Sorry, Honey, You're Not Running for Queen!

Sarah Palin today said something so unbelievably naive that I am wondering how she got a degree in news reading in the first place.

ABC reported today that Sarah Palin stated during an interview on a conservative radio program that her First Amendment rights may be violated because of the "attacks" on her from the "mainstream media."

Really, it's a jaw dropper. Here is an excerpt from the above referenced piece on it from the Huffington Report:

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Unbelievable. Fill in your own response here. I have too many of them to even start.

The Elephant (Still) In The Room

No, not the red, white & blue GOP one.

The one no one wants to acknowledge in this election: the black one.

Little has been said about Barack Obama being African-American. John McCain continually insists that race is not an issue in this election. And, from his perspective, he is probably right. I'll bet that the last thing John McCain thinks about is race.

But it is real, nonetheless. And it goes beyond the private racism exhibited only in the privacy of the voting booth, whether or not acknowledged by the voter.

Like it or not, this is a safety issue. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, his likelihood of being assassinated will be greater than any other president in recent history. And simply because he is African-American.

I am not basing this on facts, or hysteria, but a certain pragmatic realism. I have lived forty miles from the national headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan. I have heard the irrational fear of the takeover of the black man who will wreak revenge on the white man, and heard it not that long ago.

So Barack Obama is making a bold, brave step, running for president of this country. And they had better select his secret service detail very carefully. Because not only will President Obama be the target of the usual wack jobs and terrorists, but of people who truly believe that a black man should not be president. And he knows it.

McCain and Palin scorn William Ayers as a domestic terrorist. But they conveniently ignore that there are among their supporters people who would consider assasinating a black president as the will of the Maker. And not only himself, but his family, too.

Racism dies hard and is still alive and well in America. But it is unfashionable to speak about it, because we are supposed to assume that since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and years of affirmative action, it all died away.

Dream on, dreamers. But as for me, I will pray every night for the safety of the next president and his family, and keep praying for the next eight years.

And Just Like That, I Am Rejuvinated

I have been hearing a lot of talk about FDR today, and it has kicked me in the metaphorical pants.

I am reminded that Franklin Roosevelt was a transformational president. Barack Obama understands that, and with that understanding, has the potential to be another transformational president.

FDR also was able to "call a spade a spade" to use an old chestnut. He spoke about the politics of division, and how when they are successful, a nation is broken. The type of divide and frighten politics coming out of the McCain campaign and its supporters sounds like the divisive politics of the 1930s. Sarah Palin thinks that looking backwards is looking at the current administration, much less anything that has happened in the lifetimes of the voters.

We are at a point where we need to unite as Americans. The McCain campaign is focusing on instilling fear and suspicion in people, insisting that it is essential to maintain the status quo.

But is the status quo the right thing for the country?

FDR faced remarkably similar circumstances to today when he took office. Even if it is not apparent to the Republicans, the American people see that something has to change. Continuing a policy that protects the wealth of the rich at the expense of everyone else is not good for the country.

Prosperity of the middle class is what is good for the country, and that happens when the system is fixed from the bottom up, not the top down. Barack Obama gets that.

Has Lethargy Set In?

Or is it battle fatigue?

After what seems like years instead of months, the election is finally a week away. Instead of being excited, I am thinking, "Oh, just let it be over already."

Perhaps there are too many ghosts of the 2000 and 2004 elections, but in a time when I should be excited, I am feeling lethargic, as if it is too much to muster my wits to see the race to the end.

I must confess that I have been slow to gain much enthusiasm for Barack Obama. While I have no doubt that he will make an excellent president, my heart was in Hillary Clinton's campaign. And we are not always ready to jump in again when our heart has been bruised. Perhaps that is contributing to my ennui.

It was easier in 2004 -- although I was a supporter of both Howard Dean and John Edwards, John Kerry was the clear favorite early enough that I was able to regroup, especially when he picked John Edwards as his running mate. And 2000 was even easier, since the vice president had no effective opposition.

So after watching Barack Obama thoroughly vetted by the primary process, I am more irked than anything by the insistence on the part of the Republicans and their shadow supporters to re-vet him. Redundancy annoys me -- perhaps that is also making me lethargic.

Still, I do (finally) have my Obama-Biden bumper sticker on my car, along with my Darcy Burner for Congress sticker and my Momsrising.org cling that proclaims, "Kids don't vote, but Moms do!" And I even managed to post a stinging reply to a stupid commentary about why both Sarah Palin and Al Franken are unprepared for office. (Don't get me started -- the oxymoron in that sentence should be obvious.) And I even wrote a letter to the editor, although it is not being published since other people wrote what I did.

But I have given up on trying to point out the obvious glaring errors in people's statements. And I even no longer let myself get angry that people are stupid enough to think that Obama is a terrorist and a Muslim. I've come to the conclusion that most of those people were already intending on voting for McCain.

And I have decided that if people are naive enough to base their choices on ads instead of the debates, they probably won't listen to the most eloquent, practical explanation known to man.

And all that thinking makes me lethargic.

Anyone Can Look as Good as Sarah Palin!

When I was single, slim, and had some discretionary income to buy some new wardrobe pieces, I went shopping in downtown Minneapolis, where I worked. After shopping at Dayton's, Donaldson's, and a string of chain specialty stores, I went on a whim to Nieman Marcus.

I found three suits to try on, two of them in pink. None of which I bought, because my Midwestern frugalness prevented me from justifying paying more for one suit than I spent in a whole year on clothing...

I remember that all three suits fit well, felt great, and screamed quality. The one that really stands out in my memory was a $2,500 suit I thought was ugly on the hangar, but was recommended by the sales person. When I put that suit on me, I looked spectacular, even though I hadn't liked it on the hangar. The sales person told me that the particular designer was known for knowing how to make a woman look good.

It was a lesson to me -- the cut of a garment makes all the difference. But the bigger lesson: Expensive clothing looks better.

It is no wonder that Sarah Palin is looking good these days. Expensive clothing makes all the difference, and can be addictive. I don't blame her a bit for wanting to wear them once she tries them on.

However, I do wag my finger at the RNC. They could have easily done their shopping at Macys' and saved a lot of money. And, perhaps then, when the election is over, Sarah Palin would have clothing she could purchase for her own wardrobe as she continues as governor. I doubt her clothing allowance, or salary, will allow her to purchase the expensive clothing and accessories she is costumed in right now.

Because, let's face it -- they aren't really going to give those clothes to charity. One does not give $2,500 designer suits to charity.

They are much better off selling them on eBay. Well, maybe there's a consignment store in Dallas willing to take them off their hands.

Election Season Negativity

Enough already.

Whether criticism is launched by the two major party campaigns, by both conservative and liberal talking heads, or in vaguely sinister rotocalls, or the endless ads run by the parties, the campaigns, and (especially) special interest groups, or by the candidates themselves, the result is the same: negativity.

And we're sick of it.

I do not care if it works, it's not right.

So let's start from a new place, one where we assume that everyone is a decent human being.

Let's admire John McCain for not only his military service, but his distinguished career as a senator. Let's appreciate Barack Obama's unique understanding of the poor, and admire the choice of community activism that gave him that understanding. Let's be pleased that Sarah Palin has a close, collaborative marriage with her husband and applaud her drive and passion. Let's be grateful for Joe Biden's consistent devotion to his family and his dignity.

And, for goodness sake, stop wasting time talking about tenuous connections and human mistakes as if politicians can't be as flawed as the rest of us.

Instead, let's have a campaign where the philosophies and plans of the candidates are made clearer each day, so voters go to the polls with a clear understanding of their choice.

Pipe dream? Probably. Doable? Absolutely.

Will it happen?

The Palin Dilemma

The investigation into Alaska governor Sarah Palin's firing of Alaska's public safety commissioner ended with a report released on Friday. (Read complete public report here)

While the news media will summarize, criticize, defend and interpret to its heart's content, it is most revealing to read the report.

First, after all the investigation, regardless of motive, Governor Palin did not break the law by firing the commissioner, since the Alaska governor can fire without cause. Any criminal charges that are brought, or attempted to be brought, would most likely be politically motivated, and really should be ignored.

However, the ethical behavior is a different story.

While I would be willing to accept the governor asking that the handling of her ex-brother-in-law's misconduct be reviewed, it is obvious that the matter would not rest until the outcome changed to her satisfaction.

Todd Palin seems to play a large, influential role in the governor's administration, in spite of not being a state employee. At the very least, the governor's spouse working directly out of the governor's office is highly irregular. Add to that his access to state documents and employees, it all seems to be a little shady, as my grandfather used to say.

So here are the dilemmas I see:

For the Alaska state legislature, if and when to pursue ethics charges. If they pursue it before the election, the hue and cry of partisanship will continue. If they wait until after the election, there is the possibility that she will leave office before they have a chance to bring charges, if she is elected with John McCain. If they take no action, they give the signal that the specific law overseeing the governor's ethical choices has no teeth.

For the McCain campaign, how do they continue to spin this, other than the rather weak charge that it is a partisan effort to discredit her? Do they allow her to continue as John McCain's running mate? If they don't, do they run the risk of angering the social conservatives? Can they really continue to tout her as a maverick and a reformer, when one of her first acts in office was to use her authority to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job?

For Sarah Palin, how does a woman who is a social conservative, and a Christian, who brags about her reforming maverick approach to politics, explain why she violated the state law in pursuit of a personal vendetta? This is, what we used to talk about in Bible College, situational ethics, which are at odds with her fundamentalism.

And, last, the dilemma for voters: Can we really trust her to be ethical in the office of vice president if she was unethical as governor and refuses to accept responsibility for what it is?

Sarah Palin does, I think, represent middle America to an extent. But the middle class, no matter what country, what culture, has historically held onto a high moral code more than the lower and upper classes. Abiding by the spirit of the law, not just the word of the law, is important to them. She had better hope that they don't notice that she broke her own state law about the governor's conduct.

Her brother-in-law probably is a jerk and deserves to be rotting in a hole somewhere after the way he treated her sister. But two wrongs don't make a right, missy, especially when you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing something wrong to right the other wrong.

Are Americans Really That Stupid?

Sarah Palin and John McCain have been busy trying to convince the world that Barack Obama consorts with terrorists because his name can be titularly linked to that of William Ayers, a man who in his youth, 40 years ago, regrettable committed acts of what we now call "domestic terrorism." Mr. Ayers has gone on, in the past 40 years, to become an award winning professor of education at the University of Chicago, and serve on several boards. On one of them, Barack also served.

So it's guilt by association, for something someone did years and years before the two met. And now it turns out that the very board on which they served together has endorsed John McCain.

Do the Republicans think that the American people are really so stupid that we will just take their word for how things are, instead of doing our own research?

Awww, come on.....

The 2nd Debate

I don't think there's much I can say about Tuesday night's debate that hasn't already been said.

However, I am deeply saddened by the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama in their on-stage demeanor.

Barack Obama was listening to John McCain. All the time. He listened, responded, and listened to the questions. He responded when it was appropriate of course, but throughout he looked like someone who was sharing the stage on which the most important thing was the issues.

John McCain clearly does not like Barack Obama, as evidenced by the body language and condescending tone. This is not the John McCain that so many Democrats have respected over the years. This is not the man whose name was seriously mentioned by intelligent voters as running mate for John Kerry. And this is not the congenial guest from "The Daily Show."

John McCain's downfall started with his endorsement of George W. Bush in the 2000 election. But it didn't really reach the steep slope until his seleection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was a signal to all of us who thought he might, just might, stay true to his genuine conservative roots, so while we might not agree with him, we knew we could trust him.

Lately John McCain has been looking defeated, as if politics isn't satisfying for him any more. Yet he has wanted the presidency for so long that now, in spite of what is needed, he is willing to compromise so often that he no longer is the maverick he claims to be.

Is Tina Fey the most powerful woman in American politics?

Tina Fey may single-handedly lose the election for John McCain.

If you wonder why I say that, watch tonight's latest prelude skit on "Saturday Night Live" satirizing the vice presidential debate, which pokes fun at Palin, Joe Biden, and the debate's moderator, Gwen Ifill.

Each week, the talented Fey's Palin impression, and makeup, gets sharper and sharper. And it gets harder and harder to remember, when watching her, that I one is not watching Sarah Palin, but an impersonation. Of course, it doesn't help matters that often she can just directly quote Gov. Palin, making it that much easier to write the script.

Tonight's debate lampoon also shows that SNL remains as relevant and influential as it was when it started. Kudos to them for convincing Fey to not only appear, but make repeated appearances.

Tina Fey may be, right now, the most powerful woman in American politics. If the Republicans aren't careful, clips of the SNL skit will start to be seen as authentic Sarah Palin. And they should know, better than anyone, how easy it is to make anything seem like the truth when repeated enough times.

If Bill Kristol and I Can Agree...

Tonight, a busy night, I caught the first half hour of the veep debate while stuck in traffic (how many of those people who were planning on watching the debate thought to turn on the radio?), then finished watching on C-SPAN when I got home. My husband was watching on FOX (the first channel he found the debate) upstairs, I watched downstairs while preparing dinner.

So, naturally, we were busy using IM to make comments while we watched. At the end of the debate, I commented, "I think the conservatives are going to be pleased and say she's ready to be president, and will probably ignore her panic."

My husband replied,"That's just what Bill Kristol said."

Aaugh! I agreed with Bill Kristol! And not only did we agree, we said it exactly the same way!

Maybe Barack Obama is right...maybe we can find common ground....