Can Democrats Manage Not to Lose Again to Trump?

Photo source: AP, from
 https://whyy.org/episodes/biden-enters-massive-2020-primary-field/

Well, here we are. It's a year and a half before the 2020 elections and there is a bumper crop of Democrats running for President, and more may be coming. Those leading the pack so far are Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg (yes, no one heard of him until this year) and Kamala Harris.

Others seem to be struggling to get traction, with media focusing on each "shiny new object" (to quote a Facebook friend of mine) as they announce their candidacies. The latest rumor is that NY Mayor Bill DiBlasio may throw his hat into the ring, a bad idea in my opinion, given he isn't even popular in his own city.

Last time we didn't have enough choice. This time we may have too much. But it's a better position to be in, since we have plenty of time for the field to thin out before things get really serious, and it gives us a much more robust field of qualified candidates.

In early polling, among the top 5 Democratic candidates, all but Warren would handily beat Trump in the general election if it were held today.  But of course, we are a year and a half out, and we know how that can change.

But the bigger question is, will Democrats show up at the polls if their favored candidate does not become the eventual nominee? Early indications are this could be a problem, especially if that nominee is not Bernie Sanders.

While I know that posts on Facebook and other social media are not representative of votes, my impression from Facebook and Twitter is that so far, Sanders fans are least likely to say they'll "vote Blue no matter who" in the general election. Are we heading into yet another debacle if Bernie doesn't get the nomination? Will Democratic/Progressive voters split again and give Trump the presidency for a second term?

I'm seeing more and more posts lately with Bernie supporters claiming the early polls are "rigged" against their candidate and favoring Joe Biden. The most recent issue that came up was the CNN poll that came out after Biden announced his candidacy.

The poll, which was conducted by CNN by research firm SSRS, was a pretty ordinary poll, conducted among a little over 1000 adults (913 voters), balanced by political stance, demography and geography, and weighted to make up for any undercounted groups. Respondents with both landlines and cell phones were included. In fact, more cell phone users were included than landlines, no doubt reflecting overall trends.

Subsets of respondents were broken out in the crosstabs. But they did not break out results for any group that had less than 125 raw respondents because small sample sizes may not be projectable to the group's size in the population.

This led to a number of very misleading articles and posts about the validity of the survey.

Bernie fans posted a Youtube video of the Jimmy Dore Show on a pro-Bernie Facebook page I follow, where Dore (who admits he is no expert) misinterpreted the results of the CNN poll, saying the pollsters "left out" everyone under 50 and those making less than $50k annually. Then later in the video he casually says "or didn't poll enough of them or something." He made it sound as if they purposely didn't include enough in order to skew the results.

Others posted the actual cross-tabs showing the N/As among the younger respondents, again misinterpreting the data to say it indicated they weren't polling Bernie's base, which of course is absurd.

They also post "polls" from Progressive sites like Daily Kos or Democracy for America which are just surveys of their OWN members - not balanced or weighted or in any way statistically valid - as "proof" that the mainstream polls are biased, since Bernie blows all the others away on those sites.

It is especially irritating to see this misinformation (dare I call it "fake news"? Yes, I do) being posted as truth, especially since all major polls showed the same results that were consistent with the CNN poll, with Bernie behind Biden.

Look, I get it. You want to believe your guy is really winning. And I'm not necessarily a Biden supporter. Like Hillary, he has a whole bunch of baggage and may not inspire younger people to vote. But he would bring in some of the lost voters from the states Hillary lost, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan. I would prefer a younger candidate than either him or Bernie - it is time to "pass the torch" to a new generation. But of course I will vote for WHOEVER wins the nomination.

Once again the media is going to play a big part. We're already seeing a lot of emphasis in the media on the white male candidates (incuding Beto and Buttigieg) vs. all the very qualified women who are running. Given the importance of Democratic women voters, and particularly, women of color, in the 2018 elections, it is concerning that the women aren't getting as much airplay and press as the men.

And of course, let's not forget about Russia stirring the pot, voter suppression and gerrymandering. While a couple of states' gerrymandering issues may make it to the Supreme Court, I am not sanguine that the Court will rule that their gerrymandered maps are unconstitutional, now that Kavanaugh is on the court.

But in the meantime, I wish the Bernie supporters would be team players. Instead of trashing the other Democratic candidates, they should just push positive information about Bernie. Maybe doubting Thomases like myself would be more pro-Bernie if we didn't feel such hostility from his fans and feel as if THEY are shoving him down our throats.

They need to stop anticipating or assuming that the "mainstream media" and the "corporate Democrats" are going to push Biden and spurn Bernie. It never seems to occur to them that not everybody loves Bernie. I know I don't. I like some of his ideas and I am pretty liberal. But I'm also practical and don't see how he can get his ideas through a recalcitrant Congress (it is unlikely the Democrats will regain the Senate, absent some miracle - or a very motivated Democratic electorate).

Bernie's fans complaining about the Democratic establishment and continuing to relitigate 2016 and the DNC debacle is not going to get him nominated by the overall Democratic electorate. Not everyone is ultra-progressive and not all will support Bernie. But any Democrat would have better policies than Trump.

I think Bernie would have trouble being elected in the general election vs. Trump despite current polls. Trump will ream him out about his "socialism" if he is actually nominated. He'll be Crazy Bernie this or that. And he won't get the kid glove treatment he got in 2016 from the GOP in general. They were fine with him challenging Hillary because of how much they hated her. But if Bernie is the nominee that would change abruptly, in my opinion.

Do Bernie supporters really think that all Democrats are "just as bad" as Trump? If so they are sadly deluded. What about climate change? The environment? LGBTQ rights? Women's rights and health? There are CLEAR differences.

No candidate is going to be perfect. But we can't afford purity in 2020. Too much is at stake. Those who insist on that purity are insisting from a position of privilege; it is not their rights or lives being marginalized by Trump. It's easy to be righteous and pure if you have nothing to lose by not voting, or voting third party.

Sadly, I am seeing a lot of Bernie supporters saying yet again that if he doesn't get the nomination, they will refuse to vote for whichever Democrat gets it. (Not all, of course. I know many who voted for Bernie in the primaries in 2016 but voted for Hillary in the general election).

But there is a substantial subset that is dead set on repeating the mistakes of 2016. Here are some examples from a Progressive/pro-Bernie Facebook page I follow:

"I refused to vote last time. I just COULD NOT vote the lesser of two evils. I WILL NOT fall in line this time either. I will fucking revolt."

"f you really cared about the things you claim you wouldn’t settle for any corporate establishment hack to be President because in the long run it will lead down the same path as electing Darth Cheeto again "

"If DNC cheats again I vote Green."

"I will NOT Vote.. if Bernie is not the nominee. Period. The other oligarchs aren't going to rectify much of anything. And.. I would work to grow the MovementforPeoplesParty. End of story."

...And that scares the hell out of me. We can't afford another four years of Trump. Wake up people!

A Cat's Eye View: In it for the Long Haul

Baxter here. I am Complaining because there are Too Many Republicans. Here at My House, we were Thinking of Maybe watching the Republican "Debate" but in the End could not Bear to do it. How can there be any Sense made out of ten people answering Stupid Questions for Two Hours. What kind of Substantive Conversation can be had?

The Worst Thing is, there isn't even One Candidate that would make a Good President out of the Bunch of them. I don't know What this Country is coming to. And I think those with No Support Whatsoever (I'm looking at YOU, Chris Christie!) should Drop Out and let the other Bozos get more Air Time so Everyone can see what Idiots they all are.

Then on the Democratic side, there is the whole Hillary vs. Bernie Problem. Hillary supporters say Bernie can't Win so people should be Rooting for Hillary. They say don't Waste Your Vote on Bernie because he Can't Win. Bernie supporters, on the Other Hand, say Hillary is as Bad as the Republicans and if you Vote for Her you are as Bad as a Republican too.

Neither of these Opinions are True, in My Own Not-so-Humble Opinion. Why not Wait and See who Wins the Primaries? If you really Agree with Bernie, vote for him in the Primary. If he doesn't Win and Hillary is the Nominee, then vote for her in the General Election. Isn't that Simple? Oh, you are one of Those who say Hillary is no Better than a Republican? Have you SEEN who the Republicans are? Do you KNOW what they Believe? Check out this link.

You will see their Views on Many Subjects are direct Opposites of Hillary's OR Bernie's, especially when it comes to Family Planning and a Woman's Right to Choose. Check out their Views on Energy and Oil and Alternative Energy Sources. Compare their Civil Rights records and their Views on Global Warming. If you are a Democrat, you will realize there IS a difference between the Parties and that Hillary's views are a Lot Closer to Bernie's than You May Realize.

Then Keep in Mind that there will No Doubt be Supreme Court Appointments to be made in the coming Presidential Term. If Hillary is the Democratic Nominee and you Stay Home or Write in a Candidate You Prefer, then if one of these Republican Candidates wins the Election, you will have Only Yourself to Blame if we get a Completely Right Wing Supreme Court as a result.

Me, I am in it for the Long Haul. First, let's see who Emerges among the Republican Crew as the Actual Nominee. Then let's see who the Democratic Nominee is. And then things will Get Interesting. Right now it's all a Big Show.

So... Carry On with the Debates. Maybe by Next Spring they might Mean Something. In the Meantime, I think I will enjoy some Catnip and Relax.

Money Alone Can't Buy You Love

With President Obama's decisive reelection on Tuesday night, the American people said "no" to the many millions of dollars spent by GOP Super PACs and people like Sheldon Adelson, who donated a small fortune of his own money to support Republican candidates, ending up with nothing to show for it.

After the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, many on the left feared that the practically unlimited amount of money that would pour into these surrogate organizations for the Republican candidates would leave the Democrats in the dust.

As it turned out, all that money was not enough to buy the election. President Obama was declared the winner a little after 11 p.m., with over 300 electoral college votes already in and possibly more to come, if Florida goes his way, as is expected. Nate Silver was right, and Unskewed Polls and Karl Rove were wrong. It's all over but the spin.

So why didn't all that money and advertising help the GOP? Maybe the answer isn't that the money couldn't help, but that it was used inefficiently.

In market research, there are models that can analyze and predict the effectiveness and the efficiency of advertising. There is a certain point at which advertising no longer influences the viewer. There is a certain point when the amount of money spent is no longer efficient and additional spending adds diminishing return on investment.

(Source: http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/marketing_introduction.html)

That saturation point is probably reached even sooner for negative advertising than for other kinds of advertising. The voters just start wishing it was all over, and become cynical about whichever candidate continues to push these ads on them. And it doesn't help that some of Romney's last ads, in Ohio, were full of lies that the voters knew better than to believe in the first place.

Of course, the Obama campaign also had plenty of money from donations. They raised a billion dollars themselves and had plenty of advertising. But the difference was in the way they used it. Their advertising started earlier, before Romney's campaign really took off, and defined him to the American voters before he had a chance to.

In addition, they targeted individual voters and identified a whole database full of potential supporters who fit the profile of Obama supporters - but hadn't yet become supporters.

In market research, this is called identifying your "Strategic Value" stakeholder or consumer - the target person who is most likely to respond to you or to your product and help you achieve your objectives. The next trick is to gain insight into that person and understand what makes them tick. Apparently the President's campaign was able to do this and to motivate those stakeholders to go out and stand in line for hours to vote for President Obama.

But it came down to a lot more than just good marketing principles for the President and his supporters.

It also came down to changing demographics - and a new coalition of diverse citizens who came together to reject the old viewpoints offered by the GOP, to reject hate and bigotry, and to support the President's vision of moving "Forward!" rather than backward.

Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans were all key voting blocs in the Democratic victory. Obama won among Hispanics 71% to 27% for Romney; among Asians by 73-26%, and among African-Americans by 93%. These population groups are all growing, while white Americans, who were more apt to vote for Romney, are declining as a portion of the electorate, a trend that is expected to continue.

President Obama did better among women than his opponent, with 55% of women voting for him vs. Romney. And, showing the importance of women's issues, candidates Akin and Mourdock, both of whom were castigated by their remarks about rape, lost their Senate races.

In addition, many women were elected, including Elizabeth Warren, who took back the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat from Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the first female senator from the state. Other firsts: Tammy Baldwin, from Wisconsin, will be the first openly gay Senator. In Hawaii, Mazie Hirono will be the first Asian American woman there, while Hawaiian Tulsi Gabbard will be the first Hindu elected to the House of Representatives.

Young people came out to support President Obama again, as they did in 2008. He captured 60% of the vote for people 18-29, compared to only 36% for Romney. This age group represented 19% of the electorate, up a point from four years ago.

In addition, gay marriage was approved by voters in Maryland and Maine, and will likely be approved in Washington State as well, the first time same-sex marriage has been approved by the voters themselves. Other states allow gay marriage, but the decision was made by the state courts or legislatures. And in Minnesota, a referendum to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage failed, another victory against bigotry.

Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana; Massachusetts approved medical marijuana use. The times truly are a-changin'.

And as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, if the Republicans don't start changing and join the reality-based world, they will be a footnote in history. Now they have to figure out whether to continue to double down on their far right wing positions and become less and less relevant to the population, or whether they will do some sincere soul-searching and try to come into the 21st century.

I'm hoping for the latter, because we need at least two viable parties in this country to keep a real dialogue going and to work together to solve problems. There are too many issues that need to be addressed; we can't afford another four years of gridlock and partisanship. But it takes two to tango and the GOP needs to step onto the dance floor.

When Fall Comes...

...winter is not far behind. But last week up at the cabin the foliage was near its peak, the weather was mild, and winter still seemed far away. But as the days get shorter, the nights get colder, and we know winter will be coming, inexorably, as it always does.

This winter will seem particularly long if the Republicans win control of the House and possibly the Senate. I can only hope that the polls are wrong and the carnage won't be as bad as feared.

But if it is, I hope the Democrats and the President see the error of their ways and don't react to a setback as a sign that they need to move more to the center. Instead they should realize that the lack of support on the Democratic side is driven more by disillusionment from their core constituents rather than anger by Independents against the liberal agenda.

The recent decision by the Obama administration's Department of Justice to appeal the injunction against enforcing the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law by Judge Virginia Phillips is a case in point. As a result of the appeal, the injunction against enforcement is now on hold.

How can supporters of gay rights, who backed President Obama in 2008 under the assumption he wanted to overturn DADT, still believe in his support if the DOJ continues to block efforts to change it? The President claims he wants Congress to overturn it, but getting this Congress to do anything is, as we well know, impossible. So why not take advantage of the situation and let the judgment stand?

According to an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Walter Dellinger (former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel), the administration is, in fact, compelled to carry out the laws of the land. Per Mr. Dellinger,

"Many people seem to believe that the law would disappear if the Justice Department refused to appeal the court order. But there are two reasons that’s not the case.

First, the government has an obligation to comply with the nation’s laws, regardless of whether the president agrees with a particular statute. Doing otherwise would also set a precedent justifying similar nullifications by future administrations. The next president might, for example, decide not to enforce the recent health care reform law; all he would need would be a single ruling against the law by a single district court judge, which he would then refuse to appeal."

However, don't get the impression that he feels there is nothing President Obama can do in this situation. On the contrary, he suggests that the President make it clear that he believes the DADT law is unconstitutional and use his bully pulpit to push for the reform, something he has seemed reluctant to do in anything but a perfunctory way, and only when he's speaking in general terms. As Mr. Dillinger explains,

"However, Mr. Obama may have another option: while appealing the lower court’s decision, he could have the Justice Department tell the appellate court that the executive branch believes the law is unconstitutional.

In other words, the Justice Department would take the formal steps necessary to defend the law, but it would also make substantive arguments about why the law should be struck down. The Supreme Court could still vote to uphold the law, but the president’s position could significantly influence how the court rules.

Doing so wouldn’t unfairly strip the law of adequate defense: if the administration took a stand against the law, the appellate courts would very likely allow lawyers for Congress or outside groups to appear and argue on its behalf."

Sounds like a plan to me. It certainly couldn't hurt.

UPDATE: Found a good article in the comments section of From The Left - an article in Newsweek that details even further the things the Obama administration could do to undermine DADT.

I'm sure the President is stepping gingerly with this one to avoid controversy before the election - as if it would even help. But I hope once the election is over - whatever the outcome - that President Obama uses his next years in office to stand up for the principles he said he stood for during his campaign. Let's get DADT and DOMA repealed, let's get Guantanamo closed, let's get out of Afghanistan and Iraq completely. The latter would be the most important accomplishment he could make, since the wars are responsible for a huge amount of our soaring deficits - an amount that is never mentioned by the GOP or the Tea Partiers since military spending is sacrosanct to them. Reducing the deficit by lowering military spending would take some of the wind out of their sails. (Of course then they'd say the Democrats were weak on defense but that's another story and probably more easily countered than this vague financial "deficits" issue).

Oh well, enough venting. I decided I'm going to leave my purple format up until DADT is repealed!

In the meantime, below are pictures we took when we were in the Adirondacks last week. Enjoy the scenery and don't think about the upcoming elections if you can help it. But do get out and vote when the time comes, of course! While we may not be thrilled with the Democrats, the Republicans would be a lot worse.




We got the Little Cat a cozy cat bed and she loved lying in it by the fire.

Nice Going, Democrats

Here we are, just one year after Barack Obama was inaugurated, and the Democrats have made a mess of things. While there have been many accomplishments since the President took office (as I mentioned in my previous post) the Democrats in general, as a group, don't seem to know how to run things once they're in charge.

The latest example of their ineptitude is Massachusetts. They took Senator Edward Kennedy's vacant seat for granted, ran a less-than-stellar candidate who went on vacation during a large chunk of the latter part of the race, and didn't get worried about the race until it was too late.

Now, the magic 60-vote filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate is gone, and the health care bill is in peril.

TomCat over at Politics Plus has a great summary of what happened and why, and what the Democrats will need to do to pull their chestnuts from the fire.

As he points out, the problem is bigger than just Massachusetts and just the health care bill:

"When Barack Obama campaigned for President, he promised 'bipartisanship' and 'change we can believe in'. Readers of the previous incarnation of this blog will remember that I repeatedly said that the two are mutually exclusive. One cannot effect change while attempting bipartisanship with an entity that refuses to compromise on anything. Obama had a choice. He could choose bipartisanship or change, but he tried to have both. The result was “business as usual”, not “change we can believe in”. Now I’m not saying that Obama accomplished nothing. He accomplished quite a lot. But his attempts at bipartisanship foiled the major items on his agenda."

Although I'm not a fan of Peggy Noonan, she has summed up the President's problems pretty well in her recent column. Basically she says that President Obama has misread the mood of the country and is not listening to people's biggest concerns.

"There is a disconnect, a detachment, a distance between the president's preoccupations and the concerns of his people. There's a disconnect between his policy proposals and Americans' sense, as expressed in polls, of what the immediate problems are."

At a time when the economy and job losses are paramount in people's minds, the Democrats have gone full tilt toward health care reform, which is kind of esoteric to most people. They want a concrete feeling of security, that jobs are coming back, that the economy is on track and all is well so they can start buying things again without feeling nervous about it.

While President Obama has stabilized the economy, he isn't getting credit for it, since he isn't talking about it as much as he's been talking about health care. And many people are still out of work and unemployment is still high. As the sign on the wall during Bill Clinton's presidential campaign used to say, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

The President can still help salvage the midterm elections if he is able to focus on the economy, make people feel as if he is on their side, and prove he is listening to them.

Congress, in the meantime, will need to be working to save the health care reform legislation now that they don't have 60 votes. It is crucial that they accomplish something - even if they have to scale it back. (In fact, that might be an improvement - get some reforms in without the baggage and earmarks that were added to the bill to get the 60 votes).

Because if it doesn't pass this will be a huge setback for the Democrats and a rallying point for Republicans in the fall.

Of course, if it does pass and is unpopular, the Republicans will use it as a rallying point in the fall.

Democrats, as usual, are between a rock and a hard place - and as usual will probably be allowing the Republicans to define them to the American people.

It's going to be a long year.

A Week's Worth of Blogging in One Post

We have arrived in Fairhaven (our usual stop either on the way up or back from Cape Cod, so that we can go eat Portuguese food in Fall River), and thankfully the Holiday Inn here has internet access, so I have been avidly catching up on blogs.

This past week at the Cape was a particularly bad one to be without the internet. The first three days were wonderful - sunny, warm and totally enjoyable - but then the rain came on Wednesday, along with a Northeast wind. Although the initial forecast was for just one day of rain, as soon as I heard it was a Northeast wind, my hopes sank, as Northeast winds bring three days of lousy weather exactly. Always three days. And that's what we got. Luckily it didn't actually pour rain for three days; we were able to go walking about on Thursday and Friday, and do some of the things we like to do while we're at the Cape. But it was cold. Not nice at all. And depressing. So having the internet would have been a nice diversion.

I kept thinking of things I wanted to blog about while I was sans blogging ability, so I'll try to compile them all into one post. It may seem a bit schizophrenic, but what the heck.

On the most serious note, I did start to write a post about the assassination of Robert Kennedy on June 5.

Here is how it went:

It isn't often that I can remember exactly how a certain day began, especially not one 40 years ago. In fact, I often can't remember what happened two days ago. But June 5, 1968 is as clear to me as if it happened yesterday.

I was 14 years old, a freshman in high school, at the time. My first year of school in a new town was nearing a close. I hadn't made that many friends yet, and brought up as an only child, was used to the company of adults. My parents, staunch Democrats, had always discussed politics around me, and I had already developed a strong interest in current events. I became addicted to listening to the recently-created all-news radio station, 880 WCBS AM, and had been following the political scene with avid attention. Every morning I awoke to CBS on my clock radio, to the comforting voice of a young radio announcer named Charles Osgood, who had the morning news shift at that time.

On that morning 40 years ago I awoke to hear a jumble of voices rather than the single voice of Charles Osgood. Yes, his voice was there, but so was the voice of seasoned newsman, Charles Collingwood, and other commentators.

As I listened in increasing horror to the conversation, it all became heartbreakingly clear. Robert Kennedy had been shot by Sirhan Sirhan after winning the California primary the night before.

I still had to go to school, and I remember that morning very clearly - a beautifully sunny, perfect June morning with a clear blue sky.

We all remember the rest of that year. The contentious convention in Chicago, the riots, the police, and the ultimate victory in November by Richard M. Nixon - by a margin so narrow that it wasn't clear until the following day that he had beaten Humphrey.

If not for what happened on June 5, 1968, it might have all been so different. But now we'll never know.

****

Of course, on a much happier note, on Tuesday Barack Obama finally became the official Democratic nominee for President. Hillary did not concede that night, to the consternation of some Obama supporters, but she made up for it with a very supportive speech endorsing him on Saturday. Let's hope that the wounds can heal and that the party can come together to defeat McCain in November. We don't want another 1968.

****

As for our vacation, it was filled with the usual activities we always enjoy - going to the beach, taking walks in the woods with our dog, relaxing and eating lots of fish, lobster and fried clams and oysters.

Diva had a wonderful time swimming in the lake at the cottages, chasing after her ball countless times and swimming back with it in her mouth, snorting loudly as the water went up her nose.

We also saw my mother's cousin and an old friend who runs the motel we used to stay at before discovering these cottages, which allow dogs. And Saturday dawned sunny and warm, so we spent some time on the beach after leaving our cottages, to make up for the three days of rain. So all in all, we had a very nice time.

Each year we go to the Cape, however, there is always at least one major change since the last visit. This time we discovered to our dismay that one of the restaurants I'd been going to since I was a kid (the Eastham Lobster Pool) had closed and is for sale. It had been sold to new owners last year and they had changed the menu and made it a little more trendy. I'm not sure that caused its demise but I do always believe in the old maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We'll see whether someone else buys it and reopens it by the time we come up to the Cape again.

The good news is, the Orleans Army Navy Store, which was closed last fall when we were at the Cape, has reopened under new ownership and is still, thankfully, the Army Navy Store. Some traditions just shouldn't die.

Whenever I'm at the Cape I feel surrounded by ghosts of my own past, since I've been going to the Cape since I was 2 years old, and it tends to make me nostalgic. This year was particularly poignant, as my mother, now 89, is no longer able to do as much as she used to, and it made me rather melancholy this week; or maybe it was the rain.

At any rate, my mother is getting less steady on her feet and this year for the first time I found she had to take my arm to walk just about anywhere we went, or else she would wobble and lose her balance. My mother was always the one who dragged me on all the nature walks at the National Seashore sites. Now she can barely walk from her cottage to ours.

But my mother and I never stand on false sentimentality. We tend to laugh about things like this rather than let them get us down.

My mother has a cane. It's sitting at home in a corner of her apartment, never used. It's not even hers; my aunt gave it to her because she wouldn't use it either. I have asked my mother why she won't use the cane. "Because it will make me look old." "Mom, you ARE old." "Well, I think it would make me look even older to have a cane." "Mom, it makes you look old to have to lean on my arm everywhere!"

So as my mother and I shuffled along from place to place this week, my refrain was, "Mom, you are SO going to use that cane when we get home!"

I think she may actually try it. I hope so, because after walking along at a snail's pace trying to match my steps to hers all week, I am the one who feels old now!

Spring is Finally Here and the Campaign Drags On

I can't take it anymore. This is way too long between primaries. The days drag on and on, the accusations go back and forth, and still the Pennsylvania primaries haven't happened yet.

I also find that my vow to keep out of the Democratic fray and just post about John McCain is weakening. I find I just can't muster the hatred for John McCain that I can for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, so I don't have the urge to post about him. Yes, I know he was involved in the Keating Five, I know he called his wife an unmentionable word and is prone to erratic rages, I've learned his positions are not what we might have thought and are as right-wing as any other neocon, at least during this campaign (who knows what he'll do when elected). But I'm just not getting that same strong urge to post about these things that I always felt about Bush.

What I am feeling is an urge to post about the Democrats. And I think I'll have to go back to doing so. Things keep happening that I want to comment about here!

First of all, I was over at Sue J's place, Nailing Jello to the Wall, and her recent post about Obama caught my eye. Apparently he has been using the civil rights struggle as part of his own personal story, and playing fast and loose with the timing -- much as Hillary has been accused of exaggerating her experience landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, or the story of a health care nightmare that turned out to be more complicated than she made it out to be.

As I said over at Sue's place, Obama likes to speak in metaphor and symbolism, and if something doesn't fit, to him it doesn't matter because it should fit - it makes a much better story. And in all fairness to Hillary, it's the same thing as her story about the sniper fire.

Let's face it: Politicians stretch the truth; they have stump speeches with specific examples of situations that may or may not be 100% true because they are metaphorical and symbolic. They say things because people will respond to them. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it just is. And both candidates are doing it. And so is John McCain, if anyone were paying more attention to what he's saying.

What is concerning is that since Obama is the Candidate of Change, I would feel better if he were not fudging the truth this way. We expect it of Hillary, but those of us who support Obama were hoping he wouldn't be doing it.

But I guess when it comes down to it, all politicians are still...politicians.

The other recent event that has annoyed me is McCain and Clinton are jumping all over Obama for having said working-class people are "bitter," saying it was derogatory and elitist. According to the NY Times, this is how it went down:

"At the fund-raiser in San Francisco last Sunday, Mr. Obama outlined challenges facing his presidential candidacy in the coming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana, particularly persuading white working-class voters who, he said, fell through the cracks during the Bush and Clinton administrations.

'So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,' Mr. Obama said, according to a transcript on the Huffington Post Web site, which on Friday published the comments.

The remarks touched off a torrent of criticism from Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain and Republican activists and party officials, all accusing Mr. Obama of elitism and belittling the working class. Mr. Obama forcefully rejected those charges when he arrived at a rally here on Friday evening, drawing a standing ovation in a crowded gymnasium when he painted both of his rivals as entrenched Washington insiders.

'No, I’m in touch,' Mr. Obama said. 'I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up, they’re angry, they’re frustrated, they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington. That’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.'"

It seems to me that this election season has dragged on far too long, when a remark such as this, made at a campaign fundraiser, is immediately pounced upon by pundits and politicians alike and blown all out of proportion.

Hillary too has suffered from this problem -- every little thing either of them say is recorded, posted on YouTube, publicized across all the news channels that have to fill their many hours with as many tidbits as possible.

It just results in more tit for tat, more back and forth, more sniping, more divisiveness.

I'm not happy. I wish the campaign had ended months ago. This system is broken; the primary season started in 2006 and has been going on forever. The U.S. needs to have a new system, one more like Canada or the UK: Have a vote of no-confidence in the current government and then declare it time for an election, give people about 6 weeks to campaign and then - boom - have an election.

We'd have had a Democratic administration for the past two years if we had their system, instead of suffering through the endless distraction of these campaigns while other issues get pushed aside.

By the time anyone is elected they'll be so exhausted that whoever is elected won't be able to govern. Especially if it's McCain, who's already old!

On the bright side, at least it's finally spring here in the New Jersey suburbs. We finally got a few warm spring days and suddenly the magnolias are blooming, the cherry blossoms sprouting and the leaves are budding. There are crocuses and daffodils, and bright yellow forsythia.

But throughout it all is the endless drumbeat of politics and I'm getting cynical about the whole thing...I hope we progressives will be able to keep up our enthusiasm and be able to get the votes out in November, if we can ever get there.

I'll end by posting a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay, one of my favorite poets. Although known for her love poems and sonnets, she also had a number of political poems. This one may or may not be one of them, but I find it strangely appropriate, especially the part about the maggots...

Spring

To what purpose, April, do you return again?
Beauty is not enough.
You can no longer quiet me with the redness
Of little leaves opening stickily.
I know what I know.
The sun is hot on my neck as I observe
The spikes of the crocus.
The smell of the earth is good.
It is apparent that there is no death.
But what does that signify?
Not only under ground are the brains of men
Eaten by maggots.
Life in itself
Is nothing,
An empty cup, a flight of uncarpeted stairs.
It is not enough that yearly, down this hill,
April
Comes like an idiot, babbling and strewing flowers.

-Edna St. Vincent Millay

Catching Up - And an Award!

Sorry I have been missing in action this week. Between going away last weekend and being deluged with work-related stuff, my brain didn't even have the energy to do anything after my day but passively watch The Daily Show and fall asleep during Colbert.

First of all, I would like to thank Let's Talk for bestowing upon me the E for Excellence award! I really appreciate it!

And I must also belatedly thank Sue J. of Nailing Jello to the Wall and Dr. Zaius of Zaius Nation for honoring me with this award back before I went on vacation last month. And Tomcat from Politics Plus gave me the award as well although with his many posts I can't locate the exact date!

So to all of you, thank you so much, you are all Bloggers of Excellence and I am humbled by being honored by you.

I think by now so many of the blogs I read have received the award that let me just say I award it to all of the blogs on my sidebar, which are all excellent and I hope you will browse through and enjoy them.

Moving on...

I'll give you a quick update on our trip to the Adirondacks. First of all, we were really lucky with the weather: It was a beautiful sunshiney weekend and the temperatures were springlike. There was indeed snow in the higher elevations where we were looking for our weekend getaway. The snow was piled high everywhere, but it was old snow; you know, that kind of crusty, ice crystally snow that has a coating of black road dirt on it, not the pretty white fluffy stuff. Plus it was in the process of melting with much vigor, especially after the big rainstorm they had had up there on Friday. This resulted in mud - lots of mud, everywhere. And of course it hadn't occurred to us to bring boots, so we had to give up any thought of keeping our feet clean while walking around.

The realtor who took us around to the places we were investigating was new at the job, and not that familiar with the area. In fact, she hadn't seen the houses she took us to herself, so it was a learning experience for us all.

The first one we were looking for was down the end of an unpaved road. We kept driving and driving, following the realtor's car, and finally came to a barricade that said "Road Closed." She was sure that the house was supposed to be on the left side of the road so we assumed we hadn't reached it yet as we hadn't seen anything on the left that matched the house's description. So we decided to walk a ways down the road and see if we could find it after the barricade. Diva was with us so she joined us and we marched on down the increasingly muddy road full of ice and potholes.

After about 3/4 of a mile we realized there was no way this house was this far down the road, and turned back. Going back was mostly uphill, so by the time we got back to the car we had had a better workout than we'd had in months! Diva was satisfied for the day and slept in the back of the car for the rest of the afternoon.

Once back in the cars, we drove back up the road and realized we had gone right past the house without realizing it; it was on the opposite side of the road from what the realtor expected. So we finally got to see this house, which turned out to be quite nice inside; lots of knotty pine, a fireplace, nice flow to the rooms.

The other two places we looked at were not as tempting; the first was still unfinished inside and had no fireplace, nor any hope of putting one in from the way it was arranged. The other one needed a great deal of work and was being occupied by a 36-year-old bachelor whose housekeeping habits, to say the least, left something to be desired. I have a good imagination and can picture what a place would look like if it were cleaned out, but this was a bit beyond what I'd want to deal with. It's too bad, too, because it had a great view.

So, we continue our search for a weekend getaway. There are many more places for sale up in that region and we will want to see more of them before making a decision to buy something.

While we were up there, we had dinner in a nice old restaurant in Johnstown, where we were staying. The restaurant is in a Greek Revival house that was built in 1798 and serves relatively gourmet food. We were seated in the bar area as the restaurant side was full.

We ordered our meals (salmon for me, pork tenderloin for DH), and the waitress explained they included several courses. After we finished our soup, she came back and said "Are you ready for your corn fritters?" We had noticed on the menu that we had a choice of corn fritters or sorbet, but the way she said "corn fritters" made us feel that to order anything else would just not be the thing to do. So we said "sure," and a few minutes later, she brought out these dishes with what looked like large round pieces of fried dough, covered in - maple syrup. We dug in, and while they were extremely tasty, corn fritters with maple syrup seemed a very unusual palate cleanser between courses!

Naturally once our main meals came we weren't quite as hungry as we would have been, but we enjoyed them anyway.

In the meantime, a group of men came in and sat at another table in the bar. There were two older men with white hair, and three younger men in their 30's - all dressed casually, flannel shirts and jeans. They started talking about guns and which guns are the best guns, and one of the younger men went off on a long paean of praise about one particular type of gun, and what a great gun it is, and how you can use for anything, and how he once shot a moose at 400 feet right in the forehead with it, and he uses it to get white tails all the time, and so on.

I was sitting there listening to this and I said to my husband, "This sure isn't a conversation you would hear in suburban New Jersey."

I also couldn't quite imagine either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton sitting around with those guys talking about guns. McCain would probably have been able to fit right in.

Driving through the towns in upstate New York I could see the way prosperity has kind of passed them by; the houses are all older, many need paint. There are a lot of makeshift repairs on houses and on cars. The people aren't poor, but they aren't rich, and haven't been rich recently. I felt as if this is the "middle America" that is suffering the most from the Bush administration's policies, and that these are the people that the Democrats need to address in a lot of states that have similar issues to this region of New York.

But unless the Democratic candidates can make them believe they understand them at a very basic level, what they say about economic policies may not matter. I hope they'll be able to make that connection.

Haiku Wednesday

After two serious blogswarm posts in a week, my brain is fried. In addition, work has come back full tilt after my restful two-week vacation, and I am finding it hard to concentrate on anything else.

So, for today, I will post a few attempts at haiku. And, for Baxter's fans, don't worry, he'll be posting next!

Tropical breezes
Azure sea on black sand beach
All over too soon

New Jersey is cold
There are no leaves on the trees
The wind is chilly.

It's back to business
Or should I say "busy-ness"?
Life is so hectic.

Between work and home
More responsibilities
Not enough pleasure.

The news is a joke
And politics is stressful
Why is it so hard?

Democrats feuding
While John McCain is gaining
Polls aren't looking good.

Once we were on top
Now McCain may be winning
Democrats, Unite!

A Cat's Eye View

Baxter here. I don't have a lot of time to Blog today but thought I would stop in and give you my two cents on last night's Debate between the Barack Obama Human and the Hillary Clinton Human.

Mind you, I didn't actually watch this so-called Debate. But I did read about it this morning when I was Perusing the Internet as is my wont. And I read some Live Blogging over at Watergate Summer, and my Impression is that the Hillary Human didn't do herself any Favors with her Performance. It seems as if she is Schizophrenic; one minute she is cordial and conciliatory and the next, she comes out Fighting.

Now, mind you, for Cats, this is a Good Thing. If a Cat acts pleasant, this Lulls his Opponent into a False Sense of Security, and then the Cat can strike unexpectedly and do more Damage. But for Politicians, this may not be so good. It seems as if the Audience applauds most when both of these Candidates are cordial to each other, such as the end of the last Debate. It remains to be seen whether the strikes the Hillary Human made will have any positive Effect or whether her shifting Tactics may work against her.

From what I understand, the Obama Human, although he did respond to the Attacks, did not lose his Cool. This should stand him in good stead.

One thing my own Female Human has noticed is how different this series of Debates is from other Presidential Campaign years. First of all, there are Too Many of them. How many times can people get up there and answer the same Stupid Questions?

The other Thing is, the style of these so-called Debates is more reminiscent of World Wrestling Friday Night Smackdown than a serious discussion of the Issues. In the Old Days the Debate style was highly Formal and Candidates got a set number of minutes that were strictly Enforced, and video clips of their Speeches were not interpsersed. CNN has made this into Entertainment - and biased Entertainment at that - and I think it does the Public a Disservice.

It was somehow Appropriate that the Clinton Human referred to a Saturday Night Live skit that showed Favoritism toward her Opponent in order to claim the Moderators favored the Obama Human.

The Big Test will be on March 4, and we will see whether the Clinton Human's tactics did anything to slow the Obama Human's Momentum.

I've heard Hints that my Humans are Going Away on Vacation soon; if so, I am going to be here Sulking in Solitude. Oh, yes, one of my Human Friends will be here to visit me, so I won't be completely Alone. But I will be Cranky. The only Good thing is That Dog won't be here to Annoy me.

On that note, I will close this Post. Have a good Week and have plenty of Catnip to get you through the next bout of Primaries.

Shifting Priorities

David Brooks has an interesting column in Tuesday's New York Times. His contention is that, with the new NIE assessment that Iran is not currently a nuclear threat, and the calmer atmosphere in Iraq recently, that the war and terrorism may no longer be the key issues concerning voters. As a result, domestic issues should come to the forefront, a situation that may favor Huckabee and Obama over Rudy and Hillary, in Mr. Brooks' opinion.

"When Wall Street Journal/NBC pollsters asked voters what qualities they were looking for in the next leader, their top three choices were: the ability to work well with leaders of other countries; having strong moral and family values; bringing unity to the country."

He goes on to explain why this favors Obama and Huckabee:

"It’s clear that voters are not only exhausted by the war, they are exhausted by the war over the war. On the Democratic side, Obama captured the mood exactly with his Jefferson-Jackson Day speech of a few weeks ago. In that speech, he asked voters to reject fear, partisanship and textbook politics. He asked them to vote instead on the basis of their aspirations for a new era of national unity. As a result, Obama has pulled ahead in Iowa and approached parity in New Hampshire.

The tragedy of the Republican race is that Mitt Romney and Giuliani, who could have offered a new kind of Republicanism, opted to run as conventional Bush-era Republicans. Now Huckabee has emerged as the fresh alternative. Huckabee is socially conservative, but not a partisan culture warrior. He’s a pragmatic gubernatorial Republican, not a rigid creature of the beltway interest groups."

The latest New York Times/CBS poll shows that none of the Republican candidates are viewed favorably by a majority of Republican voters, and most voters have not made up their mind yet. Huckabee has come from nowhere to now be in close contention with Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney.

Among Democrats, however, Hillary Clinton is still strong nationally, with Obama and Edwards seen as less electable, and according to this poll, Clinton is seen as more able to unite the country, contrary to the opinion cited in Mr. Brooks' column.

The NY Times poll also does not support the idea that Iraq is not still highly important:

"More people cite the Iraq war as the most important issue facing the country than cite any other matter, and though 38 percent say the dispatch of extra troops to Iraq this year is working, a majority continue to say that undertaking the war was a mistake."

The economy is another key issue for voters and most feel the country is going in the wrong direction.

So what's going to happen in 2008? We just don't know. Voters are obviously divided on their priorities and anything can still happen to shift them one way or another between now and election day.

One thing that may seem comforting to Democrats: Democratic voters tend to view the Democratic candidates more favorably than the Republican voters do theirs.

"Mrs. Clinton is viewed favorably by 68 percent of Democrats, followed by Mr. Obama, viewed favorably by 54 percent. Mr. Edwards is viewed favorably by 36 percent.

On the Republican side, in contrast, Mr. Giuliani is viewed favorably most frequently, and that is by only 41 percent. Senator John McCain is viewed favorably by 37 percent, and Mr. Romney by 36 percent. Mr. Huckabee is viewed favorably by 30 percent, and 60 percent say they do not know enough about him to offer an opinion, suggesting that he may be vulnerable to the kind of attacks that his opponents have already been mounting against him.

Seventy-six percent of Republican respondents say they could still change their minds about whom to support, compared with 23 percent who say their decision is firm. Among Democrats, 59 percent say they may change their minds, as against 40 percent who say they have made their decision."

No matter what happens, it looks like it's going to be a long year.

Election Day!

Election days are always exciting for me. Since I was a small child, my parents kept me involved in the political process. I remember when I was only 6, my mother woke me up in what seemed to me to be the middle of the night - and perhaps it was - so I could hear the election returns coming in on this, the first election that she knew I would remember. To this day I distinctly remember hearing the voice on the radio saying that Kennedy was leading by just 100,000 votes.

I remember having an argument with my friend Sally, whose family were Republicans, during the 1964 election, and telling her that Barry Goldwater "would start World War Three." Mind you, I am sure I did no research of my own to hold this political opinion and was no doubt repeating something I heard my parents say. But my feelings were sincere and my opinion was strong!

Then in 1968 came the tumultuous year that Lyndon Johnson decided not to run, and left the Democratic field wide open. It was the year of McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and ultimately, Hubert Humphrey. I was devastated when Kennedy was shot (I found a whole folder of clippings about his death that I'd compiled back then, when I was cleaning out my mother's house last year). Once the candidate was Humphrey, however, I was a strong supporter. I still was too young to vote, but I did distribute flyers. And I remember how uncertain everything was even the next day. We still weren't sure who had won, until finally the bad news was clear: It was Nixon.

In 1972, the first year I could vote, I was in college in Boston, and cast my first vote for McGovern. Massachusetts was the one state that went for him, so I appreciated the bumper stickers that popped up on Massachusetts cars after Watergate broke, saying "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts."

Since then there have been many more elections; and in the past 10 years I've become involved in local politics; not as a candidate, but as a supporter. I've stuffed envelopes, walked the neighborhood with candidates occasionally, made donations, and made phone calls.

This evening our town's Democratic slate once again swept the election. It is very interesting; when we first moved to this town it was a mainly Republican town. But over the past decade or so, the demographics have changed markedly, and the town has become much more diverse. The population has become younger, and there are many transplanted New Yorkers here now, who all tend to vote Democratic.

So, in celebration of the Democrats, here is today's haiku:

Democratic sweep
All politics is local
We are glad they won.

OK, that was lame. But it's almost midnight and I have to get this posted! NaBloPoMo is becoming stressful!