Christmas break

Seattle, Washington, outside my son's house.

For the past ten days, I've been under the weather and neither motivated to blog nor to read other blogs. So I've decided to stop feeling guilty about it and just take an official break until after the New Year.

So Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and I'll be back to join with all of you after the first in the countdown to the Inauguration.

Christmas: the myth vs. reality

We have invented a wonderful myth about Christmas, which can be summed up in the words of a Christmas song: "It's the most wonderful time of the year."

Humbug.


Every year I believe that nonsense and every year I'm disappointed, exhausted, and ready for the whole thing to be over.

First of all, I hate shopping. I enjoy getting things for my family, and the giving of gifts, but every year I go overboard, usually because I've gotten one too many things for one of my family members, and then I have to even it up by buying another item for each of the rest of them. What was once a nice sentiment - giving gifts in imitation of the three wise men - is now another chore to be performed at the busiest time of the year - when you have no time.

And I positively despise being in stores before Christmas. The music is dreadful ("Have a holly, jolly Christmas," "Oh by gosh by golly, it's time for mistletoe and holly," "Jingle bell rock," to name just a few that grate on my nerves. ) And they are all sung by artists who are deceased. Believe me, listening to dead guys sing Christmas songs does not cheer me up one bit.

How about decorating? You can't have Christmas without decorating the whole damn house - at least that's what they tell you on HGTV, where decorators come into homes with $2000 budgets to prepare the home of some rich guy for his "annual Christmas party." Wow! Somebody rich enough to have an annual Christmas party. My husband's company cancelled their annual Christmas party - hopefully the entire company won't fold in this disastrous economy.

So back to decorating. In our house, decorating involves hunching over in the closet beneath the stairs to get at all the lighted houses, tree decor, candles, flours, garlands, santas and snowmen I have collected over the years and then finding places for everything. When your back finally recovers from bending over and lifting heavy boxes, it's time to put everything back. So this year I cut the decor in half. I put out half the snowmen, half the santas, a couple of garlands, no lighted houses, and no tree.

Then there's the uncertainty over what to do on Christmas and what family members will be here. Will my sons come down from Seattle? Will there be a mad dash to the airport an hour away the night before Christmas to pick someone up? Will we have time to visit with my family and my husband's family on Christmas day without it becoming insane? Will my grandchildren be healthy so they can come for dinner?

Speaking of health, every Christmas it seems, I get sick. I've missed a few traditional Christmas eves at my mother's house because I couldn't get out of bed. Last year I missed a family wedding three days before Christmas because I had an intestinal virus. This year I have a miserable cold which doesn't seem to want to leave. And my husband is just as sick as I am.

And finally, of course, is the Christmas feast. So many dishes, so much preparation, so much time on my feet cooking, cleaning, setting the table, washing dishes. I was so exhausted last year after preparing dinner, my son's wonderful girlfriend told me she would like to cook dinner this year. So I'm letting her. I don't care if she cooks grilled cheese sandwiches (she's not - she's a great cook) I'm going to let the younger generation take over.

In spite of the songs that promise this will be the most wonderful time of the year, I find that many people dread the coming of Christmas and are glad to see it go. This year, for the first time ever, even though I always grumble about the work involved, I wish we could just cancel Christmas.

This year Christmas marks the end of a terrible year for me, my family and the country. The economy has decimated my husband's 401K, his company is drastically downsizing because they are connected to the building industry, and money is tight. My parents are both terribly ill, my mother has leukemia and my father has a progressive degenerative neurological disease. I have spent most of this year accompanying them to doctors, labs, and hospitals. And the country has had to endure one more year of an idiot in the White House, with all the disaster he brings with him.

So this year, Christmas is not the most wonderful time of the year. It's just a huge source of work to top off the most dreadful year of my life. And my guess is that all the people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their health insurance, and their health have suffered a dreadful year as well.

It goes without saying, I guess, that I am not looking forward to Christmas. I am, however, looking forward to January 20th. I know everything won't change that day, but at least January 20th doesn't involve cooking, going to the airport or decorating, and we can all watch history being made as we gleefully wave bye bye to Bush.

Now that really will be the most wonderful time of the year.

Applause for Bush

I never thought I would say this, indeed I never thought I would be able to say it because I never thought it would happen, but George W. Bush has done a good thing.

By helping out the auto industry, Bush has shown a willingness to put practicality above ideology, and maybe finally show some of that "compassionate conservatism" he talked about in the 2000 campaign.

What's wrong with the Bush administration, and the thirty year old conservative movement in this country, is that they rely almost exclusively on ideology and thus make a lot of stupid decisions. Ideology is fine for academia, and for think tanks, but it can be deadly in government where it breeds stubbornness, insularity, and stupidity. When one holds the fate of hundreds of millions of citizens in one's hands, and a signature or a veto may determine whether people have jobs, houses, incomes, and health care, ideology isn't appropriate. What is needed is common sense and practicality.

That's why Barack Obama is such a promising politician and president elect. He is a practical man, a problem solver, a unifier, a listener, a leader who gathers facts and opinions from all corners before deciding on the most sensible action.

As for Bush, eight years into his presidency, his reputation in tatters, he finally has done the right thing, the practical thing, the good thing, and for the first time ever, I applaud him.

Caroline vs. Arnold: Double standard?

Sitting out here in California I have to admit I know nothing about New York politics. So I find the current dust up over Caroline Kennedy's interest in being appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat for the next two years extremely fascinating. So, apparently, do many op-ed writers, most of whom are criticizing the possibility of such an appointment.

Caroline has never been elected to state or national office before, they say. She hasn't paid her dues. It's a sneaky way to enter into politics. What does she actually know about the Senate and the issues? Is being a Kennedy alone a qualification for the Senate? Aren't there other candidates who have paid their dues and are more deserving of the appointment?

Well, just to put this into perspective, knowing very little about Caroline's qualifications myself, I have one name for you: ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.

The current governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a relative of Caroline's by marriage, had also never been elected to national or state office before he helped recall the then governor of California, Gray Davis, and run for his seat. Arnold had in no way "paid his dues" either. Ousting a sitting governor and running for his seat is also a sneaky way to enter politics and at the time we knew nothing about Arnold's political views other than that he was a conservative Republican. We also knew he was married to a "Kennedy." And there were plenty of other candidates who held better political qualifications for the job of governor. But Arnold had starpower. He was a movie star, a celebrity, and a member by marriage of the best known political family in America.

Frankly, I don't see the difference between Arnold and Caroline in terms of experience and qualifications. Except, of course for two things. Arnold was well known as a movie star and an obvious showman and extrovert. Caroline is not as well known for her accomplishments, because she is more of an introvert who has worked quietly behind the scenes for decades on issues such as education.

Well, there are a few other differences. Caroline has been raising her children for the past twenty-five years even as she worked as a volunteer on many issues of importance to the state of New York while Arnold worked as an actor in Hollywood. Caroline is low key while Arnold's personality is larger than life. Arnold is a man and Caroline is a woman. And finally, Arnold is a Republican and Caroline is a Democrat.

Make of all of that what you will...

Snow Beast

If you want to start your day with a smile, check out this video of my son's little Westie, "Marlowe," playing in snow for the first time at his home in Seattle.

The regrettable death of newspapers

This week, in addition to the never-ending stories about the governor of Illinois, and the Republican assassination of the American car industry, there was the news that America's newspapers are in trouble. Some are filing bankruptcy, many are laying off reporters, some are going under, and at least one - The New York Times - has taken out a huge mortgage on its headquarters in order to keep going. Some on cable are speculating that the internet has killed newspapers. Others are saying that the economy means fewer advertising dollars and that is killing the papers.

I stopped subscribing to papers years ago, not so much because I don't think they are valuable, but because I never had time to read them and because they got black ink residue all over everything when I did. I also got tired of all the supplemental ads that usually went into the trash immediately. I saved the papers themselves for a week, thinking I would get around to reading them, but I usually didn't. Now I read a few newspapers online - the big ones like the Washington Post, New York Times and L.A. Times. Occasionally I read an editorial from the WSJ, especially Peggy Noonan (for her excellent writing even when I disagree with her) and Thomas Frank (for his brilliant thinking, with which I usually agree), but mostly I stay away from its Republican propaganda.

Actually, I have a different theory for why people don't read newspapers anymore. I think cable news killed newspapers. It's so much easier, isn't it, to just click on the television and watch some blowhard on FOX or CNN or MSNBC tell you what to think? No, I don't think they report unbiased news. I think they tell you what and how to think.

FOX tells you to hate Democrats, to suspect Obama of being a Muslim, a terrorist, a radical, or a corrupt associalte of the now disgraced Illinois governor. MSNBC tells you Republicans are crooks or idiots in the evening, when Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow headline, and just the opposite in the morning when Morning Jo(k)e Scarborough bloviates. CNN is more subtle. They pretend not to take sides, but many of their well-coifed female anchors like to make subtle but snide comments about Obama. Actually, what all of these cable networks are trying to do is stir up controversy and trouble, and raise the blood pressure and the attention level of their viewers so they get good ratings. They have to fill 24 hours with something that will grab your attention, so they say controversial things and often incite anger, fear or hatred against someone or something.

Cable has made it unnecessary for anyone to think, to read, to investigate, to see both sides and to make up their own minds based on the evidence. If you watch Keith, you don't have to question his facts. If you watch Hannity, and trust him, you simply believe what he tells you. And these television personalities tell you things in sound bites, quick emotionally laden opinions, and funny presentations. You don't have to strain your brain to pay attention because they are so entertaining you naturally want to stay focused.

Not so with newspapers. With newspapers, you first have to have a fairly good reading ability. You have to comprehend words with more than two syllables. I contend that most Americans don't have that ability anymore. Next, you have to have the attention span and the willingness to spend some time wading through complex investigative articles to determine the facts of some political story. You have to have a tolerance for long, dry, complex writing that doesn't necessarily entertain you, but that may require you to read the same paragraph over and over again when your mind wanders, as it inevitably will when you are accustomed to watching "news" on television. Finally, you have to send in a monthly check and tip that damn paperboy at Christmas, as well as haul all that paper out to the recylcing bin each week. In an era of convenience and instant everything, who has time for all that?

Television has done a lot of damage to our ability to think and concentrate, to our intelligence, and to our physical well being as we spend so much time sitting instead of moving. And now the 24 hour cable news shows have just about killed newspapers, in addition to disseminating false and biased information. They have not just made us stupid. They have divided us and made us hateful people who judge each other on the basis of propaganda that get good ratings and high salaries for the propagandists.

Frankly, I would much rather see the cable shows die than the newspapers - even if it means I have to endure a little black newsprint rubbing off on my hands and furniture.

Republican crimes

If I hadn't already lost all respect for Republicans, I would have lost the final ounce last night.

Senate Republicans, led by the good ole boys from the South, killed the $14 billion dollar bridge loan to the big three automakers, two of which may now go out of business and spill millions of workers into the pool of the unemployed.

At a time when our economy is already in recession, with large numbers of decades old businesses closing their doors, millions of Americans being thrown out of their jobs and homes, and the rest of us holding our breaths that somehow we can weather the growing economic storm without being thrown out of ours, the Republicans decided now was the time to get stingy with the only big manufacturing industry left in America.

They weren't stingy two months ago when their buddies on Wall Street nearly destroyed our economy with their deregulated creative banking instruments, their risky sub prime mortgages packaged into securities, and their credit derivative swaps to insure those bad investments. They gave those idiots $700 billion without blinking. This was supposed to free up credit so that banks would begin loaning again, businesses could remain open and homeowners could restructure their mortgages so they wouldn't lose their homes. Only this hasn't happened. Businesses are closing left and right and millions of homeowners hear the knock of the marshall at their door, serving them eviction notices. Soon, the soup lines may start.

One has to scratch one's head and ask why. Why give $700 billion to Wall Street and nothing to Detroit? Why demand workers wages be reduced in Detroit, but nothing of the kind regarding wages on Wall Street? It makes no sense, unless you live within the failed and destructive ideology of Republicanism.

Republicans say they are guarding the taxpayers' money and demanding accountability from the automakers who managed their businesses badly. What? No one managed businesses more horribly than the Wall Street bankers who made bad loans, created bad securities and then insured them against loss so that they could win either way. Except when the insurance money was demanded once the bankruptcies started, there was no money. So Congress had to fork over $700 billion for starters. Is that really worse than building gas guzzling SUVs instead of hybrid cars? Is it more of a crime?

And lest we forget, it was always the Republicans who voted against higher fuel efficiency standards for the automakers. Republicans, like the president and vice president, have always been in bed with oil companies, and wanted to see those gas guzzling vehicles because it was good for the oil business. Wasn't it the Republican Congress along with Bush that came up with the huge tax deduction for businesses that buy Hummers and other gas guzzling monstrosities? Now the Republicans want to blame Detroit for not building the kind of fuel-efficient cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. What a crock! What hypocrisy!

No, the Republicans see several opportunities here and they are determined to take advantage of them. The workers be damned! The country be damned!

First, they want to break the union. The UAW has always been an enemy of Republicans, partly because they largely support Democrats, but also because they have contributed to the growth of the Middle Class, which the Republicans are determined to destroy. Republicans have never liked unions, which - by demanding decent pay for their hard work - threaten to eat into the enormous profits of stockholders, whom the Republicans think are much more valuable in a capitalist economy than workers. The current financial trouble of the carmakers is the perfect opportunity to do what they live for - destroy a union and keep the wealthy class wealthy. In Republican land, capital is king, investors deserve to be billionaires, and workers are slave labor that deserves the lowest of wages for their pay. Is it any surprise that the leaders of this attempt to lower the wages of autoworkers are Southern Senators: Corker, De Mint, McConnell, Shelby, among others?

Second, these Southern Senators also are protecting the foreign car plants in their states. Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have all built plants in Southern states where anti-union laws allow them to pay lower wages to their workers, and giant federal tax breaks allow them to succeed. In other words, our tax money helps foreign car companies employ Southern workers at low wages, which helps to bust the unions of domestic car companies. Sounds real patriotic to me! Help the foreign companies and destroy the domestic ones. Keep wages low for American workers and enrich stockholders and investors in those companies. Punish the American companies that dared allow themselves to be unionized.

Of course, getting jobs and money for your state is always the name of the game for elected officials. But I always thought our elected representatives were also interested in keeping a healthy economy for the entire nation. Apparently, some of them are not.

Once again, we see what the Republican Party stands for: a wealthy class and a poor class and no middle class; low wages for workers and high profits for owners; socialism for Wall Street and the "creative destruction" of the market for Main Street; government intervention in people's sex lives, but not in their economic survival (unless they're millionaires).

There'd better be a special place in hell for these people.

Blagojevich

Something stinks about this Blagojevich story. Sorry, but I just don't buy that things are as simple as the federal prosecutor claims they are.

Already the wing-nuts are accusing Obama or his chief aide David Axelrod of lying about whether or not Obama talked with/met with Blagojevich. They see this as an opportunity to taint the upcoming inauguration of the new president. Prior to this arrest, they tried other ways to tarnish his reputation, just as they did Bill Clinton even before Clinton was sworn in. They have used Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko to try to diminish his popularity and good reputation. And now that Blagojevich has been accused of trying to sell Obama's senate seat, they are trying to imply that somehow Obama was in on it, or that he is now lying about it. This, even though Blagojevich is allegedly heard on tape calling Obama a crude name because all he would give Blago for appointing Obama's preferred candidate was "appreciation."

Obama is being attacked because maybe he spoke to the governor about the senate seat. Well, I'm sure Hillary Clinton has talked to David Patterson about her senate seat. Or she will in time. And more to the point, a lot of senators talked to Ted Stevens in the days, weeks and months before his corruption conviction. Does that taint them? Talking is not a crime.

So I am simply asking this: why did Patrick Fitzgerald come out with this now, in such a spectacular way, and why read excerpts of the taped conversations? Most high profile people are not woken up by the FBI and handcuffed at their estate. Their lawyers are notified and they turn themselves in. This was intended to get as much media attention as possible. Why?

Why read the tape transcripts at a press conference? Isn't this something you usually present to a jury and not the public so that you don't taint the jury pool?

There is some motive behind this that I don't quite understand. Perhaps the prosecutor is hoping he can put pressure on Blago who will make a deal with him and spare everyone the spectacle of a trial. That's the only good option I can think of. The other options are that Fitzgerald is playing with the Republican play book and trying to taint Obama by having such a high profile arrest of someone tangentially connected to Obama, or just the opposite. Perhaps Fitzgerald was playing with the Dems and doing a favor for Obama by trying to get Blago out of the business of appointing Obama's successor. Any appointment by a governor who was under investigation and soon to be arrested would be tainted in itself, the appointee probably likely to lose the next election. So maybe Obama wanted this to happen to get Blago to resign and let his successor choose Obama's replacement.

Time will tell, but in the meantime, the media and the wing nuts are out in force, milking the story dry. Already I'm sick of it.

A question for the military

Yesterday a jet from Miramar Naval Air Station crashed into a San Deigo neighborhood, setting several homes on fire and killing a family that included a grandmother, a mother and two small children. The pilot ejected safely. According to the morning news, the pilot reported losing an engine over the Pacific Ocean, which ultimately resulted in the horrible crash.

I can't even begin to express my outrage over this. It will be called an "accident" and will be quickly forgotten, except of course by the family of these four who were killed. Some will say it is the price we pay for our military maintaining their readiness to defend us. I say that's b.s.

I have lived in Northern San Deigo County/Southern Riverside County for nearly thirty years and during much of that time I have endured the annoying sound of low flying helicopters from Camp Pendleton. I don't exactly know how this happened, but my previous home in Fallbrook and my current home in another city are both directly in the flight path of these helicopters. On many, many occasions it has occurred to me that one of these choppers could crash into my neighborhood or even my home.

The people in certain San Diego neighborhoods must endure something even more frightening - the daily practice take-offs and landings of the screaming jets at Miramar. Every time I drive on the 805, the 15 or the 163, all of which surround the air station, I wonder if one of those low flying jets will crash onto the freeway and take out dozens of innocent motorists. Now the worst has happened and a family is dead.

I have so many questions about this horrible crash. Why did the pilot not stay with his plane and try to maneuver it to crash into a field or the ocean? Since he lost the engine over the ocean, why did he not eject and let the plane go down there? In saving his own life, did he not even think about the other lives that might be lost? If he was too young and inexperienced to know how to react in such an emergency, why was he not practicing out in the desert where he couldn't kill anyone?

I know very little about aviation, and certainly nothing about what it takes to fly a fighter jet, but if if I give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did the best he could, I still am furious that this kind of thing could happen.

I have wondered for a long time why the military needs to do so many practice flights which cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Yes, pilots must learn to fly jets and helicopters, but must they do so many, and is a residential area the best place to do that?

I think it's time to relocate some of these air stations into unpopulated areas. San Diego is no longer an appropriate place for a naval jet training facility.

What good does it do to keep our military in a state of readiness if it kills civilians in the process?

Obama the socialist

I had a discussion yesterday with a local shop owner. We were talking about elderly parents and people she and I knew who were very ill and she said she believed that when there was no hope and you were suffering terribly, that you should have the right to take your own life in a dignified way. She didn't believe the state should stop you. She also expressed that she didn't believe abortion should be a political issue and the state should never force a woman to have a baby. She then went on to say she wasn't a religious person, but she knew many religious people and she respected their views on such things, and believed everyone should be free to follow their own beliefs as long as they don't try to impose them on others.

I wasn't sure what to make of her political views as in the past I was sure she said she was a Republican, and this didn't sound too Republican to me. Soon we were talking about politics and I mentioned that I had been enthusiastically for Obama. She scrunched up her face and said "Well, I'm a conservative and I could never vote for Obama because I know he's a socialist. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like McCain - he was the worst candidate - but Obama is a socialist so I couldn't vote for him. However, I do wish him well and hope he proves me wrong."

I asked her how she "knew" he was a socialist. She mentioned some interview on public radio from ten years ago when, according to her, he said he had read Karl Marx and been influenced by him. I asked if she could point me to the interview so I could hear it myself and she backed off - didn't know how to refer me to it. But she was certain of her view of him. I then replied that I doubted if Bush had read Karl Marx, but he had certainly become a socialist lately with the nationalization of the banks. It was then that she said everyone in Congress was to blame and brought up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the Republican talking points, so I decided it was time to go.

I thought about this all the way home.

Did this interview really take place or was it some Republican piece of propaganda from someone like Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt or Sean Hannity?

If the interview did take place, were Obama's words fairly represented? And why did we not hear more about this during the campaign? The Republicans control talk radio and FOX News. Couldn't they have broadcast this more effectively? Or was it one of those internet rumors?

If someone reads Karl Marx and is "influenced" by them does that make him a socialist? What does it mean to be influenced by someone? I, for instance, have been influenced by many writers but I don't agree with all of them. Sometimes they influence me to think of things a different way, or to question something I once believed in, or even to reject what they are writing.

My guess is that Obama has read a lot of great and influential writers and, in fact, if you are going to go into politics, people like Karl Marx would have to be on your reading list along with conservative writers, liberal writers, the founding fathers, and great philosophers through the ages. Politics is really the application of ideas to governing and reading Marx along with many others should not be an indictment of your governing philosophy.

And finally, I wondered what it is about the word "socialist" that so frightens Republicans. We have elements of socialism in our government, some of those elements like Social Security and Medicare being among the most popular programs in government. The reality is that we have a combined economic system, capitalism combined with some socialism, with socialism currently rescuing capitalism, which today would fail without the government's assistance.

When I came home I tried to find evidence of Obama's speech online and all I could find were websites where Obama was accused of knowing "socialists" or of having teachers who were "socialists."

I think a lot of people confuse the writer Marx with the political leaders Lenin and Stalin of the Soviet Union, where there was a perversion of Marx's ideas. But, if this woman is correct about Obama reading Marx, I am unlike him in that I do not know enough about Marx's actual ideas to argue effectively about them. So I've decided to read Marx, not because I want to be a socialist or a communist, but because I think to be informed citizens we ought to know what such a powerful and influential writer has said.

I suspect some of his ideas are similar to those of Jesus Christ, who I always thought spoke as something of a communist (communal living, sharing of goods, etc.) but I could be wrong. The point is I don't really know, and I suspect those who accuse Obama of being a socialist don't know either. I'm sure Limbaugh, Hewitt and Hannity haven't read Marx, as I don't consider them intellectuals by any means. I do consider Obama an intellectual, so it doesn't surprise me that he has read Marx and probably thousands more books that his critics haven't read.

I'll keep you posted on what I discover in my reading.

Was it worth it?

I wonder - what did those Wal Mart shoppers buy on Friday after they trampled a worker to death?

Was it a flat screen television, some Christmas wrapping, perhaps a few toys for the kids?

How much did they save by acting like fanatics, devoid of intelligence, mindlessly moving with the herd to secure their prizes?

And how much did Wal Mart make from the things they sold to the mindless herd who killed a 34 year old man?

Were either the purchases or the profits really worth his death?

Will we ever be civilized?

Quote for our times

These first lines from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities keep running through my head"

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

Obama and the press

It's going to be fun over the next four years watching the press get it all wrong about Obama's presidency.

So far, they've gotten just about everything wrong regarding his campaign and the transition.

Two years ago, they said Hillary was "inevitable." Then, in spite of Obama's victory in Iowa, they were sure Obama couldn't defeat the Clinton machine.

Then, they were sure America would never elect a black president. Up until the actual election they were convinced there would be a "Bradley effect" in which white voters tell pollsters they will vote for Obama but, in the privacy of the voting booth, vote for the white guy.

Then they fell in love with Sarah Palin and were certain this would doom Obama.

They didn't think he could raise the money to win. They were sure of an October surprise. They knew Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers would doom him. They thought renting out a stadium in Denver for his acceptance speech was foolish - and those Roman columns they considered arrogant.

They were convinced young people would not turn out to vote. And white rural voters - those people Chris Matthews called "regular Americans" - would never vote for Obama.

Recently, they have been second-guessing his transition decisions. Hillary as Secretary of State was problematic, they speculated. Bill would never turn over his financial records. Hillary is too powerful in her own right. She will overshadow him.

Every time the press is sure Obama is dealing with lemons, he makes lemonade. Every time they predict disaster, he quietly proves they are imbeciles.

I don't know if it is because he is the first African American to gain the presidency, or if it is because the press is simply stupid, but they don't seem to get this guy. Maybe it's because covering Bush has been so predictable, so easy. Think of the worst decision a president can make and then predict Bush will make it. Bingo! Works every time.

Well Barack Hussein Obama is not George Walker Bush. It will be enormously gratifying to watch Obama outwit the press for the next four years. It will be even more gratifying to see his presidency be successful in spite of the problems he will inherit when he moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Can he do it? You know the answer. We've been saying it for two years: Yes, he can - no matter what the press thinks.

You don't have to pass an IQ test to vote

In the Coleman - Franken recount, there are apparently hundreds of votes where it is not 100% clear what the intent of the voter is, mostly because the voters appear to be too stupid to make it clear. Is it really that hard to fill in a circle next to the name of your candidate? If you messed up, would it really be that difficult to ask for a new ballot and have the election officials destroy the one you messed up? And why would anyone go to all the trouble to vote and then write "lizard people" on the ballot?

Maybe we need to give an IQ test to voters before they are allowed to vote.

Bush's final crime spree

I've hesitated to write about the mortgage/credit/stock market/ meltdown because I am not an economist and don't really understand all that has brought this about. But then, even economists, and experts within the government, claim not to fully understand what is happening in the economy. Even more frightening, they seem not to know how to fix it.

But, writing as a layperson with some education, here's what I think I do understand:

A couple of decades ago, manufacturing started leaving this country, jobs moved overseas to take advantage of cheap labor.

The only growing industry in this country was in banking: lending and borrowing and bundling loans into stocks to sell in the domestic and international markets.

People who couldn't afford homes were encouraged to take out mortgages with low interest that would reset within five years, leaving them with a house payment they could no longer afford. When the loans reset, they began walking away from these homes.

In addition, the value of homes increased astronomically and people took out home equity loans so they could buy huge SUVs (gas was cheap) and flat screen televisions and pay for their kids' college tuition. When the bottom fell out of the housing market, and their homes lost value leaving them upside down on their loans, they too walked away from their homes.

Unemployment started to go up, as the real estate and mortgage industries suffered. People stopped buying and started saving, if they still had a job, and the retail industry started to suffer. Large companies, including electronic stores and restaurant chains, began going out of business. More layoffs.

With people defaulting on their mortgages, banks started to fail and more people were laid off.

The stock market declined at a rapid rate and Congress panicked. They passed a 700 billion dollar stimulus package almost overnight, giving the treasury secretary of the worst administration in our nation's history the sole authority to distribute the money.

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has already spent 300 billion of the 700 billion dollar bailout package and things are getting worse. And no one knows what he spent it on. Some of the banks that got money are still sending executives on overseas vacations and giving huge bonuses to top executives.

A few months ago the cost of gasoline made driving any distance unaffordable for many people. Large SUVs became dinosaurs. Foreign made cars with better gas mileage were much more attractive to those who could still afford to buy a car. The big three American auto makers finally experienced the consequences of not moving to alternative fuel cars or at least more fuel efficient cars. They hover on the verge of bankruptcy as they beg Congress to give them some of the 700 billion as a loan to help them survive. As many as 3 million jobs may be at stake in the auto and related industries. The Republicans say "no," let the free market kill these companies if they can't compete with Toyota. The Republicans really would love to see the big three go down as it would kill one of the nation's biggest unions. The Democrats want to help, but they may not be able to until Barack Obama takes office. By then it may be too late.

The stock market continues to go down and no one can say when it will reach bottom.

Everyone is nervous. No one's job is safe. No one is spending money. The rest of the world looks to the United States to start fixing the mess they began, but nothing Paulson does helps. And he keeps changing his mind on what he wants to do with the money. No one knows what the hell is going on or how to fix it.

Obama is not yet president and has no real power to do anything, and the current president who has power is in hiding. The man who took us to war on the basis of a lie, who couldn't figure out how to get people off rooftops or out of the Superdome after Hurrican Katrina, certainly can't figure out how to fix this mess, that is largely the making of his own party, a party that presided over deregulation for decades. So what does he do? He hides in the White House after allowing his cronies to go on their final crime spree, looting our 401Ks and destroying our economy.

Bush is acting anything but presidential. There is no grand speech, no reassurance, no supervision of the bailout, no help for struggling homeowners, no attempt to coordinate things with the incoming Obama administration.

Once again, we are left to drown, this time in a sea of debt, as we watch the tidal wave of total financial collapse bear down on us.

This horrible man, this man who was installed in the White House by the Supreme Court when he actually lost the popular vote and stole the Florida vote, should spend the rest of his life doing public penance for what he has done to this country and its people. And those on the court who installed him should also do penance.

These people are criminals of the highest order and they should receive no mercy.

The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla

Dick Cavett's brilliant summary of the phenomenon of Sarah Palin and her mangled English in today's NYT.

One small gem from that editorial:

What will ambitious politicos learn from this? That frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out completely are a candidate’s valuable traits?

Vile ideology

The Conservative Republican ideology is weighing in on the near collapse of the big three automakers and their need for a federal loan and/or bailout of some sort. Conservatives are saying "Let them fail." David Brooks calls it the "creative destruction" of capitalism and free markets. In other words, the market, greed, and mysterious forces decide what companies survive and what don't, and if we want the market to work its magic we need to get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. From the ashes of the auto makers will arise some great phoenix that will save our society, they contend.

So what if up to three million people lose their jobs? It's not people that matter; it's the ideology, stupid! So what if we lose the biggest manufacturing sector in a nation that makes very few things anymore, something new will come along. Everything is so black and white to these people that they cannot even envision a creative solution where the government helps restructure the auto companies to implement green technology and make new alternative fuel cars. (Oh right, that would be the dreaded socialism.)

No, the auto companies must be allowed to fail so some new magical capitalist wonder will take their place. Oh yeah? And what exactly would that be? We've already replaced most of the manufacturing companies in this nation with financial instruments and they've already failed and demanded a bailout from Washington, which they've gotten. (Yes, the dreaded socialism.)

But this is the essence of the free market ideology so loved by conservatives. It's every business for themselves - well not every business. It's actually every business they don't like for themselves (like those businesses that are heavily unionized), while the ones they like get welfare from the government.

They apply the same priniciples to people. They hate welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Chrildren's Health Insurance Program, and any other government program that provides a safety net for those who aren't born into the best families or who fall on hard times. In their view, people who require welfare are simply lazy and should get a job. People who rely on Social Security were foolish in their youth and should have saved money. People who require Medicare or Medicaid should be able to purchase their own insurance and children who rely on health insurance from the government are simply the victims of their lazy parents who should work harder to buy insurance for them. And the wealthy get tax breaks.

These people are cold blooded, hard hearted idiots who do not understand the first thing about being out of work, losing one's savings, having a life threatening illness that forces one into bankruptcy, or having to wonder every day if the three jobs one has are enough to pay the bills.

Currently, we are in fire season in California and fire fighters are fighting valiantly to save homes and prevent the spread of the fires to more communities. The arrival of the fire season is as reliable as the changing of the seasons here in California. Sometimes there are arsonists who set the fires, sometimes it is a downed power line or an accidental spark from something. The dry brush is like tinder and the Santa Ana winds whip the flames out of control. And often it is the homes in heavily forested areas that burn, places where homes should probably not be built. Other times, the fires strike what should be safe areas.

But if we are to apply the vile conservative mindset, we would say that we should just let the homes burn. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for firefighting in areas where people should not build homes? And, in reality, all of Southern California is a hazardous area that is prone to fires, so perhaps no one should live here. People who live here are not responsible. The fire should be allowed to wreak its creative destruction across the land, and people will simply have to find somewhere else to live.

Actually, this is very much what played out in New Orleans, only with water rather than fire. What was the Bush administration's part in allowing this creative destruction? First, it did not maintain the wetlands around the city, nor build strong enough levees, both of which might have stopped the total destruction. It gambled with the city, perhaps not caring about it because poor black people lived there, and then when the worst happened, it did nothing for days, allowing people to remain stranded on rooftops and in a sports stadium without food or water or working bathroom facilities. The mentality was "We told you to evacuate and you didn't, so tough!" Of course, many of those who didn't evacuate had no transportation and no place to go, some were so elderly and frail they couldn't evacuate without help from family or the authorities, and they never got that help.

I will never understand why the party that says it is "Christian," the party that wants prayer in schools, and the Ten Commandments in every public courtroom, the party that is so self-righteous and preachy, does not understand this simple command of Jesus:

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

I also do not understand why the party that claims to be the party of Lincoln does not remember that Lincoln said this government was "of, by and for the people" - not just some of the people, but all of the people. They make a mockery of the "of" and the "by, by disenfranchising as many of those people as they can every four years, and they simply cannot grasp the "for." "For the people" - the government is "for the people," not just for the wealthy, or the corporations that curry favor with the governement, or the corporations that are not unionized, or the people who worship at a certain church, or the people who have money, or the people who love war, or the people who wear flag pins, or the people with white skin, or the people who belong to country clubs and live in gated communities. "For the people" means for all the people.

And I will also never understand how this party that constantly demands we pay attention to the words of the Founding Fathers, keeps forgetting these:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalieanable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Or these:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Question of the day

What's wrong with this picture?

or

Did we really have a feminist revolution thirty-five years ago?

Red state hate

Republican governors are meeting in Florida this week trying to figure out why their party has become so irrelevant and how they can restore its viability.

If they want to understand just how low their party has gone, perhaps they should start with this incident in Idaho:

Controversial words spoken by kids on a school bus have some Madison County parents concerned.

Matthew Whoolery and his wife aren't blaming the school district for what happened on the bus but they do think all parents need to be careful about what they say and teach their children.

Whoolery and his wife couldn't believe it when their second and third graders got off the bus last week and told them what other students were saying."They just hadn't heard anything like this before," said Whoolery. "They were chanting on the bus, 'Assassinate Obama. Assassinate Obama.'

Dignity and Courage

Yesterday at the Veteran's Memorial, Soldier Field, Chicago, the President-elect with double amputee and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth.

What's wrong with this picture? Let me count the ways

Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren:

I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in (2012) or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plow through that door."

First of all, any presidential candidate who sounds like a valley girl ("I'm like") should be immediately disqualified.

Second, any presidential candidate who openly talks about God speaking to them, or opening a door for them is delusional and should be immediately disqualified. Didn't Bush say God told him to smite the Iraqis?

And third, any presidential candidate who, in deciding whether or not to run, doesn't consider the good of the nation first, rather than third after the good of her family and the good of her state, should be immediately disqualified.

And finally, any presidential candidate who says "2012 or four years later," obviously doesn't know how to add single digits and should be immediately disqualified.

On the other hand, the more she talks, the more absurd a Sarah Palin candidacy becomes so her media blitz may be a good thing. Maybe God has opened the door to oblivion for her.

Madeline Clare

My mischievous littlest granddaughter Maddie turned 3 on November 8th.

Creeping socialism? Is it all bad?

The government has taken over ownership of many of the nation's banks, because they couldn't manage themselves and allowed their greed to threaten the very stability of the nation's economy.

The government partially manages health care, for the poor and elderly. The rest of us fend for ourselves with privately owned health insurance companies that have a bad track record of providing affordable access to health care. Would expanding the Medicare and Medicaid system to cover everyone be all that bad?

And now the auto industry is failing because instead of looking to the future and creating alternative fuel and smaller more fuel efficient cars, the auto industry went for the quick buck with behemoth SUVs and trucks. Maybe the government ought to nationalize the auto industry, and call the shots regarding the types of vehicles produced, thus potentially solving three problems at once: creating more fuel efficient vehicles to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, creating alternative fuel vehicles to help slow down global warming, and providing secure jobs to help in this troubled economy.

I don't like the idea of socialism in theory, but when capitalism fails because its practitioners succumb to greed and instant gratification, what other choice is there?

Sarah Pallin's self-inflicted wounds

Sarah Palin is speaking up about the old rumor that Trig Palin is not her son, but her daughter's son, and that she pretended to be pregnant to cover up her daughter's preganancy. She is reflecting the anger that people like Joe Scarborough and a few other Republicans displayed when this rumor first began.

I should mention that two of the bloggers I mentioned in my last post, Andrew Sullivan and Markos Moulitsas, have some connection to this rumor. On Markos Moulitsas' site, The Daily Kos, a diarist (anyone can register and be a diarist; these are not official "bloggers" of the site) started the rumor and soon the diary was taken down as being unaccpetable for the site. And every time someone else brought it up in a diary, commenters were all over it, insisting the rumor-mongering stop.

However, the rumor was already out there, as so many rumors were about Obama, none of which seemed to concern the McCain/Palin campaign.

Andrew Sullivan also noted the oddities about Palin's pregnancy and only asked that she release her medical records to put the rumor to rest, which she has not done, though she keeps saying she will.

The rumor was an unfortunate one, though Palin's behavior in keeping her pregancy secret for seven months, hiding her daughter at home during the pregnancy, rushing home early from a governor's conference to have the baby in Wasilla, revealing that her daughter was now pregnant and then promptly hiding her again, and refusing to release her own medical records, did not help squash it. Those medical records could have put an end to the rumor instantly and protected both her and her daughter from further speculation and scrutiny. But she never released them.

Sarah Palin made herself an easy target because she was dishonest on so many fronts, from that "bridge to nowhere" to her $150,000 wardrobe, all of which Andrew Sullivan has meticulously chronicled. But Palin will take no responsibility for her part in this nonsense.

On the other hand, this rumor was neither started nor encouraged by the Obama campaign. Obama and his surrogates never accused Sarah Palin of lying about this or anything else. In fact, Obama went out of his way not to criticize Palin in either speeches or ads, while she was merciless towards him, calling him a Marxist, a socialist, and a pal of terrorists. She said he was "naive" and not ready to be president, a laughable example of the pot calling the kettle....

Sarah Palin did everything she could to slash and burn her way through Obama's good name, and wanted to use Jeremiah Wright to twist the knife even more, but John McCain drew the line on the Wright issue.

Obama, it must be remembered, put up with a lot more slanderous rumors about himself than Palin did about herself. And he did absolutely nothing to encourage them by acting odd and trying to hide things the way she did. He was accused of being a non-citizen and a Muslim, of being a radical, of hiding his Muslim roots, of being schooled in a Madrasa, of being a friend of Louis Farrakhan, of approving of Jeremiah Wright's "anti-American" sermons, and of being a Marxist. And you didn't hear him running around slamming right wing bloggers and internet sites, even when they put out that ridiculous rumor about a non-existent tape in which his wife supposedly ranted against "Whitey." He let his character speak for itself and he won people over with his honesty and example.

So for Palin to cry "foul" over some rumor started on the internet, but discouraged by most Obama supporters, is quite hypocritical. Frankly, I have no sympathy at all for someone who can dish it out through the campaign, but now after losing can't take it, especially when she could have easily disproven the rumor.

Obama had no way to refute labels and accusations that had no basis in fact and could not be disproven with a simple medical file. How does one prove that one is not a Marxist or a Muslim? If a lifetime of patriotism and twenty years of Christian worship cannot disprove such rumors to the wing-nuts, then the wing-nuts have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with the truth.

On the other hand, Palin could have easily put the rumor to rest about Trig's birth. All she had to do was release her medical records, and she refused.

Someone, please tell this miserable woman to shut up

Sarah Palin is making the rounds, and getting attention from people like Matt Lauer and Joke Scarborough, who are apparently much more interested in talking her up than in paying attention to the transition of power from Republicans to Democrats, Democrats who defeated the diva from Alaska.

She's gotten a taste of power and fame and expensive clothing here in the lower 48, and she's not going to give them up without a fight. So instead of going quietly, as all other losing candidates do during a transition from the election to the inauguration, she's hamming it up for the camera and saying god will show her the way to the presidency.

And repeating a line often shouted by the idiot morning loudmouth Joe Scarborough, according to an interview on FOX News...

The governor also lashed out at bloggers "sitting in their parents' basement, wearing their pajamas" for some of the questions that were raised about her record and credibility.

I think it's time we set the record straight about liberal bloggers. I don't know who these people are who blog from their parents' basement (maybe they're right wingers) but Joke Scarborough has been saying this for a year, and it has now apparently become a republican talking point.

I'm a blogger and I blog from my office, in my own suburban home, and my parents are ill and in their eighties. When I'm not blogging, I'm taking care of them at their house, and in any spare time I have, trying to keep my household going. Heck, I live in California and we don't even have basements.

The main bloggers I read (and the ones read by most liberals) are Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Arianna Huffington, and Markos Moulitsos. I don't know if any of them blog while wearing pajamas. I sometimes do, but I don't think that disqualifies me from making intelligent comments. It just makes me more comfortable. But I know none of these bloggers write from the basement of their parents' homes. Andrew (who is actually a conservative) blogs for a major magazine and lives in his own residence with his spouse in D.C. Josh is married with two children. Arianna lives in a mansion in L.A and is a single mother raising two children. And Markos has two children and, like Arianna, has built an empire on line. Oh, and he has served in the military.

So the radical loonies like Morning Joke and Sarah "god is calling me" Palin may blame bloggers for their troubles, but they look foolish for doing so. The bloggers (liberal and conservative) who supported Obama, and found Palin terribly lacking as a candidate, are smack in the middle or even upper classes, highly educated and terrific writers. I guess that makes them "elitists."

Geez, I wish the wing-nuts would make up their minds. Are their worst enemies successful elitists, or losers who blog from their parents' basement?

These wing nuts need to look in the mirror for the cause of the conservative downfall. It is their ignorant, holier than thou, uneducated, black and white, trash talk culture and their failed ideology that are dying, and it is stupid statements condemning bloggers, as well as those attacking the president-elect as a "Marxist" who "pals around with terrorists" that have caused them to be rejected. And no amount of soft ball interviews in Sarah Palin's kitchen as she cooks moose stew will help her cause or that of conservatives.

These bitter people need to stop attacking and blaming and smearing and come up with a few good ideas and good candidates of their own. Because right now, if Sarah Palin is the best they've got, they're in for a long time in the wilderness.

She really needs to just shut up.

ELECTION REFLECTION X: FINAL THOUGHTS

In nine previous installments, I've summarized my assessment of why McCain lost and why Obama won the presidential election of 2008.

But I have a concluding reflection on what this election means. (Read more in depth reflections on Outraged Citizen.)

We have, at least for this election, dealt a death blow to the cult of the ignorant leader.

The American people may have elected Bush because they thought he was "just like" them, a guy you could share a beer with, a "Joe the Plumber" kind of guy (even though he was born into a wealthy patrician family and went to the best schools), a guy who couldn't speak intelligently, who couldn't pronounce nuclear, a guy who didn't appear too smart. But that has changed.

The people didn't fall for the attack on Obama as an "elitist" this time because the people actually wanted an elitist - if that means someone with brains. Brains, it turns out, are more important than being comfortable with someone at a bar, when the nation is in trouble. Not only is this rejection of the cult of the ignorant leader evident because of Bush's low approval ratings, but also because the Republican candidate John McCain was defeated, at least in part because of his choice of a no-nothing, "just folks" running mate.

Although the election of the nation's first African American president has caused some enthusiastic reporters to conclude that "anyone can be president," this is simply not true. First of all Barack Obama is not anyone. He is an exceptionally talented, intelligent, calm, hopeful, and wise leader, someone you might call an "old soul."

It was never true that anyone could be president. It was never true that any white child could grow up to become president and it is not true today that any black child can grow up to become president.

People become president either because of their talents or because of their connections. Bush had no talent, but huge connections. He had no business being president, but his connections got him there. Obama, on the other hand, had few connections, but talent that was obvious from his first speech to the nation four years ago. It is Obama's gifts of temperament and intelligence and organization and ability to inspire that make him singularly qualified.

The election of an African American does not mean that any African American boy or girl can become president any more than the election of Hillary Clinton would have meant any girl could become president. Hillary's rise did not pave the way for a Sarah Palin victory, because Palin does not have the abilities we have decided we want in our president. The American people got to know her and found her lacking. After George W. Bush, we are paying more attention to qualifications, whether we are looking at a white man, an African American man, or a woman of any race.

The American people have decided what counts in electing a president is not race or religion or associations or names or gender. What matters is finding the best person for the job.

Hopefully, the cult of the ignorant leader is truly over. Because ignorant leaders makes messes that take a long time to clean up, and damage the country for generations.

I love this picture

Barack and Michele Obama on election night, watching the returns. What a handsome, dignified couple. It will be such a joy having them represent our country for the next four - and hopefully eight - years.

Food for thought

When will religious zealots realize that Christianity is about fixing oneself and helping others, NOT fixing others and helping oneself?

Anonymous comment on blog

ELECTION REFLECTION IX: A CHANGED ELECTORATE

George W. Bush accomplished one good thing: he fired up his opposition, and opposition to his party. People like me, liberals who have been paying attention, have been squarely opposed to this president and his policies for eight years, and as he made terrible decision after terrible decision, our opposition grew. We didn't understand why the rest of the country didn't get it, why the religious right, and economic conservatives, and fearmongers like Karl Rove, still had such a hold on the country.

But in the last four years, the electorate grew weary and increasingly angry. There was no longer any doubt. George W. Bush was a miserable failure and he had caused damage in every sector of the country. And the economic meltdown in October was simply the last straw. So the electorate was ready for change - at least a majority of the electorate.

Barack Obama, the candidate, not only promised change; he even looked like change. But the electorate had also changed. The youth, especially, supported Obama enthusiastically. Raised in a multicultural world, having friends of all ethnicities and sexual orientations, young people saw Obama as one of them, a tolerant man who understood the world the way they did. The middle class, as well, was won over by Obama, who promised a revitalization of the economy and a return of the American dream they once believed in. College educated Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The same voters who once thought the Republican Party of low taxes benefitted them more, woke up and smelled the coffee and supported Obama. Even the majority of voters in my own very Republican county in California voted for Obama.

In addition, there are now more Democrats than Republicans throughout the country. For the past four years Democratic registrations have gone up and Republican registrations down. The 2006 election, which put the Congress in Democratic hands for the first time in 12 years, was the first test of that. More people now call themselves Democrat than Republican, and that provided Obama with a bigger base of voters. But Obama also won over Independents.

Bush and Cheney together have destroyed the modern Republican Party which is now in free fall. But at the same time, Howard Dean used his 50 state strategy to sweep millions more voters into the new revitalized Democratic Party.

With those odds, and the exceptional candidacy and campaign of Barack Obama, it would have taken a miracle for the Republicans to win this year.

ELECTION REFLECTION VIII: THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

We have never seen a campaign like the one Barack Obama headed this year.

From raising most of his money over the internet from millions of constributors, to advertising on video games, the Obama campaign outorganized, outstrategized, and outspent any previous presidential campaign.

At Obama rallies, people signed in with their telephone numbers and email addresses. With these contact points, the Obama campaign contacted supporters daily, requesting volunteer hours and contributions. Young and old alike volunteered to phone bank and canvass for Obama, many for the very first time. If there was a potential Obama voter out there, he or she heard from someone in the campaign.

They used a bit of psychology as well. After each unfair McCain or Palin attack, they asked for money to fight it. They never acted coverly confident, and until the end said it was an uphill battle, asking for more money, and urging every voter to reject complacency and get out there and vote.

There were no leaks and very few gaffes. While the opposition used their typical smear campaign, the Obama campaign stayed cool and on message. And the message was consistent: hope and change.

In the end, that message was irresistable.

Ending divisiveness and division in the age of Obama

For decades now, I have been appalled that the party claiming to be the party of moral values, the party in which evangelical Christians have found a home, a home from which they could attack and demonize others, has fooled so many people. George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and the radical right wing have slandered and excluded Muslims, liberals, Democrats atheists, homosexuals, African Americans, and Latinos, all human beings, all included in Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal." Steven D. says it well:

Our country has been living a nightmare, not so much because we lost our communities, but because one political faction decided to tear them down and rip them apart, fragmenting them into smaller and smaller pieces. One faction which chose to raise the values of greed and individualism and "the one true religion" above all others. To actively exclude people from our national community and our national discourse, and not only to exclude them but to shun them, demonize them, scapegoat them make them seem less than human. It was toxic, it was divisive, it was corrosive and it was demeaning to our nation and our people. Unfortunately, for far too long it has been a winning political strategy.

No more! The election of Barack Obama has given us the opportunity to repair and reunite our multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faith communities, including everyone in the benefits of citizenship or residency in the United States of America.

ELECTION REFLECTION VII: CANDIDATE OBAMA

All elections are ultimately more about the person than the ideology of a party, no matter what the parties say.

Obama was a brilliant candidate.

Sure he was young (like JFK and Clinton), and sure he was inexperienced on the national stage (but more experienced than Palin), but the intelligence he possesses and the temperament he displays more than made up for that.

The voters who took the time to really get to know Obama's life story and learn just what qualities he possessed knew he would make a great president. In spite of Republican attempts to paint him as a radical, he was basically a decent, moral patriot. Married to a brilliant woman, father of two beautiful girls, having lived an exemplary life, full of accomplishments, Obama was able to fend off the criticism mostly by rising above it and by never attacking in kind.

Throughout the campaign, Obama handled vicious attacks regarding his limited association with William Ayers, and his spiritual connection to Rev. Wright. The first he mostly ignored, the second he neutralized with a brilliant speech on race. And while he fought vigorously with his opponent on the issues, he never once personally attacked him. In fact, in every speech where McCain was mentioned, Obama talked with great respect about the sacrifices McCain had made for the country. His respectfulness in talking about his opponent, his friendly demeanor in the debates (when McCain's obvious contempt for Obama showed in his refusal to look at him, his eye rolls, and his language) only confirmed the decency and even temperament of the man.

Obama's decency went beyond his treatment of his opponent, however. Obama possesses a kindness and empathy that he got from his mother. Obama often references his mother, and how the thing that would make her most angry was when he would treat someone badly. She was forever insisting he put himself in someone else's shoes. This empathy, so obviously missing in the Bush administration, is something the American people, who are basically a giving and kind people, were pleased to see in a presidential candidate.

Obama's temperament and decency were two thirds of the equation. His competence and intelligence were the third. After eight years of a bungled presidency with an incompetent and shallow president, American was hungry for someone with intellectual depth. Obama, first in his Harvard Law class, with a reputation for curiosity and listening, shows intellectual gifts we have not seen in a long time. And his thoughtfulness when confronting a problem is a refreshing contrast to Bush's governing by gut instinct, which has been such a disaster.

After eight years of Bush, America wanted a smart and competent leader, a decent and caring leader, and a steady leader.

They got all of those in Obama.

Justice in three Senate races

I find it interesting that two of the three Senate races yet to be determined have tremendous emotional valence for Democrats, and the third is emblematic of so much that is wrong with the Republican Party and Alaska.

We're down to three undetermined Senate races: Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska. All are close. In Georgia, the failure of either candidate to reach 50% means a run-off. In Minnesota, just over 200 votes separate Norm Coleman from Al Franken, which triggers an automatic recount. And in Alaska, voting irregularities and oddities have led to convicted felon Ted Stevens being in the lead. I don't know what will happen in Alaska, whether the final tally will leave Stevens in office, but if he does win people are speculating that Sarah Palin might run for his seat, and being that Alaska keeps electing Republican morons and criminals, that's entirely possible.

But the two emotional races are those in Georgia and Minnesota. Six years ago, the horrid Saxby Chambliss defeated triple amputee war hero Max Cleland by running ads against him viciously and falsely tying him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Democrats have despised the sleazy Chambliss ever since and would love to kick him out of the Senate and replace him with a Democrat. Georgia is a red state, though, and this may not happen. But it sure would feel good.

In Minnesota, Norm Coleman took Paul Wellstone's Senate seat after Wellstone, with his wife and daughter, tragically died in a plane crash just before the 2002 election. The Republicans then attacked Dems for having a "political" memorial service, and Coleman rode that falsehood all the way to victory. I'd love to see his disgusting ass out of the Senate as well.

If there is justice in this world, perhaps the outcome of these elections will give Democrats more cause to celebrate. But then if there were justice in the world, we wouldn't have had to endure eight years of George W. Bush, with at least one and possibly two stolen elections.

Obama appoints Michelle as First Lady

Very funny commentary on Barack's appointments and the ridiculousness of the criticism coming from the sore losers. The snark about the Morning Joke crew is the best. Sample:

Just in from the Obama Transition Team: It has been confirmed that Michelle
Obama will be named the First Lady in Barack Obama's Administration.


Conservatives asked to comment on the pick were almost all angry arguing that after Obama's choice of Rahm Emmanuel, long time friend and close advisor, as Chief of Staff this decision to keep Michelle Obama on as First Lady is proof positive that Obama is going back on his promise of a unity government.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinzski on Morning Joe were in complete distress.

Joe said sourly, "You know, she will be the most liberal First Lady in the White House in eight years."

Mika responded by lamenting, "I think he should have picked Sarah Palin for this position. She's a mother, she is a stylish dresser, and she is a conservative. If Obama was really committed to bringing this country together he would have picked Palin to be the First Lady."

My daughter's birthday cake

My daughter's husband and children presenting her with an Obama cake on her November 6th birthday.

ELECTION REFLECTION VI: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

I have noted four elements of the Republican loss this year: flawed candidates, the flawed campaign, George W. Bush, and the garbled message(s). There is one final element which perhaps is the overarching reason that McCain lost, the reason that subsumes all the other reasons: the Republican Party is in disarray, its ideology bankrupt.

We see the signs of a party self-destructing even now. The McCain advisors and staff are attacking Palin and her staff. She is being accused of gross stupidity as well as being off message and spending too much money on her family. One staffer, not recognizing apparently how badly this reflects on McCain for choosing her, called her a "Wasilla Hillbilly."

Whoa! They talk about circular firing squads in the Democratic Party, but I don't think one Democrat ever called any other Democrat something that insulting. No one wants to take the fall for this loss, and who can blame them? The Republican candidates and campaign this year were disasters. But that is only because the Republican Party, after eight years of Bush, is discredited and ideologically bankrupt.

Every idea the party has had over the past twenty-eight years was trotted out this election season, and none of them gained traction with the majority of the American people. McCain used the National Security argument, the tax and spend argument, the trickle down argument, the soft on terror argument, the drilling for oil argument, the anti-liberal argument, the anti-socialist argument, the anti-abortion argument, the not Christian enough argument, the not one of us argument, and none of them worked - except with Joe the Plumber and his Joe six-pack cohorts.

For decades the Republican Party has been a conservative party, defining itself as a party of low taxes, deregulation, small government, individualism, small business, strong military, and "Christian" values. And while these descriptions sound good, they never really materialized, at least not in any way that was beneficial to the American people.

Low taxes under Bush became low taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, even those that sent jobs overseas, and higher fees for everyone else.

Deregulation under Bush led both to the collapse of greedy banks and increased pollution of the environment.

Small government became the biggest government ever, but also the most inefficient and unsuccessful. Small government became spying on citizens, creating watch lists of Americans, torturing and imprisoning people without benefit of trial, deficit spending beyond anything we have seen, and indebtedness to the Chinese to pay for ill conceived wars and an economy that crashed.

Individualism meant you were on your own as you stood on your rooftop in New Orleans as the waters rose, and you were without health care when Insurance companies wouldn't cover you, and on food stamps because your unemployment insurance ran out.

Small business meant nothing, as many small businesses closed their doors because their customers disappeared in this terrible economy and more and more shoppers tried to survive by shopping at Wal-Mart with goods imported from China where near slave labor produced them cheaply.

The military, once strong and ready, became tired and depleted, with soldiers serving three and four tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, as Bush's ill conceived wars continued on.

And "Christian" values became reduced to oppposition to gay marriage, abortion and science, and support for wars, capital punishment, flag pins, the teaching of creationism in schools, and greed (christened the "gospel of prosperity").

Republican ideology has either failed or been proven to be a sham.

It was rejected outright this year, its only symbol the person of Sarah Palin. Even John McCain couldn't bring himself to wholeheartedly support some of its tenets.

No wonder the party is in disarray. What it once stood for has been discredited. Its very soul has been tainted. And the American people have gotten wise to the reality that a party that wants to shrink and then drown the government, as Grover Norquist said, is not the party that should be trusted with that government.

In the end, a bankrupt party cannot win elections. It never really had a chance in this one, which is why John McCain, a non traditional republican, won the primary, and why the message was so muddled. When you no longer have a solid core, you come across as confused, and in the end desperate.

And Americans don't usually elect desperate candidates to the presidency.

ELECTION REFLECTION V: THE MESSAGE DEFICIT

McCain, Palin and the campaign had no clear message. Instead they hopped from one sound bite, one theme to another. But there was neither consistency nor message discipline.

McCain started out his campaign thinking the War in Iraq would be a big issue and his call for a "surge," which was partly responsible for stemming the terrible violence there, would be seen as an example of brilliant leadership. His military background, including five years spent as a POW, seemed perfect credentials for a war time presidency. The "crisis" in Georgia only amplified his credentials, or so he thought. Unfortunately, Iraq became a side issue and McCain became flustered.

McCain also thought his theme might be experience, especially since he was running against a first term senator. But he apparently wasn't paying attention when Hillary used the experience argument and failed. Perhaps he thought he had better experience, or being male he was more believable as a commander in chief. Whatever the reason, he continued with the experience argument for far too long when Obama's change argument was what the people wanted.

So he began various attempts to define himself as a change agent and Obama as too risky, too untested, too radical. First he talked about allowing offshore oil drilling and for a week or so led chants of "drill, baby, drill." When that had limited appeal, he started attacking Obama as a celebrity, with ads featuring Paris Hilton. When that didn't work he chose a female vice presidential running mate, thinking he could win over disgruntled Hillary voters. Just about the time that the people were catching on to the ignorance of his running mate, the economic crisis unfolded and he suspended his campaign and said he wouldn't debate. When that didn't turn out too well, he played the fear card, and began attacking Obama over his limited association with Bill Ayers - calling him a pal of terrorists. When that didn't work he and Palin went back to the "maverick" theme. When that didn't work he found Joe the Plumber and began talking about Obama raising taxes and being a "socialist."

While Obama maintained his theme of change, and presented idea after idea that would be representative of change, McCain lurched from one attack or gimmick to another, with no clear message and no overarching theme. And by the end of the campaign, he and Palin seemed not to even be on the same page. How could they be? No one knew from day to day what hymn they were supposed to be singing. Perhaps they didn't even have the same hymnals.

Some have said that McCain failed to articulate a clear message because he really isn't ideological. He's more of lone wolf, a Senator who votes for practical rather than ideological reasons, and perhaps that is true. He was in a real dilemma, then, as the presidential candidate of a party that has been purely ideological for years, appealing to the most extreme right wing elements of the country, all the while knowing he had to appeal to independents as well.

It was, perhaps, an impossible task. With a base and a president that are extremely ideological, and the majority of the country rejecting that president, it was going to be difficult to win a large enough group of voters to defeat the change candidate. So he tried a little traditional ideology, a little smear and fear, a pander to women with a female candidate, and a little "maverick." But there were no new ideas and no clear message about how to fix the country, and that was a huge problem.

Instead, McCain came off as erratic and unfocused, at times desperate and at times a little unhinged. While many still liked the old McCain, the McCain of 2000, the 2008 version of McCain could not provide the leadership so desperately needed in this time of economic crisis.

What Obama's victory means

Courtesy of Daily Kos - picture at a Virginia victory rally on Tuesday.

How do you solve a problem like Lieberman?

Like many other Democrats, I think it's time for Lieberman to go.

He has been a completely disloyal Democrat, refusing to play by the rules, refusing to support the results of a primary election that he lost, and now refusing to support the Democratic nominee for president.

The man is all about himself and his own ambition, no matter how much he says he was supporting McCain for the good of the country. If he really cared about the good of the country, he wouldn't have supported a 72 year old man that couldn't even keep his facts straight, and he certainly would have withdrawn his support once McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice president.

When Lieberman lost the primary election in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, he refused to accept it and ran as an Independent, winning with Republican votes. That was not loyalty to party or party protocol. That had nothing to do with the good of the country. It had everything to do with Lieberman's cushy seat in Congress.

When McCain became the Republican nominee, he didn't even wait to see who the Democrat would be. He jumped on the McCain team "for the good of the country." Though Hillary and Obama had both campaigned for him in his unsuccessful primary, he refused to support one of them. I suppose he thought he had a much better chance of being appointed to a high position in a McCain presidency than in an Obama presidency, and certainly he will be defeated if he runs for the Senate again in Connecticut, so maybe he was choosing "the good of Lieberman," but it had nothing to do with the country.

Lieberman had an even stronger obligation to the Democratic Party because he was once its vice presidential nominee, but he completely rejected that responsibility.

He can't be trusted. He shouldn't be in the Democratic caucus, and even if it means the Dems won't have a 60 vote majority, he should be kicked out. He's a traitor to the party and traitors cannot be tolerated. If the Republican want him, they can have him. He won't be re-elected to the Senate, and we can elect a real Democrat the next time.

ELECTION REFLECTION IV: THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN

In 2000 and 2004 you might say the Republicans had flawed candidates. George W. Bush was a neophyte, a poor speaker, and an intellectual lightweight, while his vice presidential nominee was slightly more congenial than Satan. But the Rove campaign was effective in at least three things: negative campaigning, vote counting, and getting out the vote.

Rove, a disciple of Lee Attwater, the grand master of the smear campaign, was even better at it than his mentor. He was able to marginalize two distinguished politicians, one a sitting vice president and one a war hero, by attacking their strengths. By keeping his own candidate above the fray, allowing him to appear congenial and folksy, and by relying on allies to do the dirty work, Rove managed to get his guy into the White House.

He also knew how to count electoral votes and concentrated on his base, a combination of ideologically fiscal conservatives and evangelical Christians. The first time, Bush won in a squeaker while losing the popular vote, and the second time, with a war being waged and the memory of 9/11 still fresh, he won with a slightly larger margin. But it was never a blowout. Rove never intended it to be. He didn't want his president to be beholden to too many groups. So he relied heavily on evangelical preachers who would whip up anger over things like abortion, gay marriage, and the ghosts of Vietnam to motivate certain groups to come out and vote. And it worked.

But negative campaigning seems to have lost its effectiveness. It's almost as if the people realized they were played for fools in the past two elections, voting for an incompetent man because they really disapproved of homosexual marriage and abortion and because they were fooled into believing lies about Bush's opponent.

This time they seemed to be saying "We don't care about Bill Ayers, or labels like "socialist," and "defeatist," and "tax and spend," and "liberal." We don't care that Obama's middle name is "Hussein," and we don't believe he is a "muslim" or care that he sat in Rev. Wright's church. We're not falling for that again."

And they didn't.

This time they wanted a serious candidate, with serious ideas and a serious temperament.

That's why McCain choosing the ignorant Sarah Palin didn't work, and why the various other gimmicks like Joe the Plumber and "drill, baby, drill" and the persona of a maverick didn't work.

When times are tough, and the man in charge has failed to make things better, and in fact has created the tough times, you don't go to one of his closest associates for the solutions. And you certainly don't go to him if he proves himself to be erratic and unserious in his approach to campaigning and governing.

The American people wanted a problem solver in chief. McCain tried to sell himself by tearing down Obama and testing out advertising slogans. That simply wasn't going to work this time.

ELECTION REFLECTION III: BUSH

Bush fatigue was a huge factor in this election. But the nation was more than just tired of Bush - they were embarassed by him and angry at him for his many failures and the disasters he brought to the country by his incompetence and his disregard for the well being of the citizens.

From the War in Iraq, begun with a lie, to Katrina and his callous indifference to the lives of the citizens of New Orleans, to the financial meltdown that was largely due to conservative deregulation of the financial industry, Bush proved what a disaster one unqualified and incurious person can be in the White House.

No one, even his staunches supporters, believed McCain to be of high intellect - smarter than Bush perhaps, but still not someone with the kind of brilliant mind that the people, in their own common wisdom, knew was required to solve the many Bush problems that he will inherit.

Eight years is a long time to give to a president who did not earn the popular vote the first time around, and had to be appointed by the Supreme Court. Four more years is a long time to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose first term was less than stellar.

Being of the same party, and voting with the president 90% of the time, did not help McCain win over the people. (In fact, it was only when he camapaigned with his choice for V.P., Sarah Palin, an extremist, albeit attractive know-nothing who appealed to the wing-nut religious base, that McCain even got big crowds.) Although McCain ran against Bush in 2000, and was the preferred choice of many because of his more independent status, once Bush smeared and defeated him in the primary, McCain became a loyalist and supported the president, banking on Bush being a successful president who would support him in 2008. Only by 2008 Bush was a miserable failure and only hurt McCain.

In the end, you might say Bush defeated McCain twice.

ELECTION REFLECTION II: FLAWED REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

I want to look at the election first from what went wrong on the losing side, though ultimately I think the election was WON by Obama and not LOST by McCain (though Republicans are now trying to peddle the "McCain lost it" idea so as to discount the power of Obama.)

The first thing that went wrong for the Republicans in this election was that they chose the wrong candidates.

McCain had a powerful personal story, and a reputation as someone who would buck his own party and thus appeal to Independents, but he was also 72 years old, and it showed. His forgetfulness, his obvious contempt for Obama, and his confused reaction to the economic crisis all showed a man not in his prime, a man too much a prisoner of his own emotions, a man with possible early dementia. No one ever spoke of that latter possibility, but voters could see the imperfections in the man, the fatigue, the mere reflection of the man he once was, and the lack of intellectual sharpness. In this time of multiple crises in America, they didn't trust him to be in charge.

When McCain chose a completely unqualified woman to be his vice presidential running mate, it only magnified the problems with his candidacy. Sure, she energized the "culture wars" base, and more than a few men who saw her as a sex symbol, but Independents and serious Republicans, even those ideologically in tune with McCain, were repulsed by the choice. First, it proved McCain was impulsive and lacked good judgment. Second, it showed McCain far more interested in a gimmick to help him win by a hair (which is all he would ever win by) than in the welfare of the country. That he would risk putting the nation in the hands of a totally unqualified person was too much even for some Republicans to swallow. By the time of the election, 60% of the electorate deemed her unqualified and many of them who once admired McCain turned away from him because of it.

The contrast of the intellectually superior, steady and optimistic, and highly disciplined Obama with the intellectually shallow, emotionally erratic, and often confused (with respect to message) McCain was obvious to most voters and ultimately it hurt McCain even with members of his own Party.

The first thing you have to have in a presidential candidate is someone who is qualified and relevant NOW, not someone who has a good story from forty years ago or someone who might be ready ten years from now. Obama is in his prime now, writing a story for today, addressing the issues of the moment, while McCain's compelling story is from forty years ago, his prime issue - the need to be victorious in war - still tied to the failure in Vietnam.

So those three things - poor judgment, a candidate past his prime and out of step with the times, and intellectual and emotional inferioriority - all made McCain too much of a risk for the voters, especially when he wanted to follow an intellectually incurious and unqualified president of his own Party into the White House.