The billboard shows a picture of a smiling President Bush with the words “Miss Me Yet?” printed beside the photo. The billboard’s creators want to stay anonymous, though an employee from Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising says the creators are a ” group of small businessmen and individuals who just felt like Washington was against them,” the Christian Science Monitor reports.

The billboard has drawn strong opinions from both the right and the left. It comes at a time when Republicans and Democrats are pulling further away from each other on key issues like health care, and as Obama’s approval rating drops to record lows.

What do you think? Do you miss him yet?

Do you?

Speaking with the Financial Times, the Reginator said: “The consumer response has been very strong to the price reduction.”

The Nintendo President said he couldn’t reveal hard sales data, but did confirm the Wii’s drop in price was part of a company-wide strategy to get the Wii into more homes this Holiday season.

“There are literally millions of consumers out there who want a Wii and had been on the sidelines,” he explained.

“They’d been waiting for that little nudge to go out and pick it up – the price decline, the sampling, the launching of key software like Wii Fit Plus – we believe it’s what’s pushing them over the edge to get into the category.”

Additionally, Fils-Aime added that third-party publishers will release 140 titles on the Wii over the next three months. Wow.

Source: IGN

White House officials did not confirm if the first daughters, Sasha and Malia, joined their parents for the visit. It’s unclear if the couple plans to stay for dinner at Jarrett’s oceanfront home on East Chop Drive.

Black Chevy Suburbans in the presidential motorcade lined the road. Neighbors and onlookers gathered at the top of the street, peering down toward the home, but the press was not permitted within viewing distance.

Some neighbors and guests were seen coming and going from a nearby house believed to be owned by John Payton, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The ride from the farm to the Oak Bluffs neighborhood took about 30 minutes, winding through Edgartown and East Chop. A small number of viewers gathered along the road, waving and cheering as the motorcade passed. Traffic backed up as many as 20 cars as state police blocked off crossroads.

Having left the Jarrett’s house around 7:10, the president and the first lady arrived at The Sweet Life Café on Circuit Avenue in Oak Bluffs, across from the town’s gingerbread cottages.

Hundreds of people filled the streets looking for a glimpse of the first couple. They waved to the crowds and quickly ducked into the restaurant, onlookers said.

President Obama closed out his day shortly after 9:30 p.m., waving to cheering crowds after finishing dinner. Hundreds of appreciative onlookers bid goodnight to the president and first lady after their dinner with shouts of “We love you,” and “Thank you for everything.”

White House officials did not confirm what the couple had for dinner but both looked happy and well-fed as they waved to crowds and got into their black Chevy Suburban. The presidential motorcade then led the couple under the cover of dark back to their vacation home for the night.

The first couple got back to the farm at 10 p.m.

– Jake Berry (Press Pool Report)

According to this blog, nothing has happened in world news for three weeks. That’s my bad. First off, I just want to say sorry for not posting in almost a month. I was swamped with school work, finals and assignments to end off the year. But now I’m in the clear so I can again devote some time every day to writing for Blast.

Again, my bad.

Instead of reviewing what has happened in the past few weeks, let’s just skip ahead to now. There is one particular story that I want to tell you about. I saw it this afternoon and it sort of stood out from the rest.

According to the Wall Street Journal, after a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah today, President Obama told reporters he has left open the possibility of pursuing legal action against those in the CIA who created the policies that, in large part, led to torture and extreme methods of interrogation during the war.

He does stand by his promise to not pursue any course of legal action against those who actually executed the torture (the Jack Bauers). Obama did however make a clear distinction between the contractors and those who formulated the policy behind which the contractors operated.

The president told reporters that the Department of Justice is looking into memos from Bush’s term that green lit extreme interrogation. He also added that he doesn’t want to “prejudge” what is in the memos based solely on the character (or lack thereof) of our previous president.

He also spoke of a bipartisan committee that may be established to examine the use of torture and other extreme interrogation since 9/11. He said that talks during open congressional hearings (which is the way that these issues are currently addressed) tend to break down over partisan banter, and that it would be more “sensible” to start a committee of ““independent participants who are above reproach” to examine these issues.

However, he made it clear that he does no fully endorse the idea.

The president released the interrogation memos last week, in a decision he says was one of his hardest as president to date. Former VP Dick Cheney and other republicans have called this release a “breach of national security.”

I like the idea of a bipartisan tribunal. Its members would of course need to be carefully chosen however talks would never be interrupted or broken down over political differences. This issue is a moral one, an ethical one, not a political one. The ethics and morals of U.S. Army tactics overseas must be examined and open congressional hearings just aren’t the way to do that effectively. The committee’s creation would ensure ethics are at the forefront of the debate, and whether you’re red or blue would never be an issue.

“This has never been done in 45 years, but he really impressed me,” said Larry Gutkin, Lava Lite’s chief executive officer. “Originally we both have Chicago roots and he is really a Chicago politician. I thought it was attribute to him and a fun product to offer, without making fun of him. When it was all together the product came out beautifully, we are very happy with the outcome.”

The custom designed resin base and cap of the lamp feature three dimensional stars, stripes and bunting in a patriotic red, white and blue color scheme. A color photograph of a smiling President Obama is set against a blue and red background and framed in a star rimmed medallion in the center of the Lava Lamp base.

Topping the base is the distinctive Lava Lamp globe, containing a proprietary formula of blue liquid and white wax. Finally, the commemorative package, a colorful red and blue cylinder, complements the Special Edition Obama Lava Lamp perfectly.

Retailing at $39.99, the limited-edition lamp is currently available online and select retailers nationwide will soon sell it.

“This is really a collectors edition so I think a lot of people are picking this one up thinking that in years it will be a very valuable collectors item and I think they may be right,” added Gutkin.

But the lamp may not just serve as a collector’s item. Gutkin tells Blast that as a businessman who travels continuously, the past eight years have been a little hard. Being told that his country’s leader was making foolish mistakes became a common experience. Now, he said it feels good to be proud of our commander-in-chief. He hopes the country understands a process is needed to better the nation and effective change will come slowly rather than from one day to the next.

In the meantime, Gutkin is working on getting a lamp to Sasha and Malia, the first daughters, after already getting one to Vice President Biden.

“It’s a little tough to send to send something to the President. I’ve tried, but we’ll try to get one to his daughters,” said Gutkin. “We’ll get one to them and hopefully the President will see one and think its pretty cool. I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t!”

Thankfully you don’t have to wait to get your own Obama Lava Lamp. Enter to win a limited edition lamp by February 28 now!

For those who watched history today, you saw the overwhelming support with which Obama was presented at National Mall in Washington D.C. He told the crowd he was humbled, and really, there is no other emotion he could have felt when he stepped out onto that podium and looked out at the crowd of nearly two million adoring supporters, all there not to see him recite a simple, yet groundbreaking oath.

Obama’s inaugural toast was fantastic, but the best thing I think he said was this: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” People will judge you by what you build, not what you destroy. Just a longer way to see “peace shall overcome.”

He spoke of laying the groundwork for a productive and happy tomorrow, one where future generations don’t inherit the same worries we face today, to make sure they are able to harness the freedom that is rightfully theirs and to keep its flame lit as it passes from generation to generation.

That freedom, after so many years of apathetic government and economic powers who cheated and lied us into this situation, is at great risk. But I don’t think many doubt that with this man, and his family and the helm of the most powerful nation in the world, all will be restored, in due time.

The most historical event I have ever witnessed, possibly the most historical I will ever witness. President Obama, an inspirational figure ranking alongside the likes of Lincoln, even before he stepped into the Oval Office.

Just a day after Martin Luther King Day, he was inaugurated. I’ve seen footage of the day King gave his historical speech, and I without a doubt can say the emotion and pride within the people that were not only in Washington, but watching all around the world, matched the spirit held by those in attendance some 45 years ago.

Before President Bush went into this helicopter, he mouthed to Mrs. Obama something along these lines: you’ll have the time of your life, I promise you. We hope, for at least the next four years, we all do.

What a day.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For the last eight years, I have had the honor of speaking to the American people Saturday mornings through this radio address. In hundreds of broadcasts, I have talked to you about important issues affecting our security and our prosperity. And today, in my final address, I want to send a simple and heartfelt message: Thank you.

Eight years ago, Laura and I left our home in Texas to come to Washington. Through two terms in the White House, we have been blessed by your kind words and generous prayers. We have been inspired by those of you who reach out to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, and care for the sick. We have been moved by the courage and devotion of those of you who wear the uniform. Serving as your President has been an incredible honor.

Like every individual who has held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I’ve always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course. While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges — and others we cannot foresee today — America must maintain our moral clarity. I’ve often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.

Eight years ago, on a cold January morning, I stood on the steps of the United States Capitol, placed my hand on the Bible, and swore a sacred oath to defend our people and our Constitution. On that day, I spoke of “our Nation’s grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.” Next week, my term of service will come to an end — but that story and that dream will continue.

On Tuesday, Laura and I will join all Americans in offering our best wishes to President Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls. And later that day, we will return to the love of family and friends in Texas. I will depart office proud of my Administration’s record. And I will spend the rest of my life grateful for the opportunity to have served as President of the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you for listening.

Source: White House Press Office

The economic crisis has literally changed the rules of government. The executive branch has overseen an injection of trillions of public funds into the private sector — and without admitting it, has essentially conceded that American-style capitalism, which has been viewed as holy writ by economists, journalists, academics and politicians for 30 years, is not sustainable.

As a result, the Obama administration’s first six months will be dominated with plans for a massive (though many say, not massive enough) $850 billion stimulus plan that, while not yet fully crafted, will involve a major public works project, large amounts of aid to state governments – most of which are running large deficits and are in or near recession — increased aid to homeowners and endless other possibilities for major reform and ambitious programs.

Obama is also taking the reigns of two wars and the largest military in the history of humanity just as the country faces complicated geopolitical conflicts in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Lebanon and elsewhere.

While few presidents aspire to take office while the country is in war, the economy is sputtering and the quality of life for Americans is expected to decrease dramatically, it does give the president enormous power.  “You never want serious crisis to go to waste,’” said Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

But what Obama makes of the opportunity remains to be seen. Obama has continued to trump the idea that his recovery package will serve the interests of “Main Street” as well as Wall Street; however, like all U.S presidents, Obama was put into office with the help of elite, moneyed interest – he received more money from the finance sector than any other candidate in presidential history.   And despite his rhetoric of helping out the regular guy, Obama, while in the stretch run of the 2008 campaign, elected to support a $700 billion bailout to the financial sector which was opposed by virtually the entire population and, unlike packages implemented by other developed nations struggling with recession, was practically toothless in regulating these businesses and in limiting executive pay.

On the other hand, Obama could implement something akin to a new “New Deal” which could shape American governance for decades.  He has amassed a mountain of good will from his supporters, as well as the media; and a weakened Republican party will be unable to kill most of his proposals, as the electorate is yearning for wide scale changes.

So many are left to wonder what Obama’s first six months in president will look like. Here, we seek to assess the possibilities. But before we do so, it is important to understand the ebb and flow of the power structure of the federal government. For it is not only the economic crisis that has afforded Obama such immense power, but also and eight-year campaign to expand the power of the executive branch by the office of his predecessor.

The precedent of power

During the last few years of George W. Bush’s presidency many speculated power the executive branch would be diminished when a transfer of power took over.  Bush went as far as any president in recent history – maybe ever – in expanding the power of the executive branch.

His unrivaled use of signing statements, which undermined legislation behind the scenes in lieu of making a far more visible veto, were condemned by legal groups and politicians alike. In his first six years a Republican-controlled Congress, gave him a blank check on foreign policy issues: torture, wiretapping, rendition, troop escalations and unconditional funding for two brutal military campaigns. When the Democrats took over in 2006, things did not change much; Democrats continued to fund the war in Iraq and refused to prosecute executive branch officials for their clear abuse of powers.

Starting an environmental club at school is a great way to get students energized about taking care of the Earth and helping their community while learning about some of the most important issues facing the world in the 21st century.

EarthTeam, a non-profit environmental network for teens, teachers and youth leaders, offers many tips on how to start an environmental club. First and foremost is to make sure there are at least a half dozen or so other students interested in forming such a club to begin with, and then also finding a teacher, community leader or parent who is willing to serve as an adult sponsor. The sponsor’s role is to provide advice along the way and to help ensure the stability of the group from year-to-year given that all of the students, even the founders of the club, will eventually graduate, or move on to other interests or endeavors.

Once the core membership and adult sponsor have been established, EarthTeam suggests all sitting down together to decide on the club’s vision (“Why are we here?”) and to brainstorm about possible activities or projects to undertake (“What do we want to accomplish?”). Once these questions have been answered, it’s time to hold the club’s first official meeting, which should be advertised as widely as possible to other students who may be interested in finding out what the group is about and how they can get involved, too.

The next step, according to EarthTeam, is to forge an action plan that focuses on one group-oriented, year-long project that has measurable benefits to the school or community and that can keep the interest of the student members-who will no doubt be spending long hours volunteering. Whatever project(s) the group decides on, members should develop a timeline that clearly lists goals, dates and responsibilities.

In addition to undertaking the one major project, clubs can also host or sponsor special events for extra visibility. EarthTeam suggests getting students outside for a river or beach clean-up, a tree planting day, or a field trip to a local wetland, zoo or nature reserve. Another popular idea is to hold an Environmental Awareness Day to educate the entire student body about relevant green issues.

EarthTeam is also a networking platform so clubs can work together and share experiences with each other to help get a sense of the bigger picture beyond one individual school’s locale, given the global nature of most environmental issues. Another great networking resource is the Greenspan website, which lists clubs in 21 different U.S. states as well as in Australia, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Malaysia.

Another great resource for those starting up new or managing existing school environmental clubs is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Student Center website, which offers dozens of ideas for projects that both stimulate and enlighten participants while helping the local community. The website also provides links to several partner non-profit groups with club-worthy activities.

CONTACTS: EarthTeam, www.earthteam.net; Greenspan Environmental Club Network, www.greenspanworld.org/environmental_club_network.htm; U.S. EPA Student Center, www.epa.gov/students.

Telling the story of George W. Bush’s presidency, the rightly titled “W.” (pronounced “Dubya”) is ironic and critical, but makes President Bush look like the victim rather than the enforcer of the manipulation and deceit that has brought his popularity rating to a historic low.

Playing Bush is Josh Brolin, who is proving to be the next great actor of our generation. Following his critically acclaimed role in the Cohen brothers’ Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men,” Brolin gives a near perfect interpretation of good ol’ Dubya.

The only issue with Brolin’s portrayal of Bush was that he was cast to play Bush in his college days. While Brolin was able to pull of the character of Bush, his wrinkled veneer gave away the 20 year age difference between how old he is and how old the character he was supposed to have been playing was.

The all-star player was Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice, whose awkward facial expressions and nasal vocal-interpretation of the Secretary of State added new levels of humor to some of the more straight-forward character caricatures.

Rounding out the bunch was Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld, Toby Jones as Karl Rove, Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and James Cromwell as George Herbert Walker Bush.

“W.” chronicled the story of George Bush Jr.’s life through his interactions with his father. Stone portrayed Bush’s actions as only wanting to live up to his father’s expectations and earn Bush Sr.’s approval. The jealous of his elder brother Jed was undercurrent throughout the entirety of the film.

The story was told out of chronological order, which was confusing because it was hard to judge when it was supposed to have taken place. Eventually the contexts became clear, but, especially with the age issues with Brolin, the idea was there for telling Bush’s story thematically though un-chronologically, but it was not delivered as effectively as it could have been.

The themes were very strong throughout the story and the film was well-created. Introverted shots like Bush trying to catch a baseball in the outfield of his empty stadium and lines like Bush Sr.’s “Who do you think you are, a Kennedy?” really give interesting dynamic to what has become known as one of the worst presidencies of all time.

Stone ended the film just as Bush was going into his second term as presidency (around 2004) which I didn’t quite understand. The film ended on a bizarre note, with Dick Cheney coaxing Bush to enter into war with Iraq and eventually Iran, saying, “There is no exit strategy.” It didn’t really make sense for Stone to end the film where he did when so many more important and critical events happened after the invasion of Iraq. By leaving the second term of Bush’s presidency out of the film, he did not create an apt representation of the president that so many have come to despise – unless Stone has secret plans for a sequel.

“W.” was an incredibly well created piece of film, both visually appealing and character driven. It gave new insight into a public figure in ways that have not been shown before. Thought it had a few minor flaws, “W.” is worth your money.

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — A large crowd formed at 8 a.m. Friday outside of the Pan Am Hanger here in Portsmouth, where Barack Obama was scheduled to appear.

Obama read through his speech to the unstoppable cheers of the crowds in front of him. “The American people began down the road to change,” he said. Entrance polls in Iowa showed that 51 percent of voters seeking “change” caucused for Obama Thursday.

People were there to show support, yes, but also to meet the man.

There were also others that were less certain still wanting to learn what he stood for and if they should back him on his run for the White House.

“I got here at 8:30 … I’m still trying to decide who to vote for,” said “Angelynne,” who was standing on line to greet the senator. She said that she was enjoying the attention the candidates were giving New Hampshire voters. “People in other states have to pay money to see these people, we get begged!”

With a debate scheduled for Saturday, many of the candidates are showing up in New Hampshire to prepare and use the opportunity to get voter support. Even the cold did not deter people from filling the Hanger. The temperature hung in there at four degrees.

Obama started out talking about where he came from and how that influenced who he is. He said that he didn’t always live in Chicago, but he wanted to work at the grass roots level.

“There were a group of churches who had come together to try deal with the devastation of steel plants being closed, and for three and a half years I worked as an organizer, with them to bring job training to the unemployed, economic development to communities that had been torn apart,” he said. “It was the best education I ever had … One of the things that I learned was ordinary people can do extraordinary things when given a chance.”

He said many times throughout the speech how he was trying to bring all of America together. “We are one nation; we are one people; the time for change has come.”

He talked about the different people that came to the caucus where he stood shaking hands — the high school seniors, unsure of how a caucus works; the Democrats; the Independents that believe in him; and even the Republicans, who broke party lines to caucus for the Democrat. He said that he was trying to make “a new working majority, go out and remake America, and then change the World.”

He believes in “Hope over Fear,” “Unity over division,” — that he will be the president that “Will be willing to disagree with you, without being disagreeable.”

“I won’t tell you what you want to hear, I will tell you what you need to hear.” He said he will be the president that doesn’t owe his election to big businesses and special interests.

Hope was an ever-present theme. He acknowledged that the other politicians are criticizing his experience, calling him a “Hope Monger.” They want him to be “Seasoned and Stewed.” They want to “boil all the hope out of me,” he said. “Hopes that I saw in the eyes of the people walking into the caucus.”

What does Obama believe hope is? “Hope is that belief that we can work for and fight for that which was denied to us.”

He ended his speech talking about old fashion politics and shook hands with everyone in the crowd that he could.

But among Democrats, I’m finding conversations about the candidates to be the same. People are voting for their candidates for hopeful reasons. Hillary supporters by and large are looking to her to lead us forward based on her experience. Or maybe there’s a hint of nostalgia, having gone astray the past eight years from the good old years with Bill. Hopeful Hillary supporters are hoping that she can bring us back to the good times but forward from the havoc that the “evil Republicans hath wrought on America” over the past couple of years.

People who oppose Senator Clinton cite her lack of passion — her voice, which is often seen as being harsh and cold. Senator Clinton has been criticized vastly for coming off as too harsh however, if she were to show a softer feminine side, would this change the views of people who may have held critiques of her since 1992?

While Obama may not have the advantage of being in the West Wing previously, he does have one thing to give his supporters — hope. For many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, he creates an excitement when he brings a Kennedy-esque youthfulness to the stage, much like he did after his victory in Iowa on Thursday night.

However, even those he manages to rouse excitement in are skeptical about his lack of experience on the Federal level which is something he will have to overcome when being compared to Hillary Clinton.

What is really going to differentiate the winner from the loser in this race to the top of the Democratic ticket is really going to be how the voters value experience over passion. Voters this year seem to agree that we need a candidate who will take us forward but it’s going to be a fight to determine who will be the better candidate to take us there.

The opposites myth would have been much more valid long before the campaign, before Obama was a member of the U.S. Senate, a place where principled people and fearless progressives are not easy to come by. The Senator’s October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, having showcased a passionate condemnation of the march to war in Iraq, shows an Obama willing to take a politically unpopular position, confronting not only power but the consensus.

In the speech, neoconservative war architects Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are “armchair, weekend warriors” and Karl Rove is a “political hack.” Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our “so-called allies” who commit human rights violations. These are strong words, and one can’t help but be disappointed when remembering that this is the same guy who weaseled uncomfortably out of a simple question that arose after controversial comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: is homosexuality immoral? We had to hear it later through Obama’s spokesperson that he disagreed with Pace’s remark that it was. It appeared that the climate of Washington had claimed yet another progressive victim.

Eight days after Barack Obama delivered his anti-war speech in Chicago, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech of her own—on the floor of the U.S. Senate, explaining her vote in favor of the war authorization. In the speech, she says, “I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.”

Just as Obama’s speech is a reminder in our vapid and endless election season of how he once acted on principle, Clinton’s speech is a reminder that it was not only the Bush administration that evoked September 11th in their support of a wholly unrelated war in Iraq that acted on instinct—as Obama says, a war of “passion”—rather than facts.

The distrust– and indeed loathing–by the left of Hillary Clinton goes beyond her war vote and subsequent refusal to apologize for it. She also voted twice to authorize the Patriot Act and co-sponsored legislation that would make flag-burning a crime, an unconstitutional law according to Justice Scalia.

Given just the above, it’s quite clear as to who is the better pick for president in 2008. But a lot has changed since 2002.

Now, the former antiwar community organizer and Illinois State Senator is a presidential candidate who supports a slow withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but not the cutting of funding for the war, which is the only way to really end it.

Hillary Clinton is a former unabashed hawk who has since grown critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the conflict, and supports a troop withdrawal but not fund slashing—the same stance as Barack.

On other issues, neither candidate is willing to say what both most likely believe—that to deny gay Americans the right to marry is discriminatory religious pandering. Both Senators support “universal and affordable health insurance,” but neither supports the means to get us there: a single-payer system. Both think that we must deal with Iran diplomatically, but neither are leaving out any options.

Both of their websites are written in the language of campaign management: that banal, humorless, and odd code that sees “strengthening families” and “supporting parents” as key “issues.” It’s the language that says a lot but means nothing, and in a political campaign you can always identify the candidates with the littlest chance of winning by how little they take refuge in its blandly safe vernacular.

So this, then, is what voters are left with: two mainstream Democrats bent on talking points but short on specifics, in favor of reform but not revolution, critical of the establishment only to a point.

The last scene of George Orwell’s Animal Farm famously described pigs dining with men and the rest of the animals unable anymore to tell the difference between the two. Looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton now is a little like being outside that window, trying to remember which one is the establishment candidate and which is the outsider.