Day one

Today, it all begins.

I've unpacked the British and French cheese from my luggage, contacted the people I need (one of whom commented, "I've missed these offbeat conversations... welcome back"), and unloaded my travel companion, Lester (a stuffed monkey), from my bags.

The last 3 days have proven useful. After reading Madam President: Is America Ready to Send Hillary Clinton to the White House?, I am convinced that the answer is still, simply, "no."

It was interesting contrasting this book with the Audacity of Hope, as the case for Clinton was very strongly a case for feminism. To be fair, Madam President is written by a pundit, whereas Audacity of Hope is in Obama's own words. However, Clinton is portrayed as a lifelong feminist: despite living in her husband's shadow she has created positive, long lasting relationships that helped her establish her own political career. Thus, a vote for her is an endorsement of this progressive practice. Obama, on the other hand, specifically discusses his governing philosophy and the changes he'd like to see in the US. For him, being part of a minority provides a perspective to build a broad reaching coalition rather than providing a special interest for him to challenge. In his words, "I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally," but "I can't help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage."

Thus, Hillary argues that feminism would make her a great first female president, whereas Obama argues that being black would make him a great president.

The difference is significant considering the current debate over torture. Viewed from the narrow lens of a feminist movement, this torture can be viewed as macho culture, and from a racial perspective, this can be viewed as dominant aggression. However, from a broader scope, the issue lies in the ideals we live by... that we are committed to preserving individual freedoms and to curbing the government's natural disposure to compromise human rights for bureaucratic, political, or short-term national interests. Only from this "lens" can we justify systematic checks on the government's leeway into human rights.