Obama !

Words seldom fail me (ask anyone), but this time they have. This is the first presidential candidate that I've support from the very start of the primary season that actually won the general election. I was watching The Daily Show on Comedy Central when I heard that he clinched the election. I cried. (That happens more often).

In all of my 50 years, I've never seen the elation when a new president was elected. And not just on TV for the camera either. All day Wednesday, I saw people at work grinning from ear-to-ear when they talked about the election results. That's not to say that the happiness is unanimous. McCain had his supporters and some of those I know are sad (or worse).

But this is not the time to dwell on the negative. Those who heard Obama say for 21 months "Yes We Can" know for themselves that yes, we can! Four years ago the Republicans were talking about establishing a permanent majority in Congress, they were so sure of their support. But change can happen. It takes time, effort and money, but it can happen. Enjoy the feeling.

It's a great day to be an American

Okay, so it's nearly always a great day to be an American, but election days are even better than usual. Especially when so many of the voters are engaged and active in the process, like this time.

I've already voted (Ohio allows for absentee ballots for no reason, so I voted a couple weeks ago). But now it's YOUR TURN. Please stop reading this blog (or anything else for that matter) and GO VOTE.

It's important. It'll make you feel great.

Obama's Final Argument

This is what I think Obama (and all Democrats, for that matter) should be saying in these final days, not what he has been saying.

We have had 8 years of a republican-led administration. The Republicans are rightly held responsible for the current (and likely long lasting) financial mess. But it's their recklessness with American security that infuriates me. The current Republican administration lied to the American public and congress to justify the war in Iraq. Now there are 3,900 + Americans dead in that war so far and tens of thousands of Iraqis. This was a choice to go to war at a time when we were already at war in Afghanistan with the terrorists.

Going to war should always be done with deliberation (or not at all, since I'm Quaker, but that's a post for another time). Going to a SECOND war should be discouraged at all costs unless the chance of winning quickly is 100%. So now not only are thousands of people dead, but we are less safe than before the war started because our military is so pre-occuppied with the two wars it's already fighting, that if another conflict arose we aren't equipped to handle it.

Republicans should be held accountable for their actions, and as the current president is fond of saying, the ONLY time voters can hold politicians accountable is in the voting booth. So this once, let's take advice from George W. Bush and remember who it is that got us into this mess. The Republicans. And vote accordingly on November 4th.

Obama

It's really exciting that Colin Powell has endorsed Obama and that more than $150 million was raised by the Obama campaign in September 2008. It shows that Obama's appeal is more widespread than far left liberals. Its a demonstration of the fact that while some of his political views are liberal, his temperament is conservative. It's that combination that was the basis of his appeal to me and, I think, to many others before and since.

But this excitement must lead to MORE action on the part of Obama's supporters, not less. We can't assume that because things are going so well right now, that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion. Do more. Until November 4th, do more. Whatever you CAN do, DO. Donate money. Donate time. Talk to people you know or don't know about Obama. Take nothing for granted and DO SOMETHING to ensure that Obama is elected President on November 4th.

Any underdecided voters

must see this video. I love Donna Brazile....

VP Debate

Prediction: Sarah Palin is going to clean Joe Biden's clock tomorrow night. That's not to say she'll be the smarter debater and goodness knows that's not to say she'd be a better vice-president. But this is a debate, not reality. And it's entirely possible to win a debate and not say one intelligent thing.

Modern debates are all about zingers. Short clever sayings that capsulize an idea. The two campaigns have decided that the VP debate will be a series of short segments, none longer than 2 minutes. So, all Palin needs to do is to memorize a few prepared zingers written for her about something, say it with a smile and she wins.

Biden has been in the Senate for a long time. He's used to talking for long periods of time and at a very high (college or graduate school) level. If does that tomorrow night, he'll put the audience to sleep and they'll wake up only to find a smiling Palin joking with them.

But no matter, Obama will win in November!

McCain's attempt to postpone the debate

What is McCain thinking? How on EARTH can his help on the financial mess we’re in that he must suspend his campaign and delay the debate? He’s not on any Senate committee that has anything to do with the economy or the market. He’s not, by his own admission, even conversant on the economy.

Does he really think that the only thing that thing keeping an agreement from being reached is his involvement in the legislative process? Please! He’s seen that the polls have swung 11 points against him in the last week based largely on economic issues. And, since his campaign has no actual IDEAS on how to fix the economy, maybe a little “razzle dazzle” will do that trick.

Suspend the campaign! Delay the debate! Boy THAT man really CARES about me! I think I’ll vote for him! Razzle dazzle’em and they’ll make you a star!

He really thinks Americans are stupid.

Main Stream Media

Time was newspapers and broadcast news were an important part of democracy in the USA. Those days are LONG gone. Too much has changed - if ever so slowly - for that to be true now. Newspapers and broadcast news have been reduced to profit-making concerns. Consumers of their products should keep that in mind.

Some of the things that have changed to make that true:

1. The Fairness Doctrine was done away with during the Reagan administration. This was a federal regulation that required all companies that used the public airways, to give both sides of the issue (or candidates) equal time. Doing away with this regulation made possible Fox News and the conservative monopoly on radio.

2. Commoditization of news by corporations, oddly enough also in the 1980's required that each newspaper or news broadcast make a profit. Prior to this, it was common practice (for broadcast news especially) to lose some money most years. It was considered the price a company paid to use the public airwaves. With profit making now the goal, news was dumbed down, ratings or circulation became more important leading to sensationalizing of the news, finding good-looking anchors became more important than good reporters. Eventually even the reporters became pretty faces who read the news as increasingly the news producer did more and more of the actual reporting.

3. Twenty-Four hours cable news started in the 1980's and becomes embedded in American culture by the 1990's. It all started with CNN of course, but eventually led to MSNBC and Fox. Unfortunately there's not enough actual news to fill one 24 hour news channel, let alone 3 of them. That led to focusing even more on stories that can be sensationalized (Scott & Lacey Peterson anyone?) and the genesis of the "pundit". If it that reads like a curse word, then you're paying attention. These creatures (I can't manage to call them people) make an enormous amount of money by telling news anchors their opinions about news stories - often politics. Actual qualifications aren't required to be a pundit, just HAVE an opinion. Having 2 pundits with opposing opinions is supposed to be good television and is what passes for trying to follow the Fairness Doctrine nowadays.

4. Also during the Reagan era, the federal law that restricted how many news outlets one company could own in one market was done away with. This law was intended to prevent one company owning all the TV stations, newspapers and radio stations in one market. Over a series of years that was changed. So now there's only one newspaper in most major cities (though, to be fair, this isn't the only reason). And there are many cities where one company owns the newspaper, a major radio and a major TV station. Clear Channel anyone? This has led to fewer voices with more power in fewer news outlets.

All of this is just to say that no one should assume that any journalist is solely devoted to the truth. They're not out to lie, but they are only concerned with reporting that PORTION of the truth that will get you to buy their newspaper or tune in to their news report. The news consumer, if you have any concern about getting the full story, must take the time to find it out for yourself. Sure, continue with the MSM if you like, but remember their bias. And don't forget about the internet. There are great blogs out there - with their own biases that they're very upfront about - and Google and Digg and too many other places to mention.

This is an election year, something to take very seriously. Don't let anyone bamboozle you into making a decision about any candidate - politicians have become adept at using the media (more on that soon). If you hear something interesting about a candidate, verify for yourself on the internet that it's true. Take responsibility for your own news, because nowadays, if you don't no one else will.

Pot Pourri

(Yes I'm a Jeopardy fan. Thanks Mom!)

I have been a real slug about writing on my blog ever since vacation. I'm not sure why. I took a whole week away from all types of media (no newspapers, TV, radio or internet) and I guess I enjoyed being unplugged. But time to get back at it!

I watched the Democratic Convention last night. Teddy Kennedy was very inspiring. And Michelle Obama was phenomenal. She was very clear what her family priorities are. Her intelligence and sincerity came shining through. No wonder he married her.

To those of you who say you want to know the specifics of what Obama is planning: go to his website www.barackobama.com and read his positions. That's what I did in September 2007 (along with all the other candidates' sites) to make up my mind who I wanted to support. Then watch his speech on Thursday. Between the two, you should get a pretty good idea of what he'll do. (although I doubt the speech will mention policy much).

It's important to take the time and responsibility to do your own research about a candidate's stance and NOT depend on the media. Remember - the media is only geared toward getting more readers or viewers NOT to printing/showing the WHOLE truth.

John McCain a MAVERICK? Please! Maybe in 2000, but not now. Not after he caved to the Bush administration's policy on torture. If he can do that with the TORTURE issue, a man who actually was tortured for years, what scruples does this man actually have?

Obama

It amuses me that so many political pundits out there are saying "Obama is tacking to the right! Obama is abandoning the left!" Clearly these are people who haven't read his positions. His website is pretty clear that he's pragmatic - he wants to get things done. I've never heard him claim about himself that he's a far left liberal. He's a person with a wide range of positions on a wide range of issues, just like most Americans. It may be easier for TV pundits to pigeon hole him as one thing or another, but that doesn't make it true. And we don't have to believe it.

I am disappointed in his FISA legislation vote, but other than that nothing he's done is really a surprise. I don't expect to agree with every position ANY politician has, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to grow up.

Hillary (last one!)

I promise! (Unless someone picks her as Vice-President)

I was at a family gathering on Saturday, so I didn't watch Hillary's concession speech live. I watched large parts of it on YouTube, but am having problems finding the whole thing there. In any case, she was much more gracious than I gave her credit for. I hope that she keeps her promises to work her heart out for Obama. He needs her help to win her supporters over.

But one thing that I think has been totally overblown is the sexism that Hillary has blamed for her failed presidential bid. Now to be clear, I don't doubt that sexism is alive and well in America and that it played some part in the primaries. But a determining factor? Please.

Why has no one in the mainstream media mentioned that Obama's campaign suffered because of racism? There has been coded reference in the MSM. Perhaps you've heard it couched as "white working class voters" "blue collar workers" and the like. These are "target groups" that he has "problems with". Oh bother. Let's be blunt - these voters don't support Obama because of he's black. His policy proposals are nearly identical to Hillary's, so that's not the issue - not really. While personally I think voting for or against someone because of their race is repugnant, each voter has the right to make up their own mind up whichever way they want.

The more interesting thing, from my perspective, is the different ways the 2 candidates dealt with this issue. The race issue started prior to the Ohio primary and went through the WV and KY primaries. Roughly 12 weeks. And when did you hear Obama or his campaign complain about this? I STILL haven't heard them complain about it. All I see or hear from them is an effort to persuade voters to vote for Obama. As for the Hillary campaign, I've been hearing complaints of sexism for months, at least since Geraldine Ferraro started speaking for the campaign back in early March. I didn't see persuasion of voters, but a tendency to caste blame on others.

Couldn't THAT be the reason Obama won and Hillary didn't? They BOTH experienced discrimination, but Obama didn't let it bother him and Hillary did.

Hillary

Readers of my blog will know that I can't stand Hillary Clinton. What might be less clear, is that this attitude only developed during her primary run as president. Prior to that, I really didn't have strong feelings about her one way or the other.

I didn't plan on voting for her - even from the beginning of the campaign - despite the fact that she's a woman. Yeah, I said that right - DESPITE. I think our country would be a better place with a woman as president. We need a different perspective of what a president can/should do that a woman president could provide. Men don't have a monopoly on wisdom. But Hillary is married to Bill Clinton, who has already been president. If she were president for 2 terms after Bush, that would 28 years of the president coming from 2 families. Dynastic families are NOT good for democracy (small D). Don't take my word for it. Read Kevin Phillips' Dynasty. He wrote it about 5 years ago, using the Bush family as an illustration of why this was a bad thing. I read it and was persuaded of the danger of dynastic families. So, nothing personal to Hillary, but I wasn't voting for her. Had Obama been part of a dynastic political family, I wouldn't have voted for him either.

But as the primaries wore on (AND ON AND ON AND ON......) my feeling on Hillary turned from indifference to anger toward her. It's not only what she and Bill said in SC about Obama (and yes I've watched the whole clip on YouTube, not just the clips from MSM). It's the whole attitude of her campaign that somehow she is entitled to be president and the rest of the country should somehow be "grateful" that she's "willing" to be president. In any case, the degree of her (and her husband's) power hunger became very apparent to me and I just can't stand the sight of her anymore. I know that's not fair, but there it is.

I've done my best to keep my mouth shut around people that I know are Hillary supporters - I have friends and family who support her after all. And friends and family are SO much more important than politics will ever be. It also doesn't do any good to have a hissy fit about politics, because no one really listens to your rants. It's just another, more personal, symptom of what is wrong with American politics currently. Why add more to the problem?

But I have to say that Hillary's speech on Tuesday really pissed me off. I really didn't expect her to concede that night, even after I read on the internet tubes that she was going to. It just seemed impossibly mature for someone to do that on the same day that she lost the election. Hillary has displayed many qualities over the years without maturity cropping up even once. I did, however, expect her to display some amount of graciousness in her speech. Show Obama and his supporters some respect.

Expecting anything from Hillary except self-aggrandizement was a big mistake. She displayed a total lack of class or dignity. She also used the flimsy excuse of needing to hear from her supporters about what should come next before she could make up her mind about what to do. Really? Your opponent has reached the delegate threshold for the Democratic nomination - the goal your own campaign manager said was the goal that very morning on morning television - and you can't decide for yourself what to do??? You've been running for president for 17 months and you have no EXIT STRATEGY?!!!??? Your opponent has made it mathmatically impossible for you to capture the Democratic nomination this election year and you need your supporters to email you before you know what to do?

I know that she was being disingenious about this. But is the time for ANOTHER disingenuous president? Haven't we had enough of that already? I know I have.

I've heard, along with everyone else, that she'll be speaking tomorrow to concede. Great. Let's get it over with, so I don't have to see her anymore. That's all I want. I don't have ANY hope that she will make any serious effort to support Obama this election. There's nothing in it for her. If he wins, her chance of ever winning the White House goes down dramatically. And she's proven, getting behind that desk in the Oval Office is the ONLY thing that's important to her.

Obama

Last night was a BIG night. I'm very excited as an American voter in a way I've never been in my adult life. It's amazing, especially after the current, disastrous administration, that America can take another step toward living up to its ideal of "all men are created equal."

I've been a big supporter of Barack Obama since I researched policy positions of the Democratic candidates on their websites in September 2007, but not for the reason that I hear a lot of people voicing so far. When it comes to policy positions, Obama is not all that different from Hillary Clinton. There ARE differences, but they're not that significant.

The reason I like and support Obama is his temperment. He's very cool. It's difficult to get him angry. He has a habit of surrounding himself with people of differing opinions, listening to each of them and making up his own mind. Look at where he taught law school - the University of Chicago. It's one of the most conservative law schools in the country. He chose to teach there even though he knew he'd be surrounded by conservatives. This is a man comfortable in his own skin. To me that's what we need, more than anything else, in a President. It would be really nice to have an adult as President for a change. I can't honestly say that I think ANY of the Presidents that I can remember were really adults and I'm pushing 50.

Regardless of what readers of my blog think of Obama as a potential president, I hope we can all acknowledge what a big step forward this was for the country. I don't for a minute go along with the notion with Obama's candidacy being a signal that America is finally "post-racial." You don't move past centuries of discrimination (and worse) with one presidentail nominee. It IS, however, an indication that the country CAN move past race. Maybe not as fast as being hoped for at the moment, certainly not as fast as I would like, but we CAN - ultimately - move past it.

Yes We Can.

Attention Obamacons!

Senator Clinton said some very inflammatory things today. Here's a quote from the Huffington Post: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." (emphasis added). I think it's pretty clear what she's suggesting, so I wrote to her via her US Senate address. I urge you to do the same. Go to the www.senate.gov website. Look for the section that says "Search for your state" Click on NY, then Senator Clinton. You have to go through all this rigamarole, because her campaign website doesn't allow users to send email.

Here's my email to her:

"I am absolutely APPALLED at your comment today about how "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." I understand it Senator. This is clearly a not-so-subtle plea to some nut-job out there to do your dirty work and kill Senator Obama.

It angers me that I have to write you about this. I voted for your husband in 1992. I decided not to vote for him in 1996 because of his decision to sign the so-called Defense of Marriage act in 1996. I thought then, and still think now, it was a craven act of political opportunism. But despite that, I supported your husband throughout his second term and after. During the impeachment hearings and long afterwards, when your husband was a laughingstock,I stuck up for him.

But that all stopped when you he campaigned earlier this year in South Carolina. The blatantly racist comments that you both made were unconscionable. I had already decided to support Senator Obama by then, but if you won the nomination I would have gladly have supported you. But with the two of you were so dismissive of him and his campaign, I could stand no more.

Now this. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a professional public speaker and have been for 35 years. You cannot claim, without totally destroying your own argument of experience, that you didn't mean it that way or couldn't have forseen how others would take it. If 35 years of experience didn't teach you that about public speaking, what are the chances that those same 35 years trained you to be President.

You are a disgrace to Democratic Party and I urge you to apologize to Senator Obama and stop your presidential campaign."

Election

How glad must the Obama campaign be that April is over? Let's hope that May is the first month of a 6 months of good things for Obama and his candidacy.

GOBAMA!

Pennsylvania Election

Six weeks ago the Clinton campaign (and all the talking heads) were saying that if Hillary didn't win the PA primary by at least 20 points she would "have to" drop out of the race. Here it is one day before the primary and now the Clinton campaign is saying "a win is a win is a win." Big surprise.

That woman will never drop out. Obama will have to pry her hands off of the bible so before he can take the oath of office....

Seriously though, my prediction is that if the democratic candidate isn't decided before the Democratic Convention, then the Democratic nominee for 2008 will be Al Gore. I'm not saying how likely that is, but the longer that Hillary hangs on, the more likely it becomes.

Election

This primary season has been going on for nearly 16 months and that's crazy! I realize being President of the USA is the most important job on the planet, but let's get real. No one pays attention for 16 months. I'm originally from PA and my family is still there. They've had the political world focusing their attention on PA for 6 WEEKS and everyone I know of in PA has stopped listening.

I think we out to change our primaries so that no state can have their primary election before Memorial Day and all primaries must be over by Labor Day. If a candidate can't make their case in 3 months, they don't deserve the presidency.

And maybe, with a much for focused election season, people will actually pay attention.