Not sure why Caroline is being reviled as far as the senate seat. When Hillary moved to NY and ran for that office, her only qualifications were that she had lived in the White House (as did Caroline) and been married to the President (Caroline was his daughter) and been an advocate for health care reform (different cause but similar advocacy). Caroline brings the connectedness of a Kennedy which is good and bad news, of course, but that's like Hillary, too. Caroline's previous reluctance to be involved in politics might even mean that she's only getting into it now because her heart is finally leading her where her head probably still tells her to stay away (or it vice versa?). Anyway, I'm not sure why there's any question.

P.S. Doesn't playing Beg-The-Governor almost guarantee unseemly and/or untoward behavior (cf. Illinois)? Shouldn't replacing a statewide elected official be done with a special election?

Labels: politics, questions

It's one day away from December now.  A new season (early winter).  And it's time to haul out the advent calendars and count down to Christmas.  And the election is over and a new administration is soon to take office.  Cold weather, wool clothes, boots, sweatshirts, early darkness, frost on windshields . . .  and tons of new faces on news shows and all over downtown Washington DC. 

For your amusement and edification, I refer you to this article in the L.A. Times.  I admit to bafflement as to why Hillary would take the job since her power base is thereby immediately nullfied and as sec'y of state she's basically Obama's employee, than which I'd have thought nothing would have annoyed her more.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

In the ongoing and important discussion of what experience qualifies a person to be vice-president and/or president, and keeping in mind that Theodore Roosevelt had less than 4 years work experience before becoming vice president and, one year later, president, consider Lyndon Johnson, than whom no one was even close to as experienced when he became Kennedy's vice president. Furthermore, he is widely regarded as having been the most agile and able at getting members of congress to do his bidding of anyone in the history of the U.S. government. We should read this and think long and hard about the qualities and experience we want a candidate to have before we decide to vote for him or her:

There was no more experienced politician selected to be Vice President than Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson served as a United States Representative from Texas from 1937-1949 and as United States Senator from 1949-1960, including six years as United States Senate Majority Leader, two as Senate Minority Leader and two as Senate Majority Whip [that's more than 23 years], before being selected by John Kennedy to be his V.P. With all that "experience" he expanded the Viet Nam [sic] War on the advise [sic] of Kennedy's "wiz kid", Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, which resulted in the death of over 58,000 American troops and the first defeat in U.S. military history. Obviously, it takes more than experience in foreign policy and meetings with heads of state to make good decisions as Commander-In-Chief.

(H/T to Incidental Remarkings' mother for the quotation and my friend who drew Johnson to my attention in this respect.)

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections

Q1. Is it just me or was the “hubris” question astonishing for its, er, hubris? And if it's an acceptable question, then he'd better ask Obama and Biden whether they displayed hubris in thinking they could run considering that Obama's experience is pretty thin and Biden's is entirely as a member of the Senate, hardly a place where one learns how to manage budgets and people.

Obama (running for president) 14 years' experience — 4 as director of Developing Communities Project, 1 as Project Vote director, 6 as an Illinois state senator, 3 as a U.S. senator

McCain (running for president) 50 years' experience — 7 in the Navy, 3 as Navy liaison to the Senate, 4 as a U.S. represenative, 21 as U.S. senator

Biden (running for vice president) 38 years' experience — 1.5 as a corporate lawyer, 1.5 as a Delaware County councilman, 35 as a U.S. senator

Palin (running for vice president) 15 years' experience — 2 as a sportscaster, 3 as a city councilman, 4 as mayor, 2 as chair of a gas & oil commission, 2 as chair of an ethics committee, 2 as governor

There's not much in the way of job training for the White House, when it comes right down to it. This year there are two oldish guys running who have a heck of a lot of experience though only as senators and two youngish people running who each have very little experience, the weaknesses differing but perhaps balancing each other out. Ergo, the question - and concern - is every bit as germane for Obama.

Just as a point of comparison, keep in mind that the revered and adored JFK had spent almost four years in the Navy and thirteen years in the Senate when he ran for the presidency. Not even as much as Obama or Palin. Hmmm.

Q2. Why is Palin practically the only focus of attention and questioning? Is it because the journalists didn't see her coming? (I did, but I don't register on their radar.) Because I wonder why they've decided to grill just this one v.p. candidate within an inch of all our lives? Is anyone grilling Biden? If history books and my memory serve, no one grilled or even paid much attention to Garner, Wallace, Truman, Barkley (who?), Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush the elder, Quayle, Gore or Cheney, did they? Not to mention Biden.

So, please. ENOUGH. Let's discuss ISSUES. Remember them? The things that actually matter in terms of who we elect? Please.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, tv

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

Here's my wish for today, thrown out there in the hope that people who care about each other will give each other at least the same leeway for having different points of view that they give people they neither know well nor particularly care about.

Labels: disappointments, family, friends, politics

Alan Sullivan is never inarticulate but the strength of his feeling in this post is stunning. I hope he won't mind my quoting his final two paragraphs. If you don't know him, I should add that Alan is not even remotely part of the so-called base one might expect.

The cultural contrasts of Obama and McCain are stark enough, but those of Palin and Obama are even more revealing, because these two are contemporaries: their clash will define America in the Twenty-First Century, while Biden and McCain are figures from a receding past. From this point on, it will really be Palin versus Obama. And she will win, because she is a formed and grounded grownup, while Obama is only a character in his own memoir.

I am so glad I have lived to see this moment in the nation’s history. For the last few years I feared that America was losing its heart, and its way. Now I have hope again, thanks one gutsy old fighter pilot, and a moose-hunting gal from Wasilla.

Which goes a bit of the way toward explaining why so many writers and so-called pundits have been focusing on Obama vs Palin. But read the whole thing, enjoy and ponder.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, writing

A disturbing and fascinating comparison here.  If you are even considering voting in November and if you want as much information about the candidates as possible and given that McCain is 72 and has said he will/may only serve one term, it is truly a must read.  (h/t Laura)

Labels: 2008 election, good people, politics

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

(How come the NY Post hasn't used "Georgia on my mind" for a headline? If I've thought of it, for sure they have. Does it sound disrespectful? I don't mean it to. Also, I've put this aside in George typeface just to amuse myself and any other typeface fans. Ah the advantages of being under (over? behind? in front of?) the msm radar.)

Charles Krauthammer has a detailed and reasonable article at Real Clear Politics on the so-called cease fire and what he thinks can be done non-militarily to improve things. All based on the idea that "We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake." I continue to disagree with people, including him, who think Bush should have bolted from the Olympics when all this happened (I wrote about my reasoning yesterday) but I very much like his suggestion that the other seven members of the current G8 should withdraw on the grounds that Putin has defiled his legitimacy there. Krauthammer says the G7 should then be reformed and that Russia and/or its future permutation forever disallowed. I'm an eternal optimist and believe it is possible that Russia could become democratic but maybe I'm mistaken; it's completely irrelevant what I think anyway since I don't get any influence on it at all.

In a related matter, two little girls who were visiting their grandparents in Georgia (the Baltic one, not the U.S. east coast one) for the summer are apparently unable to return home because of the difficulties there at present. The parents appeared on a morning news show today. Why can't the girls leave? Are the borders locked down? Are things worse there than we have been told?

Labels: places, politics, ridiculousness, tv

When are public figures going to ingest thoroughly that the modern media will not let anyone get away with putting oneself forward as one kind of person while actually being another? It's taken a while despite years of rumors but I feel some relief to know that John Edwards' glib, smarmy, slick surface - which gave many of us a feeling of being sold a bill of goods, as they say - turns out indeed to be false. He's not, after all, the devoted husband and unwaveringly loyal peachy keen guy he said he was. All those pontifications about helping your neighbor and the glory of the common man were the bunch of hogwash they felt like. I don't personally care if he's had a million affairs but it's pretty rotten to Elizabeth (although yes it is her problem and not ours). What it also is, however, is yet another example of a politician with two disconnected sides of a mouth and no way for us to know which side to trust, if either. And that is the important reason any of us should care.

Labels: disappointments, politics

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

I read this article and suspect the real issue is that every now and then Blogger's mechanics just don't work very well. I've been snagged myself, though not in a long while, thank goodness. The annoyance about them is that there are so many users that sometimes they really can't handle it - and their customer service is awful as far as responding to questions or cries for help. Also it's owned by Google now and there are always concerns when something is used by outspoken individuals but run by people in a large company with goals that may be rubbed the wrong way by the aforementioned users. Given the huge number of users, however, my guess is that many more would have been disabled if it had really been intentional, but I may be wrong.

Main and awesome point for me staying is that Blogger is free (!) and provides those of us who want one, a place to learn tons by messing around with html and web design, without any ifs ands or buts.

Labels: blogs (mine), blogs (others'), politics, web

Some friends and I watched Charlie Wilson's War over the weekend. It was terrific and I'm not at all sure why it only rates 7.5 (out of 10) at imdb. There are some slightly scary circuitous and diatribe-esque discussion threads there but unless you like to read various levels of lunacy and bad spelling, just ignore them. Anyway, the movie is better than most of the current movies I've seen but, then again, I'm mainly a fan of movies driven by plots and characters that make logical and emotional sense so my judgment may be impaired according to some points of view.

I read the book about six months ago so I was curious as to how all the thousands of personalities, passions, points of view, events and mere thoughts could be culled from 500+ pages into a movie that wouldn't run ten hours and put everyone to sleep. What's amazing is that they got the important people, facts and stories in, and managed to convey what I believe is at the story's heart: the conviction that a few passionate people can get big things done as long as they are determined and willing enough to play the "games" of politics and inner-circle dealing. Realizing that an awful lot of things happen that way, one wonders why inner circle politicians don't get more done, after seeing this movie.

And I do not think, by the way, that Charlie and Gust caused the events of 9-11-2001. To me that's like saying that rapist attack women because they wear miniskirts, or that husbands burtalize wives when they defend their self-respect. Those who carried out 9-11 had been memorizing their lines and running tech rehearsals for quite a while, long before all this, and it might just have happened sooner but for Charlie and Gust but it certainly wasn't retaliation or a logical outcome.

Anyway, this is absorbing and provocative. Read and/or watch and let's talk.....

Labels: movies, people, politics, warfare

I'll admit that I was never likely to affirmatively like Hillary. She annoys the heck out of me with her very studied delivery and her utterly unchangeable power playing. But I liked the idea of a woman running for, and possibly winning, the presidency. It seems, however, that she will lose the nomination to Barack Obama, despite the increasingly thinner piece of gum with which she's holding on. I've been wondering why she can't let go. I've been astonished at each new fabrication (Bosnian fire fights, for example) and each new declamation of prejudice she says has been directed against her. Now Peggy Noonan has written a succinct response and I am taking the liberty of quoting a few sentences here because they are so exactly right.

One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her loss. . . . [T]the charge of sexism is . . . is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

I have to believe her advisers have her read columns like this. I sure hope she ingests them, too, because it would be a shame to have her keeping playing it out until the gum thins so much that it snaps or just gives out altogether and sends her reeling that-a-way and the democratic party that-a-way. She deserves more, for herself and for us, but she's holding the only end that can be let go.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, writing

Well-written and accurate article in today's Daily Mail - honestly, read it and see. Unsettling and sad and alarming, but hits several nails squarely on their heads.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

On American Idol eliminating Kristy Lee Cook seemed weird. Even the judges thought she sang pretty well this week. Heck, Dial Idol even showed her safe - not just highly unlikely to go but actually safe. As I've said a million times, either the voting is at least slightly rigged or the voters are so more whimsical than predictable.

The Clinton-Obama debate on Wednesday was ho-hum and just served to continue the ridiculousness of this year's election cycle. Lost almost entirely are the actual words and meaning being spoken, as the commentators and follow-up analyses jump right on the bandwagons of whatever preconceived notions they either already have or want to perpetrate. It's very frustrating because we voters are such total losers in all this. What Obama actually means dissolved into the ephemera, as often happens, as nuances are simply ignored.

On both Wednesday and Thursday this week, I attended a dinner and two knitting classes taught by Lucy Neatby, a knitting teacher about whom I waxed ecstatically rhapsodic here after last summer's classes. The subjects were intarsia, edge bands and buttonholes. Her techniques are marvelous for the specific subjects and she also conveys tricks and tips that apply to knitting in general. And somehow one even gleans life lessons from Lucy's classes.

Finished Five Days which I wrote about here. Some people were disappointed with the ending and I think what they meant is that the solution was less psychologically bizarre than the build up would have led you to expect. On the other hand, it was a more true-to-life ending than many shows would use, and that was refreshing although much more disturbing than the extreme endings would have been because they'd have been less likely in one's own life. The real impact of the story is realizing the life-altering and shattering effect on so many (not necessarily obviously connected) people of a quick, unthinking reaction to an almost unnoticeable moment. Brilliant.

Labels: 2008 election, a.i., a.i.7, knitting, politics, reflections

Recently the Democratic candidates have further muddied the waters as far as my knowing whom to support. Trustworthiness is hardly Clinton's strongest suit but her use of a decade-old video clip with a young girl who now, years later, actively supports Obama means that she isn't even paying close attention. Perhaps it's just that her staff isn't doing their work very well. But here's the thing: if they aren't doing their work well during the campaign, how would they do if she got elected? Also, in February, she stated unequivocally that Michigan's votes should be discounted because of the DNC's sanctions; now she says they must be counted. This is one more example of how impossible it is to get or keep a fix on what she actually thinks or believes. But maybe that's good for a president who has to deal with a wild and crazy world full of different constituents, allies and enemies? I really don't know my answer.

As for Obama, his speech last Monday was inarguably rousing and well-worded (having Ted Sorenson among his writers can only benefit his sound bites). He accomplished what I assume he set out to do: diffuse fury about his minister's hostile rantings and further elucidate his stated agenda of bringing the country together. It was smart to talk head-on about racist behavior and verbiage in his determination to change the world. He pulls anger and racism out of the emotional shadows and I admire his tactics as well as his goal. I think he has a real chance to succeed in this because of his calm personality and his evident good will. He may indeed be a major force for change for the better in this society. But does that mean he'd be a good president? I really don't know my answer.

One reason I don't know my answer is that my trust in him has been damaged. On Friday before the famous speech, a few days after the rancid speeches were released, he said in an interview with Anderson Cooper that he'd never personally heard the remarks. Cooper looked disbelieving and pursued it for a while but Obama insisted he hadn't known about the remarks and rantings until the tapes were released. Then on Monday he acknowledged he *had* heard the remarks previously. In other words, Friday's denials were prevarications. As in, false. As in, he not only knew but had already been concerned about them. As in, how can we trust what he says now? I mean, it's hardly news that trust is delicate or that politicians are untrustworthy. Or that politicians will say and do pretty much whatever they feel they need to say to get elected. But, at least as far as I know, Obama has so far been uniquely trustworthy and different from "regular" candidates. But when he said he wasn't in the pew he was either outright lying or he was being very very precise because he was actually in the back of the church. Is he just another politician as usual, appealing though he may be? I really don't know my answer.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections

I know there are racists in this country. I know that a subtle symptom of deep-seated racism is thinking the other guy is racist but oneself is not. What I did not know very thoroughly, nor mentally prepare for, is the just-developing second stage reaction as Obama begins to establish into a secure lead ahead of Mrs.C.

What I mean is that seemingly intelligent and balanced people are starting to topple over all kinds of unexpected (to me) edges. I won't repeat the thoughts and statements I've been reading today. It would be as pointless and offensive as the endless airings of Rev. Wright's mostly ghastly diatribes.

The thing is, if there were no germs of anything at all true in wild remarks like Wright's, there would be no reason to feel disturbed.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics, reflections

I was wondering who would be the first page one person to object to Geraldine Ferraro's patently ridiculous comments. I'm glad it was the candidate himself. Ferraro - the beneficiary of soft treatment at the hands of a wary media when she ran for Vice President - has nerve to say what she said and I'm mighty glad someone reacted straightforwardly. Neither Clinton nor Obama are getting special treatment, if you ask me, since both are being ridiculed and excoriated, at different points in time. Can Ferraro seriously think that the media is going easier on the black man than they do on the white Clinton woman? Get real. The media is a hungry shark from whose teeth no one escapes unshredded.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics, ridiculousness