Could Bill Clinton be sincere when he says he "gets" why Sarah Palin is so popular (article here)?  Let me rephrase that.  I believe he understands her popularity because his popularity is at least partly based on the same ordinary-person identifications as hers.

I think he's might be saying this because he wants to lower the volume on the democrats' attacks so sympathy and defensiveness don't send voters flocking to Palin.  Or he might be saying it so people look more kindly on Palin and vote for McCain and put him in office for that famous one term before Hillary runs in 2012.  Either way, don't you have to smile when you read what he said, for all kinds of reasons?

"My view is ... why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?"

Kind of applies to him and to Hillary, too, doesn't it?  How calmly generous, right?  Sure, let's acknowledge each other's strengths and go on from there.  But then why did Hillary refuse to speak at the U.N. on tomorrow's panel when it turned out Palin was speaking too.  She said some nonsense about partisanship but in this spirit of generous acknowledgement, it would have been much better to spin it as unpartisan because they both were speaking.  As I say at least a hundred times a day (okay, maybe sometimes it's only ten times), if the noise and ridiculousness and lies were removed, then the voters could listen to the issues and decide who they really want to elect.

Labels: 2008 election, people, reflections

Dr. Sanity, always fascinatingly verbal and verbally fascinating (yes I intend both separately) has written a long and detailed article today about where we find ourselves at this point in the campaign and, perhaps more importantly, in the overall scheme of things. You'll need to read the entire article to understand where how she gets here, and it is well worth the time.

A complete unknown named Barack Obama has managed to capture all this hysteria at its peak and parlay it into an unprecedented run for the US Presidency. In him, the left has found the personification of all their fantasies. According to their pre-set script, his election would vanquish the evil infecting the land; slow the rising of the ocean and heal the entire planet. If he were not to be elected, then it is already predetermined that it will happen because America is racist and evil. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I agree that much of the fuss is "just another way of avoiding reality" - how else explain the recent financial messes and Iraq and the endless cult of meaningless celebrity. Perhaps she is correct that "we are witnessing the tragicomic demise of the glib and pretty postmodern man of inaction" but I'm not sure.

Labels: 2008 election, pcness, people, reflections

Is anything reported accurately? Does any public figure tell unembellished facts about themselves?

The headlines this afternoon report that Jennifer Lopez completed the Nautica Malibu Triathlon today in 2 hours, 23 minutes and 28 seconds. I read that and my mouth fell open. That was superhuman time, along the lines of something Superman could accomplish if he rewound the world after each portion of the triathlon. 2:23.28 would be awesome marathon time so how on earth, I asked myself, did she finish a triathlon that fast? Was it a half triathlon, I wondered? But the headlines said "triathlon" so . . . what?

Then my inner skeptic took over and I looked up the facts of regular triathlons as well as the Malibu Triathlon. A usual full-on triathlon consists of:
- 3.8K swim (2.4 miles)
- 180K bike course (112 miles)
- 42.2K run (26.2 miles - a full marathon)

And it turns out there were two events in the Malibu, one Saturday (the "olympic") and one Sunday (the "classic"). (J)lo and behold, Lopez ran Sunday and, hmm, the classic consisted of:
- half-mile halfswim
- 18 mile bike course
- 4-mile run course
Not easy unless you're in decent shape but basically a quarter triathlon.

And just as a point of information, the so-called olympic part of Malibu's triathlon wasn't. It consisted of:
- 1.5K swim
- 40K back bike course (along Pacific Coast Highway!)
- 10K run (on Zuma Beach)
Gorgeous and certain grueling for any ordinary person but less than a half triathlon and certainly not "olympic".

Oh and while I'm being snide and skeptical, the stated reason of an injured foot caused JLo to withdraw from being the celebrity judge at the finale of Project Runway on Thursday and Friday last week. I guess the really impressive thing, then, is that an injured foot on Friday prevented her from sitting in a chair and assessing clothing designs but was so much better two days later that she could complete in a quarter-triathlon on Sunday.

Would it make her sports accomplishment any less impressive if she said straightforwardly that she competed in a quarter triathalon? Especially considering that it's only a few months since she gave birth to twins? Doesn't the misleading report just make her seem self-aggrandizing and silly?

Labels: people, silliness, sports

The current head of the Roman Catholics is in Paris this weekend and appearing to huge crowds. Pope Benedict XVI may be a wonderful human being but when he spoke to a couple hundred thousand at an outdoor mass Saturday, his words fairly shouted a do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do attitude. I don't mean to be disrespectful but his remarks were breathtakingly hypocritical and disingenuous. He condemned

unbridled pagan passion for power, possessions and money as a modern-day plague. . . . [and] he called the faithful to “flee idols” such as “money, thirst for possessions, power and even knowledge”. . . .

While it is true that in the past few commoners had much money or possessions, noblemen and monarchs sought and gathered wealth beyond measure. Remember the Medicis? Catherine the Great? The gold room of Peter the Great? Elizabeth the 1st? Henry VIII? The Russian Revolution? European courts through the centuries were driven to amass power, possessions and money. So it's hardly accurate to say this is the most materialistic time in history.

Furthermore, excuse my sarcasm but he thinks we deserve condemnation for having a "pagan passion for power"?! The pope is the singular and revered head of state of Vatican City as well as the bowed-to head of the R.C. Church. As such he is one of the wealthiest humans on earth. Furthermore, Catholics are instructed to take his word as equivalent to God's because he is the "elected monarch" (nice phrase) of Vatican City, the small territory inside Italy which issued its own money until 1999 when it adopted the Euro. The Church does not pay taxes despite a huge revenue. The basilicas and churches in Vatican City contain some of the world's most valuable art and decorations (the Pieta, the Sistine Chapel being only the most renowned) and some floors and walls are literally covered in gold and gems. In official ceremonies, the pope wears gold- and fur-edged robes as well as the jeweled and gold mitre, not to mention the large and heavy "ring of the fisherman" which he wears all the time and which visitors kiss with obeisance. In some ceremonies, he is carried in a throne held aloft (by human beings, for goodness sake). But we should be less craven in our lust for possessions, power and money. Right. It really is a blatant case of do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do. And it's particularly unfortunate that this man whose words are heard as complete and utter truth and with uncritical acceptance by many would speak such incorrect and hypocritical words.

The pope and his church, after all, have had for centuries and continue to have enormous power, billions of possessions and wealth beyond measure.

Labels: people, ridiculousness

I have to say that I think it's a ridiculous phrase no matter who uses it or about what. But what was Obama thinking to use the word lipstick at all right now, only ten days after Palin's popular speech? More to the point, why isn't he completely focusing on McCain? Why isn't he saying over and over that voting for McCain/Palin is like continuing the Bush administration? Why is he engaging in personality politics? There are important and serious issues for voters to weigh and this election shouldn't come down to who is better liked. And Obama shouldn't be playing into that possibility.

And although his use of the pig/lipstick analogy was silly, it was also neither meaningless nor irrelevant. He wants hundreds of millions of Americans to trust his judgment enough to elect him president. So either he didn't realize what effect the phrase would have (in which case his perception is questionable) or he did realize it and used it anyway (in which case he was abandoning his avowed intent to keep above the silly fray and was exercising questionable judgment). (Which is not unlike the whole Jeremiah Wright fuss, come to think of it. He says he attended Wright's church for twenty years, during which Wright said and wrote many of the things he says and writes now. He says Wright was a close friend and mentor. So either he didn't hear what Wright said and wrote (in which case he was wearing his iPod the whole time or just being inattentive or maybe not actually attending church when he said he was) or he did hear what Wright said and wrote (in which case he was exercising very bad judgment in continuing to ally himself with Wright given his political plans).)

But back to the pig and lipstick. I was almost able to blame extemporaneous speechifying and on-the-stump tiredness for Obama using the silly phrase. It seemed foolish to have used it and the video shows him pausing and seeming to consider whether to say what he's about to say. He could have skipped right over to the fish wrapped in newspaper analogy, after all. But last night on the David Letterman Show, Obama wasn't the least bit apologetic or embarrassed or regretful. Instead, he clarified the goofy thing by saying that the pig represented McCain's policies and therefore the lipstick was Palin (as in: you can't pretty up their policies). But for the life of me I can't figure out why he didn't just smile and say something along the lines of "silly me for engaging in schoolyard taunts, now let's get back to serious discussion of the (very serious) issues we have to confront."

Why isn't Obama asserting (re-asserting, actually) the dignity and seriousness that excited so many of us because he seemed to be bringing a new kind of politics and politician smack dab in the middle of the new election? If he doesn't get back to that and if he continues these nervous and, let's face it, nasty, little jabs, it will indicate that he may just be the same old politics in new sheep's clothing and all those many of us may have to accept being deeply disappointed.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics

When Thompson and Guiliani entered the Republican group of presidential candidates, I thought it was going to be a heckuva good year for speeches what with two people who can punch up decent rhetoric and get you excited about what they're saying in the process. Or so I thought. Unfortunately, about two seconds into it, they faded faster than last night's late night movie credits. Rudy never campaigned anywhere, not for real anyway, and Thompson went into "uh er dunno" mode before you could say welcome to the fray. I wondered if they were slipped overdoses of prozac or something, ostensibly to keep them from shooting off but really to guarantee McCain getting the nom. I'm a conspiracy theorist, given half a chance, and those two sure gave me reason to believe.

Then along came 11D blogging about the Dem convention. Last night she was watching Bill's speech (she described him as having "charm and a twinkle" - good to know he hasn't lost his stocks in trade - and convincingly making "a case for Obama" and even getting her to "slightly forget some of the slime ball comments that he's made in the past nine months") when along came John Kerry. Like me, you may have very nearly forgotten Kerry - he was the Democrat who ran for the presidency four years ago and would have won if he'd had even an ounce of oomph or substance on account of many voters supposedly loathing the incumbent GWB. Kerry was riveting last night, which goes toward explaining how he got the nomination - always a puzzlement - and partly gave rise to this from 11D:

Now why didn't Kerry give a speech like that four years ago? He was very good tonight, while he was boring and hesitant when he was running for office. It shows you how the presidential process really wrecks havoc on the mind. When you have a staff and polling data pulling you in different directions, it really takes the steam out of a good candidate.

Maybe that explains Thompson and Guiliani. And does it mean that the guy will win who can hold on and not sink under the strain? If so, I wonder which one will be crushed....

Labels: 2008 election, people

1.  The glassy surface on the Hudson River between incoming and outgoing tides is so startling even though we see it fairly often.  Trees and structures on the other side of the river are reflected like a painting or like that fantastic K-Mart advertisement after 9-11 that showed the towers as reflections in the river . . . but absent from the shoreline.

2.  In the elevator this morning an office acquaintance asked if I had any new photos of t2cgitw and when I said yes she got off at my floor to come look at them.  Generous interest in others is rare and surprising and appreciated.  I must learn to do it more because I am actually interested but often worry that it will annoy people when, in fact, I know quite the opposite from my own experience.

3.  Sitting on my front porch on my slatted porch swing on a sunny day, looking at the bright green leaves and the blue sky beyond, waving at people as they walked by and waved and smiled. . . .

(H/T Kellogg Bloggin')

Labels: blogs (others'), people, places

. . . but I'm going out on a limb and predicting Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. I have no real reason for it except that no one else feels right. All of which presupposes my feelings have anything to do with anything especially considering that I was sure Obama would pick someone unusual. Anyway, that's my bet. But don't tell anyone.

Update - Thursday midday. A friend sent me a note that Intrade, "the political prediction market", says that "While Romney is the most actively traded market in volume terms (2,122 lots traded and price of 45.0), other leading contenders are Pawlenty (494 lots and price of 24.2 ), Tom Ridge (1,153 at 11.5), and Meg Whitman (195 at 8.5)." On the other hand, some wise (or not) guy added a sentence to Pawlenty's Wikipedia saying "On August 29, 2008, Senator John McCain will announce that Pawlenty is to be his Vice Presidential running mate." Update - Thursday night. Sentence about Pawlenty is gone. Palin's page has a notation about no one being allowed to edit it. Hmm. . . .

Labels: 2008 election, government, people, reflections

I think it's accurate to say that Laura had significant and substantial misgivings about Obama from the outset. I did not. I was caught up. Willingly and with great hope and with only a tiny bit of wariness. I was excited by the prospect of an America president who would encourage and lead us politically and emotionally to be regain the upbeat and positive character that we have at the core of our national self. Perhaps I am an eternal and therefore cockeyed optimist, who knows.

So I was startled and interested that Laura wrote this post this morning in which she expresses alarm similar to mine earlier today resulting from seeing the ridiculous Grecian set being built for Obama's acceptance-of-nomination speech. And then, as I clicked around other sites, I learned that his seat on his airplane is festooned with his name and "president 08" which sure seems a tad premature. And I saw posters that are springing up all over the place that show raised hands forming a big O between two hands using thumbs as the bottom and the rest of the fingers to complete the circle and sun-like radii emanating from the O. Aside from the absurb deification, this kind of overly dramatic political art alarms me because it was used to such (infamous) effect in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

I guess the podium-with-presidential seal incident didn't teach him that Americans aren't fond of people who take themselves too seriously. I think, for example, that one reason celebrities are so attended to in the U.S. is that they are patently unserious. I am baffled that a man who sold himself to an excited and welcoming electorate as being of and for the greater good of mankind could be blowing his apparent cover even before he's actually got the brass ring in his hand.

If he meant the common man stuff, the pomp and drama are completely inappropriate and out of place and whoever is making him do it should be stopped immediately. If he really wants to be chancellor or emperor or something, then he is out of place and should be stopped immediately. Or is this just his version of Clinton's neediness, i.e. the effect of a father leaving a son and causing a permanent wound that even national attention cannot heal?

Labels: 2008 election, family, people, silliness

Things are going from good to unclear to bad to worse.  If this were a negative source I would be willing to doubt it but ABC is fairly reliable about Obama and this sort of thing.  It seems that Obama is going to rise up on a platform at the 50-yard line and be standing in something resembling a Greek portico.  The cheesy symbolism is bad enough but the man of the people, by the people and for the people seems to have evaporated awfully quickly, doesn't he?

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments, people

The choice of Biden simply baffles me. Obama's urge to change things in the government, to shake things up, to start us all on a new course towards wonderfulness are simply put to the complete lie by chosing Biden.  The man is the most inside-the-beltway and political crony you could find short of a Kennedy.  He's been there since right after law school.  In the Washington Post Chris Cillizza wrote

Picking Biden, who has served in the Senate for the better part of the last four decades, seems to run counter to that core message. Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29 and spent only four years after graduating from Syracuse Law School in 1968 working in the private sector before entering public life. . . .  [He] has long been a regular on the Sunday talk show circuit and is one of the pillars of the Democratic party establishment. His accomplishments . . . all were achieved as a senator operating inside the deepest heart of political Washington.

Another article in the Post praised Biden for his foreign policy knowledge ("For Obama, whose only obvious weakness in the race is his light foreign policy resume, Biden would provide an immediate boost and badly complicate John McCain's attempts to paint the Illinois senator as ill-prepared to represent the United States on the world stage").  Even if true, it seems to me that his intellectual and personality quirks and liabilities overwhelm his strengths.  His attitude toward women, for example, is on the surface terrific but then you discover narratives like this.  Whew.

There's the "regular guy" aspect of all this - something I've mentioned and thought about vis a vis George Bush - often referred to as the likeability factor.  The fact that "Biden is the kind of guy most voters can imagine themselves having a beer (or, heck, a boilermaker) with" is lovely but those millions who loathe Bush should be running from this measure as fast as their little feet can carry them. Unless, of course, their loathing is really based on some other personality quirk, not anything about policy.

He's also defensive about his own education and intelligence, quick to make weird remarks about things that are irrelevant to a topic.  During confirmation hearings he often rambles on about himself rather than probing the candidate.  He made a couple of famously puzzling comments about Pakistanis and 7-11 stores.  During Alito's confirmation hearing he rambled on about Dianne Feinstein's glasses at one point.  He also said he'd never ever ever ever take the vice presidential position.  Hmm..... 

During the primaries, Biden stated fervantly that Obama would be a poor choice because the presidency is not a place for training on the job.  Now he's eager to support Obama as his second in command?

Bottom line, he's just too nutty and odd to be anything but a liability as the partner of a candidate who has plenty of people wary of him already.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics

Read Maureen Dowd's column on all this. It's not just sarcastic but funny (no surprise there) and insightful.

Both Edwardses (is that the plural?) have remarked that the source for the information about his affair is a lying scumbag piece of tabloid paper. They imply and pretty much state that therefore no one should regard what they say as true. Except that what they said about this was true. What am I missing?

Labels: 2008 election, people, reflections, writing

Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates? No, of course few people still alive remember them (just kidding). But seriously, if you saw them, you probably remember that Nixon's upper lip often glistened with droplets of sweat and his eyes shifted around as he made his assertions. He may have been lucid and possibly even correct but it didn't matter because his appearance was so shaky. Kennedy, on the other hand, was the picture-perfect image of a relaxed and confident alpha male. It also didn't particularly matter what he said - he could have been illucid and downright wrong - because he was cool, calm and collected.

These days we have McCain and Obama facing off. No debates yet presumably since they're going to await official nomination before taking each other on directly. We do have numerous occasions to see them, however and, as this article points out, Obama appears laid-back and a bit bemused by the whole thing while McCain seems tense and eager to get away. I think that's true although I'm not sure whether the electorate will make its selection based on how relaxed a future president seems to be. And I wonder whether comfort in front of a crowd has anything to do with leadership skill or decision-making? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's irrelevant. I'm guessing people tend to vote for the person who makes them feel good about themselves. Is that the hard-nosed guy even if he's uncomfortable talking to us or is it the meta-politician guy who is comfortable talking to us but may not be able to state very many of his convictions or plans? Darned if I know, at least so far.

Labels: 2008 election, people, tv

I'm not sure if I like the barrage of images but maybe I do. I definitely like the hover-and-read feature. Newser.com is an interesting development in news sites and at least it makes a distinction between hard and soft news and, more importantly, allows you to select your own percentage of hard and soft. Not have to read about Ben Affleck having a baby in the same breath as economic issues would be refreshing. Of course one could probably make a case for all news being essentially entertainment but that would be a different subject. Anyway, newser seems worth a try.

Labels: current events, people, politics, technology, websites

There's a discussion of yesterday morning's press conference over at The Texas Scribbler. Aside from what was said, which was interesting - even occasionally inspiring - and can/should be read in its entirety here, TTS was struck by the difference between the actual transcript and how people have reacted to what Bush said. (I especially loved his comment that "politics is just choking good sense." I really wonder what things would be like if he were able to effectuate the ideas he has instead of being blocked at every turn. Couldn't be much worse, could it?)

This is something I have noticed many times during Bush's tenure. His actual words are often smart and his exchanges with reporters are often chatty and friendly, but the reports after the fact talk only about gaffs and tension.

To that point, I watched a Rose Garden press conference a while ago. For over an hour I saw several verbal, smart, relaxed and interesting people talk with Bush who was also verbal, smart, relaxed and interesting. I had meant to have it on as background to my knitting but ended up watching intently because there were so many engaging expressions on everyones' faces during the conversations between the reporters and the President. Plus, I was fascinated to observe that they were in fact conversing, not attacking at all. Imagine my astonishment the next day when I read newspaper and blog reports about what a smirky nasty business it had all been. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about and even wondered fleetingly if there had been two press conferences that day covering the same exact subjects. After all, I'd seen and heard it myself and no one, not one person there, either reporter or chief executive, smirked or put anyone down or said anything stupid or disparaging. Quite thoroughly the contrary.

As a result, I concluded that (a) BDS is a far more interfering block than rose-colored glasses and (b) many media presenters and bloggers either have BDS or want to put things in terrible light even if it distorts what actually occurred.

Maybe the editors and executives who decide what will appear and be heard cannot cope with the fact that nothing has shaken Bush one bit from his total belief in liberty and his trust in individuals' strength and intelligence.

Labels: gwb, people, reflections, writing

Apparently Brit Hume will cut back to approximately one hundred on-air hours a year, becoming a senior political analyst, anchor for special events and probably a sort of eminence gris. All this to happen after the upcoming elections (h/t Laura, story here).

Rats. That's what I have to say about this. Rats. Hume is that rare animal, an on-air commentator who combines intelligence with calmness and wit (not jokiness, real wit). Many commentators and so-called pundits like to sound smart but say ridiculous things or make it clear they don't know much about what they're discussing. Some smile at odd, inappropriate times (this is particularly true of CNN anchors, it seems to me). Some screech and holler as if loudness will compensate for thin erudition. We can only hope that Brit can't really stay away and/or that someone very much like him is waiting in the wings.

Labels: intelligence, people, tv

I've been reading various blogs and news sites and websites, and the comments are unbelievably strange. What's everyone so afraid of that they're so angry about/at Obama? What difference does it make that his background is a great big mishmosh? It's not as if anyone who's been president in the last fifty years or so has been such a paragon of virtue and marvelous character. Besides, the president's main role is to foster an atmosphere. There's a chance that Obama would engender a positive mood, a sense of revival and positive energy, after all.

Labels: 2008 election, people, reflections

I want to be in favor of Obama's candidacy. I loathe Billary's naked opportunism and power-hunger. I am scared of McCain for a host of reasons. But when Obama said he had no idea his pastor had said the outrageous things he said, I was dismayed because it was impossible to have been close friends and an influential parishioner and not know what J.Wright thought. Which meant Obama was dissembling, at best. Time passed and I'd kind of gotten myself to the point of thinking he's ambitious but not nakedly so and evasive about some things but who can blame him since a campaign is hardly even related to an administration. Now comes the "Obama seal" that's clearly modeled on the presidential seal. I mean, is this high school? It's so silly as to be pointless to mention it except that the man is running for the presidency of the United States. Can he seriously think millions won't ridicule him, minimally, or be outright disgusted? Is this the insecurity of a child abandoned by his father, a kind of Clintonesque idiocy, behavior that some waive off as meaningless but others view with (growing?) wariness? I've thought he seemed like an adult, as does his wife, and it would be so nice to have adults in positions of power.

Labels: 2008 election, people, ridiculousness