As part of my coverage of the 2008 Presidential Election, I kept linking to Steve Kirsch's analysis on who would make the best President. Kirsch's top choice was John Edwards. Unfortunately, John Edwards just dropped out of the race - not a failure of his policies, but by his overall campaign. As usual, in this election, identity politics, rhetorics, sweet slogans, funding, corporate media bias, and political ignorance of the general populace spelled the death of the Edwards campaign. As a result, the candidate with the best policies is now watching from the sidelines.

Case in point: Paul Krugman's op-ed in the New York Times makes a case for the important role that John Edwards played in this presidential election. He calls it, The Edwards Effect.

"If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

"It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February."

"Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. ....

"But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

"Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.

"Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago."

Read more.

Based on Krugman's assessments, Steve Kirsch's endorsement of Edwards was right all along:

"He's a leader. Look at the same Iraq war funding vote for example example. While the other two candidates voted silently and refused to tell people where they stood on whether to fund the war in Iraq, Edwards was repeatedly urging his followers to tell their Members of Congress to vote against giving Bush the money to keep the war going. Edwards was outspoken in his opposition to the war and the need to cut the funding. The other two candidates were silent. It is a stunning example of the huge leadership difference between Edwards and the other two top candidates. If you want someone who will lead us out of Iraq, Edwards should be your choice.

"Edwards said that the first day he is sworn in, he will submit legislation to the Congress that says that if they don't pass Universal health care by July 20th, then the President, the Congress and all appointees will lose their health care. Know any other candidate who has the guts to do that? This way, Members of Congress will get a chance to experience what 45 million Americans experience.

"What I found was that John Edwards was the only candidate who has a good chance of moving our country forward. Clinton and Obama would make people feel good, but would get little to nothing accomplished."

Too bad Edwards is out of the Presidential race. Too bad he was a victim of corporate media bias. Too bad he didn't get much funding as compared to Clinton and Obama. But even after all of that, John Edwards remain thankful. He may be bowing out of the race but he's still a major player. His endorsement could tip the scale of the Clinton-Obama rivalry. And more importantly, he can still run as Vice-President and win the election. Thus, continuing The Edwards Effect.

See Long Views: Decision: Blogs vs. The New York Times

I just finished reading this insightful exchange between  Natalie Jeremijenko and Lawrence Krauss published on Seed Magazine. They've touched on a lot of important points on the need to persuade people into understanding science and inspire the public on "thinking like a scientist." Here's one of the key quotes:

"LK: And then I started thinking about why and, you know, very often science fiction presents a dystopic view of the future, where science is bad and scary. And one of the things about Star Trek—and it's one of the reasons I think it was so popular—is that it's based on this notion, which may or may not be true, that science cannot only make the world a better place, but it can make people more civil and understanding; it can civilize us. And what a weird view of the future, that science can actually do that. I don't know if that vision isn't the most unrealistic thing about the show in some sense. I think science should civilize people. Has it civilized people? That's not clear to me at all. But that's one of the reasons why engineers and scientists are so drawn to Star Trek I think. Because science, in some way or another, is the hero.

NJ: Well, there's clearly the idea that science and technology can transform society, or do. But popularly, we mistake technological transformation for social transformation. So we recognize social change through concrete technological change. In a movie, we can recognize the year the car was made, or whether they're using cell phones or transporters.

LK: Yes—ha."

I agree with Krauss that scientists should be skillful in the "seduction" department to persuade people into pursuing science. But I think Krauss definition of science a bit narrow and favors the objective-centric discipline of the hard sciences. Jeremijenko balances the discussion by injecting meaning and "translation."

"LK: So do you think that scientists need translation devices to function within their own environment?

NJ: Yes, I think so.

LK: To talk to each other? Or also to translate what they're doing to themselves?

NJ: Both I think, and to translate between disciplines. Joan Fujimura wrote a great book on how the molecular biology department was created at Berkeley. Organic chemistry and biology spoke totally different languages. They had no way to translate between the atomic spins and the biological phenomena that they were dealing with. And her claim was that it was the lab techniques that became the translation device for figuring out what techniques could represent something else, around which they could say, "Well, we would call this this, and you would call that that.""

Exactly!

However, there are parts in the discussion where there's an apparent difference between Krauss and Jeremijenko. Krauss is more biased with objective reality while Jeremijenko is more into cultural relativity and epistemology. Between the two, I think Jeremijenko has a more expanded and open view of reality. Here's a key quote:

"LK: Maybe. But no, I think that's what makes science special. As a scientist and someone who tries, for better or worse, to extol the virtues of science in a society that doesn't appreciate many of those virtues, I think that ultimately the good stuff wins out even if it takes a while to do it. Because the final arbiter of success isn't people. In science, it's experiments. It's the ability to make it work. If it works, then people buy into it, whether they like it or not. And I really think that's profoundly important. That, and the oft-misunderstood fact that science doesn't prove things to be true. Science only proves things to be false. That's all it does. But that alone is something that doesn't happen in almost any other area of human activity. The fact that you can say, "That's garbage, don't talk about it any more." The earth isn't flat. We don't need to have critical thinking classes to debate or discuss it. You just go around it, end of story. And the ability to throw out ideas that aren't productive is, to me, what makes science unique and what allows for progress. You don't have to keep wasting your time on the wrong things, because the wrong things are obvious. The right things may not be obvious, but the wrong things should be. And if I could just convince people of that, I think it would go a long way to getting people to have a perspective of science that is useful.

NJ: It's interesting that you would immediately see me as a relativist, which is fine.

LK: Well, I don't know, but I was kind of hoping that I could provoke that.

NJ: Well, I'll string you along, because it's easy to say that science has this experimental evidence and that the messy, real-world, technosocial kind of stuff—political reality, the world we live in, how we actually know whether a technology is good or not—

LK: —when you say good, what do you mean?

NJ: Well, that's just it. How do we know, right?"

All in all this is a good discussion. There should be more public discussion like this about science to educate the public, the educators, the artists, as well as the hard core scientists.

It's tragic to see the dumbing down of the young generation in America.

Speaking of persuasive strategy, integral theory proponents ought to come up with their own strategy of persuasion in lieu of hifalutin jargons. Integral needs its version of Star Trek.

What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Serenity.

What is your greatest fear?
Ignorance.

Which historical figure do you most identify with?
Does Jean Luc Picard count?

Which living person do you most admire?
My mother.

What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Very irritable when in the flow.

What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Self-righteousness.

What is your greatest extravagance?
Books and red bull.

What is your favorite journey?
Life.

What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Faith without reason and evidence.

On what occasion do you lie?
When I'm lazy to tell the truth.

What do you dislike most about your appearance?
My eyes.

Which living person do you most despise?
Leaders who consciously enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents. Leaders who continue to dumb down the public to retain their power.

Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
Fluffy.

What is your greatest regret?
None so far. Even my greatest regret turned out to be my greatest blessing.

What or who is the greatest love of your life?
~myDakini.

Which talent would you most like to have?
Ability to speak eloquently in public .

What is your current state of mind?
Serene. 

If you could change one thing about your family, what would it be?
Enough wealth so that I won't have to worry about my folks in their old age.

What do you consider your greatest achievement?
Recognizing that my own psycho-social development is a never-ending process.

If you were to die and come back as a person or thing, what do you think it would be?
I'd like to come back as a polymath.

If you could choose what to come back as, what would it be?
I'd like to come back as a polymath.

What is your most treasured possession?
My MacBook Pro.

What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Hopelessness.

Where would you like to live?
Norway. Here's why.

What is your favorite occupation?
Best-selling writer.

What is your most marked characteristic?
Hyper-blogger.

What is the quality you most like in a man?
Honorable.

What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Caring.

What do you most value in your friends?
Honesty.

Who are your favorite writers?
Michael Crichton, Ken Wilber, Stephen King, J.K. Rowling

Who is your favorite hero/heroine of fiction?
Macgyver.

Who are your heroines/heroes in real life?
Mystics, masters, and sages.

What are your favorite names?
~C4Chaos

What is it that you most dislike?
Very, very, very cold and freezing weather.

How would you like to die?
In my sleep, or while meditating on emptiness.

Now that the Super Bowl XLII is history (congrats to NY Giants) we can now set our attention to more important matters, like Super Tuesday 2008. At this point the Democratic race is head to head. Barack Obama is quickly gaining in the polls.

But here's my wild speculation: Hillary Clinton will win the Super Tuesday. Why do I pick Clinton? It's a WAG (wild ass guess) based on intuition and a dash of wishful thinking:

-- Clinton's health care plan is more universal than Obama's

"If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen." [read more]

-- Obama may be more technologically savvy, but Clinton is the one who pledged to reinstate the role of the Science Adviser.

But as they say in sports: This Democratic primary is not over 'till it's over.

It's already late night here in Ireland and I'm still following the latest news on Super Duper Tuesday. So far no results yet. The world is watching this election. Here in Ireland the news networks have their eyes on the U.S. presidential primary. In the Republican race, the news networks here are already saying that McCain would likely win the nomination. However, in the very tight Democratic race, no political analyst dare to make a call on who's going to win the majority of the delegates.

(Note: For those who want to follow up-to-the-minute Super Tuesday updates, Super Duper Tuesday @ MSNBC is a good site to go.)

In the meantime, a number of my respected personalities have already publicly endorsed Obama just in time for Super Tuesday. Here are some of them.

Lawrence Lessig: 20 minutes or so on why i am 4Barack [Obama]

Harold Varmus endorses Obama

Dilbert Blog: My Prediction for President

Brian: Yes We Can

It's very tempting to get carried away with Obamamania. The guy is on a roll. But I'm sticking to my wild-ass Super Tuesday Speculation: Hillary Clinton would win most of the delegates today, but the race won't be over 'till it's over.

We'll know soon enough. But I'm getting sleepy so I'll just go back to bed, read a book by Jared Diamond, and wake up in the morning to see whether my gut feeling is correct, or whether it sucks. Exciting times.

UPDATE @ 11:45PM: Clinton wins California. Clinton looks past Obama. At current delegates tally: Clinton 521; Obama 437. My spider sense continues to tingle.

As Super Duper Tuesday sweeps the geopolitical landscape, a famous yogi serendipitously leaves his body.

"Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Indian guru to the Beatles and millions of meditators, has died at his home in the Dutch town of Vlodrop, a spokesman said.

"He died peacefully at about 7 p.m.," said Bob Roth, a spokesman for the Transcendental Meditation movement which the Maharishi founded and which introduced the West to a Hindu practice of mind control, once dismissed as hippie mysticism but which gradually gained medical respectability.

"Mr Roth said the cause of death was yet to be established but it appeared to be "natural causes, his age." The Maharishi was believed to be 91."

Read more.

From now on, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's death will be associated with the most memorable Super Tuesday in American history.

Godspeed Maharishi. Deep bows to all your contributions in consciousness studies and in the realm of transcendence and spirituality.

Thanks to Daily Mantra for the heads up!

The cells of our body are dying, the neurons in our brain are decaying, even the expressions on our face are always changing, depending on our mood. What we call our basic character is only a “mindstream,” nothing more. Today we feel good because things are going well; tomorrow we feel the opposite. Where did that good feeling go?

What could be more unpredictable than our thoughts and emotions: Do you have any idea what you are going to think or feel next? The mind, in fact, is as empty, as impermanent, and as transient as a dream. Look at a thought: It comes, it stays, and it goes. The past is past, the future not yet risen, and even the present thought, as we experience it, becomes the past.

The only thing we really have is nowness, is now.

I've been wanting to blog an update on Super Tuesday since this morning but this turned out to be a wilder ride than I've anticipated. I'm following parallel stories like crazy. Here are my bookmarks:

http://coolmel.gaia.com/bookmarks/tagged/super+tuesday

Previously, I speculated that Hillary Clinton would win most of the delegates on Super Tuesday. Clinton did win the prized state of California, but Obama won more states. However, just this morning, it still wasn't clear who won the most number of delegates, though Clinton was ahead most of the day.

Both Clinton and Obama camps claim victory and spin the story. News sites give different tallies. But as the dust settles, a surprising twist is starting to emerge. MSNBC's Super Dashboard is now reporting that Obama is ahead in total delegates (838 - 834 as of this writing).

Here's the latest update from Politico:

"In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.

"The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.

"NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

"Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.

"With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show."

Read more.

The delegate count is still underway so the final results are not yet in. But as of this writing it looks like my speculation is starting to suck. I'll update this post once the final results have been officially tabulated. (see UPDATE below).

The uber-tight race between Clinton and Obama reflects my own personal indecision. It looks like the state of Washington (my place of residence) would play a crucial role on Feb. 9. My hunch is that Washington would go for Obama, thus adding to his seemingly unstoppable momentum. Too bad I won't be there to partake in the excitement.

In the meantime, the world is watching, and some are even speculating that the tighter the Democratic race gets the more the likelihood of McCain winning. Gaaaah!

"Here's Gabor Steingart in his "West Wing" column on Spiegel Online: "The duel between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be fascinating for the party's supporters, but it's jeopardizing a Democratic election victory in November. When two people quarrel, the third often wins—which is why John McCain could end up as president."          

"In London's Guardian newspaper, columnist Jonathan Freedland warned that, despite fairly widespread impressions the three front runners are like-minded moderates, they differ importantly on major issues. "The battle so far may seem to have been about identity politics, résumés and political style," writes Freedland. "But don't be misled: the ultimate battle will be about two entirely different conceptions of the U.S. and its place in the world." On Iraq, for example, Obama was against the invasion—"a dumb war, a rash war"—from the beginning. Clinton voted to go to war, but turned strongly against its mismanagement in the aftermath and now calls for a phased withdrawal. McCain, who within months of the war's inception was saying America needed more troops on the ground, remains a hawk, and proud of it. On climate change, the three candidates are closer together but McCain, says Freedland, "would have little support in his party for taking any action.""

Read more.

*******************************

UPDATE: After all the votes and delegates were tallied, Clinton did have a very very slight edge over Obama on the Super Tuesday delegates count (580 vs. 571 as reported by CNN). The are still differences in the total delegates tallies from news sites (see NYTimes, WSJ, MSNBC, CNN, FOX). But the consensus right now is that Clinton still has the overall lead, especially when the super delegates are factored in. So it turned out that my speculation was right. But the Democratic Primary just got more exciting. Here's what The Wall Street Journal said:

"After campaigning for more than a year, spending more than $180 million between them, and facing voters in more than half the states, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are essentially tied in their battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Super Tuesday did nothing to break the deadlock. With the dust still settling, the New York senator as of yesterday afternoon claimed 1,000 delegates out of the 2,025 needed. Her Illinois colleague had 902."

In the meantime, Clinton may still be in the lead but Obama has the momentum and the budget (on track to raise another $30M). The debates and mud slinging continues. Ah well, that's politics.

The Super Tuesday is now history. John McCain had already bagged the Republican primary. My speculation was correct that Hillary Clinton would win the most delegates. But the race for the Democratic candidate is far from settled. Clinton and Obama are still virtually in a deadlock. The virtual tie of the Democratic primary reflects my own indecision. I'm one of those voters who were still undecided pre-Super Tuesday.

The race between Obama and Clinton rages on. Phase four of the race includes Washington (my state of residence). The question is: Who would I vote for?

Unfortunately, my answer to this question is irrelevant. As I've mentioned before, due to my own fault, I won't have the opportunity to cast my vote in time since I'm out of the country right now. It's my first time to vote in the U.S. so I'm still not familiar with complexity of the primary election. I never planned on voting as absentee because I thought that I would be back before the Nov. 2008 election anyway. Also, I didn't anticipate that the primary would be this close by the time it reached Washington. I expected that there will already be a clear Democratic nominee by then. And I've already made up my mind that I would wholeheartedly vote for any of the Democratic candidate (whether it's Edwards, Clinton, or Obama). In short, I blew my opportunity to participate in this historic Democratic primary. Ah well. I'll just charge that to experience.

That said, I would now speculate on who I would've voted for if I were in Washington right now. I would still be undecided pre-Super Tuesday. But now that the results are in and Clinton and Obama are still neck and neck, I would resort to all the information and insightful opinions I've gathered to make my final choice between Obama and Clinton.

As I've often mentioned in this blog, my intuition points me to Hillary Clinton. However, after evaluating all the intelligent opinions and political analysis, I would've plunged myself into Barack Obama. Not because of his policies, not because of his charisma, not because of his rhetorics, but because Obama will *ensure* the win over McCain *and* that he has less political baggage moving forward in his Presidency as compared to Clinton. Unfortunately, Clinton is much easier to demonize in the general election and even after, should she become President. Late night talk show hosts and Comedy Central would have a field day on caricaturing the Clinton administration. I find this a potential sad state of affair.

In short, I'd buy the electibility and character argument. Although I still maintain my opinion that Clinton would beat McCain in the general election, and her policies are better than Obama's (specially on health care), I'd go for the sure winner because I don't want to leave any slim chance that a Republican would win this Presidential election (even for a more moderate like McCain). Their time us up. The evidence for their blunders are all over--economic disaster, swelling budget deficits, Iraq war, health care mess, to name a few. Note that I'm not putting the blame solely on the Republicans, the Democrats had messed up too and played along with the stupidity of the GWBush administration. So it's high time for the Democrats to take the lead, change the course of America, and restore its geopolitical image.

However, I harbor no delusion that Obama will get the job done with his post-partisan rhetorics. Should he win this election, I'll cross my fingers that he quickly adjusts to the reality of partisan politics. It's a battle out there among parties with mixed developmental psycho-social values in a corrupted system, not a "kumbaya" affair. At the *current* state of American politics, food fight is the rule of the game. So I don't buy the idealistic tone of Obama and his supporters.

Case in point: Check out this endorsement video from Lawrence Lessig.

I have deep respect for Lessig. His presentation is very *persuasive *but upon further reflection, I don't buy some of his arguments. I think he (and the corporate media) downplayed the policy difference between Obama and Clinton (there are significant differences! -- see this and this). I also think that Lessig went overboard when he equated Clinton's strategy with that of Karl Rove. This is politics. Obama's campaign is no angel (see this and this insightful comment from a Clinton staffer).

So I went ahead and posted a comment on Lessig's blog to pitch in my two cents. For some reason my comment didn't get posted. Must've been filtered as spam because of the links. Anyway, here's what I said. I suggest you follow the links within the links for more context.

thanks for posting this video, Mr. Lessig. i'm one of those who are still undecided but who would whole-heartedly vote for either Obama or Clinton whoever wins the Democratic primary. your arguments are very persuasive. no surprise there since you're a kick-ass lawyer :) while watching the video i imagine myself as member of the jury watching you deliver your closing arguments in favor of Barack Obama. like i said, very persuasive.

although i agree with your premise of character (i.e. less political baggage on the part of Obama), there are key differences in policies between Obama and Clinton and i think you've downplayed this differences in favor of the character argument. also, i'm still not totally convinced of the "peace" argument. as a case in point, here are a couple of insightful critiques of Obama's post-partisan strategy.

Obama stump speech strategy of conciliation considered harmful
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

Open Left: How Barack Obama Misreads History--And Why It Matters So Much
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3458

that said, most likely i won't have the time and opportunity to vote for this primary anyway since i'm out of the country and hadn't prepared myself in anticipation for a uber-tight race. my bad. so i think i'd end up watching the Democratic primary from the sidelines, together with Economists who think that voting is a waste of freakin' time :)

~C

P.S. here's my personal take: ignore the rhetorics and follow the money.

Here's to a more exciting election ahead. Go Democrats!

I'm watching Michael Pollan on TED.

The Omnivore's Next Dilemma -- "What if human consciousness isn't the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? What if we are all just pawns in corn's clever strategy game, the ultimate prize of which is world domination? Michael Pollan asks us to see things from a plant's-eye view -- to consider the possibility that nature isn't opposed to culture, that biochemistry rivals intellect as a survival tool. By merely shifting our perspective, he argues, we can heal the Earth. Who's the more sophisticated species now? (Recorded March 2007 in Monterey, California. Duration: 17:31.)"

Very fluffy.