Weapon of Campaign Destruction

A lot has been made about Barack Obama's alleged "relationship" with former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Sarah Palin and other McCain surrogates have argued that since Obama and Ayers were acquainted and Ayers has a "terrorist" history, that makes Obama a friend/supporter of terrorism.

First of all, what a ridiculous leap in logic. Disregard for a moment that the link between Obama and Ayers is maybe one step above "casual acquaintance" -- they served on a committee together and Ayers hosted a fundraising party for Obama. Even if their relationship was friendlier than that, the idea that Obama in any way supports or stands for what Ayers once did is completely faulty. First of all, Ayers committed these acts of "terrorism" nearly 40 years ago, decades before he even met Obama. Obama himself was a child when the Weathermen were at their height. Secondly, since when do the actions of our friends reflect on us? I have Republican friends, but I don't vote Republican. I have friends who practice different religions, root for different sports teams, and generally believe in things I don't believe in. Their choices don't reflect my personal beliefs just as my choices don't reflect theirs.

I also have a problem with the way Bill Ayers's name has been dragged through the mud by this campaign. Yes, he was involved in some pretty nasty business back in the 60's and 70's. His actions, though, stemmed from a belief that the government was involved in morally bankrupt practices and needed to be stopped. Ayers and his colleagues saw their actions as revolutionary -- just as a bunch of "terrorists" did back in 1776. When the Weathermen bombed buildings, they sent warnings that included evacuation notices, identification of the protest being stated, and gave details that would spare lives. They didn't fly airplanes into buildings. Their protests were violent but focused and stemmed from beliefs that were shared by a large number of people in this country at the time.

In the years since the Weathermen disbanded, Ayers has gone on to be a productive member of society. He is a professor at the University of Chicago, one of the top universities in the nation. He is involved in numerous charities throughout the Chicago area. Do the actions of the man not get to outweigh at some point the mistakes of the boy? Doesn't a lifetime of responsibility get to erase a few years of poor choices? The fact of the matter is that this man who has spent decades educating and giving to others and now has been turned into a weapon of campaign destruction.

The fact of the matter is that the McCain campaign has become convinced that the only way to win this election is to ignore the issues that plague the hearts and minds of America and is attempting to appeal to our fears by painting Obama as dangerous and evil. McCain had that moment where he tried to assure voters that there was nothing to fear where Obama is concerned, but he's done little to stop his supporters from shouting racial epithets or crying out for Obama to be killed. The nastiness that is being fostered by the McCain campaign is shameful and the fact that this seems to be backfiring on him in the polls gives me hope that American elections can become civil someday.

Debate This!

Like many of you, I tuned in nervously to last night's debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. With the McCain camp becoming more and more negative in the past several days, I wasn't really sure how nasty McCain would get when Obama was standing right there.

Fortunately, outside of the "that one" bit which didn't really register with me as offensive in the moment, McCain kept the bile a little under control, but he still came across as a grumpy, petulant old man who was pissed to have to go through this. I don't get a sense of joy or passion from McCain -- and that's troubling. I don't want a President who doesn't have a passion for the job. We've all seen (or even worked with) people who hate their jobs. It's not pleasant -- the bitching and moaning and lackluster effort that often results makes everyone feeling lousy, even the people who DO like their jobs. Is that the guy we want leading us? The guy who'd rather be on the golf course than working on the big presentation? Or the guy who brings an intensity and excitement to the job and keeps striving to be better -- and encouraging us to be better, too.

I pick option #2.

There's Good News and Bad News

First, I guess, the bad news. She didn't suck. She didn't commit any huge gaffes that would reveal that this particular empress wears no clothes. She was . . . . competent. She was personable and perky and charming in that gratingly folksy way she has. As I said to my sis last night as we were watching, "Whoever prepped her for this debate deserves a big, fat bonus check -- and a month's vacation."

For those of us watching hoping to witness a blood bath, hoping to see Joe rip into Barbie like a rabid dog, we were disappointed. She held her own, and while Joe debated like the pro he is, he never went for the cheap shot, never tried to humiliate or annihilate her. He debated the way you're supposed to -- supported by research and facts and with respect for his opponent. That's what I teach my kids in Debate class anyway. A debate isn't a fight -- it's an intellectual discussion between two opposing ideas. (You would not believe how hard it is to get teenagers to buy that. Okay, you probably would.)

And now for the good news: Joe did his supporters proud, and I think that he may have gone a long way towards wooing some of those mythic, all-powerful undecided voters, at least according to the CNN voter response graph. (Am I the only one who finds myself watching that more than the debaters? I find it absolutely fascinating!) He hit all the right notes and hammered home the points that will be key to winning this election for the Dems -- continuing to push that link between Bush and McCain, reminding voters of the failure of the GOP during their years of control in the White House and Congress, laying out an agenda that offers hope for the struggling middle class and hope for those concerned about what's going on overseas. In reality, Biden was really debating John McCain as he continually hammered his colleague for misguided votes and policy proposals. With Palin, he was respectful without being deferential, tough without being condescending. This was the Joe Biden I fell in love with in Iowa a year ago -- tough, intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful. This was the Joe Biden I wanted to fill that VP slot starting back in January when Iowans' inability to cut through the glitz and glamor of his more polished opponents ended his campaign the night of the Iowa caucus. He is nothing but an asset to the Obama campaign, and he will be nothing but an asset to an Obama administration.

While Palin did not implode or maybe even provide a ton of fodder for Tina Fey's appearance on SNL tomorrow night (surely they'll do a debate skit!), she also did not hit the sort of grand slam she probably needed to help stop the voter erosion the McCain campaign seems to be suffering. If there is any silver lining to the grey cloud that is this financial meltdown, it's that it is forcing people to really take a look at McCain and realize that he may not be the best person to shepherd the nation through this crisis. When you add Iditarod Barbie to the mix, voter confidence is even more shaken. (Man, you KNOW McCain has to be wishing he'd picked Mitt Romney as his vp right now.) What's even more encouraging is that Obama is making some progress in those key battleground states (like Michigan -- where his lead has become significant enough that McCain is pulling his campaign from the state) -- and even starting to make some noise in states once thought to be GOP locks (like Indiana). The McCain campaign is starting to look like it's having a meltdown of its own with the embarrassment of the Palin-Couric interview, McCain's ridiculous "campaign suspension" (that lasted what? 20 minutes?), and the shifting realization of the electorate that McCain does not represent change.

I'm not popping open the champaign yet, but I'm putting it on ice -- just in case.

Let's Call It a Draw

I sat down and watched the debate last night, wanting to see it before watching Meet the Press tonight. I've read some of the post-game commentary, mostly on the Huff and some op-ed pieces in the NY Times. And I have to say I came away from the debate with an "eh" reaction.

Obviously, the debate isn't going to change my mind. I'm not going to have this sudden epiphany over the course of two hours and suddenly become a rabid McCain supporter. If anything, the debate and this week's ridiculous show of suspending the campaign eroded any of the remaining respect I ever had for John McCain. (Check out today's Frank Rich for a great take on the "suspension.") If I heard that guy say he wasn't "Miss Congeniality" one more time, I was going to scream. Of course we know he's not Miss Congeniality -- he looks nothing like Sandra Bullock. How stupid does he think we are??

To me, the debates are like a football game (yeah, there's that sports metaphor again). I watch to support my team and hoping to see my team deliver a crushing defeat to its opponent. I did not get my wish with Friday's debate.

Did my team even win? I'm not even sure I can say that. Yes, Obama gave a fine performance. His cool calm was on display, and I had a glimpse of a future where America is in crisis and we have this cool customer calmly assuring us everything will be okay. McCain seemed petulant and grouchy. At times, I found him incredibly condescending towards Obama. But he didn't buckle under Obama's rhetoric. The fault for that lies with Obama. His refusal to let McCain ruffle his feathers kept him from really digging in and attacking McCain. He had several opportunities where righteous indignation could have delivered a devastating blow, and he let those opportunities slide. Maybe he didn't want to seem like he was beating up the old guy. Instead, he let the old guy continue to perpetuate the same untruths that has been fueling his campaign.

I know that Obama is trying to play these debates as a gentleman's game and doesn't want to dig in the muck. But when the rain is pouring down around you, you have no choice but to get a little dirty if you want to get through the storm.

Wash Your Mouth Out!

This morning, I tuned in, as I always do, to Meet the Press. One of Tom's guests was Rudy Giuliani who was there as a surrogate for the McCain campaign. Giuliani was trying to defend the latest McCain commercial that paints Obama as an advocate of sex education at the kindergarten level. He was trying to defend Sarah Palin's clear lack of qualifications as well as the growing rumblings about misconduct in her leadership in Alaska. At one point when he was launching an attack on Obama, Giuliani pointed out that Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate and that Joe Biden was the third most liberal member. (Who's lucky number 2??) My thought was, "Awesome! That's just what we need -- two liberals to really shake things up."

And then I realized that this was meant to shock us, to scare us, to convince us that voting for Obama and Biden would be a tremendous mistake. It's not the first time that candidates have used "liberal" as a slur against another candidate. I can remember Michael Dukakis coming under fire for being a card-carrying member of the ACLU. It's become a rather damning slur, and it's time for that to stop. As a liberal, I'm offended by this portrayal of liberal as something dirty or unseemly when the truth is that any candidate running as a candidate of change has to be a liberal.

Have you ever looked the word up? Do you know what it really means to be liberal? According to dictionary.com, a liberal is
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts

Which one of those definitions mean all hell breaking loose? Which one of those definitions indicates a general destruction of our society as we know it? Is it the one about being free from bigotry? Or maybe the one about being generous? Or being anti-monarchy? This country was FOUNDED by liberals. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington? Those men were liberals (except maybe that free from bigotry part, as I'm sure their slaves would attest to). They had the vision and courage to break from the monarchy and start a government like none ever seen before. Turning "liberal" into a dirty word is an insult to everything those men fought for -- and an insult to everything this country is supposed to represent.

This country has a history of liberalism, of standing up to injustice and seeking reform when things are falling apart. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal, leading the country through one of the greatest reforms in its history -- the abolition of slavery. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a liberal, setting into motion the most radical series of government reforms to attempt to get this country through the Great Depression.

The fact of the matter is that when this country has faced its greatest challenges, when it has been in the greatest peril, it has been the liberals who have stepped forward and held our hands through the crisis. Where would this country be without those liberal founding fathers? Without Lincoln or Roosevelt? Without Woodrow Wilson, who came up with this crazy idea that maybe the countries of the world could work together to secure worldwide peace? Without JFK and LBJ, who had the courage to champion legislation aimed to end racism? Without Martin Luther King, who had the dream of harmony and brotherhood?

Obama is the most liberal person to ever run for president? Hallelujah! We need a liberal now more than ever. Look was 8 years of "compassionate conservatism" has gotten us. If we want to weather this storm we're facing, it's a liberal we want at the helm of this ship -- or we just may end up on the rocks.

We Are Too Sensitive!

So this week, Barack Obama is learning a hard lesson -- that people are too freakin' touchy and easy to offend. He made what I sincerely believe was an innocent comment. In discussing the spin that the McCain-Palin camp is trying to put on their record, he said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." I heard that comment and my reaction was a little chuckle -- not because I made the connection between lipstick and Sarah Palin (and therefore jumped to the conclusion that he was calling Sarah Palin a pig) -- but rather because that phrase always makes me chuckle because it makes me imagine one of my childhood idols, the legendary Miss Piggy. I mean, seriously, that pig was a riot because no matter how glamorous she thought she was, she was still a pig!

It's not like Barack Obama made this expression up. It's a common expression -- one that McCain himself used just a year ago to describe the health care plan of a Democratic rival. That Democratic rival? Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? Did Hillary and her camp throw a fit and accuse McCain of being sexist? No. Suddenly, because of her stupid hockey mom-pit bull "joke" (I use quotes because is it seriously that funny?), Sarah Palin has somehow trademarked lipstick?

I have a hard time believing that Barack Obama, a man who has dealt with a lot of bigotry in his life, would stoop so low as to actually call (or more accurately imply) that his rival is a pig. I think he has more sensitivity and class than that. I also think that he's smart enough to know that if he were to intentionally make that analogy that he would be crucified. Remember, too, that he has to face Michelle every night, and I don't see that kind of remark flying by her. Rather he used an expression in an attempt to seem more "like us" and didn't make the connection that everyone else jumped to right away -- that it would be seen as a comment on Palin.

Again, though, I grow concerned about the tone of this election. It seems incredibly counterproductive to me to have a female vice presidential candidate on the ticket, to trumpet her as a harbinger of change, and then demand that she be treated with kid gloves -- kid gloves that would be nowhere in sight if she were a man. This kind of double standard does not help the cause of women but rather only further highlights our "otherness" rather than accepting us as equals. If we want to play with the boys, we gotta be ready to be treated like the boys. It may suck, some really lousy things may get said, but that's, sadly, part of the game. There may be lipstick on this pig we call politics, but it's really still just a pig.

No offense, Sarah.

You Don't Know Barack

I've written before about my frustration over the American public's need for a "relatable" president and their apparent disdain for candidates who present themselves with intelligence. This is an obstacle that Barack Obama still faces, even after the endearing and charming speech given by his wife last Monday and his own electrifying and inspiring speech Thursday. What also frustrates me is this notion of "humanization," that people aren't responding to Obama because they don't feel like they know him.

First of all, that's sort of insane. How much do we really need to know about a person to vote for him/her? I don't have this sort of pressing need to know what's on Obama's ipod or what count sheets he prefers sleeping on. I'd really just rather he lead. Is it interesting to know that his wife likes The Brady Bunch or he has Stevie Wonder on his ipod? Sure, but is that going to make a difference in voting for him? If it does, then I'M the one with the problem. Letting superficial matters like whether or not he drinks beer (an allegatation he had to defend last night on 60 Minutes) define your vote for candidate borders on the stupid in ways I can't even put into words.

When it comes down to it, here's all that should matter when selecting a candidate -- does this person hold the same beliefs and values I hold? Is this person going to do his/her best to defend those beliefs and values in office? If the answer to those questions is "yes," then, my friend, I think you've found your candidate. The rest is all useless trivia and noise.

The great thing about living in the 21st Century is that it's not hard to find the answer to those two questions (as well as being inundated with trivia and noise -- all I had to do was type "obama" and "ipod" into google and a bevy of articles popped up all promising to answer that apparently not-so-elusive question). Go online and spend maybe five minutes reading the candidates' websites or a variety of political blogs or news sites that can help you learn who these people are who want the opportunity to govern us. Don't let the media make your choice by telling you who's the better bowler. Use these resources we've learned to take for granted in such a short time and make the educated choice.

And if that doesn't do it for you, remember that Barack Obama has written TWO books which do a pretty decent job telling you who he is, where he came from, and what he stands for. John McCain has written three. Again, I laugh when the media complains about not knowing Barack Obama or his story, a complaint you never hear about McCain since he seems to buy into this "need to know" sham enough that he's made his story the center of his campaign, using his time spent as a POW as his calling card and go-to defense strategy whenever he's attacked. Clearly, though, the media has never cracked open either of Obama's books. Just reading a chapter or two of either book will tell you a lot about this man, and yet you never once hear those books mentioned when people complain about not knowing Obama's story. Our goal of becoming a nation of illiterates is moving along quite nicely, I see.

Set Your DVR's

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to be interviewed tomorrow (Sunday) night on 60 Minutes. There's a brief clip available for viewing at The Huffington Post.

Where Do I Begin?

Several of you have e-mailed me today to guage my reaction to both Obama's electrifying speech last night and McCain's sucker-punch selection of Sarah "No, Really, I'm NOT Tina Fey" Palin. I've spent pretty much all day processing that and trying to figure out a way to put all of what I'm thinking and feeling into words.

Let's start with the good stuff, shall we?

I thought the DNC extravaganza last night was truly amazing. I felt electrified all evening, even before Barack Obama took the stage. Throughout the past years, my love and admiration and respect for Al Gore has grown immensely. I was not a huge Al Gore fan in early 2000, and I really don't know why, particularly as I'm such a fan of the cerebral candidate. (I mean, hell, I cried myself to sleep over Michael Dukakis. MICHAEL DUKAKIS!!!) I supported Bill Bradley in the 2000 primary partly because I liked the guy's ideas and partly out of some sort of resentment that everyone just assumed Gore would be the candidate and I really hate feeling like my vote means nothing. (I have a history of voting for the "other guy" in primaries -- Bob Kerrey in 1992, Bill Bradley, Dennis Kucinich. I finally got it right this year!) Anyway, by the time the 2000 DNC came along, I had come to terms with Gore being the candidate, got on board the party train, was charmed by "the kiss", and voted for him like a good Democrat. I didn't become "passionate" about Gore's candidacy until Florida. Over the years, Gore's transformation from "automatronic joke" to a Nobel Prize winning statesman has been truly inspiring. Sometimes, I think I love him more than Bill Clinton -- and I love Bill Clinton. Gore's self-depricating wit and intelligence charm me. I want to have dinner with Al Gore. I think it would be a fascinating conversation. With that said, I obviously was quite moved by his speech last night. Al Gore has handled the theft of his victory in 2000 with such grace, but last night was the first time in a long time when I cried over it -- on behalf of him and on behalf of this country. I think that sometimes we really feel like the president is far removed from our daily lives, that who we elect, in the end, really doesn't matter because they're all the same and their power sometimes seems almost non-existent when it comes to our lives. If you still believe that, watch this and tell me that a Gore presidency wouldn't have made a difference in your life today and a difference in the life of America. This should have been his victorious farewell speech, and instead, it was a sad reminder of a lost America.

That makes it even more crucial to elect Barack Obama. His speech last night was one of the finest things I've ever seen -- and I've seen a lot of great speeches. (Ugh! Listen to me! Pretentious much??) He hit every note he needed to hit. It was a speech filled with vision and compassion and courage and determination. For the first time in a long time, I felt valued and cared for as an American citizen and that someone out there was going to fight for me and protect me. I admire Barack Obama for a lot of things, but last night, I admired him for not backing down, for taking this fight and smashing it like a grapefruit right in John McCain's face. I don't know that I've ever felt this proud to be a Democrat before, and I am a pretty proud nearly lifelong Democrat -- going back to Election Night 1976 when I danced around our living room in my Bullwinkle pajamas singing a song I made up about how much I loved Jimmy Carter. I was 5, and outside of those "parroting my parents" years when I thought Ronald Reagan was the bomb-diggity (cut me some slack -- I was 9!), I've been a Democrat ever since. One thing that often frustrates me about my party is our insistence to play nice. Not that I'm advocating mudslinging and swift boating, but it was so disheartening four years ago to see John Kerry continually get kicked in the groin and never once even put on a cup to try to protect himself. I firmly believe that one of the biggest reasons why Gore lost in 2000 was that the party tried to play it too safe in Florida. Rather than demanding that the votes be recounted, they hemmed and hawed and ended up getting the rug pulled right out from underneath them because the Republicans do NOT play nice. They are the party of Lee Atwater and James Baker, a party that will push up their sleeves and fight until there's no one left standing. I'm Irish; I believe in a good fight. Last night, Obama showed me that he believes in a good fight, too. A good, fair fight that's based on issues and ideals rather than trumped up b.s. like who's more patriotic. This is going to be the most exciting election in my lifetime, but we need to fasten our seat belts, folks, because it's going to be a bumpy, bloody ride.

John McCain proved THAT this morning when he announced his selection for VP. First of all, let me applaud the McCain camp for something -- they shocked the hell out of just about everyone. This morning, CNN had all but crowned Minnesota governer Tim Pawlenty. NPR seemed convinced that Mitt Romney had received the call. Both mentioned allusions to a "dark horse" but both even had that "dark horse" identified as Meg Whitman. So you can imagine my shock when I opened an email from Danielle (Danielle, did you know that you technically broke the news to me? This teaching thing is really cutting into my amatuer political pundit time spent pouring over the pages of the Huffington Post and nytimes.com) with the subject line that said, "A woman?" and I hurriedly went to cnn.com to find out it was Sarah Palin. I seriously said "That son of a bitch!" out loud. (Thank goodness it was between classes and no students were around!)

There's a part of me that's devastated because I share in Jen's fear that this could be the thing that ruins this election for Obama and consign us to four more years of Republican shenanigans. There's a part of me that's angry for that reason and because this is such a manipulative move on the part of McCain. He did not pick Sarah Palin for her beliefs. He picked her because she has a vagina. What she brings to the table idealogically is irrelevant. She is, to put it more bluntly, a token, and that offends me on so many different levels. On top of it, she's a flippin' beauty queen?!?!?!? What a great message to send to girls already struggling with self-esteem issues and body isues. "Hey girls, you can be anything you want to be. You can even be one heart beat away from the presidency -- as long as you're pretty!" First the ugly kid can't sing the Chinese National Anthem, and now this!

Let me close this lengthy post with this impassioned plea to those wavering Hillary supporters out there: I know you're upset that Hillary did not win. I've been there. I know that frustration. I know that you believe there was a lot of gender bias at play. I know that it will be tempting for you to vote for McCain now that there is this attractive, charming woman who seems so much like you -- a "hockey mom" who's risen to power in a disproportionately male state. Just promise me one thing before you vote -- promise me you'll vote with your head and not with your vagina. Investigate this woman, look at what she stands for. She may share your gender but she may not share your ideals. This woman will be one heartbeat away from the presidency, and just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean she's going to fight for the things you believe in. As angry as you may be that Obama did not pick Hillary to be his vice president, at least he picked someone who shares the values and ideals of Hillary's party -- your party. Joe Biden is a good man who has fought for us for 35 years in the Senate. Vote with knowledge, vote with your head, vote the way you know will help heal this fractured nation of ours.

Thank you.

One Thing Before I Go to Bed

Now THAT speech was presidential, thank you very much.

(More tomorrow but right now I need sleep more than political commentary. I'm watching the speech 2 more times tomorrow with my speech classes, so I should have a LOT to say!!!)

Opening Night Thoughts

Once again, I want to shake a frustrated fist at the geniuses who scheduled the Democratic Convention the same week as the first week of school for me. It's really cutting into my time. I can't watch all the afternoon festivities -- like the countless state reps who speak or Sasha Obama calling the convention to order. (Man, does that kid send my biological clock ticking -- although I suspect that she would drive me crazy with her cuteness after a while!) Last night, I came home with a pile of work that necessitated being in the tv-less den working on the computer. Thank God for CNN's live feed where I could watch (or rather listen to) the speakers without the endless commentary from Wolf and the gang. On the other hand, it did mean actually listening to ALL the speakers, like the incredibly dull Jim Leach from Iowa. (Hey, Republicans, we gave you guys Zell Miller four years ago. Couldn't you have shot us someone with a little bit more charisma -- or does such a thing exist in the GOP?) I don't know that I would go so far as James Carville (who looks more and more like the Crypt Keeper every day) and call last night a failure on the part of the Democrats, but I think the night was most definitely saved by two families -- the Kennedys and the Obamas.

First off, I should say that Ted Kennedy has long been one of my political idols. It goes back to one of those childhood stories that truly illuminate who I am today. When I was a kid, I had a set of World Book Encyclopedias in my bedroom. They were a little dated (Nixon was still listed as the current president), but I would sit and read them voraciously, reading primarily about movie stars and politics (see -- what did I tell you? ILLUMINATION!). I was particularly fond of reading the section about John and Bobby Kennedy. I was fascinated by the story, which seemed like something out of a book or movie. I can remember crying the first time I read that they were assassinated and even then, at the age of 8 or 9, wondering what the world would be like if they had lived. In 1980, when Ted Kennedy ran for president, I was enthralled. ANOTHER KENNEDY!?!!?!?? I BEGGED my parents to vote for him, not understanding fully the whole idea of party identification and the fact that I was being raised in a Republican home. (My mom says she knew from that moment they were in trouble with me politically, although it would be a good decade or more later before I found out that my mom had been a closet Democrat all those years -- something that would have been nice to know when I cried myself to sleep in high school because my parents didn't vote for Dukakis. Had I known that HALF OF MY FAMILY did, maybe I would have not been so despondent!)

Anyway, I was very moved by Kennedy's appearance and honestly surprised to see that he still looked like Ted Kennedy. I was expecting him to be frail and bald, and he looked pretty robust -- until he started walking (which is when I started crying). It was a classic Ted speech, made all the more powerful by the realization that this could very well be his last appearance before his party like this. This is the die-hard liberal Democrat in me talking here, but this country really does owe a great debt of gratitude to this man who has worked tirelessly year after year to try to make this country a better place. He's not perfect, he's made mistakes, but he's also made a difference.

I did sit through the rather dull speeches that fell between Kennedy and Michelle Obama. The highlight for me was probably seeing the Chicago city clerk speak. Not that it was a rousing speech, but I was seriously laughing my butt off that the Chicago city clerk was invited to speak and NOT the Democratic governor of Illinois. Let me say that again: the DEMOCRATIC governor of the home state of the DEMOCRATIC presidential nominee was not invited to speak at the DEMOCRATIC convention. For those of you not familiar with the state of party politics here in Illinois, let me just say that this is incredibly telling. We have a state government in crisis with bickering within the Democratic party, a party that controls both the governor's mansion, the Senate, and the House. There's a constant feud between Governor Rod Blagojevich, Speaker Mike Madigan, and Majority Leader Emil Jones. People in this blue state are pretty fed up with Blago -- and here's your proof that the frustration extends beyond the borders of our state.

I have to confess I wasn't sure how I would feel about Michelle Obama speaking. It's not that I don't like her, but there's always this part of me that finds it a little condescending that the wives of candidates are given their own little speech time -- like, "Here you go, honey. Now go make me a sandwich!" I also knew, though, the real purpose of that speech -- to try to address that "elitist" label that the GOP is trying to saddle Barack Obama with. The film that preceeded her speech began that task. The story of his persistence in getting her to go out with him was charming and relatable -- and what woman wouldn't finally cave in when offered ice cream? (I know, that was sexist . . . okay, what MAN wouldn't cave in either? Who doesn't like ice cream?) I also really liked the speech by her brother and thought it did a great job of exposing the "human" side of Michelle, too, who has fought a lot of conservative smear tactics this year, undeservedly so. Heaven forbid a smart, talented man marry a smart, talented woman! Thank God Michelle loves The Brady Bunch. Now maybe people will get over it and vote with their heads and not whatever part of them compels people to vote for the dream beer drinking buddy.

As for her speech . . . wow! I liked Michelle Obama before, but now I freakin' love her. Not only did she complete her assigned task of "humanizing" herself and her husband, but she did it without pandering. She launched the defense she needed to while still urging people to be strong and do the right thing in November. The text was available online almost immediately, and you'd better believe I printed that thing off to hand to one of my speech team kids this season! As if that wasn't enough, the two little girls coming out and visiting with their dad via satellite was adorable. (I heard someone on NPR this afternoon saying that was a powerful show of courage on Michelle Obama's part -- to hand a live mic to a 7 year old. And how telling was it that she did so without batting an eye, without that look of fear at what Sasha might say?) You know what, it's time we had a family like that in the White House. What a powerful message to send to the world, to show this intelligent couple raising a young family. How inspiring to see just what is possible here, just what this country can be. The Obama family gives hope. To borrow a line from an old friend of ours, I STILL believe in a place called Hope, and I saw the family who can lead us there last night.

Tonight is Hillary. I'll react tomorrow.

Could This Man Be One Heartbeat Away?

Okay, I lost interest in the Olympics at about 10:35 last Saturday night when Michael Phelps won his historic 8th gold medal. Part of it was the fact that that sports that remained (outside of volleyball which I do enjoy watching) are not sports of which I am particularly fond, and part of it was the fact that the media (and NBC) seemed to stop caring enough to shield me from finding out results before they were aired. (Somehow knowing Shawn Johnson was going to win the gold made watching her win the gold not all that exciting. I mean, it's like knowing who Keyser Soze is before the movie even starts!)

So this week, outside of getting myself mentally prepared to go back to work and fighting the demon grapevines, my focus has shifted to my spectator sport of choice -- politics. I'm not even going to begin to discuss how upset I am that the start of the Democratic convention coincides with my return to work (and lack of 24/7 access to convention coverage). We've all had a nice little break here this summer, recovering from the Fight Club that was the primaries, and the time has come to complete the family for November. According to all reports, tomorrow, Barack Obama will be speaking in Springfield (a mere 2 hours and 10 minutes from my house!) to kick off his journey to the Democratic Convention in Denver AND announce his running mate. All week, I've been pouring through various articles online dissecting the believed-to-be major contenders for the spot. Mostly, though, I've been on pins and needles waiting to see if the vice presidential choice *I* targeted months ago will actually be the one chosen. The choice I have long said would be the perfect choice is intelligent, has a tremendous amount of experience in foreign relations, and endured a disappointing campaign during the primary. This candidate was my top choice until dropping out. And that person is . . . . Joe Biden.


Yes, I was one of the ten people in America who actually intended to vote for Joe Biden last winter. I was devastated when he ended his campaign the night of the Iowa primary and spent the next several weeks between Iowa and Illinois agonizing in trying to choose a candidate to replace him. (Anyone who knows me well will know that decision making is not one of my strengths.) I was a Biden supporter for a lot of the same reasons why he seems to be one of the top candidates for Obama's veep -- he's experienced, he knows his stuff when it comes to foreign policy, and he is a bulldog in a debate. Last September, I attended a candidate's forum in Davenport, Iowa, where all of the Democratic candidates (minus Obama and Kucinich) debated and I was impressed by Biden's intelligence, passion, and fearlessness. He was charming but with substance and wasn't afraid to take on Hillary Clinton who was, at that time, pretty much assumed to be the nominee. As my sis and I left the forum that evening, we both remarked how charmed we had been by Biden and that Hillary would be wise to consider him to be her veep.

My admiration for Biden was furthered throughout the winter and spring as I would catch his appearances on Meet the Press and listen to him talk about foreign policy, the one area which concerned me the most where Obama was concerned. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan, Biden was a terrific voice of reason and seemed to be the one "talking head" I saw who seemed to understand the complexity of the situation over there and who seemed to offer the best ideas for how the U.S. should respond.

According to what I've just read this evening on cnn.com, Biden appears to be emerging as the likely choice. Sources in the camps of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (whose appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday was not particularly impressive) and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh have apparently revealed that neither Kaine nor Bayh will be the choice. Another source reports that Hillary Clinton was never seriously vetted. That leaves, according to the list I've been able to cobble together via CNN, The NY Times, and the Huffington Post, Biden and longshot Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas with most pundits leaning towards Biden. Unless Obama has a surprise to pull out of his hat tomorrow morning in Springfield (like Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas), it looks like my man Joe is the one.

Now . . . who is McCain going to choose . . . .?