You're lucky this isn't in iambic pentameter

I've gotten quite busy with what I should have been doing all along-- working with the Austin Shakespeare Festival. For more on what happened to ASF in the past few years, read Richard III, it's the same story. But now I'm back with ASF, teaching and learning, and consequently I've been too busy to write.

And it would seem that despite the endless string of scandal and horrifying acts on the part of this Administration (The Current Occupant, as Garrison Keillor calls Bush), most news cycles have coalesced to two stories: the Next Occupant, and the economy. We don't hardly even talk about the wars anymore, except to repeat mindlessly that "the surge is working"-- even though no one can agree what that means and how it's even true.

I confess I don't know anything about the economy. I will say that we bought a lovely house in a new subdivision in the bedroom county just south of Austin-- and the extra 7 minutes down the highway seemed like nothing-- until gas went up. I paid $3.06 a gallon yesterday, and I got lucky. Suddenly all this driving "up to town" and back (a tank a week for the full-time employee in our family) is eating all our money. We thank the good lord every day that we got a regular fixed mortgage we could afford and that none of that mess involves us directly. I know my story isn't unique, and harder times have hit others, but my story is all I have, not being an economist.

And I've avoided talking too much about the election because I wholeheartedly and with great joy chosen a candidate-- and while I wasn't sure it was appropriate to say so here, I also knew I couldn't write about this topic at all without revealing it. So, here goes: I have a crush on Obama, too. We've just voted here in Texas, and don't let anybody spin you-- Obama GOT MORE DELEGATES in the primary and will get more in the caucuses when they're finished being counted. We love him here.

But you know what my main concern has always been, and remains to this day: the Unitary Executive, the power grab of the presidency, and how this idea that "if the President does it, it's not illegal" leads inevitably to other shocking behavior, including tampering with the vote, so that we can't even "throw the bums out" because they've gerrymandered and lied and cheated and stolen votes so that they will retain power forever.

We all rest easy knowing that there are checks and balances and in the end, if it's really that bad, we can impeach and remove. Only if they have succeeded in tipping the balance and removing the checks, and have tampered with the vote, then none of us can rest easy.

And it's not enough to get rid of this bunch of crooks, because crookery knows no philosophy other than the search for power. It's not "just Republicans"-- it's Republicans today. Tomorrow, it could be anyone.

Perhaps I misspoke-- it's not that crookery has no philosophy, it's that it can co-exist with any other philosophy. Why, take a look at the latest crooked televangelist or high-powered Christian leader embroiled in scandal (there's always a new one)-- his crookery* is hiding behind the Christian philosophy of "love your neighbor". So yes, a Democrat may be running on Democratic values (and may intend to enact those values), and a Republican on a different platform-- but they could both be actually seeking a Unitary Executive, power-grabbing, undemocratic (even unrepublican, since in small "r" republics we're supposed to be able to legitimately elect our representatives in government), unchecked office. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I don't care if you're for universal health care or trickle-down economics, if you're wiretapping your opponents and keeping me from electing someone else next time.

*yes, I KNOW that's not a word, but I like it and I can't find the right word so deal with it!

So while the News these days is the election ("Obama vs. Clinton in the Thrilla in Manilla!") and the economy ("Giving Up Starbucks for Gas Money!") or even that Governor Spitzer likes to pay for it (unless that headline means he's a pimp)-- news for me comes down to two things:

1. What are the candidates views and what are their telling actions regarding the Unitary Executive? Will you be another Bush, pushing out of your branch and controlling rather than being checked by other voices? Will you tamper with elections? Will you restore the Justice Department or continue to pimp it out for your own gains? Will you allow scientists at the NIH, CDC, and EPA to give their honest opinion, or distort their findings with your own spin? Will you wiretap me and then forgive those who conspire to transgress with you? Who are you, really?
2. What are we doing right now to check and punish those who have colored far outside the lines in the current administration? Where are the hearings?

Since I led into point #1 with detail, allow me to close with an overview of point #2.

I believe that it is critical to punish those who have acted inappropriately in the past (or what will soon be the past once the elections are over) because it is far too easy for future generations (or even the next President) to build upon what has happened to justify his or her own corrupt behavior.

Incredible as it may seem, it doesn't take many years for crimes to be softened in memory into precedent-- precedent like we use in court cases, to build upon for future use, "In Blah v. Blah, the courts upheld that..." The difference is, those precedents are decided on by a judge and are subject to appeal. In this case, what is "upheld" or "allowed" is whatever was not prosecuted and died out in the minds of the public. If the public ignores it, or "moves on", then it is considered precedent, even though we never actually decided it was OK to do such-and-such, we just got distracted by something shiny and never got back to it. And yet, just as Bush uses what Nixon did to justify his own actions, someone else will inevitably say, "Just as Bush did the right thing by [fill in crime here], and history has accepted that, so must I do [fill in futuristic crime here]."

Silence = acquiescence. Only investigations, hearings, and ultimately punishment will keep this from happening again.

And yes, we might only get the lower-down lackeys and not Cheney and his man-sized safe. But as long as we prosecute the crime, for history's sake I don't know that it's as critical we get the right person for it. I could be wrong, and tell me if you think I am, but as long as we've clearly stated, "It is NOT OK to ignore FISA and wiretap Americans," I don't think it matters as much if some poor middle-management type is the one who goes down for coming up with the end-run around FISA in the first place. Sucks for him, but for history, I think what's most important is that it gets said.

So... what to do? Well, first, I have to give it up for Congressman Henry Waxman, who has something like 20 open investigations. Go, Henry, Go! If you'd like to follow the check and balance part of the show, follow the Wax Man. I hope to do the same thing here at LMP, give you updates on how it's going. Today's headline, for example, was "Democrat requests Blackwater inquiry" and it didn't surprise me at all that it was Waxman. Maybe if time is on my side, I'll work up some kind of chart or list of all the things he's working on. Also, Congressman John Conyers is another important player in this fight.

Second, start taking a look at our slate of candidates with a careful eye to their views on the Unitary Executive and their overall temperament. I hope to walk you through what I've learned so far in the near future, but in the meantime take a look at an older but still relevant Boston Globe article from 2007. I've referenced this article before but it's even easier to read now that there's only three candidates left. (You could look at the questions and how everyone answered them, or look by candidate at how they answered all the questions.)
Hillary Clinton Q & A
Barack Obama Q & A
John McCain Q & A
What I remember from reading it before is that only Romney was crazy enough to admit he was crazy in the survey. You will no doubt find carefully parsed language here, but I encourage you to take a critical look at their opinions.

I often run across little news tidbits that are generally overlooked that pertain to this issue-- now that I've caught you up on what my focus is going to be, for the most part, I hope to drop you those links and show you the picture I'm getting.

Punish the past and hold the future to a higher standard, that's all I ask. Oh, and civility, and kudos to Obama and McCain for their efforts remain dignified. (Ahem, Mrs. Clinton.) Then we can all get back to a nice rousing discussion of mundane things like how the government can address the problems of our citizens without fearing for the life of our nation.

Watch the skies...

Unitary Executive links:
SourceWatch, Wikipedia, UE & the FY2009 Budget, TomPaine.com, DailyKos

Nice Guys Finish First

Hooray for the Nice Guys! Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee both won their perspective caucuses last night in Iowa. (I was going to make that a link, but really, if you found me you're capable of looking up cnn.com or Googling "wins Iowa".)

The two men who faced negative attacks and refused to sling mud in return wiped the floor with their supposedly inevitable opponents.

The two candidates who were told they'd never make it, because they didn't have the money or the right color skin, because they openly embraced their faith and/or dared to organize their communities for a better tomorrow, because conventional wisdom said the other candidates had "inevitability"-- those candidates soared ahead on the one thing greater: the belief of voters too smart for all of that.

One woman asked Mitt Romney in the hours before the caucus, will you keep running negative ads in the general election? Without hesitation, the candidate replied with a hearty "yes". That's because he believes in these "contrast ads" as being important parts of a campaign-- but the spirit in the room sagged like a poor soufflé when he said it. Because we're tired of evil. We want someone who for heaven's sake is at least NICE, and trustworthy. Last night, we got two, one for each side. Thank you, Iowa!

I am a registered Democrat, and while I hope that I am centered, balanced, fair, moderate, and willing to see the other side of a debate, it does mean I'm following the Dem side more closely. The GOP can pick whoever it wants and it's not really any of my business. I guess I feel the need to point this out because I will sometimes sound like I support Huckabee (cuz, shuckabee, he's keen) while at other times I might criticize him or his policy ideas. The thing is, he's a Republican I like while still disagree with on many issues. But as I've said before, at least I can trust that a debate with Huck would end in a prayer and a salad, not a wiretap and rendition.

And as you'll hear me say time and again, those of us who love our country and are interested in policy and governance have more in common with each other, even on different sides, than we do with our fellow citizens who don't care. So yeah, I like Mike. I'm not going to vote for him, and I'll tell you why as the election draws near, but today, I'm nothing but happy.

Two fine people showed that money and mudslinging don't win elections. And we couldn't have gotten a better gift from Iowa or a better message to start off the primary season of 2008.

Today, be happy. There is hope.

Oh, hey, I didn't even talk about the main attraction last night, but Mr. Obama not only walked away with Iowa at 38%, but gave a speech that reminded us of why we all fell in love with him back in 2004. If you've been wondering where that Obama went, he's back.

A Message from My Roommate

[Update below]

My roommate used to work for the IRS managing databases. Perhaps this gives him a unique perspective, because recently he said this to me:

"When I hear a candidate say that their tax system idea will 'shut down the IRS', I stop listening. They don't know what they're talking about."

Why is that? Because someone is still going to have to process the forms. Let's say we have a flat tax. Great, if you're single and have one employer. What if you're self-employed? You'll have to report your income to someone, and that would be the IRS.

Let's say it's a national sales tax. It's agreed that's overly punitive for the lower income folks, because they spend their whole paycheck and therefore pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. So national sales tax plans usually involve a break for the poor-- if you make less than x, you're exempt. OK, so who do I tell that I'm exempt? I'll have to fill out a form and someone will have to process it. That would be the IRS.

You could dismantle the IRS, get rid of its assets like facilities and computers, fire its staff, and create something else, buy all new stuff, get new buildings, and hire ex-IRS employees, but I dare you to name it something more vague than "the Internal Revenue Service". So long as revenue is generated internally in this country, someone's going to have to service it.

As if to prove my friend's point, Mike Huckabee spoke on New Year's Day and said that his Fair Tax plan would do away with the IRS. "Citing a poll conducted by FOX News, Huckabee said, 'The average American is more afraid of being audited than being mugged. This didn't make sense at first, but when you think about it, it does make sense. When you get mugged it only lasts a few seconds. When the IRS comes after you, they don't quit until they have every last dime and it could take years,' Huckabee quipped." (Iowa Independent)

Or, as my roommate put it, "every last dime you owe the government". Well, when you put it that way...

But even so, all I could think of when I heard that Huckabee quote was, the federal government is US. If we're so afraid of ourselves, maybe we should change the rules, yes? Or are those rules important to keep people from cheating, as the lawmakers clearly believe? Either way, quit telling me about how a government agency is so "bad" that we would kill it. Fix it! (Except those created in knee-jerk reactions like the Dept. of Homeland Security, of course.)

And back to my friend's point: Huck's Fair Tax plan involves a national consumption (sales) tax. And he says he'll kill the IRS. Well, who will collect the tax? And his plan involves cutting a check to every American to cover x amount of the consumption tax. (This makes it so the poor aren't paying that disproportionate amount.) Who does he think will write these checks and distribute them? And how will we know who every American is unless they fill out a form and send it to... someone? That's even assuming that the poor can get these checks-- we're talking about the homeless, the poor who rent and move a lot, students, etc. There are many problems with this plan, but not the least of the problems is how we will implement this system without an Internal Revenue Service to, hello, service the revenue generated internally.

So I have come around to my friend's opinion: if you say your tax plan will do away with the IRS, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

UPDATE: There's a great article on this on Salon.com (you'll have to watch a short ad before accessing their site). Listen to this:

The FairTax doesn't eliminate the IRS. It replaces the IRS with another agency -- the United States Fair Tax Federal Revenue Administration and State Tax Authority Reconciliation Service, or the USFTFRASTARS.

Hah! So, there you go. Just in acronyms alone this system makes things more confusing!

Stop creeping me out, Hillary!

Hillary Clinton: My other hot button on this day of thanks is the strangely Bush-esque qualities of the woman who's currently leading primary polls. I wrote about this months ago, and while at the time I tried not to be too harsh about it, I'm flat-out starting to worry. Since I heard Medea Benjamin from Code Pink talk about the "Clinton thugs" last year, I haven't heard any good news coming out of that camp.

Here's my problem: I smelled a rat with the Bush Administration when Cheney refused to release the information about his energy task force. (The rat was apparently named "we'll save the oil companies by bombing a country in the middle east and take their oil, and give it to the oil companies".) Free speech zones weren't far behind, and if you're not familiar, if you wanted to protest the government, you had to walk yourself into a little cage with other protesters where no one could see or hear what you had to say. We let a lot of really anti-American activities such as these occur on our watch, and I see the same kind of thuggery in Hillary. Now there's planted questions (as if she couldn't handle the crap questions that are asked in these debates anyway) and god knows what else.

We have two choices: either DEMAND that she change her tactics, or find an American candidate, one who will stand up for me to say whatever I want EVERYWHERE in this country. America is supposed to be one big giant Free Speech Zone, remember?

Quickly, because I'm late for turkey, let me say this: if you feel that getting rid of the Bush Administration is the most important goal, because our policies are better than their policies, then by all means vote for Hillary. As she constantly reminds us, she is the best fighter. If on the other hand you are more concerned with the behavior of this Administration and the trashing of the Constitution and the lying and the secrecy, you best look elsewhere. I see no evidence that her hands will be any cleaner. Personally, I can't take any more of this behavior.

Obama's Plan to Solve this Mess

Today in Salon.com's War Room, they posted an "excerpt from the Obama campaign", which laid out his differences with the current adminstration vis a vis foreign policy and our answer to whatever war it is we're in. Now, it's only a campaign pledge, it doesn't mean much this early out, but I have to say, I do agree with this theory. The details may vary in yummy goodness, but this at least shows some intelligent thinking...

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real ... To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al-Qaida's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al-Qaida in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al-Qaida and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

"By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama hit two key points I agree with:

• the Pres has got us all confused. There are major differences in the different groups O mentioned. Al-Qaeda, for example, will NEVER be supported by Iran, because AQ is Sunni and Iran is Shi'a. They are not on the same side. These distinctions are not clear to the American public, and in this smoke and mirrors, the Pres can make anyone seem like an enemy.
• drying up support for extremists. The Pres once famously divided the world into those "with us" and "against us". The truth is, if you were inclined to divide the world in two, the split is over extremism v. moderation. Guess what, kids? We are extremists in this fight. The Islamic extremists, by Allah, want one world in their image, and the NeoConservatice extremists, by God, want another. We are caught between the two, and both seem intent on bloodshed. If, however, we had pressed for moderation, consideration, unity, and friendship with the nations of the world after 9/11 (and before), we could have helped to "dry up" extremism with moderation, much like a rash dries up with Caladryl.
  

Most people just want to live their lives in peace and freedom. Most people in the world are more concerned, truthfully, with their family budget, sick cat, carpools, their children's health, their parents' aging, and all the rest. They will only rise to arms when they feel like their well-being is threatened, either by their own society's or another's extremism. We excite these regular folks with our imperialistic "remaking" of the Muslim world. We are doing this, and it's time we realized it. We must remake ourselves into a voice for moderation, tolerance, freedom, and peace. I can't say this is what Obama was thinking, I can only go by the quote above, but I think his words represent a new way of thinking of our relationship with the world.

I am still not endorsing any candidate. It's too early. But I will report when they say something that rings true... or false.

Don't promise me a rose garden

Presidential Candidates-- Now Hear This:

I don't need you to tell me what you're going to do in Iraq when you get into office two years from now.

There is really no way for anyone to say what they will do in two years.

In two years Iran might have gotten involved. Or Syria. Or China.

In two years the city of Baghdad might be entirely abandoned. Or nuked with a dirty bomb.

In two years, the number of displaced Iraqis turning up at the world's doorstep could equal the entire former population of the country.

In two years, terrorists could strike us, "poking the bear", as Rush Limbaugh would say, and feeding the public's bloodthirst...again.

In two years, the Iraqis may have finally found national unity in hunting down every American until we are run out of the country and the Fall of Baghdad rivals the drama of the Fall of Saigon.

My point is simply this: whatever you tell me you will do in Iraq, you're only reflecting what you might do under the current situation. No one can say, until January of 2009, what should really be done in Iraq under the next presidency, because without a crystal ball, there is no way to know what the situation will be then.

What I do need you to promise me is that you will not make the mistakes of this disastrous current administration.

Tell me you won't lie to me, or spy on me.

Tell me you won't abuse our troops, but that you will use them wisely, lovingly, and with care.

Tell me that you will stop and think before you act.

Tell me that you will put the good of the USA before the good of your party.

Tell me that you care less about permanent majorities than you do about permanent solutions.

Tell me that you care more about the truth than discrediting your critics.

Tell me you will take timely action, not time action to polical salesmanship.

Tell me you will talk to both our friends and our enemies, so that we may find a way to create peace and prosperity for all nations of the earth.

Tell me that you will never leave a family on a rooftop begging for help.

Tell me I don't have to worry about political payoffs and kickbacks and lobbyists and unethical behavior, because you are ethical and honest and you won't tolerate corruption.

Tell me you will promote science and reason so that we can trust government reports and so we have accurate information to move forward.

Tell me you will promote my expression of free speech and never try to silence or marginalize me, even if I disagree with you.

And even more than that, show me as best you can that these tales are not lies, but show me that you are honest, trustworthy, compassionate, fair, and thoughtful by how you run your campaign and how you conduct yourself.

If you do all of this, I will vote for you. And if you fail me, I will fight to impeach your ass. I will no longer stand idly by and watch my government fall into sin, death, and despair.

Don't promise me a rose garden, and you just might get The Rose Garden.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

UPDATE: Walter Shapiro has an interesting piece on this topic in Salon called "Hillary the Prudent". (You'll have to watch a short ad before accessing Salon.)

I've had a few different opinions on the electability of Senator Hillary Clinton. Mainly it came down to this: I can't vote for her because my parents won't vote for her. That is to say, there are a great number of people in this country who hate the Clintons (individually and separately) on a gut visceral level wherein despite the voter himself swinging left, he still can't stomach a Clinton. My folks are like that; as they return to the center after a brief but eye-opening affair with the right, primed to vote Democratic in '08, they still become enraged when even the name Clinton is mentioned. (Update, 6/07: Not anymore. I asked mom and she just sounded tired. She didn't seem to have anything for or against Hillary, so long as all this Bush crap stops and H doesn't bring her own. Also, I heard recently the phrase "The Clinton psychodrama" as in, we don't want to have to live through their personal psychodrama again. This may replace the old I-want-to-vomit reaction.)

But lately I've been coming around to a far worse realization about Hillary: she's snarky. And she has a chip on her shoulder, combined with a get-out-of-my-way leadership style. And no matter how brilliant each political move she makes may be, it makes me like her less and less.

I think our culture respects the Political Shark. We respect the sort of guy or gal who, unlike most of us, can read keenly the landscape (in this case, national politics) and, like some of those really great moments in The West Wing, can bob and weave and jab and be the one left standing. Even those of us who can't stand Karl Rove still respect his Pol Sharkness. And men and women who can't swim with the PSharks drown, like John Kerry. I once heard someone say, "If Kerry can't face down Rove, what chance would he stand against the terrorists?", a sentiment that shows that while we want Mr. Smith to Go to Washington, we want him to be a PShark when he gets there. Rohm Emmanuel gives me the same feeling, like a shark gliding through the water. I don't have any reason to think he's anything but nice and has anything but our best interests at heart, but I know a PShark when I see one, and this one is hunting.

And despite Howard Dean getting smacked for yelling, we actually like the Mr. Smiths that are angry. We like Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes because they are pissed, and so are we. We can't do much, but they can feel our anger and use it to make changes. And so we root for those who run for public office because they are angry, because they feel the country is being hijacked and run off into a ditch, and because they are angry at those people who used their PSharkness to hack and slash their way to power and then used that power to let a city drown and a nation collapse into civil war.

Hillary is certainly a Political Shark. And she got to be that in the most earnest and respectable way possible: she got beaten up time and time again by the PSharks until she learned the ropes. They call that "paying your dues" and I'd say she's done that.

And she has a chip on her shoulder "bigger'n Dallas" as we say here, also earned honestly: the GOP PShark Machine went after her and her husband viciously for years, nearly destroying her marriage*, trying to bring down a Presidency, trashing the successes of the Clinton Administration to the point that the things the CA had done well, like the budget surplus and a strong, sleek FEMA and going after Osama Bin Laden were completely abandoned as if they had scarlet fever germs and were to be burned to protect the family. (Have you read The Velveteen Rabbit?) And you see how well that all turned out for the country. So she is pissed off, and I don't blame her for that, she certainly earned those stripes the hard way too.

Lastly, she strikes me as no-nonsense, something else she's earned the hard way. I imagine after what she went through with her husband, it's natural for her to get real clear and real down-to-business real quick. "No more BS, no more pretending everything is fine, it is what it is and I'm not going to gild it, I'm just going to fix it, so get out of my way and hand me that wrench."

There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Clinton being all of these things in one person, a Political Shark with a chip on her shoulder and a Lance-Armstrong-esque determination. If she had emerged on the national stage as this person, with all of these traits (let's say they were learned over many years in a state congress or as the DA for a major city, but off the national press radar), we might champion her. We might say, "Wow, she's got the whole package, I think she can kick the crap out of the GOP in '08. Why, it almost seems like a shame that the GOP has weakened themselves, when we finally have such a good fighter on our side."

The problem for me is this: I saw it happen. Like sausage, you don't want to see a Political Shark get made. I remember everything from the demure black headband and the cookie comment to standing on a dais with Newt Gingrich championing something I can't remember. (Actually, that cookie comment, to the effect of "I'm no Tammy Wynette who will just stand by her man," makes a perfect example when compared to how she ended up doing just that after it all went to hell.) I remember her dutifully voting for the use of force resolution because Hillary the PShark had determined This Is A Good Year For Laying Low & Not Being Controversial. Come to think of it, the Newt Gingrich bipartisan stuff looks a lot like This Is A Good Time To Show I Can Work With Them. I remember her rightfully accusing a Right Wing Conspiracy of relentlessly attacking her husband, and even though she was right and we knew it, she came off paranoid and delusional. I remember her being torn apart by wolves over her health care plan in 1992, and how shocked she looked, but not as shocked as when her cracking marriage was exploded all over the national press.

Whenever I try to relate a string of details like that, I can't help but support her. Because she did learn from all these horrendously difficult challenges and rather than running away, she adapted and grew and developed all the skills she lacked when she first appeared on the national stage. I'm not saying that anything she's done is wrong or illegitimate (in this post, I reserve the right to criticize her as the campaign wears on, of course) or that any of it isn't understandable.

But she makes me very uncomfortable. I find her prickly and conniving and even when a campaign move is arguably a good one, like her "dialogue" with the people of America rather than a "campaign", and her little town meeting tour, I just want to throw up. It all seems so contrived and hokey. Does she really think we're that stupid? That we would think that her sudden publicity stunts are anything other than campaign trail moments? Why hadn't she talked to us before, if she cares what we think so much?

Yes, she has been working faithfully in the Senate for the citizens of New York for 8 years, and yes, she should get points for that. (One thing I don't like about Obama is that he ran for a six-year job as Senator and is leaving to campaign nationally after just two years, which I think shows a lack of commitment to ones constituency that Clinton had the good sense to avoid by staying in, laying low, working very hard, and improving her street cred with other Senators and Congresspeople.) And I'm a Texan, as a NY Senator she didn't really need to talk to me, I guess. But you know, even as I watched her do the very right thing, no question, I felt like I could see right through it all. I was watching her get ready for 2008, and every Gingrich photo op cemented my feelings even more.

So no, I'm not endorsing Hillary-- yet. If she's the last PShark Dem left standing, well, I guess I'll have to because I don't trust the GOP farther than my flabby matronly arms could throw them. And I would be psyched to vote for a female president. But if you ask me what I think of her, I have to say, she gives me the willies and I don't think I'm going to get over that.

I should probably make this a separate post, but let me just quickly throw something in about our black(?) and female candidates: Everyone keeps asking if we're "ready" for either one. I would say, yes, yes, and hell yes. If we can credit the GOP for nothing else, members like Condi Rice and Colin Powell have put the issues to bed that being black or a woman would hamper one in any way. On the other hand, the fact that we've never had a Jew, a Muslim, a black, or a woman as President sort of speaks for itself (and others definitely think it speaks volumes). I think the real question behind this "can we handle it" question is: What's really going to happen on election day? Will Americans get behind Obama only to find the racists in our country come out of the woodwork-- like the anti-gays did in 2004 especially-- and in sheer numbers of voters block the Black? They say that Hurricane Katrina lifted the rock and found the squirming racism underneath, does that mean that there is a secret underlying racism at the heart of our voters that would rear its ugly head on Election Day?

Same thing but less so for a woman. The last time that we had a woman in the national race, Geraldine Ferraro, there was a lot of talk about PMS and other "hysterical" traits a woman surely has that would keep her from being an effective leader. Do you, they asked, want a sobbing PMS-er with her hand on the nuclear button? But those arguments have been debunked in the intervening 20 years, and like I say, there is no better example than Condi Rice, who has been both our National Security Advisor and our Secretary of State, which means that she had her hand on that proverbial button even more so than a VP would, and she has been wrong. Haha, I couldn't resist. What I mean to say is she has been cool and collected and accomplished, and where she has been ineffective at her job it has had more to do with being a part of this distastrous GOP than with being a woman. I don't think we can ever ask those stupid questions about women again, all we have to do is silently point to a pic of Dr. Rice-- or Madeline Allbright if you prefer, or Speaker Pelosi or Senator Clinton herself. And of course we could also point to all the women in all the other areas of society, from astronauts (murderous diaper-wearers aside) to presidents of Harvard. I think that question is put to bed.

Not that we don't have equally good examples of African-Americans-- hello, Dr. Rice, again. But as I said, this is really the question of "Will a previously unknown but dominant sentiment of racism and/or antifeminism scuttle the election at the last minute?" And I believe that if such a thing were to happen, it would more likely be about race than about gender. I think that there is more vestigal racism left in our national character than misogyny, at least when it comes to national elections.

The answer to the question, "Are we ready for an African-American or a woman President?" is a resounding yes, and polls show the public is way out in front of this issue to the point that it wonders why on earth Wolf Blitzer is asking it.

But the answer to the real question, "Will racism and/or antifeminism rear up and keep a black or female candidate out of the White House?" is more subtle. I think that it is far less likely that it would keep Hillary out of office than it would Barrack. If there is a secret malicious sentiment out there in the heart of the voting public, I suspect that it is racist against African-Americans more so than antifeminist against female candidates. But I just can't predict what will actually happen. We don't like to admit that there is still racism in this country, so we talk like it isn't there, but it might still be deep down, enough to keep Sen. Obama from being elected. I don't think that we'll know the answer to that question until it finally plays out once and for all.

UPDATE 6/11/07: I have gotten more and more like Yosemite Sam, throwing my hat and stomping on it and yelling, "Ooh, that varmit!" at the lack of leadership, especially in the Congress. The tide of public opinion has turned, it doesn't put you that far out on a limb to call for impeachment, etc. I know, that's the House and this "Senator" can't actually call for the i-word, but she can lead, dammit, and all she does is have crappy "dialogues" and make stupid parody videos! So today I got an email from her campaign the subject of which was, "Help Me Make A Video for Hillary" and I freakin' lost it. Here is what I wrote back:

YOU need MY help? Puh-leeze!

Quit screwing around and call for impeachment. You are a leader in the Senate who never leads. You are in the position to take action that will go down in the history books and instead you have jumped whole hog into the campaign like we don't have issues TODAY that SENATORS could help alleviate NOW.

The rest of this, videos and whatnot, is just crap! People are dying and MY OWN FAMILY MEMBERS are oversees being shot at and blown up. Worse than all of this is the Constitutional crisis we are careening into while the worst crooks in history fracture our military and wipe their ass with the Constitution.

And this morning I get an email from you with the subject "Help Make Hillary's Next Video"?!?!?!?!?!

GO TO HELL!!!!!

Sincerely,
Jill Swanson
no longer your supporter

As you can see, I was a bit upset. And then I went over to her blog and posted it there. I really shouldn't email people while I'm having my first caffeine jolt. Nevertheless, if you agree with me, then let's find another candidate and get behind him.

*Don't write me about this: no one is to blame for Bill's cheating other than Bill. I know what "sins" and whose violated their vows-- or as much as one can know about these things. However, to have your personal pain played out all over the national media because you're both being drug through the mud by your enemies puts even more strain on the marriage itself, and I think it was the GOP's aim to get them to separate or divorce while in office, so I definitely believe they were trying to destroy the marriage itself. A fine distinction, but worth noting.