I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. To suggest that Kennedy was killed by a vast international conspiracy or that the 2000 Presidential election was rigged or even that the US government allowed either AIDS or 9/11 to happen is to suggest that someone somewhere — a dark cabal of industrialists and clandestine political powerbrokers maybe — are in control of the world’s fortunes.

And the truth is that no one is in control. The natural state of humanity is brutal chaos and if anybody were in control, I would find that comforting. But anarchy is the default setting, and only law can dull its edge, muzzle its rampages, and briefly extinguish its fires.

This brings me to a conspiracy theory that is currently trolling the Internet, espoused by fringe bloggers and pundits alike: that Senator Hillary Clinton, aware that winning the Democratic nomination for President is numerically impossible, is willing to slyly sabotage Senator Barack Obama in the hopes that he will lose to Senator John McCain in November, thus opening the door for her to run again in 2012.

It is plausible, considering the fact that her political generation owes more to Richard Nixon than they will ever admit. After all, it’s the Baby Boomers who flock to the Clintons, and it’s those same Baby Boomers who have tried to make this nomination campaign about race and gender, rather than what it’s actually about — namely, generation.

I refuse to believe this conspiracy theory. As I said, it is plausible. But so is time travel. Senator Clinton has savagely attacked Senator Obama over every wedge issue she could possibly employ: he’s an elitist, he’s too young, he’s allied with religious fruitcakes and militant blacks, to name but a few.Whether these wounds inflicted within the party will fester and infect once he’s out on the national stage remains to be seen. But I definitely see how these tactics could benefit the opposition, and the opposition will surely exploit the precedent.

I can also imagine a national campaign where Senator Clinton disappears into the ether — she, her husband and their post-yuppie, retirement-happy Me generation political machine barely lifting their manicured paws to help the Democratic nominee. After all, some proponents of this conspiracy would point out that Senator Clinton and McCain share a fondness for macho, military posturing and pandering tax holiday snake oil. Perhaps she’d prefer to wait four years through an administration that doesn’t offend her various corporate contributors.

Yes, it’s all plausible. And to return to ol’ Tricky Dick, calculating patience is an advantageous weapon to the skilled politician with long-term vision.

Conspiracy theories are security blankets for the paranoid, and that is their enduring allure. Hillary and Bill Clinton haven’t conceived some villainous master plan. She’s overreacting and overcompensating, lurching for the brass ring with all the subtlety of a prince trying to extinguish birthday candles with a fire hose.

In her naked and desperate frenzy to assume the nomination she feels she’s entitled to, Clinton is poisoning the well she drinks from. Like a child smashing toys she doesn’t want to share with anyone else, her tantrums aren’t choreographed ballet but chaotic seizures.

Only in retrospect does it seem like some nefarious plot that was hatched. If Senator Obama loses to Senator John McCain, and, for the sake of argument, Senator Clinton were to rise, phoenix-like (or Nixon-like, pick your own metaphor), she will preside over a party as ideologically bankrupt as the GOP.

No one is in control, except when it comes to the individual controlling his or her actions. So here’s hoping that Senator Clinton comes to her senses and controls hers. For far too long, her generation has put party before country. She’s a disciplined political veteran wholly capable of conspiring to help wrest the White House from the Republicans.

–John DeVore

Church may not be a part of my Sunday morning ritual but I occasionally ponder what heaven and hell might look like. My vision of heaven usually involves the clichéd white clouds and harp music, along with an all-you-can eat dessert bar where everything is magically calorie-free. But it’s when I think about hell — well, that’s when my imagination really runs wild. In my worst nightmares, Satan’s lair is actually the set of a Fox News show with all the anchors gathered around waiting to grill my liberal ass. So as both Clinton and Obama (as well as other Democratic leaders) turn to the network they once shied away from in the hope of attracting unsure and conservative voters, I’m left wondering: Have they made a deal with the devil?

Last year alone was proof enough that Dems see Fox News as a fiery inferno. In March 2007, the Nevada Democratic Party backed out of an agreement they had with the network to co-sponsor a debate. The reason? Fox News President had made a ridiculously inappropriate joke comparing Obama and Osama Bin Laden (good one). And throughout the course of last year, Edwards , Clinton, and Obama repeatedly turned down offers to appear on the network, most likely because of Fox anchors’ penchant for constantly attacking the Democratic candidates.

Yet since the start of 2008, there seems to have been a complete about-face. Clinton has made 10 appearances in the last four months, compared to her three last year. And Obama has already been on the network eight times, whereas he only made two appearances last year. The chairman of Clinton’s campaign even went so far as to declare Fox fair and balanced after they were the first to project her Pennsylvania win. These things alone have many left-wingers in a tizzy. How could Obama and Clinton turn to a news channel that has, time and again, shown a bias towards Republicans.

The simple answer: With the Democratic primaries as close as they are, Obama and Clinton are clearly feeling the need to reach a bigger audience. Sure, they could continue popping up on MSNBC and CNN to go over the campaign points but over there, they’re in all likelihood just preaching to the people they already have in the bag. And while Fox may be conservative, there’s no arguing that it’s the highest-rated and most-watched news channel. By making regular appearances, both candidates can reach out to viewers who are straddling the fence.

So while it might be tiresome and at times even offensive for Obama to walk the Fox gauntlet, it’s a necessary evil. We’re down to the final stretch. I, for one, want a candidate who’s willing to do what it takes to reach voters… even if it means squaring off against Bill O’Reilly.

– Bethany Heitman

Dipdive is proud that hip hop star will.i.am has been awarded a Webby for Artist of the Year in recognition of his contribution to the “political landscape” with his “Yes We Can” video supporting U.S. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The video, which was released on February 2nd, 2008 on both Dipdive.com and YouTube.com, features celebrities such as Kate Walsh, John Legend, and Scarlett Johansson, among 35 other notables. Viewed over 17 million times, this viral political phenomenon has inspired dozens of others to follow suit, many of which are featured on the Dip•approved section of the site.

The honor is given to those that the 550-member International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences Webby Awards committee (whose members include “Simpsons” creator Matt Groening, columnist and writer Arianna Huffington and Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein) feel represent the “Best of the Web.” The “Oscars of the Internet” are considered the leading international awards for websites, interactive advertising and online video.

Past winners include YouTube co-founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley, rock legend David Bowie and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

This year’s winners will be honored at a gala ceremony in New York on June 10th. Please join Dipdive in celebrating will.i.am’s success.

Perot in ’92. Nader in ’00. Third party runs can have big impacts. Had the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney, we’d probably be hearing a lot about Chuck Hagel, Michael Bloomberg, and Unity ’08. But the fact is that McCain and the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Obama) will be fighting a pitched battle for centrists. Both will claim to be experts in the art of the compromise.

The match-up, however, will leave a few issues that a third party candidate could exploit. None of the major party candidates are anti-illegal immigration. Some issues, such as free-trade, withdrawing troops from Iraq, and cutting taxes, leave room for candidates with more extreme views to gain traction.

Let’s look at a few possible third party candidates.

– Hillel Aron

According to this test, I’m a racist.

But I don’t need a biased, slightly Orwellian Internet-based quiz masquerading as a meaningful sociological mirror of the masses to tell me what I already knew even though I am fully (and at times gratefully) ignorant as to the academic nuances of racial theory.

I first realized I was racist during one of my first elementary school birthday parties. The other kids in suburban Washington D.C. had never seen a piñata. And when one of the children asked me if my mother was my maid, and if she’d get him some more orange soda, I responded “yes” to both inquiries.

At that moment, I realized that not every kid’s mother was Mexican-American. She became my maid at that moment because I didn’t have the words to express or explain why I was different. It’s a classic childhood conundrum – you want to be Spiderman and not who you are.

I am the happy byproduct of a biracial union — part Mexican-American and part Caucasian something or other from Louisiana. To my white friends, I’ve always joked that being half-Mexican meant I steal the hubcaps from my own pickup. To my Latino friends, I joke that I’m a chubby gringo who does his own dishes, even when eating out. I’m a redneck wetback — a wetneck, thank you — and proud of growing up being judged by two ethnicities.

I joked for years because I found it too difficult to reconcile being partially freed from the bunker-mentality of racial identity. I’m not Mexican. But I’m not white, even though I look it. My brothers are darker skinned than I am, and so I’ve sometimes felt incognito in certain circles.

Obama speaks to me on many ideological and intellectual levels, but I connected with the Senator on one visceral level – he understands what it’s like to grow up in post-civil rights America. He knows what it’s like to stroll around with a mother who is not the same skin color as he is. He knows that in America, racial prejudice is a social obstacle that corrupts the meritocracy.

To be human is to lazily prejudge people based on superficial details. But another uniquely human inclination is our ability to transcend our baser demons. In order to do this, however, we’ve got to know those demons names. We’re all racist, sorry Internet test. But to use a term coined by 80s afternoon cartoon, GI Joe, “knowing is half the battle.” In retrospect, that sunny, moralizing animated show about patriotic excess never seemed more vital. Go, Joe, indeed.

My worldview slowly changed over the years, and the first step was admitting to my mother the shame I carried for feeling neither totally white nor Mexican. Then I started meeting other people who were biracial – part Latino and part white, like me. Or part African-American and part German. Part Asian and part Latino. And on and on. I now live in Queens , one of the most diverse places on earth, and feel right at home. My racial identity is to respect whatever ethnic deli I’m in, and to do so happily.

Taking the simplistic test reminded me of how lamely binary the current discourse over race has become. On a slow day, the media loves the sizzle of race. But that the current campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination is a matter of race versus gender — to suggest that voters lie to pollsters by saying they won’t vote based on race and gender and then do — baffles me.

I believe that our identity is formed by our actions but we are defined by our skill with our talents and our strength of character is determined when those talents come into conflict with adversity. I reject, categorically, the identity of race. And by extension, the identity of tax brackets as well. That’s who I am.

Even if I can’t define myself simply by checking a box.

–John DeVore

Politicians are the rock stars of Washington D.C. They get the best tables without reservations, they have adoring fans, their aids are at their beck and call like roadies and their spotless Town Cars shuttle them from one paparazzi-filled event to another, like blinged-out tour buses dropping drug-addled musicians off at various shows. But the reality is that politicians are not rock stars. They don’t look hot in leather pants, they’re too square to be bad boys, and, unless power renders you blind, they have zero sex appeal.

Seeing Tommy Lee with his wife Pam Anderson together is hot. Imagining shamed ex-New York governor Eliot Spizter rolling around sweaty and naked with call girls is disgusting. Really thinking about what Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton were doing, not to mention knowing what will forever be on her blue dress , is equally revolting. In short, picturing the men and women who are running our country having sex is essentially the equivalent of imagining your own parents going at it — necessary but vaguely nauseating.

Recent Spitzer-gate reports have brought us both revelations from a second call girl and the news that an entire book devoted to the scandalous sex life of Spitzer (for a rumored $350,000, which is, by some people’s estimates , roughly 350 blissful nights) is being shopped around. He liked to keep his socks on during sex. And use props. What more could we possibly need or want to know that would fill up 300 pages?

Let’s not forget that former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey wrote a tell-all memoir, The Confession, about his homosexual extramarital affairs. It seems once politicians get caught in the act, they think they might as well spill the beans and tell the public every last nuance of their torrid sex lives. Please no!

It’s a good thing that Senator Larry Craig denied the fact that he was looking for sex in a man’s bathroom or we might have had to hear all about his proclivities. Does he take his glasses off? Is he a top or a bottom? Does he like it rough? Most men in power do, it seems (but that’s another topic altogether).

Not only are we constantly bombarded with the sex lives of current politicians, but also with news about long-deceased ones. A New York businessman recently bought a 40-year-old sex tape of Marilyn Monroe servicing an unknown man — potentially a Kennedy. (John had movie star looks so if he was the one being pleasured, that actually transcends the ick politician factor.)

Drugs, sex and rock and roll go hand in hand. Drugs, sex and politicians do not. Yes, politicians can have sex. Yes, they can hire prostitutes, cheat on their spouses, and keep their socks on. But I, for one, feel better when I’m not aware of these things. I say we need to reel our politicians in before this rash of interest in their sex lives goes too far and they really start behaving like rock — or even worse, reality — stars.

Otherwise we may soon be privy to Hillary Clinton giving us panty-less crotch shots as she gets out of her spotless Town Car.

– Sascha Rothchild

After narrowly ducking my waiter’s dreadlocks in the Union Square Cosi, I glanced at my entrée options and saw, for the first time, nanny state New York’s latest adventure in babysitting: the city’s regulation that over 2,000 restaurants must now post calorie counts on their menus.

Now, normally I’m not one to count calories because A) I’m bad at math, and B) I’m a dude (really can’t emphasis that last bit enough), but when your salad’s stats are staring at you like a batting average on a baseball card, you tend to take notice.

The Grilled Chicken TBM Sandwich has 790 calories? What part of grilled rather than fried is this menu not understanding? WTF, TBM?

And the Thai Chicken and Peanut Noodle Pasta is a gut-busting 1500 calories? I thought Thai people were supposed to be skinny?

Even the lentil soup was close to 300 callies! What the hell is even in a lentil?

I don’t want to know all this, thought I. Leave the calorie counts at the grocery (which is the food equivalent of work) and away from the TGIFriday’s of the world (which, we can all agree, is the culinary equivalent of a vacation, and who cares what’s in the Fiery Chicken Popper Sandwich if you’re on vacation!)

I then began to realize why the New York State Restaurant Association was so against printing these hard truths: every light item on the menu was significantly cheaper that their more caloric counterparts.

This is going to hurt their bottom line—but will it help the local lardies? Are we really better off knowin people still smoke.”

Perhaps. Still, I suspect we’ll hear little of the lost revenue suffered by a favorite French bistro down the block, and a lot more about some nonexistent carrot craze that’s swept the city.

But that’s the thing about a government that knows what’s good for you. Sure, those aforementioned cigarette warnings may not have worked, but everyone wants to talk about how Bloomberg supposedly decreased the number of city smokers and increased air quality with his prohibition-approaching tobacco taxes. Yet nobody wants to examine the black market that sprung up overnight in, say, my old East Harlem neighborhood when the price gauging took effect.

The same guys that used to push rock on me as I exited the 116th street subway station were now accosting me with cheap stolen ciggies (I would’ve taken them up on it if they ever sold anything but menthols). What’s next — pushers addling up to people offering the Grilled Chicken TBM Sandwich that Cosi discontinued because people stopped ordering it?

– Bill Schulz

We all know that Hill-dog went after MoveOn at a recent gathering of Clinton donors, blaming what she labeled the “activist base” of the Democratic Party – specifically, the dedicated members of MoveOn — for her defeats throughout the nomination process.

The problem with attacking the “activist base” is three-fold. One, because she’s going to need help from the activist base if she magically captures the Democratic nomination. Two, because it re-ignites the infighting that has long plagued the American Left. And three, because she’s going to need help from the activist base if she magically captures the nomination.

So how did the activist base react to her statements? Well, MoveOn’s Eli Pariser, for one, felt that the organization deserved better than to be “dismissed using Republican talking points.” The rest just scratched their heads… and wondered why Hillary felt the need to take a swing at committed members of her own party, which just might motivate them to work a little bit harder for Barack Obama.

And that’s not good for Senator Clinton, especially in these crucial days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

It makes sense that Hillary would have issues with the activist base. After all, MoveOn endorsed Obama back in February. And most of those crazy lefties — er, dedicated MoveOn members — are sporting Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” sticker on the rear windows of their old-school Volvo 240s. And they’re challenging the prowess of Hillary’s beloved Democratic Leadership Council at state levels nationwide by engaging themselves in local politics and supporting progressive candidates.

Still, why did Hillary feel the need to take a swing at MoveOn and the activist base at all? Well, the answer just might be related to the makeup of the above-mentioned gathering of Clinton donors.

Hillary was speaking to an elegant living room filled with high-end donors. And those folks are getting very nervous about the state of American politics, mainly because they can’t stand the fact that they now have to share the “little d” democratic process with the dedicated members of MoveOn.

So what’s the end result? Well, there’s evidence that some of Clinton’s donors are starting to think about Obama, even after his recent loss in Pennsylvania. When former Hillraisers are defecting at this stage of the game, it’s a probably safe to say that Hillary wishes people would move on from her recent comments.

–Brendan Smith

Halle-freaking-lujah. “Bitter-gate,” the largely manufactured outrage over Barack Obama’s comments about small town (natch working class) voters and their interests, seems to have run its inevitable course. After a few weeks of whining and complaining, the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign seem to have backed off that particular line of attack line.

Why? Because it didn’t work.

Thank God. I was really getting tired of this particular chapter in the campaign. Everyone (with half a brain) knew what Obama meant when he said that small town Americans were “bitter,” and that many of those people cling to “God and guns” to deal with the stresses and strains of modern life.

My question is this: What’s the next line of attack? Because we know something’s coming.

So does Obama. As he told ABC News’ Sunlen Miller, “You know, over the last several weeks since she fell behind, she’s resorted to what’s called ‘kitchen sink’ strategies. She’s got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me.”

Bud, trust me: She’ll throw the whole freaking house at you before all is said and done. The entire building — if she can get her hands on a crane. Luckily, the Obama campaign is creating a rapid response team to deal with future Swift-boating from all those opposed to his candidacy. On their agenda to combat: Obama’s ties to 60s radical Bill Ayers and developer Antoin Rezko, among others.

In this day and age, you’ve got to create that kind of staff before you start campaigning but that’s a whole other story. Still, I’m glad that Team Obama has finally realized that they have to be aggressive about deflecting incoming china. An annoying task, but crucial in today’s blood sport of politics.

I, for one, speculate that the china will continue to be hurled right up until the second that Obama takes the stage in Denver. And a glance inside their playbook might look something like this:

-Street artist and Obama supporter Shepard Fairey used red to color his sad little poster for Obama’s campaign. Did Obama sign off on the use of that color? If so, we should look into that, because it’s a clear nod to Mao lovers and misguided Che fans everywhere.

-The bowling video suggests that Obama is not a “bowler.” Wink wink. Hopefully, he’s gay. Keep looking.

-Obama spent a few years at Occidental College in Eagle Rock, CA. An area not too far from gang-controlled territory. Not inconceivable that Obama stood in a taco truck line with a Cypress Park “gangsta.” If so, did they talk? And about what? Investigating…

The McCain folk are in on the china throwing as well. His deputy campaign manager emailed donors about the fact that the chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister supports Obama and added, “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.”

What do you think? I’d say that was both a salad plate and a saucer.

–Brendan Smith
]]> http://www.dipdive.com/archives/188/feed http://www.dipdive.com/archives/185 http://www.dipdive.com/archives/185#comments Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:29:28 +0000 Sascha Rothchild http://www.dipdive.biz/?p=185

In the last two Presidential elections, there were giant voting debacles. Florida miscounted votes in 2000 and low and behold, Bush beat Gore. In 2004, Bush again took the prize after old machines caused polling problems in Ohio. Because our voting system doesn’t always seem to be fair and square, I say that we should throw away the polls and instead rely on a great American standby with impeccable rules and guidelines: the game show.

Since the scandals surrounding quiz shows in the 1950s, strict laws have governed the integrity of their outcomes. And between old favorites like The Newlywed Game and new primetime juggernauts like Deal or No Deal , more Americans watch and love game shows than actually show up to the polls and vote. So instead of months of expensive campaigning, occasionally boring speeches and unpleasant smear ads, Obama, Clinton and McCain should battle it out in front of the country on a variety of game shows. Instead of winning cash and prizes, of course, they get the Presidency.

Presidential candidates are always spouting that they are not above the people but of the people. Putting them on Family Feud , a game show that tests the contestant’s knowledge of what the average American thinks, is the perfect way to see if their assertions are accurate. Obama, Clinton and McCain could put together a team of five, using their best aids and consultants, and see who scores the most points guessing what 100 people said was their favorite Thanksgiving dessert.

The Moment of Truth, a new Fox show that is equal parts riveting and revolting, forces people to answer absurdly personal questions while strapped to a lie detector. On this, we could finally cut out the political correctness and get to the bottom of McCain’s real beliefs on how long we should stay in Iraq , Clinton’s feelings about what “sexual relations” really means, and Obama’s alleged dislike for Pennsylvanians.

Having the candidates on Jeopardy without their researchers and aids would reveal their general knowledge of hundreds of topics including history, science and potent potables . Putting them on the spot answering trivia would not only be telling, but watching McCain try to sweep a category on Jane Austin novels may well be far more entertaining than watching caucuses.

Clinton, McCain and Obama all talk about grand economic problems and solutions, but do any of them even know how much a gallon of milk costs? When was the last time one of them went to the hardware store and bought light bulbs, Krazy Glue or a lawn mower? A few rounds on The Price is Right would show if our candidates are in touch at all with the day-to-day struggles people have with their income and the economy.

The President of United States should also have stellar negotiating skills. And what better arena is there to showcase this than on Let’s Make a Deal? That show is all about instincts, choices, and making sure you don’t trade in a Cadillac for a camel.

Don’t buy any of this? Well, consider the fact that if the nominees had been forced to go on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? in the last election, John Kerry would in all likelihood be our current President.

– Sascha Rothchild