After New Hampshire

I don't usually get into politics in public places. It's just not me. However, after watching and listening to the fallout of the New Hampshire primaries, I have to say something.

There's been a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton's crying episode and how it may have swayed female voters. Seriously, I can't believe people are saying this shit. How fucking sexist is that? Was it planned? Who knows. But in an age of supposed enlightenment, it shocks the shit out of me that any of these broadcasters and news agencies are even saying that. Is it true? Maybe. But maybe not. No one knows why the polls were all wrong. But saying that crying appealed to women voters and making such a big fucking deal out of it is ridiculous. Does anyone remember one of the arguments against the suffrage movement? It was that women were too emotional to make a wise decision. Thanks for taking us back to the late 1800's, American Media Complex.

I have also heard a lot of talk about how Obama could win so big in Iowa and then get beaten so soundly in New Hampshire by a candidate that came in third just a week earlier. Out of all the bullshit and spinning that I've heard, no one has talked about how perhaps in Iowa they favor someone who seems nice versus New Hampshire where maybe that isn't as important as experience or something else.

The more I listen to the national news, the more surprised I become at how vapid or insipid or, hell, I can't think of a good word, but it's disgusting. Obama's strength has less to do with his skin color and more to do with his message. The same can be said about Clinton's sex. Their physical attributes have affected their lives and their experiences and, I concede, their messages. The problem is our shallow media is focusing less on these messages and more on their skin color and sex.

Considering how far we've come, it's amazing how far backwards we're falling.