John Hodgman’s following act.

Of all of those correspondnet dinner comic acts, this is perphase the best performance i have seen.  Hodgeman’s act can perhaps best describe as an analogous opposit to Stephen Colbert’s 2006 correcspondent dinner act. Colbert’s was impressive for it was fearless, but John Hodgman’s act should be applaud for it is coherent and delicate in its balance of celebration and caution.

Hodgemans act has an overarching theme that saw the world divided by conflicting philosophies of nerds and jocks. Bush administration was portrayed as a jock administration that “preceded at all time from intense confident and certainty with what they are doing was correct, they privilege gut instinct over complexity and bookish rumination”. while nerds are those “preceed with different philosophy, not with certainty but with questioning, [nerds] are the questioners, the reality testers the nickpickers” Obama is of course a nerd as evident by his collection of comic book, being comfortable with technology, writes books even when he doesn’t have to, and speaks of restoring science and the concept of objective reality to the public square.

Amidst of Hodgeman’s soaring celebrate of Obama presidency as the “revenge of the nerds” he asked if Obama “is truly nerd cored or is this really just an act”. It was as if he is warning Obama that there is cynical suspicion and fear lurking not far beneath the feel-good triumphant of his nerd constituency.

Hodgeman move on to a a few nerd purity test, and then reminds Obama that we are at the beginning of major historical shift, where conventional labels for defining and dividing are quickly vanishing. This moment of inception is too delicate and has too great of effect on the long road ahead, its no time for victory parades. Hodgeman ended by saying that he (the arch-nerd), thought not always in agreement with Obama, he have been and alway shall be his friend, with the Vulcan phrase “live long and prosper”.

Hodgeman’s act really stuck a cord with me. As a nerd, i am dazzled by Obama, but my excitement of his presidency is always undermined by my cynical suspicion towards idolizing seemingly benevolent wield of power. For my education will not let me forget why power will always corrupts. This is why i like this act so much, because embracing with caution at this moment of Obama’s presidency seem the most fitting.

Also see the predating Stephen Colbert’s analogous idolization of Bush as the gut following jocks below.

Picking Hillary as VP is redundancy

I don’t understand why is anyone suggesting that Obama need Hillary to be on the VP slot….

The simple reason why putting Hillary on the ticket is redundancy: The pro-choice group will fight tirelessly for Obama, because they cannot afford to let John Mccain appoint another conservative justice into the supreme court. Ie, Hillary is not needed for Obama to be solidly supported by female voters, because he is strongly pro-choice and Mccain pro-life.

Kos explains away other reasonings for Hillary to be picked as VP:

As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn’t a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won’t outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let’s face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama’s core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He’s been a disgrace.

Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There’s no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

What about her positives? She doesn’t deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn’t add “experience” to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There’s the “unify the party” thing, but that’s overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn’t support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain’s enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they’d never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.

And then there’s demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let’s not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women’s movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, “In our lifetimes”. It’s inspiring for African Americans as Clinton’s chances were for women.

In that regard, Obama has two strong choices — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While I said above that vice presidential candidates don’t bring geography with them, Richardson actually would deliver New Mexico since it’s probably the most evenly matched state in the union. Bush beat Kerry by less than a percentage point in 2004, or 7,000 votes. And Richardson’s strong cred in the Latino community would improve Obama’s chances in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. In fact, I’d camp him out in those states. Furthermore, his foreign policy credibility is unparalleled in Democratic politics, bolstering one of Obama’s perceived weaknesses.

It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She’s a former head of the Democratic Governor’s Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation’s Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation’s five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state’s Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of “reach out” politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.

And don’t worry, she had a bad night during her 2008 state of the union address rebuttal. She’s a much better communicator and campaigner than that appearance would indicate.

One added bonus — I can’t think of anyone else who would be a better fit than these two, regardless of race or sex. I know some people like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, but he’s sort of a maverick, and wouldn’t do the “subservient to the presidential nominee” thing too well. He’s a true alpha male, and will be a fantastic senator and maybe someday a top-of-the-ticket guy. I obviously like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he’s focused on his big plans in Montana, and is currently running for reelection. I like that he’s building up his state’s Democratic Party, and would rather he continue focusing on that for the moment (and so would him, as far as I can tell). Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine? A compelling possibility who I would slot third in line. His resume is much thiner than Richardson or Sebelius. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland? Also wouldn’t be a bad choice, but he cast his lot with Clinton, and that sort of thing matters in decisions like this one. Same with Wes Clark. I like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and she has been a tireless surrogate for Obama, but we’d lose a Senate seat and it would be nice to get some executive experience on the ticket. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is compelling as well (I can’t think of any negatives).

There are other compelling names, all of who I would choose before Hillary Clinton. Remember, the goal here is to win the White House and have the most effective government possible, not to salve the bruised egos of an American political dynasty.

Atheist on Obama’s March 18th speech

Critical atheist Christopher Hitchens, the author of “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

It’s been more than a month since I began warning Sen. Barack Obama that he would become answerable for his revolting choice of a family priest. But never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it’s at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. “If Barack gets past the primary,” said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, “he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Read the rest.

Tolerating atheist Sam Harris, the author of “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

Obama was surely wise not to mention that Christianity was, without question, the great enabler of slavery in this country. The Confederate soldiers who eagerly laid down their lives at three times the rate of Union men, for the pleasure of keeping blacks in bondage and using them as farm equipment, did so with the conscious understanding that they were doing the Lord’s work. After Reconstruction, religion united Southern whites in their racist hatred and the black community in its squalor–inuring men and women on both sides to injustice far more efficiently than it inspired them to overcome it…

…Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he still stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.

But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

Read the rest.

Gender or Race Ceiling

Gender or race ceiling, which one would be more significant to break in this years American presidential election?

I have read pundits argue that a broken gender ceiling would be more significant, citing that fact that women have their voting right recognised later then African-American in America.

However if one take a broader world view, color minority has been the weaker member.
Just on top of my head, Britain, New Zealand, Germany and Canada have all had female head of government. Though most of these European states have color minority but have never have one as their head of government.

Historically, white Europeans have been dominating the world political scene ever since the rise of western power in 1500. So the significance of having a color person lead the world’s most powerful state is really hard to overstate.

If social barrier is the issue in this election, breaking the race barrier is more
significant and inspiring then the gender barrier.

Judgment over Experience

Says Daniel Drezner on NPR’s Marketplace

As a management question, the problem with being the president is that one cannot anticipate what important issues will arise in the future. No one thought terrorism would be the paramount foreign policy problem during the 2000 campaign. I guarantee you there are issues that will not be talked about during this election year, but will dominate the presidency in 2009 and beyond.

Perhaps the best experience to be president, then, is the ability to successfully cope with the uncertain and the unknown. Of course, some managerial experts would not call that “experience.” They would call it “judgment.”