President-Elect Trump

Who would have believed two years ago that this could even happen? Well, it has. And there were a lot of reasons for it.

First of all, no one took him seriously at first. The media loved him because he got them ratings, so they kept showing all his outrageous speeches and his big rallies without criticizing their content or calling him out on his lies. Democrats didn't take him seriously. Pundits didn't take him seriously. And neither did I.

I had been aware of Trump for 25+ years, especially since I live in the Metro NY area. But I never really paid any attention to him, even when he was bloviating about Obama not being born in the U.S. I mean, who cares what a reality TV star who runs casinos and builds gaudy towers thinks about the President? I never even watched his Apprentice shows, not even once. I just ignored the guy as someone who was not worthy of attention.

Well, as it turned out, he was. And in a very bad way.

As for the Democrats, they had a three-way race in the primaries that the media narrowed immediately to Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton, totally ignoring Martin O'Malley, who, in the brief moments he had to comment during their primary debates, actually sounded like a decent candidate. I had not originally been a fan of Hillary Clinton, as I felt she had way too much baggage and the Republicans hated her. So I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

Then came the nominations - and it became Trump vs. Hillary. In watching their conventions, I felt it was obvious that Hillary had the advantage. Her convention was full of hope and positivity, while Trump's was dark and foreboding. Didn't we learn that Reagan beat Carter in 1980 because Carter had spoken of the "malaise" in America, while Reagan offered that sunny vision of  "a shining city on the hill"? I assumed history would repeat itself. No one wants to think America is no longer great, and believe a dark vision of the country that only Trump could save, surely.

Sure, there were some stumbles - Hillary didn't campaign much in August, devoting a lot of her time to fundraising; and then she had that bout with pneumonia in September. But she bounced right back with three solid debate performances, where she seemed to  best Trump in each one. Her poll numbers rose again and I was feeling confident she would do well in the election.

Then came the Comey announcement about the discovery of new emails "pertinent to" the FBI investigation discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop, putting her on the defensive again and giving red meat to the Right. Nine days later Comey said "nothing to see here after all," and moved on. But probably by then the damage was done.

On election night, Trump won the electoral college and thereby the Presidency.

Then came all the recriminations and the blame. The polls were wrong. Comey did it. Wikileaks did it. The Russians hacked it. It was the DNC's fault for cheating Bernie out of the nomination.The media was complicit by giving Trump too much air time and touting false equivalencies between his flaws and Hillary's. The Democrats didn't turn out in sufficient numbers. There was an underground white working-class rebellion everyone had missed. Clinton's campaign hadn't focused enough on states like Wisconsin or Michigan. They took African Americans and Hispanics for granted. Trump supporters were voting against their own self-interests. Bernie supporters refused to support Hillary. And so it goes.

All of these factors came into play and led to the result that most thinking people hadn't believed could happen. America voted in a president who has no knowledge of how government works, knows nothing about policies - neither foreign nor domestic - has spouted various stances on every issue imaginable and has no actual moral core. However, his campaign was run by Steve Bannon, who headed up Breitbart news as it became a vehicle for the "alt-right" movement, and who has now been chosen as Trump's strategist in the White House. He picked Mike Pence, a far right religious conservative whose policies as governor of Indiana show he is a formidable opponent of women's and LGBTQ rights. Other names being touted as potential cabinet members are equally concerning, especially when it comes to the EPA.

And let's not forget that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is champing at the bit to get rid of the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, and various other programs. And of course, that Trump will be able to pick at least one, and likely more, Supreme Court Justices. It all adds up to a total disaster for the Progressive cause, and a huge setback for so much progress that has been made over the past 8 years.

So what went wrong?

I had an uneasy feeling about the election since the spring when Bernie Sanders' movement got under way, and I saw the enthusiasm for him, and not so much for Hillary Clinton. It all felt a lot like 1968. I remembered how Eugene McCarthy's followers had refused to get behind the winner of the Democratic nomination, Hubert Humphrey, and how the former candidate himself had refused to endorse Humphrey until the last moment, when the damage had already been done. And Nixon was elected President.

I was pleased that Bernie did endorse Hillary immediately after conceding the nomination to her. However, that did not please his followers. Looking back, maybe McCarthy's followers wouldn't have cared if McCarthy had endorsed Humphrey earlier either. The result might have been the same in 1968 just as it was in 2016. Some called Sanders a traitor for endorsing Clinton. Others just didn't care. There was so much bitterness left from the hard-fought primary, and also from the revelation that the Democratic National Committee had favored Hillary, revealed in the Wikileaks release of emails among DNC members. Some Bernie supporters weren't Democrats at all and maybe they would never have voted for Hillary in the first place. But others probably would have, if they hadn't seen another choice.

I was one of the people who supported Bernie, but not blindly. I knew his policies would be hard, if not impossible to implement. I just wanted to protest about having Hillary Clinton being presented as our only choice, as I felt she would be a flawed nominee..

However, once she got the nomination, I was committed to her, and the more I saw of her, and the more I learned about her, the more I actually liked her on top of supporting her politically. I could put myself in her place and remember what it was like for women of our age (I am 63) back in the day; how hard she had to work to get to where she was. Whether or not you agreed with everything she has done (or that Bill Clinton did) - which I didn't - she was strong, she was brave, and she was qualified. Trump was none of those.

Trump is a weak, insecure bully with no pertinent experience for the role he will now be playing. His thin-skinned, easily offended nature terrifies me. Will he, as someone on Facebook said today, start a war because of a tweet? One can only hope there will be cooler heads in his administration who will control him insofar as international relations - and the use of nuclear weapons - are concerned.

I must say the results of this election have gotten me angry and fired up to a degree I have not felt in many years. If any ordinary Republican - say Romney, Jeb Bush, or Rubio - had been elected, I would be unhappy, but not like this. I immediately sent a small donation to about ten different organizations that work for LGBTQ rights, racial justice, women's reproductive rights, and the environment. And I'm going to the Women's March on Washington on January 21, 2017. But I feel rather helpless as the GOP will be controlling all three branches of government; there will be no checks and balances. They will have carte blanche to do the things they've always wanted to do.

We cannot let them succeed.

One of my big concerns is that many avid Bernie supporters refuse to join with those who supported Hillary to work to defeat the Trump administration's agenda.

They cite the fact that the Democratic Party has done things they disagree with - from using drones that kill civilians, or allowing fracking, to supporting foreign governments that allow human rights violations - to say that both parties are equally evil and they say they want no part of the Democratic Party. They say those of us who are calling for them to work together against Trump are acting "privileged" or "self-satisfied" and "sanctimonious." They say we didn't try to create a force that would have destroyed the oppressors.

I have done some soul-searching as I am always open to constructive criticism. I do not see what we could have done differently under the current system to reject both parties and somehow become powerful enough to have influence over what this country does.

Whether it was the fault of the DNC, rigged voting or just plain not getting enough votes (and you can argue any one of those points all you want), Bernie did not win the nomination. I'm sorry. He just didn't. If he had, I would have supported him wholeheartedly against Trump.

As far as voting for a third party - which I know many Bernie supporters chose to do rather than vote for Hillary - that would not have worked either. First of all, our system is completely rigged against third parties winning, so that is a problem that needs to be addressed at another time. This year was not the time. I also did not even agree with Jill Stein's perspective on a lot of things (let alone Gary Johnson's!) and felt she was supremely unqualified to run a government. So please spare me the idea of "Well, if everyone had voted for her she would have won." I wouldn't have WANTED her to win.

So that leaves this question for the Bernie supporters who reject the Democratic Party: What is your solution to the mess we are in? I am open to all suggestions. To me there are two things at stake:
(1) How to prevent the GOP from reversing all of the progress that has been made in terms of civil rights and a cleaner environment; and (2) Longer-term, how do we ensure that true Progressives gain power in Washington?

For (2), there are also two things that can be done. One is to work from within the Democratic Party to reform it and bring it back to its original Progressive values, by working at local and state levels to get Progressives in office in state legislatures, governorships, and Congress. The second way, if you think the Democratic Party is a lost cause, is to champion a Progressive third party that can develop real power - not the Greens who barely run any candidates on local levels and then trot out an unqualified candidate for President every four years, if that. (And yes, I am aware there are SOME Greens in office in some parts of the country but not nearly enough). Those third-party candidates have to start at the grass roots level. Run them for town council, for freeholder, for assembly representative, for state senator. Then run them for governor and Congress, and finally for President. Only then will it be possible for a third party to have power, and not before.

If anyone has other solutions to the mess we are now in, please, let me know. Because we have no time to waste.

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.

Tonight's The Night

History will be made tonight when Barack Obama accepts the nomination of his party for President of the United States, capping off a Democratic convention that has, all in all, from what I can tell, been quite successful so far.

I wasn't able to watch Bill and Hillary's speeches over the past couple of nights but from everything I have read, they really stepped up and supported Obama with all of their considerable political skills and, dare I say, their hearts as well. No matter how disappointed either of them may be that Hillary isn't the one accepting the nomination, they know we are all in this together. We're all fighting the same fight, for the same reasons, against the same opposition forces that have been dragging this country down for 8 years. Hillary's reasons for wanting the nomination were the same as Barack's - to get this country back on the right track. So now that it is going to be his nomination, she put her all behind him, and so did Bill.

I did get to watch Senator Edward Kennedy's speech the first night, and saw there wasn't a dry eye in the house when he got up to speak. Michelle Obama was great - she is a fantastic speaker and will be a wonderful First Lady.

I am hoping to be able to watch Obama's speech tonight in its entirety; we are heading up to the Adirondacks for a 4-day weekend tonight and will try to get there by 10 p.m. in order to see it. As usual we probably will not be able to access the internet, so I'll wish you all a wonderful Labor Day weekend.

Baxter wants me to tell you that he will be back blogging next week, and is, quote, "Annoyed that he didn't get a Chance to Blog this Week." Oh well, cats are hard to keep satisfied, as we all know.

Haiku Thursday

I recently realized I had been neglecting my haiku posting. Since I don't have the energy for an insightful commentary on the political scene and others have provided excellent analyses of the Georgia-Russia debacle, today seemed like a good day for some haiku. So here goes:

Theories are rampant
Who will be the VP choice?
Obama's not telling us.

Could it be Biden?
How about Bill Richardson?
Maybe even Hillary?

Some say Sebelius
Others think it's Evan Bayh
Or perhaps Tim Kaine.

One thing is for sure
No one will be satisfied
Whoever is picked.

McCain is gaining
Barack was on vacation
Can't he take a break?

McCain's slinging mud
Using Rovian tactics
This is no surprise.

Polls are looking bad
But it's still the mid-summer
Time is on our side.

John is out to lunch
He's asked, How many houses?
He can't even say.

Russia makes the scene
Invading little Georgia
Which of course has oil.

Bush is blustering
McCain is following suit
Hypocrisy rules.

We invade Iraq
Now we tell them what to do?
Very ironic.

The world is turning
There's never a dull moment
Lots of blog fodder.

That's it for now. Happy Friday!

Diva's Turn

Hi! Mommy said I could blog today instead of Baxter The Cat. It's only fair if I get to talk sometimes, after all. (He would say I get to talk a lot more around the house than he does but I don't care. Mommy says that's because I'm a "diva" whatever that means. I know I'm a Diva, that's my name. I don't understand what she means by that.)

I heard some really good news about my distant relatives - the pitbulls that were used for dogfighting by that awful man, Michael Vick. Apparently they are making great progress since they were rescued last year and that mean man had to pay a million dollars to take care of them.

This article Mommy found says that:

"Of the 49 pit bulls animal behavior experts evaluated in the fall, only one was deemed too vicious to warrant saving and was euthanized. (Another was euthanized because it was sick and in pain.)

More than a year after being confiscated from Vick's property, Leo, a tan, muscular pit bull, dons a colorful clown collar and visits cancer patients as a certified therapy dog in California. Hector, who bears deep scars on his chest and legs, recently was adopted and is about to start training for national flying disc competitions in Minnesota. Teddles takes orders from a 2-year-old. Gracie is a couch potato in Richmond who lives with cats and sleeps with four other dogs.

Of the 47 surviving dogs, 25 were placed directly in foster homes, and a handful have been or are being adopted. Twenty-two were deemed potentially aggressive toward other dogs and were sent to an animal sanctuary in Utah. Some, after intensive retraining, are expected to move on to foster care and eventual adoption."

I am not surprised by this because, as I may have told you, I came from a great rescue place, The Animal Farm Foundation, which rescues pitbulls like me and adopts them out after making sure we're friendly and have good temperaments. Of course I passed my tests with flying colors since I wag at everybody and would never ever bite anyone. You can take a bone right out of my mouth and I just hope that maybe I'll get it back but if I don't, that's OK too.

In other pitbull-related news, the Dutch government has lifted a ban on pitbulls that was in place for a really long time! They found out that banning us did not reduce the number of dog bites. Instead they're going to try to educate owners and enforce leash laws! Well, that certainly makes sense to me! Those Dutch people are always so sensible.

So that was all very good news and I wanted to let you know about it.

There are some other things going on this week that I can tell you about too. I heard that Dr. Michael DeBakey died. He was 99 years old and the reason everyone knows about him is he invented cardiac bypass surgery and a whole bunch of other methods of helping heart patients.

I like surgeons myself because I had both my knees operated on when I was still at the Animal Farm. They had to fix something in my knees called "ligaments." It hurt but I got over it and can run around really fast now so I'm really grateful to the doctor who fixed my knees.

I haven't been following politics much since Hillary left the race. I know Baxter and my Mommy and Daddy are supporting Barack Obama but I was for Hillary. So was my Mommy's mother. The Animal Farm is run by women and ever since they rescued me from Animal Control in New York City, I just love ALL women. It doesn't matter who they are, if they are a woman, I love them. I love most people anyway, but I really wag for women the most. So of course when I heard that a woman was running for president I wanted her to win!

Now that she didn't win I'm not paying much attention; I don't have the patience Baxter has to keep up with all that stuff. I hear some of Obama's fans are getting mad at him and even Baxter is a little worried because he's going back on some stuff that he said. I'm waiting to see if he'll pick a woman for Vice President. If he does I might get interested again. Otherwise I think I'll sit back and wait and see what happens later in the year. We dogs have better things to do in the summer than think about politics.

Right now I am having lots of fun playing in my pool. Mommy and Daddy found this wading pool by the curb right after they got me. Somebody was throwing it out! So Daddy brought it home, cleaned it, and we use it all summer for me to jump in and cool off. They throw my Ball and I jump in and get it. I hate when they spray me with water though. It's different getting sprayed with the hose compared to jumping in the water on purpose!

Of course my favorite thing is going swimming in the lake they take me to at Cape Cod. Last weekend I also got to go in a lake in the Adirondacks. Mommy and Daddy make sure to take me to places where I can swim because they know how much I like it.

Mommy wants me to tell you an update about the Wrens that were living in the bird house in the yard. The boy Wren has been singing a lot again and she thinks they may have a new nest nearby! This morning there was a lot of chattering and both of the Wrens were up in the pine tree. Mommy saw two of the neighbor's cats under the tree so she sent me out to chase them. They were on the other side of the fence but all I had to do is bark and they decided to move farther away. Then the Wrens could relax and start singing again.

That's about it from here. I'm really happy Mommy let me have a chance to talk to you again and tell you more about my distant relations that used to belong to Michael Vick. I am always happy to tell people about happy endings for fellow pitbulls. If you want to help pitbull rescue organizations, Mommy has a whole list of links down the side of her blog that you can choose from!

Have a wonderful weekend and maybe I'll get to blog again soon! Baxter will be back next week!

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!

A Cat's Eye View

Baxter here. I've had a busy week. My Humans went away for a couple of nights and left Me here Alone. However, I managed to Get By without them. Luckily That Dog went with them so I had the place to myself, always a Pleasure.

I hear they went up to that Place called the "Adirondacks" again. They told me they are "House-Hunting," whatever that means. After all, they have a perfectly good House right here. Why would they be Hunting for Another one? At any rate, they said they didn't find Anything yet so I guess Nothing is Changing right now. They did tell Me that once they find Something they may bring Me up there with them on Vacation. I am not enamored of That Idea. We shall see.

This is a new Picture of Me. How do you like my Piercing Gaze?

Let's see, what has been going on this past week? Oh yes. The Hillary Clinton Human made another Unfortunate Remark. In discussing why she is staying in the Race until June, she brought up the Fact that the Nomination was not Decided until June when her Husband, Bill, was nominated in 1992, and then talked about the fact that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June of 1968.

Although she probably Didn't Mean It Like That, and she eventually gave a rather Perfunctory Apology (you know, the Kind that go "I apologize if I offended..."), it has to make you Wonder What She Was Thinking to bring up such a Subject so Matter-of-Factly, when she should know that People are Worried about the Obama Human being in Danger.

Now Me, I wasn't even a Twinkle in my Momma's eye when Robert F. Kennedy was shot. But my Humans remember it well, as well as the assassination of Martin Luther King, and of course they also remember when John F. Kennedy was killed in 1963. So to bring up such a Traumatic Event in such a Troubled Year as the Humans are in right now, seems Tasteless and Insensitive on her part, especially since the Obama Human is often compared to either Bobby or John Kennedy.

Many supporters of the Hillary Human are protesting that the Remarks were taken Out of Context, as so many Remarks have been in the Primary Race, on both sides. And yes, that is Probably True.

But for someone who is supposed to have So Much Experience and be So Much Better at playing the political Game than the Obama Human, she seems to be making a lot of Remarks that People are being Upset about. Does she really not know how her Remarks will be taken by Others? And if not, then how would she be at Negotiating with our Enemies or trying to get Congress to do Something? Makes me wonder, and I'm just a Cat.

Oh well, I know Most of You have been talking about this for almost a Week now so you are probably Tired of It. So we will Move On to other subjects.

I found an Interesting Article about a scientist who was the Victim of a Stroke and discovered "Nirvana" here on Earth. Jill Taylor was a neuroscientist working at Harvard’s brain research center when she had a Stroke that affected the Left Side of her Brain, which is responsible for all that Stuff that Humans have cluttering up their Heads all the time: Judgment, Time, Ego and Analysis. Suddenly all that Stuff was Gone and she was left with her Creativity, Empathy and a Sense that she is One with the Universe. As a Cat, I can imagine That pretty well, except for the Empathy part. I certainly don't have much Empathy for That Dog, for instance.

Although she has since Recovered, she is still able to Channel her Right Brain and block out the Left Brain when she wants to - a perfect compromise. She has taken to Speaking about her Experiences. You can watch a video of her being Interviewed by Oprah by clicking on the Link below:

Interview with Jill Bolte Taylor

In Surfing the Internet I was reading a Blog that I Truly Enjoy, as one of my Species is an Important Part of this Blog. Recently the Human who writes the Blog had a Whole Bunch of those Quizzes that Humans love to take. As a Cat, I usually avoid those sorts of Introspective Things but for the Fun of it I took one of the Quizzes, to understand My Catlike Personality better. Here is what I Learned about Wonderful Me, Baxter, the Cat:

Your Five Factor Personality Profile

Extroversion: You have low extroversion. You are quiet and reserved in most social situations. A low key, laid back lifestyle is important to you. You tend to bond slowly, over time, with one or two people. Conscientiousness: You have low conscientiousness. Impulsive and off the wall, you don't take life too seriously. Unfortunately, you sometimes end up regretting your snap decisions. Overall, you tend to lack focus, and it's difficult for you to get important things done. Agreeableness: You have low agreeableness. Your self interest comes first, and others come later, if at all. In general, you feel that people are not to be trusted. And you're skeptical that anyone else really feels differently. Neuroticism: You have low neuroticism. You are very emotionally stable and mentally together. Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly. Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed - making others feel secure. Openness to experience: Your openness to new experiences is low. You're a pretty conservative person, and you favor what's socially acceptable. You think that change for novelty's sake is a very bad idea. While some may see this as boring, many see you as dependable and wise.

The Five Factor Personality Test

Hat Tip to Sometimes Saintly Nick and his Cat, Alex!

Until Next Time, enjoy some Catnip (Responsibly, of course!) and I'll leave you with a picture of a Fellow Cat who must also be a Blogger:


more cat pictures

A Cat's Eye View

Baxter here. I have had a Very Bad Week since I last posted. Last Thursday morning I got up in a Good Mood and I was rubbing around my Humans' legs and purring, trying to convince them I needed some Food and Water, which for some reason had been Unavailable since the previous Night; and all of a sudden I was picked up and thrust into that Carrying Box. I knew right away Something was Wrong.

Sure enough, they brought me to that Awful Place they call the Vet's. I went in there feeling Fine and by the time my Female Human picked me up later that day, I felt like Crap. I felt Woozy and my Mouth hurt. My Female Human told me she was Sorry, but when they cleaned my Teeth they had to pull out some of them.

Well, now that a Week has passed I feel pretty good. I guess it wasn't That Bad. But it sure ruined my Weekend.

Now that I'm feeling better, I feel up to Blogging again, so here I am.

Lots has happened since last week. Tuesday was another of those Primaries. And even though the Obama Human is winning this Delegate race, the Clinton Human won big-time in West Virginia. Some People say this means a Big Problem for him in the Fall. Let's hope he figures out how to reach the West Virginians and similar People in other States. There are lots of Theories as to why he isn't winning with these people. Jon Stewart had some ideas last night:



"He's simply not their kind of guy," says one commentator. Jon Stewart questioned, "So she's 'their kind of guy?'"

Whatever the Obscure Reasons the Obama Human lost in West Virginia (and likely will in Kentucky), these setbacks probably won't Bother him much. In the meantime, the other Human that was running for President earlier this Year, John Edwards, endorsed the Obama Human Wednesday evening at a Rally in Michigan. In his Endorsement, he said:

"There’s one who understands the need to create one America, not two Americas, and that man is Barack Obama."

This was Great News for the Obama Human and Not So Great News for the Clinton Human. In fact, she was probably as Mad as a Wet Cat about it. (And no, calling her a Cat is not a Sexist Remark; it is a Common Expression among us Cats, so don't take it Wrong).

Since then, 7 of the Edwards Delegates have now switched to the Obama Human plus 3 more of those Humans they call Superdelegates.

So that is the Big News in Politics since I last Posted.

In other News, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the Right to Marry, striking down two State Laws that limited Marriage to being between a Man and a Woman only. I for one am Very Happy that this has happened. Of course, we Cats don't Marry but we can certainly understand why others might want to do it, and why shouldn't Anyone who wanted to be Allowed to? Now of course the Religious and Conservative Groups are having Fits and say they will support an initiative on the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the Decision. Let us hope that it Does Not Pass.

On to less serious Subjects.

I found this article about how some Animal Shelters use a Personality Test to match up Cats with prospective Owners. Seems like a Great Idea to me! After all, you don't want a Really Shy Cat being teamed up with someone who wants to be rubbed on and purred at 24/7. And Some People come into a Shelter looking for an exact Replica of their Old Cat in looks, but then find out the New Cat is nothing like the Old Cat in personality.

According to the Article, there are lots of types of Cats. One Cat, Barnaby, who had an outgoing personality, is called the "Leader of the Band" type of personality.

"All of the types have fun, vivid names and descriptions. Barnaby is "leader of the band." His opposite, a cat low on both scales, is called a "private investigator," who stays out of trouble.

A more middle of the road cat is familiar to many people: the "personal assistant." "You're working on the computer? Let me press the keys. Reading the paper? I'll hold the pages down for you... You'll wonder how you ever managed without me," according to program literature."

I guess I kind of fit with that "Personal Assistant" type Cat. Especially when I help my Female Human Blog.

They have this same kind of Test for Dogs. I can only Imagine what That Dog would be called. I wonder if there is a Category just called "Diva"? It would certainly fit!

In News of the Gross,it was announced recently that astronauts living on the International Space Station will be recycling their urine into - get this - Drinking Water. Yep, that's right! They apparently have a $250 million machine that will do the job! According to the article:

"NASA has spent decades perfecting a system to transform urine into water that can be used in space for drinking, food preparation and washing. Agency officials say the water from the system will be cleaner than U.S. tap water."

Of course, That Dog probably would not be Offended by this. She will drink Anything. If my Humans did not close the Toilet Bowl I have no Doubt she would be drinking out of it.

I will end with a Very Appropriate LOLCat. I must say This seems like a Good Idea to Me. If I had realized in time they were going to drag me to the Vet I might have tried something like This:


more cat pictures

What's Her Game?

Last night, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in North Carolina by a hefty 14 percentage points, and squeaked out a tiny victory by only 2 points in Indiana, which was too close to call until after 1 a.m. She had been hoping to close the gap in North Carolina - indeed, polls going into the primary had shown her doing just that - and to take Indiana decisively. She did neither.

The various pundits have declared the race is basically over. As Tim Russert put it,

"'We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,' he said on MSNBC. 'Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.'"

Obama and Clinton both made speeches last night that had a certain indication of moving beyond the primaries. Both pledged to support "whoever" got the nomination. This was heartening. Hillary had cancelled her morning television appearances, so it seemed she would be thinking long and hard about whether to continue fighting, especially after having to loan her campaign money in order to keep going.

But no. Today's newspapers declare "Clinton Pledges to Fight On."

"'I’m staying in this race until there is a nominee, and obviously I’m going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee,' Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference in Shepherdstown, W.Va., where she flew in a last-minute change of plans Wednesday."

But her own campaign officials realize that even if all the delegates from disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida were seated at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton would still not have enough delegates to clinch the presidential nomination; she would still be about 100 delegates short.

So what is the point of continuing? Is it so she can go out on a positive note by winning a couple of the smaller states that remain and are likely to go her way? Is it to be able to make a case that she should be Obama's running mate as VP? Or to garner a position in an Obama cabinet? Is she actually delusional and really thinks she can still win?

I am not heartless; I know how disappointing it must feel to her, after all this work and all this effort, to come up short at the end, with a newcomer like Obama stealing her show. But the people are speaking, and they are saying they want something new, a new outlook, a new paradigm. Maybe Obama isn't perfect, as he himself said in his victory speech. But he is trying to do something different. In his own words:

"Yes, we know what's coming. I'm not naive. We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along.

The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white, black, brown, young, old, rich, poor...

... this is the race we expect, no matter whether it's myself or Senator Clinton who is the nominee. The question then is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run.

It's what we will do to make this year different. You see, I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for president because this is the time to end it.

We will end it -- we will end it this time not because I'm perfect. I think we know at this phase of the campaign that I am not.

We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will lead us down the same path of polarization and of gridlock.

We will end it by telling the truth.

We will end it by telling the truth forcefully, repeatedly, confidently, and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change, even if it's coming from an imperfect messenger, because that's how we've always changed this country, not from the top down, but from the bottom up, when you, the American people, decide that the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great."

These are the reasons that Obama continues to bring out new voters, to get them to come to the polls. I'm not saying he and Hillary Clinton don't have similar visions for the improvements they want to see in this country. But how they get there are very different. And people are tired of the old way.

David Brooks had an interesting column in the NY Times the other day, comparing their two world views. He sees Obama and Clinton as having two conflicting views of how to get things done: "Combat vs. Composure."

On Obama:

"Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn’t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong.

Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.

This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: 'Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.'"

Brooks concludes with:

"...amid the storms of the presidency, their basic worldviews would shape their presidencies. Obama is instinctively a conversationalist and community-mobilizer. Clinton, as she says, will fight and fight. If elected, she’ll have the power to take the Hobbesian struggle she perceives, and turn it into remorseless reality."

This is what the voters are realizing, and that is why, when they go to the polls, many are not giving their votes to Hillary Clinton. It's a pervasive feeling that if she wins, this rancor and fighting will go on and on. People are tired of it. Yes, Obama fought back against Hillary when he was attacked; I'm not saying he didn't play the game a bit himself. But it wouldn't have been necessary if she hadn't gone on the offensive in the first place. It isn't his nature to be that way. But it is hers.

Maureen Dowd also had some comments about Obama and Clinton, questioning whether Hillary has sold her soul for the White House prize.

"It’s hard to believe that this Hillary is the same Wellesley girl who said she yearned for a more 'ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.' What would that young Hillary — who volunteered on Gene McCarthy’s anti-war campaign; who cried the day Martin Luther King Jr. was killed;...who once returned a bottle of perfume after feeling guilty about the poverty around her — think of this shape-shifting, cynical Hillary?

She’s so at odds with who she used to be, even in the Senate, that if she were to get elected, who would voters be electing?

...As she makes a last frenzied and likely futile attempt to crush the butterfly, it’s as though she’s crushing the remnants of her own girlish innocence."

I think even Hillary's ardent supporters would admit that Hillary has run the gamut of methods to try to win the White House, and these have included saying or doing whatever it takes to get there. Dowd asks the same question I had asked not long ago; if she were to be elected, who would she be?

I think it's time for her to realize that, no matter how hard you try, you can't always get what you want. If Hillary truly wants to help the country and prevent John McCain from "serving out Bush's third term," as Barack Obama said, she needs to do the noble thing and stand aside and support Obama. No, it isn't fair. Yes, she had the experience, she had the bona fides, the credentials, the grit and intelligence. But she is not winning. He is.

If she wants to maintain her standing in the Democratic Party, and have a good chance of an important position in the new administration, it is time to unite the party and move forward. If she really wants universal health care, if she really wants to help the American people, now is the time to help Obama rather than continue to fight a useless and divisive fight. Because now the tide is turning against her and she can only cause harm if she continues.

John McCain is waiting in the wings. He has already announced his intention to appoint conservative "strict constructionist" judges to the courts, including up to three possible Supreme Court nominees. The future of our country depends on defeating him. Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to look at the bigger picture. As Humphrey Bogart said in "Casablanca,"

"I'm not good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three [or two!] little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

It's time for Hillary to make that speech and gracefully step aside.

A Cat's Eye View

Baxter here. My Female Human has not gotten around to returning to any kind of a Schedule to allow Me to Post, but what can I do? I'm dependent on Her to type! I sit Here in front of Her and Dictate my Words while she tries to see through my Beautiful Self to the Screen.

So, let's see...where were we with this Political stuff? Oh yes. Reverend Wright. It never ends, does it? Here we thought the whole thing was SO Over, and instead Reverend Wright Himself gets on TV and starts acting like a Dog - that is, acting all Excited and Wanting to be the Center of Attention. Now mind you, we Cats like to be cosseted and catered to, but we don't like to Call Attention to Ourselves in a such a Blatant Manner.

I'm really not sure why Reverend Wright did all this, but it hasn't helped the Obama Human much in this Primary Race. In my Surfing of the Net, which I am able to do, since I can use the Mouse myself, I found an interesting Article by one Roland Martin, of CNN. In this Article he is giving the Obama Human some advice on how to get past the Reverend Wright Issue. Some ideas he has:

"Let voters know that you will be calling the shots, not Wright. I've seen e-mails from voters who say they will not vote for Obama because of Wright. The junior senator of Illinois must challenge them directly.

Tell them flat out that Wright will not keep their homes from foreclosure.

Tell them that Wright has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices doubling under the presidency of George W. Bush.

Make it plain that your name is on the ballot and not his, and you're the guy who has the right plan to transform the country."

He goes on to say:

"Then you must back that in-your-face campaigning with an economic message that speaks to the masses, especially those blue-collar voters. Show them that the Bush tax cuts that McCain wants to continue will benefit those same business owners who are shipping their jobs overseas.

Tell blue-collar voters that the hedge fund owners that are snapping up companies and slashing their jobs don't care about them, and will be happy to fund the campaign of McCain."

Then, a Very Important Point that should Appeal to Hillary Supporters:

"Make it clear to women, especially white women, that Roe v. Wade will be extinct if McCain wins. The next president is going to choose three Supreme Court justices."

Now, I don't know why it would only be White Women who would care about this issue, but that's what the Man said.

So go, read the rest of the Article, and see what You think. I think his Advice is pretty good. Of course, I'm only a Cat. Some of you may have some more Ideas.

In better news for the Obama Human, former Clinton supporter Joe Andrew switched his support to Obama. This Andrew Human was once a Democratic Party leader under the Hillary Human's husband's Administration, and is one of those Superdelegates, so this is a Good Thing.

He explained his Decision as follows:

"Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

So that's the News in the Political Arena. I'm going to try to Lighten Up a bit here, as it's been awhile since I posted something Frivolous.

My Female Human is a member of a pet network called Dogster, and they send her e-mails. She got one inviting her to take quizzes to see what Celebrities That Dog and I would be. It was Amazingly Accurate. Here is what it said about That Dog:



So then she did it for Me. I am Proud to be considered Al Gore!



I'm sure You will be interested in trying this Quiz for your Pets.

I would also like to share a couple of my Favorite Comic Strips. I have Noticed lately that many Comics are getting Political even if they are ordinarily not. Do you think maybe Cartoonists tend to be Democrats? I do!


And now I will close with one more Amusing Tidbit or two for You. Some LOLCats!

Now here is the First One. This does look VERY tasty:


see more crazy cat pics

And here is a Sad Commentary on the Way it Is Today:


see more crazy cat pics

This morning I had to tell my Female Human about my Dish. It was Empty. I had to remind Her at 5 a.m. So I can identify with this one:


see more crazy cat pics

Let me tell You, I would NEVER do THIS to That Dog:


see more crazy cat pics

And with that I will say So Long for Now. Have some Catnip, enjoy your Weekend, and I will see You Next Week!

More Media Spin

Now a new poll says that Hillary Clinton would be more likely to beat McCain than Barack Obama would.

According to the poll, Clinton would lead McCain 50 to 41, while Obama only leads him 46 to 44.

You know what? These polls are meaningless, because right now there is no ONE candidate for the Democrats. These polls give people the choice of either Democratic candidate. Once the candidate is firmly decided, the polls would change markedly.

My husband says he would rather vote for Barack Obama and lose than win with Hillary Clinton. I'm afraid a lot of people are starting to feel that way.

Just because she may have an edge (which she may not have in reality) is not a reason to support her to be the nominee. Reagan would beat McCain too (probably even dead) but does that mean we Democrats would want him to be President?

Sickly Sunday

For some reason I got up today feeling "off"--not actually sick, but a little achey and shivery. And my stomach felt a little unhappy. Not unhappy enough that I couldn't eat some bacon and pancakes for breakfast with DH and my father-in-law. But enough that I couldn't finish the third pancake, and haven't had anything else to eat all day (a rare occurrence for me, to be sure).

I forced myself to do some laundry so as not to feel completely indolent and to feel as if I have accomplished something on this wasted day.

I am only now getting around to reading the New York Times and just read the Op Ed piece by Maureen Dowd.

She notes something that I had been feeling lately but hadn't put into words - that Hillary Clinton is getting cheerier and bouncier while Obama is doing the opposite. In Maureen's words,

"Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.

Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?

It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she’s bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke."

Unfortunately, she has a point. There have been reports of Obama pleading to just be able to be left alone to eat his waffles, and it seems as if this truly endless campaign is getting on his nerves.

Hillary, on the other hand, has taken a page from her husband's book, and seems to actually be reveling in the campaign.

Does it mean she wants the job more than Obama? Or is it that the endless campaign is part of the "politics as usual" that he'd like to get rid of? (I know the rest of us would, at this point). I'm not saying all the voters shouldn't have their chance to vote, but this campaign kicked off at the beginning of 2007. That is just too long to expect anyone to keep kissing babies, shaking hands, speaking, and eating regional junk food.

Maureen Dowd says, "The Nixonian Hillary has a ravenous hunger that Obama lacks."

Maybe she does, and maybe her "fire in the belly" might be necessary to win in November. It does make me think.

But then I remember what happened AFTER Nixon won. Do we really want someone who wants the office so badly they'll do anything to win?

In other news, we keep hearing how McCain is all for reform - He sponsored legislation saying that the candidates should pay to fly on corporate jets. The funny thing is, however, that when it came down to his own campaign, he used his wife's company's corporate jet - thus avoiding the cost.

Let's hope these little stories of hypocrisy continue to make the news. We don't want the Democratic campaign to obscure all the dirt that has already started to pop up on McCain.

Finishing with some haiku...

McCain's for reform
But when it comes to himself
He likes to fly free.

Now he loves tax breaks
But once he criticized them
Deficit will soar.

Mainstream media
Focuses on trivia
Issues are buried.

Jon Stewart on the Obama "Gaffe"

The opening segment of last night's "Daily Show" was a brilliantly hilarious summary of the furor created by Barack Obama's comments about the "bitter" Pennsylvanians who turn to guns and religion in their angst.

Stewart covers the media's response to Obama's comments, and Hillary's sudden love of firearms, as well as showing some cute clips of her drinking at a bar somewhere in the depths of Pennsylvania. (She actually seemed to be having a genuinely good time with the bar's patrons, I must admit).

Whether or not you thought Obama's words were "ill-chosen" or condescending, Jon Stewart did a great job of showing the media deluge of commentary about Obama seeming "elitist" by saying what he said.

I particularly liked Stewart's comments toward the end of this clip:

"Doesn't elite mean 'good'? Is that not something we're looking for in a President anymore?"

and, to the candidates:

"If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the f**ck are you doing???"

"Not only do I want an elite President, I want one who is embarassingly superior to me!"

He has an excellent point. Since when is it a good thing for our presidents to be "someone I'd want to have a beer with"? Why is it a good thing for the President of the United States, the most powerful country on earth, with the ability to wipe out the rest of humanity, to be someone who is no better than the average Joe on the street?

Shouldn't we at least have some kind of job requirements for President? A certain IQ level, perhaps, or a test they should be able to pass? Maybe at least some good references?

Heck, people who adopt pets have to pass more requirements than the President of the United States!

I'm sure you will agree that there has to be a better way to elect a President than the way it's being done today. I just don't know what it is.

Hope you enjoy the "Daily Show" video!

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

Distractions from the Issues

The most recent brouhaha in the Democratic primary race, following the Geraldine Ferraro debacle, is the firestorm caused by the speech by Barack Obama's former minister and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama has denounced the Reverend's opinions. You can read his words here in the Huffington Post.

I don't think he could be any more clear than this about how he feels about the opinions of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree [with] and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

My question is, isn't it convenient that this controversy erupted right after the firestorm caused by Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama's candidacy? I suspect the Clintons had something to do with this, especially since this controversy isn't even new. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering about this. (UPDATE: Of course, it could be the Right that is behind this latest ploy, as Kristen suggests on MOMocrats.)

I am tired of this petty squabbling. I would like to see some substantive discussion of the major issues that are confronting our country, and not endless media attention on the infighting in our party.

I hope both candidates realize the harm this can do to the party and step away from this precipice before it is too late. Reportedly, Obama and Clinton have agreed to try to stick to the issues and not get caught up in these personal attacks. Let's hope they are able to keep that promise in the weeks to come.

Getting Back to Basics

I didn't have the heart to post about the primaries yesterday. Although I have said all along that I will support Hillary if she wins the nomination, my fear is that if she wins, she will not be able to beat McCain.

I watched McCain's victory speech on Tuesday night. He is very dangerous to our progressive cause because he could easily appeal to a vast swathe of voters.

He is a veteran; in fact, his years in the Hanoi Hilton qualify him as a hero. This is a vast change from the chickenhawk we have in power right now and gives him a level of credibility on military issues that Bush could never have. It is true that many of us disagree with his stance on the Iraq war; but remember there are those out there who still believe in trying to win that war. And in one way, McCain is right: Whether or not we were right to go into Iraq in the first place, we are there now, and we need to figure out the best way to get out while not leaving it in such chaos that terrorists are left there to flourish. Yes, it's true that they weren't there before the war; but they are there now, and we need to figure out how to get rid of them.

On another front he is also dangerous. He is likable. Yes, again, a lot of people on the progressive side may not see that, but for a large number of people I think he will come across as an everyday kind of guy who is kindly and down-to-earth. Heck, I even liked him myself from the times he's appeared on The Daily Show. I think even Jon Stewart likes him. Don't be fooled by your own hostility toward him; many people will like him, just as they liked Reagan and voted for him.

A recent poll I saw still shows Obama beating McCain by about 12 points while Clinton only beats him by 4. It's a long election season and I'm afraid we may need that extra margin of safety.

Mother Jones has a good analysis of why Obama is better positioned to beat McCain. According to Mother Jones:

"No matter what advantages John McCain has, and no matter what nasty stuff the right wing throws at Clinton or Obama, there may be a nationwide resistance to conservative leadership after eight years of George W. Bush that is impossible to overcome for the Republican nominee.

And that is one of the two reasons why Obama is likely better positioned that Clinton. Obama better embodies change because he represents a different generation, in both thinking and appearance, than McCain. His foreign policy thinking is completely different—he didn't support the war in Iraq, didn't vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, sees the silliness of our policy toward Cuba, and rejects the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to meet with rogue leaders. Clinton mirrors McCain on all of these issues (though she obviously has a very different view on Iraq right now). And in terms of appearance, Clinton and Obama are both divergences from the old white male archetype, but only one would represent the widest age gap between two major party candidates in modern history. Obama was born in 1961. McCain was born in 1936. That's a 25-year difference.

Also, McCain does well amongst independents. Obama likely matches him in that category, while adding a number of young voters. Clinton, however, finds most of her supporters in core Democratic constituencies."

For Obama supporters, the recent results in Ohio and Texas are concerning. Pennsylvania, the next big contest, is much more likely to be Clinton territory than Obama territory. If Clinton wins this state she will go on to make a case to the superdelegates that only she can deliver the big states with the high number of electoral votes in November. This is not necessarily true; the very strong Democratic turnouts in all of the state primaries so far would seem to mean that either Democrat would probably be able to deliver these states. But Obama does need to prove that he is able to overcome her advantages in these states and stand strong against McCain there in November.

So how does he do this? I personally feel Clinton has sucked him into her territory by constantly harping on his lack of "substance" - as a result he got on the defensive and is now making more "substantive" speeches. But as he tries to best her in her territory he may not be making the emotional connection he was making with voters previously.

It's time he got back to basics. No one doubts Clinton is good at policy; what she's not good at is that emotional connection. That's his strength and he needs to keep playing to it. Yes, policy matters, and he has a lot of it on his website. Yes, he should answer questions as to what he would do in various situations. But he has to keep making clear the differences between himself and Hillary, and it's not just policy.

David Brooks had a very interesting op-ed piece in the NY Times the other day before the Tuesday primaries, about Obama and Clinton. While I don't usually agree with Mr. Brooks, as he is a conservative, in this case he nailed the differences between them.

Describing speeches made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in November of 2007, he compared them as follows:

"Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: 'And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!'

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she’s always been the moon to his sun. That night in November, he defined the campaign."

This is what Obama must continue to remember - he defined the campaign back then and he must continue to set that tone. It's time for him to go back to basics and do what he does best: Be the sun to Hillary's moon.

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.

Obama Rolls On

Picture Source: KVAL.com

Barack Obama swept the weekend contests, finishing with a nearly 20-point win over Hillary in the Maine caucuses, adding another 15 delegates to his list.

Despite snowy weather, there was a very strong turnout, including many who had never participated in a caucus before.

Now both candidates go on to compete in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC.

As the margin between the two Democratic candidates continues to be razor-thin, their supporters continue to be highly polarized. Even liberal Op-Ed contributors to the New York Times seem to be in conflict.

On Sunday, Frank Rich had a long piece discussing the upcoming "civil war" among Democrats. In his article, Mr. Rich talks about Hillary's "National Town Hall" that was televised on the Hallmark Channel the night before Super Tuesday, with an obvious skew against her.

He comments:

"Like the scripted “Ask President Bush” sessions during the 2004 campaign, this town hall seemed to unfold in Stepford. The anodyne questions (“What else would you do to help take care of our veterans?”) merely cued up laundry lists of talking points. Some in attendance appeared to trance out.

But I’m glad I watched every minute...However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.

For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web “chats” and then planted questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down. "

Mr. Rich also noted that the Clintons have apparently written off the African-American vote...

"In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.

The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), 'the black candidate' (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself)."

After further discussion of the racial politics he sees the Clintons playing, Mr. Rich's column concludes:

"A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils."

I have a lot of concern about this myself. Those of us old enough to remember 1968 can still see the black-and-white images of the Chicago police beating demonstrators outside of the Democratic convention site, and the somber face of Walter Cronkite describing the scene. We know that these images associated with the Democrats stayed with the voters for the rest of the election season, and ultimately contributed to their loss in November to Richard Nixon, who still only won by a narrow margin that wasn't even finalized until the day after the election. Who knows whether Nixon would have won if the Democratic convention hadn't been such a terrible event in people's minds?

Then comes a point of view from another liberal writer. In today's Times, Paul Krugman writes about "Nixonland," a political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein (to be published shortly).

In his commentary, Mr. Krugman quotes Adlai Stevenson as having warned that the nation was in danger of becoming "a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland."

He then goes on to contend that the Democratic Party itself is becoming "Nixonland."

"The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?"

This is a good question, one that I ask myself as well. While I personally support Obama, if Hillary won I would still be able to support her with a clear conscience and enthusiasm. I just think she would have a harder time winning, with all of the Clinton baggage; and I don't like the idea of Bill being back in the White House, even in a secondary role. For him, nothing is ever a small role.

But many out there, including many Democrats, have a level of hatred for Hillary that goes beyond what makes sense to me. And of course many Hillary supporters scorn those who are for Obama.

Mr. Krugman is apparently not an Obama supporter and he makes it clear by blaming most of the vituperation on his supporters:

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."

He then goes on to complain about two incidents:

"During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, 'doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?' Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network."

It's strange to me that he points out these two cases but neglects to mention the much more egregious statements made by Bill Clinton and Mark Penn to which Frank Rich referred, among other incidents.

At the end of his column he calls for "strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. "

I too hope that unity will prevail and that the Democrats will rally behind whichever candidate wins the nomination. But let's face it - Mr. Krugman is indeed being biased by blaming the Obama supporters for the hostility that exists on both sides.

Democrats who support both Hillary and Obama must come together, and soon, to make sure the party can be unified against a McCain candidacy. That is all that matters, and I hope the nomination gets wrapped up before the convention, or we could be reliving 1968.