To all my cat loving friends who voted for Obama

Crocodile tears of joy?

Hey, Jesse, still wanna cut off Obama's nuts?

Footnotes

At 10 pm last night, with the vote counts coming in from the west coast, MSNBC announced Barack Obama the projected winner of this long campaign. Soon after, I listened to McCain's concession speech, thinking it was moving, it was focused, it was concise...all the qualities that his speeches had lost in the final leg of his campaign.

It was also gracious. As I just commented on a friend's blog this morning, if only those who voted for him could be just as gracious, I thought as I heard boos echoing from his audience at the mention of Obama.

Being a stay at home mom and hermit, I am usually not subjected to "in your face" opinions of others. My husband and daughter hear the voices of ill-content at their workplaces, and what they tell me just makes me shake me head in amazement and a sense of sadness. Too bad they can't hit the delete button like I can with mass emails spouting the same.

Last night was an emotional night. I tried to take it in stoic stride, but it was difficult. It's an exciting time, a watershed moment. I keep on hearing people comparing this time to that of when John Kennedy ran for President. I don't like making comparisons like that. People should be allowed to stand in their own shadow, not somebody elses', though I wonder if this is how my parents felt back in November, 1960.

Obama, now is the time to deliver. America, now is the time to give him time, the chance and realize that change doesn't happen overnight.

Thoughts on Election Night

The way the numbers are tumbling in, I guess I could turn off the telly, crawl into bed, and sleep the sleep of the deliriously happy...then I remember those eight years ago when I crawled into bed, sleeping with the though of a Democratic win, only to wake up with Chad.

Who the hell was Chad, and why was he hanging? Anyway, we all know the rest.

I think I will stay up and watch until it's a done deal. Besides, I doubt I will ever see another election night like this again in my lifetime, and I'd like to take this all in and have something to tell my grandchildren. You know, y-e-a-r-s down the line. You hear that, Robyn? Y-E-A-R-S!

Looking ahead, who will the Republicans have waiting in the wings for the 2012 run? They must have someone else besides Sarah Palin that could possibly light a fire under their collective you knows.

FOOTNOTE: CNN just called it! I can go to bed now, but I'm too excited to sleep!

Commercial time in the end stretch

Last night I watched Obama's "infomercial", as it has been called. I thought it was well done. It hit the right notes, it tugged at the right strings. It showed a man in control, who talked in dulcet tones, elegantly and precisely. Even though it was a well crafted piece of theatre, Obama delivered his lines with belief and conviction and a true caring...something W. could never do, for the smirk in his voice would give him away.

I'm sure though, all it did was "preach to the choir". Maybe a few who are supporting the opposing side tuned in to watch, in some bizarrely curious way, kind of in the way I will occasionally sit and watch Bill O'Reilly, screaming at his bloated, talking head.

Hopefully it swayed the fence-sitters, help shift their view, make it harder for them to perch on the pickets. I just hope the sway is in Obama's direction.

This morning, I turn on the morning news to McCain talking about Obama and his "broken promises". Promises of sitting down together and discussing public financing. A chat across the table that never materialized, for whatever reason.

"Talk me down!", as Rachel Maddow pleads in one of her segments of her nightly show on MSNBC. Please explain to how Barack Obama's commercial (and the millions that it cost to produce) isn't going to be his demise in the end.

It's a valid question. Was a promise broken? And if so, why? Or is this just McCain crying "sour grapes" because his campaign didn't light fires like Obama's? I admit, I am not very savvy when it comes to politics, and even less when it comes to the financial side of politics.

In hindsight, maybe it wasn't the wisest choice for Obama to run a thirty minute spot on most of the major networks. Actually, if one wanted to see the mettle of the man, all one had to do was go back to his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, a young man not running for President, but just at the very beginnings of his Senatorial career. Four years later, his message is the same. It shows his message from last night is not merely the rhetoric of presidential aspirations, it is a true message of hope.

The Home Stretch

In past postings where there was a political theme. I spent most of the time bashing Sarah Palin (because she is such an easy target) and John McCain, than highlighting what I thought were positive aspects of Barack Obama, and why I feel he should be the next President of the United States.

I guess it's more entertaining to rail against than it is to rally for, definitely a trap I fell in. Is it to easier to drive the point home in a negative, rusty old land shark that's spewing foul exhaust, clunking through an alley than in a shiny, perky electric scooter-car, humming quietly down a tree-lined avenue?

That might have been an unintentional analogy, but anyway...

In political circles, I am sure that there is nary a one who has tread the political waters who hasn't sat in a room, or dealt with a group who at one time or another had less than shining reputations. That being the case, every politician probably is or was guilty of something at one time or another, if one wants to take the 'guilt by association' route. So, last night when McCain, without segue, threw out the Bill Ayers gauntlet, Obama took the gauntlet, examined it, and explained it for what it was. It was a simple glove. He then set it aside and went back to the issues.

But, such is life in political debates. Mob mentality dictates a Jerry Springer atmosphere, if the past rallies are any indication. They want to see the folding ladders and chairs thrown into the wrestling ring, because they know that is when the fight is really going to get bloody.

Last night, Barack Obama looked at the ladders and folding chairs and pointed out that they were made of light-weight aluminum. He cold have easily picked up the folding chair and hauled off with "The Keating Five", but he didn't. Instead he calmly, rationally spoke about what America is really interested in hearing...what are the problems, and how he believes his path is the one to take in fixing them.

Round One

Yes, I watched the first debate last night. I wondered if I had listened to the debate instead, would I have came away with a different opinion. I had read stories back in the day about the Nixon/Kennedy debates that those who listened to the debate on the radio felt that Nixon did very well, whereas those who watched the debate on television, which happened to be the first televised Presidential debate, felt Kennedy walked away with the prize. After all, on radio, no one can see you sweat, as Nixon did profusely on stage, not to mention his over all ill-at-ease demeanor portrayed on televisions across the nation.

So, as much as I tried, I could not ignore the posturing and body language and McCain's totally lack of eye contact towards Obama last night during the first debate. Where Obama stood tall, and actually turned and looked at McCain (okay, at first it was at folksy Jim Lehrer's urging), debating not only issues, but the man himself, McCain hunched over his podium, and smirked his way through the debate, barely turning an eye towards his opponent.

And, if I were to close my eyes, as I am mentally doing so at this moment and recalling what I heard, I come away with two opposing voices, phrases repeated over and over...how many times McCain pointed out that Obama was naive and doesn't understand, whereas Obama pointed out that in many instances McCain was right with some of his decision making in the past.

Obama gave McCain's credit it's due, whereas McCain gave Obama no quarter. Not like Obama was asking.

For the most part, I felt the debate last night was tit-for-tat. I don't think either one rode away with the political brass ring in a major way. Both dodged questions, gave half answers, stuck by their strengths, played in their safety zones. The usual way Presidential debates go..no surprise there.

But at least Obama stepped out of his to admit when McCain was right.

But, then, according to McCain, Obama is naive and just doesn't understand.

A man hears what he wants to hear...

In a stop in Virgina, Barack Obama, obviously not listening to the little voices in his head screaming "SHUT UP!!!!", spoke (mis-, or otherwise) on the McCain/Palin ticket...

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Most people heard this metaphor, loose as it was, and depending what side of the fence they were on, ran with it. Or not.

Did he call Sarah Palin a "pig"? Did he say Sarah Palin wears lipstick? Did she call John McCain a pig, if Palin were to give McCain a kiss?

Better yet, did Obama just say something stupid in the heat of the moment? Most likely.

Since Obama was so metaphorically inclined, he should have said something along the lines of "making a silk purse from a sow's ear". I mean, I think that is where Obama was heading, or least trying to, with his lipsticked pig metaphor.

Other words, Obama was most likely pointing out that the "Oh, wow, gee-whiz!!!" that is Sarah Palin is an attempt to cover the fact that, hey, this is still John McCain, this is still the possibility of four more years of the past eight years, this is still business as usual, but with a new player...who I point out (and hopefully most people) is not a pig, may wear lipstick, may own silk purses, and is not a sow's ear.

I am reminded of my favorite of all metaphors, pointing out how easily manipulated we, the masses are:

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances--Wm. Shakespeare

What if?

Newsweek ran an article entitled "So What If He Were Muslim?", which pointed out the religious bias and prejudice that runs through, as this article concentrates on, the political arena. The article also pointed out briefly the political run of Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and the fact that there hasn't been a Roman Catholic in the White House since JFK. So, religious bias has been muddying the political waters long before this election, yet not as strongly as today.

So many people have tried very hard to color Barack Obama with the Muslim-laden paint brush from the very beginning of his political run, based on mass emails, and opinions of my DH's co-workers, from what he tells me, although I doubt his workplace is of the exception.

"I'm not votin' for no Muslim!" seems to be the daily rally cry in the break room, when it has been made very clear that Obama is not a Muslim (as if that should really matter). And there is nothing one can say to these people to sway their opinion, which makes me wonder what is the real issue here.

When I read the above mentioned article, I started thinking, "What if Barack Obama's name was 'John Smith', and he was a long time Protestant, who just happened to have a father who wasn't a Caucasian...a black man?"

What if 9/11 never happened? What if Muslims weren't thought of as "Enemy No.1" by many as the Japanese were after Pearl Harbor?

What if no one could label Barack Obama with anything besides the obvious?

I think the real issue would come to light, and I wonder how many would be as eager to voice their racial prejudice as easily as their religious/cultural prejudice? I wonder what the mass e-mails would look like then?

I bet if you rip off the label of the Muslim paint can, you will find the original label underneath.

It's all racism, no matter how one paints it.

The Bully Pulpit

**disclaimer: I'm not very well versed in the area of political opinion, but I am opinionated, nonetheless**

According to msnbc.com news, Barack Obama has resigned from his home branch of the Trinity United Church (oh, I am sure the bulk emails will be flying with claims of "see, he really is a Muslim, he denounced the Christan faith!!!). He saw that every time divisive comments were made by his pastor, Rev. Wright, and just recently by Rev. Pfleger, who depicted and mocked Clinton as a crybaby, whining about how Obama, a black man, "stole her show", those comments reflected badly not only on him and his campaign, but on his church as a whole.

This whole issue made me ask myself, "should the church pulpit be used for political opinion?". In the case of abortion, which churches see as a moral, ethical and religious issue, I know there is a fine line there. I believe though, that the line gets crossed when the pulpit is used to sway the congregation as to who to vote for in an upcoming election as some churches are known to do (you could vote for so-in-so, but just don't be standing in the wafer isle). My personal opinion on that is, God will be the one dealing with me when the time comes, until then, I'm sitting in yr pewz, singing yr hymz.

Well, hypothetically speaking, because with the exception of my sister's wedding last year, my feet haven't stepped on Holy Ground for quite some time now. But, digressing as usual...

In the cases of Rev Wright and Rev. Pfleger, the rhetoric was far from doctrinal issues, and very much personal political opinion. Comments were said purposely to entice, inflame, and hopefully gainer 15 minutes of fame.

On the other hand, and you know there always is one, politicians make it a habit to visit churches, be guest speakers during election time. They reach out to widen their popularity base. Press the Flesh en masse, no pun intended. They turn the religious pulpit into a political one. The are not told, "Okay, you got five minutes up there, but no discussing Iraq, or taxes, or the price of gas."

So, it stands to reason that the religious head of these pulpits would do the same during their hypothetical five minutes ('hypothetical',because if a reverend were to only speak for five minutes during a sermon, that's a church I'd want to go to).

But the thing is, should they? Should the clergy spout personal political opinion? Does one go to church to listen to the Word of God, or to listen to a political pundit? Or a political rally?