Geography Tweet

I know it's silly season. But, seriously. Can people be any more silly?

Folks are really going off on The Donald, saying he intimated that he didn't know that Paris isn't in Germany.

STOP.

That is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Donald Trump totally knows that Paris is in France. Despite the froth that is happening around The Twitters.

I would have hoped that The Twitters would remember that you have 140 characters. It's hard to be concise and clear. But, breaking down the tweet, he is talking about an incident in Paris and then conflating it with the New Year's incidents in Cologne when organized gangs of men--identified by some as refugees--attacked and robbed women. Not that he thinks that Paris is in Germany. Ugh. Makes my head hurt.

I was on a Trump diet, but the trending made me take a look at the "issue." And made me blow my Trump-diet. The read of this tweet as him not knowing this pretty basic geography is just goofy.

The "issue" with Trump is totally a false "gotcha." Agree with him or disagree with him--and other candidates--as you like. But be smart and stop adding to a garbage pile.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

When Thinking Doesn't Count

Charles Blow writes today in the New York Times about head versus "heart."

This underscores the current fight for the soul of this country. It’s not just a tug of war between left and right. It’s a struggle between the mind and the heart, between evidence and emotions, between reason and anger, between what we know and what we believe.

This conflict was captured in a tit-for-tat between Obama and Rush Limbaugh. In an interview with CBS this week, Obama complained about the “vitriol” coming from the likes of Limbaugh: “I think the vast majority of Americans know that we’re trying hard, that I want what’s best for the country.”

Limbaugh shot back on Friday, “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country.”

And there it was. Obama’s language focused on what people “know,” or should know. He seems to find comfort in the empirical nature of knowledge. It’s logical. Limbaugh’s language focused on what he thinks people “believe.” Beliefs are a more complicated blend of facts, or lies, and faith. And, they can exist beyond the realm of the rational.

And this is the part where I get really scared.

You see, I am a thinking person. I will look at facts. I will look at data. I will follow the trail. If I am worried about the provisions in the health care bill, I will read them for myself. And, I will change my mind when I am wrong.

Here's the scary part. There are many--and truly not all--people who are strongly against health care (really insurance) reform who are just making stuff up. These people are making stuff up all the time. They are in an alternative reality. Where birth certificates from a sovereign state are suspect and there is a great and evil communist-nazi conspiracy.

And the left, we are going with logic. And facts. And thoughtful arguments. If people only understood--the President seems to be saying--they would support.

They have the boogie man. Boogie man wins over thinking man.

Keep an eye on the elections. Thinking people need a new strategy.

Portrait of A Thug As A Young Man

Yes, here is the Foreman High School class of '75 photo of that thug-Governor of Illinios, Rod Blagojevich. He really is the worst of the worst of political corruption. Creepy.

I look at this guy's picture and I can almost hear him say "the Senate seat is a f-ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

And what an idiot. Knowing he is under investigation he still can't keep his mouth shut and spouts this crap over the phone? First-class stupidity or supreme arrogance? Oy! How do we elect such people? Oops! Almost forgot, being smart works against candidates for a part of the electorate.

I hope that Bluto / Blago goes to jail soon.

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.

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.

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.

Zip It, Idiot

Received a text from the Sib late Thursday morning.

Jesse Jackson is an idiot.

Yeah, that seemed to be true. A page 4 story in the Post had alerted me over my morning coffee to what would be the "news" of the day--bigger than the floods (which led the cable news to loop through the same images of water in the streets and not too much in commentary, I mean it was too much water, what's to say?) but a little smaller than Imus (cable-fest big contrast with the old white guy versus young black women with some of the same commentators).

So, we got someone making a disparaging comment about a rival/peer. Makes you kind of hate recordings, because if Jesse had made the comment without the salacious evidence, there would be NO STORY. As it was, it was a non-story that spun and spun and spun until it finally sputtered all over itself.

Colby King from the WaPo got it right this morning when he wrote

The reverend brother was simply fat-mouthing....Jesse Jackson was sitting on the TV set next to a brother talking trash, selling wolf tickets, being verbally aggressive when he knew full well that he wasn't about to do anything but dis Obama (presumably) behind his back.

Hey, that's not news. It's what people do. It's me talking about my boss doing something dumb. Or someone who calls me boss (or parent) talking trash about me. So what. It portends nothing of importance. And that he got "caught" just causes group pain as we relive and rehash, rewind and recoil the non-story.

This fake drama that doesn't improve big city education, provide appropriate medical care for soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, or help us remember the discussion we almost had after Katrina.

Yeah, Jesse is an idiot, for feeding the idiot media for our idiot consumption.

Scottie We Hardly Knew Ye

What was he thinking? Scott McClellan longtime press punching bag and Bush mouthpiece, that is.

For most of his time in the Press Room, I thought Scott was such a tool (definition 6)--repeatedly mumbling his talking points without any evidence of imagination or art. Maybe if he said the exact phrase seventeen times in a row his interrogators would

1. Believe him and move on. (As IF!)
2. Forget their point and move on.
   
3. Get bored and move on.
4. Turn into a field of Budweisers, ripe for the pickin'. Boy a cold one sure would be good right about now. Let's move on!

Then, toward the end of his tenure, I began to feel sorry for him. It must of been around the time when reporters began to openly mock him. And like a weeble, he would get knocked around, wobble, but not fall down. His demeanor changed. He began to look hurt. He seemed like he would rather be anywhere else--inside of an active volcano, for example--than behind that podium.

Scott wasn't quick enough to dodge any of the incoming. He seemed wounded. It was like watching someone getting stoned. (Not like smoking weed stoned, but like "whoever is without sin..." stoned.) His loyalty seemed dopey, yet somehow pure. He was sticking by the man who brought him to Washington.

Now he comes out with his book. And he really gives it to the Bush administration--even the President. So I wonder, "Why?"

Well, one friend, channeling Deep Throat, said to "follow the money." It's true that McClellan will make alot more money on a controversial book, but given the bridges he's burned, h e better invest wisely because he won't be working in communications or PR ever again. (In addition to smashing his political glass house, he made a shambles of the 4th Estate, too!)

Nobody says that Scott is smart, so the easy money motive is a quick fit. But it also seems possible that McClellan did have an epiphany--as well as an axe to grind with Rove and Scooter. Maybe it got to be that the more he thought about what happened, the more he felt he had to take layers of varnish off of the truth. Maybe he was worried for his immortal soul.

And now, in a perfect Karmic turn, all the vitriol that he had giveth is now being returnith to him ten-fold. Does he deserve it? I don't know. Is he doing the right thing? For the right reasons? I don't know. But for some reason, I sure want to figure it out.

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.

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.

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.

Journey of the Hero

"I've been there. You have no idea what you are stepping into." So Hillary Clinton suggests--especially to Barack Obama.

Some say that Hillary had a Howard Dean moment during the debate last night when she flared about her experience as an agent of change. I don't agree, I think that she directly addressed her record and her frustration that people don't get the fact that it's a trial to be in the White House.

Joseph Campbell, in his well-known theory of the journey of the hero, writes

“	A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.--The Hero with a Thousand Faces

So you are Hillary Rodham--Yale Law grad, big fish in little pond attorney in Arkansas, and you live in the governor's mansion. You give this comfort and status up to live out a dream in the White House--but deep down you are still wonder how you got here. You have trappings of the middle-class girl in suburban Chicago. And now, the White House?

They make fun of how you look, your old man humiliates you with his philandering, and there are all these rules and protocols that you slip and slide in. And you have trials--health care reform, travel office scandals, dealing with the intrusion of secret service so you can't even have a good fight with your husband. But you are smart, and you prevail.

So, here she is, in true hero mode, bestowing boon on Obama. She warns him that this is not so easy. "It is only for the tried and true. I have walked through the fires, I have lost myself, all in a quest to find myself and return in triumph. It's my turn for the payoff.

I get to be Luke/Leia. I don't want to be Yoda. Why don't you be Han Solo and fly to the next galaxy? On hyper-drive."

Rock the Vote!

The analysis of the caucus-goers on the WashPost chat tonight, included this exchange.

Q: [What about] the importance of the young vote in this election, especially for Obama's 7 percent lead...Do you believe the young vote will be prominent in the general election?

A: The "entrance poll" says 57% of 18-29 year-olds supported Obama tonight, and that they represented almost one fourth of the caucus attendees. Both are striking figures. Clinton got 11 percent of the young; Edwards 13 percent. If that is a harbinger, then young people can have a huge impact in November.

I get excited to see young voters join in. The biggest impediment to democracy isn't crazy partisanship. The biggest danger is indifference.

Thanks to all the 18-29 year-olds who can change both the demographic and the substance of this next election. It's my future, but it's your future longer.

It Is Time

I swore after the last time that I wasn't going to do it again. And it was easy, too. After a 25/8 (yeah, somehow it even overtook the time space continuum) diet of pundits and plaudits, polls and pans, giggles and gaffes, and insider news that turned out to be flawed, I was done. I gave up my steady diet of political horseracing, the press reporting on itself, and the bubble of Washington, D.C., where you don't have any idea of how the race is shaping up because nobody buys TV or radio time and you don't get even a black and white postcard in the mail. (D.C. is not a politically competitive market--or even important for that matter.)

But over the past few days I was dragged crying into the Edwards' very sad, personal backstory to his political aspirations, shook my head at the Huckabee --"sure this ad is too mean, you can see for yourself"--hucksterism, was surprised by both the George Will and the David Brooks assessment of the Obama "experience" factor, cringed a bit watching Hillary Clinton sharing a wink and a nod as well as her infamous laugh with former Bill Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos, and was not surprised with reports of McCain's reticence to make a bigger deal of his brave service.

So, I think that I will have to work on moderating my intake. And hope that there will be some big doldrums between February 5th and the Conventions (R, D). At least I hope. Oh, and Happy New Year!

Shard Equations

A shard is something that is broken. And I have been beset by a few breaks that have interrupted my Thinkings.

First, my trusty I-Book conked out on me in mid-November.

Lack of equipment = lack of posting

I figured out that I needed to make an appointment to sidle up to the Mac Genius Bar to figure out how to get AC power to the laptop.*

A funny thing happened Sunday morning on the way to the Genius Bar. I was walking downstairs and missed the last step. I landed on the side of my foot, rather than the regular way. Ouch.

So, after 9 hours in the ER I had instructions to keep the cast dry, to come back on Wednesday for a consult for surgery, and to be careful with my handful of meds.

So,

no computer + much distraction with the bad ankle = no postings

We had a great Thanksgiving (I was off the pain meds and was delighted to partake of "the end of the mint Mojitos" that the Spouse served), and I had a successful surgery last Tuesday night.

But the 16-year old says that I'm beginning to have my own Giuliani-type mantra.

The 16-year-old: There's Giuliani and he's like "9-11, 9-11, 9-11, blah blah 9-11."
Me: furrowed brow
The 16-year-old: And there's like you, "Broken ankle, broken ankle, blah blah, broken ankle"

Doc Think is on hiatus until the I-book gets fixed. Remember

equipment + repaired shards = Thinkings

* For those who think that I didn't do enough troubleshooting, the power supply (PS) appears to work, as the ring lights up when it's plugged in. The IBook doesn't recognize that it's getting juice, either with or without the battery. The battery died--and power was gone--before I could do the keystroke to reset the power settings. I don't know anyone with the same connection, so I needed to at least check another PS.

Making Fun of Yourself--If You Can

I really liked Kanye poking fun of himself--liked it really alot--on Saturday Night Live on Saturday.



I like Kanye anyway. When people talk about his oversized ego, I don't think that they have sat through any of his CD's. The man has alot of big feelings, is passionate about his art, and, he can really make a beat. In all of his big-head phoniness, he comes off to me as a real person.

Contrast that with another Chi-town transplant, Ms. Hil. Jon Stewart had a time with her, and her very squirrely laughing.

I know, as Kanye says, it's the media that makes it bad--cutting and splicing. Heck she might not have really even been there.

But when Hil is being touted as perhaps the next Al Gore--I get the shivers.

"Like the former vice president, she often came across as a pontificator and an automaton — in contrast to the personable and humorous person she is known to be off-camera. And she seemed especially evasive when dealing with questions requiring human reflection instead of wonkery." (Frank Rich, NYT)

Here is some important data points for all potential presidents:

1. Remember that the wonky Al Gore LOST. Becoming real after the election is simply too late.
   
2. Be more like Kanye. He makes mistakes, but for all his Louis Vuitton-isms, he seems more real than the whole lot put together. (Get that Barack?)