Here's an experience I'm not used to having: genuine uncertainty about whether a plan initially proposed by the Bush administration would actually be a good thing.

I'm going to come out right now and say that a solid understanding of the workings of the financial industry is not my strong suit. This is one of the areas of domestic and international policy where I can maybe tell you what is just and what is fair, but when we get into what will actually work, I need to find someone else who can give me the run-down. I can stare at this $700 billion bailout as long as I want, but I will never have a prayer of forecasting the odds that it would actually do what it is supposedly designed to do.

Things I do know include:

1) Governing in crisis mode can be a sign of internal disorganization and disarray, but it can also be a tactic used to prevent people from defeating a proposal which would otherwise clearly generate strong opposition. We've seen that happen already with the Patriot Act and we know it is a favorite ploy of this administration. It is only natural that a lot of people here would immediately react against the bailout plan as a con job/coup/organized theft/etc. simply because it fits that pattern. It is possible that those people are right. But it is also possible they are wrong.

2) Nevertheless: this crisis itself is not imaginary. It is a real crisis. That doesn't mean the Bush administration is not exploiting it cynically in an attempt to increase executive power--that would certainly be in character for them--but I don't think you can look at what's going on in the market and the banking industry right now and tell me that we are not in big, bad, ugly scary trouble. The only question is how long that's going to last and how bad it's going to get, with or without the bailout. My brain cannot answer that question. My gut is answering, though, and my gut says, "DEPRESSION! AUGH!! DO NOT WANT!!!!!" Is my gut right? I don't know. Normally I woudl call in my head to evaluate the gut's response, but my head is, as I said above, totally fucking useless in this particular area.

3) Chicago school economists notwithstanding, capitalism is not rational. The market has moods, neuroses, binges, and bouts of irrational self-destructive behavior. The market has been swinging up and down for the past few days solely based on the *idea* of a bailout. One starts to wonder at this point whether you could stave off a market crash just by *saying* that the bill passed when it secretly didn't, and save us all $700 billion. Nevertheless, it is true that a capitalist economy can crash simply out of panic. Money has to circulate or else the whole thing dies; when people panic, they clutch their money close to them. I am a hoarder by nature myself. If I were about 10 years closer to retirement, I'd probably have already cashed out every investment I have. Ther eis the added problem that when there is a crisis of confidence, it's the people who refuse to panic initially--the cool, level headed ones, or the true believers, depending on your point of view--who get screwed the worst, because they stay in too long. Self interest says, if there's a run on the bank or a run on the market, pull yours out first. So selfinterest augments the effects of panic and hoo boy it doesn't bear thinking of.

4) Our destinies are unfortunately and unavoidably linked to those of the megabanks and investor giants. It is impossible to allow this crisis to kill Wall Street--as many people here seem to look forward to doing--without ordinary people getting caught up in the slaughter. Unemployment is going to be one immediate consequence. But let's say you keep your job through some miracle. If the bank failures start to cascade rather than trickle, well, what happens to our money? The FDIC cannot pay out enough to cover all the bank accounts that could conceivably go poof--at least not without printing play money that would drive up inflation. In a bad enough economic crisis, there is NO safe place to put your money, other than in food, water, and shelter. There is no mattress big enough.

5) Is it right or just to reward the people who caused the crisis by indemnifying them? No. Is the bailout also going to ultimately help the ordinary people who up till now have been screwed by said people? This to me is the more important question of the two; and it is, unfortunately, the one I can't answer on my own.

6) I hear a lot about people taking out bad mortgages and how this is really their fault. I have this to say: I think the subprime crisis is what happened when Milgrom met Mammon. There were a lot of people out there trying to generate mortgages by hook or by crook--often by crook. An entire industry developed around the project of getting more mortgages into existence so that they could be bundled into these securities which were then sold to investors; and banks no longer had to care about whether these loans got repaid or not (or so they thought) because they would just turn around and sell them to someone else. So all of a sudden, you have people deliberately hunting down people who would normally never be let near a mortgage and aggressively selling them on loans that are completely unrealistic. And this hard sell is targeting the segment of the population least likely to have any real financial literacy. Yeah, people have free will. History has also demonstrated time and time again that the human will is not often equal to the pressure of circumstances. The fact that so much of American mythology revolves around home ownership and getting rich quick through your own Yankee ingenuity doesn't help. Plus, the person signing the loan would have to be thinking: "This guy works for a bank. He's lending me money. He must think I'm capable of repaying it or why would he be doing it?" I mean, if you go to a loan shark, sure, you would have to know you're dicing with death. But this is the industry. It's supposed to have standards. You don't know anything about this crap. Why not believe him, since he's offering you something you want?

So yeah, you can blame people for taking out loans they can't repay. But spare a little blame for the bastards who conned them into it as well. And anyhow, you'd be doing a lot of frickin' blaming if you take that attitude, because from what I can figure out most Americans operate in debt and in a LOT of it and it's that alone that has kept the economy afloat--and so Americans have been encouraged to buy more and go in deeper, to keep consuming because it keeps the economy going. Well, we've about reached the end of that road...for now.

Cause here's the other thing I know:

7) This isn't the first time this has happened. It will not be the last. The boom/bust cycle and the regulation/no regulation cycle are both well-established and pretty well in synch. You'd think the market would figure out that deregulation is, in the long run, very bad for it. YOu'd think, but you'd be wrong. Because everyone always wants to jump on the hot new thing and milk what they can and then get out before the bubble pops and they just don't think about what happens to the next guy or in the next year. Which is exactly why we cannot let the financial sector regulate itself. It's not good for us, and it's not even good for them.

So am I glad the bailout failed? I have no frickin' idea. I'm scared, I can tell you that much. But I guess at least we'll find out what the consequences of inaction are; and who knows, maybe they'll turn out to be not as bad as the consequences of action.

@#$!,

The Plaid Adder

I was sort of hoping McCain would be more incoherent and obviously insane, and that is disappointing. However, I thought Obama did well throughout and was clearly the winner in the part that dealt with the economy, which of course is what most people will be focused on at this moment. Because even if they both did dodge the question about what the bailout would mean for their agendas, at least Obama clearly demonstrated that he understands that you're not going to get us out of this hole by trimming a piglet here and a hamhock there out of the federal budget. I was amazed at the way McCain kept going back to the earmarks as if that was the only @#$! thing in the world that mattered.

On foreign policy, well, McCain got the only laugh of the evening, which is a scar, and Lehrer let McCain give the closing statement, which is also not good. But I was surprised by the post-debate spin on PBS, where the 'expectations game' seemed to be working against McCain in ways that you and I cannot fully comprehend. Because apparently, to a lot of people in this country, it's going to come as a surprise that Barack Obama actually knows his shit. Which means that for them, Obama 'holding his own,' as it were, is a pleasant surprise, whereas for us, who already know this about Obama, the fact that he didn't reduce McCain to a white powdery substance comes as something of a disappointment.

In the days leading up to this when it looked like maybe McCain wouldn't show, I thought to myself, "You know, this is really stupid. He should just show up and lose and have it not matter just like Reagan and Bush before him." I am reminded as I think about this now that my assessment of who 'won' a debate never seems to have any positive bearing on the outcome of the election. Perhaps this is because I assess the wrong things. If it's true that it really matters more what people look like and how annoying their mannerisms are, I would say Obama won this one hands down. Because if I had to listen to "What Senator Obama doesn't understand" followed by that strange condescendingly pedantic pleading whine one more time, something would have had to get broken.

Also, I do not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy, unless it is that a strategy is a general plan and a tactic is a smaller part of it. But more importantly: I don't care, and I don't think too many other people who aren't me are going to be that impressed by the bickering over it. Talk about parsing words.

Oh, and one more thing:

It is clear that McCain always intended to do this debate. Because he certainly was prepared for it, and according to the talking heads we were staring at, he performed better than he ever has before in this situation. I hope Obama's people realized that, continue to realize it, and are strategizing (or tacticatillating?) accordingly.

On to Thursday,

The Plaid Adder

Since we may never get a _real_ debate, here's a fictional one. Certain things might make more sense if you read this first.
********************
(On a nondescript soundstage stand three podiums. Behind one stands a skinny guy with big ears and a funny name who nevertheless looks pretty sharp in a dark suit with a slightly adventurous yet still subtle tie. Behind the center podium stands a woman of a certain age wearing a brown suit with a discreet plaid pattern. Behind the third podium is nobody. Upon closer inspection, all three podia are displaying a seal which appears to depict a the head of a multicolored snake wearing an enigmatic yet mischevious smile.

The skinny guy appears relaxed, if somewhat curious about the strange surroundings. He leans on the podium with one elbow as he watches the woman in the center speaking into her earpiece.)

PLAIDDER: Yeah, I know there's a @W@#$!! economic crisis. Anyone in this country with a #@$! bank account knows there's an economic crisis. That's why I want to see his patriotic venerable honor-gilded ass show up and explain to me what is @#$! plan is for getting us out of this hole!

OBAMA: Now now, Ms. Adder, there's no need to get so excited.

PLAIDDER: I don't know the hell YOU stay this mellow. Where have you put YOUR money? Inside one of Sasha's stuffed animals?

OBAMA: I understand your concern. Believe me. The danger is real, and we must act decisively, and act soon. But if we agree to a bailout that provides billions for Wall Street and nothing for Main Street--

PLAIDDER: I'm sorry, Senator, I'm going to have to cut you off there, we can't start the debate before your opponent gets here. (Into the earpiece) Yes, very interesting. Now shut up and send him over. (Pause.) I don't care. This is my fantasy debate, it's my brain, and I say that the Senator is not excused.

(Behind the third podium, a white-haired, bewildered-looking man in a suit and tie suddenly materializes)

PLAIDDER: (into earpiece) Thank you and goodbye. (She removes the earpiece and pockets it.) Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to what for all I know may be the only presidential debate that ever takes place in 2008. Now, after the experience we all had with the Bush/Kerry fantasy debate in 2004, I have made some changes to the format.

OBAMA: Changes?

PLAIDDER: Basically, we're eliminating the electrodes.

OBAMA: (almost, but not quite, momentarily losing his cool) Electrodes?

PLAIDDER: In 2004 I fitted both candidates with a modified polygraph that administered an electric shock to the participant whenever he told a lie. For George W., you know, it seemed appropriate at first--but still, it wasn't pretty. And of course for the two of you it's out of the question. I'm not about to torture someone who spent five years in a POW camp.

MCCAIN: You're saying that applying electrodes to someone and zapping him once in a while is torture?

PLAIDDER: Yes. Wouldn't you?

MCCAIN: Not if the CIA does it.

PLAIDDER: Why not?

MCCAIN: We can't hamstring our operatives in the field by tying them down to some sort of codified policy which would--

PLAIDDER: Which would prevent our government agents from using on our own prisoners techniques which were used to torment you 35 years ago.

(Awkward pause)

PLAIDDER: You know, Senator, I would push you on this but the whole American acceptance of torture as a defensible and unremarkable practice just fills me so full of despair for humanity I can't even stand to talk about it. Except I guess I do want to ask Senator Obama one question.

OBAMA: Go ahead.

PLAIDDER: If you are elected President, are we going to keep torturing people?

OBAMA: No.

PLAIDDER: Jeez, this really IS a fantasy debate. "No?" That's it?

OBAMA: Yes.

PLAIDDER: You wouldn't maybe rather spend ten minutes performing your own marvelously wise and compassionate ability to see all sides of a complex issue before serving up an eloquent yet ultimately noncommittal statement about the need to bring change to Washington?

OBAMA: Well, if it'd make you happy, I could say, "when I'm President, we'll reject torture - without exception or equivocation; we'll close Guantanamo; we'll be the country that credibly tells the dissidents in the prison camps around the world that America is your voice, America is your dream, America is--"

PLAIDDER: You said that in October 2007.

OBAMA: That's why I thought you'd prefer that I not say it again.

PLAIDDER: I would prefer that you said it twice a day before breakfast.

OBAMA: Maybe I do. How would you know? This isn't a campaign issue any more, as far as the media are concerned. To get them to cover it I'd have to somehow work in a colorful folk idiom that could be misconstrued as a sexist comment about Governor Palin.

(PLAIDDER shudders violently)

PLAIDDER: Please do not speak that name in this place.

OBAMA: My apologies. It won't happen again.

PLAIDDER: Thank you. Senator McCain: you are apparently putting politics aside this week in order to save us all from the impending financial apocalypse?

MCCAIN: Yes.

PLAIDDER: That's delightful. So how are you going to do that?

MCCAIN: By putting aside partisan politics and bringing the Straight Talk Express to Washington.

PLAIDDER: Yes, all right. Look, Senator, I'll level with you: I have some money in the market. I don't need to retire, like, RIGHT NOW, but I'd like to be able to retire SOMEDAY. Plus I would like to be able to send PJ to college. Plus I am not really excited about waking up in the morning to discover that I can't write the check to pay PJ's care provider because the banks have all gone belly-up, the FDIC is out of money because the federal government is bankrupt, and an army of claims adjusters is flying out here from Saudi Arabia and China to seize whatever still has any value. Now I'm not an economist but I have a couple family members in the financial business who are very patient about educating me on this stuff and I am sure that if you explain your plan to me slowly and use a few well-chosen examples to illustrate it I will be able to understand. So please. Tell me. What is your genius maverick plan to save America from all those Washington insiders whose calls you won't return any more?

MCCAIN: What plan?

PLAIDDER: Didn't the House Republicans float some counterproposal that came from your campaign at that White House meeting that--

MCCAIN: No! No! That was not my plan. I have no plan. Who told you I had a plan?

PLAIDDER: So you don't have a plan?

MCCAIN: I will work with both parties to achieve a bipartisan solution that protects American taxpayers.

PLAIDDER: HOW will this bipartisan solution protect American taxpayers?

MCCAIN: My friends, I am no stranger to difficult challenges. When I was living for those five long years in a Vietnamese prison cell--

PLAIDDER: Stop! Stop RIGHT FUCKING THERE!

OBAMA: Ms. Adder, I really don't think there's any call for that kind of language.

PLAIDDER: I think the clarion call for this kind of language was sounded on March 20, 2003 and reverberates to this day. Senator McCain, you know perfectly well that like every other human being in this country I have nothing but respect for the courage and endurance you showed as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. But Senator...you were released when I was four years old. I am now almost 40. I want to know what you are going to do for me, for my family, for my fellow-Americans, for this country, *at this moment.* I'm not saying what you did 35 years ago doesn't matter. I'm saying that if you become president then you will be determining the shape of PJ's future and I need to know what you are going to do NOW.

(McCAIN opens his mouth, but nothing comes out. Then, with a puff of smoke, he disappears.)

PLAIDDER: GET BACK HERE!

OBAMA: Ms. Adder--

PLAIDDER: You stood up to five years of "advanced interrogation" in a Vietnamese prison and you're scared of answering a fucking question in a fucking lunatic's brain? COME BACK HERE RIGHT NOW!

OBAMA: Aren't you curious about what I plan to do to solve this crisis?

PLAIDDER: Of course I am.

OBAMA: Then why not ask me?

PLAIDDER: Because frankly, Senator Obama, I'm afraid that when I do you're going to come out with more BS about Wall Street and Main Street that sounds nice but does nothing to address my growing fear that _you_ don't know what the hell to do about this mess either.

OBAMA: Well, you could give in to that fear, or you could give me the chance to surprise you.

PLAIDDER: This would involve feeling that 'hope' thing you keep talking about.

OBAMA: Probably.

PLAIDDER: I hope you will understand that after eight years of hell under this administration my hope button is pretty much busted.

OBAMA: Still. Would you like to know my plan? Because I do have one.

PLAIDDER: Yes. I would like to know your plan. And I sure hope it's brilliant. Because frankly, if you are not much, much smarter than I am, I think htis country is pretty well screwed.

OBAMA: First of all, we must restore real Congressional oversight and we must create a new regulatory structure for the the financial sector to prevent--

PLAIDDER: Oh my God.

OBAMA: I beg your pardon?

PLAIDDER: I've heard it. I mean I've read it. I've read it AND heard it cause I do watch those little YouTube videos sometimes. I know the whole thing: better accountability, transparency, oversight, regluation for the 21st century...and who can argue with any of it, especially from the point of view of ensuring that it never happens again. But...all right, you and the rest of Congress are about to hand over $700 billion to the investment banking industry. Is that the right thing to do? Is it even going to work? If not, what DO we do? To hell with 'never again,' how do we get out of THIS hole NOW?

OBAMA: Sounds like you want the truth.

PLAIDDER: I do not think that I *want* the truth, but nevertheless I am asking for it.

OBAMA: The truth is, there may not be too much we can do to avert the coming disaster.

PLAIDDER: You bastard.

OBAMA: You see how far this kind of thing gets a candidate.

PLAIDDER: I'm sorry. Do go on.

OBAMA: The story is basically this: the wealth these institutions thought they had was generated through a shocking combination of greed, incompetence, and fraud, and therefore never _really_ existed. Now when you've blown up a bubble like that you can keep it from bursting as long as there is always someone else willing to pay for this worthless financial instrument you have created. But somehow, somewhere, someone who's bought one of these things will hold onto it for too long or look at it too closely and discover that it has no actual value, and then the whole thing collapses. Once the pin pricks that bubble, all the trillions in the world can't repair it.

PLAIDDER: So you're going to vote for this bailout anyway why?

OBAMA: Because if we don't do something, it will trigger a panic in the market that will make the crisis worse than it has to be.

PLAIDDER: So basically we're giving the market $700 billion because otherwise it will throw a tantrum.

OBAMA: Capitalism runs on confidence. Money can't make money unless it's lent out at interest, and if the banks are too scared to do that then the whole machine grinds to a halt. I can see your brain from here, you know. I know you know that.

PLAIDDER: But it just seems kind of nuts to me. It's like the market is holding itself hostage. "Give me all your money now or else I'm gonna give it to me right in the DOW!"

OBAMA: The market's holding us all hostage, Ms. Adder. But I do have a plan to make the downturn we're headed for less painful for the American taxpayer.

PLAIDDER: Different from the...well, I hate to call all your beautiful rhetoric 'boilerplate,' but from shall we say what you have outlined on your website?

OBAMA: Of course. I mean if you were me, would you put your _entire_ agenda on your campaign website?

PLAIDDER: I guess not. So what IS your secret plan?

OBAMA: When I am elected president, I will--

(A scuffle is heard offstage. The earsplitting sound of a moose's death scream echoes throughout the synapses. The sound of platform heels is heard clicking toward the podium.)

PLAIDDER: Oh no.

(SARAH PALIN strides up to the podium, tosses her hair back over her shoulder, and stacks her index cards neatly in front of her.)

PALIN: My fellow Americans. My running mate John McCain is soooo busy saving America that he could not be here to debate my opponent. So I am just tickled to be here to do it for him.

OBAMA: I'm not going to debate you, Governor Palin.

PALIN: What's the matter, are you afraid of my awesome executive experience?

OBAMA: I'm not running against you and I'm not going to debate you. Goodbye.

(He exits. PLAIDDER watches him go with great distress.)

PALIN: Gee. Those community organizers sure get discouraged easily.

(She grins at PLAIDDER, expecting her to laugh. However, the look on PLAIDDER's face seems to give her pause.)

PLAIDDER: Governor Palin. Welcome to our little chat.

PALIN: Glad to be here, Plaid. Can I call you Plaid?

PLAIDDER: (sweetly) Only if I can call you Sarah.

PALIN: Well, Plaid, I'm 100% ready to answer all your questions without blinking. I have that readiness. That's why--

PLAIDDER: Well, Sarah, first of all, I'd like to say that I love your suit.

PALIN: Aw, thanks.

PLAIDDER: I'd like to, but we know it'd be a lie, so let's just move on to the questions: Sarah, as the first female vice president, what kind of role model would you be for my daughter?

PALIN: You're a mom? I'm a mom too!

PLAIDDER: Yes, I'm aware of that.

PALIN: We moms, we know what hard work is!

PLAIDDER: We certainly do. And with that in mind, let me get right to the point so we can both get back to our REAL jobs: What's YOUR plan for getting us out of this giant financial black hole?

PALIN: Well, you see, Russia is separated from America only by a very narrow strip of...

PLAIDDER: Yes, Sarah, I'm not asking you about your lack of foreign policy experience. A lot of governors don't have any foreign policy experience when they take office. It's really not--

PALIN: And we have to, you know, I mean Russia's right there, and Russia's a foreign country and it has oil and we have oil and the sea is like, you can see Russia from Alaska on a clear day which there aren't that many of out there but still--

PLAIDDER: Sarah, you don't have to do this. Just say you have no experience but you're a quick learner and you're sure you can pick it up because you're smart enough to learn on the job and now tell me what your plan would be to save ordinary Americans from the apparently never-ending fallout from the subprime loan crisis!

(Pause)

PALIN: I'll have to get back to you about that. (PLAIDDER howls; PALIN is rattled)

PLAIDDER: My God, woman, do you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING?

PALIN: You called me a woman. That's sexist.

PLAIDDER: This is not sexism, Sarah, this is another woman calling you on your shit. Do you understand *anything* about money other than how to milk it from the various government positions you've held?

PALIN: You called me an idiot. I'm not an idiot!

PLAIDDER: Well if you're not an idiot you're definitely an underachiever. Do you have any idea how humiliating your candidacy is to the rest of us?

PALIN: The rest of who?

PLAIDDER: The rest of us women who busted our asses breaking into male-dominated professions.

PALIN: But you love me! Cause I'm just a working mom like you all are!

PLAIDDER: No. You are not. Because we got where we are by learning in spite of people who didn't want to teach us and working in spite of people who don't want to pay us what we're worth and finding solutions and solving problems and growing businesses and firms and programs and institutions in spite of all the men around us who wanted us to fail. And we did not just because we want to drive around in a gigantic white Suburban and by $400 glasses frames, but because we love the work and we believed in it and we wanted to be good at it. And because of that, and because generations of women ahead of us had fought and suffered so we could have the right to an education and to the vote and to control our own bodies, we made it. And we're proud of all the hard work that went into where we are because we believe our work is going to make the world better, not just for our daughters but for everyone. And here you are, with your beauty-pageant face and your beauty-pageant answers and all those little tricks you do to suck up to the men in power so they won't notice you have no talent and no assets and nothing to offer but greed and hatred and sheer bloody ruthlessness. And you're being groomed for it all; and when you get it all, all you'll have the smarts to do is hold onto power just long enough to drag us all back to the dark ages with you.

PALIN: You don't know anything about me!

PLAIDDER: Au contraire. I know a lot about you. I know more about you than I know about that poor bastard of a running mate. I know you've been underqualified for every job you've ever had. I know you've abused power every time it was given to you. I know that even when you were mayor of frickin' Wasilla, Alaska you were so full of your own "executive" power that treated the town council the same way Bush treats Congress. Well, if you got that drunk on power when you were paying someone else to run a town of 6000 people, I can only imagine how totally fucking HAMMERED you'd get as Vice President of the United States. I know how you govern: you're a delegator, a starter of projects you can't finish, you're an absentee. You surround yourself with your childhood friends because you know they're loyal and at least as dumb as you are; they don't know what they're doing either but you like it that way cause they'll never be a threat to you. You're obsessed with personal loyalty, you govern like it's recess and you're still in eighth grade, you savage anyone who criticizes you and you use an insane, warped, Apocalyptic form of Christianity as a replacement for the brain you've wasted. Yeah, I know you, Sarah. I know a lot about you. I know who you are.

(PALIN has for some time been staring at her like a deer in the headlights. Now PLAIDDER is having some sort of internal epiphanic event, and is staring right back at her.)

PLAIDDER: I just figured it out. I just this instant figured out why it is that I know so much more about you, why I've spent so much more time and energy on you, than on that poor bastard you're running with.

(PALIN's hair seems to be receding. Her posture sags. The black pools of panic in her pupils continue to expand as the corners of her mouth twist into an all-too-familiar smirk.)

PLAIDDER: Because he's just another worn-out Republican hack. But you. You are George W. Bush himself, come back in female form to torment my child the way you've tormented me.

(PLAIDDER grabs a thread hanging off PALIN's sleeve. As she pulls on it, PALIN's suit, and then her whole exterior unravels, revealing GEORGE W. BUSH underneath. BUSH sees PLAIDDER and screams. PLAIDDER sees BUSH and screams. PLAIDDER pulls out the earpiece and starts yelling into it)

PLAIDDER: Bring out the electrodes!

(BUSH exits stage left. PLAIDDER pulls the tail of the earpiece out of her pocket; we can see that it was never connected to anything. She throws it away, then sits down on the stage, head in her hands. OBAMA enters)

OBAMA: It's going to be all right. I'm winning.

PLAIDDER: (not looking up) I know.

OBAMA: The margin'll probably be enough to absorb the vote caging.

PLAIDDER: (still more depressed) I know.

OBAMA: I really am going to change everything.

(PLAIDDER looks up)

PLAIDDER: Senator Obama, there's only one thing that I really want to know, and that's whether I should believe you.

OBAMA: Believe me.

PLAIDDER: Why?

OBAMA: Because it might help and it can't hurt. Anyway you love words, right? And I got the words.

PLAIDDER: And that's all you've got?

OBAMA: That's all your introject of me has.

PLAIDDER: I guess I gotta hope the real you has something better.

OBAMA: So hope.

PLAIDDER: So hope.

(OBAMA pulls a sandwich out of a brown paper bag and offers her half)

OBAMA: Tuna salad on wheat. I got it at that Potbelly's on 55th.

PLAIDDER: Thanks. (She takes the sandwich. They eat for a little while in silence) You know, PJ knows who you are.

OBAMA: Really?

PLAIDDER: We have your picture up on the fridge. She likes your smile. She points to it and we say "o-BA-ma!" and she laughs.

(OBAMA smiles briefly.)

OBAMA: I won't let you down. Even though you expect me to.

PLAIDDER: Let's hope.

(Blackout)
***********
This is one batshit crazy election year,

The Plaid Adder

Last year I managed to work my way through Tolstoy's _War And Peace._ It was not easy, but I'm glad I did it--if only because it gives me a new perspective on what's going on right now.

One of the things I appreciated about which I would have been unable to enjoy even 5-10 years ago is Tolstoy's depiction of the behind-the-scenes infighting going on within the Russian army during the war against Napoleon. I am fond of a lot of that stuff, but what I've been thinking of most lately is his treatment of Kutuzov and the other Russian generals during Napoleon's victorious advance, and, later, disastrous retreat.

Kutuzov had a simple theory about how Russia was going to defeat an army that was undeniably better equipped, more organized, and more heavily armed: patience and time. Instead of putting everything you have into big decisive dramatic battles which, even if you win them, will use up tremendous resources, do as little as you have to do in order to keep the conflict going as long as possible until the enemy army exhausts itself and collapses.

That is what wound up happening. What's interesting to me as I think about all this DU angst is Tolstoy's obvious contempt for all the generals underneath Kutuzov who thought he'd lost his mind and who, because they were thinking based on their training and their officers' culture, refused to grasp the fact that Kutuzov had the right idea for this time and this situation. They kept demanding big costly battles, even after Napoleon's army had already essentially given up and started their retreat. Kutuzov's approach was, hey, the enemy army wants out of our country, why should we get in their way? He did order some battles, but only because he knew it was the only way to keep the other generals happy enough to prevent some form of organized mutiny.

I'm not suggesting that Kutuzov's "patience and time" strategy would actually work in this situation. We don't have much time and obviously we are all short on patience. My point is this: what we can see from where we are does not tell you very much about what the Obama campaign's overall strategy is. Just as it looked to all of Kutuzov's generals as if he were just sitting there doing nothing, when in fact he was winning the war, there's a lot of shit that may look incompetent to us but may actually be part of a larger strategy that--precisely because it is nothing like the strategies that were used and failed in the last two elections--we cannot recognize, but which for the same reason might actually work.

Consider that Obama cannot inform us, the rank and file Democrats, of his campaign strategy without also informing the opposition. That alone suggests that we don't really know what they've got planned. As for the demands for new negative ads RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW, well, obviously the Obama campaign has decided to honor them; but I think this is probably the equivalent of Kutuzov organizing battles to get the generals off his case. Cause there are a lot of fuckin' generals--on this board and elsewhere--aren't there?

What we want, what satisfies our desires to see someone just knock these lying bastards down and step on them once and for all, is not necessarily what is smart or likely to work. I accept that beacuse the last 2 elections have shown me that I do not have any idea what goes on in the heart or mind of the 'mainstream' American.

cliffordu has a good post the other day about why Obama cannot personally go on the attack against McCain--because, basically, it will make him the Angry Black Man. And I think that's absolutely right. Let us remember that a white man who thinks with his fists, talks violence all the time, threatens to kick everyone's ass, and owns a number of firearms is a cowboy, whereas a Black man with the same attributes is, as far as most of America's middle class white voters are concerned, is either in a gang or in the Nation of Islam. Obama can't do certain things that Kerry *could* have done, but didn't. But I believe, and I think I'm right in this, that his people get this and that they have long ago worked out compensatory strategies which we will find out about only when they are unleashed upon his hapless opponents.

Let's hope, anyway,

The Plaid Adder

All this talk of lipstick and pigs takes me back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaid...

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

That's what we went to war over, according to Bush's most recent State of the Union address. Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

At least, that's the story this year.

I know they knew the risks when they signed up; but still, I have to pity Bush's speechwriters. Any of them who retain even the smallest vestige of what must have at some point been a love of the written word and an allegiance to the basic principles of logical argument must feel exquisite pain when they sit down at the big conference table and look wearily up at the giant, hairy, snorting pig standing on top of it.

That column was about Bush's 2004 SOTU speech. Every single one of Bush's SOTU speeches was the same thing--lipstick on an increasingly large and unsightly pig. In fact that's really been Bush's whole approach to dealing with the many crises he's unleashed--get that pig to makeup, STAT!

Ah, good times, good times...

No, wait, they weren't. They were awful times. I hated them. I hated that pig. Everyone hated that pig. And now the pig that is the new GOP is back, bigger and meaner than ever, and we're supposed to play nice with it? I think not.



The Plaid Adder

I was talking earlier today with someone who is just starting to take an interest in politics because of Obama's campaign. Despite being a big reader of the print media, she has never really followed a presidential campaign before. Since she knows I have been following this shit for way longer than is good for me, when she has a question about something she's read about the campaign she often asks me.

Today we were talking about Palin and how she's helping the Republicans fund-raise. And then she asked me, "So what happens if on election day Obama gets the majority of the votes but McCain has raised more money? Does he still win?"

After I was sure I'd correctly understood the question, I said that yes, he would still win. The point of the fund raising was to make it possible for the campaign to pay for things like TV advertising, and was not (directly) related to the outcome of the election, though of course the more money a campaign raises the more of an advantage it has.

I thought about that conversation for a long time afterward. This question was, I think, a reflection of the horse-race nature of campaign reporting. The fund-raising race is reported on exactly the same way polling and electoral-vote speculation gets reported--who's up, who's down, who's got the momentum, etc. And since fund-raising is treated as just as important as getting the popular vote, she got the impression that you needed to win both the electoral race AND the fund-raising race in order to get elected.

Of course one could say that in fact she's right, and realistically whoever raises the most money does win the election. But I thought it very interesting that she had formed the impression that raising the most money was actually a constitutional requirement.

ah well,

The Plaid Adder

I have posted here before about my dad, the lifetime Republican. I sort of think I may have to stop calling him that now. He did after all vote for Kerry in 2004, and as for 2008...

He called tonight to talk about something unrelated to politics. I mentioned that my partner was out an open meeting of a local school council (PJ is not school-age yet, but my partner believes in advance preparation). He said, "Ah, doing the PTA thing already." I said, "Yes, soon we will be qualified to be Vice President of the United States."

I know he's in Massachusetts where his vote doesn't really matter; but still, it did my heart good to listen to him rant about Palin. He started off with "the whole thing is a farce" and went on from there. He is starting to feel about the Christian right almost the same way I do, and is similarly struck by her utter lack of preparedness for the job. "How do you think she'd do dealing with a guy like Putin?" he asked. I said, "I don't know, I guess she'd just look into his eyes and see his soul."

And, see, this is the thing that really creeps me out about Palin: the more I find out about her, the more she looks like George W. It's all there in her time as Wasilla's mayor: the narcissism, the obsession with loyalty, the grabbing for all the power she can reach, the belief that as the "executive" she has absolute power and to hell with the City Council, and even the asinine insistence that you can make things better by changing how you think about them.

That last point is made in a Seattle Times piece about Palin's first year as mayor of Wasilla. If you are still all wound up over the pregnancy stuff, I beg of you, go read this and find some REAL ammo. Most of the piece is about the wrongful termination suit filed by the incumbent chief of police after Palin fired him. One of the reasons she gave for firing him was that he was not sufficiently enthusiastic about filing the regular "positive" reports she had demanded of her department heads. Here's the relevant section of the article:

The day after Christmas, Palin sent a memo to Stambaugh and the other department heads. "What a wonderful time of year!" she wrote. "As we enter 1997, let's take this opportunity to start the new year off on a positive note."

From now on, the memo said, Palin wanted each department head to send her a weekly report, due Friday, with an "update of activities" and "at least two positive examples of work that was started, how we helped the public, how we saved the City money, how we helped the state, how we helped Uncle Sam, how we made operations run smoother, or safer, or more efficient."

"Please use numbers when appropriate," she wrote, adding: "Staff, I believe if we look for the positive, that is what we will ultimately find. Conversely, look for the negative and you'll find that, too. ... Wasilla has tremendous assets and opportunities and we can all choose to be a part of contributing to the improvement of our community ... or not. I encourage you to choose the prior because the train is a'moving forward!"

"I realize this is an added chore, but at least it's a positive one!" she wrote.

It certainly was an added chore; as the article points out, at the time this memo circulated the police chief was already filing daily and monthly reports with her plus attending weekly staff meetings. But apparently she was quite attached to these positive reports, because when the police chief's lawyer contacted her to ask why she fired him, that was the reason she gave: Stambaugh was filing the reports, but she could tell his heart wasn't in it, and that made her realize that she "did not have his full support."

This is a portrait of someone who has both power and a lot of insecurities but no clue in her head about how to get things done. So naturally, the Republican party wants to make her Vice President.

While I'm on this tear, may I just say that McCain had damn well better take that "Celebrity" ad out of circulation? Because what is Sarah Palin if not McCain's attempt to filch for himself, or at least his ticket, a little of that celebrity stardust that he has been eyeing enviously from his corner? Palin is apparently not ready for a press conference--she's certainly not ready for the office for which she is running--but she's already a full-blown celebrity, and apparently that's what matters now. One wonders whether the media would also have hailed it as a move of genius, whether he would have gotten the same bounce in the polls, if he had just gone the whole hog and actually put Paris Hilton on the ticket.

Anyway. My dad hopes that Obama will win and that Palin will molt once "her wings get too close to the sun." He could be right.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

I finally figured out today one--only one!--of the reasons that the whole Palin thing makes me so angry.

Sexism takes many forms. But one of the most persistent is the tendency to evaluate women based on their faces, their clothes, and their bodies rather than on anything that lies beneath. All women in political life have to deal with this to some extent--witness the amount of ink and pixels expended on discussing Nancy Pelosi's outfits and Hillary Clinton's pantsuits. Indeed, I would argue that all working women run into it sooner or later. A woman willing and able to make herself attractive to the men on the upper rungs of whatever ladder she's trying to climb will have advantages that other women don't, regardless of her ability, experience, intelligence, or integrity.

My point is this: when a qualified woman is passed over for a job in favor of another woman who is less qualified but more attractive to the men doing the hiring, that is sexism. And that is undeniably what happened with McCain's VP pick. If he wanted a woman for the ticket, there are easily a dozen women in the Republican party who would be much more capable of doing that job than Palin is. They were all passed over for Palin, because even though she's a pit bull, she apparently looks pretty good once you put a little lipstick on her.

OK. That's like, 1/1000th part of what's pissing me off about watching Republicans cry sexism over this. I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

The Plaid Adder

I don't know. Is it just me? I don't think I really want a President whose entire approach to life is based on what he learned from living in a box. I would think it might lead to better results if you based your philosophy on all the years you spent living OUTSIDE the box, after you were let out of it...what is it now, 30 years ago? 35?

I mean really. This is now officially the party of Living In A Box. George W. certainly knows about living in a box. George W.'s box is a lot more comfortable and full of people telling him how great he is, but it's just as isolated and isolating. Maybe the whole party feels like they're living in a box--locked up, caged in, the walls are closing in, and they're under siege. It would explain a lot.

let me know when it's over,

The Plaid Adder

My partner really wants to watch Palin's speech, so I tried. I did try. I sat through the governor of Hawaii's embarrassing attempts to make lemonade out of the lemon of Palin's lack of career. Guiliani we got through via generous use of the mute button. But once Palin started in on the "small town" stuff, I just had to leave.

I can't stand another three months of suspense as I wait to find out just how stupid people can be. Just how many Americans there are who still eat this folksy homespun small town girl crap up and start feeling like all you need to steer America through a century that is already eating us alive is the plain-spoken Christian wisdom of your small town. For Christ's sake, hasn't the past 8 years taught us that a modest intelligence unsullied by experience or curiosity but well-inspired by right-wing Christian arrogance is the last fucking thing you want squatting in the White House when the shit hits the fan?

AUGH!!!

Yes, because that's what we need, another person near the levers of power who professes to believe that everything you need to know about governing the most dangerous nation in the world is to be found in the hearts of 9000 of your neighbors. No, we don't need more "small town" thinking in the White House, it's the last fucking thing we need. But that doesn't matter; all that matter is how many other people in this country swell with pride as they listen to this tripe thinking, yes, a good-hearted small town down home hockey mom with God on her side, how could we do better?

@#$!!!!!!

Yeah, it's a bad speech. Gov. of Hawaii's was bad too. No, she is not an inspiring speaker. Yes, it's ludicrous that all of a sudden the test for whether you're qualified to be President is whether you've ever been a small-town mayor--even though as I recall their candidate doesn't have any "executive experience" either. Yeah, by all the laws of everything this VP pick should be a failure and this convention should sink the ticket.

But then there's that law that says, bad rhetoric works on people who want it to work on them. And really on election day all that matter is how many people still want to feel that glow and pull that stinking lever.



Is it over yet?



The Plaid Adder

...but there's one theory that, interestingly, nobody ever seems to advance.

So far the conventional wisdom seems to be that this is McCain's attempt to woo Hillary voters. I would imagine the average Hillary voter's response will be, "Hey. Asshole. HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK I AM?"

Seeing as protecting the right to choose is an issue that was kind of, uh, important to most of Hillary Clinton's supporters, picking an anti-choice evangelical is not the best way to court them. It's possible that McCain's people are too stupid, arrogant, or sexist to figure this out, and genuinely believe that Hillary's supporters will be too busy celebrating the fact that Palin has a uterus to wonder what a Palin presidency would mean about their right to control their own bodies. But my theory is that picking Palin was really a sop to the evangelicals, who are notoriously unenthusiastic about McCain despite all his other pandering, and that as far as disaffected Clinton voters go it's basically the political equivalent of a Hail Mary: it's a gamble that probably won't pay off, but what the hell, you've got nothing to lose.

However, I've now encountered several far more complicated theories about the strategy behind this choice--all still based on the assumption that McCain's handlers are somehow playing the gender card. I've heard the theory that McCain picked Palin figuring that the savaging she will shortly receive in the media, who as we know treat politically powerful women like crap, and from both the left and the right will stoke the simmering feminist outrage of Clinton's disappointed backers and inspire them to rally around their put-upon Republican sister. I've heard the theory that McCain picked Palin in order to make it impossible for Joe Biden to really take the gloves off during the VP debate; should he shred her the way he undoubtedly can, it'll only make him look like a big meanie for beating up on the poor woman. I've heard this theory, and I've heard that theory, but here's one theory I've not heard yet from anyone on the left OR on the right:

The theory that McCain picked Palin because he thought that, should she be called upon to do so, she'd make a good president.

*Nobody* who's talking about this pick is even paying lip service to the idea that McCain picked her because he thought she'd be good at the job. She's so unknown, so inexperienced, that her selection can *only* be explained in terms of political positioning. Someone here on the boards referred to her as "the Harriet Myers of VP picks," and I think that pretty much sums it up.

And it tells you something about this party that this is how they approached that selection. Sure, the VP pick is always partly about the electoral college and partly about attracting people to the ticket. But at least since Clinton, Democratic candidates have usually chosen someone who had actually been a viable candidate in his own right, thus taking seriously the possibility that something terrible might happen and that person might actually have to run the country. Democrats feel better knowing that they've got someone in that spot who wouldn't do the country too much damage if they had to step up.

Republicans apparently don't worry about that when they pick a VP. But they don't really worry about it when they pick a president either, so I guess it's to be expected.

Well, I'll give McCain this: his VP pick has strengthened marriage. Well, at least it's strengthened one marriage. My partner's sister is married to a Republican, and of course there's a certain amount of domestic disagreement as a result. But her husband's a fiscal Republican, not a Christian; and he apparently declared that he would not vote McCain if he put an evangelical on the ticket. So as of this morning, apparently, they're both Obama supporters. Thanks, McCain!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

The other day I posted kind of a pissed-off thing about how disillusioned I am with the whole presidential politics game and how disappointed I have been by some of the positions Obama has taken since the shift from the primary to the general election. I watched the speech tonight. As far as my particular issues go--the end of torture and illegal detention, the restoration of basic respect for human rights, GBLT equality, and so on--that speech had nothing in it for me. Looked at in the cold hard light of reason, the token mention that 'my people' got--"we can all agree that our gay brothers and sisters should be able to visit a loved one in the hospital"--is, frankly, lame. It's not that much better than saying, "Well, we can all agree that our gay brothers and sisters shouldn't be rounded up in cattle cars."

I spend a lot of time around rhetoric, political and otherwise. I have put some time into learning how to wield it. It has made me cynical about that too, and given me an often quite distracting aptitude for recognizing the moves that are being made to manipulate me.

All the same. When he got to the end of that speech, I got chills. Literally. I had the experience I sometimes have at an opera or a play or a concert where all the little hairs start standing up and you just kind of sit there tingling and you don't try to analyze why it's happening because you know there is no rational explanation, that you're just responding to the mysterious power generated at the moment when performance inexplicably and irresistibly works.

You can look at that and say, well, it's all just a big show. Sure. And that's why we're going to finally win this fucking thing. Because most Americans don't vote for their presidents based on reason and logic. The past two election cycles would tell you that. They vote for the candidate who makes them feel what they want to feel. And this time, finally, that guy is our guy.

It's not that there's nothing behind the show. Obama's campaign clearly is doing things differently and that obviously does proceed from some new ideas about how both politics and government can be made to work. And I am 100% convinced that Obama's right when he says that we'll do better under his administration than under McCain's. Still, for someone where I am on the political spectrum, he doesn't offer a whole lot. And regardless, the magic worked on me. And that means--I hope--that it's going to work on a lot of other people who feel the same way about either him personally or his agenda. And that's what's going to put him over the top.

My guess is that next week in Minneapolis, we're not going to see anything that can be as affecting or as powerful as what's happened in Denver this week. McCain could not spark a reaction like that even with all the electrodes that have ever been taped to the skin of our "detainees." The RNC is setting the stage right now for what can only be a miserable and pathetic anticlimax.

Of course the media still have tremendous power in terms of how they frame these events and what they allow people to see. I doubt the networks carried the "ordinary citizen" speakers whose segment was, IMHO, critical to preparing the response I eventually had. Still. That thing, the thing that gives people chills, is capable of shattering the frame. And I'm starting to feel like maybe this time it actually will.

So, we're launched. Anything can happen, but I know this much: we have a better candidate now than we did four years ago, and he's got smarter, more creative, and more competent people behind him. So good luck to him and to all the rest of us who for better or for worse have to sail in his ship, and let's hope that this time, the fairy tale finally does have a happy ending.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

A friend of mine sent around an email asking a bunch of us politically involved women whether, like her, we were feeling regrets after last night's speech about the fact that Clinton didn't get the nomination, what that means about how we plan to vote, and whether we actually really like Obama. I wrote up my answer, which I thought might be of interest to other people, so I'm posting it here, slightly edited. Be warned that it is not warm and fuzzy.
***************
I was an Edwards supporter. Then I was an Obama supporter. Now, I am a person who cannot fucking stand the prospect of another Republican president, and therefore plans to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I was never a Clinton supporter for two reasons: 1) the Republican in Democratic clothing thing and 2) I do not believe she could have won the general election.

Seriously. In the primary, being a Clinton is a plus. In the GE, it's poison. Many people have made hating the Clintons part of their identity, whereas nobody's had a chance to do that yet with Obama. I think the country can find it easier to imagine a nonwhite president than a nonmale president and while I'm not happy about that it's what I believe. And although I thought that speech last night was fabulous, it's the first time in all the time she's been giving speeches that I would ever have said that of her.

As for sexism from the Obama campaign, I regard this as mostly the media and the Clinton campaign doing everything they could to create this phenomenon. The "periodically" comment I consider to be a moment of Out of Context Theater; if you're going to assume that was a deliberate allusion to PMS than IMHO you have to assume that Clinton's infamous "we all know Kennedy was assassinated in June, right" remark was a deliberate attempt to convince people not to vote for Obama cause he'll only be shot. I am sick of Out of Context Theater and have taken a pledge to myself not to reward the media assholes who play that game, even when they are pushing my personal buttons.

Media coverage of her campaign absolutely was sexist, just as media coverage of Obama's campaign was and still is racist. I'm sure Obama's campaign was happy to passively profit from media sexism but I've never seen him do something I would consider overtly and deliberately sexist in public. In private, you know, God knows. Edwards apparently cheats on his cancer-stricken wife when no one's looking, whereas Bill Clinton gets fellatio from 21 year old interns. I've given up on requiring that the candidate I support have unimpeachable personal integrity, or a home life that's not a train wreck.

The "I'm not voting for Obama because I'm pissed off that the woman lost" stance is, from my POV, a real indication of what has, all this time, been holding us back about identity politics. In theory, all the different marginalized groups should band together in common cause, understanding that all forms of oppression are linked and that they must all be abolished together. In practice, what's happened is, "I gotta get mine for my people; so fuck you and your people." This attitude is not specific to feminists; it is something I see in GBLT politics and in African-American politics, and it's fueled by the shared perception that YOUR group is always the one that is asked to 'wait,' 'be patient', and take one for the team. In fact, that's happened to all of our little identity fragments at different times in history, and playing competitive oppressions, while an irresistible pastime, is also a waste of time and effort. If we can put in a candidate who is highly motivated to do something about racism, that alleviates the burden for a significant number of women of color, and so that tide lifts the feminist boat too. It would have been the same with Clinton and sexism: African-Americans would benefit from, say, well-crafted and well-enforced equal pay legislation, since many AA families are headed by female wage earners. We should all have approached this primary contest as a win-win situation rather than a battle to the death for our own tiny pieces of the pie.

Sorry. I am bitter, too, I guess, but express it in a different way: by jettisoning idealism, principles, emotional investment, the importance of a "protest vote," all that kind of stuff and instead focusing on the pragmatic goal of ejecting the Republican Party from the throne of power. Along those lines, I have taken the position that I will forgive Obama for the various ways in which he is sure to disappoint me on the condition that he do one thing only, which is @#$! WIN.

And I think he can actually do that. And I think that will be quite clear when he gives his acceptance speech on Thursday.

YMMV,

The Plaid Adder

I don't have time to really analyze it, but I just want to say this: she had a tough job to do and she could not have done it any better. I thought it was a great speech--I could have done without the hagiographic video, but I'm not gonna want to sit through Obama's hagiographic video either, I am not a fan of the form--and instead of just saying, "yeah, party unity, you should support the nominee, look I'm saying it now, so go do it," she actually laid out for the people who supported her the real consequences their "discontent" could potentially have, and made the case that supporting Obama will get them closer to what they were all supposed to be fighting for than sabotaging him would. Not being a Clinton supporter myself, I can't say whether many of them will find it persuasive. I'm just saying I don't think she could have done it any better than that.

As usual, the media will turn this blessing into a curse, and we'll be treated to "but since she did such a great job, doesn't this mean it was a mistake not to make her the VP?" for the next news cycle. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; all I know is, if he HAD made Hillary Clinton the VP, the media would be attacking him 24/7 for doing *that.* Cause that's just what they do, and I haven't got time to rant about it.

The best thing about this, really, apart from the effect it hopefully will have on the election, is that it undoes some of the damage done to Clinton's image by the last weeks of her campaign. I don't think it served anyone's interest to see her torn down, either by her own decisions about what tactics were acceptable or by Obama's surrogates or by the media; and I'm glad she's had a chance to build herself back up.

Anyway. I hope everyone's happy in Denver tonight. I gotta hit the hay, I have a long day tomorrow.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

We don't watch a lot of TV. So the commentary, even on PBS, is kind of getting to me.

Here are the things I'm already sick of:

* BUT THE PARTY IS DIVIDED!

Despite the fact that they can't actually find anyone on the convention floor who is not supporting Obama, they just keep driving it home that all the Clinton voters are disgruntled and it's all dicey whether they'll support the nominee or not. I know a total of one actual Clinton supporter who is planning not to vote for Obama in 2008, and even she wouldn't vote for McCain. As for the rest of these mythical disgruntled Clinton supporters who are planning to vote Republican in this election, well, all I can tell you is this: Put them on camera or else SHUT UP about them. I am so sick of the media inventing problems just so they have something to report on.

* Obama's choice of Biden merely underscores how inexperienced he is!

This is the latest Republican talking point about the Biden pick, and I can't tell you how pukeworthy I find it. It's a perfect illustration of how we just will never win in the media under these conditions: attacked if you do, attacked if you don't, attacked with special vigor if you try to correct whatever it was you were attacked for in the first place. You know, gang, you can push that crap if you want, but why pretend to be neutral while you're doing it?

Plus--and I'm just waiting to see someone bring this up--what the hell foreign policy experience did Clinton have before he was elected? Or, as long as we're bringing up past presidents, George W? Or is it that it's only since GWB's presidency that it's occurred to anyone that experience is something we ought to have in a president, seeing as this crap is what happens when we elect someone who doesn't have a lick of it? Well, OK, but may I point out that the real problem with GWB is not just that he has no experience, but that he is incapable of LEARNING from it?



I'm also starting to get very pissed off about all the "humanizing the candidate" rhetoric. Sure, they talked about this with Kerry, they talk about it with all Democratic candidates. All the same. Why does Obama have to prove he's human? Can we not take that for granted at this point?



Still. Michelle Obama did a great job after what I thought was kind of a nervous opening; the kids are just so friggin' cute you can't stand it, and all in all it looks like it'll be a good week for us. But I don't think TV coverage, at least what I've seen, has gotten any better since 2004.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder