The People's Choice

OMG! News flash!

Conservatives are WORRIED! Distraught, I tell you.

Perhaps even SHOCKED, that they disagree with Obama's cabinet picks and/or his policies. And somehow, once they wake up, that the 66,882,230 people who voted for Obama are not going to be happy.

According to the WashPost

"It is disturbing," said Roger Clegg, a conservative..."The transition team as described to me was made up of nothing but people on the far left. Though Obama is more moderate, that makes you wonder what kind of advice the president is given, and what range of choices he'll be given when it comes time to make appointments."

Oh no! Nothing but people that disagree with the current failed policies of the Bush administration.

Note to Mr. Clegg: Your side LOST!

A few months into the Bush presidency--you know the election when Bush lost the popular vote* and then came in running the place like he had a frickin' mandate-- I saw my friend David at the local bar and grill.

David: You know, I never, ever got the hatred and bile that people had for Bill Clinton.
Me: There was alot of hate and bile.
David: Yeah, there was. But now I get it. I really can't stand the "W." I now know how the other side feels.

Reminder to the other side--this is what it feels like.

Except that this new Prez-elect actually thinks it's important to listen and acknowledge differences. That this new Prez-elect understands that he is a member of our national government, that was founded in 1776--that it did just not pop out of his head. And that this Prez-elect is the leader of a movement that has been embraced by the majority of the American voters.

Like in a democracy.

'Nuff said.

*BTW--50,456,002 people voted for G.W. Bush in 2000. That's more than a half-million fewer than voted for Al Gore. See more.

Who Wasn't On Stage With Obama and Should Have Been?

Steve Clemons is right to question the optics of President-elect Obama's first presser. It's not that the folks on the stage don't have experience and know-how, but they are of the past. And the guy that I voted for said that we were no longer going to be shackled to the past. The same way of doing things.

Many folks on the stage are the guys who thought the tweaking of monetary policy and the cooling of inflation were the answer to long-term prosperity. The same guys who supported a President who during the dot-com bubble said that economic cycles don't apply anymore. Remember irrational exuberance?

Well, the housing bubble replaced the dot-com bubble. But a quick view shows a commonality. Both bubbles were based on paper and pushing paper around to create the illusion of wealth. Especially for the people holding the paper.

We need to look at our economy and remember that we need to make things of *VALUE.* That's why I am so excited about Prez-elect Obama's green energy initiative. Creating new forms of energy is a thing of value. That's what will make a strong economy. And some new thinking.

We Are The Change

Tonight marks the end of the baby-boom.

The baton is being passed to a new leader for whom flower power is not part of his memory. He will help lead us into the future. The one that we don't know yet. But the one that we need to work on together.

Not Red States. Not Blue States. But the United States.

I am waiting for President-elect Obama's speech. The speech that I never thought I would hear. But the one that I was hoping to hear. I have to be out of the house extra early tomorrow, but I am waiting up to see the start of our future.

What's A Hero?

I was really mad at Hiro last week. I mean how could he kill his best friend without feeling and without regret? He did not hestitate. He took a sword and stabbed his friend--the one who loved him. To prove he is a "badass." Just to save the world, and all.

I think it must be a huge burden to be a hero. To feel like you need to save the world. Or to know that the world will not survive without you. You are required to do really awful things, make extraordinary personal sacrifices. Not just once, but many times.

And as this election is winding down, I am thinking of the hero John McCain. People are mourning the disappearance of the "real" John McCain. The driver of the Straight Talk Express. The man willing to sacrifice his political career--even his presidential hopes--for the right thing. Like comprehensive immigration reform that almost killed his campaign. And everyone knows the incredible sacrifices that McCain made as a navy pilot in Viet Nam. People say that they would have voted for THAT McCain.

But I don't think that is fair. John McCain had an uphill battle in an environment made for the Democratic nominee. And in order to be a hero, in order to serve his country and help steer the country in the right direction, he has made some tough decisions. Not without feeling. And likely not without regret. Just to save the world, and all.

McCain has the burden of the hero. I don't think for one minute that it's easy. Thanks Senator McCain.

A Rose By Any Name

General Colin Powell announced that he was going to vote for Barack Obama, and it's all the twitter. Calling Obama "transformational" and his own Republican Party "narrower and narrower," Powell lent the considerable heft of the former general, chair of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State to the candidate that some have said was too inexperienced and lacked judgement.

But this was not the most important thing he did on Meet the Press.

I think that the most important thing that he did was call out the members of his own party who find the practice of Islam a disqualification for the presidency.

I cringe every time someone denies that Barack Obama is Muslim. It goes like this.

"Obama is a Muslim"

"No, he's not," said like there is something wrong being Muslim.

Imagine saying there is something wrong with being Catholic, or Jewish. Or think about when you hear boys say, "You are such a girl" as if it's an insult to be a girl--like their mother, like my mother or my sister. Making who people are synonymous with "you are bad" or "you are a dirty, filthy mother****in' terrorist" is simply WRONG.

When General Powell told the story of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a twenty year old native of New Jersey who made the ultimate sacrifice of a soldier in Iraq, he reminded us of the best in Americans. And in doing so, called on us all to be the best Americans we can be.

So, we should all learn the name of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. He is a hero. An American hero. And we should all learn that we can be heroes, too.

Yes we can.

Interviews and Debates and Speeches, Oh My!

Somebody needs to remind Alaska's Governor Palin about the differences between an interview, a debate and a speech. Oh, well doggone it, I'll do it.

Interview: This is a format in which a reporter asks questions and the interviewee answers them. The interviewee--in this case you, Gov. Palin--doesn't get to choose the questions. That would be more like a town hall or Ask the WhiteHouse as hosted by the White House. Sometimes the questions might be a surprise and sometimes if you don't answer the question or you try to "pivot," the reporter tries to pin you down with a follow-up question. The reporter gets paid to get to new information. You shouldn't be annoyed when they do their job and follow the structure of a standard interview rather than a Speech (see below).

Debate: Here is another one where the format is already known. In political debates, the first thing that happens is that there is alot of negotiations regarding whether the debators (the candidates) sit or stand, limits on time and engagement, and even topics. The campaigns also decide on debate moderators. All this happens weeks before your preparation begins. So, it's important to know what the rules are in order to know what to expect, but since your team is part of making the rules, it's easy enough to find out.

During the debate, what happens is the moderator asks some questions, and you respond to those questions. It's perfectly okay to direct your response to the pre-scripted talking points that you wish to cover. Everyone does that. It is not so okay, however, to say "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people." When you talk straight to the American people in an unfiltered way, that is called a Speech (see below) not a Debate.

Speech: This is when you get to say whatever you want, for as long as you want, to the audience that you want. You can take questions, or not. But remember, not every exchange when you speak to the public is a Speech. You have been doing mostly speeches, so dagnabbit, maybe you forgot what happens in other venues, see Interview and Debate above.

Last reminder Gov., you're not in Wasilla anymore.

Hardest on the Ones We Love

In high school, my friend Jenny was mortifyingly embarrassed of her mom. Jenny would yell if her mom spoke to me. "Nobody cares what you say!" She would bad mouth her mother to me--her stupidities, her clothes, her hair.

I always thought this odd. Jenny's mom was nice to me, and always let Jenny take the car. She wasn't rude or dirty or inappropriate (we didn't use the word inappropriate back in those days, but she wasn't). But Jenny knew her mom as a stupid old woman. Who reflected poorly on her.

Progressives who think Obama "lost" Friday's debate remind me of Jenny. Familiarity makes them overly-sensitive to any potential misstep--not aggressive enough, should have hit harder, McCain didn't implode so if Obama didn't hit it out of the park he did poorly.

Here's the thing, Obama has run a very good campaign so far. And his campaign knows that he doesn't have to convince his supporters. He needs to work on the undecideds. The people who have just tuned into the election process.

Newly engaged undecideds and independents see the candidates freshly. They are checking out and evaluating the men that they are seeing now. And trying them on for President. That's who Obama is trying to win over.

Those of us who have been engaged from Iowa see different candidates. I hope Jenny made up with her mom.

Rocking The Podium Live from New York

And what do I think about this?


Frickin' hilarious.

Addicted to Palin

Okay. I said it. It's the first step. I admit that I have a problem.

I have been thinking about Sarah Palin, reading about Sarah Palin, watching video about Sarah Palin, following convention coverage about Sarah Palin, wrestling with my feelings about Sarah Palin, and trying to figure out what I think about this polarizing newly minted political rockstar.

I can't get her out of my mind, because I am having a hard time making a decision about her and what to think about her.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President.

The qualifications for the vice presidency are the same as those for the presidency. The vice president must be a native-born American of at least 35 years of age who has resided in the United States for at least 14 years. -- Encarta

This means that I, too, am qualified to be Vice President--or President for that matter.

In my obsessive reading, some folks are saying that they have alot in common with Gov. Palin, and since they do NOT think that they are qualified for the job, therefore SHE isn't qualified. Others are happy to have somebody who is "just like me," who will understand and respond to their needs. Next I find myself thinking about why I believe that Brack Obama is qualified to be President.

This gets me thinking about serendipity and timing. Before Obama became a 2008 Presidential candidate, I was wishing that he would wait until the next round. But sometimes circumstances thrust you into a position and you have to grab for the ring. It might not be presented again. And I think that I need to apply that same standard to Palin.

But what about her family?, I was thinking. How could Palin be a mother to babies, young children and teens while being Vice President?

What wrong thinking.

I always thought that I tried hard not to judge other parents and their decisions--whether mom should work or stay home, what role does dad play, is quality time better than quantity time, prudes versus permissives, milk versus ice tea? In our family the mom went back to work when the babies were 9 and 8 weeks old--and still nursed both until they were two. The dad worked part time for the first few years and did main duty. The mom took a new job that entailed alot of domestic travel 4 months before the youngest was born--and she dragged the baby from coast to coast. His first hotel was in Boston at 10 weeks. Good mom? Bad mom? Sometimes. Okay, I think Palin is a fine parent. Her kids look happy (and gorgeous!) and I bet they will survive her parenting and become productive adults. As I pray my kids will survive my own parenting.

But what does parenting have to do with being a "heartbeat away from the Presidency" anyway? Nothing. But the heartbeat away from the Presidency thing is pretty important.

So, I think that Palin is qualified enough. And I think that, as Obama has forcefully and genuinely said, her family needs to be off limits. So that leads me to where I should have been from the beginning--what do I think about her as a potential president, because that's the job she is going for?

I definitely think that she is a shrewd and formidable politician. She has worked hard and appears to spit nails and bring down the hammer on foes. Her rise to the governor's mansion in Juneau is something to be respected and admired. Politics is a tough game, and a young upstart from a small town making it to the top of the heap in Alaska is nothing to shake a stick at. Go Sarah Barracuda!

So now I am returning to her convention speech--what tells me most about who she is and what kind of president she might be, because that's all we got. And this is the source that makes me most uncomfortable about Sarah Palin, and a McCain-Palin presidency.

The speech--well delivered by a confident, accessible, smiling candidate--helped to draw a clear distinction between the choice we have in November. And it isn't about Palin, specifically, but about what her ticket stands for.

Change for them means making a U-turn and going back to the 50's. The speech was very backwards looking, to the "good ole days" of some idyllic and perhaps mythical small town America. Where people are homogeneous (but not homos), where nostalgia and the familiar trump intellectual curiosity, and where we need to run back to the cocoon rather than boldly face the challenges of health care, the environment, education and globalization.

Backwards to when diplomacy means that the U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. (chant it with me like its 1980) plays nuclear games of chicken with our enemies, and globalization means that everyone oversees wants an American car and the imports from Japan are cheesy.

Where small towns are filled with honest, sincere dignified people who are somehow immune to a failing economy, the mortgage crisis, and the false prospect that cutting taxes for the wealthiest will make us all better off, even if that leaves state coffers empty without money for infrastructure projects and public safety (can you say levies?) and with gimmicks to improve education.

When the natural resources of this great planet were seen as infinite, and frontier settlers were the masters, taking whatever they wanted and moving on when the land was depleted or destroyed because it was their right. In contrast to the people already in this country that the settlers displaced. People who were stewards for the land, the water, the air, the animals and plants.

I watched Gov. Palin's speech--and within the context of the Republican Convention--felt like she saw the best times were behind us. Simpler times. Times that needed to be protected from the future.

And her reiteration of wedge issues in the guise of small town values--guns, abortion, creationism--sets up the old "us against them" no-compromise zone. I appreciated Sen. McCain talking about reaching out across differences to make changes during his acceptance speech, but he really didn't advocate anything new. And, if his running mate and others making speeches have their way (as they did with his choice for VP), his calls for pragmatic compromise to resolve tough issues will likely disappear.

I used to work in an academic environment with decisions made by "consensus." What that meant in practice was that anyone could stop an idea by crapping on it. It was a huge challenge to get anything done, make change, see things in a new way, innovate or invent. It was status quo all the time, because there was always someone who knew they could stop change and keep their fiefdoms intact.

So it's really not about Sarah Palin, who is truly a remarkable person on many levels. I don't need to think about her, although she helped me to reconcile some ideas that were vexing me.

It's about the fact that on most issues I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with Sarah Palin and her running mate. And all the distractions that have been fed up by the 24/7 news personalities and Democratic and Republican spinmeisters are just that. Distractions.

So yes, I have been thinking alot about Sarah Palin. And I think that now, I am on the road to recovery.

Bouncing After the Convention

My favorite part of the convention:



Where did they FIND this guy? Give that person a raise, and put Barney Smith first! What a regular guy. Did a more natural job than many of the professional pols.

I wrote this poem for one of my McCain supporting friends, whose kids have been known to chant Obama around the house.

Your Continued Wrongness

YOU said that Dems (Hillary supporters esp.) should be pissed
cuz your folks keep ginning up that Hill was dissed.
Guess you didn't see your guy McCain was hissed,
and that your other guy, W, won't be missed.

Another dull speech by our guy Kerry,
didn't stop the convention hall from making merry.
And the hatchet by both Hill and Bill was burried,
all the precurssor to the 40 states that Barack will carry!

Yo yo yo, and wait till tonite when in his speech,
Barack Obama will rise up to meet,
another man who wouldn't take his assigned seat
45 years ago even tho the mountaintop he did not reach.

And when the conventions are all done,
and this election is fully run,
Barack Obama will have won.
Mark my words, your daughters will rejoice, Son.

Yeah, not too good, but it's been what I've been thinking about. And it rhymes.

Thinking Seems to Have Stopped

I think that I have been thinking. But I think that my thoughts have been either non-conclusive or circular.

Like the past week's political ad that had the McCain campaign trotting out blonde bimbos and somehow linking them--or at least their celebrity--to Obama. And Paris Hilton's mom didn't appreciate it.

Then there was the coverage about Ludacris's song and somehow that Obama has responsibility for the rapper's lyrics. Hunh? (Nas has a much better joint, anyway.)

Then there was the senior pictures. How did it happen that my first-born posed for his senior pictures. And he looks like a frickin' man.

He has been spending the summer at the pool, lifeguarding. The pool is about as far away from us as some of my friends in the 'burbs can imagine. He is guarding at a pool in Anacostia. Right by here.

One friend said that he would never allow his kid to go to that pool. But he has never been there. And he has not driven past the neat single family homes on those quiet streets. The kids playing with their sweet, funny, goofy pit-bulls in the park next to the pool. He probably hasn't had the chance to see the most beautiful sky in Washington, D.C. as you drive up South Capital Street along the Anacostia River. Crazy clouds lit from behind to your left and the lights from the stadium straight ahead. As you cross over the river, the stadium is on your right, and you look up ahead and there's the Capitol.

Sometimes you have to look close to see what is really there. You might need to look with your own eyes. And sometimes when you look closely, when you dig past the surface, you can really see.

Wrong Headline, Wrong Story

In the ongoing effort to make the 2008 Presidential Election all about race and increase readership or ratings or something, today's Washington Post has the inflammatory front page headline "3 In 10 Admit to Race Bias" and chronicles the trouble Barack Obama is having in getting the (play dramatic music) White Vote.

If you read on to paragraph 9 on the second page, you will discover what I found to be news. That is, Democrats running for president have been having trouble with the (play dramatic music) White Vote for the past few election cycles--and according to the article, this trend has been going on since Jimmy Carter ran in 1976.

This is hardly the first time a Democratic candidate has faced such a challenge -- Al Gore lost white voters by 12 points in 2000, and John F. Kerry lost them by 17 points in 2004 -- but it is a significantly larger shortfall than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton encountered in their winning campaigns. -- Wash Post

Somehow, though, the Post acts like Obama is having a problem with the (play dramatic music) White Vote because he is black. That's not what I see in the data.

Hey Post, I think that if you actually read your data--to make it easy I made a graph with a trendline--you would agree that the story is either

1. Dems have been in trouble with white voters for a while, OR
2. Obama's race doesn't seem to be having much of an impact on the voters--so far.

The Post piece is NOT good thinking.

Sticks and Stones II

Hurry, hurry, hurry. You don't want to be the last of the sappy, hopeful idealists who still believes in the Obama message of hope and unity. Why believe and work for change if cynicism is just around the corner?

Yes, I mean you David Brooks and others who were fawning all over Barack Obama just a few months ago. You were excited about the potential of a transformative leader. About the promise of a post-Bush future tackling issues of today's and tomorrow's America. About breaking from the old liberal/conservative debates from the 60's 70's, and figuring out new solutions and a new coalition of people from left and right for a new, and united, United States.

It's like Cook Hand Luke. The other inmates idolize Luke's bravery--that he challenges the status quo. They egg him on to take risks while sit back to enjoy--and exalt--his strength which gives them hope. When Luke shows that he is just flesh and blood like them, his former fawners show their disappointment with Luke--and with their own cowardice--by turning their backs on him. They won't take the risk, but are excited that he does. And reject him rather than take up the mantle.

It's easier to say that he isn't who we thought he was, rather that to see that we aren't who we wish we were.

No Foul

During the never-ending "news" stream from the TV, a talking head said that Chelsea Clinton was asked about Monica Lewinsky at an Indiana campaign stop for her mom. Our talk around the TV went like this.

"Awww, that is just not necessary."
"Well, they are pimping her out."
"Yeah, but this is just out of bounds."
"Good for her, she told them it wasn't their business."
"She's a grown woman."
"She was a kid at the time."

It was the protective parent that made me jump to Chelsea's defense. The campaign is not about her personal experiences at such a tough time.

Then, tonight (while watching an another awful American Idol, David Archuleta go home!) I read the coverage only to see that the question was not out of bounds--not a mean question about Chelsea's personal esperience--but about whether Hillary Clinton's credibility was damaged by her comments during the Lewinsky scandal. Not about how Chelsea felt. Not about how her mother and father coped with the scandal. Not about the chill around the White House breakfast table. Now that would be none of our business.

The kid at Butler State in Ind., asked a legitimate question. It was HRC who blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" for yet another in a string of unfounded accusations against her husband. But turns out it wasn't Clinton enemies, but a fact. The question asked was, what does that say about Hillary's judgment? Now that is our business.

It is uncomfortable for Chelsea to be confronted about the Lewinsky scandal, but really, everyone knows about Bill's thing with the intern, and Chelsea is publicly campaigning for her mom. Not out of bounds.

My Sib texted that my niece saw Chelsea today at one of the Clinton college stops in Ind. My niece reported that there were alot of Obama signs in the audience. That's legitimate, too. But no being mean to Chelsea.

A Race to Race

So, will Barack Obama's speech on race--you know, the speech he really did not want to have to make --be noted in future histories as a turning point in U.S. race relations? And more importantly, if it is an historical "event," will it be in the context of the election of our first black president or in the context of a failed candidacy that helped to bring an open discussion of race in America?

Too early to tell. Too early to know if this will have any long-term impact. Too early to tell if skittish white-folk will use Rev. Wright as a reason why they can't support Obama. But for the skittish, they would need to find something anyway.

So when Obama offers nuance and context about race in America, does he inadvertently give an out to folks who like to have simple choices laid out in a menu of numbers on the wall? [I'll take the #2 meal, Britney Spears burger, Bill Cosby fries, with a supersize of O.J.?] When there is no easy sound bite--precisely because this is a discussion and NOT a sound bite--can it be heard?

"Only a tiny fraction of Americans will ever see the speech in full. Once it went through the media sausage grinder all you were left with was him failing to disown the pastor," says Michael Munger, political scientist at Duke University and a libertarian. "It showed he is the kind of candidate we should want as president but not the kind we tend to elect." Financial Times

Okay. Maybe I am just a pseudo-intellectual snob. And maybe I just need to learn more about stuff white people like.

And maybe, just maybe, no matter what happens in this upcoming election, we can actually

"...continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. [B]ecause [we] believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren." --Barack Obama

Yeah, like that.

What Are People Looking For?

I was poking through Google's toolset and stumbled on Google Trends. Google says that their Trends (in beta) can let you "see what the world is searching for." Among the cool features, you can compare trends on different search terms over time and by region.

So, you can see that U.S. users had a spike in searches for Amy Winehouse, and that Amy tracks higher than Britney. Across the pond, Brits were generally less interested in learning about Amy, and more in Britney.

You can also track the relative popularity of Kanye West and 50 Cent. Fitty famously promised to retire from music if Kanye's CD outsold his on the day they were both released. 50 had more searches than Kanye through most of 2007--until the release of the CDs. Kanye queries killed him on that day, and has been a bit ahead ever since.

So, what about the Democratic contenders?

Well, Hillary Clinton (red line above) was ahead of Barack Obama (blue line) during the long pre-primary season. Interest in both candidates picked up at the end of December, going into the Iowa caucuses. Since then, people have been looking for information about Obama more than info about Clinton--and on some days by much more.

Even more interesting (at least to me) is the regional trending.

By December 2007, Obama (blue) was ahead of Clinton in Iowa, which he won. Clinton (red) was more interesting to people in New Hampshire, and she won there. And South Carolina queries at the end of the year were pretty even for our intrepid candidates. [Obama ended up winning S.C. handily at the end of January.]

Anybody picking up a trend here? It looks like people might be looking for stuff that they are interested in. This can be troubling for the Clinton campaign if you take a look at what people are looking for now in Texas and Ohio.

The Google Trend for the past 30 days sees a large gap between searches for Obama (still the Blue Line) and Clinton (Red Line) in these two key upcoming primary states. Tuesday will tell, but as far as people looking for candidate information, it appears that they are more likely to be seeking information about Obama. Or maybe how to contribute to his campaign. Or how to volunteer. Or who knows. Maybe they already know enough about Clinton.

This Google Trends stuff is so cool. And despite the fact it skews to Internet users--more educated, more white, more wealthy-- it's now the Doc's zeitgeist poll.

Spirit of the Law

You parents out there. You know how your kids can be barristers? You know how they can parse words when it suits them? Like:

Me: I said no online games.
Him: Well, actually you said that you hate online shooting games, and this isn't a shooting game.
OR

Me: Homework needs to be done before goofing around.
Him: Well, I did finish my homework. I just didn't show my work, and I didn't understand problems 3-18, and I didn't bring home my social studies so how could I read it?
OR

Her: I am having a fundraiser-not campaigning.

In our community (okay, in my house), I don't accept parsing of words to get around the intent of the agreement. The boys know the right thing to do, and I am not going to have an esoteric argument because I didn't cover every possible variation of circumstance. Especially the stretch of circumstance which would allow the child to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the fact that it had been disallowed.

The point is: You know better.

Rose Colored Endorsement?

I agree with Steve Clemons that JFK had a much more complex presidency and, following on that, a more complex legacy than is commonly recalled. But JFK's daughter wasn't making a complex argument when she endorsed Obama today.

The idea(l) of Kennedy is one of youth, hope, promise, and responsibility. Almost 50 years later, people still reference Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon and his call to national service with reverence.

JFK called us to be more than we are, to believe in ourselves, to take the gifts of our country and to do good. Ms. Kennedy is evoking the promise of promise in her endorsement of Mr. Obama. She believes he can guide the United States through this century's challenges--terrorism, the disruption of a global economy, the imperative of global warming, and the needs of the least of us.

Frankly, Ms. Kennedy and I are too young to have personal knowledge of the JFK presidency, so we both have to go by what we have been told. But Ms. Kennedy and I are adults now, and through our own lenses we are both looking for inspiration and leadership--not just for ourselves, but also for our children.

By Any Means Necessary

Four of us were in a car headed for lunch: 0ne very conservative Republican, one Dem-leaning independent, and two pretty consistent Democrats--an Obama supporter and an undecided.

"I don't want them back!"
"I'll vote Republican before voting for HER."
"How can I be friends with you if we fundamentally disagree on stuff like immigration."
"Continually, and LOUDLY, distorting facts --even after the distortion is exposed-- is swiftboating."
"Who has executive experience?"
"Why is that important?"
"I'm voting in the Republican primary. I don't want to make a decision on the Dems."
"I don't want them back!!!!"

I don't get why some folks are so nostalgic for the "good ole days" of the Clinton administration. While in my opinion those eight years were better than Bush I or Bush II, I also think that having both legs amputated is better than dying. This doesn't mean that I am excited by the "losing my legs" option.

I remember my exhilaration sitting on a blanket on the Mall; handing the then 16-month-old Cheerios on a pleasant January day; and oohing and ahhing when the F-16s flew over the Lincoln Memorial and Aretha and Diana sang on the steps for the First Clinton Inaugural Reunion. It was the first time I ever voted for a president who won. It was the first time since I had been in Washington that my side was in charge. It was a day of great hope. (oops, did I say "hope?")

I remember my disgust and discomfort when I had to tell the then 7-year-old that his President was in trouble for telling a big lie. I remember my anger with President Bill for dragging the country through his linguistic histrionics about "that woman" and his definition of the word "is." And I felt, at that time, that no matter how much the opposition wrongly chased the Clintons, no matter how disgusting and irrelevant the never-ending Ken Starr investigation was, he and his wife made a fatal misstep with me by not taking any responsibility for their own actions. It was always someone else's fault. They did what was right. It was a vast right-wing conspiracy causing the President to lie under oath. Or to quote Jake Blues, trying to talk his way out of being executed by a jilted lover, maybe it was "... an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

Based on the past weeks of an increasingly uncontrollable attack-dog Bill, I am getting a bit spun up about who would be in charge and who would be leading the charge in (yet) another Clinton White House. And, I am saddened by the take no prisoners, by any means necessary approach of the Clinton campaign.

So Hillary, go ahead and get after your opponents on the issues--and experience is a legitimate issue. Make it clear how you stand for change and provide a contrast with the other candidates. Show that you care about what is important to "people like me"'s all over the country.

But remember, when you take on the bad-guy tactics of swiftboating, when you distort facts, when you try and shift blame to the media or others, when your old man is out of control acting like an over-indulged child who feels entitled to his own Oompa Loompa, you may end up having softer support in the general election than you need-- potentially grabbing a Democratic defeat from the Bush-43 engineered jaws of victory.

You're likable enough, Hillary. But I am looking for a noble warrior. Fight fair and let the best candidate win.

Morality in Red White and Blue

It was November 3rd, 2004. My sister called. And she was pissed.

"I am NOT immoral!" She was emphatic.

"I have morals! I have values! I am not a bad person because I didn't vote for Double-Yoo. What makes THEM think that I am BAD?" She was quite exercised.

She wasn't surprised that her Red State went for Bush--her rustbelt politics were strong but without any foothold in America's grain basket. But she was surprised with the numbing media-mantra about morals and values voters making the difference in 2004.

"Who gave THEM the market on morality?" she cried. She did not feel good about being a Democrat.

Frank Rich wrote in his NYTimes column on Sunday

“	After so many years of fear and loathing, we had almost forgotten what it’s like to feel good about our country. On Thursday night [after the Iowa caucuses], that long-dormant emotion came rushing back, like an old dream that pops out of the deepest recesses of memory, suddenly as clear as light.

What excites so many folks about Obama? He lets my sister feel good--dare I say proud?--to be an American. She can feel hope and a sense of possibility. She can stand up and say, "I am NOT a bad guy. I can love my country, too! And I do."

No matter the eventual nominees, at least for now, many Democrats, Republicans and independents can remove the mantle of irony and cynicism and embrace the best in us all.