It's the Little Things

It's really the little things that give us great satisfaction.

Like today, for instance.

My younger daughter still likes to sleep with a nightlight. My big problem with nightlights is that they are almost always too bright. Most of them use a light like the big, old-fashioned Christmas tree lights, and in white, that's a lot of light in the room.

For the past months she has been using a Christmas nightlight, a bubble light with an angel attached to the side. At least, until that one burned out, and then she started using the one with Santa in a sleigh flying across the front. The light itself has glitter in it that "bubbles." I picked them up at the grocery store, of all places, and doubt I can find a replacement for either when the second one burns out. I like them because they are not nearly as bright as standard nightlights.

Today I ran across a glitter lava lamp nightlight in pink. (I also bought a blue one for my older daughter.) She liked it immediately, especially since the glitter's movement makes a kind of under-the-sea pattern on the wall behind it. I like it because it's even dimmer than the cheap Christmas nightlights.

She's happy. I'm happy. It really is the little things, isn't it?

Being Taken Seriously...

I know I've said this before, but I have to say it again.

I almost feel sorry for Sarah Palin.

I am sure that when she went into politics, she did it because she had values and a philosophy (and, in her case, also a theology) that she wanted to see in place in government. I can imagine that she saw running for vice president as the ideal opportunity to be a powerful voice in American politics.

Instead she has become somewhat of a laughing stock.

With Tina Fey's wickedly funny portrayal of her on SNL, the Republican's awkward handling of her introduction, and her own unpreparedness, it is going to get harder for her to be taken seriously.

And her campaign doesn't help. The carefully controlled, infrequent contact with the press, a decision of the McCain campaign, has even conservative pundits asking for more access, even accusing the campaign of being sexist by "protecting" her. There is chatter that, during her debate with Joe Biden on Thursday night, they might secrete an earpiece on her so that she can be fed information. Given her experience as a television sportscaster, there is just enough credence that it won't die.

I don't like Sarah Palin's stand on any issue. And I don't think (in spite of the campaign and the conservative pundit protests) that there is any sexism in her treatment by the press. She has already proven to be savvy enough to do all her official communication on non-government email addresses and phones. She serves up her backwoods talk, so folksy that the Iron Rangers in Minnesota probably roll their eyes, in a calculated way, designed to appeal to those good, middle-class folks who work so hard for a dollar. And she's apparently smart enough to avoid saying anything specific, instead delivering platitudes and stock Republican buzz words to energize the base. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a smart, savvy politician, whose goal is not to do what's right for the country, but to win.

Like I said, I almost feel sorry for her.

Stuck in a Time Warp?

"McCain's campaign said the meeting "devolved into a contentious shouting
match" and implied that Obama was at fault — on a day when McCain said he was putting politics aside to focus on the nation's financial problems." --from MSNBC

Raised voices during a discussion in Washington? *gasp* Unbelievable!

But, seriously. What is wrong with this statement? Well, from my perspective, it reads more like McCain & his campaign are using this financial crisis for political gain. It is disappointing that the Republicans have chosen to play the blame game at a time when bipartisanship is essential.

It's like the Republicans are stuck in a time warp and are still mad that the Democrats had power for decades. Even though they got the deregulation they craved, even though they essentially controlled legislation for twelve years, even though they have a Supreme Court loaded in their favor, even though the economic decisions made in the past eight years have played a major role in this current crisis.

And they think that liberals are idealistic.

Joke of the Day (today)

Tonight! Sarah Palin visits New York City. I hear she can see the Russian Tea Room from her hotel.

--Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report"

September 25, 2008

Joke of the Day (well, yesterday)

Q: What is the difference between a flower and a hockey mom?

A: One has the reproductive organs of both male and female, and the other is just a flower.

--Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show"

September 24, 2008

Dancing With the Stars Returns!

One of my favorite reality shows is "Dancing With The Stars." Each "season" is different, and it seems like the producers are still experimenting a bit with the format, but the core is the same.

I became a big fan of ballroom dancing in the 1990s when Juliette Prowse hosted the international ballroom championship broadcasts on PBS. (And I sheepishly confess I used to enjoy watching Bobby Burgess -- I ran into him once in the candy store on Main Street in Disneyland -- and his various partners on "The Lawrence Welk Show" on the Saturday nights I spent at my grandparents' house.) So when ABC announced a US version of Strictly Come Dancing, a huge hit in the UK, I was excited to think that finally there would be a reality show that I could let my children watch.

And so we did. (Our favorite the first season was John O'Hurley. The girls still get excited to see him on anything.)

While we will occasionally watch it live, we more often than not will TiVo and watch it later. This allows us to watch a 2 hour show in 45 minutes, especially as the numbers of competitors dwindles and they still have to fill the same amount of time. It is especially handy when Samantha starts asking questions in the down time between the judges' critiques and the announcement of the scores. (Really, she's the best they can do?) The dances themselves are only two minutes. So you can see my point.

I especially like that the judges are critical but not mean, and strive to be constructive. My favorite judge is Len, who was a Latin champion, and has is the only judge of the three who is a genuine ballroom dancer. The other two judges are both choreographers and dancers with different backgrounds, but they have both obviously worked to understand ballroom well enough to give at times excellent technical advice.

This season the runaway hit has to be 82-year-old Cloris Leachman. She makes me laugh out loud with her unrpredictable and outrageous behavior. Even Tom Bergeron, the unflappable host who is never at a loss for just the right thing to say, whether funny or serious, has been caught off guard by her. She actually dances fairly well for a woman who claims she never had dance training, and is more flexible than I am right now. I think she understands that she can bring fun and a little mayhem to the show and help it loosen up. However, I can't help wondering -- who in the world thought it was a good idea to cast her? (I love you, Cloris!)

And the most exciting addition this season is Lacey Schwimmer, partnering the charming Lance Bass. She brings her excitement and charisma from "So You Think You Can Dance." And while she does need to brush up a little more on ballroom, she and Lance have great chemistry and explode on the ballroom floor. Len might not think it's quite as ballroom as it should be, but there is no question that they are the most exciting couple in the competition.

But whoever wins that mirror ball trophy, I will be watching, and armchair critiquing, every week.

Be sure to check out Television Without Pity each week for their hilarious summaries.

The Emmys Got One Right

At the end of an awards show with too long of a lead-in (and why was Tom Bergeron quiet the whole time, when he's the stand-up comedian?) that fell flat after an engaging introduction from Oprah Winfrey, a delightful surprise.

Mad Men won the Emmy for best dramatic series.

The Emmys are notorious for rewarding the same people over and over again (hence Katherine Heigl's pre-emptive withdrawal from the nominations), it seemed that a non-HBO series would have a chance at winning any major awards.

But as fresh faces picked up an Emmy here and there (and, yes, I do count Don Rickles, who won his first Emmy even if he has been in show business as long as the Emmys longer than the Emmys have been awarded), things were looking up.

It was exciting to, for once, see the best drama award go to a series that hasn't won it multiple times before.

Bravo, Academy!

Mad Men is the best thing on television right now. But please -- don't nominate it again next year unless it deserves it.

Maybe start a trend.

A wacky idea

I was watching an interview with Michael Good, NASA mission specialist, who is a member of the final shuttle flight to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

And I got to thinking. Getting to be an astronaut is difficult -- the competition is fierce, and the number of candidates is much larger than the number of positions. The credentials for every one of them are long and impressive. Astronauts are expected to be intelligent, good at problem solving, adaptable and good in a crisis. They are expected to work cooperatively and get along with other astronauts and experts from other nations. They are given media training, and kept in top physical condition.

In other words, kind of the same things we look for in a president.

So here is my wacky idea: Maybe we should hand over the running of the executive branch for a while to the astronaut corps. (Not to NASA, of course -- Washington already has one beauracracy in the Congress.)

Maybe I'm still getting over my disappointment that John Glenn was never president (I wish he had run against Reagan or Bush Sr. instead of going up against Bill Clinton in the primary), but the astronaut corps, with few exceptions, consists of outstanding, dedicated, hard-working people.

Just the kind of people we want running our country.

Sarah Palin's Hannity interview

Really, the content isn't worth discussing, other than it was Colbert-like with Hannity expounding and pretending his statements were questions, soft-balling disguised as hardballing, and the usual pat Republican answers.

But am I the only one who noticed that Sarah Palin was using her broadcaster voice? You know, the low one with the neutral accent?

Quote of the Day

"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president, he'll take on the, quote, old boys' network in Washington. I am not making this up. This is someone who's been in Congress for 26 years - who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign - and now he's the one who will take on the old boy network? The old boy network? In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting."

Barack Obama
September 17, 2008

King or President?

When the dust of the Revolution had settled, and the attention of newly-minted Americans turned to hammering out a new form of government, there was much discussion about the power, role and even the title of the president.

Some felt he should be a king, equal in power and title to any ruler in the world. But others felt strongly that a government of the people should be led by one of them, not elevated above them. This seed of "anyone can be president" was sown.

When George Washington was unanimously elected president, he was urged to take on the title of "Your Excellency." (factoid: the governor of New York's official title of address is "Your Excellency.") But he understood the dangers of absolute power, and insisted on taking on no elite titles. He declined a third term because he understood that the office needed to be more important than the person in it.

All this came to my mind last week when I heard the McCain campaign chair say that Sarah Palin would not do interviews until the press treated her with more respect and deference.

I thought that was an odd term to use, so I looked for definitions of the word. Here are some that I found:

"Great respect; The willingness to carry out the wishes of
others"

"courteous regard for people's feelings; 'in deference to
your wishes';
'out of respect for his privacy'

"complaisance: a
disposition or tendency to yield to the will of
others"

So it seems that the McCain campaign feels that the press, which was established as free and independent from government, should forget all that constitution nonsense, and do what they are told.

Deference is paid to the queen, or to the big donor or to the guy who can get you fired. Presidential candidates, whether the pres or veep candidate, should expect and even welcome scrutiny. When we allow the press to defer to the wishes of the candidates, we lose a free press and take the first step to a totalitarian state.

And isn't that something the Republicans hate?

Sorting out the world, one person at a time

I am married to a man who has an outstanding talent for sorting people out, logically, methodically, and infuriatingly politely. (Please note: This does not work with me or our offspring.) Here's the latest example:

My year-old BMW stationwagon has been smelling musty. So yesterday my husband, The Sorter, called the service department at the dealer, and asked about when the air filter is typically changed. The initial answer was at the oil change. (New cars need less frequent oil changes; my wagon needs it once a year.)

So he calls back after talking to me, and asks if he can drop in yesterday to have it replaced. Well, he's told, the service manager says it's only supposed to be changed every third oil change, part of the warranty.

That didn't sound right -- change an air system filter every three years?

The Sorter called back, and, no, they were sure about that. But they would be glad to sell him a filter. This sounded suspiciously weasely to us, like they had forgotten to do it at the right time and wouldn't get paid so they wanted to avoid getting stuck with the cost of correcting their own mistake.

So The Sorter went to work researching. After about an hour on line, he found the answer on the BMW website, where they keep the service manuals up to date. Not surprisingly, the air filter is supposed to be changed every year with the oil.

This morning he took the car and dropped by on the way to work with a printed copy of the page from BMW. A little while later, he got a call -- yes, they will be happy to change the filter! There was apparently some confusion because they couldn't find the information (in spite of having a copy of the manual page right in front of them), but eventually they found it and corrected their information.

To think that we could have just accepted them at their word and paid for a new filter. (note: parts for overpriced cars are overpriced, too.)

So they replaced the air filter (the car now smells good! and there is better air flow!). And as The Sorter drove away, they called after him, "Thank you! Thank you for sorting out our mistake!"

Ill Child Angst

Why is it that having a sick child can turn even the most logical, together parent turn into a mess of anxiety?

My younger daughter today is dealing with a cold. Not the severe, bed-ridden variety, either; just the kind that makes them whiny and us debate whether or not to send them to school.

But I know already that I will be up all night, checking on her, anxiously checking for a fever, worrying how she'll be in the morning....you know, like we did when they were infants.

She is handling it much better than I am. She went to school today, and she will probably go tomorrow, too. While next week I will still be checking her for a fever and trying to feed her heavy doses of chicken soup.

Why We Need Affordable Health Care for Everyone

Affordable health care for all Americans is the cornerstone to making America great.

Affordable health care for pregnant women means they will get proper prenatal care, which leads to more healthy babies and less infant and mother mortality.

Health care for babies mean properly immunized children who remain healthier, keeping working parents on the job and more productive.

Wellness care means healthier workers who are on the job more and more productive.

Healthier children learn more, being present for more classes, and able to concentrate on their work to allow them to succeed in the classroom. Better students leads to a more educated, productive work force.

Healthier people means less health care costs, which in turns drives down the price of health care overall. Less health care cost makes care for those individuals who do need extra care more affordable. Less health care costs are good for companies who provide health care benefits by making them more affordable for the company, thereby strengthening the economy as companies more effectively use their income.

Besides all that, it is a moral issue: Doesn't every American deserve the right to be healthy?

Affordable health care should be the major domestic priority for the next president and Congress. We should demand that our representatives and senators create and pass legislation providing it, and that the next president should sign it. This should not be a political issue: It is a human rights issue.

"I can see Russia from my house!"

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin is so frighteningly accurate that SNL should immediately strike a deal with her to be available to appear as Palin for now and for as long as Sarah Palin is relevant.

It is not often that a political figure or celebrity comes along who looks so much like a comic actor that just a slight hairstyle change and the appropriate clothing make the actor a dead ringer, and SNL took full advantage of that.

The gifted Fey, effortlessly mimicking the Alaska governor's accent (which sounds like she's from the Iron Range of Minnesota -- good people on the Range), trumped Amy Poehler's adept portrayal of Hillary Clinton.

Palin is in a bid to take over for Dick Cheney. No matter how the election turns out, she wins.

If she succeeds, she could further follow in Cheney's subterfugeal footsteps by having Tina Fey appear as her decoy.

If she loses, she can always get a job as Tina Fey's stand-in.

It Takes Two, Baby...

The Alaska state Senate committee investigating abuse of power allegations against Sarah Palin has included her husband, Todd, in the subpoenas it issued Friday as it investigates the possibility of abuse of power by Governor Palin in the firing of a state official.

Todd Palin, while not officially on the state payroll, plays an influential role in her administration. This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, since he is far from the first spouse of a state or national leader to take an informal but active role in governance. The short-lived Geena Davis drama, "Commander In Chief," depicted a strikingly similar character in the president's husband, even having him function in an official capacity as a member of her staff.

So what I am waiting for is the Republicans to praise him for his work under Governor Palin. And I really want that praise to come from one of the vocal critics of Hillary Clinton's work as First Lady (remember Travelgate? The outrage!) during the Clinton Administration. Best of all, I would like it to come from someone who made statements about her on the floors of Congress.

And then, I want a news reporter to ask, "Why do you praise Todd Palin when you roundly criticized Hillary Clinton? Isn't it nothing more than the difference between our guy and theirs?"

The resulting tap dance should be worth selling tickets to see.

On Clinton and Palin

A couple of days ago, Ann O'Leary wrote this in the San Francisco Chronicle. I thought it was so right on the money, especially for progressive women like myself, that I am reprinting it in full. You can find the original online article here.

When John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, she immediately invoked Hillary Rodham Clinton's historic campaign for president and made clear she intends to draw Clinton's supporters to the Republican ticket. Will she succeed?

In answering this question, the media have focused nearly all attention on three themes: whether Clinton voters will vote for any woman on the ticket, no matter what her position on issues; whether pro-choice Clinton voters will cross over and vote for an anti-abortion ticket; and whether women will vote based on their approval or disapproval of Palin's decisions regarding motherhood and work.

While these themes may play into the media's conception of traditional "women's issues," the issue that is at the top of the agenda for female voters has been missing from the coverage: economic security. Poll after poll has found that women, to a much greater degree than men, are concerned about economic security, and about the closely linked issue of access to health care.

It's true that women supported Clinton because, to many of us, she is a heroine and a role model. To imagine Clinton as our commander in chief was both assuring and inspirational. In Clinton, we saw an intelligent, accomplished woman who could go toe-to-toe with any of the world's leaders, as well as a dedicated mother who has raised a successful daughter. But it was much more than that.

In Clinton, we had a candidate who has been fighting for women and families her whole career. Whether as first lady, when she successfully fought for a budget that doubled the number of families receiving child-care subsidies and reminded world leaders that "women's rights are human rights," or as a U.S. senator, when she pressured the Food and Drug Administration to make contraception more available, Clinton has been on our side.

Today, women are struggling more than ever to figure out how to pay for child care and deal with rising health-care premiums. Too many are working in jobs that offer no paid family leave or even paid sick days and provide no flexibility when caregiving arrangements break down. These problems are real: A study released last month by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the United States comes in dead last in its generosity of paid parental leave when compared to 21 other developed countries. Another poll, released by the Public Welfare Foundation, found that 1 in 6 workers or their family members had been fired, suspended or punished for taking time off due to personal illness or to care for a sick child or relative.

Women will look to Palin not just for her views on abortion or to see whether she is an individual success story as a working mother. They'll want to know whether she will be a voice for women who are economically struggling to provide for their families.

They will find that, like Clinton, Palin is a role model for working women. With a supportive husband and an extended family, Palin is raising five children while working in public office. But they'll also find that Gov. Palin has yet to show leadership or even take a position on key economic issues for women, including quality affordable child care, flexible workplaces, paid sick leave, extended family leave or equal pay. On health care, Palin has set up an Alaska Health Care Commission to study the issue of affordable health care in her state, but so far she hasn't offered any solutions on how families should deal with the immediate problems of increasing health care premiums, medical debt that leaves too many families in bankruptcy, or insurance that covers too little when it is most needed.

When Gov. Palin had her fifth child in March, the Anchorage Daily News interviewed women across the state. Sara Chapell, a stay-at-home mom from Haines who quit work because of difficulty finding and affording child care, wondered whether Palin would advocate for paid family leave or affordable child care to ease the burden for other women. So far she has not.

In joining Sen. John McCain on the GOP ticket, Gov. Palin is joining an opponent of paid sick leave - and of any expansions to unpaid family and medical leave - who has repeatedly voted against increased child care spending, and who recently voted against a bill to allow women to more easily fight pay discrimination. By contrast, presidential nominee Barack Obama promised in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention that he will lead the country to make work and family life more compatible and more economically feasible: "Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent. ... And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work."

Issues of women's economic security should not belong to either political party. If Palin hopes to attract Clinton supporters, she will need to demonstrate that she brings to the ticket real solutions for American working women and families, not just an individual success story as a working mother.

Ann O'Leary is the executive director of the Berkeley Center on Health, Economic & Family Security at UC Berkeley School of Law and a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund. She previously served as legislative director to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and senior policy adviser to her when she was the first lady. E-mail comments to insight@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

*sigh*

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

That one's so old that it was old when Barack Obama was born. And refers to trying to make a bad thing look good. You know, like when women are talking to each other and they are gossiping about someone's loser boyfriend. Or when a government project costs way over the projected cost. Or when product gets new packaging.

But from the flapping and complaining the McCain-Palin supporters are going, you'd think that it was an original, brilliant barb aimed directly at the Republican's vice presidential candidate. Who compared a hockey mom to a pit bull. (Although that's not really fair to the pit bull.)

Really? REALLY?

So, this is what I have figured out so far: It was okay for the Republicans to revile the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, in the halls of Congress. And it's perfectly all right for Sarah Palin to mock and ridicule Barack Obama. But it is NOT okay for anyone to say anything negative about someone running to be first in line to the presidency. And anything critical or challenging that is said, any information sharing about her political and professional life up to this point, is sexist.

In other words, the Republicans can say what they want, but the Democrats had better not criticize a lady.

Geez, how sexist.

Grow a tougher hide, Republicans! (Oh, wait, no, they can't...that's evolution.)

Grow up! This is politics. Anyone who expects to be preside-- er, vice president, needs to be able to take commentary, criticism, and scrutiny from all comers. You can't put a candidate up for election and expect the people, and the other candidates, to tiptoe around your candidate.

It's like divine right or something -- McCain and Palin have been annointed by the "right" party and any criticism of the party is wrong. So other than that sounding like communisim, the United States is not a monarchy, nor a parliamentarian government. The new leader of the country is not selected by birth, or the party in power, or the current leader. The people, however indirectly, select the pressident and vice president by voting. It is just not fair to ask the American people to not hear the good, the bad, and the ugly about the candidates.

Even if one of them is a woman.

Media inequity

Gee, it seems these days that you can't even mention Sarah Palin in a discussion without Republicans getting touchy. Defensive, much?

So since I can't get any politically diverse group of people to discuss this anywhere else, I leave it here for anyone who happens past my blog to ponder:

Sarah Palin, 44, has been referred to as beautiful, pretty, a hottie and other, cruder, compliments referring to her sexual attractiveness. Yet if she were an actress in Hollywood, she would be considered old and past her usefulness. Or she would have a plastic surgeon on her payroll.

Why is it that a woman can be considered attractive at 44 in one setting, but not in another? Why must every actress on television and in film, and every clothing model, be forever held to a standard of beauty that glorifies youth, impossible perfection, and extreme thinness?

For that matter, why is such a big deal made over what the candidates' wives look like?

Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Laura Bush, all intelligent, accomplished women, were criticized for how they looked, and were forced to retain stylists. Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are both beautiful women, but that doesn't affect their husbands' effectiveness as politicians.

Beauty does not make an actress good; in fact, in Hollywood, the assumption is that beautiful women are not good actors. (ie: "She doesn't have to act, looking like that!")

Most critically, what kind of message do we give our daughters?

Torn Between Two Lovers...

So the nomination of a working mother with young children and a pregnant teenage daughter has shaken up the Republican Party, especially the supporting pundits.

"The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart recently had a piece that poked fun at the backpedaling that has been taking place in FOX News since the selection was made; see it here.

Plenty of Republican women are relieved that their party seems to have been yanked into the 21st century, at last. But, having not so long ago talked with women who support the conservative stance on social issues, and feel that women are (as one woman told me) "too emotional" to be able to effectively make a decision in a time of crisis. (No flames, please -- I am just quoting, and, yes, she is under 50.)

The danger with making pronouncements, regardless of what the issue, or what the stance, is that we have to be careful not to be so rigid that we eliminate room for change.

Given that both the Democrats and Republicans are talking "change," perhaps it is a good time to rethink just whom we listen to, and how seriously.

I am a big fan of "The Daily Show," and value its role as the national court jester. But I don't take it too seriously; Jon Stewart certainly doesn't.

But the Republicans have to be careful; if Sarah Palin's nomination is nothing more than a gimmick to elect John McCain, and there is a post-election revertion to the GOP of the past 30 years, they are in great danger of not being taken seriously, either.

Now That The Lights Are Darkened...

Now that the lights are dark in Denver and St. Paul, and the rented set pieces have been returned (in spite of Sarah Palin's snide remark about the DNC, the RNC rented just as much), now that the delegates have gone home, and the party elected officials, bigwigs and celebrities (I'm looking at you, Guiliani) have dispersed, after the press and the professional protest groups are gone, the real campaign begins.

So what did we learn from the rhetoric? We learned that both parties want to be seen as the party that will bring change to Washington. That's good news: most Americans think that the way the federal government works has to change.

But what did they tell us was going to change?

Barack Obama wants to provide health care for all Americans, a change he sees will have a positive ripple affect on all aspects of American life. He wants to focus on providing decent education for every American, which he sees having a positive ripple affect on the economy by training every American to be highly productive, and reducing unemployment and poverty. Of course, he was short on details.

John McCain wants us to keep in mind his reputation as a maverick, and someone who for years has been fighting against the way things are done in Washington. He sees this as having a positive ripple effect on how the Congress creates legislation, which will in turn have a positive ripple effect on many aspects of the nation. His focus seemed to be on getting government out of the way of people so they can succeed on their own. Not surprisingly, he, too, was short on details.

Now, obviously, during a speech designed to be reasonably short and to inspire, details take too long. But it is important to remember: For all the rhetoric both candidates provide, both candidates are tied to the platforms their respective parties crafted to reflect the goals and desires of the membership.

So it is important to read the DNC platform and the RNC platform to see what the candidates are pledged to do when they are elected. A candidate's rhetoric will not always reflect the platform. But since the candidate generally has quite a bit of influence on the platform, looking beyond the rhetoric to the "nuts and bolts" of the campaign is a good way to gauge which candidate reflects our idea of "change."

From my perspective, the Republicans has an uphill battle. Although they argue that the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the past couple of years, they seem to avoid mentioning that for the previous six years they controlled both the Congress and the presidency. The platform does not reflect much of a change from the Republican agenda from the past eight years.

The Democrats will have a little easier time of it -- Americans generally see change as a change in party control of the White House. But the Democrats need to convince Americans that they have specific, practical, workable ideas to support their rhetoric.

Rhetoric is easy; work is hard.

Who Does the Speech Writing?

I wonder if the Republicans have realized, yet, that Sarah Palin and John McCain contradicted each other in their speeches to the GOP Convention. Or, perhaps they don't see it that way. However, I do.

On Wednesday night, Palin scorned Barack Obama's community organizer work. Oh, and she called her work as mayor in a town of 7,000+ people "community organizing."

Now, community organizing is one of those jobs that helps people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, in that fine conservative tradition, and help themselves get off of welfare, better themselves, and make a better life for their families, with little or no government assistance.

Barack Obama earned $10,000 a year, in Chicago, at a time when I was barely making ends meet in Minneapolis at double that salary. I assume that the cost of living index in Wasilla is more favorable than in Chicago, and that the mayor's salary goes farther in Wasilla than $10,000 did in Chicago.

So to recap, Sarah Palin mocked community organizing.

Thursday night John McCain stated, "I will stand by you, not in your way." This is the Republican way of saying pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and the federal government will stay out of it. You know, kind of like the work done by a community organizer.

Is it just me, or did they contradict each other?

Someone really needs to coordinate the speeches.

Read This

Jim Wallis, of Sojurners, has a thoughtful commentary on the election. Read it here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/09/beyond-palins-personality-by-j.html

At Least the Choice Is Clear

Tonight Joe Lieberman, who still considers himself a Democrat (out of self-preservation; he could never win his Senate seat again in Connecticut if he truly left the party), is urging Democrats to cross over and vote for John McCain.

Huh?

With the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain signals a commitment to social conservativism, regardless of the independent maverick picture he wants to paint. And in spite of what he says, it it indicates he is more interested in catering to the religious right and trying to win an election than in committing to doing what is right for the country regardless of politics.

The reality is, picking Sarah Palin is like picking George Bush. W, not the more moderate H.W. Listen to her stand on the issues, what she believes in, and she sounds at times like she is plagarizing the current president.

The choice is clear. If John McCain wins the White House, the war in Iraq will continue indefinately, and the Supreme Court will be loaded with activist judges who will pursue a personal agenda over an objective interpretation of the Constitution. We are guaranteed that rights will continue to be diminished, including that of a woman to choose what to do with her body.

And, meanwhile, little real action will be taken to help solve the most immediate problems our country faces. Yes, abortion is an issue, but Barack Obama is more interested in finding common ground. We can all agree that the best scenario would be a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies, no unwanted children, and abortions are rare.

In fact, what Barack Obama wants to do is to extend that to a culture that values and cares for every life, regardless of age or circumstance. Why encourage the birth of an unborn child if the support stops at birth? How much better to help parents of all babies learn to be nurturing parents, provide the opportunity for them to give the child a safe environment with the guarantee of a decent education that can help him become a productive member of society as an adult. Republicans used to be all about helping people become independent and off government welfare.

We must become better stewards of our earth. Part of that is being cautious with the existing ecosystems, and sensitive to the way we deplete resources, as well as what we put back into the earth and atmosphere. Finding alternative energy and fuel sources that don't damage our earth can help reverse the effects of global warming, all too real a threat to our planet. (see Al Gore and his Nobel Prize.)

John McCain picked a running mate who not only believes in drilling for oil, but aggressively in the most protected areas of her own state of Alaska, where even most pro-drilling fans think should be left alone. Republicans used to be about conservation. (see Teddy Roosevelt)

John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin signals a commitment to further blur the lines between church and state, regardless of the constitution, or even the rights of the individual states. The Republicans used to be against federal interference in state activity. (see Ronald Reagan)

John McCain wants to extend the war in Iraq indefinately, and fund it indefinately, regardless of the impact on the domestic economy. He is also in favor of a tax cut to the wealthy and corporations. Republicans used to be for fiscal responsibility, and for keeping big business out of the business of the country. (see Teddy Roosevelt again and Barry Goldwater)

How a Democrat can stand and say that voting for a candidate whose administration is indebted to a small, powerful corner of the Republican party, and declare him a man for the people, is puzzling, at best, to me. Especially when it is someone as intelligent and caring as Joe Liebermann.

If John McCain had selected someone else such as Olympia Snowe, Mitt Romney, or another experienced, less conservative running mate, that would be a clear signal that he wants to aggressively change the culture of Washington.

It looks to me like John McCain has given up, given in, and resigned himself to playing the Karl Rove game.

Sorry, Joe. You might attract a few pro-life Democrats, but this time around it's going to be a tough sell to moderates and liberals.

Who's In Charge?

A lot of rumors have been swirling around John McCain's presumptive veep nominee as the press, and the blogosphere, try to figure out just who is Sarah Palin.

What surprises me, though, is that the GOP and McCain's campaign, and this comes from Republicans, were unprepared for all the chatter, and have been in chaos figuring out how to deal with it. Word is that the scuttlebutt says that the scaling back of the convention has more to do with it than with the hurricane. (Although scaling back the convention in light of a hurricane is a sensible, applaudable thing to do.)

Given that the Democrats thoroughly prepare for any kind of attack from the Republicans, and the Republicans are masters at it, I am surprised.

There is even talk, although I assume it's mostly speculation, that a change in VP candidate will take place before the nomination.

What it makes me wonder is this: If McCain and his campaign couldn't properly vet their own candidate, and the GOP is unprepared for reaction, do we really want this party in power?