Why isn't Boulder's Mayor proud of CU?

Boulder Mayor Susan Osborne had to recently change both her Facebook profile page and her official profile on the city’s site because, as it turns out, she didn’t truthfully graduate from Vassar College.

The school she actually graduated from?  Boulder’s own University of Colorado.

Why would the Mayor of a very University-oriented town be hesitant to list that University as her own?

She claims it’s because she feels more connected to Vassar then to CU.

"I feel as though it's where my allegiance is," she said. "The reality is it's the college that I claim as my own. But my actual BA degree is from Boulder."

Doesn’t something seem a little off about this?  Though I don’t doubt that the Mayor feels special about her time at Vassar, should any official be able to claim a different school for his or her education?  Facebook is one thing, but the fact that she listed Vassar as her undergraduate education on the official Boulder City website just doesn’t feel right.

Worse yet, the school she actually graduated from, but for some reason she doesn’t want to claim, is at the heart of the town she now governs, both culturally and economically. 

I don’t expect Boulder City Council to be cheerleaders for CU.  But given that the University has been struggling with it’s reputation in some ways lately, I would hope that if anyone on the city council, especially the mayor, was a CU alum, they would be proud of the school, at least publicly.

CU is incredibly important to Boulder, and vice versa.  Though I’m sure the University and the town are at odds often, it would be nice, as a CU student, to see some support from the city.  Mayor Osborne’s choice to not claim CU as where her “allegiance” lies doesn’t show any support or pride for the school at all, and I think it’s something seriously disappointing to both the University and the town as a whole.

Where does America fit in?

On the front page of the Denver Post today (okay, I know reading an actual newspaper is outdated these days), there’s a pretty striking graphic on America’s new political spectrum.

The pie chart that divides America’s political leanings isn’t just divided into three, for liberal, conservative, and moderate, but eight sections.  Not one of each of these sections comprises more than 15 percent of the population either.

The data comes from the Pew Research Center, and provides some interesting insight to the future of politics in America.

Notably, those in the middle have some of the strongest and most well-defined points of view.  The middle of the spectrum is quickly become the largest, and also most diverse area of American political beliefs.  No longer is the middle just for uncertain, or impartial voters.  The findings suggest that just because a voter doesn’t completely associate with the views of staunch liberals or staunch conservatives, it doesn’t mean that they don’t hold strong political values.

Take for instance, two groups the research puts in the middle: the “Post-Moderns” and the “Disaffecteds.”  The “Post-Moderns” genuinely believe that both government and big business can work together, and are fairly supportive of both, while also more hold liberal beliefs on social issues.  The “Disaffecteds,” on the other hand, are  socially and religiously conservative, but remain critical of government and especially Wall Street.

Both of these groups could be considered in the middle compared to staunch liberals or conservatives, perhaps even “independents,” yet they are truly opposite on the political spectrum.  Politicians trying to appeal to the middle are going to soon have to realize that the middle can be just as diverse and ideological as those voters on the fringe.  Moving more towards the middle no longer means an easier path to election or re-election.

The data also shows the rifts growing in both of the parties.  Both the “Disaffecteds” and the “Post-Moderns” show that people don’t have to be against government to be in favor or business, and vice versa. Likewise, there is a growing movement of “Hard-Pressed Democrats,” who are both critical of business and don’t believe in the effectiveness of government either.

The political spectrum of the American voter is changing rapidly, and it’s going to be fascinating to see how this affects future campaigns, and also the direction of the parties.  Voters define themselves much differently than in the past, and it’s going to take very big tents from either party to keep the voters involved and supportive, especially the growing, and increasingly ideological middle.

Seriously?

Late Sunday night, history was made.  The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden is truly an event to be remembered for years to come, both nationally and globally.  It’s brought our nation together, and provided a much needed boost in morale and a victory for the American people.

But it wasn’t long after President Obama announced the news that the pundits, media, and politicians began degrading the event by simplifying it in terms of political debate, to show who won and who lost politically.  Some argued that it would be huge political boost for the President and he deserves more respect now, others argued that other things still matter for the 2012 election, the rally cry “Obama got Osama” has been coined on the internet, new polls have been conducted; it seems like pundits everywhere want to throw their opinion in.

To me, this is simply ridiculous.  Now, I’m not an idiot.  I know this is going to have a huge effect on politics, and on the 2012 election.  But do we seriously have to start talking about that already? Can we not just celebrate this moment as a nation united and for once leave the politics out of it?

I understand this probably all sounds hypocritical coming from a post on a Politics blog. I know that a lot of people are interested in what this means for the upcoming election, and the media is maybe just trying to appeal to them.  It makes sense for people to look at this is political terms, but I feel like that is only because it’s how we are trained these days.

The circus of politics and polling and election has almost overshadowed the actual issues, and I honestly am starting to believe that both the media and the campaigns want people to analyze each little thing, gaffe, mistake, victory, declare someone a winner and someone a loser.  

But I would hope we could rise above all that for once in the presence of such an historical event.  We, as media and as Americans, shouldn’t be looking for political losers or winners in this, we should be proud that our nation and our quest for peace are prevailing.  This should be a time to be united.  This is not a time for politics.