Freedom Restored

Earlier tonight, I accepted an offer to sign a congratulatory message to President-elect Obama from Washington State Democrats, and to contribute election day experiences.

As I recounted the excitement and energy in the air at both the primary caucus and on Tuesday at my polling place, I found myself looking at a photo on my desk. It is a picture of my daughters on a bench near the White House, taken on our Spring Break trip in 2007.

It reminded me of the video I have seen of the celebrations amid the fortress surrounding the White House, and I flashed a vision:

I saw the barriers and chain link and forbidding signs gone, and a long line of people waiting to enter the people's house. The White House is gleaming in the sunlight. The Obamas stand straight, tall, proud and welcoming as they greet people on Christmas Day.

Because even though the White House as the symbol of freedom and democracy is still a target, it belongs to us. We have elected a president who understands the freedoms we have lost, and that they need to be restored. He understands that this nation does not need a paranoid presidency, but a brave leader who by refusing to hide, faces down the enemy and inspires courage in the nation.

Who Are The Undecided Voters, and Should We Care?

According to polls (which, after 2004, I am inclined to view with skepticism), the number of undecided voters is dwindling. But there still are some.

The question is: should we really care who they are?

We can speculate of course, and we all have our own theories. Mine, much less informed than the people paid to write these types of commentaries, is this:

Undecided voters are people who don't think that there is any point to voting. They are also people who are cynical enough that they think there really isn't a demonstrable difference between the candidates. Stuffed in that small percentage are also the people who are still waiting to hear how the candidates will deal with a very real problem they are having. I expect there are a few who are conflicted because they feel a strong compulsion to vote for a woman (Sarah Palin), but like Obama's message better than McCain's. I expect there are a slim number of Republicans who are unhappy with the McCain-Palin ticket but don't want to vote for a Democrat. And there are likely a few people who want to vote Democrat but have a difficult time voting for a black man.

We can ask: how big an impact will that have on this election? It is reasonable to expect that a percentage of undecided voters will end up just not going to the polls. And there is really no way to figure out which candidate those undecided voters will select when faced with the choice in the privacy of the voting booth.

But the real question is -- is it worth it for the candidates to try figure out what those people are waiting for? Or will voter turnout be so large that a small percentage of undecides this year will not decide the election?

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.

*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.

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.