Hillary's Battleship is Sunk: and somehow it's Milton Bradley's fault...

So the DNC rules committee is meeting today about the Florida/Michigan primaries disaster. For those unaware of the disaster, here's my best recap: Florida and Michigan broke delegation rules by pushing up their primaries earlier in the year. This was their decision and they were warned by the DNC that if they did, the consequence would be that all of their delegates would be stripped away giving them no voice in the election process of the Democratic presidential nominee. Yes, this was a pretty harsh ruling - and no one really foresaw the race being so close that it would really matter as much as it does now - but both states moved their dates in defiance of the DNC. Both Hillary and Obama agreed to not campaign in Florida while every democratic candidate at the time (with the suspicious and curious exception of Hil-monster) took their name off the Michigan ballot. The states then held their supposed meaningless and worthless primaries and to no surprise, Hillary (the most recognized candidate at the time) won both states. 

I can't imagine a more unfair competition. People need to remember: At the time, Obama was not a household name. He was campaigning state by state, primary to primary. He didn't have the luxury of brand-name recognition like "Clinton". If you take a look at poll numbers of all of the early primary and caucus states, Obama lagged considerably behind Clinton (including South Carolina where he eventually steam rolled her) until he was able to campaign properly; organizing a grassroots support, running ads and working the stump swings. And due to FL and MI's conscious violation of the DNC delegation rules, both Obama and Hillary chose to not properly campaign there. Consequentially, the voters in both states were not given the opportunity of a fair, balanced primary process where both camps could state their cases relevant to each state. 

Now, she won Michigan mainly because she was the only name on the ballot by 55% (the rest voted "uncommitted"). When every democratic candidate, in a unifying move, took their names off the ballot, Hillary apathetically left hers on - leaving the rest of the candidates instantly suspicious, but not too alarmed since the votes weren't supposedly going to count anyway. By the time Florida voted, it was just the two of them on the "worthless" ballot. The only shred of campaigning on the Obama side was a brief television ad that was a short lived national ad. Polls showed that his name recognition nationally still didn't yet compete with Hillary's at the time. (That wouldn't start to happen until his 13 contest winning streak after Super Tuesday)

Now to the point: Where was Hillary's "passionate", outspoken struggle to save the voices of FL and MI voters before January? 

Americans didn't hear a peep from her about this "injustice" until she started getting thumped in the election primaries. She had agreed to the party rules at the beginning of the campaign season and now that she's got no other hope in sight for the nomination, she wants to suddenly change the rules and have the DNC count the votes of hideously unfair primaries. Suddenly now, she's an advocate of voters' rights. What about the voters' rights to a fair campaign? Imagine for a moment if FL and MI had overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Would she be out there with her battle cry then? This is again the Clinton machine's "Say anything, Do anything" style of politics. It's disgusting. And now she's turning her aggression on the leaders of her own party. They've organized rallies and marches to get the delegates fully seated and recognized. 

This puts the DNC in a very difficult position because, yes, the stupid idea of stripping both states of all of their votes (as opposed to the GOP's "half-vote" punishment for rule-breaking states) shouldn't have happened and they are now caught with shit on their faces. They are left with this decision: Do we stand strong with the original rules laid out against violating states and hold our ground, thus ignoring the votes of millions? Or do we show our weakness and count the votes of unfair primaries and bend the original rules at the expense of the candidate who played by them. What signal would that send to states who break the delegation rules in the future? 

The Obama camp recognizes the dilemma of shutting out the votes of both states (in light of how it would effect the voter conscience of these swing states in the general election), but also knows how cheap these wins were for her. So they're willing to compromise. Don't expect that same C word from the Hill camp. They want it all. It's their last and only hope.

But what really gets me is where the blame is being placed. Hillary and her (apparently increasingly psychopathic) supporters are taking aim at the DNC rules committee as if they had anything to do with the states' decision to go against party rules. It'd be like me and a friend sitting down to play Battleship (initially agreeing upon the rules) and blaming Milton Bradley's rules writers when my opponent is about to sink my battleship. 

In my opinion: I say "No dice". I'd be a bit more empathetic if it was the general election where we're actually voting to hire the president, but as for a political party coming together to pick their candidate, I'd be knocking down the state's party leaders demanding them to cough up the millions and fund a revote where the candidates can properly organize a real campaign process. It's their fault we're in this mess. They were the ones who went against the party's rules. They should be responsible for fixing it. (Their attempts at organizing a revote were shot down due to the high cost. They then threw the problem on the national leaders to fix.)

It wasn't until recent decades that actual civilian votes were taken to select the party's candidate. It use to be up to a handful of the party leaders in some smoky, Washington back room. This lead to statewide caucuses (which contrary to alot of my friends' opinions, I support fully) where party voting members who cared about who their party's nominee would meet and physically voice their opinions of who they felt the nominee should be. 13 states still hold caucuses today. This is an incredible process because it gets party members who've educated themselves on their party's candidates to come out and state their case to each other about who should carry the nomination - as opposed to having it on a primary ballot among a laundry list of other voting issues where any passive voter going in to vote yes or no on some local or state issue can cast their not-so-educated or not-so-challenged vote for their party's candidate - whether they understand their party's values and ethics or not. A caucus forces party members to publicly announce and defend their choice. It is not an election of a citizen tax funded government official. It is simply a party coming together under the purpose of party ethics and agenda to debate and nominate the candidate who best represents them and can best achieve them. I love it. It has it's down sides in terms of the difficulties of (for instance) senior citizen or single mom participation, but there's plenty of ways to fix those problems and it could be perfected. Just my opinion...

Anyway!!!... Hillary can go ahead and try to act like she's suddenly the messiah of "voters rights", but it's painfully obvious that she wouldn't be out there working it if it wasn't going to throw her horrendously organized, sickeningly miscalculated, and pathetically negative campaign a fucking bone. :-) Just don't go screaming foul at the rules you agreed to play by.

Monkeys control a robot arm with their thoughts

My Life Philosophy: Success and its relation to you and those "out there".

There is no failure in life. Just learning. The only failure is if you refuse to learn. 

Our culture demands quite a bit from us in terms of "success". This success comes in a variety of forms and measurements depending on many variables. Examples of said forms could be monetary, fame based, procreation rate, popularity level, ethics or exoticism while the said measurements of these forms are based on the expectations held by the ones who judge your success or (more importantly) your own personal expectation. A few examples of said variables would be 1.) your personal (perceived or in some cases delusional) circumstances in your present life 2.) the (perceived/unperceived) circumstance of the "judger's" present life in relation to yours 3.) your personal history of "success" - just to name a few. 

So the question is, what is your personal expectation of success? Is it monetary? Are you trying to be wealthy? Or just wealthier than those around you? Are you looking to achieve fame? Locally or nationally? Are you wanting children and a family? Are you looking to achieve a balanced ethical life? Or at least the perception of such? Or are you one who bases success on the exotic experiences the world has to offer - the amount of travel, activity, recreation?

Now I'm not saying that it's one of the above. It can most definitely (and usually is) a combination of these. For some, a successful life consists of being wealthy with a large family and a healthy balance of ethics. While for others, national fame is the one and only goal. And so on...

That may be well and good, but what bogs many down is the expectations of success of those around us - or as I say "out there". What do those "out there" expect us to achieve in order to label us successful? Many view your success based on what they perceive is important to you. If you grew up loving the stage, they base your success based on whether or not you achieve national fame. If you grew up in the church they'll base your success on how ethical you conduct your life. And so on...

These successes are then measured by your scale and theirs. And all too many times, our own scale is affected by those "out there". Who doesn't like being perceived as "successful"? Who doesn't like to have a quick impressive answer to what's going on in their life? But these measurements are determined by a slew of variables - most notably circumstances. For instance, someone who has encountered a divorce in their life leaving them with pennies in the bank will have a lower expectation level when success is measured in terms of monetary achievements. This is why it's always so impressive when this someone springs back fast and acquires a large sum of wealth on their own. They become a success story. Trauma in one's life lowers expectations of those "out there". 

So now my point: Rhetorically, are you someone who plays the success game for those "out there"? Are you one who projects a standard for those to base their measurements? Are you one who's bogged down by everyone else's opinion of what "success" is for you? Do you cause or project the image of trauma in your life to lower expectations? 

I've decided to live for me - my own happiness - my own form of success - my own measurement - under my own true circumstances. It's easy to let others determine it for you, yet it's also easy to sabotage yourself when your life circumstance gets bumpy. I won't lower my own goals for personal success, nor will I inflate the severity of "trauma" I incur or receive on my way there. Besides, most people out there are more impressed with those who're able to see that and actually live it without caring about outside opinion.

On that note, I leave on this: On the road of life and its destination toward success: There are no failures in life. Just learning. The only failure is if you refuse to learn. - I've learned to not let myself get snagged on personal "failures". The word failure has such a dismal, irredeemable connotation. We as humans learn (from very young ages) from so called failures. It's how we grow and survive. We learn from them. They aren't bad. They're good. These so called failures teach us. - With that said, the only dismal, irredeemable failure comes when we refuse to learn from them. We have the ability to dig our own graves in this sense. 

So finally: Failure, like success, is what we make of it. Live for you. Not someone else's "you". And grow from life's gifts of mistakes. That's what I've decided for myself. 

Pretty amazing.

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

Why I love Brooklyn

It's just one of those amazing days.

I stepped out of my apartment today onto the sunny, leafy streets of my neighborhood. Eastern Parkway was buzzing with locals all along the pathways busy with church events, community organizing meets and general stroll. The air was perfect at just the right temperature and not a cloud in the sky. As I headed east toward Park Slope, my sneakers felt like it had some extra bounce and I continued that bounce past the Brooklyn museum; its fountain in full working splendor and a large handful of observers lazily relaxing on the oversized cement bleachers and steps, sunbathing and chatting. The fountain shot up chunks of water and they'd glimmer like sliver dollars in their midair spin only to splat down to the water surface with playful claps.

Just beyond the museum is the monstrous opening to Prospect Park. There in the Plaza, in front of the Grand Army Arch, was the Saturday morning open market. Dozens of booths lined the opening sections of the park gates. It seemed as though every ethnic group was represented with excited, beaming shoppers hopping from booth to booth. The air was potent with the fragrance of flowers and fresh baked goods. I stopped by a booth and picked up an herb roll for 50¢ (!!) and nibbled it as I passed through.

Making my way along the slate sidewalks toward Park Slope, I stopped to check out what the homeowner called "a good old fashioned stoop sale" in front of his brownstone. Nothing really caught my eye, though he had a good literature selection for sale. I passed a few more before cutting through to 5th ave.

And here I am now at one of my favorite brunch places in Brooklyn sipping coffee and enjoying to atmosphere. I love days like this and I love being reminded why Brooklyn is my favorite borough. It's got that neighborhood feel with the Manhattan historical charm. I love where I am in life and I feel like I'm on the right track. I'm just going to soak it in until I head to Europe for the summer. I'll sure miss it while I'm gone.

Sorry for slacking on the posts... I was busy sitting here.

So... to make up for my absence, I've compiled some gifts of random, interesting goodies. Enjoy!

Gift #1

Gift #2

Gift #3

Gift #4

Gift #5

Who are you calling elitist?!

Using her last muscle fiber in her cold, pitiful grip, Hillary continues to milk the "bitter" comment Obama used days ago in reference to how Americans feel toward their leaders and how they tend to vote. Distorting his meaning to the point that you'd think he punched a blind elderly lady, she continues to cast him as an elitist among the dreaded San Franciscans. With so much slimy, political crap spewing from her venomous mouth, it of course makes my fingers itch to go on a rant...

Cambridge Dictionary's definition of
elite: group noun [C]
the richest, most powerful, best educated or most highly trained group in a society

Keep that in mind.

First thing's first. She's drowning. Hillary's campaign has been one of the most fascinating train wrecks in political history. Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton, in January of 2007, had all the toys in the sand box. We're talking about the mighty Clinton machine. She had everything. She had double-digit poll leads nationwide, a huge jump-start of super-delegates, name recognition - I mean, she was the first lady of one of the most successful presidents in decades for christ's sake. She had all of the "best" advisers, fund-raisers, supporters, organizers, networks and cohorts. So, why on Earth is she now desperately screaming and name-calling about one poorly worded, easily understandable statement about a fact that no one seems to want to admit: people vote on single issues (like guns or religion) because they feel as though their elected officials won't fight for the real issues they're suppose to be fighting (the economy, the housing crisis, unemployment, health insurance - basically the real issues that effect the average American) causing bitterness about the voting process?

It's because she knows very well where she stands in this race. She knows she has a less than 15% chance of convincing the super-delegates to go against the voice of the voters and hand her the nomination. She's desperate. She knows she has to win Pennsylvania by huge margins to even begin to have an argument worth arguing in regards to the nomination. And as we all know, when Hillary gets desperate, Hillary gets angry, ugly, immature and downright embarrassing. This is not the confident, collected, calm Hillary of Jan.-2007. This is a primal Hillary; throwing every last thing she has at Obama since nothing else has seemed to work. Forget the kitchen sink. That was thrown weeks ago. She's throwing herself with claws out.

Her behavior sustains the reason why so many Americans dislike her: power hunger. By choosing to put her campaign message on hold to attack so aggressively against a fellow Democrat in this fashion shows how much she couldn't give two shits if a Democrat gets elected as long as that Democrat is her. Does anyone really see her bowing out gracefully in June and pretending to back Obama? I can just see her locking her jaw for a grin and forcing her hands to clap at the convention. There's no line anymore with her. There's no grace. No class. No backup plan. No responsibility. It's all about her and not the party and its values. It's sad.

Now, I'm not saying that Obama can't take it. He and his campaign are gearing up for these kind of petty attacks from McCain and the GOP. These low tactics are, in fact, generally found in the GOP playbook. But as it's often said, there's ways to fight your enemies and there's ways to fight your family. Hillary seems to fight the Obama camp like an enemy. Hillary supporters are always quick to use the old "If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen" card, but that's irresponsible. Hillary fights as recklessly as she organizes in her campaign, and to desperately go after one ill-worded statement and twist it's meaning like that, only hurts the Democratic party than help her campaign. And here's why:

Hillary has lately gone into great length trying to paint Obama as an elitist - a big reason why many Americans felt disengaged from Kerry and Gore. She's trying to sink to the lowest of the low - if she can't win, no one can. Hillary was probably one of those kids who'd knock over the checker board if she realized she was about to lose.

Hillary, herself, is an elitist. Who in the hell does she think she's trying to portray herself to be? Does she expect us to forget how much richer she is than Obama? Oh, lets say 110 times richer?? Does she really expect us to believe that the single-parented, broken-homed, black candidate with the south-side Chicago community organizing background named Barack Hussein Obama is really the candidate of the two who could be labeled as "elitist"? Are you kidding me?! Does she really believe that? Apparently... because now she wants us to believe that she's a gun toting, God-fearing small-towner full of rage over the fact that someone could possibly have made such an assumption. Bull shit. That's almost as hard to swallow as how she can't seem to understand how Obama would view many Americans as "bitter" with the state of the country. Maybe it's hard to understand their bitterness when you're busy swimming in $110,000,000 from you and your husband's book and speech deals, selling the presidency.
Who's really out of touch here?

What Obama said (in admittedly rough terms) was that many Americans are frustrated and bitter with the state of the country and it's leaders to the point that they turn to the only things they feel are being heard such as guns, religion, etc. when going to the voting booth; single issue voters. My father is one of them. He figures that all politicians are alike when it comes to the financial, economic issues - that they won't look out for him. So, instead, he votes based on which candidate has the loosest policy on gun control instead of the candidate who is best qualified for serving the country and all (and I do mean all) of its people. This is a fact. And here's another fact for you: Millions of other voters feel that way too. Be it gun laws, abortion, same-sex marriage - you name it, these people will vote solely on those specific issues - and that is a big issue when running a campaign. These voters lose sight of the grander picture because they feel as though those are the only issues the president has any interest in pursuing. You got to hand it to Karl Rove during the last election - Keep the voters' minds off the economy or failed war. Keep their minds on abortion and guns and homophobia. Millions and millions of Americans are bitter that they can't afford their house or send their kids to college or afford health insurance or save for retirement. That is a cold, hard fact. And for Hillary to act shocked and pretend to misunderstand that fact is obviously misleading and is yet another lie to add to her pile. And for her to spin this around as if Obama was actually talking down about small-town Americans while calling him an elitist is revolting and slimy.

And above all of this, she repeatedly evokes the name of the city where Obama made the comment: San Francisco - knowing full well the connotation that comes along with that city and its citizens. I'm sure every San Franciscan is really appreciating being called elitists. I'm also sure she wouldn't be as crass if the California primaries weren't already over. And what's with her - and quite a few commentators - feeling like it's ok to label higher income, college educated voters "elite" or "the latte-sipping" voters (his strongest voting bracket)? Because heaven forbid Obama - or said commentators - label lower income, undereducated voters "dregs" or (let's be not-so-P.C. and say:) "racist white-trash" (her strongest voting bracket). It's somehow ok to label and name-call those who've been able to educate themselves but not the other way around.

But here's the reality: Obama has the ability to look beyond that. He sees that not every college educated American is a "latte-sipping" citizen. He also sees that not every undereducated American is "racist white-trash". He understands that this country is full of "elites" and "dregs" and "everything-in-betweens" and that they range in differences in religions, races, ideas, backgrounds, sexual preferences and education - but most importantly: They all are equally American. So as Hillary slings her new found guns and religion, Obama will continue to clarify what he meant by continuing to tell the truth - something Hillary's been having a hard time grasping.

Whew... my fingers are tired now. I needed that.