Love, Exciting and New

Why someone ever decided that a fat baby with wings was the best emblem to celebrate romantic love is beyond me. Anyone with a baby (or for that matter a kid) knows that trying to get your romance on with a wee one around is a challenge that involves the UN, NATO, some good locks and the ability to get the job done quick. And that is on a good day. But per usual, I digress. Tomorrow is that acclaimed day ala Hallmark—Valentine's Day. And seeing how romance is on the brain, whether you like it or not, at this time of year it seemed an apt time to finally ponder the whole John Edwards debacle.

Maybe it was because I came of age when Clinton took his sax to the airwaves and wooed me via MTV (back when the station played music and not homages to self absorbed brainless twats with tight bums and short attention spans), maybe it is just some genetic abnormality that makes me prone to believe the lofty rhetoric of any earnest liberal, maybe it is even a subconscious rejection of having Jesse Helms represent my beloved state for low those many years. The reason remains a mystery, but the result is that I fell for John Edwards—hook, line and sinker. I don't mean I found him physically attractive, I mean he is fine, but a bit too pretty and polished for my taste, rather I bought all of his "Two Americas," his belief that he could lead our country in the right direction. Sadly, I still believe all of that, and I still believe that he believed it as well. The tragedy is that his political beliefs are not quite enough to balance out his moral depravity, at least not in the eyes of most Americans.

If this were another country, say the oft vilified France, maybe Edwards indiscretions, subsequent love child and his wife's eventual abandonment of him wouldn't have mattered in terms of his political career. Sadly, our American puritanical streak is more evident than the roots on a trailer park blonde. My fellow countrymen can't seem to separate what a person does between the sheets and what they can do in their careers. Right or wrong that is the way it is.

What is so disappointing about the Edwards case is not so much that he cheated, then lied over and over again to his wife who has had enough bad news to last several lifetimes, it is that he had the hubris to think that it wouldn't matter to the American people and that if he had won the Democratic nomination that he wouldn't have been handing the election to the Republican candidate (in this case McCain and his brainless bimbette, Sarah Palin). That is truly inexcusable to me. If he loved his country, he would never put us in that position, especially not after being put through eight years of Dubya whose high jinks nearly tore our country apart.

Don't get me wrong, I am horrified about what Edwards did to his family, and for what? Vanity? Surely he didn't love that woman? But if he did, wouldn't it have been better to be upfront with his wife than try and deceive her? But speculating about all of that is futile, it is private and up to the Edwards' to handle amongst themselves. Andrew Young's book The Politician exposed not only Edwards' indiscretion, but also indicated that Elizabeth Edwards learned of the affair and then proceeded to encourage her husband to continue his then-presidential run. I have always been a big fan of Elizabeth Edwards and was saddened when her cancer reoccurred and even more upset that her husband would do this to her, but if Young's claims are true, she is in her own way just as culpable as her husband in potentially leading our country astray. And dang, that just makes me sad.

I will still wake up tomorrow and naively believe that people are good and that somewhere out there a politician exists who can be honest and who will work hard to do what is best for his/her constituents. But I would be lying if I said that my optimism isn't bruised.

Thoughts on Infidelity

Salon has a new reader forum called Open Salon. I haven't poked around much, but apparently readers can post things, etc. sort of like an open blog. Salon editor Joan Walsh was digesting the John Edwards news and referenced something from Open Salon that was posted by a woman whose husband was a cancer survivor. This lady's comments, as someone who has dealt with that kind of emotional upheaval and trauma, made me re-evaluate my thoughts on Edwards. I am still pissed as hell, but perhaps my expectations are too high. [After all my horoscope yesterday told me to "Let go of idealistic notions about how people should behave."]

An excerpt:

"Both partners may be just sick to death of sickness. And that's the first thing my husband said when I mentioned John Edwards' confession. He said, maybe Edwards had an affair because he just wanted things to be normal again. Maybe he was tired of cancer and treatment.

"My first thought was that maybe one or both of them just couldn't see a way to reconnect erotically after breast cancer. Speaking only for myself again, when I had a scare with an unclear mammogram -- one that took months to clear up -- I felt profoundly alienated from my body as a source of pleasure. And I didn't even have cancer, just a bad case of paranoia!

"Maybe having an affair when your spouse has just faced down mortality is a way of affirming your own survival. Maybe it's a form of denial about your partner's mortality, and your own. This might be just an extension of the stereotypical mid-life crisis -- but cranked up to eleven.

"And maybe, with the pressures of raising two young kids and running for president the Edwards[es] just hadn't yet figured out how to be a couple together again. My husband and I struggled enough, and we only had two little kids and a couple of university jobs.

"In the end, why John Edwards strayed will remain a mystery to everyone outside his family, and that's only right. They deserve their privacy. Elizabeth has asked for privacy as they work through this. A marriage should remain a mystery to everyone outside it."

Infidelity in the News

I am equal parts outraged and saddened at the news that John Edwards did in fact have an affair several years ago.

Not only did I truly admire the man, but his wife has proven to be an inspiration and to see her spirit and devotion to him and their shared causes disrespected in such an appalling manner truly shakes my belief in the goodness of people.

I can't imagine what Edwards was thinking that justified such actions and I am heart sick that on top of her illness and the tragedy of her son, Wade's death, Elizabeth Edwards has had to also deal with infidelity. Her decision to stay with her husband is hers alone and I make no judgements on that. My disdain is reserved exclusively for her husband. I am not sure I will be able to so quickly forgive or forget.

Love Child

A gentle reader (thanks Wes—although you know you are breaking my heart) pointed out the recent Enquirer story about John Edwards' affair and love child yesterday. I had heard this earlier this year I guess, just prior to Edwards dropping out of the election or right after, I can't recall exactly, but had not put a lot of stock in it b/c as you may remember I had a bit of a crush on John and just couldn't bear to think of him going down the Clinton adultery track.

Well the story is back. 

Salon even alludes to it today and the possible reasons why the main stream media isn't pouncing on it. Say it ain't so John . . .

Last, but Not Least

Oh yeah, John Edwards endorsed Obama. Notably absent from the event in Michigan was Elizabeth Edwards. Perhaps the Edwards' house is split on this decision?

Now, you all know I love me some John Edwards, and in a way I am not surprised by this announcement in the least. I just hope that it has the desired effect, to boost Obama with the white working class voters, that not only seem to lean toward Clinton, but who seemed less than enthused by him in West Virginia earlier this week.

But then again, that may have less to do with the inside of the man, than his outside—unfortunately. And I am afraid that no endorsement is going to combat that.

As Tears Go By

Rumors are swirling that Edwards will drop out of the race. If you have been reading you know of my affection and respect for the man and the ideals he has been promoting.

I need to go sit quietly somewhere and mourn now. More about Florida and some other thoughts that I have had percolating (courtesy of my husband) later.

Rudy, Tooty, Fresh and Fruity

Looking forward to Tuesday in Florida:

Giuliani has put all his egg's into Florida's pan handle (yes that metaphor just really broke down) and it is looking more and more like those eggs are going to end up fried (yep, there we go back on track).

Frankly, I couldn't be happier. Between the dude's heavy eyeliner in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos (check it out for yourself—click on the Watch Political Videos near the bottom of the page) and his general desire to scare the beejeesus out of us with threats of terrorists around the corner, I will be altogether too happy to see the man go back to his bat cave.

If Florida finishes off Rudy, that leaves us with Romney (used car salesman), Huckabee (religious freak) and McCain (Bush lapdog who just Sunday warned us that "There's going to be other wars . . . I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars." Oh goodie—promise??). My apologies to the supporters of Ron Paul, but me thinks the boy doesn't stand a chance. I guess McCain is the best of the bunch, although his war stance and his abortion statements make me rather twitchy.

Looking back to Saturday's primary in South Carolina:

Congratulations to the democrats in South Carolina. Not only did you come out and vote, you came out in record numbers. The state Democratic party estimated that more than 530,000 people voted. The previous Saturday's Republican primary only drew 445,000. Not too shabby my neighbors to the south, not too shabby.

Now I have to take a moment to lament the third place finish of my favorite John Edwards. I know that he is not leaving the race, but the odds of him being the candidate are truly slipping away. As my favorite, that really makes me sad.

However, like others whose follow-up commentary I have been perusing, I am very excited by the fact that Obama so soundly won. I know that seems contradictory considering the previous paragraph, but what I mean is that it is nice that there is no way to "parse" the victory. Obama simply won. Hands down. End of story.

And if you missed Obama's victory speech, have a listen. I know some of you have mentioned that you don't like/trust Obama for different reasons, and despite my admiration for Edwards, dang can Obama give a speech! My fave part is the end—it gives me chills—when he says, "Don't tell me we can't change; yes we can!" The audience chants "Yes we can!" behind him, it is truly something.

One more caveat though: regardless of Obama's resounding win, you can't count out Clinton or Edwards for sure yet. To win the nomination, the candidate needs over 2,000 delegates. So far Clinton is in the lead with just under 250 delegates. That is a long way off from 2,000. There is still much up in the air in this race.

And as Dubya prepares for tonight's State of the Union (the last of his presidency) I wish I could save his time and our ears by just having him say "Shitty" and end the whole thing early, but I guess that is not in the cards.

So instead I will leave you with this quote from our "feckless" leader which offers all the more reason why he needs to leave the Oval Office—

"See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office—I love to bring people into the Oval Office—right around the corner from here—and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person."

In this case, Mr. President, the office is WAY bigger than the president and it is my hope that you won't be "officing" in it much longer.

Today's Funny

I had to pass this on. A video clip of John Edwards on David Letterman this week. Really funny and worth watching to the end.

Three for the Road

I am a bit delayed in commenting on the Democratic debate Monday night. I only managed to stay awake for the first half of the debate—despite the mudslinging, I started snoring promptly at nine p.m. Yes I am getting old.

Part of the reason I didn't post about it yesterday was because I wasn't sure what to say about it or if I even cared. I definitely had some moments during that hour of viewing where I winced at the snarky jabs coming from the candidates. But my major thought was that I was really kind of glad my state's primary is so late in the game, and will most likely not "really" make a big difference in determining who gets the nomination.

Why you ask? Because I honestly don't know that I want a say in determining which of the Triumvirate gets the nod. There are aspects of each that I really like and there is really nothing that I totally hate about any of them. In my current dream world I wish we could just mush them together like three different colored balls of Play doh and create a "Super Candidate."

Well you get the idea.

Anyway, since that isn't going to happen I will just continue to take the wussy way out and be grateful that more than likely by the upcoming Super Tuesday, the rest of America will have made the decision and I won't have to make a stand. So unlike me I know. Also, I know that just reinforces many people's belief that their vote doesn't count. I don't think you can ever really say that though. It is the whole butterfly effect argument. You may not realize the impact your small actions have on the greater world, because if we all truly did nothing, then that would be what we get, nothing.

Enough of that. So as you probably are aware now, Clinton and Obama got into, needling each other as much as two people who differ on very little actual can, while Edwards fought to stay relevant. And I hate that. I think he has some great things to say and contribute to the campaign and is just as qualified for the job as the other two, but of course the media has already decided that he is no longer viable and is really just a bystander. Despite this, once he was allowed to speak he made an excellent point, that the squabbling between the candidates wasn't going to solve any of the problems the country is facing. And boy do we have some doozies coming down the pike. I don't get the whole stock market thing, but I know that financial types are freaking out right now. Something tells me that there is more to come.

Finally, in regards to Anon.'s comment about electability on a previous post. I'm not sure I have an honest answer for that one. I do believe that many of the so called "electability" issues are things that the media has created just to insure they aren't bored in their reporting. Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek, admitted as much in a recent A Daily Show episode.  At the same time, while our country has come a long way in terms of racism and sexism, we aren't there yet. In honor of the recent celebration of the birthday of the late Martin Luther King Jr. I think it makes sense to reference his thoughts: "I have seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land." That statement rings true for women and blacks. The United States isn't there yet, sexism and racism are still out there. Someday, I wish in my lifetime, we will get to the point where those isms are negligible in our society. But we still have a ways to go.

A quote that I like even better is this one from Letter from Birmingham Jail, 16 April 1963:

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."

That silence comes in many forms—not voting is just one.

363 days left. In keeping with the current concern over the U.S. economy, this Dubya gem from January 2000:

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

A Fairy Tale

Gather 'round dear readers and let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time three people vied for the love of a land. One was young and full of hope, one was experienced and disciplined, and one was fiery and righteous. They came together to tell everyone in the land why they were the best, the most worthy, the one who would make things better. Their words words were inspiring and the people of the land were moved.

Ok, so that is the way the debate SHOULD have been last night, but it didn't completely live up to the fairy tale described above. The Triumvirate was out last night in Nevada and all were rolling the dice (ha! aren't I clever with my gambling metaphor . . .) to see who could get a leg up in the upcoming Nevada and South Carolina primaries. They were given two hours and the questions were directed by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. So far so good.

And then, Williams and Russert did exactly what I was bitching about in my Charts and Graphs post. They asked questions, but nothing that allowed the candidates to focus on what they would do. And I actually got the sense that the candidates really wanted to focus on policy and actions, because they kept trying to sneak in statements. Maybe I am just being naive (yesterday seemed to be my day for that!), but that was the sense I got. Instead Williams and Russert kept going on and on about the whole race/gender thing that the President of BET (whose name now escapes me) kicked off when he alluded to Obama's teenage drug use during a recent introduction of Clinton at a rally in South Carolina.

Finally one quarter of the way into the debate the two moderators started asking some substantive questions that allowed the candidates to talk about their positions and things they would do. They touched on the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis, with Clinton mentioning her plan to freeze the interest rates for several years and halt foreclosures for 90 days. Edwards strongly opposed nuclear power as an alternative to the current energy crisis. Obama struck out about the politics of fear that have ruled our lives in the last seven years. And all, once again, reiterated their respective stances on when and how they would get troops out of Iraq.

Of course, all three candidates stressed that they were different from each other. Certainly they are, but for me the difference in terms of what they would do policy-wise is miniscule. Feel free to disagree with me, but I really do believe it largely comes down to which candidate you like best. Yes, this is a high school-esque popularity contest. Even though it kept me up past my bedtime (shocking!) the 8.30 to 9.30 hour of the debate I saw was exciting to see because it gave the candidates a chance to really tell the American people what they would do and what they believe in. Even without charts and graphs. And that, dear readers, is no fairy tale.

Debatable

Well it was quite the weekend for debates. While I must admit, like Ron Paul I skipped the Fox News debates yesterday (I was too busy being a raging feminist rabble rouser) I did watch most of the ABC back-to-back debates Saturday night.

Several things struck me. First the GOP debate, and then there were six:

One, the Republicans can't even insult each other with any panache. McCain was all in Romney's business, (the swipe was about Romney being the "candidate of change" I believe in reference to his many changed stances) which is fine, but he tried to land this one zinger, and not only does he have NO comic timing, I swear he sort of sniggled at the end of it like the cartoon dog Muttley. McCain's delivery was actually more painful than the insult.

Second, did my ears deceive me or did those fools actually try to argue that inflation was the cause of our current healthcare crisis? I know all these guys are loaded, heck you have to be to even run for president in this country, but could they at least PRETEND to get what it is like for those of us who don't make six figures? There are many things affecting our healthcare system in America, but I don't think inflation even makes the top five list of what is wrong. And yes, America may have the best healthcare in the world, but if everyone can't afford it or doesn't have access to it, what good is it doing? Do we really want to be a nation of elites?

Final Republican comment—I want to start a drinking game where you take a shot every time one of them mentions Ronald Reagan or 9/11. Of course, if Guiliani gets shut out of the campaign, my game may fall apart. But unless you have an amazingly high tolerance, I guarantee you will be wasted before the first commercial break.

On to the Democrats, and then there were four:

Let's start with poor, poor Bill Richardson. While it has always been painfully obvious that the news people (and most everyone else for that matter) considers this to be a contest between the Triumvirate, it was never more clear than watching him on the stage. On a side note for his handlers—dear god, tighten the man's tie! The multitude of chins, already make him look a bit schlumpy, but having his tie not meet his collar doesn't help. Did anyone think he was being awfully nice to Hilary? Maybe he is hoping to be VP on her ticket? It would be a nice balance, him being from the southwest. On top of the bonus of his experience and the Hispanic vote he would presumably bring.

Second, building on that prediction, any thoughts on a pairing of Edwards and Obama? For either of them to be the second in command would not be shabby. If luck held and the presidential candidate had 8 years, neither would be too old to consider a run of their own again. Just a thought.

You can definitely see that Edwards and Obama are combining forces to gang up on Clinton. And dang it if they didn't really get under her skin at one point. I can't decide if her showing a flash of anger like that is a good thing (illustrating her ability to fight back) or bad (her losing her cool). My bet is it will be perceived as bad, but who knows.

Finally,  I know that no politician every answers a question as explicitly as I would like (hello, charts and graphs please!), but I can't help feeling that the Democratic candidates actually did provide some answers as to what their specific policies would be. Details were given about healthcare and troop redeployment in Iraq. But the Republicans? Pour me another, I think I heard 9/11 reference! (Maybe ole four-eyed Charlie Gibson—could he have channeled Ben Franklin anymore peering over those spectacles—just asked the Dems better questions??)

Discuss . . .

And the Fat Lady Sings, but not my Heart

Well folks, the votes are in. Let me preface this by saying I was lying in bed last night mentally writing the perfect post, but was of course too freaking lazy to get up and actually type it in. So you will just have to trust me that it was extremely insightful and erudite and what I recreate below will have to do.

I have tried not to read or hear too much about the results prior to writing this because I wanted to focus on my gut reaction and not be infiltrated by a bunch of punditry. First of all I don't really consider Huckabee's win a surprise at this point. He had massively pulled ahead of late and it seemed pretty much a lock. The problems for him will arise in New Hampshire. While his "positive" message may still hold him in steed, I think his religiousity will bite him in the butt so to speak with the liberal northeasterners of that state. I did hear something this morning that said something like 20% of N.H-en's identify themselves as evangelical (frankly I am stunned the percentage is that high). But enough about the GOP, you know I don't really care about them anyway.

On to Obama. I confess, I am a bit surprised that he took the lead in Iowa. I have said all along that between the three front runners, I would be happy to have any of them. But as I have already confessed a warm spot for Edwards, he was certainly my fave (although I secretly flagellated myself for taking the white male candidate as my chosen one—apologies to my white, male readers, of course—why oh why, can't it be Elizabeth Edwards running so I would have one less thing to feel guilty about). And then of course the feminist in me couldn't not hold a corner of support for Hillary Clinton. No matter what you feel about her or Bill, the woman is BRILLIANT and certainly just as worthy as any other candidate on the stage so far. But she does have some baggage.

That all being said, I liked Obama. I was certainly impressed by his message at the last democratic convention. You felt that the guy had something. And of course there is the Oprah support. Hard not to respect the power/voice of O. But I haven't found myself wowed by Obama during this campaign. I have seen the debates, and I know the man has the brains, but nothing has blown me away. Now, Michelle on the other hand I have been very impressed by. (Can we have the spouses run???)

Recently I read a piece on Salon that dealt with how many writers/pundits/talking heads are describing the differences between the democratic triumvirate (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) as boiling down to style basically, that substantively they were mostly the same. And more than likely that is the case. So the style thing, for Obama, is about hope, pardon me, but a very MLK, Jr. kind of thing for lack of a better example. And I get that. God knows America needs that. But if that is Obama's shtick, he needs to bring it home. It isn't enough to say it, you have to make me feel it. And right now, I am not feeling.

None of that is to say that I wouldn't support Obama 100% should the nomination end up being his. But I want him to make my heart song if that is the case. And right now, that muscle ain't carin' a tune.

382 days to go . . .

At the dedication of his gubernatorial portrait, Austin, Texas January 2002:

"I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging."

I dare to dream, W. I dare to dream . . . do they still hang for war crimes? Could we make an exception in his case?