31 responses so far ↓

• 1 I won! I won! « The Kibitzer // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  [...] I submitted my name for a free copy of the book. Good news: I won! You can hear all about it on The Hog’s Head Pubcast #48, wherein Travis’ daughter Sophia drew my name. Thanks, [...]

• 2 Ms. Pumpkin juice // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  congrads The Kibitzer, thats so cool. After reading it can you tell us what you thought of it?

• 3 Eeyore // Mar 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Congrats, Jeremy!

  Ah, Travis, you’re braver than I would be, tackling the political topic. I chuckled at some of your comments, and nodded in agreement with most of your reasons the Potter characters would choose certain candidates. The one that made me think the most was Dumbledore. I drew a complete blank on who he would support, but I think you are probably right–at least in your reasoning.

  Luna supporting Nader made me laugh, and I think you are absolutely right.

  Neville, hard to say. I think he might have a conversation with Harry and after listening to Harry’s reasons for supporting Obama, choose to support him also. Not that Neville doesn’t think for himself, but he has a lot of respect for Harry and his opinions and actions. Also, it falls in line with Obama wanting to clean things up, and the way that Neville’s parents were treated and are viewed by some (Malfoy and the like), would put Neville in that camp also.

  Snape? For some inexplicable reason, I found myself wondering if Snape would vote. If he did, I think it would have to be for some very personal reasons that he wouldn’t share with any of us, so we’d never know.

  Oh, and you left out Slughorn. I think he might fall in the same category as the Malfoys, but for different reasons. They, as you said, would be looking for the person who would ensure their continued (or, once-held) power. Sluggy would be looking for the candidate that would allow him to continue his comfortable life-style. I’m not sure that any of the main three would do that for him, actually.

  It’s going to be an interesting year, and I’ll be happy when it’s all done. I got really sick of all the political phone calls in February when we had the primary in Washington state (which was worthless as it turns out for the Democrats–ours was all decided by the caucuses, so what was the point of having a primary? *end of rant–and my apologies for it*). But it will help lighten the mood in the coming months when I try to fit some of the Potter characters into the remaining political camps.

  Pat

• 4 Judy // Mar 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  Congrats to Jeremy.

  Topic was fun to think about. I have been playing with which of the four houses each of the candidates might belong to. Any thoughts?

• 5 Tina // Mar 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Great topic! I think you’re right on your predictions, Travis, although I wish it weren’t quite so predictable that the main characters would all for Obama. I’d like to think they were a little more diverse in their thinking, but they’re all very idealistic in a way. I, too, was thinking Ron, if anyone, would lean toward McCain. As for Judy’s question (good one, too) here are my guesses:
  Clinton -Slytherin, hands down
  Obama-Ravenclaw
  McCain-Gryffindor
  Ron Paul-?

• 6 reyhan // Mar 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  Clinton is Slytherin because she’s ambitious and calculating, I assume? And Obama is Ravenclaw because he’s intelligent and inspired by ideas? And McCain is Gryffindor because he’s courageous because he was a soldier?

  All three of these people are fighting to become the most powerful human being on earth. All three have a realistic chance of winning. Does anyone honestly believe that any one of them isn’t incredibly ambitious? Does anyone honestly think that Senator Clinton is not an incredibly intelligent person? Or that Senator Obama is not incredibly courageous for standing before the crowds, time after time, knowing the fate of prominent African American leaders in the past? Or Senator Clinton, for braving the incredible hatred her sex - and her inability to make herself look subservient - seems to inspire in some circles?

  Intelligence and courage are qualities all three candidates are endowed with. As for ambition and the plotting and the calculation that go on behind the smiles, well, that’s par for the territory. Make no mistake, they’re all Slytherin, all Gryffindor, and all Ravenclaw.

• 7 Travis Prinzi // Mar 25, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  Does anyone honestly think that Senator Clinton is not an incredibly intelligent person?

  *raises hand* Intelligent, sure. “Incredibly intelligent” is a bit too far when it comes to Senator Clinton.

  Your point is certainly well-taken, and you’re right - they all have all three in measure. Being a Slytherin is par for the course in politics. But that’s true of all the characters in HP to one degree or another. Hermione would be a fine fit for Ravenclaw as well. And there’s certainly ambition there, also. It’s a matter of degrees, I think.

  I think Tina’s comment had more to do with the characteristics they most often appeal to in voters.

  I’ll give Ron Paul a shot - Gryffindor. It takes an insane amount of courage to do the kind of stuff he does in Congress.

• 8 revgeorge // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  Actually, all three candidates are really not worth voting for. And it doesn’t matter how intelligent or courageous they may be personally. What matters is that they want to use the power of the state to force other people to do their bidding. It doesn’t matter whether or not their intentions are good or not.

  And Obama likes to position himself as the candidate of change & yet a look at his voting record, when he bothers to vote, shows that he’s just more of the same old same old. Really there’s no difference at all between any of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul. All of them want to use the government to run other people’s lives & to increase government spending & power. They only differ in trifling details.

  I don’t think Harry would vote for any of them, if he honestly examined what they intend to do.

  But hey, I’m certainly glad that politics isn’t controversial.

• 9 Travis Prinzi // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  Allow me to jump in at this point and say, “This is not a political debate.” Maybe it was silly of me to think we could really keep this “just fun.”

  I’ve written a TON about politics in the last few months at my other blog. Head over there, click the “politics” category, and have at it.

• 10 reyhan // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  Agree with revgeorge (except on the subject of Ron Paul, about whom I know nothing). All three are driven by the need for power. One of Harry’s defining characteristics is his renounciation of power. And he doesn’t seem to do too well with politicians in general, having too high a regard for the truth.

  And without intending to sound sacrilegious, I am prompted to suggest that Harry’s position might be described in Matthew 22:21

• 11 revgeorge // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  Travis,

  I know it’s not a political debate, but I’m not sure I can guess how Harry Potter people would vote without examining the candidates & system.

  But for the sake of keeping things light, I’ll withdraw my comments above. Please delete them.

• 12 revgeorge // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:53 pm

  reyhan, is it possible for us to agree on anything?

• 13 reyhan // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:58 pm

  revgeorge,

  the sound you hear is hell freezing over (and that’s not as much a hyperbole as it sounds: there is another snow storm outside as we speak, playing havoc with the satellite reception and causing me to miss the last period of the Carolina-Washington game).

• 14 Shane Deal // Mar 26, 2008 at 3:28 am

  Steering the conversation back onto a fun track here this looks like too much fun:

  I’m more inclined to think Luna would vote for Ron Paul.

  Severus Snape, for all his faults is fundamentally a man who helps people, I’d be inclined to say Barack Obama would be his choice.

  The Malfoys - Hillary Clinton.

  Ronald - I believe he’d support Ron Paul, partly because the shared name, and because Ron tends to support underdogs. Hence his favorite Quidditch team’s reputation.

  Hermione - Ask the house-elves. - Probably Obama, since he seems to have a mission to help those who are in similar spots to house-elves socially.

  Harry - I have to agree, Obama.

  Ginny - Obama or Clinton, most likely whichever is the one she most personally relates to.

  Umbridge - None of these Candidates are mean enough for her. Perhaps Huckabee could have done it with his tough-talking Chuck Norris ads. But then I can’t see Umbridge voting for a retired muggle baptist minister either. Of course since he dropped out the point is no longer valid. McCain or Clinton are the only two that I can see getting her vote, remotely.

  Rita - Simple choice really, Hillary Clinton… Enough stories exist to keep even Rita busy for awhile. (Not saying they’re true of course.)

• 15 korg20000bc // Mar 26, 2008 at 3:49 am

  Like it says in The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy- If anyone is able to get themselves elected to wield executive power, they should in now way be allowed to do so.

• 16 Travis Prinzi // Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 am

  revgeorge, no worries man - it was just a pre-emptive comment to keep from things getting too fired up

• 17 revgeorge // Mar 26, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Thanks, Travis. Although I’m not sure how you think politics can get anybody fired up.

  I’m inclined to agree with Matthew. Anybody who wants that much power should be the exact person not to have it. The Early Church thought the same way: Anybody who wanted to be a bishop was automatically disqualified for the position for that reason.

• 18 reyhan // Mar 26, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  While I mistrust a craving for power as much as the next person, few people go into politics out of a sense of public duty. Nelson Mandela maybe? Mahatma Ghandi perhaps? But saints are few and far in between. In the meantime, we have to make do with the ones who step up.

  Travis: does this mean I can’t go on a rant about the demonization of Clinton and the canonization of Obama?

• 19 Travis Prinzi // Mar 26, 2008 at 7:59 pm

  reyhan, go ahead. I made that comment probably more for myself than anyone else…and I’m quite certain I’ll have a lot to say about your comment. But it’s piqued my interest. Go for it.

• 20 reyhan // Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17 pm

  I’m not as informed about US politics as the most of the rest of you, not living in the States. But of course it all filters up here, albeit in a “World News” rather than “National News” sort of way.

  And several things strike me about what’s going on in the Democratic race. A lot of people strongly dislike Senator Clinton. She is described with a variety of negative words and terms: conniving, manipulative, insincere, calculating, belonging to the tired old establishment, no new vision, recycled politics. The fact that she stood by her husband through his difficulties is held against her: she is seen as either insensitive or as hiding her true feelings in the service of her ambition. Her clothes, her hair, her smile - or lack thereof - are criticized. When she attacks her opponent - as a political candidate must - her opponent accuses her of “having a bad day”.

  What is the woman’s crime? That she is ambitious? That she does not wear her feelings on her sleeve? That she tries to read the public will and reflects it in her platform?

  I think - and this is the part that will probably earn me the greatest criticism - I think that Senator Clinton’s crime is that she is a woman who does not fit the mold of what people in America value in women. She is intelligent and articulate and ambitious. She is not beautiful and charming and sexy. When people listen to her, they don’t hear her ideas. They hear someone they don’t like very much. When they look at her they see a political machine working to get votes.

  Senator Obama, on the other hand, can do no wrong. People flock to his banner in droves. He is charismatic, he’s a compelling speaker, his words resound with conviction and truth. He makes people feel that reconciliation and change are possible. Can he deliver on his promises? What do his words mean, really? How is America going to be transformed? Who cares, if he makes people feel good when they listen to him. Is he also not a political machine? Doesn’t he have a campagn fund and thousands of people who work for him and an organization and speech writers and pollsters and strategists? Who cares, it’s invisible. But what is he really? What is there to him besides being a man with a silver tongue who makes people feel good?

  What I see when all is done and said is charmless middle-aged woman pitted against a younger, charismatic man. I have no doubt who will win. And that’s ok. I just don’t think people should confuse the issue of moral virtue with who makes the better speeches.

  Thanks for letting me rant.

• 21 Eeyore // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08 am

  reyhan, I don’t disagree with anything you said. So I won’t try to counter any of your points. I do want to add a few of my own comments though, now that you brought it up. (Don’t worry, Travis–I’ll be nice.) Keep in mind that I’m a 58 year old woman with grown, married daughters. I would not presume to criticize Clinton or anyone else for decisions made in her marriage–that was her personal life and it’s unfortunate that it couldn’t have stayed private. Circumstances being what they were however. . . I did like Chelsea’s comment to a questioner who asked about her mother’s actions or something to that effect. In no uncertain terms, daughter Chelsea told the man that it was none of his business. Good for her.

  The problem that I have with Clinton is not that she is a woman, or that she is a strong woman. I admire her for a lot of the things she has done. But I don’t intend to vote for her because I think she brings too much political baggage with her. And there is nothing she can do to make it go away. And I’m tired of seeing politicians who have been so enmeshed in Washington politics that it makes it hard to know just how honest they are. It’s too bad, but I think that those are the things that are going to work against her.

  After the Bush years and the previous republican years with Reagan and Bush, Sr, I am so ready for someone who doesn’t sound like all the rest.

  And that brings me to Obama. The first time I heard him speak was on the radio several years ago–maybe longer than that. I don’t think he was being touted as a presidential candidate and I don’t remember the occasion of the speech. But he made sense, he was articulate, reasonable, compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent–all those things that I also liked about Robert Kennedy when I was still too young to vote (back when the voting age was 21). And I haven’t felt that way about hearing any politician for a very long time. Do the comments of his pastor bother me? Absolutely–and apparently they bother Obama as well. But I thought he handled it well and appropriately, and after all, his pastor is not running for office.

  So whether Obama can deliver or not, I’ve no idea. None of them can do all that they say they will, but I’m all for giving him a chance. I think that’s where a lot of others fall. For me, his race has nothing to do with anything, just as Clinton’s gender has nothing to do with my opinions about her. Unfortunately, for some people, those are the only things they see. Too bad they didn’t hear Obama speak before they knew who he was. Sometimes just listening to someone gives you a much better idea of what they are all about.

  Pat

• 22 reyhan // Mar 27, 2008 at 1:48 am

  Pat,

  You know just as I do that sounding honest and acting honest are not the same thing. Experience shows that we can’t take people at face value. The part of my rant that applies to Obama comes down to that one thing: once again people are being drawn to style over substance.

  But your words add fuel to my fire. You describe Obama as “articulate, reasonable, compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent” With the possible exception of compassionate, isn’t Senator Clinton all these things as well?

  Why is one of them getting credit for qualities they both share to a great extent?

  There was a mayor of a city, not far from here, a woman, who once said famously: “A woman has to do things twice as well as a man to be considered half as good. Fortunately, that’s not so hard.”

  And when did experience become baggage? Whoever did that bit of reframing for Obama should get a pay raise.

  As I said, I’m not very well informed on this issue, but the flagrant injustice of the canonization of one and the demonization of the other is beginning to irritate.

• 23 Travis Prinzi // Mar 27, 2008 at 7:46 am

  reyhan, theoretically, if this were someone other than Senator Clinton, I could agree with everything you said (except that Obama has no substance, which is a meme, every bit as much as the things you say are being endlessly repeated about Clinton. Obama’s platform is almost identical to Clintons, except that in the few places they differ, Obama tends to favor personal liberty and bottom-up, rather than top-down politics).

  This is a reputation Senator Clinton has brought upon herself. I wish a different woman were running for president. Clinton, unfortunately, has earned this reputation. I live in New York State. She’s my senator. And she gets caught in lie after lie after lie with no other reasonable explanation than political expediency.

  I’d recommend subscribing to Andrew Sullivan’s blog for a while. Sullivan is a gay conservative who has been doing a running commentary on the wiles of Clinton. This is not a guy who fits the stereotype of someone who would be against Clinton simply because she’s a woman, or because she’s not a Hollywood starlet.

  And I say none of this as an Obama supporter. I’m a Ron Paul man through and through. I’ll be casting a protest vote for a third party candidate this year (unless it looks like McCain could beat Obama, in which case I might actually have to vote for a Democrat for the first time in my life).

• 24 Eeyore // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Yes, Clinton is all those things–and I would say she is compassionate as well. It’s all down to perception at this point, and personal opinion. I will add, though, that I sometimes find her–what’s the word I’m looking for–abrasive? And no, I can’t give particular examples, it’s an overall “something” about her that I sometimes find irritating.

  All that being said, I won’t be horribly disappointed if she does win. I think, as you pointed out, that Obama and Clinton have a lot more in common than not. That’s part of the problem with the campaigning right now–they are trying to show their differences, and that means the nastiness of the political process is starting to rear its ugly head.

  It’s not her political experience (which as an elected official isn’t that extensive) that I see as a problem, it’s her personal experiences. No matter what she says or does, it’s still there for people to dredge up, even though none of it was her doing. That’s why I was so pleased to see their daughter tell a questioner that he had stepped over the line and she refused to make any sort of comment. But reporters aren’t always as easily put off. I feel like Chelsea–what went on in Hillary’s relationship with Bill is none of our business. However, there are many who don’t feel that way and will praise Clinton or fault her, as odd as that is, and I hate for that sort of thing to derail a candidate’s campaign. If she is the democratic candidate, that’s just the sort of thing that the other side would try to use to turn people to McCain. Think that’s a stretch? Revisite Watergate–what a nightmare.

  Politics is a nasty business all round. And I agree with whoever said that if someone wants that sort of power, they are just the person who shouldn’t have it. That, unfortunately, eliminates all the candidates and leaves us with no way to chose a President (or Senator or Congressman).

  And with that, and before Travis throws us both in detention, I’ll stop. I’ve pretty much said what I intended (actually more), and I’m bowing out of this discussion.

  Um–who did we forget to place on a political side? What about Filch and Madam Pince?

  Pat

• 25 Travis Prinzi // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  I don’t necessarily think it’s fair to assume that anyone who wants to be President is a power-hungry person.

  This is one of the reasons why, as far as the Democratic candidate goes, I think it’s important that Obama win…since their policies are almost identical, “tone” and the ability to inspire hopeful, active participation in government is hugely important. Which means Obama’s speech-giving ability and his hope-inspiring ability actually matter a lot.

  Looking up…one of my own comments seems to have gotten lost…

• 26 Travis Prinzi // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  Wow, caught by my own spam catcther. My initial response to reyhan is above.

• 27 Travis Prinzi // Mar 28, 2008 at 8:50 am

  Amy Sturgis had this quote in a post today, which I thought fit our discussion nicely:

  “Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people… The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”
  - J.R.R. Tolkien, in a letter to his son Christopher in 1943

• 28 Travis Prinzi // Mar 28, 2008 at 9:20 am

  Here’s the full quote:

  “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy…. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remain obstinate!… Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people… The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”

• 29 Professor L // Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

  My only thing about the trio supporting Obama is that his voting record does not meet the ‘protecting the most vulnerable among us.’ Obama does not believe in protecting the unborn, or even the born in some situations. I can’t see Hermoine, with her aversion of slavery, accepting that some can be killed based on whether they are wanted or not.

• 30 reyhan // Mar 28, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  Professor L

  I can’t see how Hermione, with her fierce resolve to fight for the rights of the powerless and the oppressed, would support the right of a government to dictate to women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. I especially can’t see her supporting those who would force children to give birth to children.

  This is, of course, a completely futile discussion. We neither of us know what Hermione would do, as she is a fictional character. We don’t even know how Rowling feels about the subject. Which is why I feel that using Hermione’s authority to support one’s own beliefs is not a particularly powerful argument. Either way.

• 31 korg20000bc // Mar 28, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  Tolkien certainly didn’t pull any punches. I’d never read that before.

Leave a Comment