Just observations, you decide2008-10-11T16:09:04Zhttp://strictlyanecdotal.com/atom.aspxQuick BlogcastAll week long the President, assorted members of Congress, all the commentatorstag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-27:22b92f4c-9313-41f5-9d1f-a54dc8d3473dObserver2008-09-27T17:05:37Z2008-09-27T15:40:00Zon CNBC and the traders on Fast Money have been telling me how we're all in this financial crisis together. Trust me, guys, I get it but I do still have a few questions: Does this mean Hank Paulson will be writing me into his will? When do I start vacationing in the Hamptions? Will my black American Express card arrive this week or next?
While I have no doubt (okay, I do have a couple of small doubts but for the sake of this post...) that we are all on this sinking ship called the American Financial System, we are assembled together on the deck only because it's going down fast and the folks in first class need some of the passengers in steerage to row the lifeboats. Were it possible for all the residents of Wall Street to be airlifted off and leave those of us on Main Street to turn blue and float away, they would. (Well, maybe Kate Winslet would stay with us and the orchestra, the orchestra always stays.)
Now as for myself, well, I don't have much to lose and I did in some small way steer us toward the iceberg and - like it or not - I'm not the only one. If you bought a car you couldn't afford, amassed credit card bills buying Angus burgers at McDonald's and only paid the interest, if you bought a house on a pay option ARM that's headed into foreclosure, then you're part of the problem, too. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who didn't run investment banks and lever them 30 to 1 or buy houses they couldn't afford with little or no down payment (just for the record I put 40% down on mine and still lost it), who have seen their house values fall and their part of our (soon to be) $1.3 trillion debt rise. My mother, some of my friends, my son (and most likely my grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grandchildren, you get the idea) all of whom live within their means and pay their bills on time have been sucked into the financial whirlpool. (And, yes, all of my descendents will live within their means and pay their bills on time.)
Who's to blame, the people on Wall Street who concocted these exotic mortgages and then packaged them up and sold them off at thirty times the value of the underlying assets? The home buyers who failed to read and/or understand the mortgage documents they were signing? I think there's blame enough to go around and I'm willing to take my part but I sure do wish the folks explaining the issues to me would stop talking slowly and speaking in words of one syllable when they do the explaining. While most of us may not be as financially sophisticated as Wall Street I-bankers (and that includes most of the Senate and the Congress), I don't think that means we're any dumber. Friday on Bloomberg Ted Ryan of the U. S. Treasury said we should just give "smart people the ability to look at this, to figure out the alternatives." Well, gee, Ted aren't the smartest guys in the room the ones who dreamed up these complex derivative instruments? And aren't the travelling duo of Hank and Ben the guys who waited until we ht the iceberg to tell us we were off course?
The other day - running between committee meetings - some elected official remarked that he thought Wall Street owed Main Street an apology. No need of one for me just let me know which door mat the keys to the Bentley are under, my son would like to take it out for a spin. 'Cause, hey, you know, we're all in this together.]]>on CNBC and the traders on Fast Money have been telling me how we're all in this financial crisis together. Trust me, guys, I get it but I do still have a few questions: Does this mean Hank Paulson will be writing me into his will? When do I start vacationing in the Hamptions? Will my black American Express card arrive this week or next?If I were his mother I would be so proud.tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-22:04c1d46d-aae1-451f-b041-0b412b3ff5f4Observer2008-09-22T14:10:58Z2008-09-22T14:08:00ZCiting his inability to execute the company restructuring he had envisioned, word has it that the ex-CEO of AIG Robert Willlumstad has refused his $22 million severance package. ]]>Yesterday and today as word of the - at last count - $700 billiontag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-20:067f76f7-b053-4fee-878d-42f8bed43c92Observer2008-09-20T16:03:30Z2008-09-20T15:08:00Zplan for the Government to buy mortgage backed securities began to be released to the public, the story of how Hank and Ben scared the living daylights out of the congressional leadership was also being told. Well, there are a few things that scare the living daylights out of me as well. For instance, how is it that the men and women of the House and Senate (who will now be called upon to pass legislation authorizing the plan) did not realize - until told by H&B on Thursday - that the situation was so dire? Hell, I had a friend telling me on Tuesday that he felt we were headed for a Depression style Crash.
And isn't it a touch scary that these same folks are going to be called upon to write a bill that will effectively change the face of America's financial institutions and that they're going to do it over the weekend? During Senate hearings where H&B testify, most of these esteemed elected officials can't come up with questions more sophisticated than the ones I would ask. Charlie Rangel has admitted that he didn't understand the tax code he helped write well enough to know he had to pay taxes on his rental property and Chris Dodd doesn't get the concept that you don't do business as a special friend of someone whose industry you are supposed to oversee and they are two of the brighter bulbs in government. Admittedly, they will - for the most part - be the dummies to H&B's ventriloquists but, hey, that's scary, too. While I haven't a doubt that H&B are both men who - at the very least - verge upon brilliance, I'm not sure I want the country's economy recrafted by the former head of Goldman Sachs and a Princeton professor with no real world experience who apparently sees the 1930s around every corner.
And talk about scary, the plan is already tabbed at $700 bil when - at this moment - most of those who set themselves up as smart enough to know will tell you that part of the problem is we have no idea what the properties underlying these mortgage backed securities are worth. Also, much like homeowners who refuse to sell their houses for what the prices at which they are currently appraised, now that Uncle Sam has said he's in the market, will the various companies that hold MBS try to jack the government? Also, also, if the idea is that we the taxpayers will hold on to this paper until it has a higher valuation doesn't that mean that real estate will have to once again appreciate at a higher than normal rate or are we expecting to be the nation's landlord for far, far into the unforseeable future? Also, also, also, are the Dems going to try to trailer hitch even more bailouts onto the bill in order to make it more palatable to the voters? I mean once you get to $700 bil (not including the previous bailouts for home mortgages as a whole and the $85 billion for AIG, oh, oh, I almost forget Bear Stearns and F&F), you're almost talking about real money here.
Finally, are there any monsters under the bed any scarier than the video on Friday of W telling us that he had been informed of incontrovertible evidence proving the need for this action followed by images of H&B flanked by the congressional leadership who had also just received the same incontrovertible evidence. It has been a while since I've seen the President, the Republicans and the Democrats so united - as I recall it was October 2002. ]]><br>plan for the Government to buy mortgage backed securities began to be released to the public, the story of how Hank and Ben scared the living daylights out of the congressional leadership was also being told. Well, there are a few things that scare the living daylights out of me as well. For instance, how is it that the men and women of the House and Senate (who will now be called upon to pass legislation authorizing the plan) did not realize - until told by H&B on Thursday - that the situation was so dire? Hell, I had a friend telling me on Tuesday that he felt we were headed for a Depression style Crash.As we say in the south, CNBC is in tall cotton these days.tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-17:1f1efb6d-2cb3-4ccf-86b7-404145d7e36aObserver2008-09-17T17:14:03Z2008-09-17T16:26:00ZNothing like the financial world going to Hell in a handbasket to give the ratings a goose. Sunday night it was like a frat party when a special live edition on the network pulled in virtually everyone on the payroll - almost expected Liz Claman to show up; even Cramer and Maria Bartiromo were there via telephone. Already overloaded with headlines and chyrons, every word that drops from a CNBC correspondent's mouth these days is "breaking news", "unprecedented" or "historic". BREAKING NEWS: Joe Kernan joins the ACLU. UNPRECENTED: Dylan Ratigan takes a breath. HISTORIC: Mark Haines puts mustard on his fries. (I actually prefer to listen to Bernard Lo on Bloomberg, a lot less drama and a lot more in depth info. This evening he opened Bloomberg Live by saying, "Look for more damage today after that big mess on the Street. Sorry to tell you that but truth is truth.") With all the backward analysis on CNBC, it's odd to me that they have yet address the questions I have about AIG's sudden fall: What part did those AIG laughing babies play in the debacle? Are they responsible? Can they be prosecuted?
My understanding - and trust me, it's very rudimentary - is that the financial arm of AIG got dragged down by the plunge in value of the credit default swaps it took on a lot of mortgage paper, particularly of course subprime. Its credit got downgraded (Is anyone as skeptical as I am of downgrades by stock analysts and credit rating agencies? These people can't take care of their own companies and their giving opinions on other companies? Plus, it all seems rather incestuous; like grading your sister's kissing ability.) and it couldn't sell assets quickly enough to have the appropriate cash on hand. No one on Wall Street or anyplace in Europe or Asia where AIG does a large part of its business would put any chips in the pot so it was left to the Fed to write a check for 85 great, great, great, great big ones. Although as Ben "I am the Truth and the Light, no one comes unto the discount window but through me" Bernanke says, he's got $800 billion so this ain't that much. Fortunately for all of us, Nancy Pelosi has promised hearings into how all of this (you remember Fannie, Freddie and Lehman, right?) happened, so I'll rest easy tonight. Just like I did when the Dems took both houses in 2006 and I went to bed knowing it wouldn't be long before we were out of Iraq.
Take some advice from me, Nancy, your first witnesses should be those babies, bet they aren't laughing now. ]]>Nothing like the financial world going to Hell in a handbasket to give the ratings a goose. Sunday night it was like a frat party when a special live edition on the network pulled in virtually everyone on the payroll - almost expected Liz Claman to show up; even Cramer and Maria Bartiromo were there via telephone. Already overloaded with headlines and chyrons, every word that drops from a CNBC correspondent's mouth these days is "breaking news", "unprecedented" or "historic". BREAKING NEWS: Joe Kernan joins the ACLU. UNPRECENTED: Dylan Ratigan takes a breath. HISTORIC: Mark Haines puts mustard on his fries. (I actually prefer to listen to Bernard Lo on Bloomberg, a lot less drama and a lot more in depth info. This evening he opened Bloomberg Live by saying, "Look for more damage today after that big mess on the Street. Sorry to tell you that but truth is truth.") With all the backward analysis on CNBC, it's odd to me that they have yet address the questions I have about AIG's sudden fall: What part did those AIG laughing babies play in the debacle? Are they responsible? Can they be prosecuted?
While I believe Sarah Palin's nomination was a game changertag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-14:9a778c2f-ba90-4c43-8e0f-719fef81ba9cObserver2008-09-14T14:37:37Z2008-09-14T13:13:00Zit was also - for me - a deal breaker. I was hoping that Senator McCain would nominate Lindsey Graham or someone along the same lines. Governor Palin's strong anti-choice views (Although I believe that life begins at conception, I also believe that choices of that nature must be made by the woman in consultation with her loved ones and spiritual advisors. As a mother I do not think the vast majority of women make such a choice lightly and that women of means and poor, desperate women will always find a way to end a pregnancy but I guess all of that is a separate post.) and her "drill, drill, drill" philosophy are signficantly different from mine to make it impossible for me to vote for her. Also, just as I find Senator Obama insufficiently experienced to be President, I find Governor Palin insufficiently experienced to be President (sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose). Still, I am mystified by female Democrats who have villified Senator McCain for selecting her and demonized Governor Palin as being able to single handedly destroy the feminist movement. Apparently, the Democrat's Big Tent has only one entrance for women.
I was in an airport bound for England when the news broke of Senator McCain's surprising nomination of Governor Palin. Honestly - and I'm going to lose all credibility with my friends and family here - tears came to my eyes when she walked out on stage; not because of her personally, I knew nothing of her at that time, but more I suppose as a response to the letdown of Senator Clinton's campaign. I was also in an airport the night of the off year elections in 2006 and the following day made a continuing attempt to find out news of their results. This time, however, despite the fact that I knew immediately that the momentum had swung to the Republicans, I was curiously uninterested in the Presidential campaigns while I was away (this despite the fact that SP was on the front page of every paper virtually every day that I was in the UK). While I knew that the Obama campaign would be on its heels for a couple of days (on its ass for about three weeks is more like it, although now Obamaville seems to be retrenching), I was surprised that Senator Obama had not returned the gesture of a congratulatory ad on the night of Governor Palin's nomination at the convention. I cannot say I was entirely surprised though by the attacks of Democratic women. Never have I been one to think that a world ruled by women would be a place of sunshine and light. You can't seriously believe that if you grew up female in high school and then ever labored in a largely female workplace. The much vaunted Sisterhood - like the coming of Obamaville's Post Partisan Administration - is a myth. Still, Democratic women are smart so it's puzzling that they have the same blind spot when it comes to understanding SP's appeal to many working class and working in the home mothers.
First though, let me address the cynicism of Governor Palin's nomination. Yes, it was without a doubt designed to steal BO's post convention bump and to appeal to Hillary Clinton's disaffected base. This was unexpected? Is it any less cynical than turning to the supposedly racist in his heart Bill Clinton to turn up the juice against the reengerized fundamentalist Christian Republican base? Is it any more cynical than asking Hil herself to be the point woman against Sarah Palin? Is it any less cynical to fuzz up the lens on Michelle Obama? (I didn't like her when she was rude and condescending but at least she was real and I could respect her candor.) It's politics, guys and gals. Damn, even when I was 18 and working for Senator McGovern I understood the machinations, they may be beneath - yeah, right - Senator Obama but they are not beneath his supporters. One of the things I have always admired about the Clintons is their taste for the game, the obvious relish with which they attack the political process and the fact they do not attempt to hide their delight behind pious phrases. Had Senator Obama been willing to play his trump political card - putting Hillary on the ticket - he could have gone to Hawaii until November 4. (As a supporter of what I hope will be a long and illustrious Senate career for HRC, I'm glad he wasn't able to make the obvious and best choice for a running mate).
Now as to whether Sarah Palin will bomb the feminist movement back to the Stone Age. I guess if your feminist world is Pro-Choice, Anti-Iraq War, Environmentally Friendly that is entirely possible. While these ideas (very broadly) encapsulate my own politcal views they do not encapsulate feminism. Women, like people of color, like white men are not a monolithic group nor should they be. A woman need not be vetted by the left wing of the Democratic Party to be a feminist. If I don't want the community of men establishing the rules of my game, I certainly don't want the community of women to do so. I do not want Big Brother telling me what to believe and do, neither do I want Big Sister telling me what to believe and do. The choice of the Clintons to have one child is acceptable. The choice of the Palins to have five children is acceptable. Hillary's sophisticated look and sensible pant suits are acceptable. Sarah's beauty queen look and skirts are acceptable. What is not acceptable, why I cannot vote for Governor Palin, has nothing to do with feminism. While it may have been cynical for Senator McCain to have put Sarah Palin on the ticket, it is even more cynical to judge her by some false standard of what a woman should be.
]]><br>it was also - for me - a deal breaker. I was hoping that Senator McCain would nominate Lindsey Graham or someone along the same lines. Governor Palin's strong anti-choice views (Although I believe that life begins at conception, I also believe that choices of that nature must be made by the woman in consultation with her loved ones and spiritual advisors. As a mother I do not think the vast majority of women make such a choice lightly and that women of means and poor, desperate women will always find a way to end a pregnancy but I guess all of that is a separate post.) and her "drill, drill, drill" philosophy are signficantly different from mine to make it impossible for me to vote for her. Also, just as I find Senator Obama insufficiently experienced to be President, I find Governor Palin insufficiently experienced to be President (sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose). Still, I am mystified by female Democrats who have villified Senator McCain for selecting her and demonized Governor Palin as being able to single handedly destroy the feminist movement. Apparently, the Democrat's Big Tent has only one entrance for women. No, you can'ttag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-10:d9fbbc3b-c4c4-425d-a7ae-05fb39aeac47Observer2008-09-10T09:55:30Z2008-09-10T09:11:00ZComing up against Sarah Palin the Obama campaign seems to be making the same mistakes the Clinton campaign made when it came up against a rock star challenging its front runner status. Obamaville has strayed off message and allowed itself to be drawn into a battle it cannot win. If it continues with this strategy Obama-ites may well learn what it is to be a true Democrat. Understanding that Obamaville is built on the vague foundation of "yes, you can" it is now time to find out about a few "no, you can'ts".
You can't send Senator Biden out to exhort the Republican Party to embrace stem cell research as part of a program for special needs children and not have it seen as a subtle attack on Governor Palin and her special needs child. Baby Trig is - and should be - off limits in even the most generic of contexts. Yes, Governor Palin is going to bring it up but that's just how it is. He is her son, she made a life choice I could never make and I applaud her for living her beliefs. If the Dems want to talk about stem cell research it should be done by laying out a positive program that does not in any way draw on the experience of the Palin family.
You can't get all upset and turn it into something racial when someone compliments Senator Obama on being articulate and then call foul when the McCain/Palin campaign says BO's "lipstick on a pig" comment was sexist. It wasn't but it was a gaffe and the best idea is to let it get out of the news cycle as quickly as possible.
You can't hold fundraisers with entertainment provided by multi-million dollar superstars and then get all bent out of shape because Governor Palin charged the state per diem when she was staying in her own home. Trust me, if you go over the books of the Obama campaign - or any campaign or business for that matter - you're going to find some bologna sandwich business lunches and some stays at the Hotel My Home.
You can't manufacture another TrooperGate when your own candidate bought his house with the aid of a convicted felon (yeah, yeah, I know, it was a serendipitous happenstance that the Rezkos wanted a piece of side yard next to the house the Obamas bought). Come to think of it, if you're going to get all upset about abuse of the political process maybe you should have a look at the way Senator Obama got his Democratic opponents bounced from the ticket in his first race.
The two pronged central message of Project Obama has always been change and sainthood. At the moment Senator McCain has stolen the former from you so you don't need to cede the latter (even though it is an impossible mantle to carry). There are 55 days left until Election Day - it's yours to lose (although since you're Democrats, saying that is kind of redundant). ]]><br>Coming up against Sarah Palin the Obama campaign seems to be making the same mistakes the Clinton campaign made when it came up against a rock star challenging its front runner status. Obamaville has strayed off message and allowed itself to be drawn into a battle it cannot win. If it continues with this strategy Obama-ites may well learn what it is to be a true Democrat. Understanding that Obamaville is built on the vague foundation of "yes, you can" it is now time to find out about a few "no, you can'ts".
BREAKING NEWS!!tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-09-08:192dc0b6-d0b0-4e99-b279-32debe0d9a48Observer2008-09-08T16:37:11Z2008-09-08T16:25:00Z Breaking news! Breaking news! I have returned. Alert the media.]]>Then you're not a Democrat, honey.tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-08-29:df15989b-993b-40d9-a4eb-59150633c492Observer2008-08-29T10:43:01Z2008-08-29T10:30:00ZA friend of mine was in a bar having lunch when the Sarah Palin choice was announced by John McCain. Seated next to my friend was a young professional woman who said, "Well, that's it. McCain wins and I'm never going to have children. I can't bring them into a country run by George III."
I have heard similar comments by so many Obama-ites. If J Mc wins I'm outta here - the party, the country, the child bearing populace. Well, those folks need to grow a pair. Sixty-seven days out and you're calling the fight? No wonder you didn't understand what Hillary was all about. It's a fight, a struggle, you don't give up - there's no giving up in the Democratic Party. If you can't fight and lose, you're not a Democrat. Losing is virtually a plank in the platform. I should know, in the last 32 years with the exception of two votes for the Clintons, I haven't voted for a winner since 1976.
If you believe in Obama, man up and shut up and register someone to vote.]]>
A friend of mine was in a bar having lunch when the Sarah Palin choice was announced by John McCain. Seated next to my friend was a young professional woman who said, "Well, that's it. McCain wins and I'm never going to have children. I can't bring them into a country run by George III."
I have heard similar comments by so many Obama-ites. If J Mc wins I'm outta here - the party, the country, the child bearing populace. Well, those folks need to grow a pair. Sixty-seven days out and you're calling the fight? No wonder you didn't understand what Hillary was all about. It's a fight, a struggle, you don't give up - there's no giving up in the Democratic Party. If you can't fight and lose, you're not a Democrat. Losing is virtually a plank in the platform. I should know, in the last 32 years with the exception of two votes for the Clintons, I haven't voted for a winner since 1976.
If you believe in Obama, man up and shut up and register someone to vote.Governor Sarah Palintag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-08-29:6a5dcf41-bb02-444b-afde-b46cb3fd61eaObserver2008-08-29T10:44:21Z2008-08-29T10:25:00ZI applaud Senator McCain's maverick choice - it plays to his base and it may bring over some Hillary voters although it does take the lack of experience card out of the deck (much as Senator Obama's choice of Joe Biden removed the age card). Still, she ain't Hillary or anywhere close and I'm not sure she is a person I would want as commander in chief if tragedy should strike. The race is closer today though than it was last night.]]><br>I applaud Senator McCain's maverick choice - it plays to his base and it may bring over some Hillary voters although it does take the lack of experience card out of the deck (much as Senator Obama's choice of Joe Biden removed the age card). Still, she ain't Hillary or anywhere close and I'm not sure she is a person I would want as commander in chief if tragedy should strike. The race is closer today though than it was last night.Hillary Clinton loaded the bases on Tuesday nighttag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-08-29:1c0b58c8-cd8c-46c3-b28c-531a05c9b681Observer2008-08-29T10:45:26Z2008-08-29T10:20:00Zand on Wednesday night Bill Clinton hit a grand slam walk off home run. They are both political superstars. Should the Obama/Biden ticket win in November they will owe a large portion of that win to the abilities of the only two people who have been able together to win and hold the presidency for the Democrats in the last 32 years. Do Hil and Bill have personal agendas? Damn straight, so do Barack and Michelle. ]]><br>and on Wednesday night Bill Clinton hit a grand slam walk off home run. They are both political superstars. Should the Obama/Biden ticket win in November they will owe a large portion of that win to the abilities of the only two people who have been able together to win and hold the presidency for the Democrats in the last 32 years. Do Hil and Bill have personal agendas? Damn straight, so do Barack and Michelle. I began this blog in the heat of last winter'stag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-08-01:c7a6dbc5-d3a3-4ae5-8caa-64a53064b6f0Observer2008-08-01T17:31:59Z2008-08-01T16:57:00Zprimary race between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. At the time it seemed that the political process was so important. That passion, that sense of imvolvement seem so far away now - even more removed from me than my memories of similar passions for Senator McGovern's campaign some thirty-six years ago. I thought this malaise would pass but rather than fade it seems to grow stronger. Even the inhabitants of Obamaville - which seems to have grown to include most of Europe - no longer inspire me to write a post. I think it is because I know that I don't matter much to most of what is going on around me. I don't matter to the rich because I am poor. I don't matter to the young because I am old. I don't matter to Senator Obama because professionally I don't think anything much matters to him other than becoming President.
I live beneath the radar - like those unemployed who have been out of work so long they have stopped trying and so are no longer counted in the employment statistics. I have no health insurance. I have no retirement. I no longer own a home and probably never will again. I am a single woman past the age of fifty, next year not even the Nielsen folks will be interested in my opinion. While all of that may sound melancholy and self-pitying, it is not meant that way. It is meant more as an acceptance of self and circumstance. I am no longer defined by owning a home, a designer bag. I do not think I can change the world or even take care of anything other than myself - and to the best of my limited ability those I love. Had I realized those things twenty years, even ten years ago I would have been better off financially, perhaps more advanced professionally. Still, my costly, costly mistakes have left me at a place not altogether without hope or consolation. There are things I have now that I would not give up and my son - thank you, God - has built a good life for himself and holds no grudge toward me for my failings.
I move on now to a different place - a place beyond the poor loserdom of PumaPac, the self-righteousness of Obamaville and the self interest and delusion of most of our political leaders. I love my country but I'm no longer convinced that the single most important duty of its citizenry is to vote. There are a lot of us down here, below the surface, those for whom politics is increasingly meaningless. My $10 political contributions may collectively enable Hil or Barry to run but they will not give me access to either of them. There is no vote I will cast that will assure that this time next year we will be extricated from Bush's egotistical folly; that there will be universal health care, a meaningful energy policy. All my vote insures is that in four or eight years either Barack Obama or John McCain will retire from public office with a big money book deal. I don't begrudge either of them that, being President is hard work - although you do get to ride around in a really nice plane and the kitchen staff is on call all night.
]]><br>primary race between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. At the time it seemed that the political process was so important. That passion, that sense of imvolvement seem so far away now - even more removed from me than my memories of similar passions for Senator McGovern some thirty-six years ago. I thought this malaise would pass but rather than fade it seems to grow stronger. Even the inhabitants of Obamaville - which seems to have grown to include most of Europe - no longer inspire me to write a post. I think it is because I know that I don't matter much to most of what is going on around me. I don't matter to the rich because I am poor. I don't matter to the young because I am old. I don't matter to Senator Obama because professionally I don't think anything much matters to him other than becoming President. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low.tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-07-14:cec22ede-9599-4a6d-b5bc-a9cafcd2882cObserver2008-07-14T15:54:58Z2008-07-14T15:28:00ZSenator Christopher Dodd was on CNBC's Squawk Box this morning to discuss the bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After the Senator had finished pontificating, Carl Quintanilla had the assignment of asking him the only question I really wanted him to answer - this is the way I would have asked the question, Mr. Quintanilla was considerably more diplomatic -
"Senator, does it bother you at all to get up and talk about the lack of oversight and regulation in the mortgage industry when there is speculation that you received a favored treatment for your mortgage from Countrywide?'
To which the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee replied:
"Hell, no." Wait, sorry that was me again. I believe Senator Dodd's response was more along these lines:
yadda yadda yadda
"within the bands other loans received"
yadda yadda yadda
"the reaction of my colleagues"
yadda yadda yadda
"consider it a non-issue"
Well, Chris - if I may call you, Chris - it doesn't surprise me in the least that your esteemed colleagues didn't bat their collective eyelashes at the thought that you might have received preferential treatment. It doesn't surprise me that your esteemed colleagues consider it a non-issue. Most of them are probably hoping you will return the favor when news of the preferential treatment they may have received comes out. I, on the other hand, am ticked off and I do consider it an issue. The problem for me isn't even whether or not you actually received any special treatment from Countrywide. The problem for me is that as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee there was ever any possibility that you might receive special treatment. I agree that Senators and Congress people should remain - if at all possible - on cordial terms with one another. I am not at all sure that an elected representative who has the responsibility for looking into issues like the mortgage mess on behalf of the people of the United States should be hobnobbing with those he may one day have to regulate/investigate/legislate for or against.
I remember reading once that the Reverend Billy Graham made it a habit never to be alone behind closed doors with a woman other than his wife. It was not that he would do anything untoward or even be tempted to do anything untoward, it was that Reverend Graham wanted there to be no question of impropriety.
Well, Senator Dodd, I don't think Senators should be alone behind closed doors with anyone other than their constituents. It's not that ya'll would do anything untoward...or wait, maybe it is.]]><br>Senator Christopher Dodd was on CNBC's Squawk Box this morning to discuss the bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After the Senator had finished pontificating, Carl Quintanilla had the assignment of asking him the only question I really wanted him to answer - this is the way I would have asked the question, Mr. Quintanilla was considerably more diplomatic -
"Senator, does it bother you at all to get up and talk about the lack of oversight and regulation in the mortgage industry when there is speculation that you received a favored treatment for your mortgage from Countrywide?'
To which the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee replied:I'm not quite sure I believe that after decades dealing with the mediatag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-07-12:63bcedb6-89fa-48ad-9ac0-5823c42f69feObserver2008-07-12T12:28:02Z2008-07-12T10:31:00ZJesse Jackson is untutored enough to whisper what he must have known were inflammatory remarks to a friend in front of a microphone, a FOX News microphone at that. It's all way too reminiscent of The West Wing episode in which President Bartlett "accidentally" makes comments in front of an open mic. I don't think the views - as insulting to Senator Obama and un-reverendlike as they were - hurt JJ with his base and they did nothing but help BO with some of his problems amongst blue collar white voters. Despite the snickers of some friends when I bring it up, I do think there is the possibility that Jesse played the media and did so with considerable expertise. Here I must make it clear that whether it was theatre or not, I do not agree with Reverend Jackson in either his stated opinions or his choice of language in stating them; although the words as so far released fall far below the standard for truly abusive language. FOX and Bill O'Reilly say there is more and it is worse but that may just be PR. For me, as a person now pretty much disinterested in the day to day politics of the Democrats, the more interesting aspect of the brouhaha was the increasing lack of respect being shown by the Obama-ites toward the old codgers they perceive to be standing in their way.
I want to reiterate that I am neither a big fan of Jesse Jackson, nor do I concur with either his opinion of Senator Obama's message as delivered on Father's Day or with the way or place in which he expressed those views. And now on with the show...
Like him or not, Reverend Jackson has been an important figure in the Democratic Party for forty years. Like Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm before him, he made the first inroads into the all white candidates club to which both major political parties belong. I have no doubt that there must be a little part of him that is jealous of the stature Senator Obama holds within the party and BO's place as the presumptive first African-American Presidential candidate. In the same situation most of us would probably feel the same way and we would also probably feel that we had earned the right to be treated with respect by those for whom we had - in some ways - paved the way. If the remarks made by many post-brouhaha are anything like remarks made in private to Reverend Jackson pre-brouhaha (damn, three times in one post) then one can see where feeling might have been bruised.
In an otherwise excellent post The Root characterizes JJ thusly
"On one level, it is easy to dismiss the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.'s crudely worded metaphorical threat to castrate Barack Obama for supposedly talking down to black people as the raving of an increasingly irrelevant, former big shot suffused with resentment at the rising star who pushed him off stage. "
Admittedly, Jesse Jackson is not Mrs. Parks or Thurgood Marshall but the words are still a little harsh.
Michael Dukakis in the NYT expressed the thought in a softer, more generic way:
“This moment only reinforces that we have to let the younger guys take the lead in politics, that they know the issues of today, that we live in a far different world than 20 years ago.”
Despite the fact that I am not an Obama supporter, I applaud the Senator's remarks in regard to fathers taking responsibility for their children. Indeed, I would suggest that fathers - and mothers - of all races should be reminded of their responsibilities for their families. We as a society have become far too at ease with serial monogamy and children without role models. More and more it seems, we value only youth. Mothers and fathers want to be forever young, interacting with their children as friends rather than parents - which in a most circuitous way brings me to the issue of respect for elders.
I disagreed with my daddy on many, many issues: the Vietnam War, women's rights, drug decriminilization amongst others. However, even in my tree huggingest hippiest days, I would never have spoken to him in the way in which so many young Obama-ites have "spoken" to me as an older woman. Nor would I ever have expected him to take a back seat in the way Michael Dukakis seems to advise. My sainted father lived through the Depression, landed in the second wave at Normandy, went to war in Korea, enrolled in college in his sixties and was the most important influence in my son's early life. Whatever differences we may have had, Daddy had so much to offer me and his community. Even when he spoke in ways that seemed old fashioned or held views that were outdated, he was deserving of respect and of having his ideas heard. I have to wonder if part of Jesse Jackson's lack of circumspection arose from what he perceived as a lack of respect from his party.
One of the things that has always troubled me about Obama-ites is the fault line between their supposed transformation and their reality. To me a transformed person would look to honor and incorporate into their midst the achievers and achievements of those who went before them. Those people - even if they had fallen a step behind doctrine wise - would be treated with respect. Not only would there be no room for racism in a "tranformed, post partisan" society, there would also be no room for ageism or sexism. As much as I think that Senator Obama (much to the horror of many of his hard line supporters) has revealed himself to be a true old style politician, I do have some respect for the fact that he recognizes a nation's leader must be open to compromise, must recognize the contributions of others.
Jesse Jackson certainly stepped over the line with his comments. I do not know his reasons for having spoken as he did. I'm sure he doesn't need me taking his back and that is not my intent. I'm just observing and what I see is a party that professes one philosophy but lives another; not just in regard to JJ but in regard to many older, less hip or not hip at all Americans, Americans - of all races - upon whom this country has been built. Follow the party line, genuflect to youth or be rolled over. I am reminded of the line from Death of a Salesman: "Attention must be paid to such a person." Obamaville thinks it doesn't need those of the older generation who have not been born again into the new Democratic religion. It may not. The strictest adherents to the faith don't think they need anyone to the left of Arianna Huffington. They may not. There may indeed be enough young people brought into the party that those of us who are leaving it will not be missed. Fortunately for me, I have found that my identity is not tied up with either my age or my party affiliation - I am not just post partisan, I am post party.
]]><br>Jesse Jackson is untutored enough to whisper what he must have known were inflammatory remarks to a friend in front of a microphone, a FOX News microphone at that. It's all way too reminiscent of The West Wing episode in which President Bartlett "accidentally" makes comments in front of an open mic. I don't think the views - as insulting to Senator Obama and un-reverendlike as they were - hurt JJ with his base and they did nothing but help BO with some of his problems amongst blue collar white voters. Despite the snickers of some friends when I bring it up, I do think there is the possibility that Jesse played the media and did so with considerable expertise. Here I must make it clear that whether it was theatre or not, I do not agree with Reverend Jackson in either his stated opinions or his choice of language in stating them; although the words as so far released fall far below the standard for truly abusive language. FOX and Bill O'Reilly say there is more and it is worse but that may just be PR. For me, as a person now pretty much disinterested in the day to day politics of the Democrats, the more interesting aspect of the brouhaha was the increasing lack of respect being shown by the Obama-ites toward the old codgers they perceive to be standing in their way.
Of late I've been watching more sports than political coverage -tag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-07-09:1105368d-c773-4176-a871-3c9bfb6119b5Observer2008-07-09T09:56:17Z2008-07-09T08:43:00Znot having any more luck there than I did as a Hil supporter. I was for Germany in the European Cup and Roger Federer at Wimbledon. This morning though I flipped by MSNBC and since Joe Scarborough's "I am the story" sidekick is apparently on vacation, I hung around for a few moments. JS had recently taken his son to a filming of Conan O'Brien and had been much impressed with both the technological expertise and the political apathy of the audience members who were about his son's age. After realizing that complimenting their political apathy probably wasn't a comment that would endear him to his viewers, Scarborough backed up and complimented how informed young people are and how they seem to be concerned with so many things other than politics. He pointed to how comfortable Generation X, Y, Z, Alpha, Delta, Zeta and on and on are and the fact that they watch The Daily Show to back him up on these assertions.
I readily agree that "young people" - you know you're old when you use that phrase - are fluent with technology in a way that I will never be. My son can multi-task (Meaning among other things he can flip through all the e-mail on his Blackberry with one hand while talking to me. He is aware of how acutely annoying I find that habit and has promised to refrain from it when he takes me out for my birthday.) with the best of them. He downloads what he wants to see. Television is so yesterday. He plays games with friends in multiple locations throughout the country wearing earphones to talk with them and actually "seeing" them on his Mac's camera. None of these skills are anything that he was taught, he picked them up in the same way that I used a phone when I was his age. He can also come back at me with chapter and verse on virtually any political subject; however, while he watches Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, those are not the places from which he derives his information which brings me - after two paragraphs - somewhat to the point of this post. Satirical television shows - no matter how intelligent - are not meant to be the basis for an informed citizen's viewpoint, nor is Wikipedia, nor is a blog, nor is any television station or newspaper. Intelligent viewpoints result from the synthesis of reading and viewing a variety of sources, some of which may not agree with one's own thoughts. Shoot me, I watch Fox and that includes an occasional dose of Bill O'Reilly (who is far less condescending and divisive than the increasingly unhinged Keith Olbermann). I also read conservative magazines and visit conservative websites just like I read The Nation and visit HuffPo.
Without a doubt the textbooks that were in common use when I was in school (yes, we had books with pages not stone tablets) were white European male centric as were the news media. I still remember how exciting it was to see Liz Trotta reporting from Vietnam (and how disappointing it was to rediscover her a few years back as a harsh, mean spirited, humorless contributor to Fox News). Having written that, there was - and still is - no news voice I respect and trust more than Walter Cronkite. Having a loud, opinionated voice - no matter what color or gender you are - does not make you any more informed than anyone else, it just makes it easier and sometimes more fun for people who agree with your viewpoints to listen. Nor does the fact that something appears in a blog - including this one - or is found on the web (including Wikipedia) make it true. Witness the continuing power of the "Barack Obama is a Muslim and was sworn in on the Quran" lunacy. "Well, you know someone sent me an e-mail..." Just last weekend while planning a trip I came across online information posted on two sources that was historically inaccurate. Had I not had a friend who immediately knew the "facts" to be laughably wrong, I would have accepted them and repeated them, so skepticism is a lesson that we who have come to depend on the Internet must learn over and over again. Independent research from a variety of sources is a must.
During the writer's strike that paralyzed the LA area last winter, I spent a little time surfing blogs written by people on both sides of the issue. While a lot of well reasoned opinions were out there, I was amazed at how many otherwise intelligent industry people said they got their news about the strike from entertainment blogs and The Daily Show. Many folks even professed to reading and watching no other "news" programming. Thus, they were making decisions about their livelihood based on gossip columns and satire on the Comedy Network. It is testament to how little we as viewers require of our media that with 100s of cable channels available for in depth coverage of important events, at 2 a.m. most of them are showing paid advertisements for quick weight loss and get rich schemes or reruns of "classic" sporting events (is the 1974 PBA Bowling Championship really classic? I guess if by classic one means more than 30 years old. From now on I am going to refer to myself as a classic). I am not a Luddite. Technical virtuousity is admirable. I stand in awe of anyone who receives 150 RSS feeds on a daily basis. I can't figure out how to set mine up. I am more impressed though by my sainted daddy. Born in 1912 he learned how to use a computer in his seventies; but he also read, studied and listened to the viewpoints of others 'til the day he died. It doesn't matter how many friends you have on Facebook if all of you have just one opinion and you got it from Jon Stewart.]]>not having any more luck there than I did as a Hil supporter. I was for Germany in the European Cup and Roger Federer at Wimbledon. This morning though I flipped by MSNBC and since Joe Scarborough's "I am the story" sidekick is apparently on vacation, I hung around for a few moments. JS had recently taken his son to a filming of Conan O'Brien and had been much impressed with both the technological expertise and the political apathy of the audience members who were about his son's age. After realizing that complimenting their political apathy probably wasn't a comment that would endear him to his viewers, Scarborough backed up and complimented how informed young people are and how they seem to be concerned with so many things other than politics. He pointed to how comfortable Generation X, Y, Z, Alpha, Delta, Zeta and on and on are and the fact that they watch The Daily Show to back him up on these assertions.
I'm okay, you need to be transformedtag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-07-01:5018c616-9d78-4383-aada-6ddcf2dc6395Observer2008-09-08T16:13:55Z2008-07-01T13:01:00ZWho would have thought that Arianna Huffington and I spent our weekends in similar pursuits? Although admittedly the cars, houses and wardrobes probably differed. Both she and I discussed Senator Obama's recent gallop to the center with a number of people. In her recent post on HuffPo, Ms. Huff enumerates the error of Senator Obama's ways in attempting to make himself more palatable to the mainstream voter or as she so eloquently puts it
Now I admire Ms. Huff. (I'm not sure I like her but I doubt that she would like me - and being liked is such a namby pamby goal anyway.) She has an M. A. in Economics from Cambridge and has built HuffPo into a multi-million dollar blog all while being an extremely attractive, articulate and sometimes funny woman. I on the other hand took 20 years to graduate from the University of Tennessee and lost my home to foreclosure. Also, when it comes to specific qualifications for writing the afore linked to blog post, AH has been a two time loser in politics as well as totally shedding her political skin to find new life as the Queen of the Far Left. Neither of which should be held against her. The best lessons learned in life are often gleaned from loss and I myself am currently undergoing a political molting.
As for her advice to Senator Obama - how is it that so many politically astute people were unable to see until now that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - different about Senator Obama other than the color of his skin? To be honest, though, I can imagine their disappointment in finding that he is your average (well not average, he is a damn spot smarter than most pols) politician - no better, no worse. I have to admit though that even I am a little disappointed in how quickly he has turned on his transformational self and I knew from Day One that he would. Throughout the campaign he has been less a visionary and more a mannequin on which one could hang the clothes in one's political closet. Anyway, that's for Senator Obama, his handlers and his disciples to discuss - the fish I'm frying concerns the disdain in which Ms. Huff and so many "progressives" hold the center of American politics.
I agree with AH that one should not heave ho bedrock principles in order to pander to the electorate yet I am puzzled. Do Ms. Huff and her far left cohorts not realize that many of the people that they say they want to help with their "progressive" agenda are the same people she holds in such low regard? She writes of a Midwest devastated by economic changes and yet she speaks dismissively of the 46% of undecided voters who found the charges of the Swift Boaters credible. Does she not know that many of those people are one in the same? Devastated by economic changes and vulnerable to diversionary 527 ads? Am I reading her post correctly when I find that she would have Senator Obama just write these people off his list? When the Senator's adherents speak of his transforming the country, leading us all to the post partisan Promised Land, do they mean that only those who disagree with him need to be transformed, that only those who drink from the cup of Obama will be allowed to cross over into the political Land of Canaan? All this time I thought all of us were in need of some kind of transformation, that post partisan meant getting beyond being on the left or on the right.
As a daughter of the South, I grew up hearing the admonition that certain types of behavior were "unbecoming". Being sullen was unbecoming, being catty was unbecoming. Well, I find the idea that anyone to the right of Arianna Huffington is unworthy of being dealt with is unbecoming the Democratic Party, just as I found the idea that anyone to the left of George Bush was a looney liberal was unbecoming to the Republican Party. I'm no fan of Senator Obama. Over the weekend I had a discussion with my son about how BO has changed his position on as many issues in the last week as John McCain has since 2000. Still, I do think that one has to be elected and to govern not as the President of one segment of the population but as the President of all the people; that may not be progressive but it is politics and politics to paraphrase John Buchan is still amongst the best and most honorable professions.]]><br>Who would have thought that Arianna Huffington and I spent our weekends in similar pursuits? Although admittedly the cars, houses and wardrobes probably differed. Both she and I discussed Senator Obama's recent gallop to the center with a number of people. In her recent post on HuffPo, Ms. Huff enumerates the error of Senator Obama's ways in attempting to make himself more palatable to the mainstream voter or as she so eloquently puts it Old time politics, naivete, cynicismtag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-06-22:dda56576-da1d-443c-a01e-084d0c35f574Observer2008-06-22T18:03:55Z2008-06-22T16:28:00ZHow is it that the man who is supposed to be transforming politics - leading up to the Post Politcal Promised Land - has proven himself to be more politically astute than the Clintonians who were supposed to be the Machiavellian cutthroats willing to do anything to return to power? And - if you truly believe that you are right, the better choice, the savior - do the ends justify the means?
It has been difficult for me to become reenergized politically since Senator Clinton suspended her campaign - and even before. The lethargy doesn't stem entirely from HRC's loss - having been a lifelong Democrat, I'm used to losing. This time though as the saying goes, "when the tide goes out, you can see who's swimming naked" and apparently we all are. We all have a naked lust for power and we will play the spoiler if we can't have it or go back on our word to get it. While one need only read a few blogs to find out how harsh this year's Democratic climate is, two developments in particular - and let's face it, perhaps my age as well - have made me feel the chill in the air more keenly.
First, the mushrooming of a number of Hillary forever sites.
I don't believe HRC has anything directly to do with these sites - other than encouraging them to help her pay down her campaign debt - and yet they continue to agitate for her nomination; and if not her nomination for President then her nomination as VP. Personally, I have no desire to see Hillary on the bottom half of the Dem ticket. There will be only two stars in an Obama administration and they will share a last name, besides I would hate for John Edwards to have sold universal healthcare down the river for nothing (although sorry John, Jim Webb may have cut in line ahead of you). Plus, were an Obama/Clinton ticket to lose, have no doubt that Senator Clinton would get the majority of the blame. Better that she should continue her Senate career or look to the Supreme Court.
Despite the fact that I don't see the point in continuing to be active for Senator Clinton in this election cycle, as a disgruntled former Dem I did nose about some of these sites like PumaPac and ClintonDems. My suggestion was that rather than being a negative force within the Democratic Party they organize to be a positive, powerful third party. With 18 million votes surely there are some states where Hil supporters could elect a senator in 2010, maybe enough seats that they would have to be consulted on important pieces of legislation. No go, these folks want to remain unhappy, angry. Their plan is to disrupt the convention and if that disruption doesn't get them what they want then they are going to take their votes and go home. Some of them see a debacle of McGovern/Dukakis proportions in the Democrats' future - that despite the fact that current polls show Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by as many as 15 percentage points. Their thinking, if I am following it correctly, is that they will withhold the election from the Obama-ites and retake the high ground for Hillary in 2012 - and there in lies the naivete that borders on delusion. News flash to the supporters of HRC: "the torch has passed" (although not entirely to a "new generation") and if you try to douse that flame you are going to get burned. If the Obama-ites win without you, they will not allow you back into the party in any meaningful way; if they lose, well, they are in control of both the machinery and the finances and if you think Senator and Mrs. Obama mean it when they say they will be no second run if they fail this time, then apparently you haven't been reading the papers. What Senator Obama says and what he does have very little in common when what he said might stand in the way of what he wants - which brings me to the second chill in the air: Barack Obama's decision this week to forego public campaign financing.
Now let me just say at the git-go that while it would have been refreshing for BO to have abided by his word and would perhaps have made me more of a believer in his credentials as a different kind of politician, I totally understand why he made the decision that he did. Senator Obama can raise two to three times more - minimum - in private donations than the $84 mil he would have received from public financing. All he had to do when annoucing his decision was stand up in front of a camera and say, "Do I look stupid?" what Senator Obama chose to do instead was stand up in front of a camera and say to the voters, "If you buy what I'm selling, you are stupid." Senator Obama would like us to believe that he has only just now discovered that - damn - the Republicans play rough and - damn again - they can use these things called 527s to fund attack ads against me and my wife. Well, Senator Holier than Thou, the Republicans have always played rough (so do the Dems) and 527s didn't spring up yesterday. You knew about them when you first signed on (and you did sign on) to take public financing, you just didn't know how much money you could raise through private donations. While I'm not entirely surprised - hell, I'm not surprised at all - that Senator Obama made the choice he did, I am surprised - well, no, again I'm not all that surprised - that so many in the media and so many of his disciples have chosen not to call him on it; and even those who have called him on it say in the long run it won't hurt him very much - and they're probably right and Senator Obama knows that, he is counting on it. Barack Obama is a consummate old school pol, perhaps one of the best ever.
Barack and Michelle Obama believe that our nation needs Senator Obama; obviously Senator Obama feels he needs $250 mil to be able to lead the nation that needs him so badly - he should have just come out and said that. To quote Mrs. Obama speaking about her husband, "He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism." To which my cynical reply is, "Yeah, right." ]]>How is it that the man who is supposed to be transforming politics - leading up to the Post Politcal Promised Land - has proven himself to be more politically astute than the Clintonians who were supposed to be the Machiavellian cutthroats willing to do anything to return to power? And - if you truly believe that you are right, the better choice, the savior - do the ends justify the means?Using "Obama's baby mama" as a chyrontag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-06-14:2ebcc6bc-b895-4f39-a75e-9fa5de6d9e93Observer2008-06-16T16:05:37Z2008-06-14T15:46:00Z(most of us would have called it an on-screen caption before this mini-tempest) was unprofessional. Was it racist or was it meant to be racist? More likely it was someone attempting to be funny or someone who got caught up in all the "a"s and "m"s - writers sometimes can't see their own stupidity for the love of their own supposed cuteness. Quite a few liberal noses became disjointed but I have to ask, why is this ignorant caption by FOX more repugnant than the "pimped out" comment made by an MSNBC reporter about the campaigning Chelsea Clinton did for her mama? Of course, I may not be the best person to understand the brouhaha since I myself am a baby mama -
although when I chose to have my son in 1981 the term was unwed mother and the choice was - in middle class Tennessee - still stigmatizing enough that my mother bought me a ring to wear on my wedding finger when I returned to my parents' home to live. I left the ring in the ring box that set on the cherry wood dresser in my bedroom but out of respect for my mother I skittered around questions about my son's father or my marital status. According to my mother, my sainted father was told by his evangelist preacher half-brother that I should not be allowed in the house. He made no reply to his half-brother nor ever mentioned the comments to me but his actions - as always - spoke for him.
Now I'm not very hip - I may have mentioned before that my son says I bring down the hipness quotient of a room just by entering it - but I think "baby mama" is meant to be pejorative - to refer to women who are serial unwed mothers and don't have much money or depend on welfare and whose "baby daddies" are more into fathering children than being fathers to children. However, since the movie Baby Mama the term may have come to encompass all women who have children outside the bounds of marriage. I have never understood why having a child without the benefit of marriage is that much different from getting married in a maternity gown or getting married several times and having children from each marriage. It also seems a little short sighted to me to think that young women (many of them girls, not even women) will see the difference between themselves and the rich, privileged stars for whom we say it is perfectly okay to have children without the benefit of marriage. Nor am I going to judge a woman who goes on welfare to take care of her children (as differentiated from women who have children in order to get additional welfare). I was lucky enough to be white and educated and to have a supportive family (although for my mother that support was definitely begrudging and after the fact). In addition, I don't know how you can discourage a woman from having an abortion and yet condemn her decision to have a child. (A few provisos here: I am pro-choice but encourage abstinence as the form of birth control for young women - and men - while they are in school and/or not able to support a child. And despite the fact that I was blessed with the best son in the world and would not for any reason change having had him, I do believe that a child is best brought up in a home with two parents (same sex, different sexes, the operative word is two) - but all of these are topics for several different posts, today my subject is why the uproar over the FOX chyron and the widespread support for the comments made by David Shuster?
First, the caption ocurred on FOX - now I certainly don't buy the "fair and balanced" tagline but more and more FOX is at least as "f&b" as MSNBC, particulary when it comes to the increasingly unbalanced rants of the network's star sportscaster turned political jack...of all trades.
Second, a lot of newscasters don't like the Clintons and felt that Senator Clinton pressured MSNBC to reprimand Mr. Shuster - maybe she did, in her position I would have, too.
Third, sexism and ageism are easier to get away with than racism - which is not to say that racism should ever be allowed but only that all "isms" should be equally egregious and subject to being reviled.
Fourth, this is yet another example of the breakdown of the wall between entertainment and true journalism. The 24 hour a day battle for eyeballs and the need to skew to a younger demographic have led to a more casual approach to journalism of all types. "Baby mama" and "pimped out" are words that we hear every day and most journalists and so-called journalists see no need to look for other ways to express themselves - in fact many times using words that might challenge your audience is looked down upon.
As for the term itself - well, for a campaign that encourages its with-it rep, suddenly being aghast at someone's obtuse, clumsy, misguided attempt at using street vernacular is a little disingenous. Mrs. Obama herself referred to Senator Obama as her "babies' daddy" and after wrapping up the nomination they indulged in a loving bump of fists (and no that is not subversive, even I - in the losing camp of that wrap up - found it kind of endearing). Senator and Mrs. Obama are obviously loving parents who are doing a good job of raising their two daughters - if I were either of them I would be proud to called the parents of those babies.
]]>(most of us would have called it an on-screen caption before this mini-tempest) was unprofessional. Was it racist or was it meant to be racist? More likely it was someone attempting to be funny or someone who got caught up in all the "a"s and "m"s - writers sometimes can't see their own stupidity for the love of their own supposed cuteness. Quite a few liberal noses became disjointed but I have to ask, why is this ignorant caption by FOX more repugnant than the "pimped out" comment made by an MSNBC reporter about the campaigning Chelsea Clinton did for her mama? Of course, I may not be the best person to understand the brouhaha since I myself am a baby mama - The suspension of Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign was mettag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-06-10:a45ac5d5-d38f-412a-8502-5242e6e8c78aObserver2008-06-10T14:55:51Z2008-06-10T13:33:00Zwith a sigh of relief from me. It means I no longer have to literally hurt for her when she tries to spin a primary win, it means I can be a little less angry about the way her supporters have been treated by many in what is now the presumptive winning wing of the DNC. My emotions and options though are still hard to sort through and sort out - and, from listening to the yammering heads, it is still not clear that they realize how deep the hurt goes for many Hillary supporters and how alienated we are from the Democratic Pary.
Being out of town and away from many media sources over the last weekend was refreshing and allowed me to gather my thoughts with a little less of the cacophony (and by that I don't mean the readers of this blog who generally help me to reason through the thinking process) that generally surrounds my thoughts. Although I must admit I watched about half an hour of the great "Hillary/Barack Stakeout" on Wednesday night during which a CNN reporter spoke in hushed tones about the significance of the light burning in a downstairs window of one of the Clinton homes, only to have Fox News correctly report that the surreptitious meeting was going on at Senator Diane Feinstein's house; good thing the CNN reporter wasn't a DEA agent preparing to sent a battering ram through the front door.
During the middle of the week I spoke with an older woman - a Hillary supporter - who felt that the election of Senator Obama would mean that "the blacks" would take over every facet of government; I hasten to add that during the last conversation I had with her she was monitoring every word from BO's mouth with the thought that he might be her candidate. My reply to her was that even if that were true, what would be wrong with that? African Americans have spent their entire lives watching, in the main, white men run the country, what would be wrong with them now having the pleasure and pride of watching a government run, in the main, by African Americans?
My dissent from the Obama candidacy lies not in his "blackness" but rather in his "Obama-ness" - his arrogance, his condescension (please, Senator Obama, don't ever again tell me that I need to "settle down"), his constant modification of his views to suit every circumstance and every audience. Most of all though, I am weary of his mantra of "change". As Ellen Glasgow wrote, "All change is not growth as all movement is not forward." I don't seek change for the mere sake of change, I would rather a President who can produce results and in his thus far short career, Senator Obama has produced few results. This is not to write that he is incapable of political accomplishment but rather that he has yet to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric. His ability to transform his disciples is pointed to as one of his signature accomplishments, although to read the comments of many of those disciples, that transformation is a work in progress. Also, I'm not sure how much an agent of change one can be when Tom Daschle, Gary Hart and Howard Dean are amongst your team; sounds more like a reunion at the Phi Kappa Loser house than a realignment of the stars.
Still, as drawn as my heart is to upstart websites like blog.pumapac.org I don't really see the point of letting Howard Dean know how angry many of us are (and where did they get all those puma pictures, reminds one of the classic Smothers Brothers puma bit, "Sure does look like a puma"). Dr. Dean knows and he doesn't care. He, the DNC and, as far as I can tell, most of the media think we are going to talk a good game until November 3 and pull the Democratic lever come November 4; this may be true if Senator McCain listens to the devil on his right shoulder but may not be true at all if he listens to the angel on his left shoulder. Plus, I am not sure that anyone other than the old white ladies who have been the object of so much derision within their own party can truly understand how angry and hurt we are. Saturday night while on the First Annual (or At Least Every So Often) Beer Walking Tour of Buffalo, I had an extended conversation with a sympathetic, intelligent white male who could not understand why I would even consider supporting an organization with the combative motto, "Party unity, my ass." His thought was that women who find that line of thought tantalizing are just poor losers. And, to be honest, in some ways perhaps there is a thread of "poor loser" in some of my reaction to the end of the nominating process but it is one thread amongst hundred of others - and the garment woven by those threads no longer feels comfortable for me.
So, I'm back to my reading, my thinking, my wondering where I go from here politically which - much like the suspension of Senator Clinton's campaign - is both a sadly relieving end and a curiously invigorating beginning. ]]><br>with a sigh of relief from me. It means I no longer have to literally hurt for her when she tries to spin a primary win, it means I can be a little less angry about the way her supporters have been treated by many in what is now the presumptive winning wing of the DNC. My emotions and options though are still hard to sort through and sort out - and, from listening to the yammering heads, it is still not clear that they realize how deep the hurt goes for Hillary supporters and how alienated we are from the Democratic Party.To be honesttag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-06-05:4d9146ef-b4c6-4bbc-b180-5724b5923c70Observer2008-06-05T17:13:21Z2008-06-05T16:54:00Zsince last week I've had a little trouble getting interested in any issues - sort of a disgruntled lethargy. Seems when you start examining how you feel about things in a very bedrock, "what do I believe" sort of way, it becomes overwhelmingly evident that the problems to be solved are so enormous and that we as individuals can have very little impact on them - so I've kind of been in the political fetal position. Then just about the time I began to uncurl, I had to leave town and am now in touch only by walking to a Starbucks (which should tell you I am in the internet connection deprived hills of TN, which have very many things to recommend them but wireless is not one of them).
Anyway - since I will be away until next Tuesday, I am going to call your attention to two links included in comments posted by the always stimulating Elise. I look forward to engaging again early next week when I will have figured out my plans for world political domination and internet connectivity.
E. advises that this first link is only up for four days, so click while the clicking is good -
"It's by The Daily Howler and runs for four days. Here's the link for the first day (you have to scroll down):"
And this I find very interesting in its discussion of the key issues particularly, as E. points out in her comments, health care. Health care to me is second only to the war in Iraq as the most critical issue our nation faces.
Thanks, Elise, for picking up the slack.]]><br>since last week I've had a little trouble getting interested in any issues - sort of a disgruntled lethargy. Seems when you start examining how you feel about things in a very bedrock, "what do I believe" sort of way, it becomes overwhelmingly evident that the problems to be solved are so enormous and that we as individuals can have very little impact on them - so I've kind of been in the political fetal position. Then just about the time I began to uncurl, I had to leave town and am now in touch only by walking to a Starbucks (which should tell you I am in the internet connection deprived hills of TN, which have very many things to recommend them but wireless is not one of them).
Being somewhat of a woman without a party these days - and having no plans lasttag:strictlyanecdotal.com,2008-05-28:a752d943-00da-41ff-af79-97c926c405c0Observer2008-05-29T14:19:52Z2008-05-28T18:36:36ZSaturday night - I flipped on the Libertarian Party Convention on C-SPAN. Watching them I was reminded of Walter's (thank you, Aaron) remarks about the nihilists in The Big Lebowski - "say what you want will ... at least it has an ethos." They may have nominated Bob Barr for President but the Libs do have a couple of things going for them: they can get all of their delegates into the large ballroom of a hotel and they apparently pay for their presidential campaign in much the same way they that nominees for prom king and queen did at my high school - and they seem to pretty much know what they want and how they would go about getting it. Of course, they've never even come close to winning a national election but dollar for dollar spent it might appear that they are getting more bang for their buck than either of the mainstream parties.
A few years back - either on a lark or in a snit - I visited the Libertarian website where they are kind enough to have a little quiz to determine whether or not one is cut out to be a member of their party. Being pretty much a believer in the right of consenting adults to do what they please with other consenting adults as long as their actions don't hurt others, I took the test. Well, nothing like being told, "Hey, you're not our kind." Seems I was a little long on social programs for their tastes. At least they told me right off. It took the Democrats 36 years to say, "You're gotten too old and you have ovaries and you just plain annoy us."
After a couple of glasses of apple ale and taking the Libertarian test again (I passed but now I'm not sure they pass my test) it occurred to be that one of the problems I may have is that I'm no longer sure what it is that I expect from government and - even worse - I'm no longer sure government can provide it or that I even trust it to try. And I'm also not sure that most voters know what it is they expect from government, they just want something different from what it's doing know but that approach kind of seems like the one that got us here in the first place.
So, over the course of the next few weeks, I'm going to use this blog to work out - or not - what it is that I feel government is supposed to do and how it is supposed to do it - from health care to immigration to education; but first I need a glass of apple ale. Feel free to chime in while I'm gone.]]><br>Saturday night - I flipped on the Libertarian Party Convention on C-SPAN. Watching them I was reminded of the Dude's remarks about the nihilists in <em>The Big Lebowski </em>- "say what you want will ... at least it has an ethos." They may have nominated Bob Barr for President but the Libs do have a couple of things going for them: they can get all of their delegates into the large ballroom of a hotel and they apparently pay for their presidential campaign in much the same way they that nominees for prom king and queen did at my high school - and they seem to pretty much know what they want and how they would go about getting it. Of course, they've never even come close to winning a national election but dollar for dollar spent it might appear that they are getting more bang for their buck than either of the mainstream parties.