as long as it stays crunchy in milk

the current democratic contest is officially ridiculous. i can't find any logic or consistency in voting patterns, except that college students *heart* charismatic rhetoric, especially from renegades and underdogs, and that steel magnolias really nailed that whole older-chicks-sticking-together thing. oh, my darling, errant nation; how you never surprise me.

anyway. i cheered and danced when i heard last night that hillary had won ohio (sorry, downstairs neighbors), even though i have been rather disappointed in her recent attackyness, because here's what i've been even more disappointed in: the annoyed swatting at her by obama supporters (including john kerry! holy knife in my heart, batman), and said supporters' inexplicable and desperate insistence that she withdraw from the race if her victories from tuesday on out were not landslide ones. last night's victories were not landslide ones, yet the difference in delegates between her and obama is now, what, 85? if obama wins every remaining delegate from now through june, it still won't be enough to get him to the number needed to guarantee the nomination. it seems to me as though everyone is viable. of course, the claims that hillary's presence is keeping the party from uniting under one candidate are not technically false, but claims that obama is doing democrats a similar disservice would be equally technically true. it's nonsense, though, to say that the current volley is splitting the party; the party was split at the outset--demographically--and its members are voting accordingly. this is the usefulness of demographic categories: people tend to make selections according to them. they also like to make assessments based on emotional judgments and post-snap-decision rationalizing. i think those are usually the worst things to base one's choice for president--or anything--on, but given the vague differences in many of hillary's and barack's political proposals and the immense differences in their presentations and demeanors, really, what chance was there of things turning out any other way? ordinarily, all of those demographic subsets are choosing between candidates who are thirty-second-spot equals--equally white, equally male, equally old and swaggering. we do not know what to do with all of this variety. it's like buying your corn flakes at a three-aisle bodega for an entire lifetime and then having that bodega be torn down and replaced with a super stop & shop. look at all that cereal! look at all of the ways that corn flakes can be so much like and yet so completely different from corn flakes! these ones have frosting! these ones have nuts! you could lose days of your life to it. i understand it, i do. but it's still ridiculous.

i am trying to objectively support what i believe is know-how and substance, but what the hell do i know. i could be rationalizing just as much as everyone else. i mean, i shop at a store that only has a quarter of an aisle's worth of cereal, three measly shelves, and i still can't get in and out in under fifteen minutes. i spent a full five the other day trying to decide between two versions of grape-nuts. i know that there is no difference between grape-nuts. but there is this brand and that brand, and they are very nearly the same price, and i'm not buying them both, so do i like this font or that font? do i want the box that says "i'm delicious!" or the box that says "i am cereal"? this is a poor example, because in the end i chose the box that said "cracklin' oat bran," but i think you all understand what i'm saying. just, you know, stop picking on each other. all that matters is that everyone has a wholesome breakfast.

i'm, um, i'm hungry.