Elizabeth Edwards does not enjoy bowling

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take the 2008 presidential campaign seriously. Before the Iowa caucus, the candidates were coming to town every week, we could ask questions and listen to their stump speeches in person. There was more to the televised debates than clarifying every statement taken out of context and played over and over. The level of discourse has lowered dramatically since candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson dropped out. Apparently, this changing dynamic has captured the attention of Elizabeth Edwards.

In a New York Times Op-Ed yesterday, the wife of former candidate John Edwards scolded the media for covering the trivial details about the campaign process and cutting out the real issues and serious candidates. It is understandable why Elizabeth Edwards would hold a grudge against mainstream media. Surprisingly, the op-ed is not in defense of her husband or the fact that his $400 haircut received more coverage than his platform; this piece defends Biden and Dodd more than her husband.

The title of her contribution is "Bowling 1, Health Care 0" because voters are more likely to know a candidate's bowling score than details of their health care plan. She states the timing for her topic is due to the up-coming Democratic primary in her home state of North Carolina. I still find it a bit odd to be bringing up candidates who dropped out several months ago. What can we do now but be nostalgic for the times when issues were actually covered? Is she urging NC voters to write-in Chris Dodd on the ballot?

No, she makes her point by urging everyone to demand a "vibrant, vigorous press... Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie 'Network' but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can - as voters - do ours."

I agree that the press is falling short in this election cycle, and I am grateful that she focused on other candidates rather than simply defending her husband. That said, I'm also disappointed in Mrs. Edwards. She focuses on the good old days early in the campaign when the candidates spoke out about issues, but she is very careful to stay away from any suggestion of who might get the all-important endorsement from John Edwards. Aren't we past a point when we can affect change by reminiscing about how great the second-tier candidates were, and speaking calmly to demand a more responsible media?

Elizabeth Edwards has always impressed me, but she disappointed me a bit on this one. She was known for being outspoken during her husband's campaign, and I think she's highlighting an important problem. I'm just saddened because I would much rather hear her advocate the Howard Beale approach.

Here is your answer, boys

I know the ed board has been discussing (complaining) about what purpose the Photo Op serves. I have an answer courtesy of my friend (and my friend's friend. But I didn't actually talk to him, that was word of mouth.)

I told my friend that the Photo Op will still be on the Opinions page after we're all dead and buried. My good friend who has a brilliant mind said, "Do you want to know why you have a Photo Op? I'll tell you why. I went out with the guys from class last night and our waitress was really hot. Then, today in class, S. passed around the Opinions page and said, 'Did you guys see this? Does anything catch your eye? Anything look familiar?' and a picture of our waitress was on the bottom of the page."

Oh that's not all! (As if that wasn't reason enough to keep Photo Op.)

It turns out that S was smitten with said waitress/photo op victim. Now, when they go back to the bar, he can say, "Hey, you know what I did one time? I [whatever the hell her photo op answer was] and it was great!" and she'll say, "Oh my God! I did that, too! That is so awesome! What are the chances? We're both hot, and we both had the exact same experience! It's like destiny!"

They'll totally hit it off, and later, when he tells her that he passed her photo op answer off as an original thought just to meet her, she'll fall in love. By that time, stalking her photo op won't be weird at all b/c it'll be a charming story to tell their Grandkids.

So, you see? (Since dialogue translates so well to blog-print, I'm sure you understand how cool this is.) The editorial board photo op provides a service. You're like the Chuck Woolery of the Opinions Page! You're cupid.com without the .com. Way to go, ed board!


One more thing. That same day you brought so much joy to a bunch of guys by putting this girl's picture in the paper, Jon printed one of my blog entries on the very same page; right in the center; above the photo op. (it takes up a fair amount of space.) No one even noticed that I had something published in there. They passed it around to a group of guys who knew me, knew I was a columnist for a DI, one of the guys is my actually my best friend, and nobody glanced high enough on the page to notice my name.

It turns out, a familiar face on the Opinions page is sometimes the best part of the entire paper.

Spring Break Job Search

It's an interesting feeling to know that you're going to graduate in less than two months and student loan repayment will begin shortly thereafter. Perhaps "Panic" is a better word to describe the feeling. In my entire college career I've never done anything for spring break other than stay in town and work. This year was different. This year I decided to go to DC and look for work.

I've never been to DC before but the city has everything I want. The thing I'll miss most about the U of I is all of the access that I have to student resources along with all the lectures and the general academic atmosphere. What city in the country could offer a more intellectually stimulating environment than DC? Not only do the think tanks, agencies and nonprofits have regular debates and speakers, but there's also Congressional hearings, Supreme Court oral arguments, and Smithsonian exhibits. (Plus, the Newseum is opening in April! This place is like Disney World for a nerd like me!)

So, I made arrangements and went to DC last week to talk to a couple of prospective employers, look for apartments, and generally get acquainted with the city and try to find my way around. After I finalized the arrangements, I received a plethora of advice like, "I wouldn't want to live there." or "Don't walk by yourself late at night. Make sure you're with a group of people." and other random warnings of crime and potential danger. At first, it made an impression as I thought, "What am I getting myself into?" But those hesitations quickly vanished as I realized - I'd much rather take my chances on meeting up with pickpockets and con artists than to stay home, safe and afraid of the rest of the world. The thought of living my entire life in the Midwest is far too depressing.

I went out there and it turns out, I love DC. I didn't even need to use my pepper spray once! I found the people in DC to be really nice, and everyone was helpful. When I talked to potential employers, they gave me tips about where to look for an apartment; When I looked at apartments, I learned more about how to get around and what neighborhoods to avoid. I loved it.

Perhaps the most convincing thing for me was not how much I loved DC, but how unimpressed I was with the few touristy things I did. I think I learned more about U.S. history from watching the John Adams miniseries on HBO than I did from touring the capital. The best part of my tourist endeavors was actually a walk in front of the capital. The lady in front of me was walking her dog in front of the reflecting pool, and the dog just ran off and took a flying leap into the reflecting pool and started swimming around, happy as hell to be in the nation's capital.

I'm with you, pooch.

New Post Just For Jon

This is actually a continuation of a comment made on a previous post, but I'm starting a new entry to avoid another reprimand from Jon for lengthy comments.

The blog entry was about the U of I giving Karl Rove $40,000 to not answer questions. My response is to the comment from publici08. First of all, I should've known better. I should have known that making the statement "...he may be correct..." in reference to Karl Rove would lead to accusations of inaccurate statements. It's difficult to get beyond my disbelief that someone from the Center for Public Integrity is aware that the DI Opinions blog exists; but my attempts to comprehend have sparked a mental image of the Center as an institutional version of Marlo Stanfield, responding to accusations of bias through clenched teeth: "My name is on the blog? My name is my NAME!"

For everyone other than the two people reading who watch the Wire, you have to trust me - it's a delightful personification. Much like the fictional Baltimore Kingpin, the Center does not take kindly to accusations (and I must say, their scope of research is impressive if it reaches Iowa.) So, when I mentioned Karl Rove's response to 935 false statements discovered by the Center for Public Integrity, I was - as Jon said - dished up some hot spicy pwnage[sic] on behalf of the Center. I don't like being accused of inaccurate statements any more than an independent nonprofit
501(c)(3) likes to be accused of bias, so I'll explain exactly what led me to the offending statements.

First of all, bias itself is subjective. Some people think Fox News is fair and balanced, some think the New York Times is objective. It all depends on where you're standing. Stephen Colbert said it best at the White House Correspondents Shunfest: Reality has a well known liberal bias. From where Karl Rove is standing, nearly everyone is on the left.

But, no matter how far left of Rove you stand, there are factors that would lead one to believe that the Center truly is left of center; the first of which would be a visit to their website, publicintegrity.org. The home page links to investigations about misstatements by the Bush administration, an environmental study kept under wraps by the administration, analysis of U.S. government contracts in Iraq, post-9/11 foreign policy, and not to mention the video of Condi Rice being grilled by a Florida Congressman (Colbert Report fans know him - he has lots of fun things to do!) with a web address for Rep. Wexler's site calling for Cheney's impeachment. This is not my personal opinion, but society likes to put people in either a blue box or a red box. When measuring the words "Bush" and "Clinton" in the site's search function, the Clinton search finds 4 ambiguous-sounding headlines, the Bush search nets 34, with varying degrees of contention. Surely one can see how this organization would be filed in the blue box with the donkey on the front.

The ties to George Soros I mentioned were from Open Society grants. I did not mean to suggest any involvement beyond financial support; which Soros is generally known for.

I have another reaction to yesterday's comment as well. I find it curious that anytime someone accuses the Center of bias, they bring up the investigation of the Clintons and the Lincoln bedroom. When the War Card investigation was released, I saw Bill Buzenberg on C-Span's Q&A when Brian Lamb pressed him on the issue of bias. As I remember it, he even went so far as to ask if anyone working for the Center could be considered "right of center," but Buzenberg looked uncomfortable and brought up the Lincoln bedroom story. I'm not using this as evidence of bias, but I do think it's a bit like calling a white community "culturally diverse" because there's one Jewish person and a Filipino in town.

All of that has nothing to do with my personal opinion of the Center for Public Integrity. In the aforementioned Q&A interview, Brian Lamb made an excellent point. Buzenberg was there to talk about the investigation on misstatements, and Lamb introduced news headlines citing the Center's research. His point was to illustrate the low expectations in contemporary news media. The Center did extensive research on statements by individuals in the Bush administration. The mainstream media just reported it. It was an interesting point that media sources inform the public by saying, "a new study shows..." and giving a brief summary. It really isn't an expectation of mainstream media to do their own investigative reporting anymore. It's quite depressing when you think that nonprofits and think tanks do the investigative wok and media does little more than deliver the headline to their audience. Hell, in some cases corporations are the ones funding the studies. Investigative journalism is a dying art. I have a lot of respect for the Center for Public Integrity and for its founder, Charles Lewis. My intent was not to reinforce Rove's assertions of bias, but to question his reaction as if bias and lies were the same thing.

If there is, in fact, someone affiliated with the Center for Public Integrity who stumbled upon this blog; I may be facing some more snaps. I will say this - I'm planning a trip to DC next week for spring break. If I have in any way misrepresented the Center, you may prove me wrong in person.

Is Andrew going to be ok?

I don't mean because of the blood pressure meds they'll have to put him on if HRC doesn't drop out soon, either. I found out yesterday that the series finale of the Wire is on Sunday. Sunday as in - the day of the Karl Rove lecture.

Dude, do you have to work at the lecture? Because I'm thinking you're reeeeeaaaalllllllyyyyy going to dislike Karl Rove if you've got to spend the evening with him instead of McNulty and Marlo.

(I almost said "That's Bunk!" but I resisted the urge for a bad pun and put it in parentheses so it wouldn't count.)