for an excellent start to the week.

P.S. It’s my kid brother‘s birthday. Go say hi to him.

.

Frank Rich (from nytimes.com)

MUST READ

Turns out I wasn’t the only person who compared the post-HCR victory threats on Democratic lawmakers to der Kristallnacht; New York Times columnist Frank Rich echoed such comparisons as he described the violent, ‘pitchfork’ mentality exhibited by opponents of health care reform.

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

According to Rich, these sentiments are not actually about the health care bill itself — instead, it’s a sign that the Right is afraid of change. I’m inclined to agree with his perspective; Rich notes that the outrage over the health care bill is disproportionate compared to the actual terms of the bill, much of which has been amended to be more cooperative with Republican opponents and some of which even follows the structure of GOP-sponsored legislation.

I don’t disagree with Rich on this point. I really do feel that the incendiary attacks on Democrats are not really about health care itself; for one, many Americans don’t seem to actually understand the bill (it’s not socialism!), and two,  the lack of articulation expressed by many opponents have me inclined to believe that the inability to argue points with reason means that opponents just don’t have solid, legitimate reasons to argue the bill.

Anyhow, regardless of your stance on this, it’s an interesting read.

.

credit: Jessica Dolcourt/CNET

MUST SEE

If you’re into iPhones, this is quite nearly a dream come true: Del Mar startup MeLLmo has managed to supersize the iPhone to demonstrate its Roambi business intelligence app.

For those of us who love our iPhones, what could be better than a gigantic iPhones? (That’s actually a pretty rhetorical question.) I mean… for those of us who love our iPhones, what could be better — besides actually being able to get decent coverage from a particular, cough, provider — than a gigantic iPhone?

By the way, yes — this is nearly a fully-functioning iPhone, with just about everything going for it besides the snap-zoom function. Because I’m a cool kid and know people, I have to say that I’m uncertain how this didn’t hit techie news sites or blogs before this mention. I hope I’ll get to see one of these someday, because I’m also aware of other gigantic iPhone out there. In fact, somebody made an iPhone costume once before — but unlike MeLLmo’s version, it looks like they have to be operated through the phone itself.

.

MUST HEAR

My friend John Common has a band called Blinding Flashes of Light, and in January they released a new album entitled Beautiful Empty for the enjoyment of the masses. My favorite track from the album is “Don’t Follow Virginia,” and I have it here for your listening pleasure. I highly suggest two things: 1) visiting John’s site and downloading the entire album, and 2) following John on Twitter (@johncommon) for a daily dose of random musings and occasional hilarity.

It may be yet another week following far too short of a weekend, but there’s really no choice but to own up to the Mondays and dig in anyhow. I guess that’s part of why I write this Must Read/See/Hear series — to get over my “Mondays” and start the week with something good for me to share, and hopefully, something good for you to read.

Anyhow, here we go: new things for your enjoyment on a Monday morning.

.

MUST READ

One of my favorite online reads is elephantjournal.com, a Boulder, Colo.-based blog, webcast, and general guide to well-being that provides a lot of articles relevant to what founder (and friendly face) Waylon Lewis calls ‘the mindful life’. If you ask me, elephantjournal.com really embodies what living in Boulder is all about: living conscientiously, and sharing that mindset with others.

Although I’m not in Boulder anymore — and I know that I’m pretty vocal about missing it so much — it’s really nice to be able to read about politics, spirituality, health and much more from the Boulder state of mind when I’m all the way out here in California. But the reason that works out so well is that it’s not just  ‘Boulder’ thing to be mindful of one’s lifestyle — it’s something all of us should be concerned about, and it’s relevant no matter where you live. I also follow @elephantjournal on Twitter to keep up with what’s going on.

My favorite pieces lately include posts talks about farmer’s markets and eating in support of sustainability and an older post about slow food vs. vegetarianism. There’s also a fair amount of humor and politics to go around, and I can always get a quick solution to homesickness with the abundance of videos featuring Waylon and the ele-crew enlightening and entertaining the Boulder community.

.

MUST SEE

Thanks to elephantjournal.com, in fact, I saw this great segment of Jon Stewart mocking Glenn Beck on the Daily Show. Stewart channels Beck not just for the sake of comedy but because Beck, regardless of political affiliation, deserves to be called out for his absurd theatrics.

.

MUST HEAR

“What? Jen, you like Spoon? No way…”

All right, all right. I know. I can’t leave it alone. But Spoon played at SXSW this week and the entire 18-song (!!) set that was aired during a live webcast is now online at NPR.org. It’s just way too good not to share!

If you like rock in any capacity, you’ll definitely like this. If you have never heard Spoon before, it’s a great opportunity to hear why they have such an incredible fan base. And if you love Spoon as much as I do, you can download the set and listen to it anytime!

Well, I’m obviously not a gentleman, and sometimes I’m a little too brash to be called a ‘lady’, but I can definitely tackle politics and sports at the same time. It’ll be easy this time because there is one clear winner the last few days: the city of Chicago.

pic via blacksportsonline.com

You could really say that all of Illinois won. But I don’t know, being a semi-Chicagoan — spending quite a lot of my time out there with my mom’s family — I am kind of a jerk and don’t think of an entire state existing outside of Chicagoland. It’s one thing that the suburbs are separate from the city, but the difference between the rest of Illinois and Chicagoland is far bigger. Therefore I am demonstrating my bias by declaring Chicago the winner here.

Why did Chicago win? And just what is it they won? Yesterday, Chicago witnessed two big developments in sports and politics: first, the Broncos happily traded quarterback Jay Cutler to da Bears (why are we so blessed?!) for the miserable Kyle Orton (but two first-round draft picks and a few fourth-rounders, I think), and Rod Blagojevich — the state-wide embarrassment of a former governor — received just what he deserves: an indictment for various federal charges boiling down to corruption.

As for the trade, Chicago seems pretty happy. Why not? It’s pretty obvious that, even though Jay is a big crybaby, we lost a really good quarterback. By obtaining Kyle Orton, we lost a ton of leverage. We’d better pray for a really good draft choice or two; if Josh McDaniels throws this one away, his first season with the Broncos will be extremely tainted, and it could even be his last (but it’s a little early to tackle that one). Denver lost a good one to Chicago; we were pretty much set with a great offense and Jay’s Amazing Arm, but this melodramatic battle between our young, inexperienced coach and his young, immature quarterback was handled incredibly poorly, arguably at the fault of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, and now Denver football fans have an uncertain season in the coming year. This is assuming that McDaniels & Co. get nothing out of the draft picks. Even if we do get some good picks, it’ll be a few years before Denver even starts to bring back the kind of offensive potential that was possible pre-McJaygate.

Although a lot of people seem to believe that getting rid of a crybaby like Cutler is a way of showing power, and that it’s like getting rid of a cancer, I almost feel that it was more a sign of weakness than it was strength. Cutler complained far too much and the drama continued, during the offseason, for something like a month before McDaniels gave in and traded him. That’s what he did, folks — McDaniels gave in. He didn’t exert his power. He gave Jay just what he wanted (or at least what he said he wanted in the first place, then backtracked on soon thereafter). Had we traded Jay to some horrendous team without a chance (I’m optimistic for the Bears, okay?) and stripped him of any dignity whatsoever, maybe the Broncos would’ve won the battle of egos right then and there. However, that didn’t happen, and McDaniels likely lost a lot of respect out of his players. Let’s just pretend that McDaniels knew that Jay didn’t want to be traded and just played along with all the media hoopla. Doesn’t that make the trade seem like a really extreme move? Couldn’t McDaniels have just held strong and used his supposed coaching skills to combat this problem? In my opinion, all McDaniels really did was demonstrate how easy he can be manipulated. This whiny attitude on behalf of Jay Cutler was not that big of a deal in the first place, and the media really took off and ran with it. McDaniels let the media circus overwhelm him.

picture by AP via Politico

In the political arena, Chicago is looking at vindication now that corrupt ex-governor Blagojevich may actually be facing jailtime for his corrupt practices. Sixteen counts of felony charges, oh my! Yes, I know what you’re wondering: since when has there been a clean Illinois governor? Right, good answer, because I don’t know, either. Perhaps Illinois deserves a break — and this would definitely be a break — but considering the fact that Blago has been a heck of a burden on the always-ailing political system of Chicago, just the fact that there are charges is a step forward.

With that said, although I’m glad that Chicago is rid of Rod’s horrible haircut, I don’t think they’ll really be rid of Blago for a while. He’s going to be all over the news, getting loads of the attention he has always craved. But at least he’ll be taking the well-deserved abuse from a brutal public; Chicago is a city that is just as harsh in criticizing its politicians as the politicians are with backstabbing one another. Furthermore, Chicago has Barack Obama for bragging purposes — who really cares about Blago when Chicago’s prodigal son is our current president?

And on an even more shallow note, I think Kyle Orton is, um, well — to say the least — far less attractive than Jay Cutler. (What, did you guys expect a completely serious post about politics and sports from me?!) Yes, his boyish looks and his dimpled chin were absolutely adorable atop his Broncos orange-and-blues. If trading Jay really was the best decision, and I could somehow weigh-in and get a compromise, I would’ve been much happier with Brady Quinn. Now that’s eye candy. First the Rockies with Matt Holliday, then a highly decreased likelyhood of seeing Peter Forsberg in an Avs jersey ever again, and now Jay Cutler? Do Denver’s sports teams want to lose their female audience forever?!!

So there you have it. Denver will be missing its franchise quarterback while Chicago gains The Arm Better than Elway’s, and hopefully nobody besides a federal prison will have to put up with having Rod Blagojevich around. This is to you, Chicago — you won out this time, but don’t expect to get this lucky again!

The Conference on World Affairs, or CWA, is largely self-explanatory. It’s a big conference in which hundreds of panels are held regarding world affairs, generally geared towards current trends, namely political and sociological issues. There’s a smattering of technology talks, increasing every year, and a few talks that look back on history in consideration of current trends. There is also something called Interruptus, in which a film is shown in its entirety in the first two-hour session, and is shown over the rest of the week in two-hour sessions except with constant interruptions to discuss the film in-depth. Interruptus was Roger Ebert’s big event, but Mr. Ebert has been ill for the past few years and we miss his presence quite a lot.

CWA is one of my favorite things about attending this school. It’s one of the reasons I couldn’t bear attending another school. I’m sure other schools have equally exciting events, but probably schools I didn’t have interest in attending or to which I paid no attention during my search. It’s certainly one of the most unique things about this university, and it definitely helps maintain the independent-minded climate of this campus as well as the forward-thinking discourse many places seem to lack.

With that, the CWA is still one of the worst-kept yet most popular secrets on this campus. How can that be? It’s because of the fact that so many students have no idea it even exists. In my daily interaction with other students, namely through courses but also through my job, I ask students about the CWA and many of them need an explanation. It’s a pity, because this is primarily for the students. Sure, many retirees clog up the hallways of the University Memorial Center and make is a hassle for a lot of busy students to get on with the week, but without that support, the CWA would be long gone. Not enough students attend the CWA that, if it were solely for students, there would be nothing to celebrate. Therefore the CWA is indeed as much a community event, but only because the event would suffer without its support.

It’s halfway through the CWA week, and I still have plenty to say. I’ve attended many panels so far and have kept up with them on my twitter account, I hope that I see more peers at these talks on the last day — it’ a shame not to take advantage of what a great, free event the university provides us every single year.

Flags in April: the decor for the CWA

Whatever the interviewer was trying to accomplish, I’m rather certain it wasn’t in good nature. But Derrick held his own and did a damn good job of it.

When I first heard this phrase, I was sitting at the desk in the UMC and the awesome New Era Colorado kids were arranging their materials in the glass display case across the hallway. “That’s foul,” a passerby said, laughing heartily. “But it’s still funny.”

I have been psyched about the caucuses since long before December 5. As a longtime Barack Obama follower, my position in support of Obama has only solidified in past months; Senator Clinton, bless her heart, has just not been able to win over my vote. Part of this is the fact that she could possibly continue the line of Clintons and Bushes to be in the White House during my entire lifetime. I just can’t stomach the thought.

However, tonight promised to give Hillary a run for her money. I headed up from Boulder this afternoon, Barack posters and voting rights information in tow, sitting in some grand traffic while blasting will.i.am’s “Yes We Can.”

Ah, delightful Diagonal driving.

Earlier this week, I was made a precinct co-captain for the Obama campaign and worked with a very nice older man in my precinct who was excited to have me on board.

It was a pleasant environment as soon as I arrived at my caucus location, which happened to be my old high school. I began handing out stickers and voters’ rights sheets right away. The voters’ rights sheets were gone within moments, and the stickers were very close to finished by the time we gathered by precinct in the cafeteria. A whopping 65 people turned out from my precinct, and roughly half a dozen precincts gathered at my location. I later heard that only twice that amount showed up at another location, with roughly the same amount of precincts assigned to the location. I am still not disappointed with my county’s turnout.

I volunteered to become the secretary while a former teacher’s son was committee head, working closely with his wife to distribute the appropriate information and organize the many papers involved in the process. Right off the bat, we had a few problems with the count as referenced with our precinct turnout sheet; it took almost three counts for one particular woman to let us know that she was not involved in the process and was merely attending with her husband. After that was solved, we came to a count of 65 people: 43 for Barack, 21 for Hillary and 1 uncommitted.

Left: Sean, our committee head, reads the caucus regulations. Right: finishing up the papers to send ‘em out.

Our precinct had been awarded 11 delegates (as decided by last year’s turnout), and we calculated 7 Obama delegates, 4 Hillary delegates and no delegates for the uncommitted person. As we went through our platform propositions, I gathered delegates (one of them being myself, hooray!) and alternates for the Obama side.

After heading home for a little while, I brought my brother with my to the post-caucus party at the Greeley Obama office. We spent roughly an hour mingling with fellow Obama fans, and even made a few new friends.

Left: our new little buddy. We wound this poor kid up with candy and goofing around until practically midnight!
Right: Obama cookie! Yum!

Overall, I am very pleased to have been part of the caucus process. I’m even more pleased to have become a delegate, and I have also applied towards becoming a state delegate. I’ve decided to work towards becoming a DNC delegate and am currently gathering supporters, such fellow precinct members (like a family friend, fellow Buffalo and 14-time-caucus-goer, Steve) and some journalists with whom I’ve kept contact regarding the DNC. I attend my county convention in a month and my calendar is already marked.

I now realize how much a part of my life this will be in the future. I will continue to caucus every election and hopefully gain more and more experience in the process. It is nothing but inspiring to see so many people turn out for a cause I once believed to be lost.

For me tonight, it wasn’t just “Rock out with your caucus out,” it was “BARACK out with your caucus out”!

After a brief caucus training with the Boulder for Obama staffers at the UMC Ballroom on the CU campus, we were treated to a short speech and a Q&A with Academy Award-winning actor Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland, Phone Booth, The Crying Game). Not being the type to ask for autographs, I simply thanked him for visiting and shook his hand (it was still very awesome!). I also managed to snap a shot with my Crackberry while he spoke.

Darin McGregor, a photographer I remember from the Greeley Tribune,was at the event, now shooting for the Rocky Mountain News. (The information is a bit dated, obviously, but you can see some of his work in that link.) My friend and former classmate Trevor, now working for MTV, was also at the event. I think I knew more journalists in the room than I did students (and probably more Obama staffers at that), but I enjoyed it quite a bit and it was really neat to see Mr. Whitaker up close and hear his argument for Obama. Hopefully Darin shot some good photos that I might also be in, so I guess I’ll have to bug him about his results.

Hillary Clinton

As I was watching the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s three-percentage-point victory over Barack Obama in today’s New Hampshire primary, I have to admit that I was not terribly impressed by the media’s insistence upon this being such a huge victory. In fact, some anchors, pundits and other politicos were ready to declare this one of the biggest upsets in history.

Although polling seemed to indicate that Obama would win by a rather notable margin, Hillary took a three-point victory over the Illinois senator as around 50% of the precincts had reported. Why I keep repeating this three-percentage-point difference should be rather clear; however, television media were incredibly excited to overlook this point and declare Hillary’s win as if it were some kind of slaughter. This was by far no huge victory for the admirable yet over-politicized, mechanized New York senator.

I’ve got to run a little disclaimer before I continue: it’s not that I hate Hillary. I was on the Hillary boat between the time she began indicating her candidacy for the Oval Office and more than weeks after Obama declared his candidacy. I believed that Obama’s limited experience in politics was a huge disadvantage and that Hillary was primed and ready for the presidency. I no longer view the experience issue in this manner, and I now truly believe that Obama’s fresh face is rather preferable compared to Hillary’s over-saturation in politics. As a fellow blogger pointed out to me through Twitter: shouldn’t we be concerned that two families will have run this country for the entire lifetime of a young generation?

And it’s not to say that I don’t miss Bill Clinton. Heck, any of those Democratic contenders are light years better than our current president, not to mention that I would support any of the Democratic contenders over any of the Republican candidates. And it’s not so much partisanship that drives me to this opinion; as my father said, “The Democrats’ problem is that all of the candidates are just so good. The Republicans’ problem is that all of the candidates are just so bad!” Even John McCain has lost a great deal of my admiration after asserting that bombing Iran has some degree of hilarity to it.

I’ll give the television journalists one thing: change is indeed the voters’ message this time around, and change is what the candidates are going to need to promote to carry a convincing campaign. But Hillary does not represent change; if anything, she represents the underlying fear of standing apart from the majority. Hillary has catered to the popular conveyed opinion; that is, she has made her political choices based on the media’s projections of what the American people want. In other words, she is complicit. In harsher words, she panders. It depends on your prerogative.

On a more basic and obvious level, in the line of what her critics have been saying, Hillary is too mechanized. She is steeped in institutionalized politics, something that is a far cry from the kind of change we need to revive the integrity once viewed as a quality essential to being the American president.

What I ultimately don’t believe is that Hillary is the answer to uniting our country. I don’t believe that her message carries the kind of optimism for our country embodied by Barack Obama. Nor do I believe that any of the Republican candidates even come close to inspiring hope for this country. And where Obama shows true promise for me is in that he has the potential to win this election while still being more viable than the other Democratic candidates who share his vision. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary is closer to being a Republican candidate in the spectrum of the entire field of contender because she lacks the appeal of being able to bring this extremely divided country any closer together. Her message is about promoting herself, as are the messages of virtually every single other viable, big-name candidate aside from Obama and Edwards. The change we need will begin with electing a president who draws voters by giving us a vision, not through “I-told-you-so” or “look-at-me” politics.

I do not want a candidate whose message is essentially self-promotion, nor does the vast majority of my generation. After seven years of severe incompetency, this is not about a single candidate’s whims and desires. This is not about the candidate who wants their name in the books.