To move away from the internet dynamics of your blog, and to keep it simple (I am, after all, an American), I hope that Americans will do what they often do when the economy is shit–vote their pocketbook. If that happens, OBama will win.

If more than just a dismal percentage of Gen X will actually vote instead of not voting because they feel apathetic about Obama and don’t like McCain, then Obama will win.

So for me, simplicity and basic demographics matter in American presidential politics.

They are not trying to promote their ideas, but they are trying to destroy the others’. At the end, no one has a true political agenda, because they loose more time analyzing and destroying the other, than constructing their own. You Bad, Me Good! The true polarization. Evil to this side, Saints to the other side,…

This reminds me of something that my brother always warned me. In American movies the good guy is always good. He can do anything (kill, destroy, kill more, and destroy a little bit more), but his acts are always for good reasons. On the other hand, bad guys are always bad. There’s no human aspect on this. They cannot be good at one moment and bad at other. They are polarized. As we can see in the Axis of Evil “theory”. Me Good and will save the world, You Bad and will destroy the world.

As he was a big fan of El Chavo del Ocho TV Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Chavo), he always tried to discuss the human aspect of the characters. Sometimes they are bad, and do bad things. But in other episodes they are good, and they try to help the others. This show, as you can read at the wiki threat, was a big success in Brazil, and almost all Latin America countries. Is something that bounds latin people together. It’s a subject that can meet together Brazilians with Argentineans, with Chileans, Venezuelans, Mexicans, etc. Almost everyone from 18-35 knows what Chavo is about.

And for the de-endorsement in Barack’s anti-ad, I have read here in Brazil that Paris Hilton hasn’t authorized the use of her image in the ad.

and if this is true, it’s astonish me that Britney has authorized. What is she doing with her image? Ok, her image, and her meanings aren’t as good as before, but “de-endorsing” is way too much.

or is she trying to construct new meanings? Or she is happy with these meanings that they tried to attach to Obama?

popular, famous, no intellect, just the outside that matters,….

as we say here in Brazil: “You can say bad things of me, but at least you are talking about me!” Maybe she needs the media…