Forming a government

I have to admit I think it's humorous listening to Republican pundits, like Dick Morris, tell those of us who supported Obama how disappointed we have been in his picking Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; then they add that we expect results right away. Oh and how we don't like that he's picking insiders to run various offices like Tom Daschle to be Secretary of Health and Human Resources. We are so upset that Obama is picking experienced people. We loyal democrats want amateurs on his team. We want him to be soft and gentle, prepared to fail because it's the democratic way.... NOT!

The upset people are those who hoped he'd pick outsiders with no clue how to get anything done. They are the ones who never understood he wasn't as far left as they hoped. To them, if he brought in a lot of people who didn't know Washington, didn't know their jobs, these pundits, who did everything to block his election, would have every hope he would fail, something they clearly want because for them it's all about their power, not about what is best for Americans.

Then they pontificate on how he has no mandate for fixing things like health care (the money's been promised to bankers). Of course, Bush had a mandate even the year he actually lost the popular vote, but Obama winning more than a majority of Americans has none.

It is obvious Obama worries a lot what these pundits think. You can see how upset he is as he steadily makes powerful choices for his cabinet, like Bill Richardson for Commerce, a position that is more important now than ever before. He is choosing those who will help him form a new government and a new direction.

To me, if we trusted Obama enough to give him our vote (which these knowing pundits did not), we then will trust him to get the people who will help him do what he promised. I don't care who he picks and that would have included McCain if that's who he thought he needed. This is about him being a leader who gathers an administration, who can work with him, to do the job he committed to do.

AND he never said he'd get it all done right away. He has made it clear all along that it'll be tough and take awhile. There will be sacrifices. Anybody laying out an expectation of instant results didn't vote for him to begin.

It is a huge job to create a government that can turn the country around. He makes it clear every day that he knew what he was taking on. He's setting about to lay the foundation to make it happen. We should wait to see what he does before we second-guess who he has chosen to help him do it.

The Dick Morrises of the world are hoping to do what they can to see him fail. Our support and encouragement will help him to succeed. We have a lot more at stake than our votes. If we are truly heading for a depression, we needed a strong leader and a people who will stand behind him. The easy choices have been passed up years ago.

Talk me down

Rachel Maddow has a feature on her MSNBC news program that she calls talk me down where she discusses an issue that is upsetting her and brings in someone to understand or help her feel better about it. Okay, this is my talk me down and for those sick of politics, come back another day as it's politics.

The election is over-- at least most of us, win or lose, thought so with a sigh of relief. Now we can wait to see what Obama does. Will he be successful? Will he make mistakes? That is not how all saw it. There is a faction that apparently has only one goal in mind-- either negate the election or back to impeachment. Anything but allow a Democrat to have any successes. Before you tell me Democrats do the same thing, let's save that argument for another day, another blog. This is about today.

What is wrong with Republicans like Alan Keyes and the Rush Limbaugh wing of the far right? What is it with these self-centered, mostly ignorant and fear-filled emails that won't stop giving? Do extreme right wingers only care about abortion, gay marriage, paying taxes on anything, or their political party winning? Is this their idea of patriotism?

One writer on Huffington put it well-- what doesn't destroy the far right only makes them crazier-- and so it would seem.

There is a new email circulating the net from a well-driller, who clearly doesn't know anything about Obama's actual proposed tax policies, but his email is full of resentment of the poor because it's their fault. He brags how well he's done but gives nobody but himself and maybe his family credit for it.

Okay, let's put aside whether the poor deserve help (and ignore things like this: The Bible and poverty. Let's look instead at part of why our deficit has risen so much. Did this well-driller favor the Iraqi War; and if so, how did he expect to pay for it? Or is he going to try and blame that also on Obama? Tax cut or war, either one but both?

What is upsetting me more than circulating resentment soaked emails, and what I need to feel better about is that Keyes (who makes his money off donations through resentments and who lost a senate election to Obama in Illinois by a landslide) and other far righties have filed suits to try to stop the Electoral College from certifying our votes for Barack Obama as president until he shows them a live birth certificate and not just a certified birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya. Why this story is still ongoing is because of a technicality about the equivalent if someone had gone after McCain's birth in Panama.

The accusation is that Obama's mother made a hurried trip to Kenya, had her baby there, flew back to the United States and registered Obama's birth. In the United States, if you are a citizen and you give birth overseas, your baby is an American citizen if you so designate. Clearly this should have been true for Obama's mother, whatever the case. The complication is her age and when Hawaii became a state. There has been some loosening of the age restrictions which means even if he was born in Kenya, he'd be recognized as a United States citizen from birth and hence qualified to be president; which is likely why we didn't hear anything from McCain, who is not part of the nutcase fringe, about this.

Fact Check went to a lot of trouble to view Obama's birth certificate and certify it as legitimate. They also included, in their analysis, the words of Hawaiian state health director who saw the original certificate on file in Honolulu and certifies that Obama was born there. This is more than is required to prove citizenship, but it's not enough for the wacko fringe of the Republican party. All they really want is some way to negate the vote of the people.

Help me understand what is wrong with extremists like these? Why do they have any credibility with anybody? If nobody donates to them or listens to their programs would they continue to have power?

Hearing what Limbaugh has been saying since the election has made me wonder even more why anybody listens to him with his spewing of hate which along with the Sean Hannitys has led to more death threats against Obama than any president-elect ever.

Thirty million people listen to Limbaugh regularly. How can we get anywhere as a united people with that going on? And, no I don't favor taking him off the air, but it would help if more people just quit listening unless they are also fanatics. Don't give these people money or ratings if you don't agree with them.

Did you read about Rexburg, Idaho, where the children on the school bus were chanting assassinate Obama, adding the names of kids on the bus who had supported him? Or the right wing fear mongers who are rushing out to buy guns? Or the legislator who fears that a worker program in this country would resemble the Nazis more than the WPA (which helped build infrastructure during the Great Depression)? Rush Limbaugh is already calling this the Obama depression.

What is wrong with such people? I hear ingineer here, and I know others who voted for McCain but because they are patriots, they wish Obama well; so I know it's not all Republicans. Why do any Republicans support those who act so selfishly and destructively? Or are Republicans finally going to turn on that fringe?

How about, whatever your party allegiance, the next time you get one of those hate-filled emails, tell the person not to send you more?

I remember when the far right went after impeaching Clinton for lying about a sex act. His lying was wrong but what they did was more about trying to take his power, to distract him. The end result was they distracted themselves also and bin Laden benefited. They, like Newt Gingrich who was busily involved in his own affair at the time, have still not taken responsibility for what they did.

If Keyes is successful in harassing Obama for what is at best a technicality, we're heading for more of the same. I have heard commenters here saying they will impeach Obama immediately. They obviously cannot do that by themselves, but a site out there is drawing those who hope to do so. How is that going to help our nation in a time of so much turmoil and danger?

One reason so many Republicans got thrown out of office was how they voted in lockstep with everything President Bush wanted even when it went against conservative principles. It wasn't all about Obama, McCain or even Bush. It was because those elected officials had not done what was best for this country and instead had party loyalty as their first loyalty. In my opinion, both parties should put the good of the country first not their winning elections. Is that asking too much?

If Obama improves the economy by his policies, doesn't try to turn the country socialist, doesn't try to confiscate all guns, raises our standing in the world, etc etc., will this change these people's minds? Is it possible for any president to be president of all the people as he said the night he won the nomination?

(Young golden eagle from farm yard this week-end.)

The Day After

Last night I watched the election results along with millions of others. When Pennsylvania and then Ohio went for Obama, I felt this was looking good. Little by little, the results moved across the United States and the numbers began to add up. Finally it was clear that when the polls closed on the West Coast, Obama would be our next president.

When California, Oregon and Washington came in, I cried. I didn't expect to do that. But I felt an overwhelming rush of pride in this nation in which I was born and where I grew up, raised my own family and always believed was special. The people had voted, and it was overwhelmingly to move in a new direction.

I listened to the commentators talk about what it meant. Some of them still didn't get it. Chris Matthews asked why would Obama have run a 50 state strategy? Why contest all 50 states when he wasn't going to win some of those states? There was an answer to that question and it came when Obama gave his speech.

But first another speech had to be given and it was from John McCain who showed graciousness and generosity of spirit as he told his followers to support this new president. McCain has been like two men all the way through this election. Last night, the good John McCain, the one a lot of us wanted for president in 2000, that man showed up to tell us he is still there. I felt warmth for him, but seeing the anger on the faces of his supporters told me a lot of them didn't feel that same thing.

Tom DeLay was evidence of more of that negative thinking. Nancy Pelosi will run the country, he told MSNBC with his usual nasty way of talking. The crowd listening to McCain would have been more ready for that kind of talk then what McCain said. They were mad that Obama won.

Will people like that really come together to support Obama for the good of the country? Will the Right engage in more of the negative, self-defeating tactics they used against Bill Clinton and whose distraction led to the inability (of Congress and President) to deal with the rising al Qaeda and bin Laden? Already there is a group out there, online, who have a petition up to impeach Obama before he even gets in office. Never underestimate the willingness of some to cut off their own noses out of spite.

Finally last night, Obama and his family came onto the platform in Chicago, and he gave his first speech as president-elect. He was somber, happy but made clear the work has just begun for him and the country. He took seriously what he has before him even in that moment of victory because as he said, it was never about just winning. It was always about being able to fix the problems in this country.

Obama gave the answer to why it was a 50-state strategy. It was to be the president of all the people. He wants to work for those who voted against him and those who voted for and supported him. He does not see one part of the country as the only thing that matters. He doesn't see us as red and blue but as the United States. He said he will tell us the truth about things and will work to make us all strong again. I believe him and I cried again.

We all won last night. Some of us just don't know it yet.

A Vote for Barack Obama

This week-end, Farm Boss and I spent in Medford. He went fishing with our son-in-law on the Rogue River, and I had quality time with our daughter and two grandkids.

With the campaign season almost over, I thought what my daughter wrote about why she supported Obama would make an excellent last post. It is okay to be against something, but it's far more powerful when we are for something. Here is what she wrote:

*****************************************

Why I voted for Barack Obama

This year will be the first time I have ever voted for the candidate of my choice. My primary choices never made it to the nomination (in fact they were either protest votes or incredible long shots). I am proud to say that I voted for Barack Obama in the primary and the general election. For the first time ever, my vote is not for the "lesser of two evils", but the candidate that I honestly believe will be a good
president.

I took the kids to see John Kerry speak because it was an historic event and because I was very discouraged and dismayed by the direction that George W. Bush was leading us (As a side note, I would have taken them to see the President too, but we couldn't because we aren't Republicans). I canvassed for Kerry, not so much because I thought he was great but because I thought Bush was awful. Last Sunday I took the
kids to canvas for Obama because I think he is the president we need for the challenges our country faces.

I started out to write a lot of stuff about Obama and his background, how he is the fulfillment of the American Dream. etc. I wrote a bunch of stuff about how I think he will address the major issues in front of us - global warming, the economic recession, nuclear proliferation, world poverty and, it's related issue, terrorism. And I can send you all that stuff if you are interested with links to supporting articles. But when I worked through what I was thinking, I realized that the reason I voted for Obama with such enthusiasm is because of the kind of man he is.

Barack Obama has excelled at everything he's set himself to do. You may get into Harvard on affirmative action, but you certainly do not become president of the Harvard Law Review on it. Many junior Senators never get through a single piece of legislation. He's pushed through several big ones (keeping nuclear weapons from terrorists, government transparency, etc.) with bipartisan help. He took the gifts he was given and has made the most of them. He obviously works hard at whatever he sets himself to do. Look at how he's run this campaign. I've never seen one like it. Why would he be any different with the presidency?

He is an intellectually curious man and an extremely intelligent one. He thinks things through. I think he's a diagnostician. He looks at the choices and makes the best decision he can. He surrounds himself with smart people and actually listens, but makes his own call.

He is able to talk to people. I think that is one of the things that will make Obama a great president. Don't forget that he was a teacher. He can explain things to people in a way that helps them understand. That he is eloquent and able to move people I see as an asset. We are going to have to make difficult decisions in the coming years and we are going to have to do things that we don't like. We must have a leader
that can motivate us and bring us together. And not just us Americans, but the entire world. The problems that we face will not be dealt with on our own and we are going to have to work with the rest of world. We need a leader that is respected world wide and that can speak to the world community. Eloquence and inspiration is going to be required.

He is above all else a family man and I admire that. Whenever my children see pictures of him with his kids they say "Oh, that's just like Daddy." I agree. Look at these pictures. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/the-obamas-greatest-famil_n_132339.html


I see in Obama the ability to listen, process opposing ideas, make a decision and then pull people together to make it happen. He is calm, reasoned and intelligent, able to synthesize opposing viewpoints and make a logical decision. Read this article in Time about Obama http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025-1,00.html

In short, I believe he is the best man for the job. I think we only see transformational candidates like this once in a great while. Did you see Colin Powell's endorsement? If you didn't you should look for it on the internet.

I by no means consider Obama a "messiah". I don't think he's going to "save" our country. Only hard work from all of us is going to fix our problems. That is one of the things I like the very best about what he says. On every issue, he calls for personal responsibility. He tells us we are going to have to work. When was the last time we were asked to do anything by our government? It's about time.

I do not agree with him on every issue. I never do. It would be impossible for a candidate to share my opinion on every topic. I just think his over-all philosophy works for me. He's been painted by the Republicans as the most liberal Senator. I find that funny because progressive liberals think he's too conservative and don't like his stand on lots of issues. That says to me that he's probably somewhere near the center, left of center, but still center, and that is where we are going to find the common ground to fix things.

That's it, my endorsement for Barack Obama. Think about it.

Spreading the Wealth

One of the fear tactics to try and get people to not vote for Obama is he's a socialist, a Marxist, and will take all of your money to give to someone else. (Kind of like Alaska does when it takes our money in paying for gasoline and give it to its citizens as welfare reverse income tax.) You would think Obama had only run for the presidency to turn this country over to Russia. Hey, it's not him who has put the United States into hock to China!

When it comes to taxes, which nobody likes much, Obama's plan is to tax the richest Americans at a higher rate than they are today and to lower the tax rate on the working class (those making under $250 or 200,000 a year net). He's not doing this because he hates the rich. Obama is looking for programs that will work.

Those of you who fear the increased taxes for those making a lot of money, don't forget the other part of this was a tax cut for the middle class. Since taxes seem to be all some care about. Check out this page for how Obama's proposal (Congress does have to agree) would impact you-- What's your Obama tax cut?. Go down the page and click on the button. Yes, when he gets in, things could change as he sees actual figures, finds out what might now be hidden, but this is the plan.

Obama said we have to rebuild our infrastructure as China is doing to make themselves competitive in the 21st century. He said when we look around us, we don't see anything to show for our current deficit. If we are going to borrow, it should be for things we can see, things that help us compete in the world where we either will be competitive, or we will lose even more ground economically. You cannot be competitive with rhetoric. It takes real actions.

Study McCain's promises, and the truth is he will either have to raise taxes, to carry through his promises, or increase our deficit even more. This is why a lot of economists have embraced Obama's plan. Palin is even worse. She doesn't even know what McCain's plan is as she said we can't possibly cut Defense during a war and McCain already said he would cut Defense where it comes to waste.

McCain has several things he proposes which will increase taxes on the small business owner which he is supposedly so concerned about-- like his medical plan that would lead to more taxable income and the small business owner pays payroll taxes, workman's comp, and transit tax on that increase. For small business owners, who have provided health insurance, their taxes will go up more under McCain than under Obama.

There is a reason for increasing the tax rate for the richest. It is a practical one not hatred of the rich (that is so Rush-ian. The irony is for all his talk about class warfare, it's Limbaugh and his ilk who have done the most to try and make that happen during this election even more than usual. Put down scientists, put down educated people, put down artists, put down some parts of the country as un-American if they don't vote Republican. While they are doing that, Obama talks well about all groups with trying to understand them and figure out what will help their problems.

Obama, and anyone who studies economics for awhile, knows that the middle class is the engine driving this economy. When people in the middle cannot afford to buy things, everybody is hurt. Frankly, the richer you are, the less a tax increase impacts what you can afford. You might have a few less luxuries, but Obama is not talking a confiscatory increase. He's talking of going back to what it was in 2000 before Bush began his descent into financial madness.

Can we ignore the deficit? Keep borrowing from China? Obama has said he will go over government programs to try and eliminate those that don't work (McCain says the same), but policies that involve simply cutting programs won't do enough. Many of those programs will involve job cuts if they happen putting more people out of work.

When he was in the Senate, Obama worked with Coburn from Oklahoma to get through put the government budget online for Google searches. This makes what the government spends transparent, which is what Obama says should be true.

All government spending is not bad for the economy. You build a new bridge, you create jobs. What if we improved our railroads like some other countries? Not only would goods move faster across the country but more people might find the train a pleasant way to travel, and it uses a lot less fossil fuel than any alternatives. It will take improved and new rail lines to make that happen. Obama says this is the kind of thing where government can help and private enterprise might not have the clout or money right now.

Have you gotten that email that claims all our deficit problem is due to programs for illegals? The email uses as sources blogs, some conspiracy sites, as it pulls together a lot of figures (some maybe added in three or four times, all speculation to start). If you look at any government figures online for where money goes, you see the email's figures don't hold up, but a lot of people will never look beyond what they want to see-- they want to solve this problem at no cost to themselves. I do not believe that is possible, not after the eight years of neocon rule.

The accusation that spreading the wealth is bad is ridiculous as all taxes spread the wealth. McCain is not talking about ending taxation nor ending progressive tax rates. He has said in the past that the rich should pay more. It is just logical. He doesn't dare say it now nor mention Alaska's ultimate spread the wealth program which basically is socialist as Palin now thinks is so bad but as she increased that dole to increase her popularity in Alaska (then applied for massive US earmarks as getting the revenue from us wasn't enough; she still wanted us to pay for any infrastructure up there).

Taxes pay for programs, roads and military that we as individuals cannot do. Where did some Americans forget this? This election you again heard McCain repeating the old mantra-- you can better manage your money than the federal government can.

If someone doesn't believe in government, you should not elect them to be at the head of it. They will only make sure it fails. Elect someone who believes in government programs, sees the good they can do, and makes sure they do it.

A lot of people who fear taxes so much just don't realize that there are many ways to have less money like inflation, job losses, investments that suddenly lose value, a crumbling economy. Wise taxation, fair use of the funds, being careful what programs are funded, getting rid of those that don't work, those are ways to make this a better nation for all of us. Prosperity that leaves behind most of the country isn't going to make it better for anybody in the long run.

Something to consider

Despite what we hear, the election of 2008 is not a done deal. Pollsters claim one in seven Americans could still change their votes even if they lean one way or the other. There are those who claim they aren't leaning either way. If all the undecideds went for McCain, it'd likely be a tie. If voters planning to vote for Obama changed their minds, Obama could lose.

What boggles my mind is how can there still be undecideds? I think it relates to the tactics of the far right that have worked with too many people. Their methods and claws will be out this week-end howling more loudly than any scary trick-or-treaters could have last night.

Some want to use a connection Obama had to the moderate Palestinian, Khalidi, who teaches at Columbia University. He is the newest boogie man for the Republican fear and smear machine. Never mind that McCain has also supported Khalidi's work to bring peace in the Middle East (with more money than Obama's group gave). Never mind that Khalidi has nothing to do with Obama or McCain for policies other than both wanting peace in the Middle East and to see moderate thinking overcome the more radical. Never mind that Khalidi is a moderate Palestinian, who has never said anything about destroying Israel, who has not done anything but try to bring peace to his people and the Israelis. Never mind because fear is not about truth, and the Republican right wing has become the party of fear. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Where did it go?

Then there's still talk about Reverend Wright-- another boogie man. People who aren't disturbed by a witch doctor protecting Sarah Palin from witchcraft, who aren't bothered that her husband belonged to a militia, secessionist group in Alaska, a group Palin spoke well of, whose leader also said how awful the United States is and it's why they wanted Alaska to leave it, those people are very upset that Reverend Wright preached maybe only a couple of times on the evils the United States has done to peoples like Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and blacks. You'd think the preacher had spent his entire career spewing hate of the United States. A few words out of 20 years is all it takes.

I have said it before. It's not bad that Obama has known people who are different, who maybe haven't done right in their own choices. It has not rubbed off on him. There is no proof that he in any way follows their ethical choices. He is a man with his own code and he makes it clear he's his own man. What amazes me the most is he doesn't even appear to get angry the way I do when I read some of the more ridiculous accusations being thrown at him. He has a lot more balanced nature for his years than most of us.

I have voted; but if you have not, if you are among those undecideds, please consider watching the following links, not about fear and smear but to hear what Obama is really promising.

You have heard how he isn't ready, how he's a socialist, how he's a terrorist secretly, how he will doom this country. Just take the time before you vote, to hear what he says. There are two parts to the Maddow interview-- both worth seeing. Listen with an open mind:

Rachel Maddow interview with Barack Obama Part I



Part II with Obama on Rachel Maddow



Finally, the Infomercial-- Infomercial Part I and if you want to watch it all, there are four parts on YouTube.

Obama is not about fear. He is about ideas and the impetus to make this country what it has said it was. He has the intelligence and drive to make it happen. He needs our votes-- not just to win but to give him the mandate that he will need to buck the system and make real change happen.

The Republican party has become the party of fear of the new, fear of different, fear of the 'other'. Americans can rise up on Tuesday and show that this no longer works. Give the Republican party a chance to take back its own party by making these ideas fail.

And if you are Republican, who is not a neocon, who is not a religious zealot, and you have been been disillusioned, vote for Obama as a way to say no to what has happened but don't stop there. Get back in your party, donate to genuinely conservative leaders, make your voice known. Do not let the zealots take over the Grand Old Party. They will if they can.

Because of her enthusiastic crowds and neocon leaders like Bill Kristol, Palin thinks the party will be hers after this election is over-- win or lose. If she and her ilk succeed, it will be because the real conservatives in the Republican party didn't roll up their sleeves and get to work.

The right wing fear and smear machine, the religious bigots, they will get in there and work. Will you? If you don't put your money and heart into getting the Republican party back to true conservatism, you are getting what you deserve-- unfortunately so might we as a nation. We have seen how well that works after eight years of it with George Bush and Republicans who voted as automatically as those robocalls. It's not too late to give our country two viable political viewpoints from which to choose. It is too late this election.

(Finally, I had planned to put a blog, before the election, on abortion, but space is running out; and there are other more immediate issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I posted it instead (along with the other two that relate) onto Rainy Day Extras. So if you want to read my thinking on abortion, it's at: Will Abortion Remain a Choice?

Financing Campaigns

McCain is once again criticizing Barack Obama for not taking taxpayer financed campaigning with its accompanying government limitations. He repeated it again after Obama put out his great half hour infomercial. How unfair that Obama would have money for that, that Obama would spend so much money to win this election or so goes the Republican whine.

Obama is running on the support of people people like my family who have given more money than we ever have to any candidate. We have given money when we could have spent it on pleasures for ourselves. We did it because we thought it was too important to hold back. This is true of many families across this nation. The call has gone out that if we want to make a change, we have to do it.

When we gave that money to the Obama campaign, we wanted it to be for things like the infomercial and as many ads and campaign events as he can afford. When this election is over, we want Obama's campaign to be like this old saying:

"Life is not a journey to the grave with intentions of arriving safely in a pretty well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming ... WOW! What a ride!”

The Republicans have made accusations that the election is being bought. If it is, it's from people all around this country. We gave it for him to use; and if he ended up with a lot left over, we'd be disappointed. Spend it all and if we lose, let it not be because any of us held back. This is a time to put it all out there and hope it's enough.

The Republicans, surprisingly enough, have found fault with Obama for not accepting taxpayer money for this election. But what is he running on if not taxpayer money? Money freely given because of belief in the cause.

The kind of campaign Obama has run, sticking to the issues, pointing out where McCain has been wrong but not going into the mud, that has proven to us that our money has been well spent.

If there is anything frustrating, it is that we are also funding John McCain's even though we don't believe in anything he or Palin stand for. Now that's the real thing to question.

I thought the infomercial was great. I was fortunate enough to watch it with Parapluie. Farm Boss had a business trip planned for California which gave the two of us a chance to get together for an overnighter, time to watch female oriented movies. We had fun and got in watching the infomercial while we did.

Obama's program didn't give new information (other than that he has read to his girls every single Harry Potter book); but it brought up the problems our country is facing. Maybe for someone who is undecided or hasn't been paying attention, it will have reassured them about what Obama is running to do.

Why Obama is the right leader for today

We, who support his candidacy, talk of Barack Obama's focus, his ability to look to the long range goals and find ways to move toward them. This was on the news the other day and it shows this is nothing new for Obama: Obama in 1991.



It is all very well to say something just to get elected. Often it means that person will not fulfill any of the promises; but what about someone who has a clear sense of what it takes to move ahead as a culture and carries it with them for years? How about someone who takes the positions, learns the things, meets the people, that will be required to accomplish those goals?

People say Obama is too young and too inexperienced but history shows it has often been young men who bring about great change whether it's in music, science or politics. Alexander the Great was not much out of his childhood when he conquered the world. In terms of life experience, Obama has many things going for him that will serve him in good stead.

Obama is a man for the times and what he has done and offers is why he might be able to accomplish what someone else could not. People with focus stand apart from the average person who is driven by this or that wind. Age isn't the issue. There are things that matter more and some could be in their oh say 70s and still not have that kind of strength of purpose.

By his campaign, Obama has shown us what kind of administration he will have if he is elected president. He is intelligent, well organized, chooses people who can move toward the goals he has laid out. He is a man capable of inspiring others to do more than they had ever done before.

This election is not just voting against someone who is wrong, someone who will work against our nation and the world's best interest, but it is a chance to vote for someone who has the skills, the temperament and the inner sense of self to do what needs doing without distractions.

Obama's skills include being trained in the Constitution-- something of particular value given how Bush and Cheney have done all they can to undo many constitutional rights.

As a Commander-in-Chief, he brings strength and a good mind-- Obama talking to Patraeus. Obama wisely didn't attempt to put the general down but did have a meaningful discourse as they discussed the problem from both of their perspectives.

Obama has worked as a neighborhood organizer and despite Palin not comprehending what that means, it means he has worked with people on the ground level. He understands real problems and how to work with people, not from needing dictatorial powers but from motivating people to do what will in the end work best.

His benefits to us as a president will include his stable and supportive home life, something you can't underestimate in the pressure cooker of the White House.

Obama chose a wife who is his equal and that means he values strong women. Men who don't value strong women choose women they can control . Obama chose a woman he could go to for wisdom-- a woman who would tell him when he was wrong. He is a man who is strong enough to listen without being threatened.

Obama's time in state legislature, and then the United States Senate, have taught him about passing laws, about working with the opposing party. He talks about the need to compromise and he knows what that means. A president is not a dictator-- not yet.

There has been much talk about how governors are superior to legislators for getting things done in Washington. That would depend on the governor, but basically a president has to work with the Congress and with other countries. To be someone who has learned how this works is a major plus.

When Obama came into his maturity, coming from two ethnic groups, he had to decide for himself what were his core values. He had experienced a lot in his growing up years-- some of it pretty tough with his father deserting the family. I have known personally men like him, who had their own parents not be there for them, but they decided they'd be different and they did so when they became parents. Obama was fortunate to have such loving grandparents who could step in and become surrogates, who brought him up so well.

I read how his white grandfather (who incidentally you can see he looks a lot like) took him to spend time with the poet, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a socialist, perhaps even a communist, but he also was a black and Obama's grandfather wanted him to know men of his father's race, to experience other ideas.

We see this trend to explore ideas in all of Obama's life, his curiosity, his willingness to learn, and they all helped to form the man he is today with a core set of principles which will stand him in good stead as he has to face not only the opposition party but his own (although I have read that a lot of the new Democrats coming into the Congress are more blue dog and conservative than the ones in the past. Good because, despite what Republicans are saying now, I agree with them. It's never good for one set of ideas to dominate with no room for thinking where they lead or what is best. We saw how well that didn't work these last 8 years with McCain supporting the president 90% of the time while he now says he disagreed with his ideas. Say what!).

Obama isn't someone who talks in terms of just winning or victory. He understands that you have to know what you are winning and over and over he talks about us being one nation and our need to see each other that way. He has even said he's a citizen of the world which has upset some Republicans who think they only live in the United States, not on the earth.

Obama has shown he respects different kinds of ideas but he has firmly established ones of his own. He is able to talk to others about their ideas. He has something the rest of us have to work hard to attain-- the ability to not take things personally, to explore differences without needing to insult or divide. His campaign has been one of the finest for staying with issues of any I have seen in my many years.

Obama understands the need for physical exercise to work out the emotional stresses. The press gives him a bad time for working out when he will be facing a debate or on his European trip. Someone who understands that even a president has to stay balanced, spiritually, emotionally and physically, that is someone who can go the distance. It's part of what helps him keep his equanimity.

The ideas Obama has committed himself to working toward are also part of why him and why now. We need him today. Some say let him wait. He can grow and get more mature. But our country can't afford to wait. This country needs his kind of leadership now! We can't afford more George Bushes and heaven forbid even worse. We can't afford those who think god will intervene and fix anything or smite a people for what someone else did. We can't afford those who misunderstand what even Christianity is. If you ever heard the speech Obama gave about the Old Testament, which some are saying shows he isn't truly Christian, what it shows instead is that he gets it!

If you haven't already voted, if you are undecided, go to the Obama site and read his positions on various issues. Think long and hard about what you are doing this time. There is no time to vote selfishly. We have to vote for what the country needs. Who knows whether we will get such a chance again!

Here is one more YouTube. An important one given how they have been reinterpreting Obama's discussion with Joe the plumber. Hearing it all, hearing how Obama responded to him, how he explained his ideas even understanding they disagreed, it says a lot about Barack Hussein Obama, more than my words can say: Joe the Plumber and Obama's discussion.

Hitting Racism Head-on

People are very insulted if you imply that they are voting based on racism (believe me, I know this from personal experience). To even suggest it is to end a lot of conversations. I try to be careful but I hear the code words, the things they suggest that they would deny are racist. These are the things they find as reasons to vote instead of the reason they cannot name.

I thought this article by Kristof did a good job on what is at stake here and why racism can be a factor even without someone being a conscious bigot-- Racism without Racists.

A union man, AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka, also addresses the racism that so many are finding as a reason, an unspoken reason, for not supporting Barack Obama. They don't know why, or can't admit to themselves that they feel fear at the very thought of him as president. It's not about his issues, which might even be ones with which they agree, but something else, something they won't or can't admit.

Incidentally, I would not suggest that everyone who votes for McCain is doing so for racist reasons. I am well aware that there are issues that someone could not like about Obama's positions and vote against him for those reasons. The ideal is that we don't see either of them racially but instead look at their character and temperament for leadership.

A lot of McCain advisers, including Palin, want to make Reverend Wright an issue in these waning days of the campaign. McCain has said no before, that religion should stay out of it, but it's in it so many ways already that I suspect Wright already is and might become increasingly a big issue for some (while ignoring Palin's own fringe religious positions).

Wright is an easy target to use against Obama because he was closer to him than to Ayers or Rezko, more ground they can actually use. Wright condemned this country as having done wrong. We all know we are an exceptional people and can't really have done anything wrong. For Palin to hit on this is hypocritical given her connection to the Alaskan Secessionist Party, whose founder also said bad things about what the United States has done. Hypocrisy is not bigotry though.

This election is not just about voting against someone-- although McCain has given plenty of reasons to do that. It is about knowing what we are voting for. It's about voting for ideas that can change this country into what it had promised to be and recently has lost track. If we keep going as we have been, we know where we are heading-- a debtor nation who has lost its potential, who brags to its own how wonderful it is, but can't fool the world. Worse it will have left its middle class behind, turned its workers into a serf class, in its rush to assure billions for a few.

Anyway back to racism, watch this YouTube. This guy gets it!

Obama knew it was coming all along

Moderator, Bob Schieffer, asked Wednesday night about the tenor of the campaigns. How do you feel about the fairness of your own campaign? McCain ignored the question where it came to his responsibility and used it as a way to again reproach Obama.

This summer, Obama had predicted what the other side would say; and when he did, they put him down for it. They said he was interjecting the race card. He wasn't doing that. He was saying what was going to happen.

Sunday when Colin Powell endorsed Obama, immediately the right wing jumped on him. It's all about race. Clearly they had no respect for Powell's patriotism, his wisdom, his experience. It was all about race to them. They would have said he was a wise man if he had been submissive and gone along. He did not. He said what he thought and laid out why. He also knew what was coming and said if his endorsement had been about race, he'd have done it a long time ago.

The ones who jumped on Powell ignored that other Republicans, including Christopher Buckley, have also endorsed Obama, many newspapers have endorsed him, who had supported Republicans always; but no, where it came to Powell, Rush Limbaugh immediately yelped it had to be race. It does but it's his racism, not Powell's.

The accusations we are hearing are wild and crazy, sneakily sent out through anonymous emails or robotic phone calls. They work on those who are already afraid of the 'other'.

I read on one of the right wing newspapers that there are now two lawsuits trying to prove that Obama was not born in the United States. If you have been hearing that, and you are one of those who fears the 'other', here is what Factcheck said about it: He was born in the USA. The accusations we are hearing have worked before and McCain is hoping they will again.

Funny how the McCain crew apparently has forgotten what Obama predicted, hope the voters have, or maybe it was all they have to use. It didn't take a psychic, given the last eight years, but it does prove McCain is lying when he says he's not Bush. He is so very Bush.

McCain told Obama that if he wanted to run against bush, he should have run 4 years ago. It was a silly thing to say but the right thought how clever. Maybe if they don't think he's like Bush, they should ask him why he didn't run himself four years ago. Why did he endorse and campaign for Bush in 2004?

You know the answer. He expected a payoff this year, and he's gotten it with Karl Rove sending his minions to help McCain. You can see their fingerprints all over McCain's campaign. The only one who has run a different kind of campaign has been Obama.

What I think is interesting is do people think they can basically sell their souls to win and then have it be anything but a soulless administration? Bush did and we know how that worked out.

If we don't want more of the Rovian tactics, this is the year to make it stop working.

YouTube of Obama saying what was coming juxtapositioned with the McCain campaign doing it!

If it's not about issues, what is it about?

Christopher Hitchens, as he endorsed Barack Obama for president, wrote an article-- Christopher Hitchens in Slate where he said what I have been thinking. This election, it's not so much about the issues. It's more character and temperament.

When I knew I would be writing pretty much every day for the month ahead of our election, I planned to briefly cover the character of both (and their running mates) and then hit on their differences in the issues.

My intentions changed as the campaigns more clearly took form. I watched the news, read newspaper and magazine articles and it soon became clear that this time the issues, much as they matter to me, are taking a backseat. If someone says they will lower taxes but you can't trust anything else they say, why would you believe them on that?

I believe that this presidential election is about character. Can we trust what these people say they will do? Then, even if they want to do something, do they have the temperament to make it happen? A president, unless he acquires the powers of a dictator, can't run things by himself. Even if they have good intentions, what are their capabilities for bringing change to a government that has become caught up in greed and power struggles?

The man who I have faith in for his character and temperament is Barack Obama. I think he can get it done, that he will stand up and fight for what he believes is right. I won't and don't agree with him on all issues but do on most of them.

It is not like I have no issues that matter to me. Becoming energy self-sufficient, developing new sources of energy, creating and encouraging jobs that give families decent livings, working out a health care plan for us all that keeps costs down, teaching people that they can't keep borrowing to fund their lifestyles, a viable education system that benefits all levels of society, balancing the federal budget, improving our infrastructure, not fighting wars overseas without a security reason that we can clearly see, cutting waste in government.

There are other issues that Obama does not see as I do, but matter to me, and I'd like to see happen. For instance, I'd like to see gays have the right to marry. This is a matter of fairness. I don't say all churches should have to recognize their marriages, that's religion, but marriage itself is a government recognized contract between two people who come together sexually to form a family unit. Why should gays be denied that? Call them all contract licenses and do what is right for the future generations.

I would like to see abortion limited to the first four months of a pregnancy when it is purely the mother's preference, another month or so when it is about birth defects and after that, only danger to the life of the mother would allow an abortion. The idea of partial birth abortion is no different than infanticide to me; but I want women to have that first part of their pregnancy to have the choice, and it is one of my bedrock issues.

(Incidentally, they claim that Obama liked the idea of infanticide and voted against a bill in Illinois that would have banned it. As is usually the case with what 'they' claim, what Obama said is he voted against a bill that would have limited abortions unfairly. There were already laws on the book to protect a baby born alive.)

I also would like military, assault rifles banned. I believe in the right to go armed, in increased concealed weapon permits, in responsible gun ownership, and don't want anybody taking my guns.

I would like to see our national parks strengthened and in some cases enlarged. I think the environment should be a priority. Earth is our mother and through caring for the earth, we insure our own survival. This isn't about protecting every possible variant of a squirrel, but commonsense protection of animals and habitat. It's not just a physical cause but emotional and spiritual.

On global warming, I think we need more research on what we might have to do to protect our cities along the coasts and what about the possibility of massive storms inland? Are we prepared for what might be coming? It makes sense to me to limit carbon emissions, do what we can do, but this may be something we can't stop. Be prepared.

I would like to see our country buckle down and face the reality that the government can't keep borrowing even to fund good programs. We have to be frugal as a people and as a government, start paying down our debt, have good trade policies that are fair but recognize this is a world market. I don't want freebies. I want chances.

There are issues that matter to me and some of them are on Obama's list; some not, but it's his character that makes me believe he will do something about changing the direction of this country. I think he can stand up against the Nancy Pelosis and the left wing of the Congress when they want things without paying. He has said we have to be more responsible economically. I believe he means it.

It wouldn't matter much to me what John McCain said about any issues. If you think it does to you, please read this article from Rolling Stone. Anybody who plans to vote for that man needs to know who he is: Make-Believe Maverick.

Frankly, I think that McCain is a Jekyll and Hyde. If you saw him at the Al Smith Dinner, he was funny and charming-- so by the way was Obama. The next day McCain was out there with robo calls implying Obama is a terrorist wantabe. McCain seems to change into different people, and that is not the kind of person to put in the White House.

This election is about character. When all that McCain can dig up about Obama is an old relationship with Ayers, a pastor who was over the top, a businessman who wanted to befriend Obama for power, and none of these people impacted Obama's policy positions today, nowhere was he charged with ethical violations; then I think it's good he worked with and knew them. Having a leader in the White House who is naive won't serve us well in this day and age.

Obama has come through a lot, and I have more trust in his judgment for the fact that he has. I won't like everything he does. That's life. I hope that we, who support him will support him if he is elected to do what is right and understand this is no time for revenge. It's a time for moving ahead, for facing changes that the world forces upon us, and a time for justice.

Last debate this year

Despite thinking I would not, I did watch the last presidential debate. I knew it wouldn't change my mind. I suspect it didn't change anyone's mind. If you skipped it, there wasn't much you missed.

John McCain is still pouting that he didn't get ten town halls with Barack Obama. If he had, he said the campaign would have remained more civil. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I doubt it did to Obama but he didn't use it to attack McCain for being immature.

Goaded into it ahead of the debate, McCain brought up Ayers and ACORN which is what Obama clearly wanted as it gave him a chance to give the answers he has given so many times other places but maybe there would be some watching who wouldn't have watched him elsewhere. He has said he worked with Ayers. His connection to him was through education, a reputable committee who has helped Chicago's education system and he named who else was on that committee. He repeated that what Ayers did was despicable. He does not consort with terrorists as has been implied by Palin. He didn't bring up her close connection (sleeps with it) to the secessionist Alaskan group.

Obama did not attack McCain about his own praise of ACORN at one of their meetings only two years ago where McCain basically said all Americans should care as much as those people did about helping others. Now ACORN is being made the scapegoat if Obama wins because of them submitting paid registrations that clearly won't qualify for voting rights but did earn whoever collected them money.

Obama's answers had already been heard probably at least by anyone who does not carry around a Curious George stuffed monkey with Obama's name on it. I would have to assume McCain has not bothered to watch the videos of the kind of people who are attending those rallies. If he was, I don't think he'd have said he was so proud of his fans. Some of them have behaved in ways that won't help this country or themselves even if they think they are clever and are patting each other on the back for how clever.

There were times Obama could have attacked but he let it go as not worth it. One that comes to my mind was when they were asked if their Vice Presidential picks were good choices. McCain defended his pick ignoring everything that is negative, repeating all the false statements about her; and then saying yes, Joe Biden would be okay as president but he's been wrong about a lot and cited Gulf War I.

Well maybe Biden was and maybe he was not. Were there ways to resolve that without going to war? Might an administration that was better at diplomacy ahead of time, let Hussein know what would happen if he entered a neighboring country? I don't know the details of Biden's objection to authorization for that war; so can't say more about it but it was a perfect time for Obama to bring up issues about Palin's lack of knowledge, but he didn't do it.

It is possible that Obama really will have the ability to bring together the two parties when it is time to govern. If he doesn't feel a need to go for the gotchas, I don't think that's about lack of strength but more deciding where it matters enough to do it. Someone who can think ahead of time goes beyond the moment to where something leads. Clearly those arguments didn't lead to where he needed to go.

Watching the debate, I kept wondering why McCain kept referring to autism instead of Down's Syndrome when he was saying how much Palin knows about having a disabled baby. Claiming she is an expert based on having a four month old baby doesn't make sense. She hasn't begun to learn what that means from her own experiences. She might have done work with this cause previously, maybe the family has a history of such children (I don't know) but the fact she has a four month old baby certainly does not make her an expert even on Downs and from where did the autism come?

McCain showed his slim connection to reality when he discussed the campaigns and how they have been run and blamed Obama for what John Lewis said, thought he should have apologized for Lewis going too far. This was quite a disconnect to reality.You have a campaign that has people yelling out kill him and you think that Lewis saying what he did went too far? McCain never acknowledged that his fans were out of line and claimed he always stops them. He did twice but the rest of the time he and Palin appear to not hear what they don't want to hear. Palin has never rebuked any of them but nodded like yes, that's right.

There is no comparison to the difference in how these two campaigns have been run. There have been no threats on McCain's life at an Obama rally. Obama has never called him a liar. Obama has not stirred up emotions with suggestions that McCain is a traitor for picking a vice president who was connected to a group who wants to secede from this nation. When at Obama rallies, people even booed at McCain's name, something that is pretty mild in comparison to what we have heard coming from those McCain/Palin rallies, Obama has put out his hands and said we don't need that.

Obama doesn't go for the kill, but we are talking about our own country and people here who think they are being loyal to it. Some will never come around, but a need to get gotchas probably won't serve the next president well even if it might satisfy viewers of the debate who want some payback-- on both sides.

Hopefully all the viewers, who are still open to making a choice, saw the ideas and temperament from Obama that will persuade them of what I believe-- Obama is the right choice for our next president.

how we treat the weakest among us

It is nothing new that some humans glory in power over others. When Jesus was speaking in what is called The Sermon on the Mount, he said how you treat the weakest is how you treat me. There are several ways you can take that statement, but one is that he saw the connection between us all as souls united beyond the physical to one big organism.

Have you ever seen a quaking aspen grove? It looks like it's a lot of separate trees; but in reality, it's one organism under the ground. The trees come up from that same root structure. If humans recognized this about ourselves, we'd treat 'others' differently, if for no other reason than simple selfishness.

Instead, we see it as them against us. This damages our ability to deal with any kind of crisis when it's constantly a bad guys against good guys and gotchas are the only way to win. John McCain and Sarah Palin have been taking this to the nth degree, but it's been here in many forms for a long time.

Do anything to win and then say we will all work together? How exactly does that work when you have done all you can to character assassinate the 'other'?

On a deeper, even more poisonous level, it impacts how we see something like torture. Some people, even those who claim to be most religious, feel torture is not only all right, but approve of it: America the Global Pioneer of Torture. Does this thinking come out of shows like 24 that glorify torture as how the good guys win?

Countless times I have heard the reasoning that torture is okay because what if your loved one was kidnapped and a bad guy had them and you could get the bad guy and torture him to save your loved one, then you'd do it-- which translates into justifying government torture as a valid tactic. That example is so full of shit (pardon my French) that I can't repeat it without some cursing.

That example is not where torture has been happening. We are not talking about one person doing it but about a government policy, fishing expeditions where Bush either gave or allowed to be given the orders to do it.

Who have been the victims of torture? Many were released later as mistakes. Some were combatants caught up in a net and forced to confess to a crime that they may not have even known what it was but would say anything to finally get relief. There were those who, under torture, told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and here's where they are-- except they were not there. Torture probably led to some of those orange alerts for planned terrorist attacks that were never planned but someone had to say something to stop the pain.

Get it! Torture does not work except in movies! Torture is sadistic and it's the bad guys who do it or should be. Torture is about taking advantage of the weak and brutalizing someone because you can. It's ordering someone to do that to another human being thereby dehumanizing both. It's about some feeling empowered because they can order such done. It has also probably made trials in any real court of law impossible because of the abuse of what has been a civilizing set of rules and for what?

When McCain first ran for president, he was against torture. He knew very well that it doesn't work from first hand experience. It seems that was before he saw the polls and began his hedge. Might not be okay for the military to torture but might be okay for the CIA (so turn over prisoners to the CIA?). Did he lose his honorable stance in order to make points with a key voting block? In this country, especially in the South, it's a big deal to be pro-torture, a winning issue: Southern Evangelicals and Torture.

The irony is those who think this way often call themselves Christian while they are condoning torture as a perfectly valid approach to fighting terrorists who also torture. Christians? As in following who? "Whatever you do until the least of these, you do unto me." Matthew 25:40

Barack Obama's unequivocal statement on torture from October 4, 2007:

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It’s time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."

So where do you stand? There is a choice to make. Who are we as a people?From Farm Boss, for anyone interested in more information on quaking aspen groves: biogeography

Who is a hero and how do we know?

No problem in knowing who the hero/predator is on this cover to the DVD for Troy. In life, particularly the political realm, it's not so easy. Masks often disguise someone's identity. Playing roles is popular in politics. Life doesn't divide up so tidily as there are many dimension to humans. Then add to the difficulty, some would see all predators as being bad guys; so predators might feel they had to hide their nature in a world where the ruler isn't chosen through physical combat but by reasons that sometimes defy logic-- like fun at a barbecue or just like you.

So, considering predators where it comes to our political parties, Republicans probably see themselves as predator/meat eaters (once you define this as not good guy/bad guy) as they would identify Democrats as prey. Over and over in comments other places, I see Republicans referring to Obama as being a wuss, who Putin would roll right over (when they aren't scared Obama is a bad man).

Those Republicans seem to believe that's true of all Democrats (well maybe not Hillary). Their fear is Democrats won't protect us nor will they stand up for the country. Their logic ignores the fact that our biggest terrorist attack came under a Republican watch, and that our full-scale entries into WWII, The Korean and Vietnam Wars were under Democrats. Still the belief is real that Republicans will defend the country, and Democrats will bend over, cringing and beg please don't hurt me too much.

The Republican says, Grab the world around the throat and demand what you want from it, you wuss!

The Democrat says, We must make the world a better place; so that all are happier and live better lives. Who do you think you are, Caligula?

Republican (thinking it's likely an insult but unsure) sneers, ELITIST!

The last person who the right wing decided was tough enough to stand up to Putin saw, when he looked into the Russian leader's eyes, a soul mate. How sweet, how tender, but were they? Might Bush being a predator explain some of what he did where it came to torture and establishing gulags? Come on, is he really of the same material as Putin (who is as feral as they come)?

This will offend the right, but I see Bush as manipulated and used by those with much keener minds and wills than his own. Even with the power of the presidency behind him, the Secret Service to protect him, Dick Cheney to run the country, a father who had been a predator, Bush is what he has always been-- prey. Because he denied his nature, he was ineffective prey.

Despite my assessment of Bush, I would not expect predators or prey to be all in one or the other political party (whether good or bad). Would they naturally gravitate to one or the other? I don't know but kind of doubt it as many things determine whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, issues that wouldn't give away the person's nature. It usually takes some thought to figure out if a leader is predator or prey and then are they good or bad-- effective or ineffective--unless like Putin, it's out in the open and obvious to anyone.

As a Democrat my whole life, when I am evaluating candidates, I will always look for a strong, wily, good, and determined predator to be able to deal with the world as it is. If he has to play a little rough, as long as he stays honorable, I don't mind at all.

Obama has the social sensitivity, the goodness, and yes, effective predator skills to make my voting for him an easy call. He doesn't have to posture or pose. He just is. You see it in his eyes, his organization, his confidence, his focus, how he carries himself, the ideas he's thought through. He knows his territory and sees the problems ahead of time. I think some undecided voters do see his predator nature (without naming it), but it scares them because he's different from them. If he was of the prey species, they'd be more comfortable.

I understand some of you will not be comfortable with this idea of labeling humans as predator or prey, but think about it a bit. Next time you watch a political debate, watch a rally, listen to a speech, ask yourself-- predator or prey? Then add effective, ineffective, good or bad. The combination of effective predator and bad is the last thing we want in a leader (Putin).

Before George bush, I'd have thought that if we have to choose a 'bad' leader, if it is chosen for us, then hope it's prey; but after him, I am not so sure. What we want is someone who knows who they are and is good at it. There are times in history where choosing a leader who is effective, good prey might be the right choice. The worst is someone who wants to be one thing, hasn't developed the skills for what they actually are and then postures, poses and is fooled by those who know exactly what they are.

What about the hero as a leader? Is that for whom we should be looking? Heroes are defined by being courageous, people of brave deeds, noble qualities, who perform heroic acts. To be a hero takes doing either something phenomenal or a lifetime of heroic actions. One deed doesn't tell you anything because one of the ironies of life is the same person can do something heroic beyond imagining and turn right around and do something equally evil.

We have been told to vote for John McCain because he is a hero. Is he? Was he? To help you fully decide, read this from Rolling Stone on the Make-believe Maverick. (the link to this informative and fascinating article came from GYMA). Whatever else John McCain is, he's not boring.

In terms of literary metaphors, the problem with McCain as hero is, even by his own telling, he was shot down on his first mission or thereabouts. What he did was not fight but rather resist and refuse to be released when he could have been (something I now wonder about given his now revealed propensity for lying). In terms of archetypes, McCain is the noble martyr, not the hero. If we take his own story, he suffered for his friends, for his country. This is like the Christ or say Prometheus.

What about predator or prey? He's certainly been aggressive enough for how his temper overflows. Does coming across as rude and nasty, running a sleazy campaign, no ability to stay focused, no concrete plan, make him possibly a lousy predator? Or is he prey who was thrust into the role of hero by his family and his own experiences but he was never able to truly live up to it? That alone could make someone into the nasty person he clearly has been recently as he heads into Gollum territory.

Voting for someone, who is supposed to be a hero, can be dicey and most especially if he turns out to be prey where you then have to look around for who is the predator running the actual show.

Well, what can I say, this is the writer's mind free-associating and looking at these characters. It does relate to the obstacles voters face in assessing who will make for a strong leader in our particularly turbulent time.

Whether you do think in terms of predator and prey, hero or villain, don't count on the media to help figure it out. The media won't or can't tell. It is driven by a need for constant excitement, for stirring things up. It's up to us to watch as they debate, interact with others, speak out, write, live their lives, and run their campaigns. Right now, running their campaigns is our best clue before they end up in office, and we all figure out what they are but it's too late.

I think, like the Spartan king, Leonidas, Obama has developed the skill set that he needs to do this job. He stays focused, he is directed by good purposes. Some fear his power because they aren't used to an effective predator in a power position.

We haven't had such a fully developed person running for the presidency in my lifetime. Barack Obama is the total package (which doesn't mean he is perfect or has not made mistakes.He's no Messiah despite how some want to milk that to add to the fear of others). He's a person who is highly skilled for these times. I hope this country doesn't lose its opportunity as it's now as much about us as about him.

Just had to add this piece from another article which I thought interesting as an evaluation by David Brooks, not a liberal, as to how he saw Obama:

"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So I say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

"And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception." David Brooks

After reading comments in the last blog, I wanted to add one more thought. Darlene wrote that people might go in and out of being predator or prey in a lifetime. That could well be.

What I feel most concerned about is that we not find ourselves with a culture turned into ineffective prey by those who want to feed on those weaker than themselves. I think this would worry people in both parties. This can be avoided by strong education systems, by an economy that is fairly run where all have a chance to rise up based on their abilities.

Ideally such a culture would be teaching how to be the best at what someone is; so that whether it's by nature prey or predator, they operate in their effective zone (maybe switching into another operating mode, if they can, when it's required) and thereby make the most of their true nature.

There is nothing wrong or weak about prey when it's effective, but trying to be something someone is not by nature leads to failure. It's a pretty advanced way of thinking though and could schools do such in a culture such as ours that often mistakes aggression for being effective.

Second Presidential Debate

In my view, Barack Obama won this second presidential debate on substance and his overall view toward what needs to be done in the difficult times through which we are going. This election will be my twelfth time to vote for a United States President, and I have never felt so positive about any of the others for whom I have voted.

Obama's intelligence, his ability to use facts, his farsighted thinking all came though in this debate even more than it does in his speeches. Yes, he goes uhm, he doesn't have every answer ready the second the question is asked, he thinks about his answers, his words, but that's the thing. He does think.

This man truly has the most promise in his character, his emotional capacity, the most intellectual ability to carry out his ideas of any of those many candidates when sometimes I have voted for the lesser of evils. Not this year. I know I won't agree with every approach he will take, maybe not all of his ideas, but, to me, it's crystal clear that he has the most ability to work through this extremely turbulent time in history-- of which I also have never seen the like.

That Obama even wants the leadership right now says a lot for his character. He could easily have waited and let things play out, picking up the pieces later, but he has come forward when the country most needs him. He has put himself out there and not at little risk.

As for McCain. I can't write about him at the debate. I saw Palin last week act civil at a debate and go out and try to incite violence against Obama. I watched at one of his appearances as McCain kind of smirked when someone called Obama a terrorist. Those two are trying to incite a terrible act by some twisted mind and nothing McCain could have done at this debate could make up for what he has tried to unleash.

I just hope the Secret Service is extra alert, and all of us who pray or send white light for protection need to do so for Barack Obama and his wife. There are troubled minds in this world, and this week it looked to me like two of them are running for the highest offices in this land. They would not themselves do a violent deed; but if someone incites it, they are part of the whirlwind that follows. I only hope McCain sees this himself and backs off from what he's been inciting, goes back to the issues that this country faces, but it does not look hopeful-- so people, who care, need to be sending out protection for Obama and his family.

Joe Klein wrote Embarracuda about how embarrassed the right should be over where the extremists like Sean Hannity have encouraged John McCain and Sarah Palin to descend. If John McCain had honor, he threw it away this week. How can he ever get it back?

Here's another on Palin; and if this suits you to think this woman might be our next president, you long ago probably stopped reading this blog: Washington Post's Dana Milbank on the pitbull unleashed.

Let's look at this Ayers connection which Palin has been spouting off about and which McCain hopes to use to turn the campaign around. Ayers was a terrorist in the Vietnam War era. Should he have done time in prison for his evil and misguided attempts to bring the Vietnam War to an end? Yes. Ayers still doesn't admit he did wrong. So even though he now lives as an exemplar citizen who teaches in a university and works on education issues, he's not a guy I'd want to know.

What does Ayers have to do with Barack Obama? Not much. Obama said he didn't know what Ayers did when he first met him as a college professor who had written books on education. Should he have researched him before he allowed a kick-off to his senate race to be in Ayers home? Not hard to say yes-- now. Obama has said blowing up buildings is bad. I would guess as president he will not blow any up.

Why is Ayers even an issue? Mainly to avoid talking about what is. Some of these people, who are cheering on Palin's divisive hate talk and McCain's sly innuendos, still are mad that we lost the Vietnam War. I would like them to understand something. It's over. We did not get out of Vietnam because of Ayers. It was because the war didn't make sense to enough people; but what the heck, golly gee, fear doesn't operate on logic.

If you look at people's connections with bad guys, you have McCain on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program. Or even worse, his connection to this: Why McCain's Time with Council of World Freedom Matters. Or McCain and Iran Contra.

When bringing up these fringe groups, how about Palin with the Alaskan Independence Party, to which she never was an actual member but her husband was, where as governor, she gave an address in 2008 praising them?

AIP is a group who favors Alaska's secession from the United States. Their originator died in a plastic's explosive sale gone bad. How innocent. Now coming from the Pacific Northwest where some also favor the idea of forming their own nation, I don't think the idea of secession is totally wacko, but what I do think is she claims she's a patriot! To whom? Did you know that group encourages their members to infiltrate the major parties to bring about their chance to cut themselves loose from the US. Not surprising they'd think that way with all their oil wealth, but back to the question: is it patriotic?

It's almost tragic what McCain has done to attain the presidency. He doesn't care about issues. He accuses Obama of doing what he himself has done (wanting to win at any cost). I guess when it's what is in your heart, it's what you see in the heart of others.

McCain and Palin hear their crowd's cheer when they say inflammatory things. They seem to be okay when their audiences accuse Obama of being a terrorist or yell kill him. Are they surprised that this is where their words lead? If they don't like it, they show no sign as they smirk and don't try to bring sanity to those in the crowds who have clearly gone into hatred. Those cheers are coming from their base. Will any of this work with Americans at large? I don't know, but I don't see how it can if voters stop to think at all.

We are facing a LOT of big issues but the character of the people we are voting for does matter! So while Sarah Palin wants us to worry that William Ayers was giving Barack Obama bomb making instructions instead of meeting at board meetings around the problems of education, while John McCain is only mildly amused when someone in his audience answers his question of who Obama is by yelling out terrorist, while that's going on, what about the real problems the country faces?

People, who say they don't know what Barack Obama would do about any of these issues, are the same ones who fear he's a secret terrorist, the same ones who think a vice presidential candidate, who brings up Ayers, based on an article in the New York Times she either didn't read, didn't understand, or assumed the crowd wouldn't know what it said, they are the ones who believe that woman is fit to be president. Why is she fit? Well she's a woman, isn't she? She's nasty and they mistake meanness for power.

In the debate John McCain said this is no time for on the job training. I guess except for his vice president who he doesn't feel is able to face a press conference as he, Obama or Biden can do. The sad part is the people who loudly applaud McCain and Palin are likely to be the most hard hit by what is coming.

Worth reading for what we might need to do and what's happening:

David Brooks: Testing Time.
Bob Herbert: A Fool's Paradise.

Yes, Obama won the debate, and it's because of his character, his steadfastness, his intelligence and because his ideas are more sound. If you don't already think so, I hope you will read some of the links above. And then think hard on what you want for this country.