The CMC Celeb section features interesting personal stories and there is no better celeb to start with than Isaac Goldberg. Isaac, a senior from Scarsdale, NY, is a passionate Democrat. He is majoring in Government with a sequence in Leadership. Isaac spends his free time playing on the CMC Regulators baseball team. He is the President of the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges and has political experience that would make most CMCers drool. Isaac has worked a number of internships. Notably, he has worked for two Congressional campaigns and on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C. Most impressive of all, Isaac was offered the unique opportunity to work on Barack Obama’s 2008 bid for the White House.

To get to know Isaac better, the Forum asked him a set of six questions that can be found in all future CMC Celeb articles:

“The Six”

1. What are the top 5 most played songs on your iTunes?

1. Thunder Road, Bruce Springsteen
2. Cotton Fields, Credence Clearwater Revival
3. The Weight, The Band
4. You Don’t Know How it Feels, Tom Petty
5. Perfect Gentleman, Wyclef Jean

Billed by both the Ath and her own website as “the last protege of Ansel Adams,” Cook is clearly a talented photographer, and her work reflects her studies with Adams. For example, like Adams she shoots in black and white and does some landscape work. Beyond those base similarities, her work echoes the clean style, high contrast, and simple subject matter of Adams. Even if I didn’t think her art was notable — lots of important museums do; her works are part of the permanent collections at the Met, MoMA, and the Smithsonian, to name a few. Her art is not in question here, but rather her (in)ability to reveal something about herself and her work.

For her talk, Cook showed a number of her portraits (most of which, if not all, were readily available on her website) and said a few words on each photograph, sometimes only mentioning the subject’s name and occupation. That was it. Though her commentary revealed some clues as to her methods, working style, and occasionally short anecdotes about her notable subjects, she gave almost nothing of herself to the audience.

Katherine Graham, Jorge Louis Borges, Francis Crick, Merce Cunningham, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Jamaica Kincaid, Lillian Hellman, Sidney Janis, Philip Johnson and David Whitney, Francois Mitterrand, Dorothy Norman, Mirium Rothschild, Steven Spielberg, Dorothea Strauss, Maya Lin and Daniel Wolf — do those names mean anything to you? I only knew about 7 out of 17 of those names and I consider myself to be at least moderately culturally literate. How about a little context? A good speaker neither overestimates nor underestimates the audience’s intelligence (or in this case, cultural literacy). For an address to a school with limited theater opportunities, no arts programs, almost complete neglect for creative talents (save Ath events like this one), Cook might have tailored her comments to a more ignorant, but curious crowd.

Her background as a fine art photographer was also unclear. To have had the opportunity to photograph really important, influential individuals, such as the publisher of the Washington Post, a founding member of the Beat movement, the former president of France, and a three-time Academy Award winning director, one must ask– how? why? Cook never addressed how she was able to gain access to these individuals. For example, Cook photographed Michelle and Barack Obama in 1996 as part of her book featuring images of couples– how did the young politician and his wife come across her radar?

These were the only facts I could gather about her:  she had a wealthy background as her parents collected art and owned a De Kooning, she speaks excellent French, she’s well-traveled, and most importantly, she has friends in high places.  Now clearly not all speakers come to the Ath to talk about themselves, but at least they speak at length about their work, their research, their industry, or something, no?

Though Cook admitted that she chose an arbitrary title for her talk (“What is a portrait?”), her insight on what makes a good photograph was pretty unoriginal. “I felt like I revealed something of who he was,”  she said of photograph of a bookstore owner Jacob Zeiltin.  “He thought the portrait looked more like him than he did.”

Maybe I’m a jaded art history major, or maybe, Cook doesn’t have a whole lot to say and should stick to what she does best — taking beautiful portraits.

Most Birthers claim that Obama was born in Kenya, while others think his birth occurred in Indonesia.  Even though Obama has released a copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born on Oahu, these conspiracy theories continue to animate the fanatical right.

What is most surprising about these conspiracy theories is the number of relatively mainstream people willing to associate themselves with the Birthers or at least recognize the issue as a legitimate controversy.  One of CNN’s many reasons for dumping Lou Dobbs was his repeated raising of Birther issues.  More predictably, The Birthers have found audiences on conservative talk radio and conservative web sites such as Free Republic and WorldNetDaily.  The number of people who have serious doubts that Obama was born in the United States is shockingly high.  According to one poll, 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States or are unsure.  These numbers, however, ignore an important geographic disparity: doubt about Obama’s place of birth is far higher in the South than anywhere else in the country. In the South, only 47% of respondents said they believe Obama was born in the United States, with 30 % unsure and 23% convinced he’s foreign born.

Many Republican politicians find themselves in an uncomfortable position when it comes to Birther conspiracy theories.  On the one hand, the Birther movement kills the Republicans’ credibility among the vast majority of the population and Republicans.  At the same time,   Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican congressman from Delaware, was blindsided at a rally in July when a near-hysterical woman accused him of ignoring the “truth” that Obama was a citizen of Kenya.  Wanting to pander to the fringe without becoming entirely discredited by the lunatics, many Republicans have opted to align themselves only tangentially with the Birther movement.  For example, Republican congressman of John Campbell of California proposed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove they are “natural-born citizens.”  On MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewed Campbell and repeatedly asked him if he believed Obama was a natural-born citizen.  The extreme evasiveness of Campbell’s answers perfectly demonstrates his “wink-wink” strategy of secretly pandering to fringe elements of the conservative movement without having his reputation sullied by outright association.

As a final note to seniors still seeking employment, the Birthers are willing to throw down cash for investigations of Obama’s past.  Neil Sankey, a former member of Scotland Yard, has been hired by Birthers to investigate Obama’s personal history.  I know most CMC alums can’t match Sankey’s background, but perhaps “Topics in Forensic Science” has taught some desperate seniors enough to follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Ames.

Once The Terminator became our Cyborg Governor, it was only a matter of time until the highest position in the land was infiltrated by The Machines (yeah, I did just combine Matrix and Terminator terminology, so what? I’m an equal-opportunity conspiracy theorist).

This video is a continuous stream of 130 photos straight from the State Department’s flickr - BOOM, CREDIBILITY. Watch as Obama strikes an uncannily similar facial pose in every single picture, with almost mechanical precision. (Via Daily Intel)

Just don’t get duped by the congenial flash of those pearly whites – I’m pretty sure they are made of a titanium alloy of some sort… from the future.

Rampant hyperbole aside, I too have my doubts about Obamacare.  Namely, how are we going to cut costs while expanding coverage?  Those new medical services aren’t going to pay for themselves.  Rather than deal with these sorts of concerns directly, the President has chosen to deal in lofty parables:

“There’s going to be some disagreement, but if there’s broad agreement that, in this situation the blue pill works better than the red pill, and it turns out the blue pills are half as expensive as the red pill, then we want to make sure that doctors and patients have that information available to them.”

Cue Morpheus and the Matrix: welcome to the desert of the health care sector.  Notably, Obama is advocating the blue pill, the one that makes you “believe… whatever you want to believe.”  Costs will be cut.  Never mind that Congressional Budget Office report.  Look at all those other countries with single payer and more universal systems that have lower costs.

What these macro international comparisons of the percentage of GDP spent on health care across various countries neglect is the very real micro problem of US government’s finances.  Simply put, we don’t got money.  And if you’ve ever seen one of those scary ass J-shaped charts of entitlement spending, you know it’s only going to get worse.  Besides, Americans like consuming things.  Why should health care be any different?  Maybe we just like consuming health care services and thus we spend more of our aggregate national income.   I’m reminded of my elderly aunt who apparently is only capable of talking about her and her friends’ health problems.

What it really comes down to is that those systems are more cost effective because they’re better structured.  But it’s not like we can just wave a magic wand and get their health care system.  Liberal pundits are worried that delay will mean no reform, but that’s not the case.  What they really mean by reform here is change.  Delay means a lessened likelihood of substantial change to the status quo (in terms of the governments’ role).  But rushing the bill increases the likelihood that not all of the several hundred page monstrosity of legalese argot will be properly vetted.  Cough, the stimulus, cough.  Rushing means we’re more likely to get a substantial change, but it’s questionable whether that will be for the good—i.e. reform.

The situation is becoming increasingly tenuous for Obama.  His original timeline is in shambles.  Obamacare is slowly crumbling in the polls; it was only with a desperate this will cost me my presidency push that Obama was able to stop Blue Dogs from killing his pet project.  But they still have serious doubts.  And that’s not to mention the Senate or the electoral implications for 2010.  Yet, in every crisis there is an opportunity.

This could be a Nixon goes to China moment.  The public thinks Obama is focused on expanding coverage to the uninsured over cutting costs by over a 3:1 margin.  Republicans and Democrats are roughly united in their belief; the discrepancy between the percentage of Republicans and the percentage of Democrats who believe Obama is focused on expanding coverage is within the margin of error.  What if Obama jettisoned the public option and the road to single payer in favor of a narrower bill focused on cutting costs and disentangling perverse incentives?  This would immediately destroy Republicans’ best argument against him (that he’s an overspending far-left liberal) and would make real his post-partisanship rhetoric in a very tangible way.

The plan could start by eliminating the subsidy to employer-based health care, which just obfuscates the costs and benefits of health insurances.  Obama’s wonky head of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzag, puts the issue well: “I very firmly believe that capitalism is not founded on excessively high subsidies to private firms. That is what this system delivers right now.” The now defunct wonkish Wyden bill would be another place to look for good ideas.

This could only be a victory for Obama and a much needed boost to his bipartisan credentials.  So far, his efforts at congressional bipartisanship have been mostly symbolic:

“Republicans said this White House’s effort at bipartisanship had been one of symbols — presidential calls, invitations to the White House, regular tending by such high level officials as Mr. Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff — rather than substance.
“We hear from them all the time,” Mr. Alexander said. “They said the right things. They are as cordial as you can be.”

More pertinently, how could Republican’s spin this into failure?  “Obama caved into our common sense pressure and abandoned his socialistic medicine agenda.”  Translated: “Obama failed in his pursuit of a leftist policy agenda and pursued a magnanimous middle ground.”  Sounds like a win to me.

Such a move would be the best possible type of compromise: not only will both sides give something up, but it would actually be in the best interest of the nation.  Our healthcare costs really are skyrocketing, and there’s a lot we can and should do on that front.  But it’s a bit disingenuous to conflate our broken healthcare system vis-à-vis its skyrocketing costs with the social justice question of whether we want universal coverage.  For Obama, the question he needs to ask himself is simple: do I care more about my legacy and post-partisanship or liberalism?

“Being a conservative columnist at the New York Times is like being Chief Rabbi at Mecca,” joked Brooks about working for a newspaper that many believe to have liberal-leaning ideologies.

A young boy with his parents at a “be-in” in Central Park (“where hippies could go to Central Park and just ‘be’”), Brooks saw a man burn his five dollar bill and throw it down, so instinctively Brooks picked it up. He jested that the step to pick up the bill was his “first step to the right.”

“Good journalists tend to be aloof and emotionally detached,” said Brooks, who was both witty and personable in his speech. “They say what they think and they don’t have trouble being honestly critical of even the people they like.”

Brooks, who grew up in the highly liberal Greenwich Village neighborhood of NYC, related the influences thoughout his life that affected his political views. A former liberal himself, Brooks admitted to having been deeply inspired into the ideology of conservatism by William Frank Buckley, Jr., who passed away the same morning of this speech. Brooks spent a good portion of his talk on Buckley’s illustrious career and amiable personality.

A common conviction among conservatives is a “distrust in government,” alleged Brooks, who expressed his view that the world is too complicated for the government to fully understand and successfully fix with legislation. He addressed the state of conservatism and the Republican Party, whose base has been rapidly eroding and many of its followers dissipating into both the liberal and independent camps. Unlike the confidence in conservatism that Buckley was able to inspire, Brooks expressed the unfortunate truth that the modern conservative movement has “too many sleezeballs rather than eyeballs” (think Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter). The growing consensus among conservatives, according to Brooks, is that Republican leaders are not genuinely representing the ideology of their own party.

Brooks went on to address the political culture of our time, as well as a range of social issues and current events – such as health care, global warming, the occupation of Iraq, and the ongoing 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. He expressed his skepticism for “Obamamania,” but did not stop short of praising Senator Barack Obama for his many admirable qualities. He seemed certain that Senator Hillary Clinton has effectively lost the race for the Democratic nomination. Brooks also conveyed his “love” for Senator John McCain, who he believes is deeply motivated by a sense of honor.

According to Brooks, the general election will be a contest between the nonpartisan left-winger, Obama, and a nonpartisan right-winger, McCain.

The honesty, eloquence and comical nature of Brooks’ speech offered a fresh perspective which, even as a non-conservative, I believe was worth hearing.

In my opinion, one of the best things about CMC is the political culture. It is still amazing to eat breakfast at Collins and see people reading the Los Angeles Times, eager to discuss world events and politics. And, while the student body is divided on political leanings, there are two campus publications representing each end of the spectrum, operated by and written for by students.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the upcoming 2008 presidential election is sending the campus into a whirlwind. The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be the most discussed political topic on campus, and, unsurprisingly considering the demographic, most of the enthusiasm is aimed at Senator Obama.

I can live with that. He has a strong message, charisma, and a sexy voice. If he is elected in November, I will enjoy listening to his deep, baritone voice read the State of the Union.

What I cannot understand is the fervent hatred of Hillary Clinton. I find such vehement opposition to her existence that it takes me off guard sometimes. What did Hillary Clinton do to anger CMCers so much?

I suppose I could play the gender card and blame it on misogyny, but 1) I know that approach will be met with much criticism, and 2) I am not 100% sure that hatred of her truly does stem from sexism.

I suppose I am annoyed that everyone claims she “doesn’t sound genuine” in her speeches. Honestly, the woman must be so scared of messing up and coming off as “too feminine” to wage war yet “not feminine enough” to care about women’s issues like education and healthcare. With all the pressure, it is no wonder she comes across as insincere. Ms. Clinton is probably afraid to speak the truth sometimes for fear of ridicule!

But I will get off my feminist soapbox and return to more modest musings, for the prime reason for my supporting Hillary Clinton is not gender. I think Hillary is better equipped to handle this country’s mess than Obama. Some say the role of First Lady is not “job experience,” but I disagree. It is not easy to renovate the health care system while performing the socially expected obligations of the First Lady while facing attacks and criticism from all sides. When one of us does that, we can talk about “experience.”

I really am getting off my box now.

After a recent discussion with two of my closest friends about whether Hillary or Obama would serve as a better symbol of achievement for America (Hillary breaking the gender boundary and Obama crossing the race line), either way, I have concluded, there will be someone different representing change. I suppose the deal on campus, though, is that Obama is better at verbalizing that change better. CMCers are apparently just like the rest of our idealistic generation who want to see change. Who knew?

I guess this means I have been humbled. I was feeling out of place a few months ago at CMC when I realized that my goal in life was not to find the most lucrative job. I was not an Econ/Gov major (as much as I tried to be) who was stereotypically chasing “get rich quick” schemes. Yes, I know CMC students care about politics, but I did not think that they would seriously latch onto the ideals and notions of “change” that Obama works so hard to portray.

So while I believe Hillary might be better prepared to deal with the current issues plaguing America, maybe we need that excitement and ardor Obama can stir up, this “change”he speaks of. If Obama is the candidate better suited to unite the country, and if that is what we need at this point, then by all means, give the people what they want.

Do not misunderstand me. I refuse to abandon my girl, but if she loses, I will move on. I just hope that others come to realize that they too will not drop dead if she manages to ride that political bandwagon all the way up to the steps of the White House.