2009 Election Recap

There were three pivotal races being decided last night: VA governor, NJ governor, and a special election in NY-23.

In both governor races, Republicans ousted Democratic administrations. I don't think the outcome of either of these races says anything about how the citizens of those states feel about the president. In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran an awful campaign, Virginia has a famous history of electing the opposite party of the president who is currently in office, and Bob McDonnell did not run against the president. In fact, many of his commercials by the end of the campaign ran on the same message of change. He ran a very positive campaign and voters turned out for that. Virginia is a toss-up state, in any election, and this one showed that once again.

In New Jersey, politics is its own dirty animal. Corzine was tremendously unpopular and even in a mostly blue state, Democratic voters voted for the other guy. Also here, Christie ran on the message of change. Exit polls in both states showed that folks didn't vote to send a message to Obama, but that their reasons were local.

NY-23 is slightly different. This is one race which can potentially tell a story for 2010. In short, you had a three-way race until the weekend, when the Republican candidate dropped out. What happened? The right-wing conservative nut faction of the Republican party thought it a good idea to import their own candidate, because they weren't happy with some of the views of Dede Scozzafava, the candidate who was chosen by the district to be Republican nominee. Now, if you know anything about NY Republicans, you know that the majority of them are not right-wing conservative. But in this race, in this district that hasn't gone Democrat since the 1800s, conservative Republicans took it upon themselves to make a statement and push moderates out of their party. But the tactic backfired on them and the Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate, won.

Now this can be painted in many ways. My personal view is that all moderates- Democrat and Republican- should be feel threatened by what the conservative right did in NY-23. They imported their own guy who didn't live in the district and worse yet, didn't know a thing about local issues. Make no mistake about it-- the Republican party is fighting for it's future here and it's not going to be pretty.

So if you want to look at any outcome of last night's election as a bellwether for what the fight will be like going into 2010, look no further than NY-23. The big fights will be moderate vs. extreme, for both parties. But it's certainly more pronounced, and can potentially be more ugly, for the Republican party.

The Last Lion

Ted Kennedy died yesterday. With him died old school politics and the last standing genuine fighter for liberal ideals. Sure, there are other liberals in Congress, in State houses, in governorships. But when Ted spoke, people listened. Not just Democrats like himself. But Republicans too. While he fought hard for liberal ideals, he did not hesitate to reach across the aisle and forge real, workable partnerships. I can't help but think about how different the discourse on the healthcare debate would be if he were alive and healthy and able to participate fully. How different these town hall meetings would be if he were standing up there. Sure, there would still be a debate, as there should be, but can you imagine someone standing up in there calling Ted Kennedy a Nazi? Doubtful.

Kennedy had his many flaws, as all of us do. But he achieved more in his life as a senator for the common good of all Americans than almost anyone. Who will fill his shoes?

Miss California

I finally saw the video of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answering the question of whether she supports gay marriage.

My reaction: who cares? While I disagree with her opinion, I actually give her credit for stating up front that we live in a country where you can (now) choose (though I never heard the term"opposite marriage" before), but she was raised with certain ideals and that's what she believes. So what? But now, because of all the fuss people made about her stating her opinion, she's become a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage. Does anyone out there think that she would have thought one extra second about it if no one made a big deal about her opinion? OK, I understand. She could have been crowned "Miss America." But seriously, folks, did anyone reading this actually remember that that contest was still around, and if you did, does it actually mean anything to most people?

The gay rights movement has a lot going for it right now but still a lot to fight against moving forward. Miss America didn't really have to be one of them.

Bailout and Bonuses

I would LOVE for this bill to pass.

I would LOVE for the obnoxious, selfish, irresponsible fat cats on Wall Street to finally shut up and take it like the rest of us are taking it.

I would just LOVE to hear the reaction from the likes of Bank of America, Citi, and the other big boys out there who took taxpayer money and spent it on private jets, office redecorating, and bonuses if the bill passes. Would they reject the bailout money to save their seven-figure salaries? Would they turn around with their tail between their legs and say "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" and start lending money again?

I would just LOVE for this to be more than just big talk and for the government to finally take action against this. It's utterly outrageous and there is no justification for it.

We interupt this program...

We checked-in at around 3pm Friday afternoon and hopped online to check out the latest news from Mumbai. I was surprised to see the NY Times headline at that hour: Indian Special Forces Fire Upon Jewish Center. At the time, there really was no real information besides for that.

We left for Friday night services a few hours later and I somewhat expected the rabbi to lead the service at the end with a few Psalms, even if only to pray for the survival of the hostages inside the Jewish Center (let alone all the others in the Taj). But there was not even a mention of it.

On Saturday morning we learned that they stormed the center and 6 hostages were killed, including the young rabbi and his wife. But still no mention from the rabbi during his two (yes, two) sermons. I know that if I were home in Washington, we would have said a few Psalms and I'm sure our rabbi would have mentioned it. He wouldn't have expounded on it's political implications, as it's not his way to do so in a congregation full of real politicians, would-be politicians, fake politicians, government employees, and others. But he would have at least acknowledged the tragedy that was unfolding half a world away. In Sydney, the tragedy was unfolding a bit closer, but we got nothing.

Saturday was the first time since this trip began that I wished I could have been back home, even for 24 hours.

Spurning Reagan

“Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears.”

I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan, but considering how much the Republicans claim to be the Party of Reagan, they sure have done a terrible job at acting like him.

Bipartisan

Can't make this stuff up:

Democrat from Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney, responding to the question of how many affairs he's had: "You're asking me over a lifetime? I'm just saying I've been unfaithful and I'm sorry for that."

Gotta love it.

Motherhood and Hypocrisy on the Campaign Trail

I'm gonna go ahead and say something crazy and then duck for cover real fast:

Talking about Sarah Palin's family and her as a mother is fair game.



Now take some deep breaths and read this next sentence:

I 1000% agree that talking about and criticizing a politician's (or any other person in the media spotlight for that matter) family should be off limits.

HUH??

How in the world do those two statements, taken together, make any sense?

It's quite simple. The politician-- not the family-- is running for office. That's what matters. That politician's views on the issues that matter to this country should be on the table for discussion, dissection, and political attacking. A child didn't ask for any of it and is just an innocent bystander in all of it.

But once you start parading each member of the family out onto the national stage more than just for when it is necessary, once you start staging photo ops with the kids and place one specifically in the spotlight, and once you start basing your campaign-- your appeal to voters-- on your family and your role in that family, you put it all out there on the table. If you want to tell me that you're "just like every normal American" and that you're the "everymom," just like all other moms out there who are trying to balance it all, then I have the right to ask you about it.

Once you start including motherhood in the picture that you're painting for the American voter, you open yourself up to those questions. Simple as pie. No one asks male candidates about their fitness as fathers, because, among other things, they aren't talking about it. That narrative is just not there.

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for the conversation on Sarah Palin as mother to continue. I wish it would die, actually, because every time someone mentions it, it takes time away from discussing the things that do matter, like the fact that she didn't really say no to the Bridge to Nowhere and that she doesn't really hate earmarks as much as she says she does. But the bottom line is this: if you don't want them talking about it, don't bring it up and definitely don't make it one of the the central themes of your campaign.

And forget about Palin's daughter being pregnant-- while many vocal conservatives used to judge and belittle other teenage mothers in the spotlight (it's great that they've seen the error of their ways!), there's no need to keep the story going just to expose the hypocrisy. Instead, we should be talking about the failures of an abstinence-only education policy and be asking our leaders to do more to support teen mothers in need. Not every teen mother is privileged to have parents who are as understanding and in good financial position, such as the Palin's, as support.

VP Rant

I spent the majority of Friday in a car driving from Washington, DC, to New York, frustrated beyond belief. Not because it took us 6+ hours to drive up north when it usually takes us 4, but because I was stuck not being able to write this rant until now, and by now, you've probably already heard it all, but I'm going to write it anyways.

As a woman, I'm absolutely aghast at who McCain picked to be his vice presidential nominee. As a woman, I'm insulted beyond words that he truly believes that he could win the female vote simply because he chose someone who doesn't have a penis. Does he think that low of me and the millions of other women who voted for Hillary? Is it really true that the majority of women don't care about anything else? They don't care about the environment, gay rights, gun control, and oh, shall we not forget, women's issues? Does he really believe that women vote based on sex alone, when it's been shown that women vote based on party preference and most women are Democrats? There's a reason for that, and it's not because they're voting for other women.

The women McCain is obviously pandering to should be offended. And if they still had qualms about voting for Obama simply because of how the Democratic primary ended, this choice should override all of that. If the word of God came down from heaven and told me today that this would be the only chance in the next 100 years that a woman would be this close to the presidency, I still wouldn't vote for her.

It's that simple. I have a brain. And I use it. Like many other women. And it's quite obvious that besides for biology, Sarah Palin is a far cry from what Hillary Clinton represented to those who voted for her.

I'm humbled and saddened this morning as I read about and look at pictures of the prisoner swap that happened on the Israel-Lebanon border this morning. The picture of the two black coffins carrying the remains of the two soldiers whose kidnapping sparked the war in 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah is captivating. And it reminds me how high we value these human beings- even bodies, just bodies, being returned to their families for a proper burial and a proper mourning. A value so high that they were worth not just other bodies in exchange, but the freedom of a cold blooded murderer. People can debate forever whether or not the price was too high, but at least we can now, sadly, remove two names from list of the missing for whom we prayed every week for two years.

We place a high value on these things. And for that, I'm proud.

Olympic Torch Relay

Sports Illustrated is reporting that Olympic organizers in England are considering a British-only torch relay for the 2012 Games. Given the protests and scuffles from this year's relay for the Games in China, they haven't ruled out the possibility of skipping the world-wide relay tradition.

Does the UK have a human rights issue we don't yet know about?

Idealism vs. Realism

Much has been written on the idealism of Obama versus the realism of Hillary, and I'm sure more will be written before all is said and done. But here's one point I don't think I've seen yet: if I remember correctly, in most, if not all of the primaries so far, Obama has gotten much of the under 40 vote while the 50+ is going to Hillary. At the same time, since the Ted Kennedy endorsement, Obama has been compared numerous times to his brother, JFK. Perhaps the 50+ group is going to Hillary because they actually lived through the JFK years and beyond, and while they may remember the idealism of the time and the positive, uniting message that JFK disseminated with fondness, how do they feel about his actual actions in office? How do they feel about whether or not that idealism and unity actually translated into something concrete?

I don't profess to know the answer; but I think it's something to think about. How does a president get the real hard stuff done? And perhaps the returns from tonight will prove this wrong. Just a thought.

I'm a junkie

A political junkie, that is.

My version of a fun evening: having dinner with the hubby, then curling up on the couch for two hours to watch a presidential debate. Yeah, I know. I'm pathetic. The best part of last night was that the entire 2-hour debate was full of wonky policy talk, and boy, was that exciting. There was nuance and high-brow discussion on everything ranging from healthcare to taxes to Iraq and even to the Dream Ticket. And boy, did the place erupt after that. All the talk about making history, charting a new direction, a united Democratic Party, and all the cheers were enough to leave that lump in your throat present for two straight hours. It was fantastic.

What i loved so much about it was the fact that so many people were interested in listening. It amazes me that this campaign season has turned so many people on. Perhaps you can blame it on the Hollywood writer's strike, but so what? People are still tuning in and showing up to the polls in record numbers. Will it last thru November? Who knows. But it's still fun and exciting to watch. I can't wait for Super Duper Tuesday.

The polls weren't wrong. DUH.

Let’s put this to bed right now: the polls were not wrong. The reporting of the polls were wrong. Here are some numbers from polls taken between January 4-7th (thank you to Keith Olbermann for pointing this out):

Fox News: 32% for Obama
NY Times: 35% for Obama
Rasmussen: 37% for Obama
WNBC/Marist: 36% for Obama

Those numbers basically hit the nail on the head for Obama’s results, right?

But what about Hillary’s numbers? Well, the NY Times poll also reported 9% of Democrats “undecided” and 28% “not definite”. Fox News reported 12% “don’t know.” And, here’s the kicker: WNBC/Marist reported that 23% of Obama supporters and a whopping 30% of Edwards supporters were “not firmly committed.”

“Not definite” and “undecideds” and “not firmly committed” seems to have helped Hillary, without a doubt.

Does this not prove that the polls weren’t as wrong as everyone is saying? Seems like the media is just infatuated with the top line numbers that can cause a big splash and don’t bother turning the page to see what else the polls are showing. I have my own issues with polling and all the hype and attention the polls get before an election. But this was not a polling error.

I think it’s time to put this to bed and move on to the next hot thing to talk about. As long as it has nothing to do with crying.

A hypothetical

Take 100 politically- and baseball-inclined people.

Ask them the following two questions:

1. Does torture work?
2. Do you believe the evidence provided in the Mitchell Report?

What are the odds that the answers to both questions would be the same?

(For those not baseball-inclined, the evidence provided in the Mitchell Report was provided after threat of jail time.)

Debates

Ironically enough, tonight's Republican YouTube Debate was the first debate I've watched at least half of so far. While it mostly reaffirms why I won't be voting for any one of these guys, I decided I kinda like Mike Huckabee. There's something about him that's different from the seven others on the stage and it's quite appealing. He's calm and smart. His answers are professional and thoughtful, and dare I say, real. He answered the first question on immigration with class and smarts, despite how it really didn't fit into the classic Republican anti-immigrant campaign. He defended his policy on granting children of illegal immigrants the same rights to qualify for merit scholarships as citizens with grace and honesty. His answer on the death penalty was moving- though he didn't address the reality of faulty convictions and the current Supreme Court halt on executions. (On the other hand, that comment on putting Hillary on the first rocket to Mars was a little tasteless; yes, everyone else had to mention her, but he was doing just fine without it.)

Don't get me wrong- I wouldn't vote for him. He's super conservative and I disagree with him on many things. But if he got the Republican nomination, I can somehow envision a true shift in national conversation on who should be our next president. His style would dramatically alter the politics and campaigning that we are used to. Perhaps it would be something truly worth tuning in for.

A moment of brag

Please excuse the shameless display of pride in my man.

Can any of you guess which one he is? Hint: his name is not Grover:



And, this, from RNN TV. (For those of you not in the loop [I wasn't until today, so don't feel bad], Regional News Network is one of the largest independent TV broadcast stations in the country.)

Enjoy!

Political Ads

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Moveon "Betray-Us" ad and the Swift Boat lies from the 2004 campaign? How about the Max McClellan ads? If there is no difference- if you think that all three ads were, at the least, not in good taste, why does one deserve a vote in the Senate condemning it and the others do not? Why does our President call one "disgusting" but uses the others to help his own campaign?

Clarification

It looks like I need to clarify my previous post. David read my post and came to the conclusion that I was proposing we reintroduce a mandatory draft into the armed forces.

I'll say it plainly: I am not an advocate for a mandatory draft and I don't support the idea of reinstituting it here in this country.

The point of my post was to highlight the striking parallels between the criticisms of Olmert's handling of the Second Lebanon War and Bush's handling of the Iraq War. The point was also to highlight where these two diverge: where Israel appoints independent commissions who release no-holds-barred truthful analysis of the actions of their leaders, the United States is still playing through the "debate" as to whether our "leaders" lied and misled this country into a senseless war, the consequences of which we will experience for a long time to come.

Yes- I do believe that President Bush and VP Cheney deliberately misled the country- and there's enough proof out there to support the claim, starting with the false assertions that Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that Iraq had clear ties to Al-Qaeda. We know that to be false. But yet, the administration continues to peddle that theory. I can go on, but that's not the point of this post. David- I have no desire to label my "opponents" as evil and vile, especially not for the hell of it. (And shall we point to the myriad of Republicans out there who label their "opponents" as unpatriotic, America-haters, anti-family, baby-killers, evil, etc. This is not just a "Democratic" issue.)

The point here is this: Outrage from the Israeli public on the handling of this war fueled the impetus for the commission and the commission verdict was unanimous. They hold their leaders accountable for their actions to a much higher degree than we do in this country.

One major difference between Israelis and Americans is clear (besides for all others): every single Israeli knows someone who is serving, who once served, who was injured, who was killed. They are clearly more sensitive to every single soldier's death. The comments I heard on NPR made it obvious: "119 soldiers are in the ground." Those were his exact words! We blink at 119 and move on.

The bottom line is I think a draft would make people more sensitive and aware of the devestations of war, especially those not being fought on our soil (and if that point is not obvious, just take a look at the country's reaction to 9/11, the Columbine shootings, Va Tech, Oklahoma City, etc. We react much differently when it happens here, but when 20 soldiers are killed by a roadside bomb, we read the article and move on). But that doesn't mean I practically support the concept as policy.

Striking parallels

You don't need to be intimately familiar with the politics and history of the State of Israel to see the striking parallels between the damning Winograd Commission Partial Report on the debacle known as the Second Lebanon War and the criticism surrounding the Bush administration on the debacle known as the Iraq War. They say that Ehud Olmert has an approval rating of 2-3%- yes, you read that correctly: 2 or 3%! Of the entire Israeli electorate! Bush's 33% looks good compared to that! And yet, Olmert has the audacity to go on public television and state that he will not resign despite the findings of the commission. Hubris doesn't even begin to describe it!

Just read some of these lines and tell me they don't sound familiar:

• "He made up his mind hastily"
• "He is responsible for the fact that the goals of the campaign were not set out clearly and carefully"
• "Made a personal contribution to the fact that the declared goals were over-ambitious and not feasible"
• Decisions were made "without close study of the complex features of the front and of its military, political, and diplomatic options available

The list can go on, if you want. But what is truly striking, though, is across the spectrum reaction to this report. Almost everyone, not including Olmert's family perhaps, is calling for him to resign. So much so, that there are reports that one of the largest demonstrations ever in Israel will take place on Thursday evening in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. They are estimating over 400,000 people! And what past demonstrations would this one rival in numbers? Only the one held after Rabin's assasination and after the massacres at Sabra and Shatillah. That's it.

And for what purpose? To let the government know exactly how they feel about last summer's war. Why? Because 119 soldiers died. Yes- the public is outraged because 119 soldiers died. Unbelievable!

It's true- we as Americans will never fully comprehend the earth-shattering consequences of war until every single one of us tastes it. Until we each know someone who sacrificed for their country. Because thousands of American soldiers have died so far in this disaster of a war, and countless books have been written, countless inquiries have been made, but it's still not obvious to many in this country how their leaders misled and lied for their own selfish reasons, and still refuse to be held accountable for their actions.

I always nodded my head in passive agreement in the past, but it really struck me as I was driving home this evening from work listening to an interview of an Israeli reservist that perhaps only a mandatory draft could start getting people to really care again about preciousness of each and every life that serves to defend the country.