After getting about 2.5 hours of sleep last night, I am absolutely exhausted, and I have an Art History exam tomorrow. (I spent about half the night at a convention center outside of Florence with way too many Americans watching CNN and BBC on big screens and then the other half of the night refreshing the SD Secretary of State election pages and chatting with friends online.) Thus, you will sadly have to wait a little while longer for my full reflections on what happened in America yesterday.

There is one point I want to make right now though.

I now know what it feels like to be patriotic.

I know that sounds a little weird and/or sappy, but the thought first hit me at Invesco Field, during Obama’s speech there, that, if he were to win, I might actually, you know, pull a Michelle Obama and be proud of America. I guess it turned out to be true. But what is weird is that I’m not the only one that it happened today. When I met a few other Midd students on the bus this morning on the way to class, the first thing one girl said was, “You know what’s weird? I actually think today I feel patriotic.” When talking to my friends on Skype this evening, people said the exact same thing. It’s also reflected in tons of people’s Facebook statuses.

In response to this, I find myself asking, is this a part of growing up, a part of having my own political opinions, a part of choosing to get involved? Or is this just Obama? Or is it both?

OK, more tomorrow.

Buona sera tutti!

-Em

PS: Don’t worry though, I don’t see myself becoming a Kenny Chesney supporting, flag toting, gun carrying citizen any time soon, or, like, ever.

So after two years of campaigning and all that jazz, Election Day in the United States has finally arrived. And I’m in Italy. Funny how things work.

Anyway, how I made it through classes today without suffering a nervous breakdown, I have no idea, but I survived all the same. I hope to do some sort of posting/live blogging much later in the evening (early morning in Florence), but I’m going out first with some friends to destress and hash through it all. In the meantime, I give you some sights to pay attention to as the night unfolds as well as interesting little tidbits.

• MiddBlog: My co-editors, along with some other students and professors, have a sweet liveblog setup for all day today. Look for me over there occasionally as well.
• Debatable: There is guaranteed to be interesting student commentary over at Debatable as the night goes on.
• Presidential Power: Though Prof. Dickenson will be providing commentary in the Grille tonight, look for his pre- and post-election analysis.
• Don’t forget CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Google, FiveThirtyEight and TPM as places to watch the votes come in online.
• And, finally, here’s a little interesting tidbit from two years ago when the first polls put McCain and Obama head to head. This should give some insight of just how strong Obama’s campaign strategy is. Name recognition like he has now compapred to the beginning doesn’t just appear overnight.

Have any other cool sites? Do share!

PS: VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE! If you haven’t already. Preferrably for Obama, but, who am I to judge?

PPS: Remember my survival guide for the 2006 elections? Yeah, it still totally applies.

There’s always next time, right?

Prematurely lauded as the most important vice presidential debate in the history of the universe, last night’s “disuscussion” between Democriatc VP nominee Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska largely fell flat.

As many have pointed out over the last few days, this was Palin’s debate to win (though, importantly, not necessarily Biden’s debate to lose). She is the darling child of the McCain ticket and consistently manages to increase his ratings higher than the governor’s hairstylist can pile her bun. However, in recent interviews, namely the one with Katie Couric, Palin has shown that she knows little to nothing about many of Americian’s biggest policies (read: the Bush Doctrine). Thus, last night, the bar for her was low. And, as many staunch conservatives held their breath and nervously sipped their whiskey all night, Palin slowly renewed their faith in her. She made no major gaffes other than decide to talk about Gen. McClellan and the American Civil War instead of Afghanistan. She stayed on her talking points and true to McCain’s message.

Perhaps, however, one should be careful not to say that Palin exceeded expectations. She was never asked follow up questions so never forced to go into detail. She may to some extent have controlled the direction of the debate by sticking to her script but, after a certain point, it began to make her look desperate. She proved that she doesn’t think it’s important to investigate the causes of global issues. She may have done well at talking to the camera, making sure every American caught her wink, but it also meant every American caught that nervous pursing of the lips that she does before she’s about to make up a cute answer. In short, Palin may have finally (four weeks before the election) validated her presence on the McCain ticket but she did not “win” this debate as expected giving the surge towards Obama a reason to deviate. And, with any luck, the media in the coming week is not going to let her forget that she messed up when she talked about Biden’s record on Iraq.

Speaking of Biden, remember how this was Palin’s debate to win and that he was probably going to have no effect? Yeah, well why is everyone actually talking about Biden? Because he performed beautifully. Managing not to put his foot in his mouth as he has done so many times in the past (Bosnian muslims really are called Bosniaks), Biden proved that he is very well versed not only in American policy, but Obama’s policy (note the change from Biden’s first appearance on the Obama ticket). He answered every question pointedly and forcefully. He managed to take away two of Palin’s trump cards: having a child in Iraq and knowing what it’s like to “play mommy”. He remained calm and cool and didn’t change tone throughout the night (note the periodic deep breaths that you can hear in the mic). He also became the second candidate not afriad to show America his tears. I think we all just fell in love.

One of Biden’s major mistakes was not attacking Palin directly, not going at her throat and holding her directly accountable for her past actions. And thus appears the influence of sexism in this race. What is notable about Biden’s avoidance of any sort of talk that could be deemed as sexist is that it made him that much less open for attack by Republicans in the coming days. Instead of going for low blows, they have to attack his 30+ years of executive knowledge. Biden was less direct with the camera which means he may not score as well with average viewers but he never let Palin’s “stick to the script” attitude throw him off. He remained flexible and ready for anything.

I’ll admit, I came into this debate an Obama-Biden fan and therefore came in with a more cynical view of Palin. And honestly, she did nothing to change my mind. She brought in a few “cringe moments” like “i’m not always going to answer the questions you want me to” or the fact that she can’t pronounce “nuclear” or her “i’m so glad we can all agree that we love the jews” statements. I’m also annoyed at how she has lowered the level of language in debates. She’s constantly dropping her g’s and throwing in some home grown slogans once worthy only of the mother in Bobby’s World. While this may seem like this really means “anyone can be president,” I’m going to repeat what I’ve said before: I want my candidates to be smarter than me. I was also incredibly disturbed by Palin’s belief in the expansion of executive power. It not only showed her lack of knowledge of the American government, but it also demonstrated that she thinks as VP she’ll be able to do whatever she wants. Plus, wasn’t she the one saying all night that we need to limit government, make it smaller? You can’t do that by expanding the powers of the VP.

In the end though, as Rolling Stone put it, “this debate isn’t going to affect a damn thing.” Palin may have recovered ground lost in recent weeks but remained an unsuitable match for Biden’s more collected attitude and finesse. I think both parties came out of the debate with renewed confidence in their own VP candidates but undecideds were probably still left undecided.

(PS: These were my reactions after watching the debate from 3:00 to 4:30 in the morning with most of the thoughts coming out of a semi-bizarre gchat session with many lines that should never be repeated. The morning news seems to be saying that Biden actually won (though one needs to be wary of these early polls) and that this debate was good in the sense that it made it even harder for McCain to gain any ground. Are there any other states he wants to pull out of?)

Yesterday, Republican Presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain decided to suspend his campaign and called for a cancellation (note: not a postponement) of his upcoming debate with Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama so that he could return to D.C. and help solve the financial crisis. (READ THE NEWS HERE)

OK, I have several issues with this decision.

First, the decision to “bailout” or “fix” the economy this time around is clearly not in the hands of the Senate. Bush’s Administration and Sec. Paulson are directing everything. Therefore, no one Senator can expect to return to Congress and help to fix everything. Furthermore, McCain is already in the Bush camp, which means he’s returning to D.C. to say “yes” to Bush’s ideas. I’m sorry, but that’s not “work,” that’s time off from your campaign.

Speaking of time off, I think we have to look at some other reasons why McCain might want to suspend his campaign. The first, of course, is that he’s playing politics, but I’ll address that in a minute. The second would be his health. Stories are coming out, though slowly and often hidden by stories about Palin, that McCain is old and McCain is tired. He needs more make-up than Ru Paul to look fit for the public and some times he has trouble standing on his own. Under any other circumstances, we’d would see a suspension of his campaign as a concession of his weariness. Honestly, I want a President who is fit enough to juggle listening to the American people and dealing with a crisis.

As to the whole “playing politics” aspect. Obama and McCain are both running for President so any decision they make on this is going to be considered “playing politics.” The way I see it, each have two options: suspend campaign and return to Washington or continue to listen to what the American people actually want. I’ll take the latter, thank you. If this decision isn’t really in the hands of the Senate, then neither McCain or Obama have any reason to turn their attentions away from us and towards something that would not be useful. There are two ways to be a “maverick” in this scenario. Return, cape secured tightly to help all your friends in D.C., or stand alone, be the change, and help everyone else in the country, everyone who’s acutally suffering.

Overall, I’m not denying that we’re in a financial crisis. Trust me, I’m feeling it and I’m currently living on a different continent. However, I firmly believe that McCain has made the wrong decision, especially if he wants to be accountable to the American people. Obama is not “missing in action” in this crisis. He’s by your side, at the kitchen table at night, when you’re trying to decide what groceries you’re not going to be able to buy this week. He wants to know how much you’re really hurting. McCain’s returning to D.C. smacks of “Oops, I might have done something or voted on something to contribute to this crisis so I better return and cover my tracks.” Plus, Hillary Clinton made it very clear this summer that “suspending my campaign” does not mean “I have more important things to do.” It means “I concede.”

[End morning rant.]

I shook Barack Obama’s hand today. In Mitchell, South Dakota, of all places. My mom’s friend called and offered us VIP tickets at the last minute Friday night. My mother, knowing full well my admiration for the Senator, told her we would probably use them. I saw him speak back in January with Hillary, Richardson and Kucinich in New Hampshire, but the streets of South Dakota are always and entirely different experience. So, sure enough, my mom and I pulled ourselves away from a gorgeous day at the lake today to stand on the burning asphalt outside the Corn Palace.

It was an atmosphere only rural South Dakota could offer and, walking past the security guards and into the roped off staging area, I had sudden waves of nostalgia from my South Dakota State Fair days. I seriously expected to round the corner and see a Corn Dog stand or be handed a free 4-H yard stick. And god was it hot. Armed with our green armbands, my mom and I found our way to the VIP section (waving at our former minister in the process). It turned out that we were in a standing area on the backside of the podium, in front of all the people sitting in raised bleachers for the sake of the cameras. I immediately noticed that it was not a mobile podium and realized we would spend the entire time looking at Obama’s backside.

I was slightly puzzled why Obama would do such a photo-op in front of the Corn Palace, one that, from the side, mirrors Hillary’s in front of Mount Rushmore, other than that it is sort of an historic landmark (albeit an ugly one). But George McGovern explained it all away in his introductory speech, further illustrating the strategic brilliance of the Obama campaign. George McGovern has stood at almost the very same spot he did today introducing nearly every major politician, from Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican Presidential Nominee, to JFK to RFK to even Ted Kennedy. This is a symbolic spot for Democrats, especially the great ones, and Obama had every reason to be there.

He gave his standard stump speech, the one I basically know by heart, but because he does it without notes and because he plays off the crowd, it never grows old. I never once found myself tuning out because I wondered what he’d point out next, what story he would tell or which person he’d single out in the audience.

In the end, there were two highly impressive things about this event:

1) The amount of people–nearly all supporters. Supposedly there were almost 2000 people there and almost all Democrats (the rest were Republicans who will vote the right way in November). It was exciting to know that there are actually other people out there who think on the liberal side.
2) The length of time Obama spent shaking hands. He went through almost the entire crowd (compared to his other events). I don’t know if his Secret Service detail wasn’t as worried about Mitchell or if he knew that it was the one on one contact that is most important for South Dakota voters. Or perhaps he was just in a good mood.

What’s going to happen on Tuesday now? I have no idea. Obama has the ground supporter but Hillary’s here more. She and Bill have been trying to bribe the head of the State Democratic Party with fundraisers if he’ll switch his superdelegate vote. She’s also hosting her watch party here in Sioux Falls Tuesday night. That means she’s expecting it to be close. Probably not close enough to net her much, but enough to put doubt in the minds of some superdelegates.

If you’re bored on Tuesday, come to South Dakota and campaign. Otherwise, watch CNN.

I shook Barack Obama’s hand today. In Mitchell, South Dakota, of all places. My mom’s friend called and offered us VIP tickets at the last minute Friday night. My mother, knowing full well my admiration for the Senator, told her we would probably use them. I saw him speak back in January with Hillary, Richardson and Kucinich in New Hampshire, but the streets of South Dakota are always an entirely different experience. So, sure enough, my mom and I pulled ourselves away from a gorgeous day at the lake today to stand on the burning asphalt outside the Corn Palace.

It was an atmosphere only rural South Dakota could offer and, walking past the security guards and into the roped off staging area, I had sudden waves of nostalgia from my South Dakota State Fair days. I seriously expected to round the corner and see a Corn Dog stand or be handed a free 4-H yard stick. And god was it hot. Armed with our green armbands, my mom and I found our way to the VIP section (waving at our former minister in the process). It turned out that we were in a standing area on the backside of the podium, in front of all the people sitting in raised bleachers for the sake of the cameras. I immediately noticed that it was not a mobile podium and realized we would spend the entire time looking at Obama’s backside.

I was slightly puzzled why Obama would do such a photo-op in front of the Corn Palace, one that, from the side, mirrors Hillary’s in front of Mount Rushmore, other than that it is sort of an historic landmark (albeit an ugly one). But George McGovern explained it all away in his introductory speech, further illustrating the strategic brilliance of the Obama campaign. George McGovern has stood at almost the very same spot he did today introducing nearly every major politician, from Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican Presidential Nominee, to JFK to RFK to even Ted Kennedy. This is a symbolic spot for Democrats, especially the great ones, and Obama had every reason to be there.

He gave his standard stump speech, the one I basically know by heart, but because he does it without notes and because he plays off the crowd, it never grows old. I never once found myself tuning out because I wondered what he’d point out next, what story he would tell or which person he’d single out in the audience.

In the end, there were two highly impressive things about this event:

1) The amount of people–nearly all supporters. Supposedly there were almost 2000 people there and almost all Democrats (the rest were Republicans who will vote the right way in November). It was exciting to know that there are actually other people out there who think on the liberal side.
2) The length of time Obama spent shaking hands. He went through almost the entire crowd (compared to his other events). I don’t know if his Secret Service detail wasn’t as worried about Mitchell or if he knew that it was the one on one contact that is most important for South Dakota voters. Or perhaps he was just in a good mood.

What’s going to happen on Tuesday now? I have no idea. Obama has the ground support but Hillary’s here more. She and Bill have been trying to bribe the head of the State Democratic Party with fundraisers if he’ll switch his superdelegate vote. She’s also hosting her watch party here in Sioux Falls Tuesday night. That means she’s expecting it to be close. Probably not close enough to net her much, but enough to put doubt in the minds of some superdelegates.

If you’re bored on Tuesday, come to South Dakota and campaign. Otherwise, watch CNN.

(Photo courtesy of my cousin Ann who was standing at the exact same place as me except on the front side of the podium.)

Update: Here’s a photo of the event now on the SD for Barack Website.

As the Democratic Primary race winds down (that’s a figure of speech of course, for this race is sure to continue for decades, eons even) there is more and more speculation about an Obama/McCain matchup or a Hillary/McCain matchup. A major component of these speculations is about which states will be “in play.” While it remains somewhat ambiguous as to what “in play” means, I think the essence of the idea is that the pundits are stumped as to which state the candidates will screw up in next and lose all of the votes. In that vein, everyone’s favorite conservative loving terrorist hating Argus Leader Editorial Board put South Dakota  “in play” yesterday by forcing Hillary to say this (transcript at the bottom):

To be honest, I don’t know what any of this means or what the RFK remark has to do with anything. However, it does accomplish one thing: her incredulous tone about the need for party unity starts openning doors for her to take this fight to the primary. Whether or not she will actually do that remains highly uncertain, and, in the words of Peter Whathisface on MSNBC this morning, “an armegeddon scenario.” While I don’t find this remark particularly offensive to anyone (granted, I’m not a Kennedy or someone who was around when the assassination happened) I find it interesting the big deal everyone is making out of these words like they did Rev. Wright’s comments. Maybe there isn’t such a double standard after all. I also find it incredibly frightening that there is now public acknowledgement of security concerns for Barack. (Did anyone else notice the bullet proof glass and overprotective security guards at the Des Moines Speech on Tuesday?)

Anyway, here are a few links to interesting followups to the South Dakota fall out: The Financial Times, Wonkette, Andrew Sullivan, Rolling Stone, Gawker, BBC

Excerpt of Argus Leader Editorial Board Interview with Hillary Clinton:

EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

CLINTON: I don’t because, again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it and there’s lot of speculation about why it is, but . . .

EB: What’s your speculation?

CLINTON: You know, I don’t know, I find it curious and I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don’t really know, but it’s a historical curiosity to me.

EB: Does it have anything to do with gender?

CLINTON: I don’t know that either.

First NARAL and now Edwards.

Oh my god. I can’t handle it.

More later.

Here’s the invitation to the Obama Rally (with none other than the Barack Obama) in Sioux Falls:

Here’s a picture of my flight itinerary:

See the problem?