Those Quiet Moments

Harry Shearer, better known to the public as Mr. Burns (or perhaps Ned Flanders - or even Waylon Smithers), is also an artiste. Not in that he actually puts pen or charcoal or paint to paper or canvas or anything else, but he is a modern artist. His newest exhibition is called The Silent Echo Chamber, and it is video and images of individuals in the moments before the television camera roll and we see their public facade. John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chris Matthews are all present in this exhibit. I heard about it from Talk of the Nation, and it seems like a fairly cool and inventive idea. We all know what these people look like and what they personify once the cameras are hot, but what about in those moments - those sometimes terrifying moments - before? The question of whether or not we can see anything from these public-private snippets is an interesting one; can seeing John McCain stare unerringly into the camera really tell me anything more about the man, or even myself? Or is the exhibition just a reprieve from the countless jaunty, somber, "personable", funny, and almost always vocal. In our world made up of a cacophony of sounds, it is those silent moments that are most rare. Like most modern art, The Silent Echo Chamber is probably more of a human Rorschach test than anything else. We probably only see bits of what we already assume the various people to be like rather than who they actually are, because the silence before the talk grants us very little conclusive evidence. But it still seems like an interesting venture - and it is being presented at the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum in Ridgefield, Connecticut, so I may actually be able to go see it.

Another exhibition, though this one easily accessible due to its on-lineness - is sleepingchinese.com, which occupies a perpendicular angle to the the first exhibit in that these are photographs of private citizens in public places. Which, as the name suggests, are images of sleeping Chinese. I discovered this on Racialicious, and at first I was horribly appalled at the idea, mostly because I - in my Americentric way - thought that the pictures were being taken here. If they had been, it would have been entirely Othering, and more like a weird safari than any really meaningful work. But since the pictures are being taken in China, it becomes both less problematic and more problematic in a different way. The artist says,  

“They talk about ‘The Sleeping Giant’. About ‘The Birth of the New Super Power’ or ‘The Awakening of the Red Dragon’. Often with a strange kind of undertone, which is supposed to frighten us. The reality definitely looks more peaceful.”

It sounds as though the photographer is attempting to demystify the Chinese populace to the outside world to me. It sounds as though even while mentioning the Othering stereotypes, he's pulling from a common ground in an attempt to connect us all. No matter what our idea about China and the Chinese are, we should be able to take something from the fact that we all have to sleep and that we all look fairly similar when we sleep. There is a common humanity in sleeping by that virtue alone. Whether or not someone recognizes that when they look upon the images - or whether it is ethical to utilize a population for the intent of going beyond and behind the rhetoric - is something else entirely.

Sexism and Sarah Palin

For once, I agree with Sarah Palin; Palin has already been turned into a scapegoat in regards to John McCain's loss in such quarters as Fox News, and that isn't much of a surprise. Instead, it was one of those things I feared when Palin was picked as the VP nominee. Just like Geraldine Ferraro's nomination, Sarah Palin's pick was meant to energize a faltering campaign, granting it an immediate injection of progressiveness and excitement. Unfortunately for women in politics, in both situations the candidates were fighting an uphill battle before the choice for VP, and that battle only loomed larger after the pick. Which makes the VP pick a wonderful and myopic reason for failure. Mondale lost every state in the union but one (Massachusetts). John McCain has lost by 173 electoral college votes to 365, and was defeated in such Republican strongholds as Virginia and North Carolina. And it is easy to lay the blame at the feet of a woman who, frankly, will probably go down as one of the worst picks for vice-president - even ahead of Dan Quale, the guy who couldn't spell "potato" correctly. But more than Palin, it is McCain who is at fault for picking a woman with at best rudimentary knowledge of the world outside of Alaska. It is McCain and his campaign's fault for not better preparing her, for not compensating for that lack of knowledge base. And Palin is incredibly correct when she says that those within the McCain campaign who are criticizing her anonymously are "cruel. It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair and it's not right". She's right. Those guys are jerks. And it is not fair, and it is not right.

I'm all for criticizing Palin. I don't like the woman one iota. But criticizing her anonymously, calling her a diva, diminishing her intelligence when they worked for the man who picked her, and saying she was going rogue is ridiculous. If Palin's lack of knowledge base was such a detriment, the focus should be on John McCain, the man who plucked her from obscurity and made her his vice-presidential running mate. If Palin was not prepared for or able to do the job she was selected for, the reporting should be less about her and more about McCain. Sarah Palin didn't pull a Jesse Jackson and put her own name in consideration for VP nomination. That was John McCain's choice, and if she was so unprepared as to do the job he chose her for, at the end of the day the buck stops with him. But McCain aides, as anonymous as they are, want someone not their boss to blame for losing. And instead of acknowledging that McCain the Nominee was not McCain the Maverick, instead of acknowledging that McCain's handling of several situations lacked a certain deftness and/or wisdom, and instead of acknowledging that Obama is in all probability one of the best politicians to have run for president ever (and I'm speaking of his abilities on the campaign trail, as we obviously don't know if he is going to be one of the best actual presidents), they take the easy way out and blame Palin.

And with the media still going insane over Palin's clothing, something Campbell Brown ranted about weeks ago at this point, it seems obvious to me why Palin is the prominent target. It is because she was a phenomenally bad candidate, yes. But it also seems to me that some of the critique of her, even if it were rooted in fact such as the idea that she was a superficial and lame addition to an already weakened ticket, comes out in sexist terms. It reverberates in obsession with her clothing as much as it does with the rush to report what she didn't know, without nary a shred of "What was that man thinking?" rebounding on McCain. This is all highlighted by the fact that we are still talking about this woman, and that this crazy lady is the one to say, "This is Barack Obama's time right now, and this is an historic moment in our nation and this can be a shining moment for America and our history, and look what we're talking about. Again, we're talking about my shoes and belts and skirts. It's ridiculous." It is ridiculous. It is revolting. It is the same crap that kept us focused on Hillary Clinton's array of pantsuits and what has caused more attention to be granted to Michelle Obama's dress on the night of Obama's historic win. So please, media and McCain hounds, stop making me think about and agree with Sarah Palin. Because I don't like either of those things. They're enough to put me in the padded room they reserved for Keith Olbermann in the event of a McCain victory. 

A Republican Without Money

I have to admit, John McCain is sometimes hilarious - I mean, when he's actually trying to be.

I love that he would go on SNL and have "Sarah Palin" go all rogue and start hawking her 2012 tee shirts! Also, as much as I'm not going to miss Sarah Palin (and please, please, let her just go away after election day), I'm really going to miss Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. I never really got the Tina Fey thing before - aside from her "Bitch is the New Black" - but now I have to say that I'm loving her "like a two dollar whore".

George Will In Top Form

I read George Will at least once every two weeks, when he arrives in my mailbox on the back page of my Newsweek. I look forward with anticipation to the Anna Quindlen weeks; not so much with the George Will weeks. I like George Will fine. I'm pretty sure my liking of the electoral college system is due to a column he wrote in defense of it when I was younger (I'd put myself mid-teens), and I was not only swayed then but remain swayed now - even though I'm very very liberal. I'll get into my liberalism and why, in spite of that, I want my nation's highest office to move slower than molasses in most instances at some point, but right now I'm going to hang a right turn and get back to George Will. Because George Will is inflamed. He is incensed. And he is, aside from the periodic weeks of craziness that come with my Newsweek (about a month ago, he was deriding the idea that people should vote by mail, something Oregon has done for about a decade, along with mailing out handy-dandy cheat sheets, because it will lead to lazier voters), incredibly on the mark - at least in regard to McCain. Which should come as no surprise, given his ire toward the Arizona Senator has been growing for quite some time and written about thoroughly.

His current article at the Washington Post, which is not a replica of the article appearing in the back of this week's Newsweek (that one deals with the economy along with gas prices and foreign relations and, oddly enough, Franklin Roosevelt), is about many things. It highlights, once again, the ridiculousness of the Palin pick. It offers anecdotal evidence of McCain's black-and-white world view. And it lambasts both public finance for campaigns and limits on the amount of money a single campaign can collect from donations. What George Will does here, what he is continually able to do even while taking into account his moments of insanity, is to make me reassess an issue I was previously on the fence about. The electoral college was one such issue; and now campaign finance becomes another. I've always been on the fence about the spending frenzy the Obama campaign has waged. I've liked (even been enamored) with Obama since 2004; I remember the Boston DNC well. One day, my Newsweek is telling me about up and coming politicians and political figures and profiles a guy I couldn't care less about named Barack Obama; a couple of days later, I'm watching an electrifying key note address and frantically trying to find said Newsweek article again - digging, sometimes perilously, through the recycling to see if it had possibly missed the previous curb deadline (for the record, it didn't). But something about the amount of money he amassed and the way he spent it left me unsettled. Part of this is rooted in pragmatism. At some point, the Republicans will probably have an electrifying star like Obama; in which case, the tide will have been turned and Democrats will be inundated with ad after campaign ad and not have enough funds to launch any kind of counterattack - successful or no. Ronald Reagan can't be the only one. But there is a deeper issue at root here. We all know the studies that proclaim we are incredibly susceptible to advertising and its message. I'm not so great with advertising; I get it from my father who thought that Buddy Lee, the creepy doll, was advertising Levi's. That isn't even his most ridiculous advertising offense. I have those moments a lot too, where I'll assume my preferred brand is the one being advertised even when it is, to the not-insane viewer, clearly not.  But even I don't think I'd manage to turn many McCain ads into ones about Obama.

What I am incredibly susceptible to, though, is starting to like something (a song, a movie, a television show) that I had originally hated simply based on repetition. I'm not proud of it, but I've become fond of such songs as The Macarena and even Baby One More Time (which is apparently the Britney Spears' single's revised name, as Jive Records thought Hit Me, Baby, One More Time condoned domestic violence; the things you learn through a quick internet search). What I'm saying is, had I been living in a state in play and not my tried and blue Connecticut, I'm not entirely sure that if I'd started off with a vague disliking of a candidate - or even outright hatred - a constant barrage of ads for that person would not change my mind. If McCain had more money, I may have *gasp* ended up voting for him! Well, probably not. But the fact remains that if we are as susceptible to advertising as studies show, and if the government has mandated that the amount of air time for one candidate has to be granted the other, how is it in any way fair or democratic to have one person out of the two dominate the game? If we outright acknowledge the effectiveness of ads of any type, it seems strange to shrug at the effect these ads may have on picking the next president of the United States.

Now, I know that logically some of the most powerful of ads have only been used once - or in moderation. After all, the daisy ad from Lyndon Johnson only ran once, but it helped cement Johnson's win. It helped Johnson's case, of course, that Barry Goldwater was a nut. And I respect George Will's thought that "Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support". I even agree with it. I love the idea of being able to contribute whatever little bit I can to a campaign I support, and to know that I and others like me can help a candidate we believe in. I love that donating to a campaign is a direct way to participate and become entrenched in that campaign. I love people getting passionate about politics, and any way for them to do so is - in my book - a wonderful thing. And I love that it does not matter what level one can contribute; that just contributing can make a person feel empowered and energized and enfranchised. George Will is right; support cannot be mandated. Support cannot be punished. And so I suppose that George Will wins this round. I think I may have come around to the idea that limits on campaign spending only limits democracy and our direct contact to the democratic process.

"It Seemed As Though I Did Most Of The Driving"

This video answers that eternal question: what would happen if John McCain hired Hollywood directors to produce his campaign ads. I know I've been wondering that for some time. I find the John Woo one to be a bit lacking, which is too bad because it is first, but the Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson ones are hilarious and spot on. I love the discussion of Obama as Lando Calrissian in the Smith parody:

This one, I just find hilarious:

Intensified Allegiance

So, in my drunken state last night, I came up with an analogy. Never mind that I don't like analogies. This is going to be a good one:

Imagine you are putting money down on a fighter. You analytically look at his (or her) record. You examine his or her style of fighting. You know which punch he or she uses most often, and what little tricks (like rope a dope) she or he has. You like the fighter's record; you like the fighter's devotion to the sport. You even kind of admire the fighter. But even with the money down, you are not truly and purely emotionally invested in the win. From an intellectual standpoint, yes; but emotionally, you're still on the outside.

The day of the fight comes; your fighter is getting beaten badly. Not from the opponent. They're pretty evenly matched. But from the audience. Cups are flying. Peanut shells are hitting the fighter (miraculously, only your one), and the opponent is getting a few good hits here and there. Now, some fans who were rooting for your fighter have crossed lines and are rooting for the other fighter. Some fans are now rooting for your fighter mostly because of the peanut shells and the cups, and the amount of trash being thrown. And some fans are still with their fighter, because he or she has done very little wrong and certainly didn't tell the audience and refs to throw shit. But you are now emotionally invested in this fight in a way you hadn't been previously. Now, you want your fighter to win, and you want them to win badly. Your allegiance is intensified because of the amount of shit your fighter has to deal with in addition to fighting the actual fight. You didn't come to the fight thinking, "Well, trash is going to get thrown because (insert reason here), so I'd better support them." Your reasons were already set in stone. But actually and fervently and passionately wanting to see them win stems from this; it is merely icing you neither anticipated nor wanted on the cake you'd been eating.

That is why I ardently supported Hillary Clinton, and why I'm now becoming more and more aligned with Obama. In the beginning, I could honestly say that I liked their positions. I'm socially liberal; and I'm a pump-primer as opposed to a trickle-downer. Plus, McCain's "Bomb Iran" song scared me. But with the crap Hillary dealt with in the primaries, I desired her win partially to shut up those who would malign her based on her gender and who worried about her cleavage or wrinkles or menopause - or even how she reached the upper levels of politics (that one irritates me because it isn't like she married a Kennedy or a Bush or a Rockefeller; she married a guy from Arkansas whom she then assisted in his own political aspirations). But I had wanted her to win before. Now, Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain in the polls; but the "baby momma" stuff on Fox News, the Obama Bucks, the monkey dolls at McCain rallies, etc., makes me want him to win all the more. I want him to win, because I've always wanted him to win. But now, I want him to win even more. It is unexpected icing on an already-baked cake.

Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner

John McCain and Barack Obama roasted themselves and each other at the memorial dinner, and it was John McCain who went first:


Barack Obama was pretty funny as well:

I'm incredibly partisan; but I have to admit that although I think Barack Obama had the best line of the night, that being "And I got my middle name from somebody who obviously didn't think I'd ever run for president", I thought John McCain's speech hit many more funny moments. He had an easier time of it; he could be self-deprecating in a way it would be difficult for Barack Obama to be, because McCain's campaign has eff'd up so often in the past weeks and months. The reason why John McCain's speech worked better was because at times, I really was frightened he was going to do something crazy instead of funny. Like when he started off talking about this being "as good a place as any to make a major announcement"; when he switched it up to the ridiculous, it just further highlighted how potentially true that moment could have been, and how good it is that - even if only for pretend - McCain acknowledges it. I also found his roasts of Bill and Hillary Clinton hilarious. I'm a fan of both of the Clintons, but the best humor comes with a hint of truth and I don't think anyone can deny that it bothered Bill greatly that Hillary lost. It probably bothered Hillary greatly as well, but she seemed to move on more quickly. McCain's humor - "strict constructionists", driving away "anti-Clinton conservatives" - did well there. It had an edge to it without actually crossing the line into meanness. So too did his Keith Olbermann comments. I like Keith. Not as much as some, but I find him to be a fun guy to watch and he's got some of the best suit and tie combinations I've ever seen. But I laughed hysterically when McCain mentioned Keith Olbermann being in a padded room if McCain managed to pull this off, with his "Mission Accomplished" banner. Rachel Maddow was less than pleased with McCain's roast of Olbermann, but I loved the amount of issues crisscrossing that one section. Obviously, McCain is not a fan of Olbermann - a condition possibly exacerbated because Olbermann stepped in when McCain blew off Letterman, and being on hand to step in again in the even of a McCain no show - and Olbermann is not a fan of McCain's. And honestly, I don't think Keith Olbermann can last four more years of a Republican White House without going (more) bonkers. The Mission Accomplished banner in preparation for Obama's win was a sweet burn, even for this liberal, because it played off of Olbermann's final words every night of his broadcast (no, not his Edward R. Murrow riff but the count of how many days it has been since we declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq). Rachel Maddow may have felt McCain crossed the line, but I thought he was merely dancing around it.

Obama didn't have as easy a time of it. Sure, he could have roasted on John McCain more; but McCain did a pretty thorough job of that himself. Obama also seems less likely to go for caustic humor than John McCain. His speech was at times self-deprecating; but it was never incendiary. He gently poked at Sarah Palin with the "Russian Tea Room". But he never got so far into jokes that he couldn't get out of them. McCain delved into the very depth of the issues he was facing and made them funny. But Obama is the one riding high; there is less about him to riff off of; and to make it about something else, to make it about actual issues and complaints he had about the campaign, would have had the potential to backfire. One thing I did like about Obama was his tendency to look around after telling a joke, with a "That was pretty good, right" enjoyment. He laughed at his own jokes, and it was a good thing to see. I also think that was something McCain had going for him that Obama did not. McCain had Obama as an audience, and Obama laughed hard. At times, I'm sure I laughed because Obama (or Hillary Clinton, during the Bill segment of McCain's roast) was laughing, with that great smile of his. Obama had McCain had his primary audience. And although McCain found a few things funny, overall, the guy didn't seem to be as prone to rapturous guffaws as Obama was. Overall, an enjoyable twenty or so minutes spent watching these two attempt to rack up the yucks.

"A Caricature Of Ordinariness"

I haven't done this in a while, but here's some Chris Hayes for the Friday:

I love Obama's face when he says, "And he's trying to suggest that a plumber is who he's fighting for" (I would consider it a classic Professor Cassidy face, along with Jessica Valenti's wonderful rendition), though I do think Obama needs to watch Moonstruck if he doesn't believe plumbers can make that much money ("We should have been plumbers like Castorini"). Beyond that, and the reason for this post, is that I am impressed by Chris Hayes' take on the matter of Joe the Plumber. When he said:

There is a tremendous gap between the mythical creature "Joe the Plumber" and the real life guy. And we see this time and time again. Sarah Palin's a perfect example. And what it shows is that the modern Republican Party and the McCain campaign and the right wing are so much more heavily invested in a caricature of ordinariness than they are in actual, real-life ordinary people,

I was nodding vigorously.

And on his own blog, he said he agreed with Atrios' take that "I really don't think the fact that someone talks to a political candidate and then gets mentioned by another political candidate in a debate is license to make every detail of this guy's life national news". I wonder how much of his position comes from the same selfish place I come to the Joe the Plumber controversy from -that being a deep sense of apathy about Joe as an individual and a resulting cynicism about mainstream media's frenzied feast:

along with a healthy sense of despair that the name "Joe" will never again simply be a nickname for Joseph (the most ironic part of the Joe the Plumber storyline so far has been that his first name is actually Samuel, with his middle name being Joe). And while I agree with Michelle Malkin in this instance, I can't help but feel as if Jesse Taylor hits the nail on the head by saying,

It isn't just the pot calling the kettle black, it's the pot wandering into the pot store and declaring all other pots black-tinged traitors to our great nation, then offering to run the pot reeducation camp to bring them in line with acceptable and decent container values.

My animosity toward Malkin has been years in the making, as she is often featured in my paper's editorial section. And maybe I should be kinder to her hypocritical turn around. After all, it is one thing to attack a side one hates with the fire of a thousand suns with such complete and utter tripe and defend it by saying, "asking questions and subjecting political anecdotes to scrutiny are what journalists should be doing". But it is quite another when a person you agree with is the political anecdote subject to scrutiny. However, this sort of thing makes me see red, and has the unfortunate tendency, given my temperament, to make me want to take the exact opposite position Malkin holds due to her double standards. But in the spirit of Chris Hayes and the Daily Show and just wanting Not-Joe the not-Plumber (apparently, he doesn't have a license) off of my television screen, I will actually maintain my philosophical viewpoint and state that Not-Joe really doesn't matter. We've lost a day in the news cycle clamoring over the facts and fictions of this one Ohioan, and I for one want it to stop. It is possible to give credence to Not-Joe's concerns, if they deserve such attention, and debate those on a national level without declaring fact or fiction about this one guy. Because I for one don't care about his record of paying taxes, whether or not he is actually buying the plumbing business, what his real first name is (okay, I'll admit to liking that one), or how much money a year he's making. Because suddenly, it isn't Not-Joe's economic philosophy that is the story, and neither is whether Obama's tax plan is or isn't bad for small businesses. It is just about Not-Joe. He should have faded away by now. So let's allow him to do that.

Air Quotes

Chris Matthews has come out hard against McCain's use of air quotes (and my favorite moment of the video, aside from Cecile Richards' eloquence, is Chris Matthews demonstrating air quotes as if they are some kind of foreign function of language most Americans have been unacquainted with) in describing a woman's health as a reason for abortion:

What is so appalling for me about this video is Barbara Comstock's inability to (or refusal to) defend or explain McCain's patronizing, insulting, and downright dismissive brush off of women's health rights. Her need to stick to Partial Birth Abortion, which aside from being a misnomer also accounts for a miniscule amount of abortions performed (.17% of American abortions in 2000), just proves to me how indefensible McCain's statement really is. There are some incredibly obvious issues in McCain's use of air quotes around the word "health" in terms of abortion: 

1. It suggests that most women - sorry, most "pro-abortionists" - will lie about their health in order to obtain an abortion. It plays directly into the meme that feminists or other women who get abortions are in some way flighty and incredibly morally deficient - that they have gone through 21 or more weeks of pregnancy and suddenly decided that they no longer wish to remain pregnant.
2. It suggests that the health of the already-alive person in front of McCain is less important than the birth of the fetus she is carrying. If the health of the mother is so trivial it deserves air quotes, it is because a woman's concerns are less once she is carrying a child. Everything must go toward protecting the fetus. The woman is no longer of primary concern, nor should her wishes and bodily autonomy be given any thought. After all, she decided to get pregnant; for those nine months, she now gets to be more of a glorified incubator than a person.
3. It dismisses women who actually have serious health concerns relating to pregnancy. The air quotes McCain used invalidates these women's situation and trauma and lives. McCain's casual dismissal of health concerns for the women who carry his precious fetuses shows a cavalier attitude toward what pregnancy is and what complications can develop. Apparently in McCain's world, all pregnancies go smoothly. There is never someone with high blood pressure, or someone with Type 1 diabetes. There is never a fetus with severe spina bifida. The women who have had these pregnancies and experiences are thus cast aside, and made less. Their emotions and lives are trivialized and dismissed. In a way, McCain's air quotes places the onus for a mother's health on the mother. If something goes wrong, it is obviously the mother's fault, because the only women who get late-term abortions and who use the health excuse are those terrible pro-abortionists.

Late term abortions (21 weeks or later) account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA. They are the focal point of the anti-choice movement simply because they are the most extreme cases. The anti-choice movement has made this a black and white issue for Americans by focusing on the stages of development of the fetus after 21 weeks; but in doing so, they blatantly ignore the area of grey that is still very much present. For instance, this diarist at Daily Kos tells her story (note: I don't get my news from here, but I do think that this person's account of what she went through and why is important to read). As did these three women. All of them exist within the area of grey McCain's policy and air quotes denies them. When McCain turns to these women and belittles their lives as simply being a part of an "extreme pro-abortion position", he is doing them, and all of us, a great disservice. As Cecile Richards rightly asks, "Since when did women's health become extreme?"

John McCain is not pro-life; and neither is the movement his viewpoint represents. A pro-life position, a true pro-life position, would not be so cavalier and dismissive of women and their right to health. It would not demean and belittle women; it would not implicitly state in their policies and positions that once a woman becomes pregnant, the fetus she is supporting becomes more important than she is and should have access to more rights than she does. Pro-life means being for the health and integrity of all life; it means recognizing that sometimes difficult and heartbreaking decisions must be made. It means supporting women. It means not simply counseling a woman or compelling a woman to keep a child or to carry the fetus to term but providing support for that woman and that child once the baby has been born. The McCain ticket and the pro-life movement in general stops short of that. Once there is a baby and not simply an unborn child, they perceive their job as being done. And that is what is so disingenuous about their position. Because to be pro-life requires more than just legislating that a woman not abort. It means giving care, like healthcare, to that child; it means providing support for mothers who could not afford to take care of their child. In order to be philosophically pro-life, that would be the position McCain would have to take. Instead, he and Sarah Palin and countless others come off as sanctimonious, callous, and out of touch.

And as a bonus, they and their hardline position regarding late-term abortion come off as extremist, especially when people like Barbara Comstock are there to toe the line. And Barack Obama and Cecile Richards appear to be level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable.

Joe The Plumber Went To Bed

Things I never want to hear again:

1) Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on people making 42 thousand dollars a year. 

-We heard it before, in the past two debates. Obama has explained it, twice before in each debate. But tonight he said something I really liked: "Even Fox News disputes it". Go Obama!

2) Joe the Plumber.

-I understand that there is Joe who happens to be a plumber out there. But I never want to hear about him again. I suppose it is good that "Joe Six pack" who got such a workout in the vice-presidential debate was put to bed. Maybe he found the local AA meetings, I don't know. But I don't want to hear about Joe the plumber again. If I find a plumber I like who happens to be named Joe, I may not hire him.

3) Bill Ayers.

-Thank God for Obama. I loved him pointing out that the debates and the last three weeks should be about the issues, not about some guy who did some despicable things when Obama eight years old. I liked that Obama said he could handle three more weeks of attacks but that the country could not handle 4 more years of failed economic policy. I also enjoyed Obama's point that McCain's focus on Ayers said more about McCain's own campaign than it said about Obama himself. And McCain claiming that he didn't care about some washed up terrorist kind of underscored his own point.

I also thought that McCain seemed to come off as petulant and very immature. I was almost out of my seat when McCain said that there were things yelled at Obama rallies that he, McCain, wasn't happy with; had I been Obama, I may have snapped, "Yeah, but at least those at my rallies aren't threatening your life". If Obama could handle three more weeks of attacks, McCain whined about the little nicks he has been subject to. If I had to take a worse or more unsettling insult, I would take the "terrorist" or "kill him" more to heart than anything Obama or Obama's people said about McCain. Obama came off as much more presidential on this particular issue than McCain did. Especially since the only negative statements I have heard about, especially John Lewis', were in response to McCain's own side's attacks on Obama.

Things I Liked:

Obama on the abortion issue. I thought that Obama embraced the shades of grey. I wish he had cast anti-abortionists as anti-choice. I wish that McCain et al. of the anti-abortion side would stop saying they would 'counsel' the woman through this difficult decision, when their policies and their votes and their Supreme Court justices would remove the actual decision from the process. I thought John McCain played into the worst memes regarding the pro-choice movement and women who have third trimester abortions when he suggested that "women's health" was an overused and false excuse exercised by the pro-choice movement.

Obama's friendly smile and reminder that an across the board freeze would limit the amount of money available for special needs education and funding.

Things I Would Have Liked To Have Seen:

I would have liked Obama to have hit at McCain and Sarah Palin a little harder. I do think that there is a point to be made about how Obama has to walk softly and appear more even keeled, that it has been working for him and to react in anger or even show too much emotion may hurt his chances of winning blue-collar white voters who are iffy on him due to his race. But when McCain started talking about Columbia and how Obama never visited that country, I so wanted Obama to shoot back that McCain's running mate just got her passport last year and apparently could see Russia from her house.

I'll leave it with this quote from Rachel Maddow on John McCain: "He looks like he doesn't want Barack Obama to be president than he looks like he wants to be president". Overall, I think John McCain is a good guy. My father made a point that McCain's temperament is similar to his own; that he gets agitated easily but is a good man. My contention is that there is a reason why my father should not be president. And McCain does seem to have the same inclination (though I would mention that my father tends to be less grumpy and has a nicer smile), and that isn't incredibly presidential. Obama does come off as presidential - and nothing like my father. I think McCain did a much better job this time around; I would put this one as a tie, though I myself was infinitely more persuaded by Obama. I like his positions better; I like his attack of the situation better. But I am a bleeding heart and a feminist. Of course, according to Keith Olbermann, most polls have the debate won by Obama. Then again, Olbermann is probably only slightly less liberal than I am.

"Honestly, It Shouldn't Matter

A while ago, I wrote about Campbell Brown's reaction to the McCain campaign sequestering Sarah Palin. I liked her, but now I like her even more with her latest "Cutting Through The Bull"; I like how she brings up that being a Muslim or being Arab is not a disqualifier for higher office. I like her point about how using Muslim or Arab as slurs against Obama, who is neither Muslim nor Arab, maligns the 1.2 million actual Arab-Americans and 7 million actual Muslim-Americans we have in this country. Brown is correct in stating that it hurts these American citizens to consistently have their ethnicity or religious affiliation be utilized as shorthand for "dangerous" and "unAmerican". And I agree with her that newscasters and news organizations should not be complacent in accepting that ignorance unchallenged.

At the same time, I wonder if the campaign trail is the appropriate place to counter such an argument, on either side. Campaign trails are good for many things; but I do worry about either Barack Obama or John McCain deciding to take on this particular issue head on. I agree that creating the dichotomy, however inadvertantly, of "Arab" versus "decent family man" is not of the good. But McCain runs the risk of looking like he is trying to foster more questions about Obama (a rational concern, since he has tried to create questions about who Obama is) if he attempts to create a larger discussion about our prejudices as a society against Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans. "He's not, but so what if he was" could be taken as "He says he's not, but you and I know the truth". Obama runs the same risk. He should rightfully challenge untrue statements about his ethnicity and his religion. He is African-American. He is a Christian. He has a right for both of those aspects of his personality to be respected as truth. At the same time, creating that larger argument about Muslims and Arabs could easily backfire and be seen as a complicit admittance. This sort of thing has been used by school yard bullies for decades. I believe both candidates need to step up to the plate and defend Americans from being turned into a slur, but neither one of them should use Obama, a man whose background is already (irrationally) questioned, as an example of "but so what?" The argument needs to be shifted away from Barack Obama. The answer could go, "No, ma'am. Barack Obama is not Arab-American, but African-American. He is also a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues". It changes the response enough to eliminate the dichotomy of Arab or good citizen. It changes enough to both respond to what Obama actually is, and further explains what the issues of the campaign are. What both candidates should do, what they should feel obliged to do, is to confront the idea of Arab and Muslim Americans not being 'real' Americans without benefit of having it linked to Obama and without the question being raised at their rallies.

These two men should further the ideals of our society that all men are created equal, and that religious views and ethnicity should not automatically create suspicion. But they should do so independent of questions about Obama, because it is very easy in this world of soundbites to sound as if one is either admitting to being an Arab or a Muslim, or that one is disingenuous in that line of defense and is in actuality attempting to create more questions than provide answers. In the context of a political campaign, it is remarkably simple to have what should be stating the obvious, as Brown puts it, turn into an out and out controversy. Both campaigns, if they are smart (and I think at least one of the campaigns is smart; the other, not so much), would do well to limit the amount of false controversy they create at the moment. With 21 days before the election, both have a lot to lose in regard to this issue.

The "Real" McCain Emerges

I have generally felt that John McCain is a good man, an honorable man, and a man who genuinely is a straight-talker who wants to do what is best for our country. I have also felt that McCain's campaign seemed, at times, at odds with McCain's own moral inclination. Tonight, McCain took a step away from the campaign who used Bill Ayers and who tried to link Barack Obama to a domestic "terrorist", knowing that terrorist does not connote a white intellectual but a minority, a Muslim, and someone who hates America. Tonight, Senator McCain took a step toward the McCain of old, the McCain I could personally admire even as I disagreed with a majority of his positions, when he said, "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about" when a supporter of his said that she did not trust Obama and that she knew he was an Arab.

What I found interesting about the film I saw, on MSNBC, was how subdued McCain seemed and how genuinely broken he looked when he had to defend his opponent's patriotism and his comment that Obama "is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States". It was clear that McCain still feels as though he is the best man to run the nation. He said so at his rally. But what also became clear, or seemed to become clear, to McCain was that this wasn't about him so much as it was still about Obama. These people showing up to his rallies are not necessarily McCain supporters so much as they are people who do not like Obama, who are frightened of Obama, are worried about Obama, and who fear Obama because he does not - in fact - look like all of the other guys on our money. That revelation seems to have taken some of the wind out of McCain's sails; I feel badly for him because of that, because I truly do not think McCain is racist or intentionally playing to a racist meme even if that is the meme his campaign and Governor Palin are attempting to conjure up.

I have some reservations about McCain as a politician lately. I have been wondering where the McCain of old had gone. I hope that if and when he loses, the Rovian politics that has been the driving force of our political elections since before Rove (I call it Rovian simply because Karl Rove did it better than anyone before or possibly anyone in the future) will die. I want politicians to look at this campaign (and hopefully the next one) as an example of how to run a winning campaign, and how not to run a losing one.

Interesting Articles

George Will thinks Obama could win 350 of the 538 electoral votes this election. He also seems to be squirming in pain at that very idea; of course, he doesn't appear to be all that fond of McCain either, and seems rather embarrassed by the campaign his candidate is running.

Linda Ellerbee wants to introduce some 19, 20, and 21 year olds to some fifth graders, because the fifth graders want to vote and know their stuff and the 19-21 year olds are apathetic (me, I can't wait to vote and am just upset that we've gotten rid of our old mechanical machines in favor of boring paper ballots). She also talks about the formation of Nick News, a show I absolutely adored as a kid (and probably still will). I kind of wish it was still on weekly.

Biden's tired of losing. Good! So am I. He also got a good quip off in regard to Sarah Palin's assertion that she has been listening to Joe Biden's speeches since the second grade with, "That's true. But she was in sixth grade the last time John had a new idea". Of course, he had to go and pull a classic Biden and make a gaffe. Oh well.

When The Political Is Funny

In my time on the internet Some are ones I was introduced to in college, and some I found on my very own. Through those two groups, there have been a veritable smorgasbord of political offerings in the last couple of weeks from comics that usually are not politically based. Like Pie2K:
I realize that Sarah Palin's answer has already been mocked several times on SNL. But what I love about this one (aside from the hearts dotting the i's and the backwards e is the explanation for the check minus. Plus, the crumpled up look of the assignment in general.

I also loved Sinfest's assessment of our current national situation:
 

I have some problems with Sinfest; some days, I find it hilarious and other days I find it quite offensive. But its take on the current economic crisis:

is one I find both offensive and funny. Its offensiveness, in this case, adds exponentially to the humor.

The last one that has tickled my fancy recently has been from pictures for sad children:

I think it fits very well with McCain's camp's newest attacks on Obama being guilty of treason or cavorting with terrorists.

Poor Tom Brokaw

Well, I think Barack Obama came off as cool and confident and on point tonight. Chris Matthews is right that he is blessed with an engaging and open and friendly smile. John McCain didn't come off too badly either. I think he is fundamentally wrong on a majority of the issues; but I don't think he was flailing or that he suffered a definitive loss. Unfortunately for his campaign, he didn't land a knock out punch either. And considering Obama's continued momentum in swing states and overall, McCain really needed something to turn this ship around. I do think Obama won; that being said, I don't think he had a knock out.

John McCain had some gaffes tonight; although it didn't bother me, there has been a big kerfuffle about McCain's pointing at Obama and saying "That one" in regard to voting on an energy bill put forth by Bush and Cheney and that contained perks ("goodies") for the oil companies. CBS brought it up and according to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, it is one of the more pressing points in the spin room. Which kind of bothers me, because that is very much a cosmetic item. My biggest complaint is this idea that Big Government=bad, that Barack Obama=Big Government, that the roll of government should be to get out of people's ways - but that government should buy up all of the bad mortgages in order to shore up our economy. I'm not really entirely sure about that plan, but the plan itself is not the problem I have. The problem I have is the same problem (well, one out of many) I had with Sarah Palin in the VP debate; I find it completely disingenuous to paint Obama with a Big Government brush and claim to be the opposite, and then put forth the contrary idea that government should step in and have it be something other than Big Government. The total disconnect of the two sides of McCain's and Palin's argument strike me as being simply a political ploy to undermine Obama's stance on the issues as simply being a bureaucratic nightmare while simultaneously recognizing that telling voters they're on their own on a majority of these issues is not a way to win an election.

And with that, I will go on to a more cosmetic issue. McCain's constant phrases ("my friends", "thank you for that question") bothered me. It seemed rehearsed and too forced. McCain likes to consider himself a straight talker and that is more than acceptable; the problem I have is that I feel so much more condescended to when McCain speaks than when Obama does. Obama, and it seems strange to type this, has an odd bit of unforced folksy charm. Whereas Sarah Palin seems to suffer from "stage folksy charm", Obama's seems natural and completely real and simply a part of his personality. "Green behind the ears"... "High on the hog"... He even, at times, dropped his g's from the ends of words. And yet, it didn't seem like it was something he was doing in order to prove his normalcy, or as a way to connect to us "ordinary folk", those "Joe Six-Packs" and "Hockey Moms". Obama did at times take on a professorial role, and I personally liked it. It was balanced and measured, but not unemotional. It was calm and informative without being dictatorial. Obama has been, as Newsweek called him, Mr. Cool, and it served him well tonight.

There were some other aspects of the debate tonight that I cheered for and that I disliked. I practically jumped out of my seat when McCain referenced Theodore Roosevelt's "Talk softly and carry a big stick", and said that he was astounded that Barack Obama would say that he would attack another nation and how McCain himself would never telegraph his punches. I desperately wanted Obama to hit him with the "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" bit, and expected him not to. I was pleasantly surprised when Obama did reference that. I also loved Obama saying that the Straight Talk Express seemed to have lost a wheel. What I would have also enjoyed hearing, in response to McCain's criticism of sitting down with antagonistic governments without any preconditions, would be a historical context for such a move. Kennedy opened channels to talk to the Soviet Union; and although it did nothing to alleviate the Cold War it did provide an opportunity to better understand the Soviet Union and to negotiate with them during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama plainly stated that there was no guarantee that sitting down with rival nations would work, and there is no guarantee that it would. But it could; and even if it does not it allows us opportunities that we otherwise may not have had.

I also wonder, and this may stem into a separate post after further examining the issue, how well economic sanctions work against nations. Cuba has been subject to our economic sanctions for decades. Iraq had economic sanctions against it as well. And yet, leadership did not change in either of those two nations. And in some cases, possibly many cases, the economic sanctions did not hurt those at the top but rather adversely influenced those at the bottom. Do we really want to work at improving our image in the world by imposing economic sanctions instead of working on diplomatic solutions?

At the end of this, I have to say that I felt badly for Tom Brokaw. The man was clearly upset that the two candidates did not stick to the agreed debate format. I kind of liked his snarky comment about the lights the candidates could see being indicators for how much time they had to talk, as if neither one of them had ever been part of a formal debate before.

VP Debate: For Biden

I was kind of afraid Biden and the democrats were going to lose the expectations game; like Aaron Sorkin wrote about his fictional president debate, it really felt like the only way Biden was going to unequivocally win was if Sarah Palin "accidentally lights [her] podium on fire". Because "if the whole thing is [she] can't tie [her] shoes and it turns out [she] can', then that is the ball game" (Sorkin again!). Well, Sarah Palin can tie her shoes. She didn't light her podium on fire. She spoke in complete sentences, though I wish she'd dial back that "folksy charm", because it has turned into folksy charm on steroids - or a stage performance of folksy charm instead of the real thing. But I still think Biden did a wonderful job, and I would posit that he won the debate.

Sarah Palin was on, but she still annoyed me. It wasn't anything she could really help; but it is something that has bothered me in regard to other women politicians. And that is the need to be Tour Guide Barbie. She was incredibly smiley, incredibly saccharine. She showed more of a range of emotion than many women who step up to the podium. She was allowed to be serious and let that smile drop. But she also gave me pause when she talked about John McCain, the great reformer (for everything else John McCain is, "reform" isn't exactly a word that springs to mind when he's mentioned); and she gave me more pause when, after talking about how we needed regulation, she started the old republican talking point about how government is not the solution to our problems but the source of our problems. She was not surprisingly nonspecific, and she played to the idea of McCain the Maverick - something I was happy to see Joe Biden challenge her on. There was something else that bothered me tonight about Palin, and that was her insistence of including oil and oil drilling in with alternative energy. I could be wrong, but I always thought alternative energy meant energy derived from things other than fossil fuels.

There were times when she did well, I won't deny her that. I almost feel sorry for her, having to defend a candidate who, like Biden hammered home, just 2 weeks ago said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and who has in the past admitted to not knowing much about the economy. I felt for her when she substituted McClellan for McKiernan. I felt for her because it was an obvious screw up that had no bearing on whether or not she knew what she was talking about. It was kind of like Joe Biden's earlier remark (a remark he quickly corrected) about a six month timetable for leaving Iraq. Joe caught his mistake mid-sentence; Palin did not have that luck. And that was too bad for her, because those actual little gaffes are to be expected and the fact that mix up will (and has already) gotten some attention is unfortunate. There was a moment, and I really wish I could remember it now and what was said, when I thought she hit it straight out of the ballpark. Of course, then she repeated this:

In a few weeks, you'll have the choice of voting for a ticket that wants to create jobs, and bolster the economy and win the war...

I desperately wanted some pithy remark from Biden like, "So you'll be voting for us then?" Because Sarah Palin didn't explain John McCain's position on taxes very well. She didn't explain how her camp planned on bolstering the economy. She had nothing to come back with when Biden said that most small business owners actually make less than 250 thousand dollars a year in income and so Obama's tax plan wouldn't affect them. And I thought Joe Biden did a better job on the war in Iraq and our timetable for leaving than she did. When she told him that he was "waving a white flag of defeat", I sat up straight. I was kind of relieved to see that response garner an immediate drop in approval from CBS' instant independent poll people. The ticket Sarah Palin described in the quote above was, to me, the Obama campaign (I think the first one of those repeats had a mention of tax cuts as well).

The only real issue I had, and I'll probably come back to it at some later time, was that one of the independent women voters interviewed afterward who said Sarah Palin did well said that she thought so because Sarah Palin was like an ordinary person. That Palin made the woman being interviewed feel like she could have been up there on that stage. I froze. If there is one argument I cannot stand, it is the "She makes me feel like she's just a regular person, like me!" way of voting. I don't really want my candidates to reflect me. I don't want them to make me feel that I could be up there behind that podium. There is a reason they are behind that podium and why I am sitting on my couch watching them. They are supposed to be smarter than I am, more aware of the issues than I am, and more capable than I am. I am not qualified to be vice-president, even if it is the John Nance Garner "not worth a pitcher of warm piss" type vice-presidency. So I would really prefer it if my candidate gave me the feeling like s/he understood me and where I stood on the issues, but was more qualified and more capable of smartly deciding how to implement the necessary changes on those issues. I had hoped we were over the "like me" way of voting -at least in this sense- after 8 years of President Bush. But I guess I was wrong.

Overall, Palin's performance had little to do with Joe Biden's performance; I loved his pithy "bridge to nowhere" comment. I enjoyed his references to the pieces of legislation he had passed. Pat Buchanan may not like the facts and statistics way of Biden's style (as he said tonight on MSNBC), but I thought his specific examples of his own legislation and positions and the counts of how many times McCain voted on policies contrary to what would help the American people (and how McCain voted against the same legislation meant to fund the troops as Obama did) offered a stark contrast to Palin's lack of specifics. It made him seem more aware and more knowledgeable and more on top of things than Palin was. But perhaps my favorite moment was when Biden said that Dick Cheney's vice-presidency has been the most destructive we've ever had, and his belief that the vice-presidency somehow is a part of the legislature is "bizarre". It has been too long since I've heard the word "bizarre" come out of anyone's mouth in a serious moment. I loved how he gave specific mention of what the vice-president's duties were as dictated by the constitution. I suppose it may be hypocritical of me to enjoy the Democrats' strict interpretation of the Constitution when their usual role is to defend its position as a 'living' and changing document when I am so appalled at the Republicans' recent insistence on enjoying the latitude the Constitution offers the position of the vice-presidency and thus using a less than strict interpretation of the document when conservatives are usually about strict interpretations. When Palin said that she saw the vice-president as being able to take an active role in the Senate, I almost wanted someone to make her sit down and watch HBO's John Adams -not all of the hours, of course; just the ones in which he was ridiculed for expanding his powers of the vice-presidency too far in that regard.

But for me, the most emotional moment of the night, and the moment in which I thought Joe Biden really succeeded in removing the air from Sarah Palin's populist lungs was when he choked up discussing the deaths of his wife and daughter.

In that moment, I don't know how one person watching could not be moved, and could not believe that Joe Biden actually did know about their own fears and trials and tragedies, that he could relate to them on more than just a superficial "We're not those East Coast political people" level. It was the most moving moment of the night, because it was the most sincere. The problem with Sarah Palin's "oh shucks, I'm just an ordinary hockey mom and I am so much more like you than that guy" is that it seems like a glossy veneer, that what connects Palin to those people is more about superficial notions of the "working class" and what they are like and the prejudices they have against those who are educated and those who rattle off numbers and those who - Heaven forbid - actually had ambitions in running for office. But those similarities only skim the surface; and although she said she and McCain are interested in breaking down partisan politics, that tactic is about conflating the unimportant differences between people into a very attack on identity. What Joe Biden did there was to allow for the humanity of the moment to reach across party lines and to truly demonstrate that maybe being a Senator for 36 years does not distance a man from the rigors of every day life. That maybe getting an elite education at one of the top universities in the country does not in actuality make a person an elitist. That maybe, the test for whether or not a person is like someone else should not be confused with whether or not that person talks in the same manner or buys the same style clothing or if they grew up in a small town but the ideas and thoughts and feelings that person carries.

Biden won. Palin did well; she didn't light the podium on fire, she can tie her shoes, she didn't fall off of the stage, and she spoke in complete and cogent sentences. She was greatly helped by the specter of low expectation. Even with all of that, Biden still won.

Quizzes and Videos

First things first: I took a "blind" test from ABC News that I found via A Slant Truth that takes one of John McCain's statements on a specific issue and one of Barack Obama's statements that same issue without labeling them, and you pick which one you agree with most. Some of the questions are really a competition in the lesser of two evils, like on gay marriage:

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans ... that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

VS

"I do not believe gay marriage should be legal ... but I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people [who] have relationships can enter into."

Since I believe firmly that gays have every right to marry, what do I go with in that case? Do I go with the first one because it leaves open the option some states will give homosexuals marital rights? Do I eschew that one because it leaves open the option some states will deny homosexuals any rights? Do I go with the second one because at least that gives homosexuals some rights no matter what state they occupy? Also, immigration questions I had a hard time with, like:

"The program ... will ensure that all undocumented aliens either leave or follow the path to legal residence. America cannot permit a permanent category of individuals that do not have recognized status - a permanent second class." 

VS

"We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who have come here legally. But we cannot -and should not- deport 12 million people."

Should I accept that those who are often denied even minimum wage should pay a fine just because they chose to take what is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty at face value? Do I think that they should be forced to learn English, when societies within the United States have developed where no English is necessary (like Chinatown in New York City) and when the US has no official language in order to facilitate the idea that we are a society open to all? Should I take it on faith that a great majority of those in quote #1 will not be deported, and the author is at least on board with the idea that a systemic creation of a second class of people living in America should not be tolerated?

Apparently, I agree with Obama 12 out of 13 times. I'll leave those of you who choose to take the quiz guessing on where he and I diverge. I do wish the quiz had taken a different approach than just straight quotes though. Maybe a serious of True or False questions about specific areas of policy. I know how I feel about immigration and gay rights and the Iraq War and universal healthcare, but I would like a blind test to sort of make me honestly reevaluate where I stand on the issues due to their specific requirements and pros and cons. That would be more helpful, I think, than a series of quotes that are about as unspecific as one could be in two or so sentences.

On a completely different note, I found this video via Feministing. Offensive, or thought provoking?

I'm on the fence with this one. I laughed, but then I felt kind of bad about it.

Sexism and the McCain Campaign

I have a new crush-worthy individual, and that is Campbell Brown. I enjoyed her dressing down of Tucker Bounds (and why is it that the name "Tucker" is a conservative name?) after Sarah Palin was picked as the vice-presidential nominee:

and I fully enjoy her newest rant about the sexism McCain's campaign is demonstrating in not allowing Sarah Palin any access to the press:

I love her exhorting the McCain campaign to "end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters, just like Barack Obama did today, just like John McCain did today, just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions"  (though a friend of mine will note that Biden is especially prone to inserting his foot fully in his mouth on many of those occasions).

That same friend brought up an interesting rationalization for the change in format for the vice-presidential debates, namely that "the reason they've agreed to all of this is because they're afraid Palin will play the gender card and insist that Biden was 'bullying' her throughout the debate". He further pointed out that this kind of gender card was used and used effectively by Hillary Clinton in 2000 against Rick Lazio when her supporters felt that Lazio was "pushy and disrespectful during the debate in Buffalo - bullying her in a way he would not have bullied a male opponent". I fully believe that was the Democratic reasoning behind the debate format change, but I think the fear of the "gender card" is misplaced in this instance. The Republican campaign has already done most of the work for the Democrats by inferring that Sarah Palin is so delicate and inexperienced and fragile that she cannot face reporters until they show her the proper deference. It has gotten to the point where Fox News is irate with the Republicans' handling of the Sarah Palin situation in the media, and that is what I would term the turning point of the whole mess. It may not last until November; but if the McCain campaign does not exhibit confidence in their vice-presidential nominee, it becomes all the more difficult for them to mount a truly moving defense of Palin if Biden does come off as stronger and more capable -or even belittling (something I myself am somewhat nervous about). And not that MSNBC or The Countdown are impartial sources of information, but I think this, along with Campbell Brown's assessment, is right:

And then there is the fact that the Republicans have become the lead in the story "The Campaign Who Cried Sexism". They have invoked sexism in attempts to delegitimize the strangest things, like the SNL sketch featuring Tina Fey. At some point, and I think that point has come, the cry of sexism will lose its power for the Republicans; which is great for the Obama campaign and not so great for the rest of us who fight for sexism and its pervasiveness to be recognized in the mainstream. The McCain camp had some goodwill left over from the days when McCain was a true maverick who was the press's darling because he would answer questions other candidates wouldn't and was surprisingly candid. But I think they have used up most - if not all - of those fond memories in this current campaign cycle. Finally, the press seems to have been awoken from their usual stupor; and if the press begins to start charging that the McCain camp's efforts to shield Palin from the rigors of the election campaign is insulting to voters in general and women voters specifically, any other charges the McCain campaign makes about Obama's campaign being sexist may be met with jeers and incredulity unless Biden commits a serious infraction.

"I Won't Lie To You, Being Fictional Was A Big Advantage"

BARTLET Well, it seems to me your problem is a lot like the problem I had twice.

OBAMA Which was?

BARTLET A huge number of Americans thought I thought I was superior to them.

OBAMA And?

BARTLET I was.

OBAMA I mean, how did you overcome that?

BARTLET I won’t lie to you, being fictional was a big advantage.

Maureen Dowd's column latest column in the Times was written by Sorkin -or someone extremely proficient in Sorkinese. Check it out. It has all of Sorkin's greatest attributes, and some of his weakest flaws as well; it gets an A+ for rhetoric, for pacing, and for being a delightful read. Sorkin's dialogue is fantastic; but his soliloquies that make my head sing. In the world of writing, Sorkin is a classical composer and it shows. Words build on words; thoughts hinge on what came before, and though it may begin with one "instrument", by the end there is a full orchestra.

I wish I could quote my favorite lines from the Dowd column. In truth, though, that would end up being the whole thing. But a few ones that got my blood pumping would be:

"As a Democrat I was surprised to learn that I don't like small towns, God, people with jobs or America."

"I've been a little out of touch but is there a mandate that the vice president be skilled at field dressing a moose... ...and selling Air Force Two on eBay?"

"Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn't extend to Americans being exceptional."

"The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it."

And the creme de la creme:

"Call them liars, because that's what they are. Sarah Palin didn't say 'thanks but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said 'Thanks'. You were raised by a single mother on food stamps - where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annopolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I'd ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you're at it, I want the word 'patriot' back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn't know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can't do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie - the truth isn't their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they've earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It's not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman, and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology, and common sense too? It's not bad enough she's forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It's not enough that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist's baby too? I don't know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she's got the qualifications of one. And you're worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"

There are weaknesses; I don't know if Sarah Palin has forced her daughter into a loveless marriage and neither do Aaron Sorkin or Bill Maher, even though that doesn't stop them from repeating the line. Sorkin has a troubled and complex history with women characters, and some of that comes out in how he chooses to frame Palin in the piece, though the actual language he uses in its context creates the overall effectiveness. But overall, I want Sorkin to write political speeches - I don't care for whom. I want politicians, on both sides, to be forced to watch Sorkin's politicians and especially their speeches. I want to hear about how "the streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless". I want a president to stand up and challenge the idea that the ACLU is unAmerican in some way. I want a president (or presidential nominee) to be Andrew Shepherd and say:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land is the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'."

So go; read the Maureen Dowd piece. And then rent The American President; watch some episodes of The West Wing or Sports Night (both have those moments of greatness of writing). And embrace Sorkinese. It makes the world a slightly better place; and it envisions a world in which people are truly, desperately, achingly passionate about their work and their place in the world; where every day they strive, in small ways and big ways, to do the right thing and to be the best they can be. And that, along with the way Sorkin chooses to tell it, is music to my ears. So one more quote from Sorkin, about the qualities of music and writing:

"Words, when spoken out loud for the sake of performance, are music. They have rhythm, and pitch, and timbre, and volume. These are the properties of music, and music has the ability to find us and move us, and lift us up in ways that literal meanings can't."

More People Need to Read/Watch To Kill A Mockingbird

Well, this is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't even be able to begin to answer a question like "How well does each of these words describe most blacks?" Really? This is what we ask people? This is how people think? This is just nutty, and I really wish that we weren't living in a nation in which a skilled, competent, intelligent, poised, articulate politician is "locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats" partially because he is black.

We need Atticus Finch; we need to recognize that although we have made progress, the sentiment in Atticus' closing statement still prevails, the sentiment "that evil assumption, that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings; all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their calibar, and which is in and of itself, gentlemen, a lie." 

Or I could just let Gregory Peck actually take it away:

The problem with this mindset should be obvious. It casts a shadow on everyone in society. It masks and it colors our approval and disapproval of candidates. A person could say they are not voting for Obama because they do not feel he has the credentials to bring about the change he has promise. Polls show "more than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that". But that is still perverted by the color issue. The specter of doubt lingers about whether or not the quarter would feel differently if Obama's name wasn't different, if he looked a bit more like every other guy on our currency. And it profoundly depressing to note that it is still acceptable to ask for an inclusive adjective to describe a group of people who span geography, income levels, education levels, personality, and political affiliation. Barack Obama has proven that he is not lazy, nor is he irresponsible. But the prevailing ignorance still remains; and Obama's own personal achievements, along with those of Michelle Obama and Michelle's brother and countless other African Americans who work hard and who follow the rules and who achieve greatness (or even just averageness), do very little to change that because they -if the bigots and racists choose to- can just be described as outliers. As bucking the trend. As being a sport. As being, for some reason, different.

I know there's the Avenue Q song, "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist", and I agree. I think the charge should be to fight racism, both in oneself and in the greater society. But when I hear that voters don't like McCain but hear Obama is a Muslim and that influences their voting decisions, I cringe. I cringe because not only is it patently untrue, but because his religion shouldn't matter; and it is a representative of how race and racial issues seep into the public consciousness. Rumors about Obama being a Muslim would not be so prevalent if he weren't black. "Muslim" wouldn't be as big a slur if our vision of Muslims wasn't of the Other. And both of those prejudices hurt Obama, and hurt Muslims and African Americans, and hurt America in general. Because the "statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice", we may end up with the lesser of two presidential choices based partially on our own stupid, irrational, and altogether ridiculous assumptions; assumptions not worthy of minds above a certain caliber.