Oh god I'm sick of that hockey mom Sarah Palin, and sicker still of writing about her, but I can't get over my outrage that John McCain would treat this election as if it is just a game. He isn't serious about anything - not about helping people falling on hard times or caring for military families or providing care for wounded soldiers or education for returning veterans. He doesn't give a crap about the environment or the economy or the security of this country.
His campaign is a joke, replete with ads about Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears, and lies about Barack Obama. He accuses Obama of being not ready to lead, but having suffered several bouts with a deadly form of cancer, he chooses a former beauty queen and airhead as his vice president. Well, she is a brunette, younger version of Cindy so I guess he felt comfortable with her. And if he dies while in office, and turns things over to this woman, what does he care? He'll be gone.
He treats this campaign as if it is a poker game, or worse, a joke, but he is playing with all of our lives and he'd better be rejected by a lanslide of disgusted Americans in November or we are in deep deep trouble.
His pick of Sarah Palin is a disaster, perhaps not for his campaign if he can use her to woo enough uneducated moronic voters to think he's a real maverick and a feminist, but for the country. His wife actually said this morning, echoing the party's talking points, that the hockey mom is a foreign policy expert because Alaska is next to Russia. Are they serious? Of course not. They're playing with us, and playing us, and if we fall for it we are as insane as McCain is.
Now back to the former beauty queen. There are lots of stories floating around on the internet accusing Palin of not being the mother of the four month old baby she claims, and hiding the truth that it is really her daughter's child. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that this may be true, but it may also be one of those ugly internet rumors like the one about Barack Obama being Muslim, and since I am disgusted by that rumor and the damage it has done, I certainly wouldn't want to participate in one that could be just as damaging - especially to Palin's daughter. On the other hand, if this really is a story, then the media will investigate it sooner or later.
The real story, the one that mothers everywhere ought to look at, is why the mother of a four month old Down syndrome baby, and four older children, would take on this responsibility. First, there will be two months of intensive campaigning in the lower forty eight when her family lives in Alaska. Will she bring them everywhere with her or will she send them back to Alaska in the care of someone else so they can start school? If she sends them back, she will not be there for much of two months. If she hauls them around with her, how good is that for them? How healthy is that for this poor infant? The older children will have to be home (hotel) schooled and since she won't have time, they must find a tutor.
Then if, god forbid, she is elected, their relationship with their mother will change profoundly. Unless she reverts to the kind of vice president who only inquires daily about the health of the president, she will be at meetings all day, going to Congress, having daily briefings, traveling to foreign countries, and as McCainites have asserted, "learning at the feet of the master." How does that give her any time to be a mom? This isn't your typical working mom situation. This isn't the job of governor of a sparsely populated state. This is the second most powerful job in the United States.
I thought fundamentalist Christians believed women should raise their own children. I thought they believed in family values. So she decides to give birth to her disabled child, for which she must be praised, but then abandons him and his siblings for the next four to eight years. That isn't practicing family values. That's being selfish and irresponsible.
As for the timing of this child's birth, Palin went back to work three days after he was born. And now, four months later, are we to believe she has no postpartum effects, no hormones a little off kilter, no maternal instincts that make her want to stay with her child and protect him. What about bonding, attachment, the importance of the early years? (This, in addition to the fact that she never "showed," and flew from Texas to Alaska after her water broke so she could give birth in a small rural hospital, is part of the reason the rumors of her not really being the baby's mother got started.)
Now, I have heard some television female commentators (including the idiotic Cokie Roberts) say women will be mad if people criticize the Princess of the Tundra for wanting to be vice president when she has a four month old child, because no one would say that about a man. Jeez what a crock!
First, a woman is not a man, no matter what some fake feminists say. Real feminists know that men and women are not the same biologically. Second, men don't give birth. They don't breast feed and while they bond, they bond differently. It is still the mother who has the biological attachment to the young infant. Third, feminists have called for paid or unpaid maternal leave for decades and they generally would like to see it extend to six months. Feminists know the demands of mothering. They aren't just all about being a high powered career person.
I am the mother of four and I would never have been ready to take on such a monumental job when one of my children was four months old, nor would my maternal instincts have allowed me to. I couldn't live with myself for what I would consider neglect of my child. And I am a long time feminist, so my feelings in this regard do not come from some religious nonsense or some medieval view of womanhood. They come from a sense of responsibility to my children, and a concern for their best interests.
Feminists have always wanted full equality and many interpreted that to mean women wanted to be men. But that is silly. Feminists realize they must make choices. They can have children and careers, but sometimes not all at once, and sometimes not the exact career path they want, or as many children as they would like, unless they are able to provide full time nanny care for their children, which most can't. Having five children, four of them under the age of 18, and one only four months old, does not work well with also trying to be vice president of the United States. Both of the jobs are likely to be done poorly.
Frankly, with my three college degrees, my library of thousands of history and political science and current affairs books, all of which I have read, and my lifelong curiosity about and interest in politics and foreign affairs, I think I would make a much better vice presidential candidate than Ms. Moose Burger, but I would never take the job unless I had first spent some time in Washington. This woman seems completely uninterested in foreign policy in a time of war and knows nothing about the economy other than how to recite a few conservative talking points. What kind of dunce is she to think she can do this?
And how much contempt must Insane McCain have for the American people that he would choose someone, charming though she may be, this ignorant and unqualified? John McCain said in one of this books that he didn't run for president because he wanted to promote specific policies, but that rather he simply had the amibition to be president. And now, at the age of 72, in less than stellar health, he chooses someone who knows nothing about the job he has offered her. They're a couple of know-nothings. Furthermore, I believe this shows that John McCain is not a patriot. He may have been at one time, but with this reckless and cynical choice, he has shown total disregard, if not hatred, for this country and its people.
He says Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election? McCain would rather destroy the country than lose an election.
And apparently Sarah Palin would farm out her children to win an election and feed her inflated ego. That isn't my image of a feminist, a good mother, or a responsible Vice President of the United States.
And finally, if she can't be trusted to put the needs of her own children first, how can we expect her to be concerned about our children?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Insane McCain Part III
Steve Benen and Andrew Sullivan all wonder if McCain has lost his mind, if perhaps there might be something wrong with him, and indeed I think this is a question that must be asked.
When this campaign began and McCain took his trip to Iraq and Israel and had to be corrected over and over again by Joe Lieberman, people began to wonder about his grasp of the facts or his memory.
Throughout the campaign he has had memory problems and said strange things. And now he has chosen the most unqualified person ever to be his running mate, just because she has a uterus and ovaries like Hillary Clinton.
After continually attacking Obama for his supposed lack of experience (though Obama has twelve more years of legislative experience - eight in a large state and four in the U.S. Senate - than Palin) and using the slogan "country first," and after insisting the most important quality he would look for in a veep would be the ability to be president from day one, McCain has gone completely off the rails and chosen someone with much less experience than Obama, much less understanding of the issues of the day, and an absolute lack of qualification to be ready on day one, two or five hundred.
Republicans say she is as qualified as Obama which is of course, absurd. She has a journalism degree (if she actually finished college) from a podunk college in Idaho while Obama has a law degree from Harvard, and worked as a community organizer and a college professor. He has written two highly acclaimed books and run the most successful primary season ever against the Clinton machine. He has traveled and lived around the world and understands the issues in far more complexity than Ms. Palin. It is pure nonsense to put her in the same league with Obama.
It defies explanation and could indeed be evidence that McCain is losing his marbles.
Dementia does not come on all at once. My dad is showing signs of dementia as part of a neurodegenerative disease that is slowly killing him. And we all remember the unususal behavior and memory problems of Ronald Reagan in his final years in office. In diseases that cause dementia, the brain doesn't die all at once. These diseases are progressive. My dad was diagnosed about three years ago, at the age of 79, but when I look back I remember oddities long before that - strange things he said, times I wasn't sure what he meant, unusual things he did.
McCain could be in the early stages of dementia associated with any number of diseases, and we have no idea the toll his years in a POW camp might have had on him.
Now that he has chosen a totally unqualified person to be his running mate, for purely political reasons, and she shows no evidence of realizing how much trouble she is in, McCain's age is more important than ever.
Somebody needs to take a serious look at this before we take the chance that this man and his trophy veep get their hands on the nuclear button.
When this campaign began and McCain took his trip to Iraq and Israel and had to be corrected over and over again by Joe Lieberman, people began to wonder about his grasp of the facts or his memory.
Throughout the campaign he has had memory problems and said strange things. And now he has chosen the most unqualified person ever to be his running mate, just because she has a uterus and ovaries like Hillary Clinton.
After continually attacking Obama for his supposed lack of experience (though Obama has twelve more years of legislative experience - eight in a large state and four in the U.S. Senate - than Palin) and using the slogan "country first," and after insisting the most important quality he would look for in a veep would be the ability to be president from day one, McCain has gone completely off the rails and chosen someone with much less experience than Obama, much less understanding of the issues of the day, and an absolute lack of qualification to be ready on day one, two or five hundred.
Republicans say she is as qualified as Obama which is of course, absurd. She has a journalism degree (if she actually finished college) from a podunk college in Idaho while Obama has a law degree from Harvard, and worked as a community organizer and a college professor. He has written two highly acclaimed books and run the most successful primary season ever against the Clinton machine. He has traveled and lived around the world and understands the issues in far more complexity than Ms. Palin. It is pure nonsense to put her in the same league with Obama.
It defies explanation and could indeed be evidence that McCain is losing his marbles.
Dementia does not come on all at once. My dad is showing signs of dementia as part of a neurodegenerative disease that is slowly killing him. And we all remember the unususal behavior and memory problems of Ronald Reagan in his final years in office. In diseases that cause dementia, the brain doesn't die all at once. These diseases are progressive. My dad was diagnosed about three years ago, at the age of 79, but when I look back I remember oddities long before that - strange things he said, times I wasn't sure what he meant, unusual things he did.
McCain could be in the early stages of dementia associated with any number of diseases, and we have no idea the toll his years in a POW camp might have had on him.
Now that he has chosen a totally unqualified person to be his running mate, for purely political reasons, and she shows no evidence of realizing how much trouble she is in, McCain's age is more important than ever.
Somebody needs to take a serious look at this before we take the chance that this man and his trophy veep get their hands on the nuclear button.
Sarah Palin is bad news for women
Okay, two more things and then I'm going to stop blogging about Sarah Palin and get back to having a life.
First, any suggestion that Joe Biden has to go easy on her in the debates because she is a woman is simply absurd. If she wants to play with the boys, she'd better learn to be tough. She hunts moose and totes guns, apparently, and fires people who won't fire her hated brother in law, so she's tough enough. No one went easy on Hillary and she didn't expect it, so no one should go easy on Palin, unless of course the Republicans have some rule about going easy on former beauty queeens. And the media should stop saying this. It's sexist.
Second, if this woman actually makes it into the vice presidency, and McCain croaks, and she becomes president, whereupon she will fail miserably, every woman in this country better say good-bye to ever putting a woman in the White House again. The frame will be that women can't handle it. The Republicans, by putting this woman on the ticket, are trying to achieve two things: win this election, and eliminate the possibility of a qualified woman ever being president.
You have to pay attention to these guys. On the one hand they say they believe in family values and women taking care of their children, and on the other hand they say we'd better not criticize Palin for wanting to be president when she isn't even five months post-partum.
On the one hand they called Hillary Clinton, a highly respected and qualified Senator, every name in the book (McCain laughed when one of his supporters called her a bitch) and on the other they insist we respect this completely unqualified woman who they say has foreign policy cred because she was the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia.
They're messing with our heads like they always do.
John McCain has to be defeated because, contrary to his pitch to women that he believes it is time a woman became vice president, putting Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency would push back the cause of women a hundred years.
First, any suggestion that Joe Biden has to go easy on her in the debates because she is a woman is simply absurd. If she wants to play with the boys, she'd better learn to be tough. She hunts moose and totes guns, apparently, and fires people who won't fire her hated brother in law, so she's tough enough. No one went easy on Hillary and she didn't expect it, so no one should go easy on Palin, unless of course the Republicans have some rule about going easy on former beauty queeens. And the media should stop saying this. It's sexist.
Second, if this woman actually makes it into the vice presidency, and McCain croaks, and she becomes president, whereupon she will fail miserably, every woman in this country better say good-bye to ever putting a woman in the White House again. The frame will be that women can't handle it. The Republicans, by putting this woman on the ticket, are trying to achieve two things: win this election, and eliminate the possibility of a qualified woman ever being president.
You have to pay attention to these guys. On the one hand they say they believe in family values and women taking care of their children, and on the other hand they say we'd better not criticize Palin for wanting to be president when she isn't even five months post-partum.
On the one hand they called Hillary Clinton, a highly respected and qualified Senator, every name in the book (McCain laughed when one of his supporters called her a bitch) and on the other they insist we respect this completely unqualified woman who they say has foreign policy cred because she was the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia.
They're messing with our heads like they always do.
John McCain has to be defeated because, contrary to his pitch to women that he believes it is time a woman became vice president, putting Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency would push back the cause of women a hundred years.
Meet the new celebrity
So I see People magazine has scored an interview with Sarah Palin and family.
That was fast!
It wouldn't be because Sarah Palin wants to be a CELEBRITY, would it?
That was fast!
It wouldn't be because Sarah Palin wants to be a CELEBRITY, would it?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Risking the country to win an election
John McCain said Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election - which of course isn't true because Obama has never talked about losing a war, only bringing the troops home from a war that has already been won.
But now, by choosing the most unqualified women he could find to be his running mate - in a cynical pander to disgruntled Hillary supporters - we can say that John McCain would rather lose the country, sacrificing its well being and security, than lose an election.
Or as Andrew Sullivan said: "Putting. Country. Last."
But now, by choosing the most unqualified women he could find to be his running mate - in a cynical pander to disgruntled Hillary supporters - we can say that John McCain would rather lose the country, sacrificing its well being and security, than lose an election.
Or as Andrew Sullivan said: "Putting. Country. Last."
Two kinds of "feminists"
A few days ago, as the stage was being constructed at Mile High Stadium in anticipation of Obama's acceptance speech, the Republican talking point of the day was that Obama's team was constructing the "Temple of Obama," and this was just more evidence of his arrogance and celebrity.
I argued that this was simply one more stupid attack that carried no substance. "Since they got nothing," I said to my daughter, "they yak away about everything. And most of it is simply stupid."
If you really had anything decent to run on, would you run ads comparing Barack Obama to Brittany Spears? Would you try to tie him to William Ayers, a man who was notorious when Barack was eight years old? Would you continue to send out viral emails that Obama is a Muslim, when you know you are lying? Would you complain about the roman columns in Mile High Stadium when four years ago roman columns graced the stage where Bush gave his acceptance speech?
Nothing could have confirmed my view that "they got nothing" more than McCain's absurd pick for vice president. Sarah Palin has absolutely no experience of any consequence on the national stage. Like McCain, she probably doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. She's probably taking a crash course from Joe Liebermann as we speak.
I don't think this will win over many Hillary supporters, unless they are fake Hillary supporters who were just trying to defeat Obama in the primary so McCain had a less formidable (or so they thought) candidate to run against.
The real Hillary supporters will be offended by this. The real Hillary supporters didn't just want to see any woman become president. They clearly stated how long they had waited for just the right woman - and it was Hillary. There is no way they can see Sarah Palin as the right woman to become the first President of the United States should grandpa McCain keel over.
This is insulting to women, whom McCain must really see as stupid, a cynical ploy which disrespects the American people and plays fast and loose with our national security and the good of the nation.
I have learned to distinguish between two types of women who claim to be feminists. There is the progressive, liberal feminist who believes in equality and reproductive choice, who demands equal pay for equal work, who can stand toe to toe with any man, any place, any time, as long as she is equally qualified for the job. She is assertive and strong, and politically she doesn't do things to hurt other women or children. While she always looks presentable, she would not be caught dead entering a beauty contest, because she believes beauty is inside, not outside. Her vision of equality is that she is judged not on her looks but on her intelligence and her skills.
Then there is the conservative woman who pretends to be a feminist. She espouses all the tired old anti-woman values and policies that Republicans favor, she vetoes legislation that helps people, but she plays the part of the feminist by getting a job when the kids get older. However, she is likely to be extremely concerned about her appearance, and spends an inordinate amount of time on makeup, hair, photo shoots for Vogue magazine, and generally looking as feminine and hot as she can. She would be comfortable entering a beauty contest, as Sarah Palin did. (Interesting that just a few weeks ago, John McCain suggested his wife Cindy should enter a rather pornographic beauty contest.) In other words, she acts the part, but does not live the part of a feminist.
In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has chosen an attractive and relatively unknown and inexperienced neophyte, someone who will get along fine with his trophy wife Cindy, and who probably won't threaten him.
We women should not only be insulted. We should be terrified that a candidate like McCain would risk our security as a nation by passing over so many qualified women within the Republican Party and picking this trophy candidate.
Hillary's supporters warned Obama not to pick any woman other than Hillary as his vice president. Since Obama felt he couldn't pick Hillary (for a variety of valid reasons including problems with her husband) he chose the most qualified man he could. No Hillary supporter could feel the choice of Biden was an insult to Hillary.
But McCain has picked the most unqualified woman he could find. Is this really going to please Hillary supporters? I don't think so. I don't think for one minute that true Hillary supporters could possibly get behind a pro-gun, anti-choice, pro-oil, pro-Bush, ultra conservative like Sarah Palin.
McCain's first decision as a presidential nominee was a terrible one, and will cost him the election.
I argued that this was simply one more stupid attack that carried no substance. "Since they got nothing," I said to my daughter, "they yak away about everything. And most of it is simply stupid."
If you really had anything decent to run on, would you run ads comparing Barack Obama to Brittany Spears? Would you try to tie him to William Ayers, a man who was notorious when Barack was eight years old? Would you continue to send out viral emails that Obama is a Muslim, when you know you are lying? Would you complain about the roman columns in Mile High Stadium when four years ago roman columns graced the stage where Bush gave his acceptance speech?
Nothing could have confirmed my view that "they got nothing" more than McCain's absurd pick for vice president. Sarah Palin has absolutely no experience of any consequence on the national stage. Like McCain, she probably doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. She's probably taking a crash course from Joe Liebermann as we speak.
I don't think this will win over many Hillary supporters, unless they are fake Hillary supporters who were just trying to defeat Obama in the primary so McCain had a less formidable (or so they thought) candidate to run against.
The real Hillary supporters will be offended by this. The real Hillary supporters didn't just want to see any woman become president. They clearly stated how long they had waited for just the right woman - and it was Hillary. There is no way they can see Sarah Palin as the right woman to become the first President of the United States should grandpa McCain keel over.
This is insulting to women, whom McCain must really see as stupid, a cynical ploy which disrespects the American people and plays fast and loose with our national security and the good of the nation.
I have learned to distinguish between two types of women who claim to be feminists. There is the progressive, liberal feminist who believes in equality and reproductive choice, who demands equal pay for equal work, who can stand toe to toe with any man, any place, any time, as long as she is equally qualified for the job. She is assertive and strong, and politically she doesn't do things to hurt other women or children. While she always looks presentable, she would not be caught dead entering a beauty contest, because she believes beauty is inside, not outside. Her vision of equality is that she is judged not on her looks but on her intelligence and her skills.
Then there is the conservative woman who pretends to be a feminist. She espouses all the tired old anti-woman values and policies that Republicans favor, she vetoes legislation that helps people, but she plays the part of the feminist by getting a job when the kids get older. However, she is likely to be extremely concerned about her appearance, and spends an inordinate amount of time on makeup, hair, photo shoots for Vogue magazine, and generally looking as feminine and hot as she can. She would be comfortable entering a beauty contest, as Sarah Palin did. (Interesting that just a few weeks ago, John McCain suggested his wife Cindy should enter a rather pornographic beauty contest.) In other words, she acts the part, but does not live the part of a feminist.
In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has chosen an attractive and relatively unknown and inexperienced neophyte, someone who will get along fine with his trophy wife Cindy, and who probably won't threaten him.
We women should not only be insulted. We should be terrified that a candidate like McCain would risk our security as a nation by passing over so many qualified women within the Republican Party and picking this trophy candidate.
Hillary's supporters warned Obama not to pick any woman other than Hillary as his vice president. Since Obama felt he couldn't pick Hillary (for a variety of valid reasons including problems with her husband) he chose the most qualified man he could. No Hillary supporter could feel the choice of Biden was an insult to Hillary.
But McCain has picked the most unqualified woman he could find. Is this really going to please Hillary supporters? I don't think so. I don't think for one minute that true Hillary supporters could possibly get behind a pro-gun, anti-choice, pro-oil, pro-Bush, ultra conservative like Sarah Palin.
McCain's first decision as a presidential nominee was a terrible one, and will cost him the election.
Insane McCain Part II
Really?
Is he serious?
John McCain thinks all he has to do to get Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for him is to pick someone with a uterus and ovaries as his running mate and they will all come streaming over to him?
John McCain is so out of touch it is comical. He knows nothing about computers and he also apparently knows nothing about women.
Does he really think that all those women who believed in Hillary Clinton, someone who has worked for thirty years for the causes of women and children, for reproductive choice, for health care for all, for equal pay for women, and who would promote gay rights, will just jump to support an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-universal health care, anti-health care for children candidate?
Is he completely and totally certifiable?
Yes.
He has decided to court the evangelical right wing, to play by the Karl Rove play book, and to go for conservative ideology in a year when Democrats and progressives have increased in numbers and are fired up to support Barack Obama.
He has decided to pick a governor of the most back woods state in the nation, a governor who has no foreign policy experience, an unknown.
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters will throw all their respect for her overboard just so they can support a woman who is against everything Hillary Clinton is for?
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters have given up on her becoming president someday, and does he really think they will abandon Hillary because all they care about is having any woman be president - even Sarah Palin who has no experience at all - a female Dan Quayle? Hillary Clinton's supporters are not stupid and they are not suicidal. They supported Hillary because she was experienced and because she was for the things they were for. Sarah Palin is neither experienced nor in favor of any of the things Hillary Clinton supports.
This is not only stupid on McCain's part, it is insulting to women. It is a reflection of his belief that females are so stupid they will simply follow any woman.
Reporters are saying this is a gamble. It is more than that. It is insulting to the intelligence of the women of America. And it will not help him.
Is he serious?
John McCain thinks all he has to do to get Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for him is to pick someone with a uterus and ovaries as his running mate and they will all come streaming over to him?
John McCain is so out of touch it is comical. He knows nothing about computers and he also apparently knows nothing about women.
Does he really think that all those women who believed in Hillary Clinton, someone who has worked for thirty years for the causes of women and children, for reproductive choice, for health care for all, for equal pay for women, and who would promote gay rights, will just jump to support an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-universal health care, anti-health care for children candidate?
Is he completely and totally certifiable?
Yes.
He has decided to court the evangelical right wing, to play by the Karl Rove play book, and to go for conservative ideology in a year when Democrats and progressives have increased in numbers and are fired up to support Barack Obama.
He has decided to pick a governor of the most back woods state in the nation, a governor who has no foreign policy experience, an unknown.
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters will throw all their respect for her overboard just so they can support a woman who is against everything Hillary Clinton is for?
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters have given up on her becoming president someday, and does he really think they will abandon Hillary because all they care about is having any woman be president - even Sarah Palin who has no experience at all - a female Dan Quayle? Hillary Clinton's supporters are not stupid and they are not suicidal. They supported Hillary because she was experienced and because she was for the things they were for. Sarah Palin is neither experienced nor in favor of any of the things Hillary Clinton supports.
This is not only stupid on McCain's part, it is insulting to women. It is a reflection of his belief that females are so stupid they will simply follow any woman.
Reporters are saying this is a gamble. It is more than that. It is insulting to the intelligence of the women of America. And it will not help him.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The wrath of God
I can't write anything brilliant about Obama's speech this late because words can't possibly sum up or add to what we have all witnessed. Maybe tomorrow I'll have something to say, but for now I am just amused that karma is apparently descending on those bastard Republicans.
Remember how that idiot psychologist turned holier than thou moralist James Dobson got one of his flunkies to get everyone to pray that God would send down rain on Mile High Stadium during Obama's speech? Well not only did God not oblige, he made sure there was not a cloud in the sky.
And just for good measure, he has apparently decided to mess with the Republican convention with a little precipitation. Seems the Grumpy Old Poops might have to change their convention plans or even delay their convention because Hurricane something or other is bearing down on the U.S. in what tragically could be a repeat of Katrina and remind everyone of how well the Republicans handled that emergency and how McCain and Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while residents of New Orleans drowned. Plus it might pre-empt coverage of their pathetic convention.
Now I sincerely hope this hurricane threat never pans out. I don't want anyone hurt or any homes destroyed just because the Republicans prayed for rain and forgot to give God the GPS coordinates. But perhaps Dobson might remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish (or pray) for. Moron!
Remember how that idiot psychologist turned holier than thou moralist James Dobson got one of his flunkies to get everyone to pray that God would send down rain on Mile High Stadium during Obama's speech? Well not only did God not oblige, he made sure there was not a cloud in the sky.
And just for good measure, he has apparently decided to mess with the Republican convention with a little precipitation. Seems the Grumpy Old Poops might have to change their convention plans or even delay their convention because Hurricane something or other is bearing down on the U.S. in what tragically could be a repeat of Katrina and remind everyone of how well the Republicans handled that emergency and how McCain and Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while residents of New Orleans drowned. Plus it might pre-empt coverage of their pathetic convention.
Now I sincerely hope this hurricane threat never pans out. I don't want anyone hurt or any homes destroyed just because the Republicans prayed for rain and forgot to give God the GPS coordinates. But perhaps Dobson might remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish (or pray) for. Moron!
The irrelevant media
The traditional media has become irrelevant. Only the non-traditional C-SPAN showed the convention speeches (all of them) in their entirely, without commentary by bloviators.
On cable, (CNN and MSNBC in particular - FOX is banned in my home) the blowhard commentators thought we would rather hear them than the speeches. And they had to dissect and prognosticate and hand-wring and criticize. And they have been wrong about everything.
On MSNBC, which is the station I watch the most, they are truly missing the guiding maternal presence of Tim Russert, who was the one to soothe wounded egos and keep everybody happy. I have seen at least three examples of major or minor confrontations betweeen anchors and commentators on MSNBC over the past few days. Joe Scarborough felt dissed by Keith Olbermann one night, and he reacted visibly, and then got even the next morning by disagreeing with every comment KO made the night before about the speeches. Then he lit into David Schuster over the Iraq War and when he ran out of arguments on his side, he attacked Schuster for missing three appearances on Morning Jo(k)e because he "overslept." While JS lit into Schuster, Stepford Wife Mika and two guests looked at the floor, too terrified to intervene. After that, Mika got fully into Stepford Wife mode. Later that day, Chris Matthews took offense and acted snippy over some way KO moved his hand. They looked like a bunch of schoolyard bullies in a pissing contest. It was the most juvenile thing I've seen on television since Zel Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel four years ago.
But the most amusing thing about Morning Jo(k)e is how wrong they have been on absolutely everything, not only at this convention, but throughout the whole primary.
They were sure Jeremiah Wright would destroy Obama, even as they did all they could to play and replay the tapes and smear him. They were certain Hillary would overcome Obama's lead and become the nominee, even though she actually was mathematically defeated since about February. At the convention, they did everything they could to create controversy for Obama. They predicted Hillary's speech would be all about her, and then when it was mostly about her support for Obama, they criticized it for not going far enough to attack McCain. They predicted Bill wouldn't be able to get his ego out of the way and would obsess about his own time as president. When he didn't, they said he didn't go far enough to attack McCain. "Not enough red meat" is the mantra they repeated. Joe Biden's speech, they said, wasn't quite up to par. And they praised John Kerry for giving one of the most "red meat" speeches, and when they realized that they had not played it in real time, they blamed the Obama campaign for not having the speeches lined up one after another to "force them" to cover it.
These guys are total and complete clowns who don't even see the absurdity of their comments.
They are doing nothing but following Republican talking points. Had the convention been all "red meat" as Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough said it should have been, they would have talked about the danger of the perception of Obama as the scary angry black man. Had Clinton and Clinton spent all their time trashing McCain, they would have said they didn't focus on Obama enough, or how dare they diss a POW - they're getting into dangerous territory of being unpatriotic.
Now they're making fun of the Roman columns at Mile High Stadium where Obama will speak tonight, although they were shown pictures of the Roman columns at Bush's 2000 convention and had to back off a bit. But they are still saying going there is a mistake because the Clintons "owned the convention hall" and Obama should speak there to take it back. They also say he will play right into the "celebrity" ads McCain has run, and he should change his plans at the last minute.
Tomorrow, when they are proven wrong again, they will find something else to criticize.
They are flailing. They know television news stations are dying because other media sources, most notably the internet, are doing a better job of disseminating information than they are. So they have to create controversy and say outrageous things in the hope that someone, anyone, will tune in to their network instead of C-SPAN.
They gave away this desperation over the past few days on Morning Jo(k)e when they continued the blogger bashing they have been doing for months. JS, who like John McCain, may not even know where the computer "on" button is, insists all bloggers "eat cheetos, worship Star Wars, and live in their mother's basement."
When they sent their little pet Willie Geist out to talk to bloggers he got some funny answers like "my mother doesn't have a basement" and "I've never watched Star Wars" and "I don't eat anything while I blog as I don't want crumbs in my keyboard." It was an amusing segment, but it proved my point. These media personalities are irrelevant and will soon be relegated to the past because they fail to see the new media that is replacing them and the seriousness and intelligence of those who have embraced the new mode of communication.
One glaring piece of evidence that this is true is that two of the main personalities on the morning show, Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough, neither of whom understands the power of the internet, have condemned Democrats every day for not ripping the guts out of the Republicans for the tragedies of the past eight years. What they fail to understand is that Democrats don't have to be reminded of this disastrous administration because that is old news. We have been documenting this and discussing it for eight years. Even independents and republicans don't have to be reminded as the Bush administration's negatives are around 80%.
It isn't necessary to rip the guts out of this administration - Obama and Biden will hit these points plenty on the campaign trail and in advertisements - but the convention needed to be about the man that these television jokers insist the country doesn't really know, and it needed to be about his vision for the country, which has needed lifting up for years. (If the convention had been a red meat convention, the bloviators would have said it should have been more about Obama introducing himself to the nation.)
Good-bye traditional media. Your days are numbered. You are foolish, silly people and you have nothing of value to offer us.
On cable, (CNN and MSNBC in particular - FOX is banned in my home) the blowhard commentators thought we would rather hear them than the speeches. And they had to dissect and prognosticate and hand-wring and criticize. And they have been wrong about everything.
On MSNBC, which is the station I watch the most, they are truly missing the guiding maternal presence of Tim Russert, who was the one to soothe wounded egos and keep everybody happy. I have seen at least three examples of major or minor confrontations betweeen anchors and commentators on MSNBC over the past few days. Joe Scarborough felt dissed by Keith Olbermann one night, and he reacted visibly, and then got even the next morning by disagreeing with every comment KO made the night before about the speeches. Then he lit into David Schuster over the Iraq War and when he ran out of arguments on his side, he attacked Schuster for missing three appearances on Morning Jo(k)e because he "overslept." While JS lit into Schuster, Stepford Wife Mika and two guests looked at the floor, too terrified to intervene. After that, Mika got fully into Stepford Wife mode. Later that day, Chris Matthews took offense and acted snippy over some way KO moved his hand. They looked like a bunch of schoolyard bullies in a pissing contest. It was the most juvenile thing I've seen on television since Zel Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel four years ago.
But the most amusing thing about Morning Jo(k)e is how wrong they have been on absolutely everything, not only at this convention, but throughout the whole primary.
They were sure Jeremiah Wright would destroy Obama, even as they did all they could to play and replay the tapes and smear him. They were certain Hillary would overcome Obama's lead and become the nominee, even though she actually was mathematically defeated since about February. At the convention, they did everything they could to create controversy for Obama. They predicted Hillary's speech would be all about her, and then when it was mostly about her support for Obama, they criticized it for not going far enough to attack McCain. They predicted Bill wouldn't be able to get his ego out of the way and would obsess about his own time as president. When he didn't, they said he didn't go far enough to attack McCain. "Not enough red meat" is the mantra they repeated. Joe Biden's speech, they said, wasn't quite up to par. And they praised John Kerry for giving one of the most "red meat" speeches, and when they realized that they had not played it in real time, they blamed the Obama campaign for not having the speeches lined up one after another to "force them" to cover it.
These guys are total and complete clowns who don't even see the absurdity of their comments.
They are doing nothing but following Republican talking points. Had the convention been all "red meat" as Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough said it should have been, they would have talked about the danger of the perception of Obama as the scary angry black man. Had Clinton and Clinton spent all their time trashing McCain, they would have said they didn't focus on Obama enough, or how dare they diss a POW - they're getting into dangerous territory of being unpatriotic.
Now they're making fun of the Roman columns at Mile High Stadium where Obama will speak tonight, although they were shown pictures of the Roman columns at Bush's 2000 convention and had to back off a bit. But they are still saying going there is a mistake because the Clintons "owned the convention hall" and Obama should speak there to take it back. They also say he will play right into the "celebrity" ads McCain has run, and he should change his plans at the last minute.
Tomorrow, when they are proven wrong again, they will find something else to criticize.
They are flailing. They know television news stations are dying because other media sources, most notably the internet, are doing a better job of disseminating information than they are. So they have to create controversy and say outrageous things in the hope that someone, anyone, will tune in to their network instead of C-SPAN.
They gave away this desperation over the past few days on Morning Jo(k)e when they continued the blogger bashing they have been doing for months. JS, who like John McCain, may not even know where the computer "on" button is, insists all bloggers "eat cheetos, worship Star Wars, and live in their mother's basement."
When they sent their little pet Willie Geist out to talk to bloggers he got some funny answers like "my mother doesn't have a basement" and "I've never watched Star Wars" and "I don't eat anything while I blog as I don't want crumbs in my keyboard." It was an amusing segment, but it proved my point. These media personalities are irrelevant and will soon be relegated to the past because they fail to see the new media that is replacing them and the seriousness and intelligence of those who have embraced the new mode of communication.
One glaring piece of evidence that this is true is that two of the main personalities on the morning show, Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough, neither of whom understands the power of the internet, have condemned Democrats every day for not ripping the guts out of the Republicans for the tragedies of the past eight years. What they fail to understand is that Democrats don't have to be reminded of this disastrous administration because that is old news. We have been documenting this and discussing it for eight years. Even independents and republicans don't have to be reminded as the Bush administration's negatives are around 80%.
It isn't necessary to rip the guts out of this administration - Obama and Biden will hit these points plenty on the campaign trail and in advertisements - but the convention needed to be about the man that these television jokers insist the country doesn't really know, and it needed to be about his vision for the country, which has needed lifting up for years. (If the convention had been a red meat convention, the bloviators would have said it should have been more about Obama introducing himself to the nation.)
Good-bye traditional media. Your days are numbered. You are foolish, silly people and you have nothing of value to offer us.
History
If I didn't despise the Republican Party so much, if I didn't think they should be forever painted as the Party that allowed 9/11 to happen, lied us into a war, created more poverty, given away jobs, destroyed the middle class, ignored the health of the people, de-stablilized the world, decimated the military, enriched the already rich, tortured and imprisoned people unjustly, and trashed the Constitution, I would almost feel sorry for them.
Why?
Because they have never had and will never have moments like we Democrats had last night and will have tonight. They will never be the party that nominated the first African American for president, and they will never hear an acceptance speech by that nominee.
In nominating an African American for president, the Democrats did something last night that may someday be viewed as an incredibly significant turning point in the cultural history of this country.
As we all know, long before the Revolutionary War was fought, before our Constitution was written and our first president sworn in, the economy of a good portion of the country was dependent on slave labor. White men went to the coast of Africa and purchased African human beings, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned by slavers, and tore them away from their families to be brought to this country in chains. For hundreds of years this practice continued, even after the nation was formed, and ultimately a war was fought to free those human beings.
The losing side in that war, however, refused to accept that those Africans-Americans were equal to them. They refused to see their humanity. So for another hundred years Jim Crow laws in the South made segregation the norm and prevented African-Americans from voting and thus being equal participants in democracy. The North was not innocent either. Segregation existed in the northern states as well, and racism infected the entire nation.
As recently as two years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an African American could be the nominee of a major political party. Yet here we are. Last night, Barack Obama, an African American candidate, was nominated to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Even as her supporters were profoundly disappointed that she did not become the first female nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton was the one who moved to have Barack Obama nominated by acclamation. Even she understood the historic significance of the moment and she wanted to be part of it. Then, in a moment of triumph for Obama, the party, and the nation, the cameras moved around the room and caught images of people weeping - whites and blacks together. Though they had hoped and prayed for this moment, the actual nomination was overwhelming - a dream most thought would not happen in their lifetimes.
All the years of kidnapping, chains, slavery, discrimination, segregation, lynchings, beatings, rapes, racism, fire hoses and assassinations led to this moment, and the people in the crowd could hardly believe it. The people of the Democratic Party this year had the courage to nominate a man who may not win in November, partly because of the subtle and silent racism that still exists in this country, and partly because the Republicans are pulling and will continue to pull every nasty and ugly campaign trick in the book, and will appeal to that racism with their dog whistle politics.
The Republicans have depended on the entrenched racism in the South for their victories ever since 1968, and especially in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. In those years, they used coded signals that chastised the Democratic Party for giving too many rights and privileges to black Americans. They used words like "states rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action" to criticize their opponents and appeal to white resentment of the black citizens they once imprisoned and enslaved. Ronald Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place notorious for murders of civil rights workers and lynchings of black Americans, with a speech about states rights. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton ads to smear his rival. And George W. Bush got rid of his main GOP rival in 2000 by accusing him of having a "black baby."
The Republicans will do it again this year, only this time they can use their racist tactics directly against an African American candidate. They will feign innocence when they are accused of dog whistle tactics, as they already have, but that doesn't make their coded racism any less obvious and any less disgusting - and any less evil.
They may very well succeed, however. In a year where the incumbent party has an 80% unpopularity rating, a year that should be the year for a Democratic victory, the Republicans have nominated a former POW and insist that immunizes him from all criticism, while they slam the Democrats and demand they never talk about race. They are playing their POW card daily, and also playing a subtle, dog-whistle race card, while accusing the Democrats of playing the race card and demanding they stop. Incredible! These people have no shame, and no soul.
We will have to see what happens. I believe Barack Obama, with his new brand of politics, with his incredible brilliance, with his soft and steady temperament, with his money and tightly organized campaign, and with his registration of millions of new voters, may actually win. It will not be easy, but it might happen. I don't underestimate the despicable tactics of a despicable party, but I still believe good can occasionally overcome evil, and I believe Obama can win. If he doesn't, it will be because not enough old racists have died yet. If he wins, on the other hand, it will not only be the beginning of a new era, it will be the end of an era.
Once we have elected an African American president, racism will be unacceptable in a way that the election of John F. Kennedy made anti-Catholicism unacceptable. Sure anti-Catholicism still exists in places, but it simply has no power anymore. If you doubt that, count how many Catholics sit on the Supreme Court today. I believe it is a majority.
This week was historic and grand. Should Obama actually be elected in November, his presidency and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln will be forever linked as bookends on the fight to end this nation's original sin of slavery, followed by over a hundred years of racially motivated crimes and discrimination in a nation supposedly dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
We live in a truly historic moment. This is our time. I hope we don't blow it. And I hope we don't let the Republicans destroy it.
Why?
Because they have never had and will never have moments like we Democrats had last night and will have tonight. They will never be the party that nominated the first African American for president, and they will never hear an acceptance speech by that nominee.
In nominating an African American for president, the Democrats did something last night that may someday be viewed as an incredibly significant turning point in the cultural history of this country.
As we all know, long before the Revolutionary War was fought, before our Constitution was written and our first president sworn in, the economy of a good portion of the country was dependent on slave labor. White men went to the coast of Africa and purchased African human beings, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned by slavers, and tore them away from their families to be brought to this country in chains. For hundreds of years this practice continued, even after the nation was formed, and ultimately a war was fought to free those human beings.
The losing side in that war, however, refused to accept that those Africans-Americans were equal to them. They refused to see their humanity. So for another hundred years Jim Crow laws in the South made segregation the norm and prevented African-Americans from voting and thus being equal participants in democracy. The North was not innocent either. Segregation existed in the northern states as well, and racism infected the entire nation.
As recently as two years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an African American could be the nominee of a major political party. Yet here we are. Last night, Barack Obama, an African American candidate, was nominated to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Even as her supporters were profoundly disappointed that she did not become the first female nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton was the one who moved to have Barack Obama nominated by acclamation. Even she understood the historic significance of the moment and she wanted to be part of it. Then, in a moment of triumph for Obama, the party, and the nation, the cameras moved around the room and caught images of people weeping - whites and blacks together. Though they had hoped and prayed for this moment, the actual nomination was overwhelming - a dream most thought would not happen in their lifetimes.
All the years of kidnapping, chains, slavery, discrimination, segregation, lynchings, beatings, rapes, racism, fire hoses and assassinations led to this moment, and the people in the crowd could hardly believe it. The people of the Democratic Party this year had the courage to nominate a man who may not win in November, partly because of the subtle and silent racism that still exists in this country, and partly because the Republicans are pulling and will continue to pull every nasty and ugly campaign trick in the book, and will appeal to that racism with their dog whistle politics.
The Republicans have depended on the entrenched racism in the South for their victories ever since 1968, and especially in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. In those years, they used coded signals that chastised the Democratic Party for giving too many rights and privileges to black Americans. They used words like "states rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action" to criticize their opponents and appeal to white resentment of the black citizens they once imprisoned and enslaved. Ronald Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place notorious for murders of civil rights workers and lynchings of black Americans, with a speech about states rights. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton ads to smear his rival. And George W. Bush got rid of his main GOP rival in 2000 by accusing him of having a "black baby."
The Republicans will do it again this year, only this time they can use their racist tactics directly against an African American candidate. They will feign innocence when they are accused of dog whistle tactics, as they already have, but that doesn't make their coded racism any less obvious and any less disgusting - and any less evil.
They may very well succeed, however. In a year where the incumbent party has an 80% unpopularity rating, a year that should be the year for a Democratic victory, the Republicans have nominated a former POW and insist that immunizes him from all criticism, while they slam the Democrats and demand they never talk about race. They are playing their POW card daily, and also playing a subtle, dog-whistle race card, while accusing the Democrats of playing the race card and demanding they stop. Incredible! These people have no shame, and no soul.
We will have to see what happens. I believe Barack Obama, with his new brand of politics, with his incredible brilliance, with his soft and steady temperament, with his money and tightly organized campaign, and with his registration of millions of new voters, may actually win. It will not be easy, but it might happen. I don't underestimate the despicable tactics of a despicable party, but I still believe good can occasionally overcome evil, and I believe Obama can win. If he doesn't, it will be because not enough old racists have died yet. If he wins, on the other hand, it will not only be the beginning of a new era, it will be the end of an era.
Once we have elected an African American president, racism will be unacceptable in a way that the election of John F. Kennedy made anti-Catholicism unacceptable. Sure anti-Catholicism still exists in places, but it simply has no power anymore. If you doubt that, count how many Catholics sit on the Supreme Court today. I believe it is a majority.
This week was historic and grand. Should Obama actually be elected in November, his presidency and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln will be forever linked as bookends on the fight to end this nation's original sin of slavery, followed by over a hundred years of racially motivated crimes and discrimination in a nation supposedly dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
We live in a truly historic moment. This is our time. I hope we don't blow it. And I hope we don't let the Republicans destroy it.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Democratic angst vs. Republican aggression
If there is one thing that seems predictable election after election it is that Republicans will attack and act confident, even when they are behind in the polls, and Democrats will hand-wring and express fear of losing, even when they are ahead.
Hasn't anyone ever heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy?" It's a term from psychology that basically says if a person believes they might fail, they will begin to act in ways that ensure failure. And Democrats are masters at it.
The Republicans, who have the worst policies and values ever, who are greedy, hypocritical, lying bastards who cannot be trusted with the governance of this country, as they have proven over the past eight years, will never, ever give up. They will exude confidence and attempt to destroy the Democratic convention. Rudy and Mitt are there, crapping all over Obama's party, and laughing every minute, predicting they will destroy him in November. These are the two biggest egos McCain beat in the primaries and they are going to battle for him, because they want their party to win.
In the meantime, Hillary says "support Obama" and many of her people are pouting because princess pantsuit didn't win and saying they will vote for McCain, and everyone else is biting their nails and listening to the stupid windbags on television tear apart Hillary's speech and running around like Henny Penney waiting for disaster.
Republican evangelicals may say they are praying for the arrival of the end times, but Democrats are sure the end times are coming for their candidate. It is sick and stupid and self-defeating.
Republicans fight until the end, and in the case of the election of 2000, even after the end. And that kind of fighting brings them victory. Sure, they sometimes lose, but they don't mourn until they absolutely have to, while the Democrats are already preparing for the wake.
Democrats have to stop this now.
I don't know if Hillary really meant what she said last night or not, and I no longer care. I don't care what Bill does or does not say tonight. I think most ordinary viewers thought Hillary did a fine job and aren't agonizing over what she didn't say. Who cares if she is trying to run for president in 2012? It doesn't matter. It isn't about her unless we let it be about her. And she won't be able to run in 2012 if we fight hard enough for an Obama victory now. And it certainly isn't about Bill. He's old news and Obama knows it. Now if only the rest of us believed it.
Obama can win this thing if Democrats start acting like Republicans - no we don't have to use smear and fear, but we have to have confidence and hold onto the belief that we can and we will put Barack Obama in the White House.
Yes, we can, but only if we believe we can and only if we stop the hand wringing and paying attention to the main stream media nutjobs who want to cause trouble and who are doing the bidding of their corporate masters who support McCain.
Courage, optimism, hope, belief, determination, aggressiveness, and a fighting spirit are the tools we need. Now let's go out and use them.
Hasn't anyone ever heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy?" It's a term from psychology that basically says if a person believes they might fail, they will begin to act in ways that ensure failure. And Democrats are masters at it.
The Republicans, who have the worst policies and values ever, who are greedy, hypocritical, lying bastards who cannot be trusted with the governance of this country, as they have proven over the past eight years, will never, ever give up. They will exude confidence and attempt to destroy the Democratic convention. Rudy and Mitt are there, crapping all over Obama's party, and laughing every minute, predicting they will destroy him in November. These are the two biggest egos McCain beat in the primaries and they are going to battle for him, because they want their party to win.
In the meantime, Hillary says "support Obama" and many of her people are pouting because princess pantsuit didn't win and saying they will vote for McCain, and everyone else is biting their nails and listening to the stupid windbags on television tear apart Hillary's speech and running around like Henny Penney waiting for disaster.
Republican evangelicals may say they are praying for the arrival of the end times, but Democrats are sure the end times are coming for their candidate. It is sick and stupid and self-defeating.
Republicans fight until the end, and in the case of the election of 2000, even after the end. And that kind of fighting brings them victory. Sure, they sometimes lose, but they don't mourn until they absolutely have to, while the Democrats are already preparing for the wake.
Democrats have to stop this now.
I don't know if Hillary really meant what she said last night or not, and I no longer care. I don't care what Bill does or does not say tonight. I think most ordinary viewers thought Hillary did a fine job and aren't agonizing over what she didn't say. Who cares if she is trying to run for president in 2012? It doesn't matter. It isn't about her unless we let it be about her. And she won't be able to run in 2012 if we fight hard enough for an Obama victory now. And it certainly isn't about Bill. He's old news and Obama knows it. Now if only the rest of us believed it.
Obama can win this thing if Democrats start acting like Republicans - no we don't have to use smear and fear, but we have to have confidence and hold onto the belief that we can and we will put Barack Obama in the White House.
Yes, we can, but only if we believe we can and only if we stop the hand wringing and paying attention to the main stream media nutjobs who want to cause trouble and who are doing the bidding of their corporate masters who support McCain.
Courage, optimism, hope, belief, determination, aggressiveness, and a fighting spirit are the tools we need. Now let's go out and use them.
More convention reaction
Mark Warner's speech was dull and selfish. It was all about his Senate race. It didn't fire anyone up, said nothing about Obama, and spoke only to his Virginia voters. If Obama chose him to give the keynote, it was a poor choice. A lot of speakers would have been better: Kucinich, Schweitzer, and if it had to be someone from Virginia - how about Webb?
Some notable take away lines:
From Bob Casey: "That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
From Hillary: "No way, no how, no McCain."
But I keep hearing the words of Ted Kennedy whose speech Monday night was remarkable, not just for the courage it showed, but for the metaphor it presented, a metaphor that shows me Kennedy really gets who Barack Obama is.
After a beautiful video tribute to Kennedy, with praises by colleagues interspersed with scenes of Kennedy on his sailboat, we heard the great Senator say "There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination."
That's the metaphor for Obama. He is one who has set his compass true. He has the destination in his sights, and he isn't letting a few squalls or even major storms detour him. He sees the shore, he is aware of the rocks, and he is not giving up.
The McCain campaign and a few disgruntled Hillary supporters are putting obstacles in his path, and extinguishing the light in the lighthouse. The media is creating storms and focusing on every squall, but Obama has set his compass true. That's what his eyes are on, and that's what our eyes must be on.
Some notable take away lines:
From Bob Casey: "That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
From Hillary: "No way, no how, no McCain."
But I keep hearing the words of Ted Kennedy whose speech Monday night was remarkable, not just for the courage it showed, but for the metaphor it presented, a metaphor that shows me Kennedy really gets who Barack Obama is.
After a beautiful video tribute to Kennedy, with praises by colleagues interspersed with scenes of Kennedy on his sailboat, we heard the great Senator say "There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination."
That's the metaphor for Obama. He is one who has set his compass true. He has the destination in his sights, and he isn't letting a few squalls or even major storms detour him. He sees the shore, he is aware of the rocks, and he is not giving up.
The McCain campaign and a few disgruntled Hillary supporters are putting obstacles in his path, and extinguishing the light in the lighthouse. The media is creating storms and focusing on every squall, but Obama has set his compass true. That's what his eyes are on, and that's what our eyes must be on.
The bigotry is showing
Up early again - watching Morning Jo(k)e and at first I thought it was just them, but then I checked around and sure enough there are a lot of mainstream media types, Republican commentators, and now even some regular bloggers who are second-guessing Hillary's speech last night.
They seem to be coming from two directions.
One group doesn't like Obama and will do anything to defeat him. This group includes PUMA types, Republicans and commentators like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, who have had nothing positive to say about anything at the convention, and they are attacking Obama as reponsible for everything that they find lacking. You hear them say the speakers are weak. The convention is too easy on McCain. Michelle Obama wasn't soft enough or Hillary should have been the nominee. The Democrats are having "buyer's remorse."
The other group includes Hillary haters and those who don't trust the Clintons. All week they've been saying Hillary is planning her run in 2012. She'll do what she has to do, but no more. She has a secret agenda and behind the scenes she is signaling her supporters to keep her dream alive and reject Obama.
Increasingly, I see in all of this a subtle racism. There are just too many people in this country and in this party who do not want to let a black man become president. Why do I say this? Because there have been two white men who became president in my lifetime who were younger than Barack, who did a good job as president, who were no more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama, and yet they were accepted and embraced by their party. There was no palace intrigue to destroy them before they even finished their convention - not by an opponent and not by the media.
Barack has so much to overcome that no white candidate would ever have to overcome - and the reality is that the Clintons have participated in setting that higher bar. They have allowed rumors to float around for months that they despise Barack and want him defeated. They have not stopped the PUMA nonsense and they have not yet condemned McCain for using Hillary in his ads. Maybe they will over the next few days and weeks. Or maybe Hillary is playing it smart and externally supporting Barack, but sending covert signals to her supporters not to support him. Or maybe most of her supporters will come along and the media is simply creating a big story. How can anyone know? No one can be trusted anymore - not the Clintons, not the media, not the pundits, and certainly not the Republicans.
I honestly don't think there would be this much effort to condemn Obama if he were white. Let's remember. The media has always hated the Clintons, especially Hillary. And now they're praising her? Could it be, perhaps, that they are all bigots, their fear of a black president trumping their hatred of the woman in the pantsuit who has such contempt for them?
More and more it looks like that to me. Barack is facing obstacles no white candidate would ever face, and if he can overcome them and win anyway, it will be a victory like no other victory I have seen in my lifetime.
I think he can do it, but it is looking like he will have to both wage a political campaign and conduct a new civil rights battle all at the same time. That may be asking too much, even for someone as talented as Obama.
They seem to be coming from two directions.
One group doesn't like Obama and will do anything to defeat him. This group includes PUMA types, Republicans and commentators like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, who have had nothing positive to say about anything at the convention, and they are attacking Obama as reponsible for everything that they find lacking. You hear them say the speakers are weak. The convention is too easy on McCain. Michelle Obama wasn't soft enough or Hillary should have been the nominee. The Democrats are having "buyer's remorse."
The other group includes Hillary haters and those who don't trust the Clintons. All week they've been saying Hillary is planning her run in 2012. She'll do what she has to do, but no more. She has a secret agenda and behind the scenes she is signaling her supporters to keep her dream alive and reject Obama.
Increasingly, I see in all of this a subtle racism. There are just too many people in this country and in this party who do not want to let a black man become president. Why do I say this? Because there have been two white men who became president in my lifetime who were younger than Barack, who did a good job as president, who were no more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama, and yet they were accepted and embraced by their party. There was no palace intrigue to destroy them before they even finished their convention - not by an opponent and not by the media.
Barack has so much to overcome that no white candidate would ever have to overcome - and the reality is that the Clintons have participated in setting that higher bar. They have allowed rumors to float around for months that they despise Barack and want him defeated. They have not stopped the PUMA nonsense and they have not yet condemned McCain for using Hillary in his ads. Maybe they will over the next few days and weeks. Or maybe Hillary is playing it smart and externally supporting Barack, but sending covert signals to her supporters not to support him. Or maybe most of her supporters will come along and the media is simply creating a big story. How can anyone know? No one can be trusted anymore - not the Clintons, not the media, not the pundits, and certainly not the Republicans.
I honestly don't think there would be this much effort to condemn Obama if he were white. Let's remember. The media has always hated the Clintons, especially Hillary. And now they're praising her? Could it be, perhaps, that they are all bigots, their fear of a black president trumping their hatred of the woman in the pantsuit who has such contempt for them?
More and more it looks like that to me. Barack is facing obstacles no white candidate would ever face, and if he can overcome them and win anyway, it will be a victory like no other victory I have seen in my lifetime.
I think he can do it, but it is looking like he will have to both wage a political campaign and conduct a new civil rights battle all at the same time. That may be asking too much, even for someone as talented as Obama.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary is a true Democrat
Hillary gave a beautiful and gracious speech.
One wonders if she was always planning it this way or if she only got there in the past few days.
If this was always the type of speech she planned to give, then the media pundits and bloviators are liars, trying to generate ratings from a manufactured controversy.
At any rate, I enjoyed her speech and think it may be the best she has ever given.
She helped the Obama campaign enormously, but she also helped rescue the reputation she was in danger of carrying around for the rest of her career: poor loser. And she set a good example for her husband.
While Hillary may have inadvertantly given McCain a lot of ammunition to use against Obama, she has now started to bring back those supporters who, out of bitterness, turned away from the Democratic Party when Hillary lost the nomination battle.
One wonders if she was always planning it this way or if she only got there in the past few days.
If this was always the type of speech she planned to give, then the media pundits and bloviators are liars, trying to generate ratings from a manufactured controversy.
At any rate, I enjoyed her speech and think it may be the best she has ever given.
She helped the Obama campaign enormously, but she also helped rescue the reputation she was in danger of carrying around for the rest of her career: poor loser. And she set a good example for her husband.
While Hillary may have inadvertantly given McCain a lot of ammunition to use against Obama, she has now started to bring back those supporters who, out of bitterness, turned away from the Democratic Party when Hillary lost the nomination battle.
Bill and Barack
It's really amusing to me - considering how hard it has been until now for Bill Clinton to fully support Obama - that the 2008 candidate Barack Obama is almost identical to the 1992 candidate Bill Clinton.
They are close to the same age - mid forties - both moderate to liberal, both Washington outsiders, both lawyers, both college instructors, both smeared as radicals (remember how the Republicans tried to say Clinton visited Russia and opposed the Vietnam War, therefore he was a traitor?) and both with accomplished wives who are also attorneys.
Remember how the media and the Republicans went after Hillary? Remember how they threw the kitchen sink at Bill? Just as McCain is saying Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he wants to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home, Clinton was accused of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" because as a student he opposed the Vietnam War.
I would think Bill would remember what he went through and not contribute to similar attacks on the current nominee of his own party. Obama, after all, is really an updated version of Clinton - without the Bimbo eruptions and the history of infidelity. Perhaps that's the problem. This isn't so much about Barack defeating Hillary in the primary as it is about Barack replacing Bill as top dog in the party and Barack being a newer, better, and yes - blacker - version of the "first black president."
Hopefully, this is all being overblown in the media and Bill is really on board and will give a killer speech on Wednesday. In that case all the media hype will simply get more people to tune in and see a full throated condemnation of John McCain and the Republicans. I'm still hoping that's what will happen. But if it doesn't, if Bill doesn't do what he would have expected all his primary rivals of 1992 to do, if he is only lukewarm, then we will know that his narcissism is pathological and he needs serious psychological help.
They are close to the same age - mid forties - both moderate to liberal, both Washington outsiders, both lawyers, both college instructors, both smeared as radicals (remember how the Republicans tried to say Clinton visited Russia and opposed the Vietnam War, therefore he was a traitor?) and both with accomplished wives who are also attorneys.
Remember how the media and the Republicans went after Hillary? Remember how they threw the kitchen sink at Bill? Just as McCain is saying Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he wants to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home, Clinton was accused of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" because as a student he opposed the Vietnam War.
I would think Bill would remember what he went through and not contribute to similar attacks on the current nominee of his own party. Obama, after all, is really an updated version of Clinton - without the Bimbo eruptions and the history of infidelity. Perhaps that's the problem. This isn't so much about Barack defeating Hillary in the primary as it is about Barack replacing Bill as top dog in the party and Barack being a newer, better, and yes - blacker - version of the "first black president."
Hopefully, this is all being overblown in the media and Bill is really on board and will give a killer speech on Wednesday. In that case all the media hype will simply get more people to tune in and see a full throated condemnation of John McCain and the Republicans. I'm still hoping that's what will happen. But if it doesn't, if Bill doesn't do what he would have expected all his primary rivals of 1992 to do, if he is only lukewarm, then we will know that his narcissism is pathological and he needs serious psychological help.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Bitter
Just saw some real insanity on the Chris Matthews Show. Three PUMAs were holding a sign saying they supported Hillary and wouldn't support Obama because he went to a "Muslim Madrasa school."
Matthews pretty much skewered them and made them look like idiots.
Now I know who the "bitter" people really are.
This is insulting to Barack and all he stands for. It is insulting to Hillary. And it is insulting to women.
And I suspect, what it really is, is racism.
Matthews pretty much skewered them and made them look like idiots.
Now I know who the "bitter" people really are.
This is insulting to Barack and all he stands for. It is insulting to Hillary. And it is insulting to women.
And I suspect, what it really is, is racism.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton will you please go now?
Cable is really trying to ramp up its coverage of the Democratic convention, having panels sit around with fake poll numbers and insist Barack is in trouble because he didn't pick Hillary as his veep. Everyone is speculating that Bill still has his nose out of joint because Obama defeated his wife (the one he cheated on) - and that he is liable to make a big stinko at the convention.
Barack Obama, who defeated the holy trinity (Hill-Bill and Chelsea) who campaigned non-stop against him, is about to be the first African American ever nominated for president in this nearly 300 year old country, and all the media can talk about is Hillary and Bill. You'd think this historic event would generate enough interest without having to create fake conflict.
The media seem determined to make this convention all about Hillary and Bill as if they are the king and queen of America. They are not; they are ambitious and ruthless politicians who spent eight years in the White House and are furious that they don't get eight more. They are narcissists, pure and simple, and if they ever want to see Hillary make it back to that big white house they better tame their egos and make sure Barack is elected this fall.
If they are responsible for his defeat, by only half-heartedly supporting him, they are both beneath contempt. They lost. They got defeated. They play in the big leagues and they know the rules. It is time they got over themselves and acted like grown-ups. And it is time the media stopped pushing the new Republican strategy of praising Hillary and saying she should have been the veep, in order to divide the Democrats. What's amusing about the Republicans saying Biden was the wrong pick because he doesn't represent change, is that had Hillary been picked the Republicans would have shouted the same thing. When is the media going to finally reject their talking points as nothing more than propaganda? Maybe when the myth of the liberal media really becomes a reality.
If Hillary and Bill think they can give a wink and a nod to Hillary's PUMAs, giving them permission to vote against Barack and cause his defeat, they should remember that two sides can play that game. There will be hell to pay with Barack's supporters and 2012 won't look any better for Hillary than 2008.
It's time Democrats remembered they are Democrats and voted for their rightfully elected candidate. It's time they realized how high the stakes are and how big a disaster electing John McCain would be.
One thing seems pretty clear to me now with this never ending Clinton melodrama. There's a good reason Barack didn't choose Hillary as his running mate. With all the trouble she and her husband and her supporters have caused leading up to the convention, she would have caused even more trouble in the four years she served as vice president. When his supporters call him "no drama Obama" they mean it. The melodrama surrounding the Clintons is what doomed her chances to be his running mate. And that is no one's fault but theirs.
Barack Obama, who defeated the holy trinity (Hill-Bill and Chelsea) who campaigned non-stop against him, is about to be the first African American ever nominated for president in this nearly 300 year old country, and all the media can talk about is Hillary and Bill. You'd think this historic event would generate enough interest without having to create fake conflict.
The media seem determined to make this convention all about Hillary and Bill as if they are the king and queen of America. They are not; they are ambitious and ruthless politicians who spent eight years in the White House and are furious that they don't get eight more. They are narcissists, pure and simple, and if they ever want to see Hillary make it back to that big white house they better tame their egos and make sure Barack is elected this fall.
If they are responsible for his defeat, by only half-heartedly supporting him, they are both beneath contempt. They lost. They got defeated. They play in the big leagues and they know the rules. It is time they got over themselves and acted like grown-ups. And it is time the media stopped pushing the new Republican strategy of praising Hillary and saying she should have been the veep, in order to divide the Democrats. What's amusing about the Republicans saying Biden was the wrong pick because he doesn't represent change, is that had Hillary been picked the Republicans would have shouted the same thing. When is the media going to finally reject their talking points as nothing more than propaganda? Maybe when the myth of the liberal media really becomes a reality.
If Hillary and Bill think they can give a wink and a nod to Hillary's PUMAs, giving them permission to vote against Barack and cause his defeat, they should remember that two sides can play that game. There will be hell to pay with Barack's supporters and 2012 won't look any better for Hillary than 2008.
It's time Democrats remembered they are Democrats and voted for their rightfully elected candidate. It's time they realized how high the stakes are and how big a disaster electing John McCain would be.
One thing seems pretty clear to me now with this never ending Clinton melodrama. There's a good reason Barack didn't choose Hillary as his running mate. With all the trouble she and her husband and her supporters have caused leading up to the convention, she would have caused even more trouble in the four years she served as vice president. When his supporters call him "no drama Obama" they mean it. The melodrama surrounding the Clintons is what doomed her chances to be his running mate. And that is no one's fault but theirs.
Sick of the POW card - enough already!
Okay, I'll say it. I don't give a crap that John MCain was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. It was a lousy, rotten war we should have never fought. He was a military brat who got into Annapolis (all fees paid by Uncle Sam) because daddy was an admiral. He volunteered to drop bombs and kill people. He wasn't a victim.
Sure he showed courage in enduring six years of imprisonment. I imagine his family suffered greatly as well. But every pilot in wartime knows this can happen. It isn't simply misfortune. It is part of the job - and John McCain wasn't drafted, he volunteered.
There are millions of people who have suffered as much or more than John McCain, and their suffering didn't happen because they volunteered to bomb other people, or because they engaged in risky behavior.
My brother was one of those people. Two years before John McCain was shot down, in 1965, my only brother and only sibling was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease at the age of 16. He endured radiation and chemotherapy, lost his hair and was constantly nauseous. He had two surgeries on his bladder as the chemotherapy had ripped up the lining of his bladder and caused uncontrollable bleeding. He spent more time in the hospital than in the classroom during his last two years of high school.
About the time John McCain was shot down, my brother began to have trouble walking. A tumor had grown on his spine and was damaging the nerves in his spinal cord. He had surgery to prevent permanent paralysis, and then spent a year learning to walk again, though he never regained full recovery of his abilities. Finally, it seemed he was well enough to go to college in the Fall of 1969. A few weeks into the semester he came home because he was having problems walking again. The tumor had grown back. Though the doctors felt he had been through the maximum amount of radiation, he insisted on trying a bit more, and surgery was out of the question. They began a course of radiation to try to reduce the tumor, and two weeks later he died.
My brother didn't volunteer to get this terrible disease. Nor was he even able to complete one year of college. His high school days were spent in misery, and he never even had a chance to grow into adulthood.
I don't feel sorry for John McCain. He experienced the consequences of decisions he made as an adult. My brother had no choice. John McCain lived, and my brother, whose pain was every bit as horrendous as that of John McCain, did not.
However, had my brother lived, his pain and torment would not have qualified him to be president any more than John McCain's pain and torment qualifies him to be president.
John McCain, without the POW defense he throws up whenever anyone attacks him, would be a pathetic old man who is mean, has a temper, has no connection to ordinary people, and is willing to start another Cold War, if not WW III.
John McCain would make a terrible president, and his having been a POW is simply not relevant, except to the extent that it may have left him with some lasting psychological damage.
And that makes him an even more risky choice for president.
Sure he showed courage in enduring six years of imprisonment. I imagine his family suffered greatly as well. But every pilot in wartime knows this can happen. It isn't simply misfortune. It is part of the job - and John McCain wasn't drafted, he volunteered.
There are millions of people who have suffered as much or more than John McCain, and their suffering didn't happen because they volunteered to bomb other people, or because they engaged in risky behavior.
My brother was one of those people. Two years before John McCain was shot down, in 1965, my only brother and only sibling was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease at the age of 16. He endured radiation and chemotherapy, lost his hair and was constantly nauseous. He had two surgeries on his bladder as the chemotherapy had ripped up the lining of his bladder and caused uncontrollable bleeding. He spent more time in the hospital than in the classroom during his last two years of high school.
About the time John McCain was shot down, my brother began to have trouble walking. A tumor had grown on his spine and was damaging the nerves in his spinal cord. He had surgery to prevent permanent paralysis, and then spent a year learning to walk again, though he never regained full recovery of his abilities. Finally, it seemed he was well enough to go to college in the Fall of 1969. A few weeks into the semester he came home because he was having problems walking again. The tumor had grown back. Though the doctors felt he had been through the maximum amount of radiation, he insisted on trying a bit more, and surgery was out of the question. They began a course of radiation to try to reduce the tumor, and two weeks later he died.
My brother didn't volunteer to get this terrible disease. Nor was he even able to complete one year of college. His high school days were spent in misery, and he never even had a chance to grow into adulthood.
I don't feel sorry for John McCain. He experienced the consequences of decisions he made as an adult. My brother had no choice. John McCain lived, and my brother, whose pain was every bit as horrendous as that of John McCain, did not.
However, had my brother lived, his pain and torment would not have qualified him to be president any more than John McCain's pain and torment qualifies him to be president.
John McCain, without the POW defense he throws up whenever anyone attacks him, would be a pathetic old man who is mean, has a temper, has no connection to ordinary people, and is willing to start another Cold War, if not WW III.
John McCain would make a terrible president, and his having been a POW is simply not relevant, except to the extent that it may have left him with some lasting psychological damage.
And that makes him an even more risky choice for president.
Obama - Biden
How much does it help Barack Obama to have picked Joe Biden for his running mate?
Those who are praising the pick say he will fill in Obama's foreign policy gap and be the working class attack dog against the wealthy and probable McCain – Romney ticket. But he won't make people who distrust Obama because he is black or "foreign" hop on board. I doubt very much that he will win over Hillary's whiney baby PUMAs and pouters, of whom the number one pouter is her husband.
Those who are criticizing the pick say Biden is gaffe prone and has said negative things about Obama druing the primary. Well, picking Hillary would have given the Grumpy Old Poops even more fodder in terms of sound bites attacking Barack. Bayh and Biden would have put everyone to sleep, and who else was there?
Biden is an okay pick and will help more than he hurts, but ultimately it will be up to Obama and his campaign to pull off a November victory.
Some pundits (god I hate them – they are mostly idiots who talk amongst themselves and try to find the downside to almost anything positive that Obama does) are pointing to a poll that has Obama up by "only" three over McCain, but has Hillary up by "a whopping" six in a hypothetical matchup against McCain. Oh my gosh, they say, Hillary could have beaten McCain more easily than Obama can. Those self-defeating dems are going to lose again.
Are these people so brain dead that they don't even realize that Hillary is up by six (which Obama was up by a month ago) precisely because she isn't the nominee and hasn't had a month's worth of disgusting and dishonest negative campaign ads directed at her? Had Hillary been the nominee you can bet the Republicans would have been vicious – and they have so much to use against her, she would probably be ten points behind at this point.
So good for Obama. He made a wise, though not perfect pick. I feel happy for Biden because he is a genuinely good and decent man who has had his share of tragedy in his life – far more than John McCain has had, in spite of having spent six years in a POW camp.
Let's keep two things in mind about McCain's POW experience. First, he volunteered to be a pilot during wartime. He got into Annapolis as a legacy – his scholastic ability certainly didn't qualify him. But being the son and grandson of admirals did. And he wanted to be a pilot, even knowing the risk it entailed. He was a willing participant in his own misfortune. And secondly, he came home alive and got to see his family again.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, didn't volunteer for his tragic experience. His wife and children were in a car when a drunk driver hit them, killing his wife and daughter and seriously wounding his sons. His wife and his daughter were separated from him forever, not just for six years. He never got to see them again.
Joe Biden is a hard working legislator and decent human being who deserves his moment in the sun. And he has earned the right to be the next vice president.
The only question is, are we going to be lucky enough to see him sworn into the office and carry out its duties?
Those who are praising the pick say he will fill in Obama's foreign policy gap and be the working class attack dog against the wealthy and probable McCain – Romney ticket. But he won't make people who distrust Obama because he is black or "foreign" hop on board. I doubt very much that he will win over Hillary's whiney baby PUMAs and pouters, of whom the number one pouter is her husband.
Those who are criticizing the pick say Biden is gaffe prone and has said negative things about Obama druing the primary. Well, picking Hillary would have given the Grumpy Old Poops even more fodder in terms of sound bites attacking Barack. Bayh and Biden would have put everyone to sleep, and who else was there?
Biden is an okay pick and will help more than he hurts, but ultimately it will be up to Obama and his campaign to pull off a November victory.
Some pundits (god I hate them – they are mostly idiots who talk amongst themselves and try to find the downside to almost anything positive that Obama does) are pointing to a poll that has Obama up by "only" three over McCain, but has Hillary up by "a whopping" six in a hypothetical matchup against McCain. Oh my gosh, they say, Hillary could have beaten McCain more easily than Obama can. Those self-defeating dems are going to lose again.
Are these people so brain dead that they don't even realize that Hillary is up by six (which Obama was up by a month ago) precisely because she isn't the nominee and hasn't had a month's worth of disgusting and dishonest negative campaign ads directed at her? Had Hillary been the nominee you can bet the Republicans would have been vicious – and they have so much to use against her, she would probably be ten points behind at this point.
So good for Obama. He made a wise, though not perfect pick. I feel happy for Biden because he is a genuinely good and decent man who has had his share of tragedy in his life – far more than John McCain has had, in spite of having spent six years in a POW camp.
Let's keep two things in mind about McCain's POW experience. First, he volunteered to be a pilot during wartime. He got into Annapolis as a legacy – his scholastic ability certainly didn't qualify him. But being the son and grandson of admirals did. And he wanted to be a pilot, even knowing the risk it entailed. He was a willing participant in his own misfortune. And secondly, he came home alive and got to see his family again.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, didn't volunteer for his tragic experience. His wife and children were in a car when a drunk driver hit them, killing his wife and daughter and seriously wounding his sons. His wife and his daughter were separated from him forever, not just for six years. He never got to see them again.
Joe Biden is a hard working legislator and decent human being who deserves his moment in the sun. And he has earned the right to be the next vice president.
The only question is, are we going to be lucky enough to see him sworn into the office and carry out its duties?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Experience as a POW does not qualify you to be president
People are starting to tire of the McCain campaign's constant reminders of his former POW status. Even the media is starting to speak up about how this is getting old.
To some extent, it makes sense to refer to McCain's service and sacrifice. We are, after all, a nation that has always loved war, and in some of our churches we have even changed our vision of Jesus from that of peacemaker to that of warrior. So a former POW is a powerful symbol of patriotism.
But if you look beyond the patriotic aspect of being a POW, and examine what it means and what it doesn't mean, you understand why it is beginning to lose its value in the campaign.
First of all, being a POW involves suffering, but nearly everyone in the world has either suffered or knows someone who has suffered greatly in one way or another. Cancer patients, people who have been in terrible accidents, victims of urban violence, people struggling to find enough to eat, victims of ethnic cleansing, innocent prisoners held and tortured by the United States, and certainly the innocent victims of war, have all suffered, some as much or more than John McCain. That isn't to belittle his suffering, but it is simply to say John McCain is not the only person in the world to have suffered horribly at some point in life. In fact, although he suffered greatly, he was only one of 600 prisoners held by the North Vietnamese.
Second, since his release, John McCain has led a more charmed life than most Americans will ever lead. He ditched his first wife and married a 25 year old heiress who has provided him with somewhere between seven and ten homes, a private Jet, and the money to live a comfortable and prestigious life as a United States Senator. He never has to worry one moment about money or the comforts of life.
It has been 35 years since John McCain was released by the North Vietnamese. Yes, he will always be honored and respected for his service. But there were 600 other POWs who suffered with him, many no longer alive. The thirty five years since his release have given John McCain everything a man could want. But the one thing his POW experience does not and should not do is give him a pass on everything he does and everything he says that might make anyone who had not been a POW a poor choice to be president.
Having been a POW is simply not enough to qualify you for the highest office in this land and finally voters are realizing that.
To some extent, it makes sense to refer to McCain's service and sacrifice. We are, after all, a nation that has always loved war, and in some of our churches we have even changed our vision of Jesus from that of peacemaker to that of warrior. So a former POW is a powerful symbol of patriotism.
But if you look beyond the patriotic aspect of being a POW, and examine what it means and what it doesn't mean, you understand why it is beginning to lose its value in the campaign.
First of all, being a POW involves suffering, but nearly everyone in the world has either suffered or knows someone who has suffered greatly in one way or another. Cancer patients, people who have been in terrible accidents, victims of urban violence, people struggling to find enough to eat, victims of ethnic cleansing, innocent prisoners held and tortured by the United States, and certainly the innocent victims of war, have all suffered, some as much or more than John McCain. That isn't to belittle his suffering, but it is simply to say John McCain is not the only person in the world to have suffered horribly at some point in life. In fact, although he suffered greatly, he was only one of 600 prisoners held by the North Vietnamese.
Second, since his release, John McCain has led a more charmed life than most Americans will ever lead. He ditched his first wife and married a 25 year old heiress who has provided him with somewhere between seven and ten homes, a private Jet, and the money to live a comfortable and prestigious life as a United States Senator. He never has to worry one moment about money or the comforts of life.
It has been 35 years since John McCain was released by the North Vietnamese. Yes, he will always be honored and respected for his service. But there were 600 other POWs who suffered with him, many no longer alive. The thirty five years since his release have given John McCain everything a man could want. But the one thing his POW experience does not and should not do is give him a pass on everything he does and everything he says that might make anyone who had not been a POW a poor choice to be president.
Having been a POW is simply not enough to qualify you for the highest office in this land and finally voters are realizing that.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Who's the Hawaiin elitist?
From John Cole:
Just so we are clear- visiting your grandmother while vacationing in Hawaii, the state where you were you were born- elitist.
Meeting the millionaire heiress daughter (who you will soon begin an affair with and divorce your first wife and then go on and buy a ton of houses) in Hawaii and then going on and honeymooning in Hawaii – not elitist.
The GOP rules for this shit can be really damned confusing, so I will try to keep you up to date.
Insane McCain's Mansions
Yesterday Senator McCain could not remember how many homes he and wife Cindy owned.
So Obama put out an ad using this as evidence Insane McCain is out of touch (and perhaps has memory problems?)
First, the McCain campaign responded by saying it wasn't relevant because McCain had been a POW. (Huh?)
Now McCain is saying they aren't his houses; they belong to Cindy.
I see another attack line here. Insane McCain is a gigolo, a "kept man." John McCain can't even purchase his own homes? Not even one? His wife supports him? This is the man who is qualified to run our entire economy?
So Obama put out an ad using this as evidence Insane McCain is out of touch (and perhaps has memory problems?)
First, the McCain campaign responded by saying it wasn't relevant because McCain had been a POW. (Huh?)
Now McCain is saying they aren't his houses; they belong to Cindy.
I see another attack line here. Insane McCain is a gigolo, a "kept man." John McCain can't even purchase his own homes? Not even one? His wife supports him? This is the man who is qualified to run our entire economy?
Courage, fearlessness and the dangers of a John McCain presidency
The American people want a president who demonstrates courage. The Republicans have proven time and again that if they can convince the voters that the Democratic candidate is a wimp, their guy wins. All the talk about haircuts (Edwards, Bill Clinton) and make-overs (Gore) is code for prissy, effeminate and ultimately – wimp. The 2004 Swift boating was an attempt to make Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, into a liar who didn't deserve his medals. All those purple heart band-aids worn in mockery of Kerry at the Republican convention might as well have had "wimp" printed on them.
This year is no different. Once again the Republicans are going after the Dem nominee as someone who is elitist (sissy), and not tough enough on terrorism (wimp) and too inexperienced (courage unproven). But this year, the Republicans have doubled down by nominating a gen-u-ine war hero, a former POW, and McCain plays his tough guy qualifications to the hilt.(He had good training for his at the Naval Academy and flight school.) He will defeat evil, follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," (though not apparently to the Afghanistan Pakistan border), kick Russia's butt, etc.
However, the American people would be wise to know the difference between courage and fearlessness and what the two different qualities mean in a president.
Courage is the ability to do things, even when you feel fear. Obama's appearance at the Rick Warren forum, in front of an audience that obviously did not favor him, and talking about being pro-choice, showed courage. Runnning for president shows courage. Opposing the Iraq War showed courage. Being a black man in America takes courage. Taking on the Clintons showed courage. Obama has plenty of courage.
Fearlessness is different. It is not the same thing as courage (which is acting in spite of one's fears) nd it can, in fact, be pathological. Fear, after all, is a normal part of being human. Fear signals danger, keeps us alive, prompting us to fight when we need to fight and run when we need to run. Without fear, people do not survive easily, that is unless they are lucky, or they are protected in some way by others.
There are two types of fearlessness: situational and global. For instance, if my grandson is afraid to ride a bike, but he practices over and over in spite of his fear, he will overcome it and eventually ride his bike fearlessly.
Some people who have faced death or terribly dangerous circumstances and have survived, may develop a global fearlessness. Many criminals, for instance, seem immune to fear, partially because they have broken the law over and over again and either escaped detection, or survived brutal time in prison.
George W. Bush often acts in a way that seems fearless. Having seen all of his businesses fail, but then having been rescued from the economic consequences by daddy's friends, he has no fear of being poor or of causing economic ruin to the nation. Having escaped Vietnam, with daddy's help, and not felt any consequences of being AWOL, he appears to have no fear of the consequences of any of his actions, from drunk driving to making dangerous presidential decisions. Having never felt the consequences of failure or loss, Bush has no empathy either. He cannot relate to soldiers who die, or to their loved ones, or ordinary families who lose their homes. And so sending the military into Iraq was no big deal, nor was allowing the de-regulated mortgage industries and banks to create mischief which resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes.
John McCain is another politician who is fearless. What could be worse than being shot down and captured and held prisoner for six years? A few things, perhaps, but not many. And McCain found a way to survive and come back to a good life, complete with a new marriage to an extremely wealthy and very young woman. What could he possibly be afraid of after six years in a brutal POW camp? What could he possibly be afraid of now in bad economic times when he is financially set for life?
And that is precisely the problem. While a president should be courageous, in my opinion he or she should not be fearless. Just because a person has learned not to feel fear, doesn't mean there is nothing dangerous out there. In fact, a healthy dose of fear, coupled with courage, is what we really want in a president.
We need someone who can think things through, who can use diplomacy effectively, who takes time before he commits the nation to war, who knows there are solutions to world problems that don't involve the military. We need someone who has the courage to take the nation to war, but not the hair trigger reaction of someone who lacks fear.
What we absolutely don't want is someone who is reckless because he is fearless. We can't afford to elect someone who, like Bush, seems to have no checks on his impulsivity, his temper, and his willingness to use military force anywhere and everywhere.
McCain would be a very dangerous president.
This year is no different. Once again the Republicans are going after the Dem nominee as someone who is elitist (sissy), and not tough enough on terrorism (wimp) and too inexperienced (courage unproven). But this year, the Republicans have doubled down by nominating a gen-u-ine war hero, a former POW, and McCain plays his tough guy qualifications to the hilt.(He had good training for his at the Naval Academy and flight school.) He will defeat evil, follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," (though not apparently to the Afghanistan Pakistan border), kick Russia's butt, etc.
However, the American people would be wise to know the difference between courage and fearlessness and what the two different qualities mean in a president.
Courage is the ability to do things, even when you feel fear. Obama's appearance at the Rick Warren forum, in front of an audience that obviously did not favor him, and talking about being pro-choice, showed courage. Runnning for president shows courage. Opposing the Iraq War showed courage. Being a black man in America takes courage. Taking on the Clintons showed courage. Obama has plenty of courage.
Fearlessness is different. It is not the same thing as courage (which is acting in spite of one's fears) nd it can, in fact, be pathological. Fear, after all, is a normal part of being human. Fear signals danger, keeps us alive, prompting us to fight when we need to fight and run when we need to run. Without fear, people do not survive easily, that is unless they are lucky, or they are protected in some way by others.
There are two types of fearlessness: situational and global. For instance, if my grandson is afraid to ride a bike, but he practices over and over in spite of his fear, he will overcome it and eventually ride his bike fearlessly.
Some people who have faced death or terribly dangerous circumstances and have survived, may develop a global fearlessness. Many criminals, for instance, seem immune to fear, partially because they have broken the law over and over again and either escaped detection, or survived brutal time in prison.
George W. Bush often acts in a way that seems fearless. Having seen all of his businesses fail, but then having been rescued from the economic consequences by daddy's friends, he has no fear of being poor or of causing economic ruin to the nation. Having escaped Vietnam, with daddy's help, and not felt any consequences of being AWOL, he appears to have no fear of the consequences of any of his actions, from drunk driving to making dangerous presidential decisions. Having never felt the consequences of failure or loss, Bush has no empathy either. He cannot relate to soldiers who die, or to their loved ones, or ordinary families who lose their homes. And so sending the military into Iraq was no big deal, nor was allowing the de-regulated mortgage industries and banks to create mischief which resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes.
John McCain is another politician who is fearless. What could be worse than being shot down and captured and held prisoner for six years? A few things, perhaps, but not many. And McCain found a way to survive and come back to a good life, complete with a new marriage to an extremely wealthy and very young woman. What could he possibly be afraid of after six years in a brutal POW camp? What could he possibly be afraid of now in bad economic times when he is financially set for life?
And that is precisely the problem. While a president should be courageous, in my opinion he or she should not be fearless. Just because a person has learned not to feel fear, doesn't mean there is nothing dangerous out there. In fact, a healthy dose of fear, coupled with courage, is what we really want in a president.
We need someone who can think things through, who can use diplomacy effectively, who takes time before he commits the nation to war, who knows there are solutions to world problems that don't involve the military. We need someone who has the courage to take the nation to war, but not the hair trigger reaction of someone who lacks fear.
What we absolutely don't want is someone who is reckless because he is fearless. We can't afford to elect someone who, like Bush, seems to have no checks on his impulsivity, his temper, and his willingness to use military force anywhere and everywhere.
McCain would be a very dangerous president.
It's about time!
Obama's new talking points.
John McCain:
Out of touch at home.
Reckless and trigger happy abroad.
John McCain:
Out of touch at home.
Reckless and trigger happy abroad.
Veep spec
Though Hillary and Bill disgusted me during the primary campaign, I have lately come around to the idea that Obama choosing her as her running mate might be brilliant. All the speculation about why Bill won't come around and why Hillary isn't doing more would turn out to have been more of what some are calling Obama's rope-a-dope strategy. Maybe he decided early on the pick her and he let this suspense build and the reports of bad feelings and even the PUMA BS so that when he did pick her the excitement, the surprise and the "boldness" would be the story for a long time. If he did choose her, the two downsides of course would be the lurking presence of Bill and the satisfaction of the PUMA crowd in believing it was their hissy fit that brought this about.
However, last night I saw a poll on CNN, I believe, that showed while 43% of respondents would like to see Hillary Clinton become president some day, 49% never want her to become president. That's a huge negative, one that would be hard to overcome. If Obama's internal polling shows anything similar, he will not choose her and he has good reason not to, no matter how long her rabid supporters continue their juvenile tantrum.
On the other side, the talk of Lieberman being on the ticket is something I would find hard to believe. However, since he is tied or even ahead of Obama in the polls now, thanks to the resurrection of "McCain, the Myth, the Maverick," he may think he can get away with it.
I can hardly wait: McCain-Loserman: Bush III, with a twist, a pro-choice, sour grapes former Democrat. It would get him as much press as an Obama-Clinton pairing, but I would guess there might even be more people who hate Lieberman than hate Clinton.
Ever since Lieberman refused to honor the results of the primary when Ned Lamont defeated him, and decided to become an independent and appeal to Republicans to win in the general election, he has shown his true colors. He is really a Rove Republican who doesn't play fair, believes in huge power to the executive branch and doesn't have much respect for the Constitution. He'd be a perfect vice presidential pick for McCain.
However, last night I saw a poll on CNN, I believe, that showed while 43% of respondents would like to see Hillary Clinton become president some day, 49% never want her to become president. That's a huge negative, one that would be hard to overcome. If Obama's internal polling shows anything similar, he will not choose her and he has good reason not to, no matter how long her rabid supporters continue their juvenile tantrum.
On the other side, the talk of Lieberman being on the ticket is something I would find hard to believe. However, since he is tied or even ahead of Obama in the polls now, thanks to the resurrection of "McCain, the Myth, the Maverick," he may think he can get away with it.
I can hardly wait: McCain-Loserman: Bush III, with a twist, a pro-choice, sour grapes former Democrat. It would get him as much press as an Obama-Clinton pairing, but I would guess there might even be more people who hate Lieberman than hate Clinton.
Ever since Lieberman refused to honor the results of the primary when Ned Lamont defeated him, and decided to become an independent and appeal to Republicans to win in the general election, he has shown his true colors. He is really a Rove Republican who doesn't play fair, believes in huge power to the executive branch and doesn't have much respect for the Constitution. He'd be a perfect vice presidential pick for McCain.
We could show the picture of McCain hugging Bush right next to the picture of Bush kissing Lieberman.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The campaigns: Generation Kill vs. Civilian World
For the past six weeks, my husband and I have been watching Generation Kill on HBO. This mini-series chronicles the slow march of the Marine Corps 1st Recon Battalion to Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. Not your father's John Wayne war story, this series is tough to watch. It is gritty, violent, raw and honest.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Cone of silence
I'll be in a cone of silence until Wednesday morning. Actually I'm taking my seven year old grandson to the Getty tomorrow and I want to get away from politics for a day.
Back on Wednesday, waiting for that Veep notification from the Obama campaign. He says we won't be surprised, but I really hope we are. I hope his choice is such a shocker that the media buzzes about it all the way up to the first day of the convention.
And I hope he starts calling out McCain on all his nonsense. For instance, if McCain can accuse Obama of playing the "race card" just because he warned his followers that the Republicans will try to scare Americans by pointing out that Obama doesn't look like all those presidents on our currency, couldn't the Obama campaign call out McCain for playing the POW card when he goes ballistic because someone suggested he wasn't in a cone of silence before his love fest with the evangelicals on Saturday and it is outrageous to suggest that because McCain was a POW a million years ago? If McCain can keep reminding everyone he was a POW, why can't Obama remind people he is black?
In the meantime, read my irreverent article: War and Jesus, Jesus and War.
Back on Wednesday, waiting for that Veep notification from the Obama campaign. He says we won't be surprised, but I really hope we are. I hope his choice is such a shocker that the media buzzes about it all the way up to the first day of the convention.
And I hope he starts calling out McCain on all his nonsense. For instance, if McCain can accuse Obama of playing the "race card" just because he warned his followers that the Republicans will try to scare Americans by pointing out that Obama doesn't look like all those presidents on our currency, couldn't the Obama campaign call out McCain for playing the POW card when he goes ballistic because someone suggested he wasn't in a cone of silence before his love fest with the evangelicals on Saturday and it is outrageous to suggest that because McCain was a POW a million years ago? If McCain can keep reminding everyone he was a POW, why can't Obama remind people he is black?
In the meantime, read my irreverent article: War and Jesus, Jesus and War.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Not my friend
I have had it with McCain continually addressing Americans as "my friends."
Do you send your friends or the children of your friends to die in a war that was unnecessary and based on lies? Because McCain was ready to go to Iraq almost before the clown in the White House was.
Do you lie to your friends about the effect drilling off the coast will have on the price of gasoline? Because McCain says it will lower the cost when every expert says it will take ten or more years to even begin to impact the cost.
Do you threaten your senior citizen friends with the loss of their Social Security? Because that will be the outcome if you become president and succeed in privatization.
Do you attack the man your friends have decided to support for president with ugly, vicious lies and mockery? Because you do that every day.
We are not your friends, Senator McCain. And you most definitely are not ours.
Do you send your friends or the children of your friends to die in a war that was unnecessary and based on lies? Because McCain was ready to go to Iraq almost before the clown in the White House was.
Do you lie to your friends about the effect drilling off the coast will have on the price of gasoline? Because McCain says it will lower the cost when every expert says it will take ten or more years to even begin to impact the cost.
Do you threaten your senior citizen friends with the loss of their Social Security? Because that will be the outcome if you become president and succeed in privatization.
Do you attack the man your friends have decided to support for president with ugly, vicious lies and mockery? Because you do that every day.
We are not your friends, Senator McCain. And you most definitely are not ours.
McCain says when life begins and when it ends
Just read a comment over at "The Field" that made me laugh and feel despair all at the same time.
According to the comment, McCain believes "life begins at conception and ends when you're eligible for the draft."
Of course, we could do many variations of McCain's view on the beginning and end of life, like:
Life begins at conception but ends when your mother's welfare payments run out, or
Life begins at conception but ends when I send you to Iraq, or the next neocon war, or
Life begins at conception but ends when you get sick and have no health insurance (too bad!), or
Life begins at conception but ends when I decide to start World War III, or
Life begins at conception but ends when carbon emissions (which I will increase by drilling and finding more oil to continue our love affair with the internal combustion engine) finally bake the planet and you all die.
We should have a contest for the best slogan.
According to the comment, McCain believes "life begins at conception and ends when you're eligible for the draft."
Of course, we could do many variations of McCain's view on the beginning and end of life, like:
Life begins at conception but ends when your mother's welfare payments run out, or
Life begins at conception but ends when I send you to Iraq, or the next neocon war, or
Life begins at conception but ends when you get sick and have no health insurance (too bad!), or
Life begins at conception but ends when I decide to start World War III, or
Life begins at conception but ends when carbon emissions (which I will increase by drilling and finding more oil to continue our love affair with the internal combustion engine) finally bake the planet and you all die.
We should have a contest for the best slogan.
Faith forum post mortem
I don't have a life.
I watched that silly "Faith Forum" with Orange County, California mega-millionaire pastor-in-the-Hawaiian-shirt Rick Warren having a "conversation" first with Barack Obama (the order the result of a coin flip) and then with John McCain (who was supposedly in isolation so he couldn't cheat by hearing Obama's responses.)
I got so angry seeing the McCain "performance" I stopped watching for a while and went online. The comments on the left wing blogs were coming fast and furious: McCain must have been given the questions ahead of time; He seemed to be giving answers to questions that hadn't been asked (once he even said "can we get back to the Supreme Court question" when Warren hadn't yet asked it); McCain did better than anyone expected him to; Obama was professorial and humble and ohmigod he's doomed because he got polite applause, while the audience gave one continuous ovation to McCain.
Then I got disgusted, watched an episode of Battlestar Gallactica to get my mind on something else, went to bed and had a dream (excuse me – nightmare) that McCain won the election.
Now with the sun up, my thoughts are a little clearer about what actually happened last night, and for those who have a life and were doing something much more enjoyable, here is what happened along with my analysis.
What Happened: Obama
Obama was humble and thoughtful. He gave honest and somewhat detailed answers to the questions. He spoke eloquently of his faith and what it meant, explained why he was for civil unions but against gay marriage, why he was pro-choice, on whom he would raise taxes, how he felt about the Iraq War and energy and poverty and why he would call on Americans to sacrifice in order to solve the energy crisis. He made no gaffes, gave the McCain camp no sound bites to use against him.
What happened: McCain
McCain seemed to be on amphetamines, answering with great animation and seemingly anticipating the questions before they were asked. No matter what questions Warren asked (which were supposed to be the same for both candidates, but actually were a bit different) McCain was determined to give his stump speech, complete with the usual sound bites: My friends, I was a POW, drill here, drill now, I was a POW, my friends, no taxes, pro-life administration, I was a POW, get rid of all liberal judges, war, war, war, my friends, freedom, freedom, freedom, Georgia the first Christian nation, I was a POW, country first!
Analysis: There are four ways of looking at what happened last night. First, there is the effect of the setting, including the moderator and the audience. Next, there is the drama. Third, there is the content or message. And fourth, there is the potential effect on the race.
The way I see it, the moderator and audience were tailor made for McCain and Republicans. Since nearly three fourths of all evangelicals are Republicans and planning to vote for McCain anyway, they were always going to be far more receptive to him and his message. This was a church in a wealthy part of Orange County, which is a Republican stronghold. Unlike most debates, where members of the audience are generally divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, this audience was largely made up of Republicans. Rick Warren claimed to be impartial, but it was obvious he wasn't going to insist McCain answer the same questions Obama did. He let McCain basically take over and decide which questions he would answer and which he would simply bypass to go off on a right wing rant. Obama stuck to the format – a conversation – while McCain turned it into his preferred town hall format. (This is why pastors do not make good moderators for political events.) The fact that McCain got much more applause than Obama does not really say anything about the quality of each candidate. It says much more about the format, the moderator and the audience, although McCain is obviously a good performer who really feeds on the applause and adulation of the audience. Had Rick Warren instructed his audience to hold their applause until the end, it would have been interesting to see how the candidates' performances held up, and how they were viewed by pundits and the television audience.
Which brings us to the second aspect of the forum: the performance or drama. Obama stuck to his usual cool and calm "no drama Obama" demeanor. He was thoughtful, his responses carefully delivered. He actually participated in a "conversation" with a friend, allowing the audience to eavesdrop on that conversation. He was comfortable talking about his faith and personal aspects of his life, and did not use the conversation as a chance to campaign vigorously on issues, but merely to explain his thinking. McCain, on the other hand, came prepared to make the evening another town hall meeting. He answered some uncomfortable questions ("What is your biggest moral failing?") with brief incomplete sentences ("the failure of my first marriage") and moved quickly to more friendly territory. He was not comfortable talking about faith and the only aspect of his personal life he was willing to discuss ad nauseam was his time as a POW. He addressed the audience directly and treated Warren not as a conversation partner but simply as a moderator of a large town hall meeting. The cable pundits liked this about McCain and largely on this aspect of the debate, scored the evening a win for McCain.
However, the messages of the evening will be dissected over the next few days and the messages were very different. Obama did outline his preferred progressive approach but also indicated he would listen to all viewpoints before making decisions. McCain, on the other hand, presented the typical Republican black and white perspective and did not indicate there would be any room for compromise in his administration. One telling difference: when asked if they believed evil existed and what should be done about it, both said yes it did exist but McCain said it must be defeated (a la Bush) while Obama said it must be confronted, but that only God could defeat evil. McCain's "evil" was clearly limited to terrorism and Russia, while Obama included genocide in Darfur, racism, sexism and many other evils. In addition to the question about evil, in which McCain showed a very narrow view, there were many other sound bites McCain offered up for future Obama commercials. One that really stuck out was the statement that he considered the beginning of the wealthy class to be around $5 million a year. McCain may have gotten more applause and seemed more tough and determined, but he said many things that will come back to haunt him, not with the evangelicals in the room, but with independents and moderates who may not have known he is adamantly pro-life, or thinks many teachers should be fired, or is ready to take us into another war of his choosing. Rest assured, Obama's camp will be fact checking many of his blatantly false statements and you will be seeing responses on the air.
Finally, what effect will all of this have on the race? Hard to say. We still have the conventions and the debates and millions of commercials to endure. I think McCain probably shored up the evangelical base and Obama did what he needed to do: convince the country he is a dedicated Christian and not the Muslim viral emails try to make him. Most important, though, is that he and his campaign just got a sneak peak at what McCain will do at the debates. First, McCain's campaign will lower expectations, saying he won't do as well as Obama. It will be important for the Obama campaign to take the appraisal of this faith forum and use it to lower expectations for him. Then, McCain will take the format and make it into a town hall, rolling over the moderator and trying to take over. Only with a good moderator, who doesn't let him get away with this, will the debate be fair. Third, he will do a lot of "my friends" and speak directly to the audience. Obama needs to learn to do more of this. Fourth, McCain will try to get away with lies and distortions which Obama must call him on. Obama must really do his homework and know McCain's flip flops and lies inside and out. He also needs to present more concise answers and sound bites that the audience can easily repeat.
As for the accusation that McCain must have had the questions ahead of time, or that he was allowed to watch Obama's segment, I believe the answer is yes to both. So the other thing Obama will have to do is take into account the possibility that McCain, like Bush, will cheat if he can. With the networks running the debates, though, instead of a private institution favorable to Republicans, and with both candidates on stage at the same time, it is likely this will be more difficult. Come to think of it, why didn't Warren have them both on stage at the same time? Was it a set up to have Obama go first and let McCain watch?
One thing we know about Obama. He is quick learner. Even if you consider this forum to be a loss for Obama (which I don't think it was) he will learn from it, and the next encounter the two candidates have will be very different.
I watched that silly "Faith Forum" with Orange County, California mega-millionaire pastor-in-the-Hawaiian-shirt Rick Warren having a "conversation" first with Barack Obama (the order the result of a coin flip) and then with John McCain (who was supposedly in isolation so he couldn't cheat by hearing Obama's responses.)
I got so angry seeing the McCain "performance" I stopped watching for a while and went online. The comments on the left wing blogs were coming fast and furious: McCain must have been given the questions ahead of time; He seemed to be giving answers to questions that hadn't been asked (once he even said "can we get back to the Supreme Court question" when Warren hadn't yet asked it); McCain did better than anyone expected him to; Obama was professorial and humble and ohmigod he's doomed because he got polite applause, while the audience gave one continuous ovation to McCain.
Then I got disgusted, watched an episode of Battlestar Gallactica to get my mind on something else, went to bed and had a dream (excuse me – nightmare) that McCain won the election.
Now with the sun up, my thoughts are a little clearer about what actually happened last night, and for those who have a life and were doing something much more enjoyable, here is what happened along with my analysis.
What Happened: Obama
Obama was humble and thoughtful. He gave honest and somewhat detailed answers to the questions. He spoke eloquently of his faith and what it meant, explained why he was for civil unions but against gay marriage, why he was pro-choice, on whom he would raise taxes, how he felt about the Iraq War and energy and poverty and why he would call on Americans to sacrifice in order to solve the energy crisis. He made no gaffes, gave the McCain camp no sound bites to use against him.
What happened: McCain
McCain seemed to be on amphetamines, answering with great animation and seemingly anticipating the questions before they were asked. No matter what questions Warren asked (which were supposed to be the same for both candidates, but actually were a bit different) McCain was determined to give his stump speech, complete with the usual sound bites: My friends, I was a POW, drill here, drill now, I was a POW, my friends, no taxes, pro-life administration, I was a POW, get rid of all liberal judges, war, war, war, my friends, freedom, freedom, freedom, Georgia the first Christian nation, I was a POW, country first!
Analysis: There are four ways of looking at what happened last night. First, there is the effect of the setting, including the moderator and the audience. Next, there is the drama. Third, there is the content or message. And fourth, there is the potential effect on the race.
The way I see it, the moderator and audience were tailor made for McCain and Republicans. Since nearly three fourths of all evangelicals are Republicans and planning to vote for McCain anyway, they were always going to be far more receptive to him and his message. This was a church in a wealthy part of Orange County, which is a Republican stronghold. Unlike most debates, where members of the audience are generally divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, this audience was largely made up of Republicans. Rick Warren claimed to be impartial, but it was obvious he wasn't going to insist McCain answer the same questions Obama did. He let McCain basically take over and decide which questions he would answer and which he would simply bypass to go off on a right wing rant. Obama stuck to the format – a conversation – while McCain turned it into his preferred town hall format. (This is why pastors do not make good moderators for political events.) The fact that McCain got much more applause than Obama does not really say anything about the quality of each candidate. It says much more about the format, the moderator and the audience, although McCain is obviously a good performer who really feeds on the applause and adulation of the audience. Had Rick Warren instructed his audience to hold their applause until the end, it would have been interesting to see how the candidates' performances held up, and how they were viewed by pundits and the television audience.
Which brings us to the second aspect of the forum: the performance or drama. Obama stuck to his usual cool and calm "no drama Obama" demeanor. He was thoughtful, his responses carefully delivered. He actually participated in a "conversation" with a friend, allowing the audience to eavesdrop on that conversation. He was comfortable talking about his faith and personal aspects of his life, and did not use the conversation as a chance to campaign vigorously on issues, but merely to explain his thinking. McCain, on the other hand, came prepared to make the evening another town hall meeting. He answered some uncomfortable questions ("What is your biggest moral failing?") with brief incomplete sentences ("the failure of my first marriage") and moved quickly to more friendly territory. He was not comfortable talking about faith and the only aspect of his personal life he was willing to discuss ad nauseam was his time as a POW. He addressed the audience directly and treated Warren not as a conversation partner but simply as a moderator of a large town hall meeting. The cable pundits liked this about McCain and largely on this aspect of the debate, scored the evening a win for McCain.
However, the messages of the evening will be dissected over the next few days and the messages were very different. Obama did outline his preferred progressive approach but also indicated he would listen to all viewpoints before making decisions. McCain, on the other hand, presented the typical Republican black and white perspective and did not indicate there would be any room for compromise in his administration. One telling difference: when asked if they believed evil existed and what should be done about it, both said yes it did exist but McCain said it must be defeated (a la Bush) while Obama said it must be confronted, but that only God could defeat evil. McCain's "evil" was clearly limited to terrorism and Russia, while Obama included genocide in Darfur, racism, sexism and many other evils. In addition to the question about evil, in which McCain showed a very narrow view, there were many other sound bites McCain offered up for future Obama commercials. One that really stuck out was the statement that he considered the beginning of the wealthy class to be around $5 million a year. McCain may have gotten more applause and seemed more tough and determined, but he said many things that will come back to haunt him, not with the evangelicals in the room, but with independents and moderates who may not have known he is adamantly pro-life, or thinks many teachers should be fired, or is ready to take us into another war of his choosing. Rest assured, Obama's camp will be fact checking many of his blatantly false statements and you will be seeing responses on the air.
Finally, what effect will all of this have on the race? Hard to say. We still have the conventions and the debates and millions of commercials to endure. I think McCain probably shored up the evangelical base and Obama did what he needed to do: convince the country he is a dedicated Christian and not the Muslim viral emails try to make him. Most important, though, is that he and his campaign just got a sneak peak at what McCain will do at the debates. First, McCain's campaign will lower expectations, saying he won't do as well as Obama. It will be important for the Obama campaign to take the appraisal of this faith forum and use it to lower expectations for him. Then, McCain will take the format and make it into a town hall, rolling over the moderator and trying to take over. Only with a good moderator, who doesn't let him get away with this, will the debate be fair. Third, he will do a lot of "my friends" and speak directly to the audience. Obama needs to learn to do more of this. Fourth, McCain will try to get away with lies and distortions which Obama must call him on. Obama must really do his homework and know McCain's flip flops and lies inside and out. He also needs to present more concise answers and sound bites that the audience can easily repeat.
As for the accusation that McCain must have had the questions ahead of time, or that he was allowed to watch Obama's segment, I believe the answer is yes to both. So the other thing Obama will have to do is take into account the possibility that McCain, like Bush, will cheat if he can. With the networks running the debates, though, instead of a private institution favorable to Republicans, and with both candidates on stage at the same time, it is likely this will be more difficult. Come to think of it, why didn't Warren have them both on stage at the same time? Was it a set up to have Obama go first and let McCain watch?
One thing we know about Obama. He is quick learner. Even if you consider this forum to be a loss for Obama (which I don't think it was) he will learn from it, and the next encounter the two candidates have will be very different.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
$51 million!
Yesterday the McCain camp bragged it had raised $27 million in July.
Today the Obama campaign reported its July haul: $51 million, with 65,000 new donors. All told, Obama has 2 million donors.
I know the McCain camp wants to say Obama is just a celebrity, and they are putting out all kinds of ads with dishonest information saying he would be bad for America.
But if the ads are working, and if Obama is bad for America, why do so many people want to give money to his campaign? Do they all hate America?
And since when do Americans give direct donations to celebrities?
Today the Obama campaign reported its July haul: $51 million, with 65,000 new donors. All told, Obama has 2 million donors.
I know the McCain camp wants to say Obama is just a celebrity, and they are putting out all kinds of ads with dishonest information saying he would be bad for America.
But if the ads are working, and if Obama is bad for America, why do so many people want to give money to his campaign? Do they all hate America?
And since when do Americans give direct donations to celebrities?
Friday, August 15, 2008
What's up with this?
Bush at the Olympics, needing help from his entire Secret Service detail.
Seriously, this could explain a lot. More here.
Insane McCain
I've been trying to think of a good name for McCain other than just plain McCain (hey, that's a good one). Some people, noting his similarity to Bush on all the issues, call him McBush, others McSame.
I have, with others, called him Grandpa McCain, but that's an insult to grandfathers.
I have occasionally called McCain and his wife Mr. and Mrs. McCreepy, because she is as creepy as he is, but with this latest statement, it is clear.
John McCain is simply nuts.
To call the Russia-Georgia conflict the most important international crisis since the end of the Cold War is absurd. Has he really forgotten that he once said the war on Islamic terrorists was the most important and defining issue of our time, something that a few might even consider an international crisis? Has he forgotten 9/11, and the Iraq War, which was supposed to be a response to a vicious and horrible dictator who had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use against us? Has he forgotten Rwanda and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which prompted the first Gulf War? Has he forgotten Bosnia and Kosovo?
Couple this statement with all the other mistatements or downright falsehoods he has uttered over the past few months, and the right name pops out.
Let's just call him "Insane McCain."
I have, with others, called him Grandpa McCain, but that's an insult to grandfathers.
I have occasionally called McCain and his wife Mr. and Mrs. McCreepy, because she is as creepy as he is, but with this latest statement, it is clear.
John McCain is simply nuts.
To call the Russia-Georgia conflict the most important international crisis since the end of the Cold War is absurd. Has he really forgotten that he once said the war on Islamic terrorists was the most important and defining issue of our time, something that a few might even consider an international crisis? Has he forgotten 9/11, and the Iraq War, which was supposed to be a response to a vicious and horrible dictator who had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use against us? Has he forgotten Rwanda and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which prompted the first Gulf War? Has he forgotten Bosnia and Kosovo?
Couple this statement with all the other mistatements or downright falsehoods he has uttered over the past few months, and the right name pops out.
Let's just call him "Insane McCain."
Creating Obama Drama
I guess – according to professional presidential horse-race watchers (i.e. cable media) – most people this time of year are either on vacation or watching the Olympics.
I am doing neither. I am watching the media. And it is quite amusing.
They want so badly for there to be some big drama for them to cover in the presidential race that they are trying to create controversy just to get people to pay attention. Every time a new poll comes out, for instance, they give it their own spin. A move of one or two points up for McCain means he is "closing the gap." If he moves one point ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 3 or 4, he has "taken the lead." Once Obama's lead opens up again to five or six points, they go silent or interpret it falsely as "within the margin of error." They desperately want this race to be close. A huge lead for Obama this early would give them nothing to agonize about.
Right now, they are mad at Barack Obama for going on vacation. How dare he! Doesn't he know he's supposed to be running for president here in the real United States, not resting in that "exotic" group of islands out in the Pacific? They are trying mightily to get us to believe this will hurt him – especially since he isn't acting like McCain and playing pretend commander in chief during this "crisis," which they have also hyped, in Georgia.
They also think Obama should be here to get all upset about the new smear book that has just been published about him. Once again, as they did all through the primary when they agonized over Clinton's attacks on Obama, the media is looking for a way to criticize him, this time for not reacting quickly enough to the packs of lies the right wing throws at the Dem candidate every four years. Day after dreary day they remind us of how the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry doomed his candidacy, especially because he didn't respond quickly enough.
Funny – I seem to remember how much of a part the media played in the dissemination of those Swift Boat ads, which only had a limited run as paid commercials. If it hadn't been for the media serving as the handmaiden of the right wing smear merchants, most people would not have seen those ads. Today, as they interview Jerome Corsi, they are looking back and saying the attacks against Kerry were false. But they didn't say that four years ago.
One wonders why they are even giving this hack air time. They say it is because his book will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. In psychology we call this rationalization – finding a dishonest excuse to do something you really want to do anyway. They know the only reason this book is at #1 is because of all the bulk orders from the right wing think tanks and political organizations to make it seem as if people are interested in this pap. But they want to stir up trouble and controversy so people will watch, and so the general election will be closer than they fear it might be, and one way to do that is to give some lying attack dog air time.
Speaking of books, the pundits created a mini-drama this week over a rumor that Jeremiah Wright is coming out with a book in October. They almost couldn’t speak from the salivation over such a possibility. This would be a godsend for the professional talkers. They could agonize for weeks over whether such a book would doom Obama's chances. Washington restaurants would be bereft of patrons who were all booked on the cable stations to offer their punditry on the subject. Alas, it seems Wright is in Ghana doing missionary work, his daughter telling the media there is no book.
The latest "controversy" the media is hyping is one they have babbled about for months – the Clinton-Obama drama. In the primaries they speculated over why Obama couldn't "seal the deal" and why Hillary wasn't withdrawing from the race. Could Obama be a flawed candidate, not "one of us"? Were white working class men not willing to vote for a black? Did Hillary have some trick up her sleeve? Would she ever concede? Was she taking it "all the way to the convention?" Was she going to steal Obama's delegates over the summer?
Now, as the Clinton and Obama camps quietly work on convention logistics, the media is at it again. The Clintons will overshadow Obama at the convention. It will be a "Clinton convention." This is the beginning of Hillary's 2012 campaign. Will Bill actually say nice things about Obama or will he sabotage everything? Will Hillary's supporters make trouble? Might a roll call vote end up in Clinton stealing the nomination?
One cable show yesterday had a ten minute segment interviewing two supposed Hillary supporters, part of a group known as "PUMA" (originally "Party Unity My Ass," now changed to "People United Means Action") who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. One of the guests admitted they have only raised $50,000 and have a small membership, yet the media wants controversy, so they give them a full ten minutes.
So with the news yesterday that the Clinton and Obama camps have worked out the role Hillary will play at the convention, the pundits are stumped. If there's no drama to report on, how can they get people to watch the convention? If PUMA is just a group of disgruntled and sour grapes die-hards (or more likely Republicans trying to make trouble) what else can they do to gin up controversy?
Well, they can always go back to the right wing smear merchants. Maybe another "book" will come out. Or maybe another little war will break out and McCain can act all commander in chiefy and imply Obama is a girly-man. Heaven knows, without a war to light up his eyes, McCain is simply too dull and too old to provide anything exciting for the media.
Thank god, they must be thinking, Obama is flying back from vacation today and will probably announce his veep next week. Then the media can spend the week before the convention tearing him or her apart.
For people that are supposed to have inside information and offer great insight, these people are acting like gossip mongers and morons. I guess that's what happens when the role of the press is no longer to inform, but simply make money for their corporate masters.
I am doing neither. I am watching the media. And it is quite amusing.
They want so badly for there to be some big drama for them to cover in the presidential race that they are trying to create controversy just to get people to pay attention. Every time a new poll comes out, for instance, they give it their own spin. A move of one or two points up for McCain means he is "closing the gap." If he moves one point ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 3 or 4, he has "taken the lead." Once Obama's lead opens up again to five or six points, they go silent or interpret it falsely as "within the margin of error." They desperately want this race to be close. A huge lead for Obama this early would give them nothing to agonize about.
Right now, they are mad at Barack Obama for going on vacation. How dare he! Doesn't he know he's supposed to be running for president here in the real United States, not resting in that "exotic" group of islands out in the Pacific? They are trying mightily to get us to believe this will hurt him – especially since he isn't acting like McCain and playing pretend commander in chief during this "crisis," which they have also hyped, in Georgia.
They also think Obama should be here to get all upset about the new smear book that has just been published about him. Once again, as they did all through the primary when they agonized over Clinton's attacks on Obama, the media is looking for a way to criticize him, this time for not reacting quickly enough to the packs of lies the right wing throws at the Dem candidate every four years. Day after dreary day they remind us of how the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry doomed his candidacy, especially because he didn't respond quickly enough.
Funny – I seem to remember how much of a part the media played in the dissemination of those Swift Boat ads, which only had a limited run as paid commercials. If it hadn't been for the media serving as the handmaiden of the right wing smear merchants, most people would not have seen those ads. Today, as they interview Jerome Corsi, they are looking back and saying the attacks against Kerry were false. But they didn't say that four years ago.
One wonders why they are even giving this hack air time. They say it is because his book will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. In psychology we call this rationalization – finding a dishonest excuse to do something you really want to do anyway. They know the only reason this book is at #1 is because of all the bulk orders from the right wing think tanks and political organizations to make it seem as if people are interested in this pap. But they want to stir up trouble and controversy so people will watch, and so the general election will be closer than they fear it might be, and one way to do that is to give some lying attack dog air time.
Speaking of books, the pundits created a mini-drama this week over a rumor that Jeremiah Wright is coming out with a book in October. They almost couldn’t speak from the salivation over such a possibility. This would be a godsend for the professional talkers. They could agonize for weeks over whether such a book would doom Obama's chances. Washington restaurants would be bereft of patrons who were all booked on the cable stations to offer their punditry on the subject. Alas, it seems Wright is in Ghana doing missionary work, his daughter telling the media there is no book.
The latest "controversy" the media is hyping is one they have babbled about for months – the Clinton-Obama drama. In the primaries they speculated over why Obama couldn't "seal the deal" and why Hillary wasn't withdrawing from the race. Could Obama be a flawed candidate, not "one of us"? Were white working class men not willing to vote for a black? Did Hillary have some trick up her sleeve? Would she ever concede? Was she taking it "all the way to the convention?" Was she going to steal Obama's delegates over the summer?
Now, as the Clinton and Obama camps quietly work on convention logistics, the media is at it again. The Clintons will overshadow Obama at the convention. It will be a "Clinton convention." This is the beginning of Hillary's 2012 campaign. Will Bill actually say nice things about Obama or will he sabotage everything? Will Hillary's supporters make trouble? Might a roll call vote end up in Clinton stealing the nomination?
One cable show yesterday had a ten minute segment interviewing two supposed Hillary supporters, part of a group known as "PUMA" (originally "Party Unity My Ass," now changed to "People United Means Action") who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. One of the guests admitted they have only raised $50,000 and have a small membership, yet the media wants controversy, so they give them a full ten minutes.
So with the news yesterday that the Clinton and Obama camps have worked out the role Hillary will play at the convention, the pundits are stumped. If there's no drama to report on, how can they get people to watch the convention? If PUMA is just a group of disgruntled and sour grapes die-hards (or more likely Republicans trying to make trouble) what else can they do to gin up controversy?
Well, they can always go back to the right wing smear merchants. Maybe another "book" will come out. Or maybe another little war will break out and McCain can act all commander in chiefy and imply Obama is a girly-man. Heaven knows, without a war to light up his eyes, McCain is simply too dull and too old to provide anything exciting for the media.
Thank god, they must be thinking, Obama is flying back from vacation today and will probably announce his veep next week. Then the media can spend the week before the convention tearing him or her apart.
For people that are supposed to have inside information and offer great insight, these people are acting like gossip mongers and morons. I guess that's what happens when the role of the press is no longer to inform, but simply make money for their corporate masters.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
No more flyboys!
McCain to reporters on his plane today:
We have learned from several reputable sources (Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward among them) that Bush intended from the moment he took office to find a way to get into a war with Iraq. We see what misery that has brought us, and how it has affected our standing in the world.
Now McCain is threatening a hostile attitude towards Russia, even before the election. Can we really afford to go down this road again, or are we ready for something different, something perhaps a little more reasonable, a little more diplomatic, a little more peaceful?
Republicans want you to believe it is risky to elect Obama. I say it is far riskier to stay with a warmonger, a man itching for a return to the 1970s, a man who seems to come alive when thumping his chest and threatening other nations.
McCain and Bush are like peas in a pod - both former flyboys, both militant, both allergic to diplomacy with one's adversaries.
McCain, speaking with U.S. News en route from Birmingham, Mich., to Eagle, Colo., said there would not be a return to the Cold War but there would be a "dramatically different relationship" between the United States and Russia unless Moscow's behavior changes. "It is not acceptable behavior in the 21st century," McCain argued.
We have learned from several reputable sources (Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward among them) that Bush intended from the moment he took office to find a way to get into a war with Iraq. We see what misery that has brought us, and how it has affected our standing in the world.
Now McCain is threatening a hostile attitude towards Russia, even before the election. Can we really afford to go down this road again, or are we ready for something different, something perhaps a little more reasonable, a little more diplomatic, a little more peaceful?
Republicans want you to believe it is risky to elect Obama. I say it is far riskier to stay with a warmonger, a man itching for a return to the 1970s, a man who seems to come alive when thumping his chest and threatening other nations.
McCain and Bush are like peas in a pod - both former flyboys, both militant, both allergic to diplomacy with one's adversaries.
Militant nationalism: the mindset of McCain
Over at Obsidian Wings, publius has a fascinating post about how neocon (and McCain) nationalism parallels Russian nationalism.
...let's imagine if Bill Kristol could be magically transformed into a Russian. And let’s say that the Russian Kristol saw the following happen over the years: (1) the Soviet Union collapsed; (2) NATO and the West began militarily encircling a country whose foreign policy has been obsessed for 60 years with avoiding another WW2-style invasion; (3) NATO humiliated an impotent Russia by bombing the holy crap out of Serbia and then supporting independence for Kosovo; (4) a hated uber-nationalist neighbor (Georgia) wanted to join this military alliance (NATO!); (5) said hated neighbor launched an attack essentially rubbing Russia’s nose in it.
What exactly do you think Kristolovich would recommend? Respect for territorial sovereignty? No, he’d recommend pretty much what he’s recommending now, just with the countries reversed. That’s what militant nationalists do. They convince themselves of their own unambiguous superiority. Once that point is established, everything else flows logically. Because we’re so good, we can use force whenever and wherever we want. We won’t be excessive of course, because we’re constitutionally incapable of being wrong.
These militant nationalists also share a paranoid sense of decline. The great nation is always in danger of being overrun or embarrassed. There’s always some threat among us. Thus, there’s always some need to re-establish our strength and greatness – preferably through force. Because we’re so good.
My point is that the problem with the Russia response is, at bottom, the same problem with the response to the response. That problem is nationalism. Russia is doing exactly what the neocons want America and Israel to do.
Generally speaking, though, nationalism is almost always the problem. Looking abroad, we usually find ourselves at odds with various countries' nationalist wings. That is, the nationalists are the ones we don’t like (though sometimes we like them, but shouldn't – e.g., Israel, Georgia). In Iran, we prefer the reformers to the religious nationalists. In Palestine, same. In China, same (minus religion). In Russia, same. In Venezuela, same. In all these countries, the nationalists are the most contemptuous of world opinion. They’re the most enamored of starting wars. And so on....
....Looking ahead, we’re never going to make real progress until we get past this paranoid, angry worldview. Democrats might win an election or two and put off the day of reckoning. But as long as militant nationalism remains as potent as it seems to be, we’re simply pushing off wars to future dates.
Idiotic and unhelpful chest thumping
John McCain and Condi Rice's recent chest thumping with respect to Russia is comical.
Both are supposedly experts on Russia (Rice in academia, McCain in his own mind) and both sound insane. Rice has to sound tough, I guess, as she is the Secretary of State. I suspect she actually knows better.
But McCain just sounds like an idiot.
Here are two of the stupider things he has said in his long ramblings, speeches and pretend commander in chief press conferences about the conflict:
"We are all Georgians now."
"In the twenty first century, nations don't invade other nations."
And Rice said:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."
Where to start?
Barack said he was a citizen of the United States and of the world and McCain's supporters blew a gasket. Now McCain says we are all Georgians? Puh-lease! Most people don't give a hoot about Georgia, if they even know what and where it is, and since Georgia provoked this over-reaction from Russia, and opened the door for them to flex their muscles, they have to accept some of the blame here. And so does McCain, for having a lobbyist for Georgia on his campaign staff, for visiting Georgia and talking about independence for South Ossetia, and for giving the Georgian president the impression the U.S. would come to their aid.
It's amazing to me that with a Secretary of State who is supposedly an expert on Russia, this administration could have been so seemingly clueless about the strength and pride of a post-Soviet Russia. (Once again, Bush's famous gut instincts - and looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul - trumped realistic assessments of a foreign country and its leadership.)
Of course Russia is going to be looking towards its own interests, and it isn't in its interests for Georgia to push Russia around in South Ossetia (Georgian troops killed several Russian peace keepers there). Nor is it in Russia's interest to allow all those states on her border to join NATO. Russians are not wimps, and Condi Rice of all people should know that.
She should also know that what Russia did is not unreasonable, from their perspective. Were the Bush administration (or god forbid a McCain administration) to be in a border dispute with Mexico, and they provoked us by sending soldiers into the disputed region and killed some of our border guards or peace keepers, you can bet we would do exactly what Russia did. We would send in the tanks and the bombers and we might not stop until we got to Mexico City. And we would dare any other nation to stop us.
Another possible comeback to Condi: "No, this is not 1968 and things have changed. Now it is the United States that can occupy not just a capital but an entire country (or two), overthrow a government and get away with it."
As for Russia not being able to "get away with it," it appears they are. We have no diplomatic strength as Bush prefers to use force and threats rather than diplomacy. We have no available troops, thanks to Bush's ill-conceived and endless war in Iraq. And the Russians know it. So how do we stop them from "getting away with it?"
Back to McCain's political posturing, which is all it is since he has absolutely no authority or power to do anything othert than send his two best buddies over to Georgia to wring their hands, his pronouncements are just silly. No, we are not all Georgians now. This is not 9/11 when France expressed solidarity with America (and a group of morons in Congress returned the sentiment by renaming French fries "Freedom fries" and urging Americans to pour out all of their French wine). What are we going to do about Russian agression - rename Russian roulette "Freedom roulette" and dump our vodka?
As for nations not invading other nations in the 21st century, oh really? What about our little "excursions" into Iraq and Afghanistan and McCain's threat to bomb Iran?
Rice and McCain are high atop their self-righteous, nationalistic, American pedestal, using rhetoric to make Russia into the bad guy, although there is almost nothing they can do to change Russia's behavior.
What if we dared examine which of the two nations has been the most aggressive over the past eight years?
Which nation, for instance, is involved in two wars halfway around the world, involving more than 150,000 troops, and having killed close to 100,000 civilians?
And which nation has 702 overseas bases in 130 countries?
Hint: It isn't Russia.
Both are supposedly experts on Russia (Rice in academia, McCain in his own mind) and both sound insane. Rice has to sound tough, I guess, as she is the Secretary of State. I suspect she actually knows better.
But McCain just sounds like an idiot.
Here are two of the stupider things he has said in his long ramblings, speeches and pretend commander in chief press conferences about the conflict:
"We are all Georgians now."
"In the twenty first century, nations don't invade other nations."
And Rice said:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."
Where to start?
Barack said he was a citizen of the United States and of the world and McCain's supporters blew a gasket. Now McCain says we are all Georgians? Puh-lease! Most people don't give a hoot about Georgia, if they even know what and where it is, and since Georgia provoked this over-reaction from Russia, and opened the door for them to flex their muscles, they have to accept some of the blame here. And so does McCain, for having a lobbyist for Georgia on his campaign staff, for visiting Georgia and talking about independence for South Ossetia, and for giving the Georgian president the impression the U.S. would come to their aid.
It's amazing to me that with a Secretary of State who is supposedly an expert on Russia, this administration could have been so seemingly clueless about the strength and pride of a post-Soviet Russia. (Once again, Bush's famous gut instincts - and looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul - trumped realistic assessments of a foreign country and its leadership.)
Of course Russia is going to be looking towards its own interests, and it isn't in its interests for Georgia to push Russia around in South Ossetia (Georgian troops killed several Russian peace keepers there). Nor is it in Russia's interest to allow all those states on her border to join NATO. Russians are not wimps, and Condi Rice of all people should know that.
She should also know that what Russia did is not unreasonable, from their perspective. Were the Bush administration (or god forbid a McCain administration) to be in a border dispute with Mexico, and they provoked us by sending soldiers into the disputed region and killed some of our border guards or peace keepers, you can bet we would do exactly what Russia did. We would send in the tanks and the bombers and we might not stop until we got to Mexico City. And we would dare any other nation to stop us.
Another possible comeback to Condi: "No, this is not 1968 and things have changed. Now it is the United States that can occupy not just a capital but an entire country (or two), overthrow a government and get away with it."
As for Russia not being able to "get away with it," it appears they are. We have no diplomatic strength as Bush prefers to use force and threats rather than diplomacy. We have no available troops, thanks to Bush's ill-conceived and endless war in Iraq. And the Russians know it. So how do we stop them from "getting away with it?"
Back to McCain's political posturing, which is all it is since he has absolutely no authority or power to do anything othert than send his two best buddies over to Georgia to wring their hands, his pronouncements are just silly. No, we are not all Georgians now. This is not 9/11 when France expressed solidarity with America (and a group of morons in Congress returned the sentiment by renaming French fries "Freedom fries" and urging Americans to pour out all of their French wine). What are we going to do about Russian agression - rename Russian roulette "Freedom roulette" and dump our vodka?
As for nations not invading other nations in the 21st century, oh really? What about our little "excursions" into Iraq and Afghanistan and McCain's threat to bomb Iran?
Rice and McCain are high atop their self-righteous, nationalistic, American pedestal, using rhetoric to make Russia into the bad guy, although there is almost nothing they can do to change Russia's behavior.
What if we dared examine which of the two nations has been the most aggressive over the past eight years?
Which nation, for instance, is involved in two wars halfway around the world, involving more than 150,000 troops, and having killed close to 100,000 civilians?
And which nation has 702 overseas bases in 130 countries?
Hint: It isn't Russia.
Why people vote the way they do
In all the polls out since the presidential race began, John McCain gets more of the over 65 vote than Barack Obama and Obama gets a much larger share of the under 35 vote.
We can speculate all we want about why that is. Many pundits simply chalk it up to the age of the candidates. McCain is older and gets support from his contemporaries. Obama is younger and so picks up the youth vote. Or perhaps older voters are more conservative and feel McCain is the safe pick, while younger voters prefer change and are more willing to take a chance.
But we really don't know. It could be also that older voters tend to be more racist or simply less comfortable with diversity, while younger voters have grown up in an entirely different world from that of their grandparents, one more diverse in terms of race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation.
Or it could be something completely different. One relevent statistic is that McCain is heavily favored by non-college educated seniors and Obama picks up the support of those seniors who have gone to college. (Since most seniors are not college-educated, that favors McCain.) Education, and exposure to diversity in people as well as ideas seems to make a difference.
But we are only guessing. I would like to know exactly why people vote the way they do and I'm sure the candidates would too. For example, I have never seen a poll, but would like to see one, in which people are asked for the reasons they support or oppose a candidate. I'm not sure how that would be done without leading questions, but I would like to see a reputable polling company try. I think what would come out would surprise us. I believe a lot of people vote for trivial reasons, or are influenced by false information.
My parents offer one example. They are both 82, and both ill. Neither is college educated. My father served in the army during World War II, when the military was not integrated. He tells me his father, who lived all his life in Ohio, "hated blacks." My mother says her mother, a saintly woman by any measure, was afraid of blacks.
They always vote by absentee ballot. My mother still thinks clearly, but she tends to believe certain things she sees on the news or things she has heard some of her contemporaries say. She doesn't spend any time examing whether what she heard was true or false. For instance, she expressed concern that if Barack Obama is elected he might have an administration full of African Americans and exclude whites. She also thinks Russia is totally to blame for starting the recent problems in Georgia, because that is how it is characterized by the media and by McCain.
My father wants to vote for McCain because he thinks he will "win the war" and Barack won't. (He pronounces Barack "bearik.") Up until a few months ago, when I showed him a map of the Middle East, he supported the Iraq War because he thought Iraq and Afghanistan shared a border and we had to go into Iraq to stop the flow of terrorists from Afghanistan into Iraq. Now he thinks the war with Iraq was wrong, but he says we still have to "win" it. He has real cognitive deterioration and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, but there is no law that I know of to stop him.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the biggest divide in this country, in terms of political knowledge and sophistication, as well as voting patterns, is between those who are college educated and those who aren't - with one caveat - those who majored in the liberal arts tend to be more liberal (and dare I say open minded) than those who majored in business. A liberal arts education makes you more open to new ideas, less fearful of challenging the status quo, more willing to adopt change. With the classes you take for a liberal arts major, you simply are exposed to more. Whether that makes college educated voters right or wrong is not for me to decide - conservatives, for instance, say change is bad and sticking with the past is good, while liberals are much more open to embracing that which is new, and much less fearful of diversity.
Unless a polling company conducts the kind of study I suggest, however, we will never know how much education vs. other factors decide the outcome of this race. I do believe, though, that as more and more Americans become comfortable with diversity, through education, we will become a more progressive and less conservative country.
We can speculate all we want about why that is. Many pundits simply chalk it up to the age of the candidates. McCain is older and gets support from his contemporaries. Obama is younger and so picks up the youth vote. Or perhaps older voters are more conservative and feel McCain is the safe pick, while younger voters prefer change and are more willing to take a chance.
But we really don't know. It could be also that older voters tend to be more racist or simply less comfortable with diversity, while younger voters have grown up in an entirely different world from that of their grandparents, one more diverse in terms of race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation.
Or it could be something completely different. One relevent statistic is that McCain is heavily favored by non-college educated seniors and Obama picks up the support of those seniors who have gone to college. (Since most seniors are not college-educated, that favors McCain.) Education, and exposure to diversity in people as well as ideas seems to make a difference.
But we are only guessing. I would like to know exactly why people vote the way they do and I'm sure the candidates would too. For example, I have never seen a poll, but would like to see one, in which people are asked for the reasons they support or oppose a candidate. I'm not sure how that would be done without leading questions, but I would like to see a reputable polling company try. I think what would come out would surprise us. I believe a lot of people vote for trivial reasons, or are influenced by false information.
My parents offer one example. They are both 82, and both ill. Neither is college educated. My father served in the army during World War II, when the military was not integrated. He tells me his father, who lived all his life in Ohio, "hated blacks." My mother says her mother, a saintly woman by any measure, was afraid of blacks.
They always vote by absentee ballot. My mother still thinks clearly, but she tends to believe certain things she sees on the news or things she has heard some of her contemporaries say. She doesn't spend any time examing whether what she heard was true or false. For instance, she expressed concern that if Barack Obama is elected he might have an administration full of African Americans and exclude whites. She also thinks Russia is totally to blame for starting the recent problems in Georgia, because that is how it is characterized by the media and by McCain.
My father wants to vote for McCain because he thinks he will "win the war" and Barack won't. (He pronounces Barack "bearik.") Up until a few months ago, when I showed him a map of the Middle East, he supported the Iraq War because he thought Iraq and Afghanistan shared a border and we had to go into Iraq to stop the flow of terrorists from Afghanistan into Iraq. Now he thinks the war with Iraq was wrong, but he says we still have to "win" it. He has real cognitive deterioration and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, but there is no law that I know of to stop him.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the biggest divide in this country, in terms of political knowledge and sophistication, as well as voting patterns, is between those who are college educated and those who aren't - with one caveat - those who majored in the liberal arts tend to be more liberal (and dare I say open minded) than those who majored in business. A liberal arts education makes you more open to new ideas, less fearful of challenging the status quo, more willing to adopt change. With the classes you take for a liberal arts major, you simply are exposed to more. Whether that makes college educated voters right or wrong is not for me to decide - conservatives, for instance, say change is bad and sticking with the past is good, while liberals are much more open to embracing that which is new, and much less fearful of diversity.
Unless a polling company conducts the kind of study I suggest, however, we will never know how much education vs. other factors decide the outcome of this race. I do believe, though, that as more and more Americans become comfortable with diversity, through education, we will become a more progressive and less conservative country.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Three (saber-rattling) Stooges
As a follow up to my last post - John McCain is sending "Moe" Liebermann and "Curly" Graham to Georgia as his own private delegation.
I've long viewed these three, who appear together constantly, as the Three Stooges. Now I'm convinced.
Double standard
Remember how the McCain camp, during Obama's recent trip overseas, said he had been acting too presidential, when he wasn't yet the president? Remember how it was a bad thing that he talked with foreign leaders and gave a speech in Berlin, because he was jumping the gun?
Well, McCain, still just a candidate, now brags that he speaks daily to the president of Georgia, conducting his own private foreign policy, with the help of an advisor who is a lobbyist for the Georgian government.
I'd call that a hell of a lot more problematic and presumptuous and even dangerous (interfering in the foreign policy of the administration) than what Obama did.
But there has always been a double standard hasn't there? When a Republican candidate does something it's tough and strong and idealistic and patriotic and proof he can be commander in chief. When a Democrat does the same thing it's presumptuous and elitist and phony and treasonous and a sign he's too big for his britches.
Well, McCain, still just a candidate, now brags that he speaks daily to the president of Georgia, conducting his own private foreign policy, with the help of an advisor who is a lobbyist for the Georgian government.
I'd call that a hell of a lot more problematic and presumptuous and even dangerous (interfering in the foreign policy of the administration) than what Obama did.
But there has always been a double standard hasn't there? When a Republican candidate does something it's tough and strong and idealistic and patriotic and proof he can be commander in chief. When a Democrat does the same thing it's presumptuous and elitist and phony and treasonous and a sign he's too big for his britches.
Shifting seasons
My mother commented yesterday that it almost feels like Fall is arriving early. She noted the temperatures are not as hot as they usually are in August and that it cools off more at night. She pointed to the fact that June was much hotter than we are used to (we usually call the overcast weather "June gloom"), as was July, almost as if June and July were more like previous Augusts and Septembers.
Climate scientists say Spring is arriving earlier around the world, changing the nesting habits of birds and endangering many species which depend on the predictablility of the seasons. The polar bear, for one, emerges from hibernation dependent on the presence of the ice to hunt for fish in the Arctic waters. Now, with the ice melting earlier and earlier, the polar bears are starving.
Of course, it is always dangerous to speak too soon. The temperature in Southern California could creep up again and we might end up having a sizzling September, but on the other hand there may be something to what my mother is sensing.
When something that was an observation of scientists starts being noticed by ordinary mothers and grandmothers, maybe we'll start taking it more seriously.
Climate scientists say Spring is arriving earlier around the world, changing the nesting habits of birds and endangering many species which depend on the predictablility of the seasons. The polar bear, for one, emerges from hibernation dependent on the presence of the ice to hunt for fish in the Arctic waters. Now, with the ice melting earlier and earlier, the polar bears are starving.
Of course, it is always dangerous to speak too soon. The temperature in Southern California could creep up again and we might end up having a sizzling September, but on the other hand there may be something to what my mother is sensing.
When something that was an observation of scientists starts being noticed by ordinary mothers and grandmothers, maybe we'll start taking it more seriously.
McCain's strategy
John McCain's strategy, like that of George W. Bush, is to get voters to fear and resent the superior candidate.
McCain's only hope of winning this election is to paint Barack Obama as not "one of us." If only he can convince enough uneducated voters (his base) that Obama is too different, too "foreign," i. e. "black," and that his Harvard education, high intelligence, and early political success is evidence that he is better than us, an elitist, a celebrity, then perhaps a combination of resentment, racism, and paranoia might get just enough voters to choose the inferior candidate.
Here is a post that outlines the fallacy of McCain's argument.
McCain's only hope of winning this election is to paint Barack Obama as not "one of us." If only he can convince enough uneducated voters (his base) that Obama is too different, too "foreign," i. e. "black," and that his Harvard education, high intelligence, and early political success is evidence that he is better than us, an elitist, a celebrity, then perhaps a combination of resentment, racism, and paranoia might get just enough voters to choose the inferior candidate.
Here is a post that outlines the fallacy of McCain's argument.
A llittle compassion, please
It was one thing when Mark Foley's dalliances with under age House pages were exposed. It was a similar thing when Larry Craig was arrested for bathroom trysts. These acts are not only disgusting, they are potentially illegal.
But for the media to continue to talk about the John Edwards affair, something which was not illegal, to continue to hound him because they don't think he told the full truth about whatever happened with the blonde with the unpronouncable name, is just stupid.
John Edwards is now a private citizen entitled, in my opinion, to the same privacy the rest of us should enjoy. Yes, we Democrats dodged a bullet here, in that we were wise enough not to nominate him for president. We would have been facing a mess had we chosen him. The holier than thou Republicans would have hammered us. And some in the media are using the fact that he tried to get the nomination as justification for continuing to investigate this story.
I don't buy it. There is no justification for hounding him now. The man is finished politically - he is a non-story, even with Howard Wolfson's silly (and now unproven) contention that if Edwards had not run, Hillary would be the nominee.
Once Mark Foley went into "rehab" the press pretty much left him alone. His career was over, just as Edwards' career is over now, whether fair or not.
Of course everyone feels sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. There are few things as painful as discovering the love of your life is giving his love and his body to someone else. But does anyone help Elizabeth by continuing to drag her family through the mud?
As a former marriage counselor, who has watched the pain that spouses feel when they are betrayed, I cannot excuse the behavior of John Edwards, but I want to say something no one else has said. John and Elizabeth Edwards are courageous people who have been through hell and back, and all of that hell is the backdrop for this irrational behavior of John Edwards.
First they lost their beloved son in a tragic and senseless car accident when the boy was only 16. Afterwards, they went into a deep depression for at least a year, after which John decided to go into politics as a way to honor his boy and make his life about something other than making money. One thing that should be pointed out here is that the death of a child is devastating to a marriage. Some studies show that 90% of couples divorce after a child dies. But even for those spouses who don't divorce, the experience changes them profoundly and leaves an enduring painful emptiness in the heart.
Edwards rose quickly in the Democratic Party and almost became the vice president. In fact, the exit polls in 2004 predicted a Kerry - Edwards victory which they were celebrating when late returns proved the polls wrong. (Such a loss often leaves a person in a state of depression. But the Edwards didn't even have time to deal with that because of what followed.)
The day after the election Elizabeth announced that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. What followed were months of painful chemotherapy, complete with hair loss, and all the worry that goes with a cancer diagnosis. And while Elizabeth was the one with the illness, and the one everyone pities now, the entire family felt the reality of it. When one person in a family is diagnosed with cancer, everyone who loves him or her feels the pain and the panic. Now John and Elizabeth were facing the possibility of her death and perhaps that was more than he could take. He had lost his son, his dream of being vice president, and now he faced the possibility of losing his wife. I should note here that just as it is common to divorce after the death of a child, it is also common to divorce after one spouse is diagnosed with cancer. This seems callous and harsh, but it happens frequently, signaling to us that the stress on the marriage must be enormous.
In Edwards' case, having suffered two painful losses, and facing one more possible loss, he must have felt a little crazy. Perhaps that's what Elizabeth Edwards saw when she urged him to run again for president, even though she knew about his infidelity, and even after her cancer returned. Perhaps she thought it would give him something to live for, to focus on so that he didn't fall into despair or self-destructive behavior. (Not a good enough reason to run for president in my opinion - the duties of the presidency are not meant to be therapy for anyone.) Nonetheless, we often make decisions for the wrong reasons.
Now, even though Edwards has finally admitted the affair, the media is obsessed with finding out if John Edwards is the father of the woman's six month old baby. I really don't know what difference this would make to the media, to the Democratic Party or to anyone but the Edwards.
I really wish everyone - and especially the media - would leave them alone. It is no longer any of our business. They have been through hell many times over, and if John Edwards coped with that hell by allowing himself to escape into a temporary infatuation, and then following up on that with a profoundly stupid affair, be assured he will pay for it for the rest of his life. Life, I have learned, is always messy. No one is perfect and everyone handles stress differently. Every one of us has made huge mistakes in our life and being in the public eye doesn't make one immune to human stupidity. We should only wish this couple well, and hope they can repair the damage to their family and relationship and somehow enjoy life again.
John Edwards will never hold elected office again, but he may be able to do some good in the private sector. Bill Clinton has certainly redeemed himself with his charitable work. Sure, his donors may be angry that he deceived them and took their money. I understand that. But let's move on and let the Edwards deal with whatever is still unknown to the public about this situation. Let's be compassionate here and give them a break and be grateful that we nominated the right person for the presidency.
But for the media to continue to talk about the John Edwards affair, something which was not illegal, to continue to hound him because they don't think he told the full truth about whatever happened with the blonde with the unpronouncable name, is just stupid.
John Edwards is now a private citizen entitled, in my opinion, to the same privacy the rest of us should enjoy. Yes, we Democrats dodged a bullet here, in that we were wise enough not to nominate him for president. We would have been facing a mess had we chosen him. The holier than thou Republicans would have hammered us. And some in the media are using the fact that he tried to get the nomination as justification for continuing to investigate this story.
I don't buy it. There is no justification for hounding him now. The man is finished politically - he is a non-story, even with Howard Wolfson's silly (and now unproven) contention that if Edwards had not run, Hillary would be the nominee.
Once Mark Foley went into "rehab" the press pretty much left him alone. His career was over, just as Edwards' career is over now, whether fair or not.
Of course everyone feels sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. There are few things as painful as discovering the love of your life is giving his love and his body to someone else. But does anyone help Elizabeth by continuing to drag her family through the mud?
As a former marriage counselor, who has watched the pain that spouses feel when they are betrayed, I cannot excuse the behavior of John Edwards, but I want to say something no one else has said. John and Elizabeth Edwards are courageous people who have been through hell and back, and all of that hell is the backdrop for this irrational behavior of John Edwards.
First they lost their beloved son in a tragic and senseless car accident when the boy was only 16. Afterwards, they went into a deep depression for at least a year, after which John decided to go into politics as a way to honor his boy and make his life about something other than making money. One thing that should be pointed out here is that the death of a child is devastating to a marriage. Some studies show that 90% of couples divorce after a child dies. But even for those spouses who don't divorce, the experience changes them profoundly and leaves an enduring painful emptiness in the heart.
Edwards rose quickly in the Democratic Party and almost became the vice president. In fact, the exit polls in 2004 predicted a Kerry - Edwards victory which they were celebrating when late returns proved the polls wrong. (Such a loss often leaves a person in a state of depression. But the Edwards didn't even have time to deal with that because of what followed.)
The day after the election Elizabeth announced that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. What followed were months of painful chemotherapy, complete with hair loss, and all the worry that goes with a cancer diagnosis. And while Elizabeth was the one with the illness, and the one everyone pities now, the entire family felt the reality of it. When one person in a family is diagnosed with cancer, everyone who loves him or her feels the pain and the panic. Now John and Elizabeth were facing the possibility of her death and perhaps that was more than he could take. He had lost his son, his dream of being vice president, and now he faced the possibility of losing his wife. I should note here that just as it is common to divorce after the death of a child, it is also common to divorce after one spouse is diagnosed with cancer. This seems callous and harsh, but it happens frequently, signaling to us that the stress on the marriage must be enormous.
In Edwards' case, having suffered two painful losses, and facing one more possible loss, he must have felt a little crazy. Perhaps that's what Elizabeth Edwards saw when she urged him to run again for president, even though she knew about his infidelity, and even after her cancer returned. Perhaps she thought it would give him something to live for, to focus on so that he didn't fall into despair or self-destructive behavior. (Not a good enough reason to run for president in my opinion - the duties of the presidency are not meant to be therapy for anyone.) Nonetheless, we often make decisions for the wrong reasons.
Now, even though Edwards has finally admitted the affair, the media is obsessed with finding out if John Edwards is the father of the woman's six month old baby. I really don't know what difference this would make to the media, to the Democratic Party or to anyone but the Edwards.
I really wish everyone - and especially the media - would leave them alone. It is no longer any of our business. They have been through hell many times over, and if John Edwards coped with that hell by allowing himself to escape into a temporary infatuation, and then following up on that with a profoundly stupid affair, be assured he will pay for it for the rest of his life. Life, I have learned, is always messy. No one is perfect and everyone handles stress differently. Every one of us has made huge mistakes in our life and being in the public eye doesn't make one immune to human stupidity. We should only wish this couple well, and hope they can repair the damage to their family and relationship and somehow enjoy life again.
John Edwards will never hold elected office again, but he may be able to do some good in the private sector. Bill Clinton has certainly redeemed himself with his charitable work. Sure, his donors may be angry that he deceived them and took their money. I understand that. But let's move on and let the Edwards deal with whatever is still unknown to the public about this situation. Let's be compassionate here and give them a break and be grateful that we nominated the right person for the presidency.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The funny little man with the Napoleon Complex
John McCain is a warmonger.
Ever since the idiot president of Georgia, egged on by the idiot president of this country, provoked the Russians with military excursions into South Ossetia, and Putin and his soulful eyes rushed back from the Olympics to monitor the Russian retaliation, John McCain has been running around condemning Russia, ranting that Putin was trying to re-create the Russian Empire. (John Bolton, an even more paranoid idiot, accused Putin of trying to re-create the Soviet Union.)
McCain, who thinks this opportunity to beat his chest is a godsend for his campaign, says Russia must be punished, thrown out of the G-8. Apparently he thinks it would be good for his poll numbers to restart the Cold War.
What is this old man thinking? First of all, everyone else but McCain, Bolton, Lieberman and maybe Condoleezza Rice are watching the Olympics and think Georgia is between Alabama and South Carolina, but McCain is sure this is a great opportunity for him to look and sound like a commander in chief.
Secondly, the problem seems to be resolving itself with the help of the French president (damn those Frenchies!) and - heaven forbid - diplomacy.
Yet, today, McCain said to a crowd in Pennsylvania: "I know I speak for every American when I said to him (the idiot president of Georgia), today, we are all Georgians."
No, Mr. pretend commander in chief. You don't speak for all Americans when you co-opt what the French said in solidarity with their American friends after 9/11: "We are all Americans now." You certainly don't speak for me or for anyone I know or for anyone with common sense.
One year from now, indeed one month from now, we will most likely not even remember this event in Georgia, but we will forever remember 9/11. To put them in the same category is ridiculous and worse. It is comparing the most horrendous event in our nation's history to a stupid border skirmish in the former Soviet Union so that McCain can try to score political points. Well, maybe he has scored points in Georgia, but he has scored none here in the United States.
John McCain cannnot possibly speak for all Americans (he can barely speak for himself) because most Americans couldn't care less, if they are even paying attention.
I don't want this man and his Napoleon complex anywhere near the White House. He is an embarassment.
Even worse, he is dangerous.
Ever since the idiot president of Georgia, egged on by the idiot president of this country, provoked the Russians with military excursions into South Ossetia, and Putin and his soulful eyes rushed back from the Olympics to monitor the Russian retaliation, John McCain has been running around condemning Russia, ranting that Putin was trying to re-create the Russian Empire. (John Bolton, an even more paranoid idiot, accused Putin of trying to re-create the Soviet Union.)
McCain, who thinks this opportunity to beat his chest is a godsend for his campaign, says Russia must be punished, thrown out of the G-8. Apparently he thinks it would be good for his poll numbers to restart the Cold War.
What is this old man thinking? First of all, everyone else but McCain, Bolton, Lieberman and maybe Condoleezza Rice are watching the Olympics and think Georgia is between Alabama and South Carolina, but McCain is sure this is a great opportunity for him to look and sound like a commander in chief.
Secondly, the problem seems to be resolving itself with the help of the French president (damn those Frenchies!) and - heaven forbid - diplomacy.
Yet, today, McCain said to a crowd in Pennsylvania: "I know I speak for every American when I said to him (the idiot president of Georgia), today, we are all Georgians."
No, Mr. pretend commander in chief. You don't speak for all Americans when you co-opt what the French said in solidarity with their American friends after 9/11: "We are all Americans now." You certainly don't speak for me or for anyone I know or for anyone with common sense.
One year from now, indeed one month from now, we will most likely not even remember this event in Georgia, but we will forever remember 9/11. To put them in the same category is ridiculous and worse. It is comparing the most horrendous event in our nation's history to a stupid border skirmish in the former Soviet Union so that McCain can try to score political points. Well, maybe he has scored points in Georgia, but he has scored none here in the United States.
John McCain cannnot possibly speak for all Americans (he can barely speak for himself) because most Americans couldn't care less, if they are even paying attention.
I don't want this man and his Napoleon complex anywhere near the White House. He is an embarassment.
Even worse, he is dangerous.
Penn and Roberts: East Coast snobbery and bias
Cokie Roberts stirred up a lot of liberal blog-o-sphere controversy over the past few days when she first commented on This Week that Obama should not be vacationing in exotic places like Hawaii, but instead go to Myrtle Beach, Florida (which she apparently sees as more "American" than Hawaii) and then reinforcing this sentiment by noting on NPR that Obama makes a mistake by portraying himself as the "boy from Kansas and Kenya."
Leaving aside for a moment the racial connotation of calling Obama "boy," the main thrust of Roberts' comments is that Obama is too exotic, too foreign and not American enough to be president.
This dovetails nicely into the Clinton campaign emails, just leaked, in which Mark Penn urges Hillary Clinton to portray Obama as someone "who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."
According to Politico:
There are many layers to these comments by Penn and Roberts, and I don't want to address all of them, but at the bottom of all of this talk is the assumption by East Coasters that somehow they are more American than West Coasters. All the major news organizations, including the three networks, are based in New York. All the mainstream and cable networks have studios in New York and Washington. And of course Florida is where the oldsters from New York and Washington retire. That's how the media defines what is American.
California, where I live, is simply nutso-land to the media and explains the contempt they hold for Nancy Pelosi. To Republicans it is the center of un-American Hollywood liberalism. As for Hawaii, it is treated by East Coasters as if it is not even part of the United States. Puerto Rico (off the East Coast, of course) got more press in the primaries than Hawaii got.
So, coming from this mindset of East Coast insularity, it was easy for Mark Penn and Cokie Roberts to paint the Hawaiian born Obama as insufficiently American. We've never had a president from Hawaii, and he's black for god's sake. How on earth are we in the high and mighty press supposed to cover a race with such an exotic character? Will the Western White House be all the way in Honolulu? Will we have to go there when the president vacations? Horrors!
Cokie Roberts is an idiot.
But Mark Penn – he is simply despicable.
He wasn't just speaking from the narrow mindedness of those who have always lived on the East Coast, or of the New York-Washington press whose entire grasp of the Western United States is that California has earthquakes and movie stars, and Hawaii has volcanoes and luaus.
Penn was doing everything he could to paint an American citizen, a man who rose from humble roots to become a successful lawyer and politician, thanks only to his ability and hard work, as alien. This is the ultimate American success story, but Penn wanted to make Obama into something he most decidedly is not. He wanted to portray him as insufficiently American, because apparently Hawaii, Kansas, and Chicago - not being New York, Washington or Myrtle Beach - are simply not American enough.
I'd love to see one of the major networks move their base of operation to Los Angeles. It might shift the balance of power in this country and spread it across all fifty states. I'd like to see Cokie Roberts and her silly views off of ABC and NPR, and I'd like to see Mark Penn exiled to Russia, where he can learn what it means to live somewhere that is not "fundamentally American."
Leaving aside for a moment the racial connotation of calling Obama "boy," the main thrust of Roberts' comments is that Obama is too exotic, too foreign and not American enough to be president.
This dovetails nicely into the Clinton campaign emails, just leaked, in which Mark Penn urges Hillary Clinton to portray Obama as someone "who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."
According to Politico:
The Penn memo suggesting that the campaign target Obama’s “lack of American roots” said in part: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light."
There are many layers to these comments by Penn and Roberts, and I don't want to address all of them, but at the bottom of all of this talk is the assumption by East Coasters that somehow they are more American than West Coasters. All the major news organizations, including the three networks, are based in New York. All the mainstream and cable networks have studios in New York and Washington. And of course Florida is where the oldsters from New York and Washington retire. That's how the media defines what is American.
California, where I live, is simply nutso-land to the media and explains the contempt they hold for Nancy Pelosi. To Republicans it is the center of un-American Hollywood liberalism. As for Hawaii, it is treated by East Coasters as if it is not even part of the United States. Puerto Rico (off the East Coast, of course) got more press in the primaries than Hawaii got.
So, coming from this mindset of East Coast insularity, it was easy for Mark Penn and Cokie Roberts to paint the Hawaiian born Obama as insufficiently American. We've never had a president from Hawaii, and he's black for god's sake. How on earth are we in the high and mighty press supposed to cover a race with such an exotic character? Will the Western White House be all the way in Honolulu? Will we have to go there when the president vacations? Horrors!
Cokie Roberts is an idiot.
But Mark Penn – he is simply despicable.
He wasn't just speaking from the narrow mindedness of those who have always lived on the East Coast, or of the New York-Washington press whose entire grasp of the Western United States is that California has earthquakes and movie stars, and Hawaii has volcanoes and luaus.
Penn was doing everything he could to paint an American citizen, a man who rose from humble roots to become a successful lawyer and politician, thanks only to his ability and hard work, as alien. This is the ultimate American success story, but Penn wanted to make Obama into something he most decidedly is not. He wanted to portray him as insufficiently American, because apparently Hawaii, Kansas, and Chicago - not being New York, Washington or Myrtle Beach - are simply not American enough.
I'd love to see one of the major networks move their base of operation to Los Angeles. It might shift the balance of power in this country and spread it across all fifty states. I'd like to see Cokie Roberts and her silly views off of ABC and NPR, and I'd like to see Mark Penn exiled to Russia, where he can learn what it means to live somewhere that is not "fundamentally American."
The truth about Georgia, Russia, Bush, and John McCain
Gregory Djerejian on the situation in Georgia, how Bush's foreign policy helped to fuel it, and how John McCain is utterly unqualified to deal with this or any foreign policy crisis:
Meantime, a Georgian soldier tells a U.S. reporter... "Write exactly what I say. Over the past few years, I lived in a democratic society. I was happy. And now America and the European Union are spitting on us." They are, aren't they? They had no business making the cheap promises and representations that were made. No business on practical policy grounds. No business on strategic grounds (though I guess it got Rummy another flag, near the Salvadorans, say, for the Mesopotamian "coalition of the willing"). And now our promises are unraveling and nakedly revealed for the sorry lies and crap policy they are, with the emperor revealed to have no clothes, yet again. This is what our foreign policy mandarins masquerade about as they play policy-making, in their Washington work-stations. It's, yes, worse than a crime, rather a sad, pitiable blunder.
And one McCain would have us compound, I stress, again! An honorable man who served his country well, it is clear his time has past and his grasp on the most basic foreign policy calls we'll need to make in the coming years is very tentative indeed. He'll be surrounded by second-tier 'yes-man' realists and residual neo-con swill, few with any ideas worth pursuing if we mean to take the national interest seriously with sobriety and freshness of perspective. So let us help him exit off-stage gracefully, as he served his country with dignity when called upon, but let us not sacrifice our children's future to ignorants with deludely romantic notions of empire. Been there, done that. Indeed, we have a President who has announced a pre-emptive doctrine which allows us to, willy-nilly, instigate regime change when and where we deem appropriate. Who are we to lecture Putin now? What standing do we have to do so? And what parochial and self-satisfied myopia has us indignantly thinking we are some unimpeachable arbitrer of right and wrong in the international system after the disastrous missteps of the past eight sordid years?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Eery parallels
So Russia is attacking and possibly occupying its neighbor Georgia. The big nuclear power is attacking the smaller country over a border dispute. The little country is no match for the bigger country, but the smaller country needs to learn a lesson, because it did something first, according to the bigger country.
Sound familiar?
How about 1992 when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Never mind that the United States gave the signal they would do nothing if Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait, once Saddam did it, the United States had an excuse to punish Iraq. And of course, since wimpy George I did not finish the job, tough guy George II was itching to act out his Oedipal complex and do so (just as I'm sure Putin was itching to go into Georgia). So he manufactured some intelligence to make his cause seem just (as Putin claims his cause is just) and sent in the tanks, bombers, and infantry.
Now we are occupying Iraq.
If Putin won't stop until he overturns the government of Georgia, and then occupies the country, what moral authority does George II (or his sycophant St. John the Maverick) have to insist they leave?
The answer is none.
This is what some of us were screaming about years ago when we warned that our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq would give the green light to other countries to be aggressors. Now Putin has done it, and McCain is flexing his ancient muscles threatening Russia, although it seems pretty clear there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Russia is simply holding a mirror up to the United States, reflecting back to us our own behavior in Iraq.
If voters can't see this reality, and the terrible pickle we are in trying to respond effectively to Russian aggression, if they don't see it as partly the outcome of our own illegal aggression, and if they don't reject the utter nonsense of the McCain response, they are not paying attention.
Sound familiar?
How about 1992 when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Never mind that the United States gave the signal they would do nothing if Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait, once Saddam did it, the United States had an excuse to punish Iraq. And of course, since wimpy George I did not finish the job, tough guy George II was itching to act out his Oedipal complex and do so (just as I'm sure Putin was itching to go into Georgia). So he manufactured some intelligence to make his cause seem just (as Putin claims his cause is just) and sent in the tanks, bombers, and infantry.
Now we are occupying Iraq.
If Putin won't stop until he overturns the government of Georgia, and then occupies the country, what moral authority does George II (or his sycophant St. John the Maverick) have to insist they leave?
The answer is none.
This is what some of us were screaming about years ago when we warned that our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq would give the green light to other countries to be aggressors. Now Putin has done it, and McCain is flexing his ancient muscles threatening Russia, although it seems pretty clear there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Russia is simply holding a mirror up to the United States, reflecting back to us our own behavior in Iraq.
If voters can't see this reality, and the terrible pickle we are in trying to respond effectively to Russian aggression, if they don't see it as partly the outcome of our own illegal aggression, and if they don't reject the utter nonsense of the McCain response, they are not paying attention.
Seeing the light or feeling the heat?
There are cycles in American politics. We had nearly fifty years of Liberal Democratic consensus, from 1932 to 1980. (The two Republican presidents during those years were not Conservatives.)
But the failure of the Carter administration led to a new phase - Conservative Republican dominance until today (Clinton was not a Liberal).
What will happen in 2008? Have the people finally felt the heat of Republican policies, economics, and attempts to destroy the government? Or will they have to suffer more before we end the era of Conservative Republican dominance?
Read more here.
But the failure of the Carter administration led to a new phase - Conservative Republican dominance until today (Clinton was not a Liberal).
What will happen in 2008? Have the people finally felt the heat of Republican policies, economics, and attempts to destroy the government? Or will they have to suffer more before we end the era of Conservative Republican dominance?
Read more here.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Thoughts on my morning walk
This morning my husband and I took our usual morning walk around the neighborhood and came across a car with a McCain bumper sticker. The car's owner was out watering his plants and I desperately wanted to ask him why he was supporting McCain. My husband wanted to lecture him, but I just wanted to say "why for god's sake?"
And the question still lingers in my mind. Why? Why would anyone in their right mind vote for John McCain to be the next president of the United States?
First of all, at 71 he's way too old. I am 61 and I think I'm too old. I'm pretty intelligent and my mind is still sharp, but your mind and body are simply not the same in your sixties and seventies as when you are in your forties or fifties. And everyone my age and older should admit that. The presidency involves stress that I can't even begin to imagine, much more stress than campaigning, and far more stress than being a wealthy Senator, especially when you haven't even been to the Senate since last April.
Second, we are in the midst of a recession, and John McCain claims to be a "fiscal conservative" who would continue all the same economic policies of George W. Bush that helped get us into this mess in the first place. Tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, outsourcing of jobs, no concern for high unemployment numbers, no regulation of the mortgage and banking industries, the largest deficit in history, a desire to privatize Social Security, and ongoing subsidies to big oil when they made more profits last quarter than any other corporations ever.
Third, John McCain is not an intelligent man. He graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and shows no signs of having increased his IQ since then. He can't remember what he voted for last year, or the year before, gets his facts wrong, can't remember which countries are still countries and which terrorist groups belong to which sect of Islam. Either this is stupidity or dementia, and we don't want either in our president. We have suffered through eight years with a mental lightweight in the oval office. Do we want another four years of that?
Fourth, John McCain always goes back to what he knows: war. As a career naval officer he knows and appreciates war. What he doesn't know is diplomacy, geography, and peace. John McCain will not get us out of Iraq and will look for ways to start trouble with Iran. He likes the tough guy persona and that is not what this country or world needs right now.
There are many other reasons not to vote for McCain, including his smarmy attack ads which contain lies and distortions about his opponent, but I'll save some of those for another post.
What I can't understand is how anyone who simply acknowledged the above truths (and they are truths) would still vote for McCain. Or is that the problem? McCain's supporters can't or won't acknowledge the truth.
And the question still lingers in my mind. Why? Why would anyone in their right mind vote for John McCain to be the next president of the United States?
First of all, at 71 he's way too old. I am 61 and I think I'm too old. I'm pretty intelligent and my mind is still sharp, but your mind and body are simply not the same in your sixties and seventies as when you are in your forties or fifties. And everyone my age and older should admit that. The presidency involves stress that I can't even begin to imagine, much more stress than campaigning, and far more stress than being a wealthy Senator, especially when you haven't even been to the Senate since last April.
Second, we are in the midst of a recession, and John McCain claims to be a "fiscal conservative" who would continue all the same economic policies of George W. Bush that helped get us into this mess in the first place. Tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, outsourcing of jobs, no concern for high unemployment numbers, no regulation of the mortgage and banking industries, the largest deficit in history, a desire to privatize Social Security, and ongoing subsidies to big oil when they made more profits last quarter than any other corporations ever.
Third, John McCain is not an intelligent man. He graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and shows no signs of having increased his IQ since then. He can't remember what he voted for last year, or the year before, gets his facts wrong, can't remember which countries are still countries and which terrorist groups belong to which sect of Islam. Either this is stupidity or dementia, and we don't want either in our president. We have suffered through eight years with a mental lightweight in the oval office. Do we want another four years of that?
Fourth, John McCain always goes back to what he knows: war. As a career naval officer he knows and appreciates war. What he doesn't know is diplomacy, geography, and peace. John McCain will not get us out of Iraq and will look for ways to start trouble with Iran. He likes the tough guy persona and that is not what this country or world needs right now.
There are many other reasons not to vote for McCain, including his smarmy attack ads which contain lies and distortions about his opponent, but I'll save some of those for another post.
What I can't understand is how anyone who simply acknowledged the above truths (and they are truths) would still vote for McCain. Or is that the problem? McCain's supporters can't or won't acknowledge the truth.
Just a silly thought about family values
It seems the price of a gallon of gasoline is coming down because people are actually driving less and as the old law of supply and demand goes, when demand goes down, so does price. (No, John McCain, the price of gasoline is not coming down because you said you wanted to drill off the coast of all of America.)
The Republicans claim they are the only party that cares about family values (which is BS, but that's a different blog entry) and with people driving less, they must either be walking more (don't make me laugh) or staying home.
When families stay home, rather than frantically driving from here to there, consuming like crazy persons who find their entire identity in buying things, they might actually get to know each other, enjoy each other's company and strengthen their family ties. You know, like the good old days, before the invention of the automobile, before television, before the great post WW II consumer culture exploded, when families actually spent time together and parents supervised children and teenagers didn't turn to drugs.
So high gasoline prices could be a win-win. Less profits for the oil companies that are polluting our planet, more people staying home and strengthening their families, lower gas prices leading to lower food prices, and an opening for new technologies (and the creation of new jobs) that don't rely on oil and don't pollute the planet.
But if we insist on remaining dependent on oil, and drill, drill, drill off the coast as Saint John the Maverick wants us to, our families might continue to go to hell.
It may sound illogical and silly, but is it any more crazy than wing nut Republicans supporting four more years of Bush's ignorance and incompetence in the person of McCain, and spreading rumors that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate?
The Republicans claim they are the only party that cares about family values (which is BS, but that's a different blog entry) and with people driving less, they must either be walking more (don't make me laugh) or staying home.
When families stay home, rather than frantically driving from here to there, consuming like crazy persons who find their entire identity in buying things, they might actually get to know each other, enjoy each other's company and strengthen their family ties. You know, like the good old days, before the invention of the automobile, before television, before the great post WW II consumer culture exploded, when families actually spent time together and parents supervised children and teenagers didn't turn to drugs.
So high gasoline prices could be a win-win. Less profits for the oil companies that are polluting our planet, more people staying home and strengthening their families, lower gas prices leading to lower food prices, and an opening for new technologies (and the creation of new jobs) that don't rely on oil and don't pollute the planet.
But if we insist on remaining dependent on oil, and drill, drill, drill off the coast as Saint John the Maverick wants us to, our families might continue to go to hell.
It may sound illogical and silly, but is it any more crazy than wing nut Republicans supporting four more years of Bush's ignorance and incompetence in the person of McCain, and spreading rumors that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Television news has become tabloid journalism
Let's see.
The Olympics started in Bejing today - the every four year celebration dating back to ancient times in Greece, the opportunity to come together as a world community, using athletic competitions between citizens of all countries to remind us that we are a small planet and must learn to live in peace.
Today, Russia invaded Georgia and killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in what could be the beginnings of Russia's attempt to stir up a lot of trouble.
Today, the Shiite Cleric Moktada al Sadr said he would disband his army if and when the United States finally began withdrawing troops according to a timetable.
Today and for the past few days, Pullitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind continued his book tour confirming that the Bush administration lied repeatedly and fabricated evidence to support their view that war with Iraq was necessary.
And all CNN and MSNBC can talk about is John Edwards and his newly revealed infidelity. John Edwards, no longer a candidate, no longer a Senator, no longer of any importance in this crucial presidential season, admits to an affair two years ago, which his wife already knew about, and suddenly this revelation becomes more important than any and all of the above stories. (Of course, Barack Obama is on vacation and the press can't obsess about him for the next week.)
Television news has become tabloid "journalism." No wonder the American people were stupid enough to elect George W. Bush in 2004 and stupid enough to be fooled about the war in Iraq. The press, which was ensured absolute freedom in the Constitution so that the electorate would be informed enough to vote intelligently, has failed to safeguard democracy. Today, cable news seemed more like a gossip fest, complete with rationalizations for why it was okay for them to continue this unseemly behavior, than the noble fourth estate.
They make me sick.
Give me the internet and the bloggers over "the press" anyday. At least they focus on a multitude of real issues.
The Olympics started in Bejing today - the every four year celebration dating back to ancient times in Greece, the opportunity to come together as a world community, using athletic competitions between citizens of all countries to remind us that we are a small planet and must learn to live in peace.
Today, Russia invaded Georgia and killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in what could be the beginnings of Russia's attempt to stir up a lot of trouble.
Today, the Shiite Cleric Moktada al Sadr said he would disband his army if and when the United States finally began withdrawing troops according to a timetable.
Today and for the past few days, Pullitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind continued his book tour confirming that the Bush administration lied repeatedly and fabricated evidence to support their view that war with Iraq was necessary.
And all CNN and MSNBC can talk about is John Edwards and his newly revealed infidelity. John Edwards, no longer a candidate, no longer a Senator, no longer of any importance in this crucial presidential season, admits to an affair two years ago, which his wife already knew about, and suddenly this revelation becomes more important than any and all of the above stories. (Of course, Barack Obama is on vacation and the press can't obsess about him for the next week.)
Television news has become tabloid "journalism." No wonder the American people were stupid enough to elect George W. Bush in 2004 and stupid enough to be fooled about the war in Iraq. The press, which was ensured absolute freedom in the Constitution so that the electorate would be informed enough to vote intelligently, has failed to safeguard democracy. Today, cable news seemed more like a gossip fest, complete with rationalizations for why it was okay for them to continue this unseemly behavior, than the noble fourth estate.
They make me sick.
Give me the internet and the bloggers over "the press" anyday. At least they focus on a multitude of real issues.
Politicians and sex
So the media is all a-twitter over John Edwards admission that he had an affair.
John Edwards is not the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
John Edwards is not the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
John Edwards is no longer a Senator.
John Edwards is not a Bible-thumping anti-sex moralizer.
So why do we care about whether or not he had an affair, and will the Republicans try to gain some advantage because of this?
We care, I guess, because we love gossip, especially about sex and famous people and especially if it involves infidelity. Otherwise, how could the tabloids stay in business?
We care because this is only the latest in a long string of sex scandals involving both Republicans and Democrats and we tend to keep score to see which side is more depraved.
But most of us really don't care all that much. It is the media that cares. It's a juicy story involving infidelity, lies, a wife with terminal cancer, and a one time vice presidential candidate. And it appeals to the voyeuristic instincts in too many of us.
I don't think Republicans will touch it - not if they know what's good for them. John Edwards is not Barack Obama, nor his veep pick so it has nothing to do with Obama, as much as the media hopes it does. On the other hand, John McCain had an affair with his current wife while still married to his first wife. He really doesn't want that brought up for the evangelical base to digest, does he?
As for the opinion of this blogger who is a long time married woman: John Edwards deserves whatever his wife chooses to dish out to him. If she chooses to forgive him and move on, taking into account their long married history with its tragedies and triumphs, that is between them. It is not the business of the National Enquirer, the mainstream or cable media, or any of us.
Politically, because Edwards has neither political power nor following, it is really a story with no significance. Personally, for the family, it is one more tragedy, a tragedy they certainly don't need. Elizabeth Edwards must wonder if she is cursed.
Upon hearing the story today, I thought of one of my favorite books: The Once and Future King, by T.H. White. It is the story upon which the play Camelot is based, the story of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, a story of love and betrayal, infidelity and the downfall of a king. The legend, of course, goes back to the Middle Ages, and reminds us that kings and queens often acted in self-destructive ways, even when they tried mightily not to. And politicians are no different.
We are a fallible species. We have animal instincts and complicated psyches and sometimes we do things we thought we would never do, and hurt people we never intended to hurt. And we can't always explain why.
But the Edwards affair is not about a king's infidelity and the loss of a kingdom. It is simply the stuff of tabloids. So let's wish the Edwards family well, and move on. We have far more important things to deal with.
John Edwards is not the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
John Edwards is not the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
John Edwards is no longer a Senator.
John Edwards is not a Bible-thumping anti-sex moralizer.
So why do we care about whether or not he had an affair, and will the Republicans try to gain some advantage because of this?
We care, I guess, because we love gossip, especially about sex and famous people and especially if it involves infidelity. Otherwise, how could the tabloids stay in business?
We care because this is only the latest in a long string of sex scandals involving both Republicans and Democrats and we tend to keep score to see which side is more depraved.
But most of us really don't care all that much. It is the media that cares. It's a juicy story involving infidelity, lies, a wife with terminal cancer, and a one time vice presidential candidate. And it appeals to the voyeuristic instincts in too many of us.
I don't think Republicans will touch it - not if they know what's good for them. John Edwards is not Barack Obama, nor his veep pick so it has nothing to do with Obama, as much as the media hopes it does. On the other hand, John McCain had an affair with his current wife while still married to his first wife. He really doesn't want that brought up for the evangelical base to digest, does he?
As for the opinion of this blogger who is a long time married woman: John Edwards deserves whatever his wife chooses to dish out to him. If she chooses to forgive him and move on, taking into account their long married history with its tragedies and triumphs, that is between them. It is not the business of the National Enquirer, the mainstream or cable media, or any of us.
Politically, because Edwards has neither political power nor following, it is really a story with no significance. Personally, for the family, it is one more tragedy, a tragedy they certainly don't need. Elizabeth Edwards must wonder if she is cursed.
Upon hearing the story today, I thought of one of my favorite books: The Once and Future King, by T.H. White. It is the story upon which the play Camelot is based, the story of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, a story of love and betrayal, infidelity and the downfall of a king. The legend, of course, goes back to the Middle Ages, and reminds us that kings and queens often acted in self-destructive ways, even when they tried mightily not to. And politicians are no different.
We are a fallible species. We have animal instincts and complicated psyches and sometimes we do things we thought we would never do, and hurt people we never intended to hurt. And we can't always explain why.
But the Edwards affair is not about a king's infidelity and the loss of a kingdom. It is simply the stuff of tabloids. So let's wish the Edwards family well, and move on. We have far more important things to deal with.
Cracking the McCain code: "My friends..."
Question: When you are with a real friend, is it typical for him or her to address you as "my friend?"
Answer: Of course not. If someone is your friend, you know you are friends, they don't have to keep reminding you - or trying to convince you. (Contrast this with how Barack Obama addresses his followers with the simple "we.")
Question: Why would someone continually call you "my friend" as John McCain does?
Answer: Progaganda. He is trying to get you to believe something which is simply not true.
John McCain is NOT your friend.
Either recognize that now, or you will learn it soon enough after he is elected president and does nothing to fix the economy, allows unregulated mortgage companies and corporations to continue to destroy your American dream as well as your environment, gets you into another war, doubles the deficit, drills for oil and destroys the coastline while doing nothing to create new sources of fuel for cars, and new cars that run on those fuels, and continues to trash what's left of our Constitution.
Answer: Of course not. If someone is your friend, you know you are friends, they don't have to keep reminding you - or trying to convince you. (Contrast this with how Barack Obama addresses his followers with the simple "we.")
Question: Why would someone continually call you "my friend" as John McCain does?
Answer: Progaganda. He is trying to get you to believe something which is simply not true.
John McCain is NOT your friend.
Either recognize that now, or you will learn it soon enough after he is elected president and does nothing to fix the economy, allows unregulated mortgage companies and corporations to continue to destroy your American dream as well as your environment, gets you into another war, doubles the deficit, drills for oil and destroys the coastline while doing nothing to create new sources of fuel for cars, and new cars that run on those fuels, and continues to trash what's left of our Constitution.
Brilliant!
Conservative vs. Liberal fiscal policy in a cartoon by Steve Greenberg.
Q: Where does all the money go?
A: Tax cuts for the wealthy? War? Corporate handouts? All of the above?
What to make of the Clintons....
I don't know if all this buzz about Bill Clinton's anger and Hillary's machinations is coming from the Clintons, who have a reputation for wanting to be in the spotlight, or if it's coming from the media because they want to stir up controversy before the convention to increase ratings come August 25th.
If the media can get enough voters worried and/or curious about whether or not Hillary's PUMAs will cause an upoar demanding she be nominated, or whether Bill will whole or only half-heartedly endorse Obama, they can get more people to tune in.
It's a terrible thing not to be able to trust the media who have become nothing more than corporate shills.
On the other hand, it's not beyond the pale that the Clintons could be wanting more attention. Attention is the air they breathe.
The Clintons at one time were the future of the Democratic Party, the more centrist Democrats, straight out of the Democratic Leadership Counsel. The enthusiasm for the new baby boomer generation he represented propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, rejecting the older WW II generation of Bush Sr. and then Dole. But that was a generation ago.
Now, the Democratic Party primary voters have decided it is time for another new generation, a post boomer generation. They could have gone for identity politics, and many wanted to. Almost half of the primary voters thought it was time to put a woman in the White House. But the desire for generational change won out (though just barely) and it is time to move on.
This desire for change and the move to a new generation propelled Kennedy as well as Clinton into the presidency, and it is likely to do the same this year (although Obama's race is a wild card in our still-too-racist society.)
The best thing the Clintons could do from this day forward, if they want to see a Democrat in the White House, is stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the Party. As much as Democrats admire the Clintons and are grateful for the good they did in the nineties, it seems the Party wants to move forward to a new generation, and as the elder statesman and stateswoman of the Party, it is their job to help facilitate that with their support and mentoring.
This is the way of life, the way of the world. Older generations mentor younger ones and prepare them for the roles they must take on. The Party has decided Barack is ready enough, and the Clintons can help tremendously by supporting that decision and being there to assist him when needed.
If, instead, they want to make this race about them, especially if they want it to be an "I told you so" moment in November, as Obama loses to a weak and floundering opponent, they will not be forgiven. Should Obama lose and Democrats believe the Clintons didn't work hard enough to help him win, Hillary's potential 2012 candidacy will be and should be dead.
But I say, let's wait and see. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I do believe they are patriots and I don't think they will sabotage Obama's candidacy. However, if all this speculation gets more people to watch the Democratic Convention, and both Hillary and Bill work their magic to unify the Party and get enthusiastically behind Obama, then more people wills see the Party and the candidate at their best, which could translate into millions of votes.
If the media can get enough voters worried and/or curious about whether or not Hillary's PUMAs will cause an upoar demanding she be nominated, or whether Bill will whole or only half-heartedly endorse Obama, they can get more people to tune in.
It's a terrible thing not to be able to trust the media who have become nothing more than corporate shills.
On the other hand, it's not beyond the pale that the Clintons could be wanting more attention. Attention is the air they breathe.
The Clintons at one time were the future of the Democratic Party, the more centrist Democrats, straight out of the Democratic Leadership Counsel. The enthusiasm for the new baby boomer generation he represented propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, rejecting the older WW II generation of Bush Sr. and then Dole. But that was a generation ago.
Now, the Democratic Party primary voters have decided it is time for another new generation, a post boomer generation. They could have gone for identity politics, and many wanted to. Almost half of the primary voters thought it was time to put a woman in the White House. But the desire for generational change won out (though just barely) and it is time to move on.
This desire for change and the move to a new generation propelled Kennedy as well as Clinton into the presidency, and it is likely to do the same this year (although Obama's race is a wild card in our still-too-racist society.)
The best thing the Clintons could do from this day forward, if they want to see a Democrat in the White House, is stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the Party. As much as Democrats admire the Clintons and are grateful for the good they did in the nineties, it seems the Party wants to move forward to a new generation, and as the elder statesman and stateswoman of the Party, it is their job to help facilitate that with their support and mentoring.
This is the way of life, the way of the world. Older generations mentor younger ones and prepare them for the roles they must take on. The Party has decided Barack is ready enough, and the Clintons can help tremendously by supporting that decision and being there to assist him when needed.
If, instead, they want to make this race about them, especially if they want it to be an "I told you so" moment in November, as Obama loses to a weak and floundering opponent, they will not be forgiven. Should Obama lose and Democrats believe the Clintons didn't work hard enough to help him win, Hillary's potential 2012 candidacy will be and should be dead.
But I say, let's wait and see. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I do believe they are patriots and I don't think they will sabotage Obama's candidacy. However, if all this speculation gets more people to watch the Democratic Convention, and both Hillary and Bill work their magic to unify the Party and get enthusiastically behind Obama, then more people wills see the Party and the candidate at their best, which could translate into millions of votes.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
If only you'd obeyed me......
What did John McCain say when asked what he thought about the campaign going so negative: "I think we could have avoided at least some of this if we had agreed to do the town hall meetings."
Good grief! Is he serious?
First of all, both sides in the campaign haven't gone negative, at least not in the sense that they are both attacking each other's character. Only McCain's camp has done that. Obama has not attacked McCain's character, nor called him names, as McCain has done to Obama.
So what McCain is really doing is blaming Obama for McCain attacking Obama's character. It's Obama's fault, according to McCain, that he is now calling Obama arrogant, and a vacuous celebrity, not ready to lead, and more willing to lose a war than lose an election.
Yup, it's all Obama's fault. If he had just done what McCain wanted him to do, agree to town hall debates where McCain could have benefited from Obama's celebrity and drawn large crowds that he never could have gotten by himself, then maybe McCain wouldn't have had to be such a jerk.
Just like a child blames his mother for his own misbehavior at home, because she didn't give him the candy he demanded at the store.
Just like the husband blames his wife for his beating of her, because she didn't fix the steak he said he wanted for dinner.
Just like the high school student blames another student when he cheats on a test, because that student didn't cover up all his answers and it was too easy for the cheating student to see them.
Just like the wife blames the husband for her own infidelity because he was so busy making enough money to support the family that he didn't spend enough time at home satisfying her need for attention.
Do we really want another president who won't take responsibility for his own behavior? Is this really the guy we want in the White House?
Good grief! Is he serious?
First of all, both sides in the campaign haven't gone negative, at least not in the sense that they are both attacking each other's character. Only McCain's camp has done that. Obama has not attacked McCain's character, nor called him names, as McCain has done to Obama.
So what McCain is really doing is blaming Obama for McCain attacking Obama's character. It's Obama's fault, according to McCain, that he is now calling Obama arrogant, and a vacuous celebrity, not ready to lead, and more willing to lose a war than lose an election.
Yup, it's all Obama's fault. If he had just done what McCain wanted him to do, agree to town hall debates where McCain could have benefited from Obama's celebrity and drawn large crowds that he never could have gotten by himself, then maybe McCain wouldn't have had to be such a jerk.
Just like a child blames his mother for his own misbehavior at home, because she didn't give him the candy he demanded at the store.
Just like the husband blames his wife for his beating of her, because she didn't fix the steak he said he wanted for dinner.
Just like the high school student blames another student when he cheats on a test, because that student didn't cover up all his answers and it was too easy for the cheating student to see them.
Just like the wife blames the husband for her own infidelity because he was so busy making enough money to support the family that he didn't spend enough time at home satisfying her need for attention.
Do we really want another president who won't take responsibility for his own behavior? Is this really the guy we want in the White House?
Arrogant vs. vulgar
There are lots of words we could use to describe John McCain: old, dangerous, ignorant, hot-tempered, or as Paris Hilton said "wrinkly white haired guy." But, sadly, none of them seem to have the traction to damage his candidacy.
So I've been trying to think of a word to describe John McCain, a word that might stick, a word that the mainstream and cable media would never use because they have too much respect for him, but a word that might catch on in the blogosphere, a word that could match the word "arrogant" that his campaign is using to characterize Barack Obama.
John McCain's appearance at the Sturgis biker gathering, where he offered up his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, gave me the word.
John McCain is "vulgar."
And this isn't the only instance of his vulgarity. Check out my article on Outraged Citizen.
So I've been trying to think of a word to describe John McCain, a word that might stick, a word that the mainstream and cable media would never use because they have too much respect for him, but a word that might catch on in the blogosphere, a word that could match the word "arrogant" that his campaign is using to characterize Barack Obama.
John McCain's appearance at the Sturgis biker gathering, where he offered up his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, gave me the word.
John McCain is "vulgar."
And this isn't the only instance of his vulgarity. Check out my article on Outraged Citizen.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Can we just strangle them all now?
The media whores are at it again.
They have been asking the same question - or some variation of it - for months now.
The question is: Why isn't Obama more than three to five points ahead of McCain? Why isn't he fifteen points ahead?
The same question was asked in a slightly different way during the primary: Why can't he seal the deal? Why can't he put her away?
I find it interesting that the question is always about Obama and this is the first election I can remember them asking this question. And they are all asking it. All of them. It's as if some media guy in the sky gave them their talking points and they all have to repeat them ad nauseum.
No one is asking why McCain, who has been in Washington for 26 years, has been the darling of the press, has more money than god, has a wife that he wants to nominate for Miss Buffalo Chip, and is supposedly so popular with independents as well as republicans, hasn't been able to get more than 44% in any of the polls. No one asked why Hillary Clinton, the inevitable one, the former first lady and wife of one of the most popular politicians of our time, couldn't put it away, couldn't seal the deal.
Barack Obama came basically out of nowhere. He rose to prominance in the Democratic Party after two years in the Senate. He didn't do that because he's some yokel from the outer banks of some muddy river in Appalachia. He did it because he's enormously gifted, because a large number of poeple see something new and refreshing and brilliant in him. He defeated the Clinton machine, and ever since the start of the general election campaign he's been ahead of the Republican smear machine and St. John the Maverick.
But they persist in wondering aloud why he isn't fifteen points ahead. It isn't enough to hold a consistent lead, he must obliterate the opposition in order to be legitimate.
It's as if they want someone to say: "Because he's black, dude, and America won't allow him to be president."
Is that the answer they want? Because no matter how much they talk amongst themselves and their roundtables of the same old hacks, they can't seem to find an answer that satisfies them.
Well, dudes, here's the answer.
In the past fifty years, no candidate ever won by fifteen points. In fact, most presidential elections are won by one or two percentage points. No, I take that back. Most elections are determined by a handful of states, as it is not popular votes that count (otherwise Bush would not have been elected and this entire eight year nightmare would never have happened) but electoral votes.
If these media whores would look at the electoral map they would see it could very well be a blowout for Obama, electorally, but even then the popular vote will probably be close. We are a divided nation. Forty-five percent will vote republican no matter who their nominee is, while forty-five percent will vote democratic no matter who their nominee is (Heck, this year, I think it is so important to punish the Republicans for what they have done over the past eight years that if the Dem nominee was Satan I would probably vote for him). So that leaves ten percent and they're not all going to vote for one candidate, so it will be close.
So could the media whores please find another narrative?
They have been asking the same question - or some variation of it - for months now.
The question is: Why isn't Obama more than three to five points ahead of McCain? Why isn't he fifteen points ahead?
The same question was asked in a slightly different way during the primary: Why can't he seal the deal? Why can't he put her away?
I find it interesting that the question is always about Obama and this is the first election I can remember them asking this question. And they are all asking it. All of them. It's as if some media guy in the sky gave them their talking points and they all have to repeat them ad nauseum.
No one is asking why McCain, who has been in Washington for 26 years, has been the darling of the press, has more money than god, has a wife that he wants to nominate for Miss Buffalo Chip, and is supposedly so popular with independents as well as republicans, hasn't been able to get more than 44% in any of the polls. No one asked why Hillary Clinton, the inevitable one, the former first lady and wife of one of the most popular politicians of our time, couldn't put it away, couldn't seal the deal.
Barack Obama came basically out of nowhere. He rose to prominance in the Democratic Party after two years in the Senate. He didn't do that because he's some yokel from the outer banks of some muddy river in Appalachia. He did it because he's enormously gifted, because a large number of poeple see something new and refreshing and brilliant in him. He defeated the Clinton machine, and ever since the start of the general election campaign he's been ahead of the Republican smear machine and St. John the Maverick.
But they persist in wondering aloud why he isn't fifteen points ahead. It isn't enough to hold a consistent lead, he must obliterate the opposition in order to be legitimate.
It's as if they want someone to say: "Because he's black, dude, and America won't allow him to be president."
Is that the answer they want? Because no matter how much they talk amongst themselves and their roundtables of the same old hacks, they can't seem to find an answer that satisfies them.
Well, dudes, here's the answer.
In the past fifty years, no candidate ever won by fifteen points. In fact, most presidential elections are won by one or two percentage points. No, I take that back. Most elections are determined by a handful of states, as it is not popular votes that count (otherwise Bush would not have been elected and this entire eight year nightmare would never have happened) but electoral votes.
If these media whores would look at the electoral map they would see it could very well be a blowout for Obama, electorally, but even then the popular vote will probably be close. We are a divided nation. Forty-five percent will vote republican no matter who their nominee is, while forty-five percent will vote democratic no matter who their nominee is (Heck, this year, I think it is so important to punish the Republicans for what they have done over the past eight years that if the Dem nominee was Satan I would probably vote for him). So that leaves ten percent and they're not all going to vote for one candidate, so it will be close.
So could the media whores please find another narrative?
Professor Obama: a new kind of candidate
I'm off to run errands with and for my parents today, but one thought before I leave:
This is the first election in a long time that we Democrats have a candidate who combines high intelligence, political sophistication, an even temper, awesome speaking ability, and an ability to respond effectively and quickly to dishonest and stupid attacks. Some of this is just his natural ability. Some indicates he has learned from the mistakes of his predecessors.
Our candidates are always hightly intelligent. Clinton, of course, was brilliant, as well as politically sophisticated and a good speaker. But he wasn't even tempered and he made some big mistakes.
Gore was brilliant and even tempered, but neither politically sophisticated nor a great speaker.
Kerry was smart, and could keep his cool, but he too was not politically sophisticated and he was a poor speaker. And he did not respond quickly or effectively when he was smeared.
And so the Republicans, with inferior candidates in terms of intelligence, temperament and speaking ability have been able to either win or make the race much closer than it should have been with negative campaigning, politically savvy campaign strategists, and appeals to selfishness, prejudice, fear, and stupidity.
But this year, with one of their worst candidates ever, a man seemingly in the early stages of dementia, with obvious resentment towards his rival, and an ugly personality that threatens constantly to erupt, the Republican attack machine isn't landing the punches it once did against superior candidates.
Why?
Because this year the most intelligent candidate is also the best speaker, the most politically savvy, the most even tempered, and the best at hitting back and calling them on their dishonest and smarmy game. This year, for the first time in a long time, the American people have a chance to see the whole picture. Rather than be fooled by dishonest ads, paralyzed by fear, and motivated by resentment, the American people just might learn something about the bigger picture and see that the Republicans have been playing them for fools for years.
This year, Professor Obama is holding a seminar on how to win an election against smarmy, hypocritical, dishonest and ugly attacks, and if he succeeds in teaching the American people something about the process as well as the content, he - and all of us - will win.
This is the first election in a long time that we Democrats have a candidate who combines high intelligence, political sophistication, an even temper, awesome speaking ability, and an ability to respond effectively and quickly to dishonest and stupid attacks. Some of this is just his natural ability. Some indicates he has learned from the mistakes of his predecessors.
Our candidates are always hightly intelligent. Clinton, of course, was brilliant, as well as politically sophisticated and a good speaker. But he wasn't even tempered and he made some big mistakes.
Gore was brilliant and even tempered, but neither politically sophisticated nor a great speaker.
Kerry was smart, and could keep his cool, but he too was not politically sophisticated and he was a poor speaker. And he did not respond quickly or effectively when he was smeared.
And so the Republicans, with inferior candidates in terms of intelligence, temperament and speaking ability have been able to either win or make the race much closer than it should have been with negative campaigning, politically savvy campaign strategists, and appeals to selfishness, prejudice, fear, and stupidity.
But this year, with one of their worst candidates ever, a man seemingly in the early stages of dementia, with obvious resentment towards his rival, and an ugly personality that threatens constantly to erupt, the Republican attack machine isn't landing the punches it once did against superior candidates.
Why?
Because this year the most intelligent candidate is also the best speaker, the most politically savvy, the most even tempered, and the best at hitting back and calling them on their dishonest and smarmy game. This year, for the first time in a long time, the American people have a chance to see the whole picture. Rather than be fooled by dishonest ads, paralyzed by fear, and motivated by resentment, the American people just might learn something about the bigger picture and see that the Republicans have been playing them for fools for years.
This year, Professor Obama is holding a seminar on how to win an election against smarmy, hypocritical, dishonest and ugly attacks, and if he succeeds in teaching the American people something about the process as well as the content, he - and all of us - will win.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A good day
It's late and I'm exhausted, but I have to say it's been a great day, one of the funniest of this year's campaign.
First, I saw the Paris Hilton video spoof which had me laughing my butt off. Who would have thought that Paris Hilton, who was so trivilized in the anti-Obama video, could actually make a video with a serious point: John McCain's little ad starring her was beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate. Go Paris!
Then I saw clips of John McCain mangling a speech at a Biker's rally somewhere, offering his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, which involves topless and sometimes bottomless women doing suggestive things with bananas. The Republican Party should take the nomination away from him for that, or the religious right should at least demand it, but I hope they don't because grandpa McCain is getting crazier and crazier and by November should be certifiable.
Finally, the Republicans thought they were going to be cute by passing out tire guages to mock Barack Obama's suggestion (which is also the suggestion of auto manufacturers, NASCAR, and the Bush administration) that one thing people can do to help get better mileage is fully inflate their tires. This is almost as juvenile as passing out purple heart bandages to mock John Kerry's actual purple hearts received as a result of injuries in Vietnam. Those Republicans, they're just so funny, their humor reaching about the level of a junior high school boy. But the best part of this whole stunt was Barack's response. Of these Republicans, he said "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
I'll sleep well tonight. The wrinkly white haired guy is being exposed for the fool that he is, and Obama is finally fighting back.
First, I saw the Paris Hilton video spoof which had me laughing my butt off. Who would have thought that Paris Hilton, who was so trivilized in the anti-Obama video, could actually make a video with a serious point: John McCain's little ad starring her was beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate. Go Paris!
Then I saw clips of John McCain mangling a speech at a Biker's rally somewhere, offering his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, which involves topless and sometimes bottomless women doing suggestive things with bananas. The Republican Party should take the nomination away from him for that, or the religious right should at least demand it, but I hope they don't because grandpa McCain is getting crazier and crazier and by November should be certifiable.
Finally, the Republicans thought they were going to be cute by passing out tire guages to mock Barack Obama's suggestion (which is also the suggestion of auto manufacturers, NASCAR, and the Bush administration) that one thing people can do to help get better mileage is fully inflate their tires. This is almost as juvenile as passing out purple heart bandages to mock John Kerry's actual purple hearts received as a result of injuries in Vietnam. Those Republicans, they're just so funny, their humor reaching about the level of a junior high school boy. But the best part of this whole stunt was Barack's response. Of these Republicans, he said "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
I'll sleep well tonight. The wrinkly white haired guy is being exposed for the fool that he is, and Obama is finally fighting back.
John McCain: hypocrite
John McCain is calling on Barack Obama to join him in urging Congress to come back in session during their August recess to vote on an energy bill. He's attacking them for going home to campaign when there is work to be done. He's going along with the Republican's latest stunt to get some positive attention in a year when they are going to be trounced.
Since John McCain hasn't voted once since April 8th, claiming his campaign is more important, this is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Since John McCain hasn't voted once since April 8th, claiming his campaign is more important, this is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The McCain mythology and the derelict press
A study of media bias that came out last week showed that Obama received more television air time, but more negative press, by far, than that received by McCain.
I have noticed in my own survey of one, that reporters and anchors on the cable shows spend more time reporting negative stories about Obama, or emphasizing polls when they narrow, or when he doesn't get a bounce than they report polls where McCain is trailing badly. They constantly wonder aloud why Obama "can't close the deal" but never seem interested in why McCain can't go above 45%. They spent weeks on Reverend Wright and how damaging it would be to Obama, but they could barely find five minutes to talk about John Hagee. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's problems with voters, even though she is rarely campaigning with her husband, but never, ever mention McCain's creepy wife Cindy who was once addicted to drugs and follows him everywhere like a dutiful wife from Stepford. They talk about Obama's "flip-flops," but barely mention McCain's. They certainly don't waste much time tying McCain more closely to Bush.
Why is that?
Are they all in the tank for McCain? Are they all racist?
No. My guess is, with the exception of the reporters and pundits at FOX News, who are obviously in the tank for the Republican, and possibly racist as well, most reporters and anchors are neither.
I think what is going on is this: they are all playing "gotcha," hoping to report on an exciting story about the new guy, trying to be Woodward or Bernstein, and they mistakenly believe there is nothing new to find out about McCain. They see Obama as a fascinating mystery, someone who must have something negative in his background and if they can only find it, they will be lauded as great reporters.
With respect to McCain, it's as if their assessment of him began and ended the day he was released as a POW. The narrative of McCain as all-American hero, honest and patriotic, was only enhanced over the years with McCain's characterization of himself as a maverick and a straight talker. He has been so successful in getting the media to buy into his fairy tale about himself that no one will dig deeper, and when one or two do, the huge media crowd looks the other way. They simply can't believe anything bad about McCain except that he's old, and they refuse to see that as a huge problem, no matter how many times he forgets things, gets things wrong, or changes his positions. Reagan was old, they remind us.
The narrative is still being created about Obama and, of course, the Republicans are contributing to that narrative, with an obedient press following along, trying to paint Obama as both unqualified and elitist, a popular celebrity and someone who can't relate to anyone, too liberal and too much of a flip-flopper. The press is fascinated and wants to be part of the story.
McCain is old news, his reputation set in stone as far as the press is concerned. They just aren't interested. But Obama is new, and the media can help create his reputation, even if they use Republican lies and distortions, even if they fall for smears that are baseless. It's much more interesting than digging deeper into the mythology of McCain. Plus, it increases their ratings.
So McCain stays under the radar, keeps his well crafted brand, and encourages the press to keep up their coverage of the smears they (the McCain camp) create about Obama, and maybe, just maybe, McCain can sneak into the White House with no one noticing what a terrible candidate he has been and what a terrible president he will be.
I have noticed in my own survey of one, that reporters and anchors on the cable shows spend more time reporting negative stories about Obama, or emphasizing polls when they narrow, or when he doesn't get a bounce than they report polls where McCain is trailing badly. They constantly wonder aloud why Obama "can't close the deal" but never seem interested in why McCain can't go above 45%. They spent weeks on Reverend Wright and how damaging it would be to Obama, but they could barely find five minutes to talk about John Hagee. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's problems with voters, even though she is rarely campaigning with her husband, but never, ever mention McCain's creepy wife Cindy who was once addicted to drugs and follows him everywhere like a dutiful wife from Stepford. They talk about Obama's "flip-flops," but barely mention McCain's. They certainly don't waste much time tying McCain more closely to Bush.
Why is that?
Are they all in the tank for McCain? Are they all racist?
No. My guess is, with the exception of the reporters and pundits at FOX News, who are obviously in the tank for the Republican, and possibly racist as well, most reporters and anchors are neither.
I think what is going on is this: they are all playing "gotcha," hoping to report on an exciting story about the new guy, trying to be Woodward or Bernstein, and they mistakenly believe there is nothing new to find out about McCain. They see Obama as a fascinating mystery, someone who must have something negative in his background and if they can only find it, they will be lauded as great reporters.
With respect to McCain, it's as if their assessment of him began and ended the day he was released as a POW. The narrative of McCain as all-American hero, honest and patriotic, was only enhanced over the years with McCain's characterization of himself as a maverick and a straight talker. He has been so successful in getting the media to buy into his fairy tale about himself that no one will dig deeper, and when one or two do, the huge media crowd looks the other way. They simply can't believe anything bad about McCain except that he's old, and they refuse to see that as a huge problem, no matter how many times he forgets things, gets things wrong, or changes his positions. Reagan was old, they remind us.
The narrative is still being created about Obama and, of course, the Republicans are contributing to that narrative, with an obedient press following along, trying to paint Obama as both unqualified and elitist, a popular celebrity and someone who can't relate to anyone, too liberal and too much of a flip-flopper. The press is fascinated and wants to be part of the story.
McCain is old news, his reputation set in stone as far as the press is concerned. They just aren't interested. But Obama is new, and the media can help create his reputation, even if they use Republican lies and distortions, even if they fall for smears that are baseless. It's much more interesting than digging deeper into the mythology of McCain. Plus, it increases their ratings.
So McCain stays under the radar, keeps his well crafted brand, and encourages the press to keep up their coverage of the smears they (the McCain camp) create about Obama, and maybe, just maybe, McCain can sneak into the White House with no one noticing what a terrible candidate he has been and what a terrible president he will be.
Monday, August 4, 2008
How dumb can we be?
The United States of America needs to be completely free of gasoline powered cars within ten years if we wish to be secure and prosperous and save the planet.
Our dependence on foreign oil, mostly from the Persian Gulf, has led to a war and occupation of a Middle Eastern country, and threatens to send us into another. Only an end to our need for foreign oil will bring peace and stability to our nation and the Middle East.
Our dependence on oil has added to the problems we face with climate change and only by changing to a different fuel source that does not hurt the earth can we hope to end the damage, though we probably cannot reverse much of the damage that has already been done during thirty years of complacency and argument.
Our dependence on oil is causing a transfer of wealth from the pockets of ordinary citizens to the coffers of oil companies and Middle Eastern countries. Only by producing our own energy sources here at home will we see a return to prosperity for the middle class.
John McCain and the republicans are having a snit fit and demanding that the democrats return to Congress and vote to allow more off-shore oil drilling. There are two problems with allowing new locations for off-shore oil drilling: it will not encourage the development of alternative fuels with the urgency needed, and it will not produce any gasoline for ten years, by which time we should end our need for it to fuel our cars.
Somehow the republicans think this demand for drilling is a winning issue for them. It may be, if enough of us are dumb enough not to realize it will do nothing to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline, nor will it help us move away from gasoline engines, nor do anything to stop global warming.
The oil companies have made record profits in the last quarter. They have also spent record amounts of money trying to debunk the science of climate change so they can convince everyone to keep using gasoline powered engines, and keep drilling their way to more record profits. There are currently two oil men in the White House and over the past eight years they have done nothing to lower the price of gasoline or develop alternative fuel sources. Now they have called for more drilling off the coast.
When are we going to wake up and see reality? How dumb are we going to be?
Want more of the same? Vote McCain!
Our dependence on foreign oil, mostly from the Persian Gulf, has led to a war and occupation of a Middle Eastern country, and threatens to send us into another. Only an end to our need for foreign oil will bring peace and stability to our nation and the Middle East.
Our dependence on oil has added to the problems we face with climate change and only by changing to a different fuel source that does not hurt the earth can we hope to end the damage, though we probably cannot reverse much of the damage that has already been done during thirty years of complacency and argument.
Our dependence on oil is causing a transfer of wealth from the pockets of ordinary citizens to the coffers of oil companies and Middle Eastern countries. Only by producing our own energy sources here at home will we see a return to prosperity for the middle class.
John McCain and the republicans are having a snit fit and demanding that the democrats return to Congress and vote to allow more off-shore oil drilling. There are two problems with allowing new locations for off-shore oil drilling: it will not encourage the development of alternative fuels with the urgency needed, and it will not produce any gasoline for ten years, by which time we should end our need for it to fuel our cars.
Somehow the republicans think this demand for drilling is a winning issue for them. It may be, if enough of us are dumb enough not to realize it will do nothing to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline, nor will it help us move away from gasoline engines, nor do anything to stop global warming.
The oil companies have made record profits in the last quarter. They have also spent record amounts of money trying to debunk the science of climate change so they can convince everyone to keep using gasoline powered engines, and keep drilling their way to more record profits. There are currently two oil men in the White House and over the past eight years they have done nothing to lower the price of gasoline or develop alternative fuel sources. Now they have called for more drilling off the coast.
When are we going to wake up and see reality? How dumb are we going to be?
Want more of the same? Vote McCain!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Keeping the faith
It's late on a Sunday night and I've usually been asleep for hours by this time. But just as I got into bed tonight, my inconsiderate neighbor's pre-teenage kid decided it would be a good time to begin cranking up his electronic drum machine. This was about the fourth time today he did it - it's so loud you can hear it down the street. My husband was up and dressed, ready to go bang on her door, but she must have had a rare case of conscience and told him to stop, because he did.
But the damage was done and I couldn't get to sleep, so I'm up reading all the whining and moaning on the internet about how McCain's negative, race-baiting, dog whistle politics are going to cost Obama (and all of us) the election unless he grows a few and starts hitting back. My own tendency is to feel the same, to give in to a terrible sinking feeling that they are going to do it again: lie, cheat, steal and smear their way to the White House.
But this time, we can't give in to those feelings. The Republicans never do. They don't have any feelings other than resentment, jealousy, lust, greed, and raw ambition. When they think they are in danger of losing, they just get mean, nasty and ugly. Barack doesn't have to react in kind, but he does have to turn the tables on them somehow, and I trust that he will. He took down the Clinton machine and he will take down the McCain machine, but in his own way.
Have we so quickly forgotten the two disastrous weeks of Reverend Wright (kind of like last week with the flurry of attacks from McCain), when that was all you saw and heard every time you turned on the television? Have we forgotten that it took a few days before Obama gave that brilliant speech on race and neutralized everything?
Have we forgotten how Hillary mocked Obama, saying the clouds would open up and celestial choirs would sing and all would be right with the world? (Kind of like McCain's Obama - Moses ad.) Have we forgotten that it took a day or two for Obama to brush it off his shoulder?
Have we forgotten how well she did with blue collar gun owners after Obama's "bitter" comment and her selling herself as a daughter of rural Pennsylvania? Have we forgotten how he laughed and called her "Annie Oakley?"
McCain has only begun to fight. He is a smarmy, lying phony who will do and say anything to get what he wants. He threw a wife overboard. It's much easier to throw the black guy overboard. His lies and ugly attacks won't keep him up at night. He'll sleep like a baby in one of his seven houses.
But we either believe in our candidate or we don't. We were warned by Hillary that McCain would do this. We were warned that she was the tough one who knew how to deal with them, and maybe she was right. But we believed in Barack Obama, in his goodness, his values, his abilities and his steely spine. We saw something in him that was new and different, and we watched him handle attack after attack with dignity and grace as well as with strength. We sensed it was his time, our time, to make history. We have to trust him now. We have to believe.
If all of us hang tight, do what we can for his election, talk to everyone we know, write letters to networks that get it wrong, scream our heads off when McCain acts like an ass-hole, and above all trust in the man we believe will make an amazing president, we won't be disappointed.
A friend of mine once told me "thoughts are things, and they have enormous power." We have to keep the faith, and hold the thought that Barack Obama has the intelligence, the skill and the ability to defeat John McCain.
Yes he can! Keep the faith! I sense history will be made this year.
But the damage was done and I couldn't get to sleep, so I'm up reading all the whining and moaning on the internet about how McCain's negative, race-baiting, dog whistle politics are going to cost Obama (and all of us) the election unless he grows a few and starts hitting back. My own tendency is to feel the same, to give in to a terrible sinking feeling that they are going to do it again: lie, cheat, steal and smear their way to the White House.
But this time, we can't give in to those feelings. The Republicans never do. They don't have any feelings other than resentment, jealousy, lust, greed, and raw ambition. When they think they are in danger of losing, they just get mean, nasty and ugly. Barack doesn't have to react in kind, but he does have to turn the tables on them somehow, and I trust that he will. He took down the Clinton machine and he will take down the McCain machine, but in his own way.
Have we so quickly forgotten the two disastrous weeks of Reverend Wright (kind of like last week with the flurry of attacks from McCain), when that was all you saw and heard every time you turned on the television? Have we forgotten that it took a few days before Obama gave that brilliant speech on race and neutralized everything?
Have we forgotten how Hillary mocked Obama, saying the clouds would open up and celestial choirs would sing and all would be right with the world? (Kind of like McCain's Obama - Moses ad.) Have we forgotten that it took a day or two for Obama to brush it off his shoulder?
Have we forgotten how well she did with blue collar gun owners after Obama's "bitter" comment and her selling herself as a daughter of rural Pennsylvania? Have we forgotten how he laughed and called her "Annie Oakley?"
McCain has only begun to fight. He is a smarmy, lying phony who will do and say anything to get what he wants. He threw a wife overboard. It's much easier to throw the black guy overboard. His lies and ugly attacks won't keep him up at night. He'll sleep like a baby in one of his seven houses.
But we either believe in our candidate or we don't. We were warned by Hillary that McCain would do this. We were warned that she was the tough one who knew how to deal with them, and maybe she was right. But we believed in Barack Obama, in his goodness, his values, his abilities and his steely spine. We saw something in him that was new and different, and we watched him handle attack after attack with dignity and grace as well as with strength. We sensed it was his time, our time, to make history. We have to trust him now. We have to believe.
If all of us hang tight, do what we can for his election, talk to everyone we know, write letters to networks that get it wrong, scream our heads off when McCain acts like an ass-hole, and above all trust in the man we believe will make an amazing president, we won't be disappointed.
A friend of mine once told me "thoughts are things, and they have enormous power." We have to keep the faith, and hold the thought that Barack Obama has the intelligence, the skill and the ability to defeat John McCain.
Yes he can! Keep the faith! I sense history will be made this year.
Who's the real elitist?
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign chairman, is accusing Obama of being an elitist because he drinks a certain kind of tea and goes to the gym every day. (He's actually accusing him of going to the gym three times a day, but that only happened one day and some speculate that was a ruse for meeting with a possible vice presidential candidate.) Other reasons the McCain camp wants you to see Obama as an elitist: he went to Harvard Law School, he speaks with lofty rhetoric, he holds his head at a certain angle, and he's lived in other countries. Oh yes, and he talks about arugula.
Well, no one could be more of an elitist than grandpa McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, who went to the Naval Academy, hangs out with wealthy lobbyists, owns seven homes, gives big barbecue parties for the press, and is married to an heiress. I have no idea what he eats, other than barbecue, but I don't imagine it's inexpensive food. In fact, I imagine he employs a cook when he's at one of his seven homes. And the condescending way he talks about Obama makes him sound like the worst kind of elitist.
George W. Bush, for all his phony good old boy mannerisms, is also an elitist, coming from a wealthy family, with wealth on both sides of the family, and going to prep schools as well as Yale, insisting he has regular talks with god, wearing $5000 suits, going on long bicycle rides with the Secret Service and working out daily, and having to take his favorite pillow with him whenever he travels. (I bet Obama doesn't take a pillow.)
These Republicans are brilliant. The elitist of the elite, born into wealthy and/or famous families somehow manage to convince enough voters they are just regular guys, ordinary Joes, who understand the comman man, while their opponents, who grew up in middle or lower middle class households, often headed by a single parent, and rose to excellence not because they are of the elite, but because they worked hard, are portrayed as arrogant and out of touch.
Why do we let them get away with that?
Well, no one could be more of an elitist than grandpa McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, who went to the Naval Academy, hangs out with wealthy lobbyists, owns seven homes, gives big barbecue parties for the press, and is married to an heiress. I have no idea what he eats, other than barbecue, but I don't imagine it's inexpensive food. In fact, I imagine he employs a cook when he's at one of his seven homes. And the condescending way he talks about Obama makes him sound like the worst kind of elitist.
George W. Bush, for all his phony good old boy mannerisms, is also an elitist, coming from a wealthy family, with wealth on both sides of the family, and going to prep schools as well as Yale, insisting he has regular talks with god, wearing $5000 suits, going on long bicycle rides with the Secret Service and working out daily, and having to take his favorite pillow with him whenever he travels. (I bet Obama doesn't take a pillow.)
These Republicans are brilliant. The elitist of the elite, born into wealthy and/or famous families somehow manage to convince enough voters they are just regular guys, ordinary Joes, who understand the comman man, while their opponents, who grew up in middle or lower middle class households, often headed by a single parent, and rose to excellence not because they are of the elite, but because they worked hard, are portrayed as arrogant and out of touch.
Why do we let them get away with that?
Saturday, August 2, 2008
It's all about popular
John McCain, that "war hero," is acting more and more like a jealous teenage girl who wants to be the prom queen but got passed over for someone prettier. He absolutely can't stand it that Obama is a "celebrity," and more popular than he is. He thought he had it made, being a war hero and having the press in his pocket. But then the new kid came to town and the new kid outshined him.
McCain even went so far as to act like he wanted to be Obama's mentor, said he would take him to Iraq and educate him. Kind of like the very popular Galinda in the play Wicked, who said she would teach Elphaba how to be "popular." When I heard the song today, I couldn't help but think of McCain, how he sees himself, and how others are finally beginning to see him, as someone obsessed with popularity and insanely jealous that Obama outshines him.
Here are some of the lyrics:
McCain even went so far as to act like he wanted to be Obama's mentor, said he would take him to Iraq and educate him. Kind of like the very popular Galinda in the play Wicked, who said she would teach Elphaba how to be "popular." When I heard the song today, I couldn't help but think of McCain, how he sees himself, and how others are finally beginning to see him, as someone obsessed with popularity and insanely jealous that Obama outshines him.
Here are some of the lyrics:
POPULAR! I'll help you be popular!
You'll hang with the right cohorts,
You'll be good at sports,
Know the slang you've got to know.
So let's start, 'Cause you've got an awfully long way to go!...
When I see depressing creatures,
with unprepossessing features,
I remind them on their own behalf
To think of Celebrated heads of state,
Or specially great communicators!
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!
They were POPULAR!
Please! it's all about popular.
It's not about aptitude, It's the way you're viewed,
So it's very shrewd to be,
Very very popular like ME! ...
You'll be popular!
Just not quite as popular as ME!
Two questions: Part two
Question #2: My question.
"Just what do some people find so frightening about electing a black man to the presidency?"
This is a puzzle to me. Yes, I understand that racists abound in the southern part of the United States, and here and there in other places, and I know prejudice is ingrained into people almost from birth, requiring a huge awakening on their part to overcome it.
But, sadly, I am seeing that there is a discomfort in this country - among people who are not overtly racist - with the idea of the president having dark skin.
So what is it about skin color that makes one more or less qualified to be president?
If skin tone was the issue, I would say John McCain is not qualified. People with translucent ghost-like skin are a little scary looking. But no one says anything about the color of John McCain's skin. And there is still the possibility that McCain could choose the dark skinned Bobby Jindal, whose parents emigrated from India, as his running mate. And that seems okay with Republicans who are infatuated with this thirty something governor. Of course, Jindal's background is Indian, not African, but most Americans who object to skin color couldn't point to either of those places on the map and don't have a clue as to the difference between dark Indians and dark Africans.
So if it's not skin color what is it? DNA?
Well, Barack Obama's DNA is no different from any other person's DNA except in those minor areas in which each of us differs from others. Barack Obama is as human as any white, red or brown person. He is one of us.
So if it's not DNA, what is it? What makes Barack Obama not good enough, to some people? Is he violent, crass, uneducated, lacking in values?
Again, no. Barack Obama has one of the calmest temperments I have ever seen in a presidential candidate. He is well-mannered, careful with his words, encouraging of others, highly educated, and a model husband and father.
So if it's not character, not education or a lack of values, what is it?
Is it possible that the reason some people find Barack Obama objectionable because there is something lacking in them, because they are the ones who are flawed?
I think so.
I believe some people will not accept a black man as president because they are inferior people who need to feel superior to someone. So they grab onto whomever they can paint as inferior. With their history of being held as slaves, and the struggles to survive in a nation that treated them reprehensibly - keeping some in poverty and leading a few to behave badly - an African American is an easy target for inferior people who need to see some group as beneath them, even when that African American rose from a lower middle class background, went to Harvard, got a law degree, and is a United States Senator.
I believe others suffer a type of unconscious guilt over what the white race has done to the black race in this country, and their guilt leads them to fear that a black president might find a way to get even with them. Never mind that Barack's ancestors were never slaves, his Kenyan father being a free man and his mother being white. Never mind that the kind of man - black or white - who is talented enough to rise to the level of presidential candidate would not be a man who would be wanting revenge against an entire race. It is the guilt of his critics that drives the prejudice against Barack.
In fact, I have seen far more resentment in the white candidates this year than in Barack Obama. The contempt and envy that both McCain and Hillary have for Obama oozes from their pores and is very unseemly. They attack him for being both inexperienced and too confident, for being stubborn as well as flexible, and lately for being too popular.
The answer, of course, is that there is nothing frightening about electing a black man to the presidency that exists outside of the paranoid, prejudiced minds of some Americans who need to feel superior to others.
Think about that, because that's what is truly frightening.
"Just what do some people find so frightening about electing a black man to the presidency?"
This is a puzzle to me. Yes, I understand that racists abound in the southern part of the United States, and here and there in other places, and I know prejudice is ingrained into people almost from birth, requiring a huge awakening on their part to overcome it.
But, sadly, I am seeing that there is a discomfort in this country - among people who are not overtly racist - with the idea of the president having dark skin.
So what is it about skin color that makes one more or less qualified to be president?
If skin tone was the issue, I would say John McCain is not qualified. People with translucent ghost-like skin are a little scary looking. But no one says anything about the color of John McCain's skin. And there is still the possibility that McCain could choose the dark skinned Bobby Jindal, whose parents emigrated from India, as his running mate. And that seems okay with Republicans who are infatuated with this thirty something governor. Of course, Jindal's background is Indian, not African, but most Americans who object to skin color couldn't point to either of those places on the map and don't have a clue as to the difference between dark Indians and dark Africans.
So if it's not skin color what is it? DNA?
Well, Barack Obama's DNA is no different from any other person's DNA except in those minor areas in which each of us differs from others. Barack Obama is as human as any white, red or brown person. He is one of us.
So if it's not DNA, what is it? What makes Barack Obama not good enough, to some people? Is he violent, crass, uneducated, lacking in values?
Again, no. Barack Obama has one of the calmest temperments I have ever seen in a presidential candidate. He is well-mannered, careful with his words, encouraging of others, highly educated, and a model husband and father.
So if it's not character, not education or a lack of values, what is it?
Is it possible that the reason some people find Barack Obama objectionable because there is something lacking in them, because they are the ones who are flawed?
I think so.
I believe some people will not accept a black man as president because they are inferior people who need to feel superior to someone. So they grab onto whomever they can paint as inferior. With their history of being held as slaves, and the struggles to survive in a nation that treated them reprehensibly - keeping some in poverty and leading a few to behave badly - an African American is an easy target for inferior people who need to see some group as beneath them, even when that African American rose from a lower middle class background, went to Harvard, got a law degree, and is a United States Senator.
I believe others suffer a type of unconscious guilt over what the white race has done to the black race in this country, and their guilt leads them to fear that a black president might find a way to get even with them. Never mind that Barack's ancestors were never slaves, his Kenyan father being a free man and his mother being white. Never mind that the kind of man - black or white - who is talented enough to rise to the level of presidential candidate would not be a man who would be wanting revenge against an entire race. It is the guilt of his critics that drives the prejudice against Barack.
In fact, I have seen far more resentment in the white candidates this year than in Barack Obama. The contempt and envy that both McCain and Hillary have for Obama oozes from their pores and is very unseemly. They attack him for being both inexperienced and too confident, for being stubborn as well as flexible, and lately for being too popular.
The answer, of course, is that there is nothing frightening about electing a black man to the presidency that exists outside of the paranoid, prejudiced minds of some Americans who need to feel superior to others.
Think about that, because that's what is truly frightening.
Sometimes, you just gotta laugh
Another very funny Daily Kos diary, pivoting off of the Friday Wall Street Journal article that, in a nation of the obese, Obama may be too skinny to be president.
Has John McCain's love affair with the press ended?
For anyone who still doesn't see the race baiting and dog-whistle politics John McCain is engaging in, read this.
McCain used to call the press his "base," because he was nice to them and had fooled them into believing he wasn't a typical politician. Furthermore, his POW history made them reluctant to criticize him (in our militaristic culture former POWs are saints, regardless of what they do with the rest of their lives) and so they gave him a pass. At the start of this campaign they continued to give him a pass, whenever his memory failed, whenever he lied, whenever he flip-flopped on an issue, all of which he did often.
Now that he has signed on to and is directing his campaign to engage in Rovian smear politics, let's see what the press does. His willingness to fight dirty, his shape shifting from a "straight talker" to an angry, condescending, smarmy politician may make them feel safer going after him. I hope so. I have a feeling they might look a little more deeply into who John McCain is. And what they will find isn't pretty.
McCain used to call the press his "base," because he was nice to them and had fooled them into believing he wasn't a typical politician. Furthermore, his POW history made them reluctant to criticize him (in our militaristic culture former POWs are saints, regardless of what they do with the rest of their lives) and so they gave him a pass. At the start of this campaign they continued to give him a pass, whenever his memory failed, whenever he lied, whenever he flip-flopped on an issue, all of which he did often.
Now that he has signed on to and is directing his campaign to engage in Rovian smear politics, let's see what the press does. His willingness to fight dirty, his shape shifting from a "straight talker" to an angry, condescending, smarmy politician may make them feel safer going after him. I hope so. I have a feeling they might look a little more deeply into who John McCain is. And what they will find isn't pretty.
Two questions: Part one
I have two questions today. One has been posed by the media for months now, the other is my own.
Question #1: the media question. "With George W. Bush so unpopular, and with the 'Republican brand' in so much trouble, why isn't Barack Obama 15 points ahead of John McCain in the polls?"
There is always a covert message in a question like this, and the message here is that there must be something wrong with Barack Obama because he isn't running away with the election.
I propose three other possibilities that, of course, the media will never bring up.
One is that fully one half of the electorate are ignorant, ill informed, and highly susceptible to the negative attacks of John McCain's hit squad, and also haven't yet figured out what miserable failures (and unethical human beings) Republican politicians are and how devastating the conservative ideology is to the nation.
Another is that too many Americans still are either overt or covert racists who somehow see the election of a black man as a) not acceptable because blacks are inferior and should know their place; b) frightening because blacks will favor blacks and punish whites; or c) there's just something too different, too out of the norm, about the president of the United States being black.
A final possibility is that the race really isn't as tight as the media would have us believe, but it is in their interests (keeps people interested, sells ads, improves ratings) to portraty the race as close. Since most of the pollsters are hired by the media and funded by large corporations who have an investment in keeping the pro-corporate policies of Republicans, it isn't too much of a stretch to believe they could instruct their polling companies to work the numbers a bit. (By the way, if the race were really that close, I don't think McCain would have gotten down in the gutter so early to try to smear Obama.)
Question #2: My question. "Just what do some people find so frightening about electing a black man to the presidency?" will be addressed in the next post.
Question #1: the media question. "With George W. Bush so unpopular, and with the 'Republican brand' in so much trouble, why isn't Barack Obama 15 points ahead of John McCain in the polls?"
There is always a covert message in a question like this, and the message here is that there must be something wrong with Barack Obama because he isn't running away with the election.
I propose three other possibilities that, of course, the media will never bring up.
One is that fully one half of the electorate are ignorant, ill informed, and highly susceptible to the negative attacks of John McCain's hit squad, and also haven't yet figured out what miserable failures (and unethical human beings) Republican politicians are and how devastating the conservative ideology is to the nation.
Another is that too many Americans still are either overt or covert racists who somehow see the election of a black man as a) not acceptable because blacks are inferior and should know their place; b) frightening because blacks will favor blacks and punish whites; or c) there's just something too different, too out of the norm, about the president of the United States being black.
A final possibility is that the race really isn't as tight as the media would have us believe, but it is in their interests (keeps people interested, sells ads, improves ratings) to portraty the race as close. Since most of the pollsters are hired by the media and funded by large corporations who have an investment in keeping the pro-corporate policies of Republicans, it isn't too much of a stretch to believe they could instruct their polling companies to work the numbers a bit. (By the way, if the race were really that close, I don't think McCain would have gotten down in the gutter so early to try to smear Obama.)
Question #2: My question. "Just what do some people find so frightening about electing a black man to the presidency?" will be addressed in the next post.
Friday, August 1, 2008
The country loses when Republicans win - every time
It's really sad, isn't it, when a politician who has built a 20 year reputation on being a "straight talker" becomes a smarmy politician, who treats his younger opponent with condescension and disdain because he's such a terrible candidate himself it's the only way he can win?
First McCain said he wanted to take Obama to Iraq to "educate him."
Then, after accusing Obama of preferring to lose a war rather than lose an election, he was asked by the press if he was accusing Obama of being unpatriotic. His answer? A condescending "No, I'm sure Obama is patriotic, he just doesn't understand."
Then he put up an ad comparing and juxtaposing Obama with two young white blond celebrities, mocking his popularity. Today the ad used the image of Charlton Heston playing Moses and mocked Obama's rhetoric about this being "our moment."
Yesterday he accused Obama of playing the race card and in another condescending display said it was "so disappointing" and another time said it was "so sad." Kind of like how your parents might have talked to you when you were too old to spank.
Today, he defended his demeaning ads of Obama by saying "we're just having a little fun."
I don't know. The expression "we're just having a little fun" brought instant images to me of hooded men in the South dragging a black man off to be flogged and perhaps lynched and mockingly saying "we're just havin' ourselves a little fun." I'm not saying that's what McCain had in his mind. But then again, I'm not saying it's not.
These people are seriously deranged.
It is so typical of the Republican Party, the mean party, the ugly party, the party bankrupt of ideas, the party that appeals to the South, the capital of slavery, the last stronghold of segregation and Jim Crow, to use this kind of dog whistle politics. It is so typical of this party to mock and bait their opponents because that's all they have. They can't win on the merits, they have lousy candidates, but if they can just convince you their opponent is too elite, too arrogant, too educated, too young, too "liberal," too unpatriotic, too inexperienced, and yes - too black - maybe they can win.
And every single damn f***in time they do this, the country loses.
First McCain said he wanted to take Obama to Iraq to "educate him."
Then, after accusing Obama of preferring to lose a war rather than lose an election, he was asked by the press if he was accusing Obama of being unpatriotic. His answer? A condescending "No, I'm sure Obama is patriotic, he just doesn't understand."
Then he put up an ad comparing and juxtaposing Obama with two young white blond celebrities, mocking his popularity. Today the ad used the image of Charlton Heston playing Moses and mocked Obama's rhetoric about this being "our moment."
Yesterday he accused Obama of playing the race card and in another condescending display said it was "so disappointing" and another time said it was "so sad." Kind of like how your parents might have talked to you when you were too old to spank.
Today, he defended his demeaning ads of Obama by saying "we're just having a little fun."
I don't know. The expression "we're just having a little fun" brought instant images to me of hooded men in the South dragging a black man off to be flogged and perhaps lynched and mockingly saying "we're just havin' ourselves a little fun." I'm not saying that's what McCain had in his mind. But then again, I'm not saying it's not.
These people are seriously deranged.
It is so typical of the Republican Party, the mean party, the ugly party, the party bankrupt of ideas, the party that appeals to the South, the capital of slavery, the last stronghold of segregation and Jim Crow, to use this kind of dog whistle politics. It is so typical of this party to mock and bait their opponents because that's all they have. They can't win on the merits, they have lousy candidates, but if they can just convince you their opponent is too elite, too arrogant, too educated, too young, too "liberal," too unpatriotic, too inexperienced, and yes - too black - maybe they can win.
And every single damn f***in time they do this, the country loses.
Republicans think of "ME" - Democrats think of "WE"
I'm working on a longer analysis of the differences between the two political parties that reflect overarching themes in our nation as well as differences in values.
In short, I see the Republican (conservative) view as one that emphasizes the individual good (mostly of a certain class of people), as well as the corporate good, and appeals to the human selfish tendency, an individualistic and competitive strain, and a focus on "me."
I see the Democratic (liberal) view as one the emphasizes the collective, or community good (in which all people share) and appeals to a communitarian tendency, a desire for shared prosperity, and a willingness to sacrifice as well as be generous to fellow citizens.
Of course there are unselfish and kind conservatives in their personal lives, but the conservative ideology is one that appeals to selfishness, and there are selfish liberals in their personal lives, but the ideology is one that appeals to a communitarian impulse.
Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: John McCain's phony proposals to help lower gas prices.
With gas prices rising, John McCain first proposed a gas tax holiday for the summer. This appeals to Americans who are thinking of their pocketbook and nothing else. They don't care if a gas tax holiday costs hundreds of thousands of jobs related to infrastructure repair that is funded by the gas tax, they don't care if bridges fall down, and they don't care what economists say about the futility of thinking you can lower gas prices with a gas tax holidy. They hear that someone is going to cut a tax and that's all they care about. The proposal also appeals to the traditionally pro-Republican oil companies, who see an opportunity to benefit even more by tacking on a higher profit margin once the tax is removed. John McCain is appealing to the selfish interests of individuals and big corporations.
Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, but with a majority of Democrats who are educated enough to see that it wouldn't work to anyone's advantage but the oil companies, and who care about the greater communitarian good (i.e. the importance of jobs and the infrastructure), the proposal bombed.
Now, McCain is following Bush and proposing lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. This amounts to nothing more than another giveaway to oil companies, as well as a phony idea that will do nothing to help consumers for at least ten years, if ever. But many Republican voters, who are attracted to policies that promise to help their individual interests, even if they don't actually do so (selfishness can make one really stupid), cheer madly when McCain brings up the plan. It is wildly popular with his supporters, even though it will not reduce the cost of gas and not make us energy independent (adding only a small amount, after ten years or more, to the huge demand for oil in our country – we would still have to import most of our oil).
Obama, on the other hand, has talked with economists who are nearly unanimous in saying this will help nothing, not in the short term, nor in the long term. Oil companies already have plenty of land to drill on that is untouched. But rather than suggest they begin drilling on those lands first, McCain is going for the big proposal – putting more oil rigs along the coast where millions can see them and be constantly reminded of his effort to lower the cost of a gallon of gas, even if all he is doing is putting more money in the pockets of oil companies by giving them drilling rights on waters that should belong to the people, and tax breaks for the investments they make in setting up their oil rigs. He's once again not concerned at all about the actual cost of gas because he knows his proposal will not help. In lying to the people, however, and spewing the propaganda that more drilling will lower the cost of gas, he's appealing to raw selfishness, of both individuals and corporations. He's also playing the patriotism card as he makes the false promise that this will help us end our dependency on foreign oil.
Obama's plan, on the other hand, is not to merely end our dependence on foreign oil, but to end our dependence on oil, period. He wants to invest in alternative fuels and in the long term move us away from an oil-dependent economy. Besides the long term plan, he is recommending short term measures, like conservation, and simple changes in how we maintain our automobiles, like fully inflating tires to get better gas mileage. He is also insisting the auto companies speed up the development of cars with better fuel economy. As for helping with the cost of gasoline, he is proposing an emergency $1000 rebate to families as part of his newly released economic paper.
None of these things will harm the tourist and coastal economies, nor hurt the environment, all of which could be the result of massive off-shore drilling which will also continue our dependency on oil, give us a false sense of security, and postpone the time when we must shift to alternative fuels. In each of these measures, Obama is appealing to the communitarian instincts of Democrats: the willingness to sacrifice and think beyond themselves to what benefits the greater community, including the importance of preserving the environment, the necessity of repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and the danger to the nation's security if we continue our dependence on oil.
Of course, republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh mock him for suggesting something many other politicians and the auto industry recommend: fully inflating tires. All they can do is mock when they have no reasonable argument. Republicans mocked Jimmy Carter, too, when he warned of the problems we would face in terms of our oil dependency in the years ahead.
And guess who was right? The Democratic president who suggested we sacrifice, improve mileage standards, and find alternative sources of oil. The Democrat who was thinking not about oil company profits nor the selfish needs of individuals, but of the big picture, and what would benefit us all.
In short, I see the Republican (conservative) view as one that emphasizes the individual good (mostly of a certain class of people), as well as the corporate good, and appeals to the human selfish tendency, an individualistic and competitive strain, and a focus on "me."
I see the Democratic (liberal) view as one the emphasizes the collective, or community good (in which all people share) and appeals to a communitarian tendency, a desire for shared prosperity, and a willingness to sacrifice as well as be generous to fellow citizens.
Of course there are unselfish and kind conservatives in their personal lives, but the conservative ideology is one that appeals to selfishness, and there are selfish liberals in their personal lives, but the ideology is one that appeals to a communitarian impulse.
Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: John McCain's phony proposals to help lower gas prices.
With gas prices rising, John McCain first proposed a gas tax holiday for the summer. This appeals to Americans who are thinking of their pocketbook and nothing else. They don't care if a gas tax holiday costs hundreds of thousands of jobs related to infrastructure repair that is funded by the gas tax, they don't care if bridges fall down, and they don't care what economists say about the futility of thinking you can lower gas prices with a gas tax holidy. They hear that someone is going to cut a tax and that's all they care about. The proposal also appeals to the traditionally pro-Republican oil companies, who see an opportunity to benefit even more by tacking on a higher profit margin once the tax is removed. John McCain is appealing to the selfish interests of individuals and big corporations.
Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, but with a majority of Democrats who are educated enough to see that it wouldn't work to anyone's advantage but the oil companies, and who care about the greater communitarian good (i.e. the importance of jobs and the infrastructure), the proposal bombed.
Now, McCain is following Bush and proposing lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. This amounts to nothing more than another giveaway to oil companies, as well as a phony idea that will do nothing to help consumers for at least ten years, if ever. But many Republican voters, who are attracted to policies that promise to help their individual interests, even if they don't actually do so (selfishness can make one really stupid), cheer madly when McCain brings up the plan. It is wildly popular with his supporters, even though it will not reduce the cost of gas and not make us energy independent (adding only a small amount, after ten years or more, to the huge demand for oil in our country – we would still have to import most of our oil).
Obama, on the other hand, has talked with economists who are nearly unanimous in saying this will help nothing, not in the short term, nor in the long term. Oil companies already have plenty of land to drill on that is untouched. But rather than suggest they begin drilling on those lands first, McCain is going for the big proposal – putting more oil rigs along the coast where millions can see them and be constantly reminded of his effort to lower the cost of a gallon of gas, even if all he is doing is putting more money in the pockets of oil companies by giving them drilling rights on waters that should belong to the people, and tax breaks for the investments they make in setting up their oil rigs. He's once again not concerned at all about the actual cost of gas because he knows his proposal will not help. In lying to the people, however, and spewing the propaganda that more drilling will lower the cost of gas, he's appealing to raw selfishness, of both individuals and corporations. He's also playing the patriotism card as he makes the false promise that this will help us end our dependency on foreign oil.
Obama's plan, on the other hand, is not to merely end our dependence on foreign oil, but to end our dependence on oil, period. He wants to invest in alternative fuels and in the long term move us away from an oil-dependent economy. Besides the long term plan, he is recommending short term measures, like conservation, and simple changes in how we maintain our automobiles, like fully inflating tires to get better gas mileage. He is also insisting the auto companies speed up the development of cars with better fuel economy. As for helping with the cost of gasoline, he is proposing an emergency $1000 rebate to families as part of his newly released economic paper.
None of these things will harm the tourist and coastal economies, nor hurt the environment, all of which could be the result of massive off-shore drilling which will also continue our dependency on oil, give us a false sense of security, and postpone the time when we must shift to alternative fuels. In each of these measures, Obama is appealing to the communitarian instincts of Democrats: the willingness to sacrifice and think beyond themselves to what benefits the greater community, including the importance of preserving the environment, the necessity of repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and the danger to the nation's security if we continue our dependence on oil.
Of course, republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh mock him for suggesting something many other politicians and the auto industry recommend: fully inflating tires. All they can do is mock when they have no reasonable argument. Republicans mocked Jimmy Carter, too, when he warned of the problems we would face in terms of our oil dependency in the years ahead.
And guess who was right? The Democratic president who suggested we sacrifice, improve mileage standards, and find alternative sources of oil. The Democrat who was thinking not about oil company profits nor the selfish needs of individuals, but of the big picture, and what would benefit us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
