At 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama will deliver a national address to the students of America. (Please note that this is a change from the originally scheduled time.) During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.
MYTHOLOGY: From Jim Greer, Chair of Republican Committee in Florida:
As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.
Greer goes on to project that children will be forced to agree with Obama's initiaties, or else be "ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
Unbelievable. If Obama rescued a kitten from a tree, Republicans would wail that he was defying the traditions of gravity, and that the kitten had pooped on the lawn of the Pentagon, thereby defiling the troops. When they screech at innocuous "initiatives" like giving kids a pep talk at the start of the school year, it really deflates the impact of their quibbles on more significant issues.
Let me first say that I support Obama, I support HR 3200, and I strongly support Health Insurance Reform.
As a liberal homeschooler, I have complex feelings about HSLDA (the Homeschool Legal Defense Association). I believe that a lot of what they do is good, watching legislation and helping families with legal issues. I wish they would do it from a less political, less religious position, but that's who they are.
They've released a memo to members, calling for homeschoolers to call our representatives and senators, asking them to oppose the bill. Here's the memo.
HSDLA gives five reasons why this bill should be opposed. I'd like to respond to those five points, one by one:
Spend billions of dollars to allow the federal government to fund home visitation programs, where government officials would enter homes and monitor children and instruct parents in how to raise their children;
This already exists. It's called Head Start, and it's over 40 years old. Trained workers go into the homes of low income or immigrant families, and teach them about nutrition, reading to their kids, playing with their kids, taking them to the doctor, dental hygiene, etc. The program was started in the 60s, yet somehow homeschooling has managed to explode in popularity.
Encourage states to pressure families to enroll their children in these home visitation programs;
Here's some murky language. "Encourage states to pressure..." What does that mean? What kind of pressure are they implying? Physical pressure? Financial pressure? When a "state" applies pressure, there are only a few things that can mean: either they're going to hurt you physically or they're going to hurt you financially. So exactly what does HSLDA expect the state to do here, and how is this expectation rationally merited based on 40 years of the Head Start program's history?
Put the federal government in the healthcare business, resulting in loss of competition, loss of patient choice, and loss of patient freedom;
The federal government has been in the health insurance business for decades. Medicare was also launched in the 60s, and somehow Medicare and liberty have coexisted for decades. There will be no loss of competition, no loss of patient choice, and no loss of patient freedom. HR 3200 means there will be more competition for the insurance companies, more choices for patients, and more freedom for patients. Anyone who likes their current situation can keep it. Anyone who wants another choice can have it. Anyone who currently has no choice because they're unemployed or have a pre-existing condition or have maxed out their life-time cap or have been determined by insurance companies to be not worth the risk: they now have a choice.
Require all health insurance plans, whether offered by a private company or the government, to include controversial “essential benefits,” which courts or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may determine to include medical procedures which businesses and taxpayers may oppose on philosophical and religious grounds; and
Note the use of the word "may" -- as in... "may determine" and "may oppose." Now we're getting hysterical and writing our Congressmen over hypotheticals. Of course, we know what HSDLA is referencing here without saying it: If we pass this bill, your tax dollars will pay for abortions! Well, guess what? Abortions are already covered by tax dollars, have been since 1973. Adopting health care reform won't bring this about, any more than electing three republican presidents put an end to it. Abortions are covered by Medicaid, right now, .
Increase the size and power of the federal government.
Well, now we're just fear-mongering, and over-generalizing. Bigger government bad, smaller government good! Really? No exceptions? No grey area? Welfare makes government bigger. Medicare and Medicaid make it bigger. Social Security makes it bigger. Are we ready to get rid of all of these things? A lot of people like to shake their fists and yell about smaller government, but I don't believe this is a rule we can apply universally. By using this bit of as a final bullet point, HSLDA is trying to join in the popular chorus sung by tea partiers, libertarians, and erstwhile Republicans who have only recently decided that big government is bad, after the guy they most recently elected swelled the government more than anyone since Roosevelt. Increasing the size and power of the federal government has only just become a bullet point for opposing a bill. When considering the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, or the Transportation Security Administration, or No Child Left Behind, this would have been a bullet point on the pro side of the argument.
I'll leave you with Obama's opening statement from his health care town hall today. I hope if you've spent any time reading the email forwards and blog posts frothing about what might happen, what could result, how much homeschoolers have to fear from health insurance reform, that you'll take a few minutes to read Obama's message straight from the horse's mouth:
Let me set record straight:
. If you like your doctor, you can keep them. . If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. . You won't be waiting in lines. . Health care choices should be between you and doctor. . Government bureaucrats shouldn't meddle, but neither should insurance company bureaucrats. . In the past 3 years, 12 million have been discriminated by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions.
Under our reform, insurance companies will be prevented from denying or dropping your coverage due to pre-existing condition or when you get sick. They won't be able to water down your coverage. Insurance companies won't be able to put a cap on how much coverage you get in year or lifetime, and we'll put a cap on how much you have to pay out of pocket. We'll do this without adding to deficit by cutting out things that don't help.
In a commencement speech at Arizona State University, Obama encouraged graduates to find ways to help their country outside a mainstream career track. Rush Limbaugh used this as a springboard to announce that non-profit organizations are parasitic bloodsuckers, not worth of attention from this year's graduates. Better find a real job than become a beggar, a dependent on society. Well, read it for yourself:
Obama: "Did you study business? Why not help a struggling not-for-profit to find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need? You study nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. You study education? Teach in a high-needs school. Give a chance to kids who can't -- who can't get everything they need, maybe, in their neighborhood, maybe not even their home, but we can't afford to give up on them. Prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. You study engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet. Find somebody to be successful forward. Raise their hopes! Rise to their needs."
Rush: "By definition, how does a nonprofit operate? A nonprofit begs for money from other people. A nonprofit lives on donations, and the people that run nonprofits have to siphon some of the donations that they collect as their salaries. That, somehow, is preferable to going out and producing something and expanding the economic pie? Yeah, go to a nonprofit. Ask somebody else for money! Get credit for caring. Get credit for not being concerned for profit. I never met anybody at a nonprofit didn't care about money. People at nonprofits care as much about money as anybody else does, except they don't work for it. They beg for it. They feed off of others. They're like the US government, except they can't print their money. They're bloodsuckers!"
A short list of non-profit bloodsuckers who don't work for their money, parasites on our country who bleed from and destroy the rugged individual:
1. Focus on the Family 2. NRA 3. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth 4. The Heritage Foundation
Or how about a longer list...
1. The Salvation Army 2. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts 3. YMCA 4. American Red Cross 5. March of Dimes 6. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (beneficiary of Rush's annual drive) 7. Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation Inc. (beneficiary of Rush's donation from his sale of Harry Reid's letter on Ebay) 8. Freedom Alliance (beneficiary of Sean Hannity's concert series) 9. USO: Operation USO Care Package 10. American Cancer Society
If the people who work for these organizations were listening to Rush's show yesterday they heard a powerful message: "You don't work, you beg. You don't help us, you bleed us. And you people who chose to get jobs working at parasitic suckholes like these should reconsider your careers. If you'd had any sense as college grads, you'd have pursued real jobs in real corporations where people work for their money instead of begging."
In other words, thanks!
Red Cross Workers Loafing Around
Bloodsuckers! You should be ashamed!
Shriners Children's Hospital: People working here should have gotten a real job!
The YMCA sucked the life out of all of these sad little children.
President-Elect Barack Obama has launched a web site at change.gov. The purpose of the site is to make the transition operation more transparent to the public, and to solicit opinions and ideas from the American people. Under "American Moment" you can either "Share your Vision" or "Share your Story."
I asked him for unequivocal clarification about homeschooling.
I asked him for transparency in government.
I asked him for involvement, for a team effort, for more to do.
When we moved to Virginia, there was a Republican governor. There were two Republican senators. Virginia voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000. It was as red as a state can get.
Tonight our governor is a Democrat, both our senators are Democrats, and we just sent our 13 electors to vote for Barack Obama. I'm proud of my state, proud of the work we did, proud to change my blog's tagline.
We no longer live in a red state. Barack Obama has done what many thought impossible. All the ugliness, all the smears, all the dirt that was slung at him -- it didn't work. He is going to be President anyway. Congratulations, America. You did the right thing.
Can someone please let me know what this means from Obama...
Prepare Teachers: Obama and Biden will require all schools of education to be accredited. Obama and Biden will also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively.
This is from Obama's website, as a homeschooling parent I'm concerned about "all schools of education be accredited" and "every new educator is trained"
I'm sorry but that sounds like it would be very difficult to educate my children in my home.
My Answer:
Ryan,
Unless you are trying to educate them to be teachers, and unless you expect to be able to give them certificates that will qualify them to teach in schools, you shouldn't worry. If you are running a "school of education," that is a place where education classes are taught and teachers are trained, you will have to be accredited, or else you will not be able to graduate certified teachers. If you are teaching children to read and write, do math, remember the Pharaohs in order, and stuff like that, then this doesn't apply to you. :)
I absolutely loved it. I don't mind telling you that I cried.
I had intended to try and watch this through the eyes of a skeptic, someone who has decided that Obama is the anti-christ, that he is Hitler, that he is a Muslim terrorist who plans to destroy the country. Through the eyes of someone who believes he is, in short, a liar. It was like trying to go back to the way I felt in the primary, when I wanted Hillary to be President so much. I looked at this commercial objectively and tried to really see where someone might say, "That doesn't make sense" or "That's a bad idea." I thought I would get some insight into the people I'm trying to understand.
I couldn't actually manage it. I was only able to maintain my fake disdain for a minute. Seeing him in that wood paneled office, looking so Presidential, was just such a relief. The idea of a smart, capable man in the White House, a sensible, thoughtful man at the helm filled me with energy and hope. The rest of the commercial brought it home. For me, there were no sour notes. He was direct, clear, and specific. No one could say they don't know what he plans to do. No would could say, now, that they don't know what he's thinking. The only response to that commercial that would make a person decide to vote against the man is "He's just lying."
The response, "He's lying" leads directly to "Well, McCain lies too," and from there it's a short step to "They're all liars" and then we get "What the hell" and finally "Does it really matter what I think anyway?" This conclusion is the antithesis of Obama's message. We are the change we need. He wants us to change the world, not him.
Unless, of course, he's lying. Which is, I suppose, a valid response. Maybe the smart person in me demands that I reserve some percentage of my confidence for saying "If he's not lying..." If he's not lying, he's a good man who wants to help. If he's not lying, he's a smart man with a clear plan. If he's not lying, I can depend on his values and his intentions, on his quick brains and his wise team, I can relax and stop worrying.
This time around, I have decided on purpose to suspend my disbelief. I decided it on the night of the acceptance speech. I remember it very well, it was like a bag of sand running out of my legs through my feet. I gave myself permission to just believe this person's words, without constantly qualifying, second-guessing, hedging, reminding myself of what shitbags those politicians always are, and how impossible it is for a man in Obama's position to actually live out his convictions and values. I just don't care about that right now, it seems like. Maybe it's because I am stupid and naive -- I have been accused of that. Or maybe it's because I have been down the road of "He's lying" all the way through "what the hell" and on the other side of "It doesn't matter" is "I might as well believe him."
So I just can't be objective. And I think that's alright.
I hope that some undecided voters watched tonight's infomercial (the above clip is one third of it, I think) with an open mind, and I hope that some of them were able to relax and say, "Okay, I'll let go of my suspicion and run with this guy." In some ways, it's more familiar and almost more comfortable to choose the route of fear and doubt and worry. Definitely cooler to say "Oh, the bastards, they all lie, there's no good choice!" Many times the brave choice also looks like the stupid choice, am I right? But I don't need any more doubt in my life. I don't need any more studied cool, any more scorn and cynical disdain. I do need energy, strength, faith, and relief.
I only have my one little vote. I'm going to give it to Obama. Not because he's the lesser of two evils, but because I truly believe he is the best man for the job. It isn't going to be a hesitant, fearful little vote. It's going to be a vote with confidence, a firm, bold vote. A vote I will not regret.
Warning: Do not play this video if you have children present, unless they're mature enough to handle expressions of aggressive racism, death threats, and hate. I'm not sure how I would explain these people to my kids -- so they won't be watching this one.
Republicans want to label Obama as a terrorist because "You are who you associate with." I know all Republicans aren't racists, and I'm sure that you, reading this, feel grossed out too. However, as you call Obama a terrorist because he spent time with William Ayers, maybe you should look around yourself at that rally, on your blogroll, in your church, and think about who you are associating with in this campain. I know that I wouldn't want to associate with these people, at all. Wouldn't want to hold the same sign in my hand, wouldn't want to cheer for the same candidate, wouldn't want to attend the same rally. The most chilling moment: the man who says "When he gets in the White House..." and then makes a gun with his hand and simulates shooting. I also feel utter disgust for the sickening man in with the "Democrats for McCain" sign who says, "I could never vote for a black man."
Are you proud of these friends of yours, McCain supporters? Proud to add your voice to theirs in support of this candidate? You are who you associate with, right? Are you proud to stand elbow to elbow with these violent bigots? The people in this video are not from a radical group -- not the Klan, not some fringe group -- just a random stream of McCain supporters on their way to a rally in PA.
I would like to think that McCain would condemn all of this. Maybe if he had run as an independent, maybe if he had picked someone else as VP, maybe if he had stayed the man he was eight years ago, instead of bending in so many ways to get that nomination and that conservative support, then he could be proud of his campaign, proud of the votes he gets next week. But I would hope, seriously, that if he looked out of that bus and heard any of these reprehensible epithets -- the threats, the racism -- that his stomach would turn like mine does. How many people will be voting for McCain on Tuesday because they just can't vote for a black man?
Maybe you've got a sincere hope that those disgusting racist votes against a man because he's black will be enough, added to yours, to keep Obama from being President. I hope that they won't.
If you enjoy having weekends off, thank a socialist. If you appreciate the eight-hour work day, thank a socialist. If you approve of minimum wage, thank a socialist.
If you like living in a country where it's illegal to sell your child to a sweatshop for a dollar a week, you can be thankful that socialists, yes those are anti-capitalist, anti-free-market socialists, worked hard in the face of big business and government opposition to make that happen.
Do you like the fact that you don't have to step over sick homeless people on the way to your car? Do you feel thankful that hoards of starving orphans aren't begging you to carry your bag at the airport? Do you approve of the fact that elderly people don't have to die in the street if they run out of money?
Do you want to take a little trip to 19th century New York City and see what life was like before welfare, before labor laws, before publicly funded garbage disposal and street cleaning, before the government could tell you how to treat your children, before the government could tell you how to operate your factory safely, before the government could tell you how to wire and plumb your apartment building, before socialism?
I keep hearing, "I enjoy living in a capitalist country and I want to keep it that way! Don't you take my capitalism away from me!" Sister, you don't live in a capitalist country. Sorry. That has already been taken away from you. Along with children working in mines, tenements made out of cardboard, and unregulated air pollution. Do you miss all that? Is it just killing you that the terrible socialists with their wealth redistribution gave Medicaid to babies in poverty? After all, they didn't earn it. Their mothers couldn't afford it. In your sparkling, elegant capitalist society, they wouldn't have it. You want to be in charge of spending your own money, not giving it to the government to redistribute to the poor! Do you wish we could go back to a time when generous churches and noble private citizens were responsible for picking up the tab for those babies? Because you know what? They didn't. Read about it. It was ugly.
Do you drive on public roads? Are you glad that every child in the country has an opportunity to go to school? Do you like the fact that meat packers have to uphold certain standards in their factories to sell you a steak? You like paid vacation days? These are socialist principles, people. The USDA. The EPA. Where you see government regulating business for the benefit of the people, that's socialism. Where you see safety nets for poor people, old people, children, and sick people, that's socialism. You really want to get rid of all that?
The big businesses of this country did not suddenly one day wake up and say, "Hey, let's give those workers two days off a week. They've earned it!" They did not just announce, "You know, it's Tuesday, let's set a minimum wage!" They didn't establish a 9 to 5 work day just because 9 and 5 are good numbers for them. It goes against profit and the free market to be kind, safe, and fair, and yet those are the principles that I'm teaching my children to live by. Aren't you? Are you not teaching them to put profit first and step on whoever they have to step on to get there? Then guess what: you're not teaching them to be little capitalists. Sorry! But you're not.
I don't like to talk about religion on this blog, because for me religion is very private. But I will ask you this: What did Jesus say to Nicodemus? Did he say, "Gather up all your awesome money and all your possessions, put them in your SUV and follow me?" No, he told Nicodemus to give all his money away, then follow. Did Jesus say that heaven would be populated by fabulous capitalists who had grabbed their piece of the pie and hung on for dear life? No, he said it would be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. We're deifying Joe the Plumber, who wants to hang on to his wealth, who wants to get ahead, who wants to grab his piece of the dream. Am I reading the same Bible you are? The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. What does that mean for Joe?
The latest news to go shrieking around the internet is that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in Chicago. Before you get all lathered up about it, read about the party on Wikipedia and on their own web site. Did the New Party espouse a whole lot of socialist principles, like affordable housing and a living wage? Yes. But you know what? So do I. I don't consider myself a socialist, but I sure wouldn't want to consider myself a capitalist either.
If you want to make your mind up about Barack Obama, read his policies, study his plan, and make your decision based on what he has said he values and what he has said he will do. Getting scared about the word "socialist" is irrational. Before you run screaming into the night, look around you. Socialism has done a lot of good in your world. Are you afraid that Obama the socialist is going to make your working day shorter? Are you afraid he's going to make your food safer, give you more city parks, make your air cleaner, make your workplace safer, give more people voting rights, establish more vacation days, or something awful like that? Are you afraid he's going to keep us out of foreign wars, stop writing huge checks to big businesses, and improve our schools? Wow, yeah, that's terrifying.
I can't get excited about this socialism scare. For me, those are all good things.
Be kind. Be fair. Help people. Protect the weak.
Which of these excellent principles is capitalist again?
Now just out of curiousity since I am neither a Democrat nor Republican, why are Democrats (you sure seem to identify with that party) so emotional? I think that when we, as people, stick to facts and leave out the emotion more will be accomplished. I think that is why Republicans own talk radio. BTW - I rarely listen to their talk-shows but when I hear them I have to laugh when I hear Democrats getting emotional. It may work for now when the chips are down but if Obama doesn't fix the mess both he and the Democrats will be on the way out as the cynical American people slam the door.
My answer:
I'm not sure what to make of your comment, Chris. I wouldn't generalize that either Republicans or Democrats are more "emotional," nor would I agree that Republicans have mastered sticking to the facts.
It has concerned me that our current President has professed to be motivated largely by his religious beliefs and what he feels God is leading him to do, internationally. That doesn't strike me as sticking to the facts, nor does it seem like a better plan than "getting emotional." Wasn't it Bush Sr. who invented "compassionate conservatism"? Is this fact-based compassion or is emotion okay when displayed by Republicans?
If you're judging all Democrats based on the ones who call in or get put on the air during conservative talk shows, I think you might examine what motivation Hannity or Rush would have in screening for hysterical nonsensical Democrats. :) They aren't exactly looking for articulate and intelligent examples of the opposition. I'd guess they're looking for exactly the opposite. I've been accused of being naive in this thread, but I'd say it would be pretty naive to believe that the Democrats that Hannity chooses to show you are truly representative.
Your last sentence confuses me. After eight years of a Republican administration, you say the chips are down and we're in a mess. You demand that Obama fix it or else? That seems strange to me. I want Obama to make intelligent, moral choices. I want him to stick to the Constitution. I want him to be responsible with money and with the lives of our troops.
If the "cynical American people" are standing around with their thumbs in their belt loops waiting for him to fix everything, they're really not putting "country first" -- they're just hoping to be right. For years Democrats have been accused of wanting America to fail in this or that way so that they can score political points. Your comment exhibit exactly that attitude, one I expect we'll be seeing a lot of from Republicans if Obama wins.
Derision, scorn, criticism -- all of those things that have been unpatriotic for 8 years. Imagine! :)
John McCain comes out and immediately starts scratching notes down with a fat Sharpie. What is he writing? "Remember to do the lollipop dance!" "Next time go with pink tie, blue tie, or anything but this damn thing that looks like Santa's underwear!" "Soy Milk! Pepto! Vienna sausages! Ensure!"
Question #1 from Uncle Fester. What are you gonna do about this here economy?
Obama: Exactly what I've been saying I'd do for the last two weeks. McCain: Will you look at this? It's Senator Obama at a town hall meeting! Finally! Well, isn't that *kind* of him to lower himself in this way? I'm just thrilled that you came down off your high horse and agreed to a town hall meeting at last, Senator Obama. Good for you!
Follow-up from Tom Brokaw: Who's going to replace Paulsen as Treasury Secretary?
McCain: Not you, Tom. 'Cuz you suck. You and your mainstream media. I'll tap Meg Whitman. I mean pick Meg Whitman. She's no beauty queen, ya know. Obama: Warren Buffet.
Question #2 from Oliver Clark: Who's going to bail out the middle class?
McCain: Look, it's all the fault of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oliver, I bet you're so dumb that you'd never even heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before this crisis. But I had. I hated Fannie and Freddie before it was cool to hate 'em! Which is why I suspend the rest of this debate in order to fix the economy more. There are some of us who stand up to 'em, and there are others who take a hike. I'm not saying who though. But he's sitting right over there. And his name rhymes with Snow-bama. Obama: I asked for regulations when McCain was stitching up regulations in counted cross-stitch. But you're not interested in politicians pointing fingers. You're interested in what's in this bail-out for you. We have to strengthen the home owners.
Follow-up from Brokaw: Is the economy going to get worse before it gets better?
Obama: No. But we have to fix our regulatory system. McCain: It depends on what we do. If we fix it, it will get better. But if we don't fix it, it won't get better.
They both seem to think we're going to stand up and cheer for their intent to get special interests out of Washington. We are not really that stupid.
Question #3 from Angry Inarticulate Harpy: How can we trust either one of you with our money when BOTH PARTIES are responsible for this crisis?
Obama: You are right. No one is completely innocent. You budget your household, while Washington spends beyond its means. However, let's remember that Bush turned a tidy surplus into a historically enormous deficit. I'm going to cut spending. McCain will say that I'm spending more, but I'm cutting more than I'm spending for a net cut. McCain: I'm a reformer. People like me.
Follow-up from Tom Brokaw: Energy, health care, and entitlement reform. What would you prioritize?
McCain: All three at once. And also balance a goldfish bowl on my head and sing Sinatra. Obama: Energy is first, then health care, then entitlement reform.
Question #4 from an old lady on the internet: What sacrifices will you ask American people to make?
McCain: We may have to eliminate some programs. We have to eliminate some earmarks. Especially ones added in the middle of the night. We can attack health care and energy at the same time! We're not rifle shots here, we're Americans! Obama: After 9/11, Bush told us to go out and shop. The American people are hungry for the kind of leadership which will tackle problems not only in the government but outside it too. We all have to think about how we use energy. The young people of America are interested in how they can serve.
Follow-up from Tom Brokaw: How would you break the habits in this country of carrying too much debt?
Obama: We have to set an example in Washington. We have to share the burden. McCain: Nailing down Senator Obama's tax plan is like trying to nail jello to a wall. There have been five or six tax plans and if you wait long enough there will probably be another one.
No kidding: The reaction graph during McCain's turn to speak is consistently flatlining. His jello joke got no love. Now McCain's reaction line is going into the negative as he criticizes Obama.
Question #5 from the internet: What are you going to do about social security and Medicare?
Obama: We are going to have to take on entitlements quickly. Maybe not in the first two years, but definitely in my first term as President. But let me hijack this question to repeat myself: I will cut taxes to everyone who makes under $200K. McCain: Hey, I'll answer the actual question, unlike Mr. Smartyhead over here with his tax cuts and his fancy pants. I know how to fix social security. I know how to fix Medicare. I'm not too popular with my own party, much less his. People hate me! I'm just not using the term "Maverick" tonight because I don't want those wretched comedy writers to have any fun. Curse them and the way they torment my perky little friend in the glasses!
Question #6 from Ingrid Jackson: What would you do to make sure Congress moves fast on climate change and greenhouse gas?
McCain: I'm not President Bush, alright? I'm Joe Lieberman. The answer is nuclear power! It's safe and clean, and free!
Reaction line: FLATLINE.
Obama: This is not just a challenge, it's an opportunity. If we create a new energy economy, we can create 5 million new jobs. We have to invest in solar, wind, geothermal.
Apparently Al Gore is in the audience. He must be an undecided Tennessee voter.
I'm tired of hearing "He voted 23 times against this!" and "He voted for this 42 times!" It's just boring and we all know those senate votes cannot be taken out of context. "He voted against this bill that feeds kittens!" not mentioning that it also kills everyone's grandma.
Tom Brokaw, dripping with sarcasm: In case you gentlemen haven't noticed, we have colored lights around the stage, green yellow and red. Those lights are actually symbols that represent how much time you have to answer the question. McCain, sadly earnest, with gestures: Just wave your arms at me, Tom, when you want me to stop, and I'll look at you.
Question #7 from Sally Struthers: Should health care be treated as a commodity?
Obama: Here are a lot of specifics about my health care plan and John McCain's. McCain: I'm nervous about government mandates.
Follow-up from Tom Brokaw: Health care. Is it a right, a privilege, or a responsibility?
McCain: A responsibility. Obama: A right. And by the way, there's no mandate.
Obama's reaction line with the undecided women is maxed out all through his answer on health care. On Pundit Points, the score is now 7 to 54 with Obama wiping up the bright red carpet with his opponent. If this is what McCain does when he takes his gloves off, I'd hate to see what will happen if he rolls up his sleeves.
I forgot to listen. Time passed. Then I heard McCain tell me it's going to take a cool hand on the tiller to execute the foreign policy that's needed now. When I think of a cool hand on the tiller, I do not think of John McCain. John McCain is like a whip made out of fire on the tiller.
Dear John McCain,
When you say "I will do it. I know how to do it. I've been doing it my whole life!" it leads me to wonder why it hasn't gotten done. I'm thinking specifically of your assertion that you will get Bin Laden, that you know how to get Bin Laden, but that you're not going to tell us about it. You sounded like a real ass when you said that.
Best, LYDIA
PS You're boring the life out of me. PPS Stop trying to crack jokes. When the audience isn't allowed to respond, it's just awkward for everyone.
Dear Barack Obama,
You too are boring me, pretty much. All of this sounds very familiar. But at least you sound smart.
Best, LYDIA
PS Sorry I didn't canvass this weekend. I had a wedding to go to. I hope you will still win Virginia.
This whole half of the debate is rolling off me like acid off a duck's back, as Dan would say. I am ashamed to reveal I'm a little relieved that the DVR cut it off at 90 minutes. Without a doubt, Obama won this. He was calm, confident, and reasonable, and he focused on the people, not on McCain. McCain had a lot of failed wisecracks, a lot of repetition, not terribly convincing.
Debate! CNN has seriously, seriously, no kidding got an analyst score card for each of six analysts. No commercials, no pause for commentary, but dammit, the pundits are going to have their fingers on the smite button nevertheless. These score cards are displayed on the screen in glowing red and blue circles. The analysts can give positive and negative points to each candidate. Scooby Snacks will be tossed out by the moderator for every multiple of five a candidate receives. Water will be removed via a tube and valve from each candidate's drinking cup for each negative point.
Someone named Castellanos enters one negative point for McCain before the moderator finished the first question, causing a loud sucking sound in the veteran Senator's podium. There is also a bar across the bottom for audience reaction, and those in the special "audience reaction room" will be turning knobs for strongly disagree up to strongly agree. Their feelings will be reflected in a line graph at the bottom of the screen with the Repubs in red, the Dems in blue, and the Independents in green... whee! Graphics!
Question #1: What's up with this bailout?
Obama: "This is a final verdict of eight years of failed economic policies." McCain: "Republicans and Democrats are working together to fix it."
Followup: But, do you like this plan? Or?
Obama: We have to look to why this happened in the first place and deal with the anti-regulation philosophy that led us to this point. McCain: I am going to vote for the plan. But first I'm going to have to tell you a big long story about Eisenhower, who was my butcher. Listen, you! Lamb chops from Eisenhower's! Right after that, I'm going to hold those greedy bastards accountable.
Followup: Now, now, don't be shy. You two boys talk to each other! We put these podiums in proximity for a reason.
Both candidates politely refuse and make squinched up smile faces like they just smelled a ripe old lady.
Question #2: What would you do about this financial mess, as President?
McCain: We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. Also, earmarking and pork barrel spending are bad. I will veto every bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names. I have a pen that is old, and that old pen makes it hard for me to make sure all my pronouns have antecedents. Sometimes I skip whole parts of my rehearsed answers, and just continue as if I had said them! Obama: I'd stop giving tax cuts to the rich. Billion, million, 18, 300, 700. In his tax plan, you'd be selling your children to buy Trump a new helicopter. McCain: The system of earmarking and pork barrel corrupts people. I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the US Senate. I didn't win golldarned Miss Congeniality in the thumpin-humpin US Senate! Obama: Let's just be clear. Let's... just... be... clear.
Senator Obama looks odd in this much makeup. Both of them look kind of botoxed. McCain looks like he had a few spots removed. Tonight he's a smoother, stiffer, more exfoliated Senator, one with a completely immobile upper lip. Obama looks a bit like an action figure of himself. Obama seems like he's kicking McCain's smooth, exfoliated bottom on the whole tax cut issue. He loses me for a moment when he talks about taxing health care benefits. I get distracted by his enormous, hooklike thumbs and his white eyeliner. No spoolin' -- it really looks like he has white eyeliner on, like we used to wear in 1989.
McCain doesn't know what "walking the walk and talking the talk" means. Nor does he understand the meaning of the word "existential." Finally, he clearly wants to be known as "The Sheriff" but he's too shy to come right out and ask us to call him that.
Analyst Castellanos gives McCain a point for chuckling. Analyst Borger has apparently been having a quiet moment to himself in the bathroom up to this point, or else he's just profoundly unimpressed.
Question #3: Whichever rescue bill comes about, what would you do to pay for this?
Obama: It's hard to anticipate what the budget will look like next year. We're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done, but there are a few things I think have to be done: alternative energies, health care, affordable education, and rebuilding infrastructure. There are things we have to do structurally to make sure we can compete in the global economy. GREAT answer. If I were an analyst with a scorecard, I'd make a nice fat tick on the blue side there and drop that guy a sandwich. McCain: Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate [I thought that was Joe Biden?] and it's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left. We have to do away with a lot of defense spending with fixed cost contracts. I know how to do that. I've been involved in these issues for many years. We have to scrub every agency of government.
Moderator: So neither of you has changed anything about your campaign as an effect of the bailout?
McCain: I want a spending freeze on everything but defense. Obama: That's like using a hatchet when you need a scalpel. McCain: Well I want nuclear power too -- 45 new plants, how's that for a hatchet? EH, JERKY? YOU LIKE THAT HATCHET?
Moderator: Are you going to acknowledge that the financial ruin is going to affect the way you govern the country in any way? Or what?
Obama: We'll have a smaller budget. And we have to prioritize based on our values and knowing who we're fighting for. We're not going to cut out our health care ideas to fund tax cuts on the rich. McCain: I don't want to hand health care over to the federal government. I mean, the federal government is already carrying its keys, the banks, its purse, AIG, its umbrella, the mortgage industry... giving it health care also might make it drop its latte.
Question #4: What are the lessons of Iraq?
McCain: The lesson is that you can't let failed policies stand until they make you lose a war. After I hired a new general and invented the surge, we are now winning the war and in a couple weeks we will leave Iraq a beautiful nascent democracy and the envy of all the world. Obama: I opposed the war in the beginning, mostly because we weren't done in Afghanistan. McCain: He won't even go to Iraq much! He hasn't even met with the generals! Obama: In 2003 you said there were WMDs -- you were wrong. You said we'd be greeted as liberators -- you were wrong. You said there was no history of violence between Sunnis and Shias -- you were wrong.
McCain: Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. A tactic is like something that you vote for, but don't agree with. A tactic is like when you visit troops. See?
Moderator: Can you guys stop interacting? I know I said it was my special wish, but I take it back. I no longer wish it. In fact, can we get these podiums moved apart? Stagehand?
Question #5: Afghanistan?
McCain says, "You don't do that! You don't say things like that out loud! Senator Obama is trying to be a cowboy, but he has no hat -- do you get what I'm saying? No. Hat." Obama says something about Afghanistan too but I can't remember what he said. McCain seems to think that Petraeus is capable of parting the Red Sea.
Castellanos the analyst apparently thinks we're on a "Whose Line is it Anyway?" points system.
McCain scolds Obama for talking about bombing Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Obama brings up the fact that McCain sings about bombing Iran. McCain goes on for a very long time about his war experiences both in Viet Nam and in the Senate. They compare bracelets coming from troops' mothers. Obama reminds McCain that he said we could "muddle through" in Afghanistan. McCain reminds Obama that he hasn't ever visited Afghanistan.
Question #6: What is your reading of the threat in Iran?
Confession: Uh, I kind of spaced out for a while and wasn't paying attention, but I did notice that when McCain said "ACH-MEH-DINNAH-JHAD" very carefully, Obama said "That's a hard one" under his breath. In a not very nice way! Don't be a snooty patooty, now, Senator! Don't beat up on the old man!
Okay, I'm paying attention again. The kids are fighting over whether or not Kissinger said this or that. Dan just pointed out that McCain didn't wear his lapel pin. OMG! Totally breaking news! He's like not wearing a lapel pin! What an outrage and stuff! Let's like make this go super-viral because this is like wrong and bad. You have to wear a lapel pin and put a flag on your plane! Otherwise you like hate America!
McCain: "I looked into President Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters: K, G, and B."
Senator McCain, I look into your eyes and I see... no lapel pin on your retinas.
Question #6: Are we going to have another 9/11?
McCain: We've done a lot, but we need to do more. Obama: I agree.
Obama goes on to illustrate handily how the Iraq war has wrecked everything for us, and even the Republican reaction line goes way way up over the X axis. McCain starts talking and the reaction lines plummet down under the X axis, until he tells us he loves veterans, at which point it goes up a bit. He delivered that line very well -- he should use it again.
At the end, the wives come out. Michelle Obama is wearing a busy print in kind of an Asian-style cut, and Cindy McCain was wearing some knock-yer-eye-out red.
Let's check in with our pundits: Begala has Obama winning by half. Castellanos has given out points like an old man in church giving tootsie rolls to the Sunday school kids. King has it as a flat tie. Donna Brazile predictably gives the win to Obama. The only person who has McCain winning (by 1) is William Bennett. Well bully for him.
My opinion: McCain came off as very very well-versed in foreign affairs and very assertive and confident. He has been everywhere and talked to everyone. However, he was kind of snitty, low on eye contact, high on irritation, and seemed pissy and unfriendly. Obama came off as very thoughtful, principled, and interested in sticking to the truth and coming up with real solutions. He is definitely presenting as the alternative candidate. He didn't really wow me on foreign policy, but it's not his strength and he mostly just had to hold his own in this debate. He came off as congenial and accommodating, more friendly to McCain and kind of amused by the experience. A little low on passion tonight but still tough enough.
I give it to Obama, but it wasn't a trouncing. One interesting point: Obama referred to McCain many times as "John" and McCain never once said Obama's first name. Kind of weird. That and the lapel pin thing.
Today we went canvassing in the morning. I left the children at home playing video games with Dan and took Ahno out with me. After picking up our canvassing packets at the launch, we found our target neighborhood, a middle class area with big trees, oldish houses, and some waterfront lots. The residents were a mix of black and white and Asian, old and young. Some had taken great care with their yards and homes and some had kind of let nature take its course. It was a very interesting place to knock on doors. Wonderful and also horrifying.
Of course we met some McCain supporters, but we met some Obama supporters too. We met a gay couple, newly moved to the neighborhood, enthusiastic Democrats. We met a small business owner who thanked us warmly for being out for Obama, and asked us for bumper stickers for his truck. Some wanted yard signs, some just offered to talk to their friends and neighbors about the campaign, be brave and show their support for their candidate. Most of the McCain supporters were polite to us, and we talked up Mark Warner, who everyone loves, and then asked them to just consider voting for Obama. They chuckled and agreed to think about it.
Then there was this one old guy. My sheet said he was eighty-six years old. He lived in a nice house, in this pleasant area, and answered the door politely. I asked him who he was considering voting for in the presidential race and he said he was leaning toward McCain. As I asked him more questions, I discovered that he was a lifelong Democrat, and planning to vote Democrat the rest of the way down the ballot.
So why was he not going to vote for Obama?
He said: "Well, I don't know about that one. Aren't you worried about what will happen to white people, once *they* get in power?"
My jaw dropped. I had only a second to think of a response.
I said: "I'm not worried at all, sir. I think Barack Obama is a wonderful person and I think he will do what's best for this country and for the whole world. I hope you'll consider voting for him too."
I think at that point I might have mumbled something about having a nice day and I stumbled off down the sidewalk. A real, live, bonafide racist. Yes, he had a lunch stain on his shirt and a few missing teeth, but he was mostly normal looking. He had no slavering fangs, no black shiny horns. He was wearing house slippers -- no cloven hooves. His yard was mowed. His car was clean. But he had looked at me conspiratorially and asked me if I was *WORRIED* about what would *HAPPEN* to *WHITE PEOPLE*!
Unbelievable.
I'm sure there are people out there canvassing in other places where they're running into this kind of thing all the time. But it felt, to me, as if there was a little pocket of rot in this nice little neighborhood. A pocket of rot right next to a house where a black couple offered us to come into their house and have a drink of water, a pocket of rot next to that small business owner, or the WWII veteran who told us he would consider Obama... a nasty little pocket of dreck in house slippers and wire glasses, looking at me *as if it were a perfectly legitimate question* and asking me if I wasn't worried, as a white person, about what would happen to me if "THEY" got into power.
I wish I had said, "Well, let me ask you: What are you worried about specifically? Are you worried you'll have to go live in a shack behind the house you currently own? Are you worried you won't be allowed to vote? Drive? Go to college? Are you fearful that you'll have to pay more for soup at the grocery store or that you'll have to sit at the back of the bus? I mean what exactly has you concerned?"
Probably that wouldn't have been good either. We're not supposed to get into fights with people. Plus, he was like a million years old. But, what would you have said? How do you respond to something like that? Here is a *lifelong Democrat* who has written off Barack Obama as a candidate because he is afraid of black people. Do old people get a pass on racist remarks? What argument can I offer, standing on the porch of this person, to counter eight decades of opinion? What do you say?
When I considered canvassing for Obama, I envisioned the following scenarios:
1. I creep up to a grey, weatherbeaten house with a dog on the porch and a chill wind whistling through the yard. Bits of torn paper and dry leaves spiral around in an eddy of breeze over a banging cellar door. A faded sign on the gate reads, "No libruls wanted." The dog bares its teeth as a voice whines from a broken upstairs window: WHO IS IT? And I say, "It's the Democrats!" And then the mouth of hell opens up beneath my feet and I'm immolated in a fountain of molten lava.
2. I stand on the porch of some smartassed Hannity listener in a sweater vest, getting asked to list three things Obama has done to qualify him for the presidency, while his preppy children sneer at me from their battery driven mini-SUVs. I forget the details of some minor policy point and am laughed out of the neighborhood. Support for Obama tumbles like dominoes as news of my shame spreads through the nearby houses.
3. I interrupt some kind of opium buy or domestic dispute or important television broadcast and am shot.
In other words, I was eskeert. I poured over my notes and Obama's web site, particularly Fight the Smears, and I prepared Benny to remain calm in the face of harrassment. On the way to the launch point, we roleplayed different scenarios, and he practiced thanking people for their time in response to everything from "GET OUT!" to "OBAMA IS A WEENIE!" That's right, I was taking my eight-year-old son on the canvassing adventure with me. Partly because he is learning about the elections process, and partly because I thought it would be interesting for him, but mostly because I thought people would be less likely to shoot/ignore/shout at me if I was chaperoned by a small cute child.
Okay. So it was not that bad. In fact, it was incredibly easy. I'll describe it for you, in case you are wondering if you can do this too. The answer, now say it with me: Yes, you can.
When we arrived at the launch, we met Leslie the organizer, and she gave us a handful of literature and a canvassing packet. In the packet was an interview script, a map to the neighborhood we were to be working in, a walking map of the streets we were responsible for, with little dots on it for the target houses, and a spreadsheet of info on each house. We had the name of the person to be interviewed, their age, address, and then boxes to check with the answers to these questions:
Who are you going to vote for to be president? Obama or McCain? Senator? Warner or Gilmore? Congress? Nye or Drake? Do you consider yourself a democrat or a republican? Are you going to vote in November?
That's it. There were other questions depending on those answers -- if they needed a ride to the polls or if they wanted to register to vote for example. We had voter registration forms and could register someone right then and there, turn in the forms for them and everything. There was no place in the interview for arguing, defending, promoting, hustling, or demanding. Mostly it was about figuring out if these people still lived at these addresses, if they were planning to vote for Obama, and if they needed help registering or getting to the polls.
At the launch we met up with Theo, who is the mom of another homeschooling mom I know, and the grandma of two of Benny's dearest little friends. She teamed up with us, and since she was an experienced canvasser, she helped me sort throught the paperwork and figure out how to start the conversations with people.
Here's a picture of Benny and Theo:
So, we did our thirty houses. We filled out our tally sheets. We turned in our spreadsheets. Benny was in charge of the interview questions on the houses we did, and he did a great job! People seemed to like talking to him. There were a lot of people who weren't home or were no longer at that address, and a few that wouldn't talk to us, but those who did were very nice.
Here's what I took away from the experience:
1. Canvassing is not necessarily personal. You're there as a volunteer for the Democratic Party and your primary purpose is to *get* information, not give it. This is not a situation where I, Lydia, am going out to meet Joe, the guy in this house, and have a political conversation. That's not to say that I was being mechanical or impersonal, I'm just saying, I'm there as a Democrat, I'm there on a specific mission, and the answers to the questions are what matters. I'm not there to defend myself or explain myself.
2. Canvassing is about finding Obama voters and getting them registered and to the polls. It's not about convincing McCain voters to vote for Obama. Those who answered "undecided" will receive a call from the campaign, and *that* person will help them with questions they have, try to convince them to vote for Obama/Warner, etc. My job as a canvasser it just to identify who these people are, where they are, and if they need to be pursued.
3. People don't know very much about the election. I talked to one guy who was pretty much unaware that there was an election going on. No one was up for a debate, no one had read up on the candidates, no one I talked to had gotten past the obvious, physical issues. Obama is black. McCain has a female VP. I wasn't called upon to discuss the finer points of health care. No one knew the names of the candidates for Senate.
Here's one scenario:
We walked up to a house and there was a lady sitting on the porch. I said, "Hi! I'm a neighborhood volunteer with the Campaign for Change, and I'm looking for John Smith. Is he here?" She asked what I wanted him for, and I said I was interested in his plans to vote in the election. She told me to go into the house. There in the front room was an elderly man listening to a football game, with the volume on very very loud. I said, "MR. SMITH?" He nodded, not looking at me. "MR. SMITH," I said, "ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER?" He grunted at me that he wouldn't vote, had never voted, and that nothing could make him vote. I shook his hand and gave him a big smile, left some campaign literature on his end table, and told him I hoped he would reconsider, and vote for Barack Obama. Then I left.
Another scenario:
We had knocked on the door of a house where we were looking for two men, one 58 and one 18. There was no answer at the door, but as I was leaving I saw a young guy sitting in a car parked on the street. I asked, "Are you by any chance John Smith?" He was John Smith the younger. He was also registered to vote, an enthusiastic Obama supporter, and signed up to volunteer. I handed him a stack of fliers and told him he was officially a volunteer, and that his first mission was to hand those fliers out to all his friends at school. The campaign will give him a call with more chances to help. He was very excited.
There were good houses and there were not so good houses, but there were no awful houses. People are mostly nice. They mostly don't know much about the election. Some are willing to vote for Obama. Those are the people we need to find -- make sure they're registered, and get them to the polls. Now that I know what canvassing is like, and what it's for, and more importantly what it *isn't* like, I'm going to do it more.
Benny and I are going back out on Tuesday night and again next Sunday. I strongly encourage you to try this, whichever candidate you're supporting. It's a very interesting experience, and you'll definitely learn some unexpected things and see this election in a different way when you're done.
Okay, I'm in. I get it. I will vote for Barack Obama. Not with hesitation, not with regret, but with the firm desire that he becomes the next President.
I don't quite honestly know if it was the speech he made or the biographic video that came before it, but at some point between the time Dick Durban left the stage and the time Michelle and the kids walked out to greet the guy, I took a great big swallow of the famous Obama kool-aid. Mmmm... tastes like hope.
Look, for me, the question has always been simple: Is this guy for real? Here's a guy who says it's not about the money, it's not about the power, it's not about him. It's about me, and everyone else. He wants to help people, and he wants people to help each other. He challenges us forthrightly and unapologetically to be better. He wants to change the world. When I hear someone say they want to change the world, and they're over 30, I roll my eyes.
I am a pretend optimist because I am a parent. I have to be hopeful, on some level, so that I can trust the world not to ruin my children. If I didn't trust the world not to ruin my children, I would probably make like a hamster and eat them. Or burn down the universe. You get it, right? But beside the sternly-enforced optimism, there is a concurrent and equally necessary streak of pure, nasty, grit-flecked cynicism.
Nobody wants to change the world. Nobody says, "We need to be better people." Nobody says, "Forget the money. Take care of each other." At least nobody smart says that. Nobody realistic. You hear someone talking like that and you can't believe it. I found myself listening tonight and asking, Are you really that guy? Is that some political BS designed to snow the dummies, the kids, the goofy sign-wavers? I'm smarter than that, harder than that, older than that. I was twenty once. I protested the war and the war happened anyway.
At some point tonight, I became convinced. I think he is that guy. I think he means it. And for me, that is enough. He's smart, and he means well. I am not being sarcastic when I say that is enough. Just that makes him palatable. Just that alone. When I think of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as the other two people I'd like to vote for, I think of all their qualifications and experience. It took believing in Barack Obama to understand that all I really want from the candidate is brains and truly good intentions. That's kind of shocking but it explains a lot.
I don't really care what my criteria are, as long as I understand them. I think I do now.
In a way, I feel relieved. In the words of the indomitable Fox Mulder, "I want to believe." On the other hand, I had two horrible worries almost immediately. One is that someone will bring him down, literally, in the flesh. It was poignant to have this speech coincide with the anniversary of "I Have a Dream" but also chilling. The other worry that I had was that some moral failing would bring him down. They've done so much to build up his family to us, his young and happy family. I'm sure he knows what he's doing and would never, ever jeopardize what's happening to him by cheating on his wife, but... he is human.
Obama, you've got my vote. But please be careful. Be careful with yourself, in this hostile, racist world. And be careful with your family. I choose to trust what you say, and look forward to seeing what you do.
This week, Spunky Homeschool contributed a little hand-wringing and consternation to the discussion of how an Obama presidency would affect homeschoolers. Apparently, Obama hasn't said enough in support of homeschooling. He did say that he would honor parents' decision to do it. This has the conservative homeschoolers in a paroxysm of "Oh dear!" and "What if?"
What if what?
It's not like McCain has come out leading a homeschool parade. He said he would support it, along with private schools, public charter schools, and other choices parents might make. Sounds like he will honor my decision too. Fine.
What more can we ask of these people? It's kind of ridiculous to expect a presidential candidate to come out in strong support of homeschooling. Like it or not, the public schools are within the purview of the federal government, and a president encouraging homeschooling would be like a Ford or General Motors exectutive saying, "Yeah, you know what? You really should ride bicycles instead."
Let a president encourage people to homeschool, and you'll hear the already criticized, maligned, underpaid teachers of the country heave a collective groan of despair. The president has to exude confidence and hope for the public school system, as long as there is one. As long as the car companies tell me they're not going to get bicycle-riding made illegal, I'm not expecting them to stand there and applaud and cheer as I fail to buy a car. I expect the government to have faith in its public schools, and work to fix them. Saying, "Yeah, go ahead and homeschool -- it's the best choice!" is tantamount to giving up.
Okay! Obama hasn't proclaimed his support for homeschoolers. Well, McCain hasn't proclaimed his support for people who use cutesy Christmas dishes out of season. If I'm clutching my curriculum in a hot panic, I should also worry about my rights to eat off these stripey plates in the middle of August. Cringing and worrying over the true meaning of what it means to "honor" our choice -- what does he mean he'll honor it? Will he really honor it? What does "honor" really mean anyway??? -- just seems like an excuse to not vote for the guy. An excuse that assumes we are all judging the candidates solely on their homeschooling platform, and not on the rest of their agendas.
Even if Obama had cackled fiendishly and declared he was going to put an end to homeschooling as we know it, I would still consider voting for him. If I have to do more paperwork, fill out more forms, take more tests, endure more certification, that's a small price for me to pay against the cost of another war. What's more important to me? Fewer homeschooling hoops to jump through, or tens of thousands of people dying in Iran, tens of billions of dollars being spent on killing them? The truth is that neither president could reverse such a strong cultural trend as homeschooling by regulating it, even if they wanted to. The only way to end homeschooling (or send it back to the religious fringe) would be to make the schools so awesome that we all were clamoring to get our kids involved. If that happened, I would be the first one celebrating.
There are lots of reasons for conservatives to hate on Obama. Worrying over some imaginary position on homeschooling is a real stretch. I posit that any homeschooler voting against the guy because his support only extends to a promise to honor our choices, was already going to vote against him because of some other issue. Let's be honest. As much as it may pain us diehards to admit it, there are more important things that homeschooling. Fluffing and clucking over imagined threats distracts us from the real issues of the campaign.
Last night Dan and I took the kids to see Barack Obama at the Virginia Beach Convention Center. It was advertised that the doors would open at 5:30 and the program would begin at 7:30. At 5:15 we were sitting on the freeway, in a solid line of cars waiting to exit for the Convention Center.
About 30 minutes later, after figuring out that there were no more parking spaces in any of the lots, we parked in front of a hair salon, and began to hike toward the back of the line. Past the front of the building, the line snaked around and doubled back on itself. Past the parking lot, it stretched on out to the end of a row of trees. We got in line. I could not comprehend what I was seeing. Ahno kept saying, "See? See? He's going to be president." I started thinking maybe she was right.
Here's a blurry, dark, windy video of the line:
People (and we too) stood in that line outside for two hours while it crept along, with people being let into the building after being checked by security. At one point, Obama went past in an SUV with darkened windows and a police escort. Everyone in the line went mad, as if it was a Beatles concert, with all of them resurrected from the dead and promising to end pocket lint or something. I saw a lot of people I know, and I met some new people. Everyone was nice. Nervous though. It was cold.
Finally at 7:30, they just gave up on the security, threw open all the doors, and the stampede began. We had to fight to stay connected to each other. Ahno got run over twice by people abandoning any sense of order or place in line and rushing for the entrance. The children were excited.
Inside, it was just as crazy but in a different, brighter way. A sea of people. We fought our way as close as we could do the front and stood there for another hour waiting. We listened to Tim Kaine, our blue governor. We listened to U2 songs. I hoisted children onto my shoulders, onto my head, while staring at the shoulder blades of a forest of tall people in front of me. People were eager, anxious, desperate. It was like a rock concert. They wanted to see him, touch him, catch a glimpse of him.
Finally Obama arrived and cranked up the oratory. It was a familiar speech. At about the halfway point, I had had enough of the crushing crowd, and my unforgiving spine was ready to crack. We went back to the back, where we could see more easily if from a greater distance. The ethos of the place was familiar from some churches I have visited. Call and response. Rhythmic murmuring. A collective excitement. A feeling of humble petition to the man on stage. Toward the end of his speech, we jetted out, to try and avoid the thousands pushing through the doors to leave.
The paper said there were 18000 people there. I can't believe we actually went and took both kids. Being part of a crowd that big is just something I would normally crawl over glass to avoid. I'm glad I did, though, because I think it was important for the children to see this piece of history. They enjoyed it -- I'm not sure what part of it was interesting for them but I'm sure the experience will be memorable.
As for me, I'm still a Hillary supporter. I'll vote for her tomorrow. Apparently, so is Benny:
Edited to add the following context: I originally wrote this as a diary on the community blog for democrats called DailyKos. On that site, there is an epidemic of candidate-bashing, so violent that lately if you say anything pro-Hillary, you get a railroad spike in the eye. This blog/diary was in response to that problem. So, it's only meant to address and enlighten fellow treehugging librulls, not friends who are republicans or independents! If you are a republican or independent, you are welcome and encouraged to bash Hillary to me all day! :) :) Because you don't have to vote for her if she ends up the nominee, obviously. You can vote for your guy. As long as it's not Mitt Romney.
Who hasn't been in this situation? Your friend is dating a guy you find repulsive. You think he's politically backward, or he has a career you don't respect, or maybe you even caught him ogling a waitress while your friend was in the bathroom. Or... your friend supports a candidate you despise. You think he's a weak golfer, or she's a closet cannibal, or he's soft on redwoods, or she's got cankles. What do you do?
I'll tell you what you don't do, if you're smart. You don't march up to your friend and tell her, "Your boyfriend is a lying cheating ugly racist whoremongering bastard and marrying him will ruin your life."
Why? Three reasons:
1. That friend's boyfriend may become that friend's husband. Now you become the enemy. You're now the jerk that talked mean about her man, and it's them against the world, and you were (obviously) so wrong about him and how can she ever trust your opinion on anything again? True, they may be doomed. He may truly be a jerk. He may ruin her life and she may ditch him in six months. But saying "I told you so" isn't going to go far to heal your relationship with her.
That friend's candidate might become your party's nominee. What then? You either have to now eat everything you said and vote for this guy/gal, or you have to stick nobly to your opinion, and write in your mother. Whatever you do about the voting, consider where you now stand with your friend. Is she gloating? Are you bitter? Is this helping?
2. You cannot change your friend's mind by getting nasty. If you feel you must state the facts, to protect her from certain disaster, then quietly state the facts. But remember: she is in love. Love is blind. Candidate-love can be like this too. Lashing out against the candidate will most likely only make her love him/her more.
People might be convinced to switch teams by facts, by records, by ideas, by well-reasoned arguments. No one sane is going to switch teams because of name-calling and crabbiness.
3. You respect your friend. Your friend loves him, and you don't. But you love your friend! And you think she's pretty smart! You haven't known your friend to eat shards of glass, or sleep on railroad tracks, or watch "Making the Band" or anything else self-destructive and idiotic, so... maybe there's something there that you don't see. You could be wrong. If you truly respect your friend, or your fellow dem, you have to accept that their support for candidate X might not be motivated out of malice or lunacy, but out of reasonable belief in that person's ability to govern.
It's hard to have cocktails and sushi with someone whose boyfriend you've described as the devil incarnate. And when it comes to this election, the party has yet to begin. I want to be able to sit at any table, without worrying about who heard me talking smack in the bathroom.
Some gruesomely low person called a bunch of people in Nevada referring to Barack Hussein Obama, obviously trying to draw a firm line in black crayon between Barack and Saddam. I think he should retaliate by embracing this trend. Dig out everybody's middle name and paste it onto their shirt fronts. Draw attention to the absurdity of this tactic. Please, please, let one of the republicans have a middle name like Dicky or Frances!
One of Obama's strongest assets is his sense of humor and his easy way of joking around with the press. I suggest that in some high profile speech this week, he should mention all the other candidates only by their full names: beginning, middle, last. He could refer to "John Sidney McCain" and "Willard Mitt Romney." Not everyone could do this without seeming snitty and small, but I know Obama could turn it into a winking joke, so that any time anyone had the audacity to say "Barack Hussein Obama" they would be met with only a snicker.
Better yet... he could jokingly, winkingly give everyone the middle name "Hussein." Hillary Hussein Clinton. John Hussein Edwards. Fred Hussein Thompson.
Hey, who could take umbrage? Hussein is a very common name in some cultures. If we're all so beautifully tolerant and it doesn't matter what name you have, then it doesn't matter, right? If it's not a hindrance, it's not a hindrance right? We are all Marshall. We are all Barack Hussein Obama.
I'm ashamed for whoever made those calls. I can't imagine they were very effective. Do you really think someone would get off the phone, having planned to vote for Obama, and switch to another candidate because the word Hussein had just vibrated their inner ears in just the right way? I don't know. I respect Obama and Clinton both, for weathering all of this redneck bullshit that washes over them because of their race or gender.
Maybe it should just be ignored. I don't know that either. He might get the nomination. If his critics are right and the republicans are going to drag out this kind of inane tactic in the GE, then I have absolute faith he could play it off in a way that would make whoever did this seem ridiculous and wormlike, and himself seem buoyant and transcendent.
Now just out of curiousity since I am neither a Democrat nor Republican, why are Democrats (you sure seem to identify with that party) so emotional? I think that when we, as people, stick to facts and leave out the emotion more will be accomplished. I think that is why Republicans own talk radio. BTW - I rarely listen to their talk-shows but when I hear them I have to laugh when I hear Democrats getting emotional. It may work for now when the chips are down but if Obama doesn't fix the mess both he and the Democrats will be on the way out as the cynical American people slam the door.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment, Chris. I wouldn't generalize that either Republicans or Democrats are more "emotional," nor would I agree that Republicans have mastered sticking to the facts.
It has concerned me that our current President has professed to be motivated largely by his religious beliefs and what he feels God is leading him to do, internationally. That doesn't strike me as sticking to the facts, nor does it seem like a better plan than "getting emotional." Wasn't it Bush Sr. who invented "compassionate conservatism"? Is this fact-based compassion or is emotion okay when displayed by Republicans?
If you're judging all Democrats based on the ones who call in or get put on the air during conservative talk shows, I think you might examine what motivation Hannity or Rush would have in screening for hysterical nonsensical Democrats. :) They aren't exactly looking for articulate and intelligent examples of the opposition. I'd guess they're looking for exactly the opposite. I've been accused of being naive in this thread, but I'd say it would be pretty naive to believe that the Democrats that Hannity chooses to show you are truly representative.
Your last sentence confuses me. After eight years of a Republican administration, you say the chips are down and we're in a mess. You demand that Obama fix it or else? That seems strange to me. I want Obama to make intelligent, moral choices. I want him to stick to the Constitution. I want him to be responsible with money and with the lives of our troops.
If the "cynical American people" are standing around with their thumbs in their belt loops waiting for him to fix everything, they're really not putting "country first" -- they're just hoping to be right. For years Democrats have been accused of wanting America to fail in this or that way so that they can score political points. Your comment exhibit exactly that attitude, one I expect we'll be seeing a lot of from Republicans if Obama wins.
Derision, scorn, criticism -- all of those things that have been unpatriotic for 8 years. Imagine! :)