Hottie cabinet list?

This is so wrong and yet so right:

The Inappropriate Hottie Rundown

Hope and bitterness.

In 2004, after John Kerry was defeated, an acquaintance despaired. "I feel like I should just move out of the country," she said. She went on to name a litany of sins and mistakes from the campaign. Wrongs, she felt, that needed to be righted. And then she followed it all up with, "I mean, what can we possibly be expected to do now?"

To which I replied, "Move forward. Get behind our current President as much as we can and look for other ways to affect change."

She hasn't really spoken to me since. It would seem that some election wounds are too much to bear.

I see the same thing now. Although the majority of people on my small post in Germany are thrilled with the election outcome, I've now seen several people go off the deep end. A guy yelling at all of us watching election coverage at the gym, "You do know you just gave American to our enemies, don't you? You sheep just elected a Muslim and didn't even blink!" Another wife telling me that everyone who voted for Obama will burn in hell for all the babies he kills under his Presidency (to which, I admit, I replied, "Wait, we aren't liable for the ones killed under Bush?" -- I just couldn't resist). And then a young soldier who opted to use the 'n' word when referring to our President-Elect.

But there's always going to be some of that. But what I've seen more of is graciousness. Even from some die-hard Republicans. And that's been mixed with some hope and not more than a little wonder. I like it.

I don't know what the next four years will bring. Certainly, President-Elect Obama will have his work cut out for him with all that is happening in the world. But it heartens me that so many who were unwilling to give him their vote are willing to give him a chance.

Powell endorses Obama.

I think this is huge. I love Colin Powell. I've often wished that he would run for President.

Of course, my cousin cynically stated, as we watched the press conference after the announcement, that he was amazed that none of the reporters asked Powell whether his endorsement had anything to do with Obama being African American.

And I realized that I was a little surprised, too. That kind of bullshit seems to be what it's all about these days.

I'm so ready for this election to be over. Let's pick our President, stop the nastiness and just start moving forward.

Maybe she has a point.

Kathleen Parker, most well-known as a Republican Washington Post writer who has come out against Sarah Palin, wrote an interesting column last week entitled, "Call off the Pit Bull."

In it, she argues that McCain and Palin are subtly trying to make us think that Barack Obama is a terrorist. An excerpt:

Neither McCain nor Palin would dare mention Obama's middle name, Hussein, but they can play up Obama's past associations and let others connect the dots. Terrorist. Muslim. Dangerous. Other.

It is legitimate to question character and dubious associations -- and William Ayers is certifiably dubious. The truth is, Obama should have avoided Ayers, and his denouncement of Wright was tardy. But this is a dangerous game.

The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn't a Muslim or a terrorist, but they're willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.

I have to admit, I snorted a little when I read it. I mean, come on! Certainly, Parker doesn't think the average American voter is that dumb.

But then I saw this video.



Now I know that this video is an amateurish one. It could have been edited all sorts of ways. I'm sure there were many more people outside the rally who rolled their eyes when asked if Obama was a terrorist. Hell, it could have even been staged. But the anger in this video seems pretty real to me. And it floors me.

So once again, I wish we could start talking more about the ideas for our country instead of all this other bullshit.

Questions for those voting for McCain.

I've now seen several military spouse bloggers talk about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers. So I have a few questions:

(1) Re: Ayers, at what point do your present actions for good outweigh a sordid past? Or can it ever? Don't you think there's a big difference between Obama being linked to Ayers in the 60's on subversive activities versus him working on a conservative educational grant decades later?

(2) How are McCain's connections to some less-than-savory characters different, i.e., Charles Keating?

I'm very curious to hear the responses.

Debate? What debate?

All over the blog world, people are talking about the VP debate. Some are claiming the Biden win, others the Palin.

But the truth of the matter is, much like the Presidential debate before it, I doubt anyone learned anything new. If you were for Obama/Biden before, you still are. And if you were for McCain/Palin, there's no change there either.

Some people may just be wondering who the heck General McClellan is.

But me? I'm wondering what a Hillary Clinton/Sarah Palin debate would have looked like.

"Why do you think he's changed?"

Sarah asked the following question in response to my post, "You know, there's something wrong with the world:"

For curiosity's sake, can you explain what exactly McCain/Palin said this week that gave you pause? Why do you think he's changed?

It's a good question and I'll take it, though I'm guessing I'll get some hate mail out of it. =)

First, let me tackle why I think McCain has changed. Back in 2000, he said he did not support a repeal of Roe v. Wade. On that issue, he has definitely changed. And not only does his running mate support a full repeal but would also like to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest and a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother. He's also now changing his tune on financial deregulation since the economy SNAFU -- back in the early part of the campaign his staff said they saw no need for any credit or lending reform policies because it was all about consumer responsibility. Now, all of a sudden, that's not the case.

I also got the chance to see a few McCain ads. And particularly the one about Obama being for kindergarten sex-ed made my blood boil. Talk about negative and misleading! And worse, he's as much admitted that it is.

I believe, and this is my opinion, that when you compare McCain in 2000 and McCain in 2008 what you see is a man who has take a step further right to cater to the Evangelical and hardcore conservatives. If that's your bag, then that's a good thing. But if you aren't, it's not.

Second, I've now watched McCain on the View and a few other interviews. I thought they were good discussions. But what he has to say just isn't working for me. And frankly, then having Cindy McCain say that the View hosts "picked their bones clean" -- ummm, what happened to discussion, to questioning, to getting to the bottom of things? I thought the McCains more than held their own. Why come out with that line after that? I just didn't get it. It makes it seem there is no room for discussion, for new ideas. It's the McCain way or the highway.

And now, on to Sarah Palin. Where to begin.

First, love or hate the press, they are there for a reason. For a campaign continually referencing the importance of the Constitution, I think the banning of press from Palin's meetings is a kick in the teeth. People asking questions about Palin's qualifications is not sexist. Coddling her like a baby, limiting her interaction with the press so we cannot see what she stands for, is.

And then the interviews. I'm still waiting for a Republican to weigh in on whether, after her interviews with Gibson and Couric, whether they still think she is the right pick. What I see is a woman totally over her head. I see a woman who is not well versed on the issues that are most important to America today. What I see is a spokesmodel VP -- I think in a recent conversation I actually referred to her as a "trophy" VP. She looks great and definitely paints a picture. But she is not ready to be the VP, or potentially the President of our nation.

So there you go. I'm ready for the onslaught.

You know, there's something wrong with the world.

When the most balanced political coverage comes in the form of Glamour magazine.

After a lot of reading and a lot of soul searching, I've chosen my horse in this race. And it has to be Barack Obama.

(And please note, part of me hates to admit this because of the huge number of people in my life who will say, "I told you so!")

I would have voted for the John McCain in 2000 with no questions asked. But after hearing what he and Sarah Palin have had to say about the economy this week, I wonder if that man still exists. And so, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

I'm sure I'll get a few hate mails about this post. Full of how-could-I, don't-you-know, and what-makes-you-think kind of missives. But I've done a lot of thinking about this and my decision is made.

But what I hope for more than anything, honestly, is no matter how the race turns out that we can bridle some of this political passion to help work with the winning administration, Republican or Democrat, to get back to where we all want to be.

Do you know John A. Nagl?

You should. He's the equivalent of an Army rock star.

And he had an outstanding essay in the Washington Post last Sunday.

Calling all Republicans (again).

I want to hear what you thought of Charlie Gibson's Sarah Palin interview.

Obviously, the "left" is trashing it. But I want to hear from conservatives/Republicans if her responses were what were expected.

Now it's just getting ugly.

I haven't picked my political horse yet.

And I'm desperately reading, talking, doing what I can to learn more about what the candidates plan to actually "do" in office. For whatever reason, the cult of personality seems even more in force for this election. And that is having two second-order effects: (1) making it harder to see what the candidates are actually proposing, and (2) making it so that those who have picked their candidate are very emotionally -- even personally -- involved.

And #2 is becoming fairly hard to bear for a person who just wants to dig a little deeper.

What happened to a free exchange of ideas? What happened to trying to get past the veneer? What happened to the press being allowed to do their jobs so that we the people can make an informed decision? Why can't a person ask questions or even, God forbid, make a small criticism of a candidate without being branded a sheep, an idiot, the reason that America is in the state it is today?

And this is not directed at either party. This is something coming from both sides of the political spectrum. Now more than ever, it seems that when it comes to politics, people think "you are either with me or against me."

And I find that very sad.

A dog on hindered legs?

Read Judith Warner's thought-provoking column this week: The Mirrored Ceiling.

Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women?

You are not, I think, supposed now to say this. Just as, I am sure, you are certainly not supposed to feel that having Sarah Palin put forth as the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate is just about as respectful a gesture toward women as was John McCain’s suggestion, last month, that his wife participate in a topless beauty contest.

Such thoughts, we are told, are sexist. And elitist. After all, via Palin, we now hear without cease, the People are speaking. The “real” “authentic,” small-town “Everyday People,” of Hockey Moms and Blue Collar Dads whom even Rudolph Giuliani now invokes as an antidote to the cosmopolite Obamas and their backers in the liberal media. (Remind me please, once again, what was the name of the small town where Rudy grew up?)

Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?

For Cripes' sake.

Why does everyone automatically assume I'm voting for Obama? Seriously?

This is something that is coming from both political sides. From Republicans, "I know you are going to vote for Obama, but..." or "I just don't understand how you can vote for Obama..."

And then equally as aggravating, from the Democrats, "Thank goodness for Obama, right?" and "At least we've known who we were going to vote for from the beginning..."

I'm getting a little fed up, honestly.

I know it may seem ridiculous but I still don't know how I will cast my vote come November. I know where I stand on the issues but I'm not in agreement 100% with either of the candidates. I need to hear more from them than the tedious celebrity gossip fest that has been going on so far. I need more so I can make a decision based on reason instead of rhetoric.

Hopefully, that will start now that the pageantry is over.

Well, I watched.

Since Hillary dropped out of the race, I really had no idea which way I was going to vote. And though I found the Sarah Palin choice curious, I wanted to hear what she had to say before immediately writing her off. You know, as opposed to just reading what US Weekly and the National Enquirer had to say. So when I saw her speaking at the Republican National Convention on the gym TV this morning, I immediately plugged my headphones in, ready to listen.

I don't know why I bothered. I wasn't impressed.

For someone who came out against rhetoric, she certainly had more splash than substance in her own speech. And for someone who talked about how inappropriate it was to target her children, she certainly had no problems parading them up on stage as her own political props.

Maybe it's time to move to Germany. Oh wait. I did that already.

Um, remember that part about kids being off-limits?

The lovely and talented Miss Kimbaland linked to my post about feeling like a sexist concern Gov. Sarah Palin (thanks, Kimba!). I still feel the same way. I decided to console myself by purchasing a "Hooters" t-shirt on the Internet. Might as well embrace it.

But, OMIGOD, the whole circus around her daughter's recently announced pregnancy? This shit is playing like an episode of Desperate Housewives. All we need is a trashy looking Southern prostitute (gender optional), a midget and a ball gag to have ourselves some truly decadent entertainment.

Months ago, a friend of mine said that she would never vote for McCain because of a joke he made about Janet Reno being Chelsea Clinton's father at some public event 10 years ago. I can see why that wouldn't play. But that same friend is now completely enthralled with this Bristol Palin pregnancy blow-out. She even went so far as to call her a little slut. And ironically, she really doesn't see why everyone's obsession with Bristol Palin's reproductive organs is just as inappropriate. Even when you point out why it is. Funny how party lines can change things. And the Internet isn't being any kinder. I guess when you smell blood in the water, it doesn't matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.

Ignoring the politics, here we have a 17 year old girl whose sex life is now making the front page of newspapers. It's not right. So, please, let's we, as voters, Americans and decent people, let this one alone. Dislike Palin for her policies or personal values. Vote your conscience. But let's leave her daughter, who didn't ask to be the potential VP's kid, and her personal business out of it. And that includes whether Bristol is also the mother to Trig. It has nothing to do with Palin as a politician or a mother. It has nothing to do with us. Let's get beyond this so we can pay attention to what's really important -- an election that has the potential to change the course of history.


P.S. Kimba, I guess you could call me an independent. But in the past, my votes have generally gone towards liberal bed-wetting Democrats. They probably will this time, too. But I happily embrace the opportunity to listen and learn more about all the candidates. If only to get fodder for this blog.

Apparently, I'm a sexist.

Like many, I was very surprised by the Sarah Palin pick. But the more that I read about her, the more she seems like the kind of maverick that would complement McCain. Plus, it would also revitalize the campaign, which can't hurt.

But here's the thing. And I have a very hard time admitting it. But here goes.

Palin has a four-month-old Down's Syndrome child. The right is positioning this as a sign that Palin can put her money where her mouth is when it comes to pro-life policy (never mind that it was a *choice* that could equally stand up in a pro-choice context). They are saying this is a good thing. And while I applaud Palin for opting to keep a special needs child, I can't help but wonder how it will affect her duties as VP.

If I think the best of Palin, then I know that when her child needs her, that child will come first. And a child with Down's Syndrome is going to need her often. There are going to be doctor's appointments, tests, all manner of complications that could happen at any time. And given her son's young age, it is very unclear what those needs may be and how much time they will require. And of course, whether they will occur when it is convenient for the country.

At some point, I think that Palin will be put in a position where she has to choose between her child and the American people. Not only it is an unfair choice to put upon her but also unfair to that child and the people she was chosen to represent.

Of course, any pundit out there will say, "Would you say the same about a father who had a special needs child?" And I will tell you honestly -- a child with Down's Syndrome at 4 months of age? Yes. Yes, I would have concerns. I see it the same way I would a VP with severe health issues. (And in fact, after Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with cancer, I almost got slapped for telling someone that I thought that perhaps it would prove too much of a distraction for a leader of the free world).

Frankly, I just think it is just too hard to stay focused when there are so many unknowns, so many potential problems that take the VP's head away from where it needs to be -- on our country.

So, apparently I'm sexist. And since it's out there now, don't be surprised if I slap you on the ass and tell you to get me a beer.

(P.S. Now they are speculating that the baby isn't even Palin's. Oh vey).

Calling all Republicans!

Sarah Palin? Really?

What do you think? Good or bad choice?

John Edwards.

After the Edwards admission story broke, I wrote to a friend that I found myself surprised. She immediately emailed back and said, "Why?"

Perhaps I should clarify.

I'm not surprised that he's guilty of an affair. I'm surprised that he admitted it. I'm surprised that, in today's age of 24/7 coverage and citizen/paparazzi journalism, political candidates think they won't get caught. I'm surprised that Edwards would have the audacity to mention that he is "stripped bare" in his statement.

But most of all, I'm surprised that we give a shit. Because, really, why should we? When did fidelity become a benchmark for ability?

Bush or Batman?

Can you figure out who said it? Bush or Batman?

(And as an aside, it's really kind of sad when the New Yorker could learn a thing or two about satire from Comedy Central).

Overheard at the PX.

"Did you hear about John Edwards?"

"Did he get named Obama's VP?"

"Uh, no. He was apparently caught meeting up with his mistress and love child."

"Seriously?"

"So the news reported."

"Wow. And a kid, too?"

"Yes. Who must have been born all while his wife was battling cancer. Nice, huh?"

"What the hell is it about politicians and love children? Can't they afford birth control? I mean, John Edwards is a liberal. He's the one pushing for real education about safe sex. You'd think he'd learn a thing or two about practicing it."