Obamamania at Dartmouth

Disturbing.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04734764382478437811 Christine S. Tian

    Disturbing? Really? Dartmouth students voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. Everyone’s happy their guy won. It happens.

  • Anonymous

    …as a librarian, i was appalled by such behavior in a library…

  • Anonymous

    Disturbing?

    No. Beautiful.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00298745100037632652 M. Heddaya

    I don’t think celebrating your candidate’s victory is inherently bad, I just thought Dartmouth students were a little too intelligent for this kind of behavior… it would have been equally disturbing if it happened for GWB or McCain.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18059100587709916275 Katherine J. Murray

    The choice of John Mayer’s music seems appropriate.

  • Dick

    Touch the fire!

  • Anonymous

    They seem to love Obama almost as much as they loved Howard Dean.

    Drop the drinking age and raise the voting age!

  • Anonymous

    This is awesome!

    Wooo! Way to go Dartmouth!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05492600334028726084 Michael J. Edgar

    This reminds me way too much of last night’s South Park episode. Disappointing.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    O-Bama!

    You came and you gave without taking!

    Obaaaamaa!

  • Anonymous

    from the old news story:

    “But proceedings were disrupted slightly when an unidentified student joined their circle with a homemade sign sporting on one side a sad face with a tear and on the other the phrase, “Somebody call a wahmbulance.” For the most part, the Democrats ignored him.”

    ahahahaha

  • Anonymous

    Tools. They should have been playing pong and not running around Baker like idiots.

  • New Day

    What’s disturbing is that the good guys won and you can’t stand it. Take a hint from Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Bill Weld, hell, even Condi Rice, and open your eyes. There is inspiration, now, embrace it!

  • what’s nafta?

    I refuse to believe the Republicans’ disappointment is completely genuine. I think they were just as appalled by Palin as everyone else and hated having to vote for her. Now they are sharing our relief at having dodged a national disaster.

  • Anonymous

    Quote: “What’s disturbing is that the good guys won and you can’t stand it.”

    “The good guys”? Oh yeah, I forgot that just because the man can give a nice speech, he is automatically the anointed one to save America in it’s time of peril.

    Of course, you wouldn’t have been a person who “can’t stand it” had McCain won. No, that’s not possible…

    Just because the man is a smooth politician that can spout out nice rhetoric doesn’t mean he’s going to be good for the nation. It’s time people get beyond the thin guise of hope and wake up to see what the guy is really about.

  • Anonymous

    Jealous I presume? I may be unintelligent, but your side still lost! Yay for Socialism!

  • Anonymous

    Well having the “good guys” win is sure as hell a lot better than having McCain die in office.

    Then we’d have Pres. Palin, who doesn’t even know Africa is continent!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWmft5Iz_3E

  • Another Know-It-All

    Africa? Australia? Why isn’t Greenland a continent?

    Is Pluto a planet or not?

    The Palin trashers are trash.

  • Anonymous

    I think this is beautifull!!!

  • Mat-Su Valley Trash

    No, you don’t get it: Palin thought Africa was a country.

    She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is.

    She had no idea what cases the Supreme Court had ever decided other than Roe.

    She thought it was okay to collect a state per diem travel allowance while staying at home.

    She thought it was okay to fly her kids around the country on state funds.

    She thought it was okay to use state resources in her personal vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law by demanding the Troopers prevent him from dressing up as Safety Bear at the State Fair. Nobody messes with Safety Bear!

  • Anonymous

    Which of the four Bush doctrines, terms created by the press, is THE Bush doctrine? Only Charlie and Katie know for sure.

  • Anonymous

    Come on, everybody knows that the Bush Doctrine is the one that says preventive war is okay. If Palin thought it was something else, she should have said so, or asked for clarification. She has a son in the military but no clue that there was anything unusual about the Iraq War.

  • Anonymous

    “everybody”? That would include Palin, would it not? As I recall from the intervieww, she did ask for clarification! an “unusual” war? Please say more in comparison to other engagements of our military.

    What basis do you have for the “fact” that Palin thinks Africa is a country? A Fox news reporter repeating the claims of an anonymous insider? Pretty tenuous, unless it is something you want to believe regardless of its truth.

  • Anonymous

    “Everybody” should include Palin, but it didn’t when she was interviewed by Charles Gibson. She’s an idiot:

    G: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”

    P: “In what respect, Charlie?”

    G: “The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?”

    P: “His world view?”

    G: “No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war.”

    P: “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership — and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

    G: “The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

    P: “I agree that a President’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.”

    [Her obfuscation http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=4" REL="nofollow">goes on and on]

    The Africa-country idiocy was from Newsweek, not Fox.

    You haven’t said anything about the ethics charges filed against her, or about to be filed.

    You will never win a debate about exactly how much air fills that head of hers. She will never be qualified to be President. McCain’s selection of Palin was a desperate cry for help — it’s almost as if he wanted to lose.

  • Anonymous

    Did a Newsweek reporter hear Palin state that Africa was a country directly, or only pass on innuendo from a staffer looking to cover his/her own butt for a lousy campaign? No credibility on this one, no matter how many times it is repeated. The ethics panel has ruled that she did nothing wrong.

    She lost. The need to keep trashing her is over. Move on.

  • Tommy Friedman

    Hey, stop knocking the lady. I also believe Africa is a country, as I recently http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin“ REL=”nofollow”>wrote in the NY Times:

    “Walking through the Olympic Village the other day, here’s what struck me most: the Russian team all looks Russian; the African team all looks African; the Chinese team all looks Chinese; and the American team looks like all of them.”

    One “Team Africa”? The world is round, but some of its idiots are flat. If I, Mr. International, get it wrong, why not Palin too? Google the many poems by African authors about country Africa if you wish.

  • Pretty Petty

    Petty Petty Petty

  • Anonymous

    It is very important to keep investigating Palin’s unethical behavior and low intelligence in order to reduce the threat of her ever being inflicted upon the American public again. There are people out there who want her to run for Congress or the Presidency.

    One ethics panel, investigating her since before the nomination, found she had broken ethics rules.

    One ethics investigator, acting on a complaint she filed against herself after the nomination, found she had not acted unethically.

    The per diem and plane ticket abuses have not been the subject of ethics investigations yet.

    Tommy Friedman can’t tell the difference between race, ethnicity, and nationality. At least he knows that Africa is not a country and who the members of NAFTA are, which Palin -reportedly- did not.

  • Pretty Petty

    It seems Palin has become the new vent for the emotions of the Bush-hating fanatics.

    It is interesting to see McCain and Huckabee, among other right-side figures, show post-election support for America’s incoming president, something you left-leaning trashers seem incapable of doing with regard to your opponents. And one is supposed think that “liberals” are the more open-minded?

  • Anonymous

    MMmmmm. Just savor the sound.

    President Obama.

    Sounds wonderful.

  • Anonymous

    Agreed; President Obama will inspire many to become engaged.

    The reality checks will come when he needs to address:

    1. Russian threats to Europe.
    2. a nuclear Iran.
    3. handling requests for bailouts by some multinational auto manufacturers (GM/Ford) when others who also have thousands of US employees and US shareholders (Honda/Toyota) have competed better and are doing fine. Where do bailouts end?
    4. handling unions who will push for legislation to remove their members right to privacy in union elections (“card check”).
    5. Fair(?) access to communications.
    6. and last but not least, paying for all the promises without passing on higher deficits to our children.

    We wish him the very best and hope a sobered Obama can pull these off.

  • Anonymous

    Pretty: read http://dartlog.net/2008/11/america-got-president-it-deserves.php#comments“ REL=”nofollow”>anonymous 7:00 if you think all the losers are being gracious.

  • E. Wheelock

    I don’t understand the sore losers on this thread. I voted for McCain, and I’m pessimistic about how Obama will respond to problems and about who he will choose to staff the government.

    That said, I don’t begrudge his supporters their happiness. Props to the Democrats for finding a likable presidential candidate for the first time in 12 years, and props to Obama for skillful management of his campaign. I hope he’s up to the job that his efforts have landed for him.

    Some of his supporters have said some stupid things, and there are a few of them I’d love to see in the throes of disappointment right now… but Obama won, so let his supporters celebrate just as McCain’s would if he’d won.

    Also, I have no idea what Mr. Heddaya means by the comment, “I just thought Dartmouth students were a little too intelligent for this kind of behavior.” Have you ever been outside in Hanover after 8pm or so? College students get excited about all kinds of stuff. Every fall, undergrads and alumni gather on the Green to light a massive fire and listen to the captain of a tenth-rate football team in a third-rate football league speak about how the team promises to suck less during the second half of the season.

    If it’s an age-old tradition to show that much excitement for a fire and a sorry football team, I think there’s nothing wrong with showing about 5% as much excitement over the first black president of the United States.

    Good for him, and here’s hoping that (1) he leaves the country better than he found it, and (2) the GOP returns to its principles and takes back at least one house in Congress in 2010.

  • Anonymous

    If ‘Tommy Friedman’ is serious in thinking that Africa is one country, then perhaps he would be willing to travel to East Congo, and try to stop the rising tensions there. Surely, if the people there would all simply understand they are part of Country Africa, then the killing will quickly stop.

    Seriously, he’d have been as successful in Northern Ireland during virtually all the 1900s (c’mon guys, we’re all Irish). Or in the Holy Land, during the past two millenia (c’mon guys, we’re all Arabs, one way or another).

    I can hardly imagine Palin’s response, if asked ‘what would you do about the conflict in Kivu?’ Perhaps it would be along the lines of, ‘gee, I never thought of bingo games as that competitive.’

    Back to seriously: she’s not as incapable or illiterate as she came across. Governor of Alaska fits. But she has a lot to learn before she could be a serious VP candidate again, much less President. I am unconvinced she has the ambition, much less the skills to realize it.

  • Anonymous

    She also does not have the wardrobe.

  • Anonymous

    New Alumni Rules for Trustee Elections

    Dartmouth Announces Major Cost Cutbacks

    Football Team on Track for First No-Win Record IN HISTORY

    Teenybopper Student Raids Grafton County Treasury

    Come on, Dartlog… Let’s get the discussions rolling.

  • Anonymous

    I second the motion. Now that Matthias has all but killed the Association blog, this is the alumni’s only sandbox.

  • Anonymous

    Mathias’ predecessors were unpopular due to the lawsuit, but they sure were more communicative than the current bunch. So much for openness and transparency into what our elected leaders are doing.

    Did alumni know they were voting to kill the Association and put the less-democratic Council fully in charge? Dartmouth may not be a democracy, but its alumni should govern themselves that way. Is there any way other than the Review and Dartlog for alumni to receive truly-independent reporting?

  • Anonymous

    What about your alumni councilor’s reports?

  • Anonymous

    Say What?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468 John

    5:19 has a point. As far as I can see, all the Dartmouth Review/Dartlog staff ever does any more is wait for Hart to make those calls so you can get your comfy careers as movement people going — no need to work! You too can grow up to be like Peter Robinson! See who can be first to get a Hoover fellowship without doing anything to justify it!!

    Another topic: do all these prominent scam artists like Hank Paulson damage the Ivy or Dartmouth brand? Should a candidate for President of Dartmouth be required to answer such a question?

  • Anonymous

    Re: openness and transparency. The association blog is still there. Did you get the email about the association’s proposal of an amendment to the constitution?

    What have the alumni put “the less-democratic Council fully in charge” of? The association was still in charge of the two things it’s supposed to be in charge of: the annual meeting and elections for trustee nominees.

    John, your labeling of Paulson as a scam artist makes you sound more ignorant and populist than you really are. Why don’t you act like a college graduate?

  • Anonymous

    Dartlog: Where are your 2007-2008 Archives????? Please update your Archives link.

  • Anonymous

    Anon 12:06. If the Association and not the Council is responsible for trustee election rules, why is the discussion of the amendment proposal all centered around a December meeting of Councilors? Is it because they are to be the “representatives” of alumni sentiment even in regards to Association matters? No wonder the Council believes the Association is a vestigial inconvenience.

  • Anonymous

    What are you talking about, 12:24? What discussion? Where does it say it’s focused on the council deadline, and why would that be wrong? Doesn’t the council have to amend its own constitution to match the association’s?

    You have to give Mathias credit for being respected enough by the trustees to actually meet with them, and for ending the association’s service as a front organization for outside interests.

  • anon. 12:37

    Dartlog: Please also restore the paragraphs you cut from past years’ Worst Professors List, or explain why you caved to Administration censorship.

  • Anonymous

    The Board respect for Mathias is because he proved alumni were against the lawsuit. If he becomes vocal that alumni still are overwhelmingly in favor of parity, will the Board still be as enthused to work with him?

  • Anon 12:24

    Anon 12:32 asked:

    What are you talking about, 12:24? What discussion? Where does it say it’s focused on the council deadline?

    The answer is in the joint Council/Association email:

    Your Alumni Council representatives will be happy to respond to any questions or comments you may have about this proposal. Find your representatives online at http://www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/councilrep. (The Council will discuss the amendment [to the Association constitution] at its December 4, 2008, biannual meeting.)

    Sincerely,

    John H. Mathias Jr. ’69
    President, Dartmouth Association of Alumni

    John B. Daukas Jr. ’84
    President, Dartmouth Alumni Council

    At least we had a chance to vote for our Association representatives from among alternatives.

  • Anonymous

    Anon. 12:24, I agree: the council should not be discussing current alumni affairs that concern it directly, especially the reduction in council nominations from three down to one or two.

  • Anonymous

    What concerns the Council directly is that it follow the rules for trustee nominations as delegated to it by the Association, including how many nominees to put forward. That is not for 100 Councilors to decide, but for all alumni as they comprise the Association.

    What is the right number anyway? One or Two? If the nominating committee is given discretion (in any amended Association constitution), what criteria does it use to decide when one is appropriate and when two?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see why it would ever be appropriate for the nominating committee to nominate any more than one candidate. Let the other candidate be a petitioner. If there are no petitioners, then let the one person they pick win. Why pick two cheerleaders only to have one lose?

    The situation might be different if the alumni got to elect the nominating committee, but that will never happen.

  • Anonymous

    What concerns the Council directly is that it change its rules for trustee nominations to meet the requirements of the Association and ultimately the Board.

    The nominating committee picks more than one candidate to give the people a choice and at least give a nod toward democracy. It can’t very well be an appointed committee and choose the only nominee at the same time, can it?

  • Anonymous

    You’re completely right. Let’s make sure we continue give that “nod” to democracy. It’s fooling the masses. If they had only one choice, they might figure out how it really works.

  • Dartlogger

    What? Is everyone assuming there will be no petition candidates? Won’t they keep winning? Of course, there will be only eight out of 24.

  • Anonymous

    Anon 4:25: You acknowledge that the nominating committee must meet the requirements of the Association, and in the next breath say it must pick more than one candidate to give people a choice (regardless of any requirement).

    Simply have the alumni requirement be that the choice is between one candidate nominated by the Council and another nominated in response by petition. The Council has proven itself incapable of picking candidates that alumni feel offer a real choice; they should not be picking two.

  • anon. 4:25

    anon. 6:37 – you are looking for requirements in the wrong place. The Board said Council procedures should produce no more than two candidates and leave the petition route open, so that is what the Council should aim for in changing its constitution. I don’t think the Council exactly follows the orders of the Association.

    If the Hanover Institute Party informs Council that no petitioner will be running, Council should pick two people. Otherwise it should just pick one.

    Council has a record of picking qualified candidates, indeed candidates much better qualified than the shocking embarrassments that have passed for petition trustees of late. With fewer people running, the votes of the pro-Dartmouth crowd won’t be so diluted.

  • Anonymous

    How did I know that Frank Gado would be quoted in the Review’s request for thoughts on the presidential search? He’s advancing a radical solution, as usual, and wants to end Dartmouth’s traditional and centuries-old status as a small university (DMS – 1797) and demote it to the ranks of “the elite college” – like Haverford, Union, maybe Colby? No thanks.

    Dartmouth was a small university when Gado was here in the middle of the last century, and any image to the contrary is a complete invention.

    http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/11/16/presidential_symposium.php

  • Anonymous

    4:25: So the Council’s choice (one versus two candidates) is to be determined by what one John MacGovern tells them? Or do they ask all potential petitioners if anyone will run, and then decide if they need to offer a second choice? Of course the petitioners need to hear from the Council who their first pick will be before deciding to run. What idiotic system is this? Sounds as screwed up as the rules under the failed AGTF proposal. Not surprising as it was developed by the same cast of characters.

    Keep in mind that the Council is constitutionally required to follow the lead of the Association, from which its very existence is derived.

    8:59: Gado does not appear to be arguing for the elimination of the professional schools. Topping your list of elite colleges, you name Union and Haverford. Why do you not also mention Williams and Amherst, and what would be wrong with being number one in their league versus number x among dozens of elite universities.

    As more ranking systems compete with US News, expect to see Dartmouth ranked lower more frequently. Unrelated to the concern that the first cut by the Forbes survey did not accurately measure Dartmouth’s student satisfaction with faculty, it was interesting to see so many elite colleges ranked above the universities relative to the entire educational experience.

  • Anonymous

    Dartmouth can be one of many doing the same thing, university research, or number one of a few, educating liberal-thinking individuals with the potential for leadership. Why is this such a hard choice?

  • John S. Dickey

    I agree.

  • anon. 4:25

    10:20: no, the Council’s choice (1 or 2) is to be determined by its nominating committee or the Council as a whole. That is not an “idiotic” system, it is a variation on the system in place right now.

    One of the things the committee will inevitably take into consideration is the possibility that MacGovern will decline to recruit, select, endorse, campaign for, and possibly fund a candidate that year. I expect that if the committee is certain no petitioner will emerge, it is more likely to put forth two names, to appease the vocal wing of alumni who believe that all private clubs should convert themselves to democracies.

  • 10:20

    “No”? 4:25 talks in circles. The nominating committee determines whether to nominate a second candidate after considering if MacGovern (and only MacGovern?) will put forward a petitioner, yet (per 4:25) the committee does not make a decision based upon what MacGovern tells them. Do they mind-read his intentions?

    And how does MacGovern know if he will endorse a separate petitioner until after they name a candidate… just once they might put forward a candidate acceptable to the petitioner slate?

  • Anonymous

    If the petitioner slate sees no need to put forward a counter-candidate, there would appear to be a mutually-acceptable initial nomination, and an election would be a formality.

    Perhaps the committee will put forward a second candidate not when there is no petitioner, but when they expect one. Why, pray tell? Believing that no one of the three would have a majority on the first ballot, they would orchestrate either I. their two candidates left in the runoff, a win either way, or II. the stronger of their two candidates running against the petitioner.

    What better way to judge the electability of an individual than by picking the stronger of two in the “primary” voting. Very clever.

  • Anonymous

    Disturbing.

  • Anonymous

    Does MacGovern have a monopoly on petition candidates? As long as the insiders think so, they will keep coming up with these controlled solutions. It’s a no win for the little guy. But, then again, Dartmouth is not responsible for the little guy.

  • Little Guy

    MacGovern has a petition monopoly as a consequence of the actions of the insiders. If the Association’s email list was made available to all legitimately-interested alumni, others would be able to convey their interest in running to obtain petition signatures and inform potential voters. Ditto regarding the insider’s editorial control of the web site and blog. Under the present system only two parties have the resources to do so.

    While alumni might benefit from the choice of multiple petitioners, with differing emphasis on differing issues, neither MacGovern nor the insiders want this. MacGovern does not want his candidate diluted, and the insiders want to be able to focus alumni anger on one bad-for-Dartmouth insurgent organization.

  • Anonymous

    10:20 doesn’t get it.

    Because the Council wants its nominee to win, it should put forward only one nominee in all cases. All cases may be presumed to include a petitioner. Petitioners are usually handpicked by John MacGovern and/or the Hanover Institute (the same thing?).

    But the Council has the option of putting forward two nominees. It should use this option only if or when it can be sure there will be no petitioner, so as to keep alive the feeling of choice. It’s as simple as that.

    MacGovern does not have a monopoly on petitioners. Petitioners only exist because of MacGovern. They would not occur naturally, in the absence of the Hanover Institute and its questionably legal tactics.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. That “feeling of choice” is all that matters to the insiders.

    They don’t get it.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you think putting two people in a race where only one would otherwise run will reduce complaints from the radicals and hecklers? That is a good enough reason to do it.

  • Anonymous

    If the “radicals and hecklers” don’t run their own candidate, who cares what they think?

    Going back to running beauty pageants won’t restore the insiders’ credibility with the rank and file.

    They should just appoint their one person and let it go at that.

  • Anonymous

    The radicals and hecklers filed a lawsuit that severely damaged the association, don’t forget. What they think matters.

    If you are against the “insiders,” why do you want them to restrict your choices?

    The “insiders” have included Zywicki and Gado and Mooney, don’t forget.

  • Anonymous

    Emily writes in the latest number that “For Dartmouth College, one president stands out above the rest: the College’s twelfth president, John Sloan Dickey.”

    Doesn’t she mean the eleventh president, Ernest Martin Hopkins?

    Dickey was good, but he served for a shorter period and during much, much less troubling times than Hopkins’ two world wars; was not as beloved or outdoorsy; does not have a building named for him; and built the Choates, for crying out loud. The Choates. Hopkins built Baker Library. There is no comparison.

  • Anonymous

    “If you are against the “insiders,” why do you want them to restrict your choices?”

    If it is not a real choice, why go through the charade?
    If the members of the nominating commitee stood for alumni-wide election, I might change my opinion.

  • Anonymous

    so ask your rep to propose amending the AC constitution to require nominating committee members to run for election. then deal with it when the idea goes nowhere.

  • Anonymous

    Ask your rep, who stood for election among several alternatives.

  • Anonymous

    The nominating committee is the inner sanctum of the alumni council. There is no way they are opening that up to outsiders. They should be limited to one nomination, so they don’t have the satisfaction of granting the alumni the “feeling of choice” in the name of democracy.

  • Anonymous

    Look, all you can ask is that the process be reasonable, not that it fulfill all of your wishes or be precisely democratic in every aspect. Constitutional amendment proposals in the AC are not rare. When they do not favor you, you just have to live with it.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, at some point you just have to say that it is what it is. Some people will vote for an imperfect amendment. Others will feel more strongly and vote against it.

    Anyone can express an opinion in the meantime.

  • Anonymous

    So what’s different about men’s soccer versus the football team?

  • Anonymous

    Rich kids whose parents don’t mind paying full tuition so they can play a dead end sport?