(Ok, I couldn't help it. I like acorn squash.)
Let's deal with the ACORN rumors, shall we? I think anyone who has worked with a non-profit will feel pain at reading this, because it is so often that when you are trying to do the most good for a non-partisan cause that bad nuts get into the batch. Whether they are employees or volunteers, sometimes your own people undermine your goals.
Does this make your efforts worthless? No. Does that mean that your organization is the problem? No. Is is frustrating and disheartening? Heck yes.
So, on to the reality check. I'm using FactCheck.org and the ACORN website as my sources.
WHAT IS ACORN?
WHAT IS THEIR PROCESS?
ACORN VOTER FRAUD
John McCain stated in the final debate that ACORN is "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."
Goodness, McCain - embellish much? FactCheck.org disagrees with this outlandish statement about the fabric of democracy being unwoven by voter registration. But I'll put it together for all of us (majority of information from FactCheck.org):
OBAMA'S CONNECTION TO ACORN
FactCheck.org says:
The ad says that "Obama's ties to ACORN run long and deep" – that he "taught classes" for the group, paid a "front" $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president.That last one's true – ACORN's political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement.It's also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer "motor voter" registration at DMV offices. Obama has said [but no longer says- LEB] that this is his only association with ACORN, but that's not the case – he has had other, though less direct[emphasis mine], interactions with the organization. After law school, Obama directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote, which works closely with ACORN. And when Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants. The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI's services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election. As for "teaching classes" for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot "initially considered Obama a competitor" when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that "she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that "we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year" between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.
The ad says that "Obama's ties to ACORN run long and deep" – that he "taught classes" for the group, paid a "front" $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president.
That last one's true – ACORN's political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement.It's also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer "motor voter" registration at DMV offices. Obama has said [but no longer says- LEB] that this is his only association with ACORN, but that's not the case – he has had other, though less direct[emphasis mine], interactions with the organization. After law school, Obama directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote, which works closely with ACORN. And when Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants. The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI's services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election. As for "teaching classes" for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot "initially considered Obama a competitor" when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that "she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that "we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year" between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.
So, before we get all wound up in trying to pin massive voter fraud on anyone, perhaps we should do our own reality check of the facts.
Can we get back to talking about real issues again?
(originally posted at Exponential )
So I'm a little late in joining this wonderful community of Obama-bloggers. But better late than never!
With the election drawing nearer and nearer, people are getting excited, but unfortunately also derogatory. On the news you see stories about Obama hate-mail, and crude, horrid public displays of predjudice. Even though you may want to get back at the McCain supporters for this, I invite you all to take the high road and go on your merry way, saying only pro-Obama things, and nothing anti-McCain. It's just plain moral. And when Obama wins the election in November, the hateful McCain supporters will really hate themselves for being spiteful against Barack Obama.
And don't be afraid to hold back your opinions on Obama around your McCain-supporting friends. This isn't the civil war, it's an election. This is America! People are each entitled to their own opinion! I happen to have a friend who is deeply set on McCain. We disagree on the subject virtually every time we talk to each other, but thats the fun of it! Sometimes we go into a miniature debate, and will go back and forth just like Obama and McCain. At the end of it, we're still both sticking by our separate candidates, but we still had fun. =]
And lastly, don't hate your relatives or friends for liking McCain. After Election Day, it will be over. We will have a new President, and everyone will shake hands and be happy again. Keep these points in mind, and remember: Vote Obama '08!
I've been wanting to discuss the Obama Design since day one. Many people have agreed that the design behind the Obama campaign has been stellar and reaching people unlike previous elections. What is behind this?
The Symbol
So, never before have I seen such a flawlessly run design campaign.
Politics aside, the mobilization of the logos, the diverse options, and the inspiring mottoes and - dare I say - typeface have people eager to put stickers on their bumpers.
Seriously, never before have I been thinking about putting a bumpersticker on my car. Bumpersticker activism isn't how I want to change the world.
But the simple circle with the new day dawning over the striped fields...something about that image just gets into the core of me. It doesn't just represent Obama - it represents something deeper, something organic and powerful that connects us all to the earth beneath our feet and the people on the street.
Even if Obama didn't win, I really think this logo could be something people across the country could unite under. It represents the best of us, the intrinsic American spirit that is about community and roots, as well as change and growth.
You have to admit, it's fabulous design that manages to take one symbol and tweak it to fit so many different people. It gives credence to the underlying statement: that we are all equally important and united, despite our individual differences. (For a sample of the logos as made individualized for each voting group, you can check the BarackObama website, or you can read this blog that includes a sample of each. )
Designbay did a study of winning presidents and their logos, and then compared this year's candidates. The Obama logo is designed to win.
Designers Review the Branding
K-Co, my top-notch designer friend, and I have discussed the Obama branding and what makes it so alluring. The branding has a lot of designers talking. One designer and critic, Michael Beirut, was asked to give his opinions of the Obama branding and the effort that has gone into it. His views seem somewhat amazed at the level of detail put into the branding, and his tone sounds a bit conflicted. But he says it clearly - the design and branding are impeccable.
The website is part of the branding technique, and people definitely have opinions about that. Friends I've talked to find it simultaneously helpful and beautiful, but expansive and overwhelming. Back in 2007, the Bivings Report took a look at the Obama campaign site. They gave it pretty high reviews, although some issues were noted. Additionally, Brian Yerkes provided his own review in June of '08, which goes through some detail as to why the Obama website is superior.
In January '08, the Boston Globe put together a review of fonts by The Font Bureau, Inc. focusing on which fonts in the campaigns really speak of change.
The Website and the Store
Have you been to the BarackObama store? Not just your typical cheesy election stuff. The designs are quality and make you feel inspired and happy to be a part of the experience. In addition, if you're looking for something higher end, there are the Runway to Change and Artists for Obama lines. SwissMiss featured the newest art poster in a blog post a few days ago, referring to it as a "typographic waterfall" as lovingly as any designer might.
The problem? Everything I want (or can afford) is sold out! (Perhaps I should check out the Democratic Stuff website.)
Next Post: Capitalism, Artists and DIY Speak Up For Obama
(originally posted at Exponential)
You probably heard it, unless you were in the middle of the HarleyFest. My jaw dropping and hitting the desk when I read that McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I don't remember what my first thought was. It was one of the two: "Wow. Stupid." Or "Wow, that pisses me off."
I hope that all the Hilary supporters see through this really clumsy action. This isn't McCain for Change. This is Same Old, Same Old. With the goal of attempting to reach out to the Hillary supporters who didn't see their candidate, Republicans chose a young beauty queen to make McCain look less stodgy and more "reform".
This proves, beyond a doubt, that Republicans have lost touch with reality, and the American people. By bringing in a "token" woman, Republicans have shown that they are still classist, still separatists that live in an America of the 50's, rather than the global community.
The part that really burns my britches is the fact that it completely reveals Republican platform on women: attractive, a nice smile, and willingness to play the game of the boys matters more than brains, wits, or real experience. The fact that they think that women might choose to vote for Palin because of gender rather than skill or capability COMPLETELY MISSES the Hillary campaign phenomena.
Hillary was such a movement for many reason, but one of the strongest ones was that women FINALLY had a quality candidate that was a woman, not a female playing the typical political game. This candidate had experience, intelligence, wits and skills. Hillary managed to reach out and touch real topics that affect both men and women, and wasn't afraid to grapple those topics that still are real issues - Choice, Rights, Equality for Women.
To choose Palin, who lacks experience, background, and any connection to the issues that women are concerned about, is a slap in the face of women. It's the Republicans believing that "Tits, not Wits" are what get the female vote. It shows that they just don't get it, and Republican Party just doesn't understand how Americans think or vote.
The only "change" Palin represents is that an old white guy is willing to have the woman stand next to him, instead of behind the desk out front.
Let's look at the facts:
In the face of a 72 year old president, we have a barbie doll in place in case he goes down. This isn't change, guys. It's sad. It's proof that you just don't get it.
(originally posted at Exponential on August 31st.)
I don't think there's any way to deny it - to vote for McCain/Palin really WOULD be voting for another four years.
Seriously, do I need to go any further? McCain/Palin represent the same old way of putting corporations over populations.
You want to say that social views don't matter? An administration's social programs and beliefs directly impact their fiscal beliefs. Those out there saying, "Well, I prefer Republican fiscal views" need to take another look at their fiscal views. Our debt has gone up astronomically, we are paying for a war that should never have happened, and social security is in danger.
You want to say that the Vice President doesn't do anything really? Hmm, perhaps you should talk to Cheney, who has managed to twist many deals in the White House offices.
You want to cite experience? Perhaps we should contemplate the experience of some of our founding fathers, or perhaps of myriad presidents before now? Or Senators, or leaders of any movement? Do you think that a preacher would be a good civil rights movement leader? Perhaps we should consider the person, and not the background, the skin color, or gender. Perhaps we should consider their ideas, the people they surround themselves with, and their ability to take on the burden of leading this country. Perhaps we should consider how they reach out to us instead of how they ask us to reach out to them. Perhaps we should look at what a person stands for, instead of stands ON.
Perhaps we should remember what Margaret Mead said:
So apparently, McCain/Palin refuse to respond to the legislative investigation about Palin's abuse of power as Governor. Let me be specific to the article: "allegations that she and her advisers pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper going through a bitter custody dispute with her sister -- and that Monegan was terminated when he refused. "
McCain/Palin refuse to respond on the basis that the investigation is all a dramatic partisan attack by Obama operatives. (They really did use the word "operatives", I am (unfortunately) not making this up.)
So, an inquiry into poor decision-making and qualifications by a candidate is deemed "partisan politics" and can be dismissed? If you're running for office, you can just refuse to cooperate with a formal, legal investigation?
Wow, that sounds like some Privilege. I don't think the average American is able to do that.
But wait...this sounds familiar...I'm trying to remember ...Oh Yeah! When Cheney refused to respond to the Supreme Court about his Energy Council. A quote from this write-up:
Indeed, the Court may have avoided an ultimate decision in the case in part because of the political reverberations that would doubtless have resulted from their examining the separation of powers issues (read: the secrecy powers of the presidency) in an election year.
Oh wait. Maybe I meant the case where the Bush Administration invoked executive privilege regarding the EPA inquiry into emissions in California. That happened just in June of this year.
Or perhaps I'm thinking of the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys, at which the Bush Administration ALSO invoked executive privilege, AND tried to make it so that the courts could not decide otherwise. In what the article claims -
"What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
It looks like the Bush Administration feels that they don't actually have to be held accountable for anything they do, which means the law of our country doesn't apply to them. If they say they aren't going to tell us why, we can't do anything about it. It would be deemed a "purely political" act to pursue justice.
This time, McCain/Palin are using the idea that this is all cooked-up by partisan politics from the Obama campaign. I'm wondering if "partisan politics" is now the fall back until they are elected and can use "executive privilege" instead. One way or another, it appears that McCain/Palin have taken lessons straight from the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney book of Checks and Balances - when questioned, refuse to address the question.
Wish they could teach Bush that, I imagine - but he's got "when questioned, act dumb" down perfectly.
Seriously, when is this campaign going to stop being juvenile? From bogus claims of sexism about the word "lipstick" to the dismissal of ANY inquiry about the candidates' qualifications as being "partisan politics", I'm just astonished at how stupid the Republicans must think we Americans are. Perhaps that is why McCain is long on war-hero stories and short on actual descriptions of his plans to deal with the issues facing this country.
It's all fluff, smoke and mirrors. Because in the end, the Republican Candidates are privileged...and they don't have to live up to their responsibilities like everyone else.
First, Let's Show the Crime:
Republicans seem to continually have email problems.
First, McCain indicates that he "doesn't do email." Another link for that, if you'd like. Surprising, but many elderly are not interested in the technology. Heck, my mother feels no need to use hers very often, although she checks it once every couple of weeks.
Also, remember when I posted in November about the 5 million emails that the Republicans "lost"? Oh, and let's not forget the fact that they were conducting white house business over Republican National Committee emails.
Now, Sarah Palin's Yahoo account got hacked, and it appears that she may have been using the email for official state business...which is against the law.
The Alaska Governor could also face charges for conducting official state business using her personal, unarchived e-mail account (a crime), with some critics accusing her of skirting freedom-of-information laws in doing so. An Alaska Republican activist is trying to force Palin to release more than 1,100 emails she withheld from a public-records request, the Washington Post reported last week.
Seriously, is it too much to ask the Republicans to get more creative in their illegal endeavors? It's one thing to commit crimes, it's another to repeat crimes done by the failing administration before you that you claim to be completely against.
Biden was right. A sequel IS always worse than the original. We are beginning to see the stumbling truth of that.
Conspiracy Theory? You bet.
However, this has deeper, conspiracy-theory implications. If you read the Time article above about how Sarah was being investigated for several items, it contains this brief tidbit:
After the hacks were made public, both private accounts were deleted — an act that could technically constitute destruction of evidence.
No one can expect you to keep the email accounts active once you've been "hacked," which gives plausible reason to delete the accounts in the name of privacy (4th Amendment). Once the accounts have been deleted, how exactly is the Palin administration going to turn over the evidence for the inquiries? How can it be proved that she was using the email for official state business?
Perhaps this is a little more creative. Palin's got the Bush administration experience to know that "losing evidence" works for stalling or even curtailing investigations. Getting "hacked" allows for an outside force (presumably not under your control) to conveniently lose the evidence.
It even gets MORE creative to see that the Palin administration may have actively studied how to avoid public records laws. (h/t K-Co) Here's a quote from the New York Times article: [emphasis mine.]
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
This feels sort of like the cronie-like administration we are currently dealing with, complete with the nepotism and favortism given to buddies and insiders to top administration positions of influence. Business Week magazine opined: "Dads, sons and other relatives reign so widely in this administration that there have never been so many family combos in an administration at the same time." The Seattle PI says something similar. The Bush Administration is built on these sorts of "loyalties" and insider actions. It looks like Palin's practices continue to follow the same manual, use the same methods, assume the same privileges, even hire some of the same people. More of the same.
And what's more, if you speak against it, you aren't patriotic.
Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil...or else.
All those saying Sarah’s “experience” as a governor is typical, watch this.
Actually, everyone should watch this.
In fact, Sarah Palin - you may want to watch this. It may give some insight into what a VP is expected to bring to the table, and what the VP does.
It is, arguably, more review of the qualifications of people to be vice president than she ever received.
(h/t Margaret)
http://vodpod.com/watch/1031406-lessig-compares-palin-to-every-vice-president-in-u-s-history
The majority of people are saying that Obama won the second debate. But it wouldn't be because either candidate really answered all the questions or shut out the other in policy. No - it was mainly because of presence, interaction, and tone. This NYTimes blogpost highlights a few of them (h/t K-Co).
That is an interesting item. Afterall, it is often said that little things make a difference in getting jobs - how well your suit fits, how fit you are, general attractiveness, and word choice. The Presidential debate is really the same thing - a HUGE job interview except where the candidates know who else is applying and get to fight each other for the seat.
Seriously, it was the first Reality TV, and it looks like Reality TV has taken a lot of pointers from elections.
The debate last night did not really deal with any new information or matters. But it was revealing for people to watch the two interact - with each other and with the audience. This debate became more about feeling and perception than about policy.
It seems that a lot of people were impacted by the tone of McCain's jokes, whining, and his (lack of)interaction with the audience. And in reality, McCain set himself up to be judged by a higher standard with his claims that he was going to "bring the fight to Obama" at this debate - and then fizzled under the pressure. There were times he actually looked maniacal, and others where he seemed tired. He behaved in ways that people felt were not appropriate - following up the rampant talk about not using Obama's honorific of Senator and not looking Obama in the eye with references to Obama as "that one!"
McCain's talk of using a "walk softly, and carry a big stick" doesn't come off so well when he's openly making snide remarks. (and besides...wasn't Reagan his hero in the last debate?)
There was even one point where McCain spoke his piece, and then walked back to his pad of paper and crossed out several things on the sheet - right in front of the camera!
Is this how a president comports himself? When McCain's speaking to the UN, is he going to be doing something similar, crossing out his talking points as he goes through them? It seems uncomfortable, distracting, and frankly, like he's just selling something based on bullets put together by his aides rather than speaking from his heart, his knowledge, or experience.
I don't have a problem with notes or bullets. But I am in favor of looking like you know what you're doing instead of constantly referring to your notes. That's a sign of a poor speaker - like the speaker is not really engaged with the audience, not knowledgable enough to really speak to the issues.
McCain did himself no favors by purporting to be energetic and ready to fight with his Straight Talk Express, and then completely being unprepared and lacking any real fire. People talk about how he over-used "my friends", and did not stay around after the debate. These things create an image of him as feeling above other people and uninterested in the feelings of the average person. McCain's claims of being active and charged up for this debate only resulted in him appearing completely out of touch.
If you'll note, Obama did not make such claims. Many people have been calling for more energy, more emotion, but now that you look back on the debates, people are stating that Obama seemed "more presidential" with his calm, friendly attitude. Obama's not trying to be something he's not - despite the fact that people are asking for him to make a scene. And in the end, it is working for him - he's playing up his strengths and refusing to follow the lead of the people hungry just for a scene, just for some sparks.
This is NOT a sitcom, people. It's the future of our country. And part of that future is selling ourself as being a quality place to be, to invest, to depend on and interact with. I'm not buying the America that McCain is selling. And as the economy shows, the rest of the world isn't either.
I think this comment really seems to sum up people's perceptions of Obama and McCain.
Obama = George BaileyMcCain = Mr. Potter
Obama = George Bailey
McCain = Mr. Potter
For stocks to rise? For the asteroid? For the inevitable collapse of capitalism as we know it?
No, I'm waiting for the McCain/Palin ticket to use common sense.
The actions of the McCain/Palin team as of late seem like the last ditch efforts of a desperate ticket. So desperate, in fact, that they aren't really thinking through the claims they are making... and how they may backfire on themselves.
1. Calling out "Who is Obama?" This is just another method of pulling the "inexperience" label back out and giving it a healthy dose of fear. But Obama's been majorly in the public light since 2004.
Before September of this year, when had ANY of us ever heard of Sarah Palin? Was she properly vetted?
Did the McCain/Palin ticket ever consider that people might turn around and think: but we barely know Sarah...if knowing a person mattered so much, why did McCain choose her?
2. "Palling around with terrorists." Sarah's able to string words together a little more coherently, but apparently still not able to really think about the fact that by calling for a review of people's connections to "questionnable" groups, she's asking for a load of her own trouble. As an article in the Huffington Post says:
But if McCarthy-era guilt-by-association is once again a valid political consideration, Palin, it would seem, has more to lose than Obama.
Palin's husband only recently cancelled his membership in the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a group that is just as volatile as Ayer's Weathermen. The difference? Obama was 8 when the Weathermen were active, and Ayers is now a recognized community contributor and professor. The AIP is still active, and her husband is an adult, choosing to associate with these people. Obama has denounced the actions of the Weathermen. Palin hasn't denounced anything.
Let's add in Palin's freaky religious affiliations are much more current and concerning than any Reverend Wright connection.
McCain and Keating is another area they stand to lose, and it's a much more powerful connection today as the economic crises continues to barrel towards depression-era memories. McCain's campaign advisor connected with Fannie and Freddie as much as up to a few weeks before they fell, and McCain's constant "palling around" with George Bush do NOT paint a great picture.
If you're going to start going down the aisle of accusation merely by being in the same room with "questionnable people", McCain and Palin have a LOT to lose.
3. Angry Mob Rousing. Have you seen clips of these gatherings? The only thing McCain/Palin haven't yet started was handing out pitchforks and torches. I live in a battleground state. This is NOT what we look like, and the only people going to those rallies are people who already are planning on voting for McCain/Palin. It looks like they are trying to stirr up trouble, not voters.
4. We're Gonna Get 'Em. We're going to make those who brought us to this low economic predicament PAY. Oops...except that McCain is one of them. People point to the Democrats as the group that allowed Fannie and Freddie to make subprime loans, but the Republicans supported it too. And the people giving the mega tax breaks to the corporations are the Republicans - including McCain. He might want to be careful how much he points the finger at himself.
5. John's Got the Answers. If you watched Tuesday's debates, McCain repeated, over and over again, that he knew how to solve the problems. Not just one problem, but all of them. Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, Economic Meltdown - he's got all the answers, and...if you vote for him, he'll put them in action.
What kind of bribery is this? If you've got the answers, McCain, then friggin' suggest them. TELL US. TELL SOMEONE! Tell Congress. Behave like a leader and do what is best for your country. Take your straight talk express and put your country first!
6. New York Times Booing. What is this? First you don't let anyone interview you. Then you say that it's because the media won't interview you. Then you ask for them to be fair and report accuracy, consistently saying they are one sided and liberal. Then you point to them as a resource for information in the SAME BREATH as booing that resource? Consistency much?
Add in that this comes from Sarah "I like to censor books, and can't put a sentence together correctly" Palin. Perhaps the writing of the New York Times is beyond her comprehension. It at least has subject-verb agreement, which we already know Palin has issues with.
These are reasons the rallies of McCain/Palin carry the stink of fear and desperation - because they are afraid and desperate to do whatever Swift-Boat politics they can eek out before the big day comes.
So, I don't talk on here about McCain a lot. In general, I don't like what he's been saying or doing lately. A few years ago - even five months ago, I might have voted for the man. But then he seemed to undo everything that I thought was quality about him and walk his party line...as well as its ethics.
One thing that really gets annoying when listening to him is how his "experience in Vietnam" somehow ties to his capability to be president. People deem him a hero, a patriot and more. Having personally experienced some military service, I'm not exactly sure how that correlates to being the president of a country and dealing with economic and social issues.
Besides, haven't we already made too many choices based on the fear of Iraq? Perhaps it is time to make choices that encompass Iraq as well as the OTHER parts of running a country.
But I never thought to question McCain's military history. It was so often repeated, ad nauseum, that it didn't occur to me that his Vietnam experience might just be another fabrication, another bit of mediocrity dressed up in a few medals and punchy words like patriotism and hero.
Rolling Stone put together a 10 page writeup on the "maverick" McCain, and makes one consider what being a hero and a reformer really means. This writeup, using McCain's own words, his voting and political history, is very insightful on the man currently campaigning to be president.
Things like his infidelities, his risky behavior, his tendency to deregulate on behalf of his buddies - these are disturbing to read. How can we not pay attention to the man behind the curtain of the "straight-talk express" when his whole existence is built on priviledge, self-serving choices, and flip-flops to fit whatever check is heading his way.
It shows just how ingrained his ambition is, and adding Palin to the ticket makes them an ideal couple.
Read it and weep.
You saw it. I saw it. There is just something disconcerting about McCain's movements, his facial expressions. Something that says, to me, that he will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Something that screams that he doesn't really believe in his words.
And Palin - something in the way she communicates puts me on edge, both in dislike and distrust. You know, beyond deliberately lying, being unable to form clear sentences, and not having any real knowledge about our country and how it works.
I found these two articles on Huffington Post regarding Body Politics and how reading the body can tell you a lot about the person and what they are feeling and thinking.
This seems a questionable science at first, but it is something that is widely used in investigations, medicine, psychology, and other science fields. It is amazing how much our physical presence says about us, and what we are unknowingly communicating to people through our movements, tone, and even the way we form our words.
I would like to see the same level of review of Obama and Biden, and perhaps a lot of other leaders (Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, Hillary and Bill Clinton.) But what I have right now is McCain and Palin.
Not to be a fear-monger, but it makes me feel justified in the mistrustful feelings I have when I listen or watch them.
As Whitney Houston said, "I believe that children are our future". And our children are hoping for a future with Barack Obama as President of the United States, not John McCain. Why? Growing up in Toronto, my daughter sees homeless people, and people on our streets who are hungry. She's being taught to give money to the church to help people who need it, to pitch in at food drives, to pack up clothes and toys for others in need. So when she heard about John McCain owning so many houses that he couldn't even keep track of them all, it was all too much for her. "Seven houses?", she exclaimed, "Some people don't even have one. He can't live in seven houses at once. Why doesn't he just give some of them away to people who don't have any?" Why indeed? She's only four, and she's figured it out. An economy that has some people owning seven homes, while others sleep on cardboard is not working. Some people definitely have, others have not. And it's not fair. Sure, the economy is more complicated than that, but in essence, what we have now is not fair. And it's not right. A vote for Barack Obama can change that.
What ever your beliefs or feelings a higher power is or is called or named; this quote really sums it up. We all have different beliefs but I think you will fnd this quote is true for all of our beliefs. It's amazing the people you connect with when you send your gifts out into the universe and expect nothing in return. Something magical happens. Please read further...
Yesterday I volunteered on the upper west side with two groups Broadway for Obama and Three Trees Democrats. It was an eye opening experience. Even in our city on the upper west side we found alot of people were not registered to vote or needed to chage their address or needed an absentee ballot. In the 4 hours I was there, we signed up dozens of people including just turned 18 year olds. I even met a little girl maybe 10 years old who bought a button to wear proudly. Her Mom was already teaching her how important it was to vote!!! Three cheers! I ran into a friend and she said "Aren't you preaching to the choir up here?" I said, "well in a away but you would be surprised how many people are not registered to vote!!" Also people took absentee ballots for their out of the country family members. I talked to Hillary supporters who were disappointed but were still voting for Obama. I explained to them why I had supported Obama from the beginning. It was a very nice exchange and it helped to understand where they were coming from. Even a man passing by talked to me about it. We had a nice exchange as well. The more people who get excited about Barack the better. This is the first time in my life I have ever been excited by a Political figure. Barack is special and his ideas are spreading and it's like an infectious laughter.
If you have even a couple of hours to spare, volunteer. Especially my actor/dancer/model friends, your outgoing nature will be an asset.
Please join my group Performing Artists For Obama. Lets create something with flair and get the word out!
