After a brief hiatus, I'm going to try and revive my blogging. I've enjoyed it enormously in the past and appreciate the words of blog friends while I've been gone. And let me add just just a brief note by way of explanation.

I had been enjoying the campaign enormously in that it was a rare time of actual choices, not merely one party hack versus another, or at least so it seemed. I began the primary season optimistic about Obama running and possibly winning. As time went on, some of his statements and actions nibbled at the edges of my enthusiasm, however, and I also began to be disturbed by what seemed like endorsement morphing into idolatry in nearly all media coverage. Since most of what we voters know comes from what journalists tell us, we must rely on thorough and in-depth reporting, but electronic and print journalists alike failed to ask questions of or about him, let alone probe as hard as they probed McCain or Clinton or Palin. As a result, I wrote what I intended as questions - about him, his positions and, particularly, the moral center that is so pivotal to his campaign and himself. Quite evidently, however, I did not convey what I thought I thought, nor did I say what I meant to say. I can only blame inelegance and inadequacy as a writer, demonstrating again, I suppose, that many bloggers are not professional writers or, at the least, that Yours Truly is not. In any case, I was literally stunned into silence by the intensity and personal negativity of some reactions to what I wrote. All else aside, I very much hope that Obama is every bit the leader we need and want. And I hope that he galvanizes Americans' hopes and energies, and proves to be one of our smartest, most statesmanlike and courageous presidents.

Labels: 2008 election, blogs (mine), reflections, writing

Today is quite a historical moment in America. The first black candidate for president will be participating in a debate held at the University of Mississippi where the first black student was enrolled at a southern U.S. university in 1962 after horrible riots and much violence that injured over a hundred people. Times do change for the better in some ways.

I looked up James Meredith's biography because I didn't know what he'd done after those eventful ten days between September 20th and October 1st forty-six years ago. He finally got to attend classes, graduated, earned an MBA and became a stockbroker. Fascinating to discover also that he and the civil rights movement came to a huge parting of the ways, however, because he found it "insulting" and demeaning. I've heard that occasionally before but didn't realize one of the major figures saw it that way. Definitely food for research and thought. After graduating and earning an MBA he became a stockbroker and then moved to Jackson, Mississippi to run a small used-car lot. He still lives there, interestingly enough. I wonder if any of the commentators or either debater will mention him. . . .

Labels: history, reflections

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

What do you suppose will happen on November 5th, the day after the election? This year's election will almost certainly be at least as close if not closer than that of 2000. The aftermath of that one was dreadful. This year the two camps are so divided and so angry at the other that I cannot imagine either one shrugging off defeat gracefully and resolving to march on to the next quadrennial contest, can you? This year's civil war isn't civil.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

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

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

Just in case there wasn't enough craziness afoot in the land already, there's a report in some NY papers today that Gov. Patterson is scolding McCain and Palin for [subtly] injecting race into the campaign by deriding Obama's work as a "community organizer." Patterson says they engaged in "racial coding" when Palin mentioned Obama's community organizing. What she said, however, was that if her time as governor is inadequate experience, then how adequate is his stint as a community organizer. Since that's his main work experience, the comparison and question seem fair.

Some community organizers do in fact do wonderful and helpful work. They are many things to many people: basketball and swim coaches, after-school activities coordinators, housing assistants, labor organizers, etc., etc. Some community organizers deliberately hire into (a/k/a infiltrate) offices and organizations in order to work from within to bring changes they think are important. Patterson's remarks show that either he does not realize, or he is overlooking, the reality that "community organizer" is the name for people who work in communities, sometimes manipulatively, in order to change a social order they think is wrong. People don't think anything racist when they hear the phrase, even if they don't like the work - it's the manipulation they don't like not their complexions. "Community organizing" is not, per se, derisive or racist but it may not require executive ability so much as compassion and energy.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, writing

Obama "understands better than his supporters that it is not a politician's enemies who lose elections, but his friends."

"Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics."

Both sentences are from an article by Nick Cohen in the U.K.'s Guardian/Observer (by the way, when did they become part of each other??) that hits several nails on the head all at once (h/t duff and nonsense). The article provides insights that cannot help but help in the 50+ days ahead in terms of understanding the ups, downs and utter madness that is going on. Both Obama and McCain vowed to stay away from nastiness but I guess no one can hold onto that idea for long with how much is at stake. It's really too bad but common wisdom is that angry and nasty is more effective than calmly discussing issues.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, writing

We really must resist the temptation to believe what any candidate says or promises. I doubt anyone can cite specific promises any candidate ever made and delivered. If there are any, I'll be dutifully awestruck and will try to raise a zillion dollars for the charity of their choice. In that vein, keep in mind that nothing candidates say about their own positions or about anyone else's is entirely truthful.

As she says she did, Palin did reject the "bridge to nowhere" but after she'd concluded it wasn't a good idea and realized it wasn't getting funding from Washington.

Obama said he would discontinue Bush's tax cuts but (a) they will expire in 2010 anyway unless they're re-voted and (b) now he says he won't discontinue them after all.

Biden says he's pro choice but he also says he believes life begins at conception. He says he won't "impose his personal views on others," but how could anyone keep such a belief altogether out of their public life? After all, if he believes life begins at conception that means he thinks people having abortions are committing murder and no one with any compassion could accept that comfortably. Is it 'justifable homicide' or something, to him? Those of us who aren't sure when life begins have it easier on that score, at least.

Palin says she's pro life but also says she's proud of her daughter's decision to have her baby. Doesn't one make a decision when one has a choice?

And so on. More fun with truth in the coming days and eight (short) weeks before the election.

Not that any position or belief means much since what a candidate says is mainly intended to win votes. And if we're smart we'll vote for the candidates whose advisers and factoti seem most likely to run the country in the way we wish it to be run, not for the candidates whose words are unfailingly truthful, since that would mean we couldn't vote for anyone.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

If a person generally agrees with the positions of a candidate, must a person agree with and approve of his or her behavior and words all the time? I don't think so. It might be lovely to gave that kind of fealty to someone but even the Cleavers (Leave It to Beaver), the Stones (the Donna Reed Show) and the Andersons (Father Knows Best) stated objections to foolishness from their spouses and their children. It is beyond me to understand why candidates don't seem to understand, witness what they do and say, that the majority of the country's voters want to hear about solutions and plans instead of personal attacks.

Which reminds me. I have respected Obama's acuity in getting the nomination and being so popular so am puzzled that he would say something so ludicrous as what the NY Times quotes him as saying at a New Jersey fundraiser last Friday: "I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second,” he said. “I don’t believe in coming in second. The American people can’t afford for us to come in second.” Uh, in what way can we not "afford" for him to come in second? And while I understand what he's saying about the inconveniences, isn't it silly to ask anyone to believe he just wants it to be over? How is his annoyance at traveling on a very fancy expensive airplane and other trappings of running for president, no matter how inconvenient, a reason for us making sure he wins?

In a similarly way, Richard Cohen writes glowingly of Obama and remarks with what one must interpret as respect if not outright awe about Obama's "moral commitment" when "[a]t age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher -- he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago." Wow, no kidding? I mean, I suppose I get his point but there surely must be a better way to form that thought.

Which reminds me. Maybe you think the U.S. has uniquely difficult politics. Ah, then you'd be wrong indeed. Great Britian, our partner in many things, has a Prime Minister by the name of Gordon Brown who is unpopular on a scale previously almost unknown there or here. He makes George Bush look respected and popular. Really. Trust me. Read the British papers and news sites if you don't believe me. Anyway, in a recent interview Brown acknowledges having failed to deliver on his promises - apparently almost to a one. Since he is no doubt baffled at his unpopularity since he has long been expecting to be a superb p.m., this acknowledgement is being interpreted by the British press as an appeal to let him stay in office for a while longer. In the U.K., elections are called when the party in power is clearly failing or if it feels the need for a shoring up from a successful election.

It will be interesting to see what happens. There and here.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

Obama must be feeling defensive or else why bother asserting his superiority. If he really thinks he's so much more of a serious candidate, why even go there? Parents don't argue with toddlers about spelling or arithmetic, after all. I must say I find it surprising that McCain so easily pulled some rug out from under Obama's wall of self-assurance. Interesting and alarming, though, when you consider what is thrown at ceo's every day not to mention what is thrown at the p.o.t.u.s. by people presumably actually injurious and threatening.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

Update - Where there's smoke there's often a flame if not exactly a full-blown fire. The Palins released the information today that their eldest daughter is pregnant, no doubt fueling rumor/attack mongers who were wrong tho' not entirely. Incidentally, Palin is reputed to have stated that she doesn't favor explicit sex education in high school and I'm sure that stance will come under (a) attack, (b) question and (c) revision. It's not as if sex education has reduced the number of teen pregnancies anywhere, let alone in Juneau, Alaska, but I'm betting she'll modify her position and I'm betting in the end it will make no difference.

All that aside, I quite wish someone would explain to me why our election contests have become such nastiness fests. Why can't we have important differences and examine the differences carefully but without nastiness? Do personal attacks advance understanding or help anyone assess the important conceptual and practical issues, and the people who champion one or another point of view?

At the beginning of this (endless) election cycle the argument statement was all over the place that "Obama is obviously an Arab [read: not a patriotic American] because his middle name is Hussein." You'd think that the biggest melting pot in the world could adapt to a name without having a national nervous breakdown and without engaging in guilt-by-name-association.

The latest example is about Sarah Palin and her baby. On one attack's hand is that the baby is really her eldest daughter's (and that such a heinous lie means Palin is unfit to be v.p.) and on the other attack’s hand is that she was irresponsible to have had the baby (and that such a foolish act means she is unfit to be v.p.).
The first attack was sparked by the fact that Palin supposedly never looked pregnant enough (?) and that she went back to work only a few days after the baby was born and that the daughter was carrying the baby during Palin's introduction last week. Since Palin is nursing the baby, the fabrication would require collusion with a doctor who induced lactation in a woman seven years after her previous birth plus padding outfits since there are photos that show an evidently pregnant governor plus distracting everyone from a salacious story which the Alaskan press would surely have glommed onto, not to mention that she seems like someone who would say it had happened and everyone should just deal with it, if it had. Not to mention that it's pretty unbelievable what the press will put forth without proof, a girl's feelings and reputation apparently be damned.
The second attack - that Palin was irresponsible to have the baby because it had Down's – is an illogical twist from people who call themselves pro choice. The pro-choice people I know and have discussed it with are pro choice, not pro abortion, believing abortion should be legal but not required. I am floored that the current attack mongers, presumably labeling themselves pro choice given their side of the political aisle, are basically saying Palin should have had an abortion. But doesn't having choice mean having more than one option, by definition? If so, what does the phrase "a woman's right to choose" mean to them?

(By the way, let's not get into a pro choice / pro life discussion here. I respect the belief that a fetus is a living being and that the logical consequences that follow from that mean never having an abortion. My own belief is that it’s never ideal but is sometimes necessary and preferable to alternatives. That discussion would be intense and better at a different time. At this moment, I am writing about my astonishment that pro choice supporters would be so illogical as to attack Palin’s choice to have her baby.)

We who call ourselves pro choice say that we want respect for our own freedom of thought and choice. Right? Well, then, that means we also have to respect other people's freedom of thought and choice. Right? Even if their choices are not the ones we would make ourselves. Right? So just as someone might choose NOT to have a baby – and that is their choice – someone might also choose TO have a baby. Right?

I am reminded of something I have maintained for years, supported by the early literature but somewhat lost recently. Women's liberation was not designed to force all women to work outside the home but, rather, to encourage all women to assess their own needs, desires and goals and then make individual and personal choices. It might mean staying home for one and going to work for another, marrying a stay-at-home-guy for one and being a stay-at-home-gal for another. Hear the words and realize the meanings of "individual" and "personal" and "freedom" and "liberation." Your choices might be very different from mine. I'm not at all sure we have any right to make judgments or get angry or disapprove of someone who makes different choices from our own.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, women

"....[I]f Palin holds her own against Biden, as she is fully capable of doing? McCain will then have succeeded in combining with his own huge advantage in experience and judgment, a politician of great promise in his vice presidential slot who will make Joe Biden look like a tiresome relic. McCain's willingness to take a chance on Palin could turn what looked, after Obama's impressive speech Thursday night in Denver, like a long two months for Republicans and conservatives, into a campaign of excitement and--dare we say it?--hope, which will culminate on November 4 in victory." (from Bill Kristol's "Let Palin be Palin" in today's Weekly Standard)

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, writing

Correlative to fooling some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, apparently everyone thinks there is something which it is valid to keep secret from some people. And something that is validly withheld from pretty much everyone. Yet current common wisdom has it that it's reprehensible when a president keeps some knowledge and activities secret. Nevertheless and meanwhile, praise and admiration abound from media and bloggers alike that McCain and his camp have succeeded so well and so thoroughly in keeping his v.p. choice secret right up to the last minute. Go figure.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

Somehow the last day of the democratic convention seemed overblown and false to me even though I am totally gratified by the country’s growth from hosing black children in 1964 to nominating one for president in 2008. It is moving to know that nations can change so profoundly for the better. (One hopes we can't move similarly for the worse, of course.)

As for Obama’s supposedly powerful and amazing speechifying, last night he left me fairly cold. I'm not sure why. Perhaps my cynicism is increasing in direct proportion to the nearness of election day? Also, there seems to be only a 6 point jump in the polls - not that polls mean anything anyway especially in this charged and endless campaign. But if that’s the biggest bounce the dems get after all the physical and verbal fireworks, then I think they're unlikely to win in November.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

. . . 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

The weekend was full of family and friends.  Going to the county fair together, a big birthday party for two, lots of children running and playing, etc., etc.  A lot of the time and the things we did were tons of fun and wonderful! 

I don't like to get too personal here but suffice it also to say that some of the time was difficult.  One day before I move over to the great beyond I would like to sort out why some people seem deliberate in their desire to be unpleasant, or at least not deliberate in an attempt to be pleasant.  Life is too short to waste time offending each other, isn't it?  Even if it isn't always exactly how we feel?  What is gained by being hurtful even if it expresses how we feel at that moment?  Is complete bluntness worth the sadness and confusion left in its wake?  As a commenter on a recent post about In Plain Sight said, "In reality, the villains in our lives are the people who confuse and emotionally manipulate, abuse or neglect us--not gun toting psychopaths."

Labels: family, reflections, tv

It was an interesting two hours, far quieter and more reflective than most of what we'll see before the election (or afterwards, most likely). It's doubtful than anyone's mind was changed but perhaps it served to focus some of the reasons people support Obama or McCain.  Rick Warren, he of the huge best seller "Purpose-Driven Life" which Ashley Smith used so brilliantly three years ago in that hideous face-off with Brian Nichols (read my take on that unusual incident if you're interested), hosted Obama and McCain for a values intererview, if you will.  The idea was to ask questions about moral and philosophical outlook. Questions like "what was your greatest moral failing" and "what do you think is the best and the worst in America at the moment."

I thought McCain seemed kind of punchy and a bit odd in his delivery but maybe that's just him and I haven't seen longish interviews with him before.  He generally spouted campaign statements he's rehearsed and said before even if they didn't quite fit the question.  A few people have observed that McCain seemed to know the questions, but I think (hope) that was mostly because the topics and questions were what a church audience would want to know and therefore would be familiar to McCain, more so than to Obama. McCain was essentially speaking to his base or at least to a base that he hopes will vote for him, given the size of the religious "bloc" and their impact on elections in the U.S. at present.  I thought that Obama seemed to be considering the questions and answering in a thoughtful tone and I found his comments interesting.

The moral integrity issue is being discussed all over the place today, as McCain acknowledged his greatest moral failing as his treatment of his first wife, but I'm puzzled by the adulation he nevertheless garners because of his observance of the "code of conduct" as a prisoner of war. Why is one so much more important than the other?  And (don't yell at me for asking this) how is it relevant that at one time he was a very decent soldeir when at another time he was a deceptive and dishonest husband?

Ironically, Warren is viewed with skepticism by many of the so-called religious right because he supposedly has some liberal viewpoints. One of his greatest strengths, as he displayed in his introduction last night, is his passion for civility and calmness in discourse among people who may differ and disagree.  Given the enormous differences between this year's candidates, if he could convince extremists on the right, perhaps others could convince extremists on the left and all of here in the wide middle will benefit.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, tv

I have some thoughts about the social equalization of the world. This on the heels of friends visiting a prominent person at the company where I work.  The visitors are from somewhere in Europe (I couldn't quite decipher the accents) and were dressed in skimpy bra-showing tank tops and skinny slacks/tights (the girls), and ill-fitting shirts and slacks (the boys). Yet here they were at my firm, long reputed to be a bastion of good taste and erudition, perfectly acceptably going around and meeting people without anyone looking askance or covering their eyes.

My point is that all the crappy ways we attire ourselves these days have definitely aided in equalizing social levels and made it so high mucky-mucks aren't visibly any different from low mucky-mucks. I think it's a good thing, honest I do, I just wish we all looked better when our bra straps were showing.  You know what I mean?

Labels: modern culture, reflections

HIllary's tanks are poised and ready, waiting on the outskirts of Denver. The invasion is ready. Oh, wait, I might have my stories mixed up. Might. Might not.

Apparently Obama has agreed that Hillary's name be placed in nomination and that she be included in the roll call vote. One hopes Obama has a plan, a/k/a/ knows what he's doing. He did manage his campaign brilliantly well after all. But what would prevent her supporters from demanding that the delegates (super and otherwise) support Hillary and / or that Obama choose her for vice-president? I'm sure there are conventions (heh) about delegates' commitment to their states' results but I doubt if they're legally enforceable.

I have to say I just keep shaking my head and saying "what was he thinking?". I am concerned about this acquiescence to the Clintons. Yes, it is respectful and even reasonable that the convention reflect what actually occurred so that the historical record show clearly that a woman received significant numbers of primary votes. That Hillary won a sizable number of votes. But one must keep in mind that this is the Clintons we're talking about, people not exactly known for their calm adherence to logic or agreements. Witness Bill's diatribes during the campaign (arguably responsible for her loss) and Hillary's handling of any number of things including her campaign (whose mismanagement disappointed many who were initially supportive of her candidacy, sufficiently that they became disillusioned). Is further proof needed as to why Hillary should not be Obama's (or anyone's) veep? He would have to spend at least half his time holding her off, not governing.

As for tanks, does anyone remember the 1968 convention? The lesson from that dreadful time 40 years ago is that it really is possible for chaos to reign absolutely and utterly supreme. I suspect an invasion is underway but maybe I'm wrong. my fingers are crossed and I promise to try to trust fairness and optimism.

P.S. Read this amusing take from Slate's Henneberger. Similar skepticism but much funnier than me.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, tv