themediamademecrazy.com

i had an interesting conversation this weekend with someone who is related to a whistle blower in the whitewater affair. we discussed the personality characteristics of the clintons and the clinton machine; they can get very ugly when anyone creates speedbumps to their plan, but i think that we are all aware of these tendencies. in general, i have defended hillary’s conniving nature as expectant of the US president. furthermore, i still believe that the characteristics that have been heralded as necessary for president are often defined as bitchy, which works against hillary. however, i had an epiphany this morning…

i really don’t think that anything is going to change. i understand that this is a historical election, but i really don’t think that the system will change, and if this is the case, then i think hillary will be a better president to maneuver through the preexisting bureaucratic structure. however, i understand that only the voters can create change, in which case, obama offers the promise of change. but i question his ability to retain this idealistic stance once faced with the trials of the system. in addition, i think that his distinct negative shift in his pennsylvania campaign under the stress of the election offers evidence to my point.

in addition, he claims to be running a “clean campaign,” which apparently means that he refuses to “go negative” in attacking his opponent. however, when asked about clinton’s bosnia fiasco, he said…

OBAMA: And, you know, I haven’t commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the — because we’re asked about it.

Which begs the question, is the candidate a separate entity from their campaign?

i watched the debate on wednesday night in pennsylvania and i must admit that it was fairly unimpressive. perhaps because i’m so inundated with this primary process, the candidates have simply become parodies of themselves. i know what obama is going to say before he opens his mouth, and i know that hillary is going to attack him for it. since then, he’s been commenting that the debate did not get into the issues for 45 minutes, going on to chastise the debate process for focusing away from the issues with a desire to create controversy. however when they begin to discuss the issues, they only talk about issues that they agree upon. so what’s the point?

if we have nothing more to debate and you have no real issues on which to separate yourself from each other, then clearly you must separate yourself on character and an appeal to the affective component of the american people. that’s why you campaign. not because you’re looking to share your ideas, but instead to get people to rally and be emotionally drawn. obama should know that more than anyone. furthermore, in florida, where campaigning was prohibited as well as media ads, obama managed to run ads through an “oversight” in national television time purchasing, and he still lost. i think that this is indicative of obama’s need to to reach voters on an emotional level thereby bringing them over to his side (hillary as well, i would simply argue that more people had some affective response to her at baseline). alternatively, some would claim that “clinton” has name recognition whereas obama was less known… really? really? it seems since he announced his bid for presidency,  obama is one of the most popular names in american culture (granted, a manipulation over time):

research question: during this campaign season (january - denver), has barak obama been mentioned more times than hillary clinton; a content analysis of the names “hillary clinton”, “clinton”, “barak obama”, and “obama” across major news media (i suppose the easiest would be major print media). or a primetime section of major cable media from say 7-11pm over sample weeks from now until the primaries. i understand that news networks make a concerted effort to balance their time, but biases exist, and often they manifest on this subtle level

just a thought for everyone with all that free time.

I just finished reading an article in Time magazine entitled, “Liking What White People Like,” which is a commentary on the blog  “Stuff White People Like.” The author goes on to talk about the benefit of having White people critique/mock/endorse White culture. However, as an individual of mixed heritage (Black and Chinese), the author finds herself in a quandary; she likes things that White people like!

She comes to grips with this racial divide over the course of the article, but her final conclusions leave much lacking. I truly enjoyed her postulation of what Mixed people like (“Having people guess their background… Pulling rank during conversations… Having ‘such good features’… Filling out applications”), especially since she admits, “these are things that mixed people say they hate… but secretly like.”

My qualm comes with the creation of Stuff That Mixed People Like; I think that it denies exactly what makes Multiethnic individuals interesting: the fact that no two multi-ethnics are alike. Not only is the community comprised of mixed ethnicity members, regardless of blend, but also their upbringing creates drastic differences between individuals, making group descriptions even more difficult. For example, how different would Barak Obama (everyone’s current favorite multiethnic) if his parents were switched and he was raised by a single Kenyan mother? How different would his upbringing or chances have been then? There is no single definition of multi-ethnics, or what they like, just the fact that they are multi-ethnic.

PS: Barak Obama is not #1 on my Stuff That Mixed People Like, its Prince.