Breakin' It Down

Oh goodie. Last week's Newsweek ran a lovely page on the ways that the presidential candidates have pledged to spend our money should they be elected El Presidente! How exciting to look at someone else's budget rather than my own.

There is a fair bit of info here so I will spread it out and that way all you little political junkies will have something to look forward to this week. Aren't I a benevolent blogger?

Today, let's take a gander at Newsweek's overview of each candidate. 

The overview on Obama: Newsweek says that Obama's plan takes its cues from Rubinomics, the policies created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. I got no problem with a repeat of the prosperity of the 90s, particularly since this time I won't be a perpetual student and might have a chance of benefiting from all the largesse. Basically Obama's plan would let Bush's income tax cuts for high earners fall by the wayside (sounds fine by me) and it would give the middle class some tax cuts. Next he would up spending on health care, move some of the Iraqi war funding over to fix some of our domestic mess and possibly try to help Social Security by lifting the cap on payroll taxes. 

Now for Senator Clinton: Again, like Obama, Clinton would let Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Also like Obama she would fix it so hedge-fund managers don't have lower tax rates than their administrative assistants. The money she gets from that increase in tax income (and don't start crying for the hedge-fund suits people!) would go to pay down the deficit and five other big issues she holds near and dear: universal health care; education reform; new savings programs; green energy programs; and housing aid.

Finally we come to Senator McCain. Ole Mac has changed his views a bit on Bush's tax cuts for the richies. At first he was against then, but now that he needs their money for his campaign he thinks they are A-O.K. So McCain is now saying he wants to extend the reduced rates that currently would expire in 2010. This means the income, capital gains, and dividends and estates; and it also means we would lose about $3.6 trillion in revenue over a 10 year period of time. Meanwhile he also wants to increase spending on defense and reduce the deficit. Mac—you got some 'splaining to do! Or maybe he has just found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? St. Patty's is around the corner, maybe the leprechauns are getting slack?

More on this throughout the week. Also, heads up—the Southern Baptist Convention has decided that climate change might exist!!! Be still my heart. All this means is that they have figured out how to make a buck off this.

Oh yeah—Obama took the blue ribbon in the Wyoming caucus. Or whatever prize they give out there to the winner.

Perchance to Dream

Dreams are strange things.

Today we are going to take a detour down the metaphysical highway. Check out this site: 

www.idreamofhillaryidreamofbarack.com/about.

Thanks to "Chad Boulet" for the link. And if you are at all interested in the American Idol juggernaut, he does a nifty job of reviewing it at his blog, Idol Savant listed in my links.

Scared Little Girls

I received a chain email this morning from a friend (who shall remain nameless because she is a good person who apparently just takes things at face value and doesn't really deserve my or your condemnation) that kind of set me off.

The email told the basic scare story of how we (especially women) are NEVER safe. This story detailed a supposed true event at a mall where a woman was almost abducted after a nicely dressed stranger helped her fix a flat. The stranger was of course a male.

Just in case you aren't aware, there is a Web site—snopes.com—whose purpose is to clarify or debunk urban myths of this nature. So next time you get an email about syringes in phone booths or whatever, go there and check it out.

My friend's email pissed me off for two reasons. One, that despite my friend's niceness, someone would be so unaware as to blindly send this sort of thing on as fact or as a "just in case." Still waiting on that check from Microsoft, aren't we?

Secondly, I just can't freakin' stand that people continue to push this idea that women are never safe. Damn it! If you want to get technical, probably none of us are ever safe. Regardless of your belief in predestination, we can't know what is going to happen to us or when. Yes one shouldn't go down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood at night alone. DUH—that goes for men, women and Chuck Norris. But I refuse to walk around feeling like I have the word victim tattooed on my forehead because I have boobs.

I am a strong, capable woman and I can take care of myself. I am not stupid or unaware or naive. Something tells me I am not the only female possessing these qualities in the United States, much less the world. So, please, my fellow females—don't fall for this bullshit. There isn't a boogey man around every corner waiting to get you. And men, don't be thinking that women are just one flat tire away from falling apart, abduction or disaster. Give us some credit.

And for any of you that forward emails like the one I received without first verifying the information? FOR SHAME!

A Whole New Ballgame

"You see, the country has mood swings."

"Mood swings? Nineteen post-graduate degrees in mathematics, and your best explanation for going from a 63 to a 46 percent approval rating in five weeks is mood swings?"

"Well, I could explain it better, but I'd need charts, and graphs, and an easel."

You get a gold star if you can id what movie that dialogue comes from. Those lines seem especially apropos this morning after yesterday's wins for Team Clinton. While the actual delegate count is still a bit up in the air (Clinton won the Texas primary, but the Texas caucus is still undecided according to CNN—can someone explain THAT shit to me?), winning Texas and Ohio is a big deal and it keeps Clinton in the game for another inning.

Man I am FEELING the sports analogies this morning . . . 

Frankly I am excited. I don't want to have a decision yet between Clinton and Obama. (Hell, I can't make up my own mind yet.) While the GOP may try and play this prolonged nomination process for the left as only helping there side because the Dems are spending their money fighting each other and not the Republicans, I don't buy it. I think it is kick ass that we have such a close campaign and that the Democratic party is blessed to have two such talented candidates to choose from. Whichever person ends up clinching the nomination, the party wins as does the country.

Maybe it is just my venti skinny mocha talking, but dang I am pumped about the results this morning. Obama shouldn't be taking anything for granted. ("America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight.") And Clinton shouldn't be counted out.

Oh yeah, McCain cinched the Republican nomination. Yawn.

Up next—Wyoming caucuses for the Democrats on Saturday and Mississippi votes on the 11th. Then we sit tight until April 22 when the Pennsylvania primary takes place. This is another biggie and if Clinton pulls that one out then the delegate race gets even tighter.

Theatre of the Absurd

While we all wait on pins and needles to see the results from Ohio and Texas, let me share this tidbit of amusement with you.

Just when I thought Fox News couldn't get more ridiculous, scary or backward, we have this exchange from Sunday's episode of Fox & Friends (with friends like these . . .). 

Basically what happens is the female anchor explains that the women anchors at Fox like to be "feminine" and that is why they lean towards skirts and not pantsuits. Alrighty then. Anyway, the whole thing is an embarrassment and is probably something they stole from a script for some 1950s wise-cracking movie staring Rock Hudson and Doris Day.

Stewart 08

Well since that isn't going to happen, just an FYI that Hillary Clinton will be Jon Stewart's guest on tonight's episode of The Daily Show.

Enjoy.

Tex Mess

Tomorrow is the big day for Clinton. Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont vote. Of course Ohio and Texas are the biggies. Her lead in Ohio is slim and apparently Clinton and Obama are neck and neck in Texas. 

It's anyone's guess what will happen when the polls close tomorrow evening, but even if Obama's streak isn't broken, I don't see Clinton throwing in the towel just yet. And of course she may surprise us all and pull the two states out, which would change the whole picture and give her campaign new life.

I was at church yesterday ("Yes, Annelle, I pray! Well I do. There I said it, I hope you're satisfied.") and the scripture the sermon was based on was John 9: 1-41. It is the story of a blind man that Jesus gives sight to and how every one gets stuck on who gave the man sight and not that the man can now see. At least that is my interpretation, you biblical scholars can argue with me on that.

The minister discussed how the people in the story had lost sight of what was important. I think that is something we are all guilty of in a variety of fashions—one being this election. (See you knew I would work it back around to politics and away from religion pretty quickly.)

For instance, 60 minutes had an election piece on last night with Steve Kroft where he was talking to voters in Ohio. At one house there were a couple of good 'ole boys sitting on the sofa. One pipes up that he is probably voting for Obama but he has somethings he wasn't clear about. (Let me preface this by saying the Kroft said that some voters in south Ohio were less than enthusiastic about voting for a black or a woman.) The voter's areas of doubt? That Obama doesn't know the National Anthem, he wouldn't use the Bible and that he is a Muslim.

None of this is true of course and Kroft told the guy that. But dang if that doesn't put fear in my heart that the propaganda of the right or whomever still has that strong of an effect on how people think.

But here I am getting distracted from the big picture. Even if all of these things were true—that Obama didn't want to use the Bible, that he was a Muslim that he didn't know the National Anthem—what difference would it make in his ability to govern this country?

We shouldn't be voting for someone because the are a certain color or they aren't. We shouldn't be voting for someone because they are male, not female. We shouldn't even be voting for someone because they come from the party we have always voted for. We should be voting for the person that will help fix our country.

Because if we don't, then we aren't focused on what's important.