Sarah+Michele 4eva!

I feel like the universe should probably have imploded upon the recent convergence of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann upon the unsuspecting voters of Minnesota. I think they violated natural laws about how many concurrent examples you could have of 10 pounds of crazy fitting into a five pound bag. The woman at the end of that article is wrong, though: I’m not threatened by the fact that Palin and Bachmann are successful women. My lack of respect for them stems from the fact that they say crazy and dangerous things which, sadly, is exactly why many people love them. Their sex isn’t of any interest to me, and jeebus knows there are more than enough loony toons male politicians out there.

I’m upset with The Wall Street Journal for taking my favorite imaginary band name (Bachmann-Palin Overdrive) and making it into the headline for a rather run-of-the-mill story. Fools! You need to save that kind of awesomeness for your A-material. No wonder print journalism is dying. Also, I’m not sure whether the idea of Palin-Bachmann 2010 is more amusing, or more frightening than just about everything else ever. It’s a thin line, folks. (Although I already know what should obviously be their theme song.)

I think that somebody could make a reality show of these two saying “Alaska” and “Minnesota” non-stop. I’d DVR the crap out of that program. Oh dear god, the accents! If these two had to exist and come from anywhere, I’m happy that it’s states with such interesting-sounding names. And then Tina Fey and her Mini-Me could spend hours and hours mocking them on SNL. I’d watch that, too.

I so often enjoy the world in my head much more than the one that I’m physically inhabiting.

Oh please, oh please, oh please…

My buddy, Sarah Palin, has decided to step down from her post as governor of Alaska. Initially, people thought that this might be to give her time to get her act together, so that she could run for president in 2012. And, seriously: how sweet would that be? With Palin as the Republican nominee, Obama could introduce Hookers and Blow Tuesdays in the Oval Office and still beat her handily.

The timing of this announcement can only be called curious; much like Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey’s announcement of their divorce immediately prior to Thanksgiving, Ms. Palin’s July 3 press conference seems like nothing so much as an attempt to dodge as much of the media as possible during this holiday break. The Mudflats, a web site from Alaska that I visited a few times during the presidential election, linked to a transcript of Ms. Palin’s speech and provided some speculation as to why she would step down as governor (rhymes with “skimbezzlement”).

I wonder, too, if this has anything to do with the tell-all book about Ms. Palin that is being written by Steve Schmidt, her former campaign strategist (and the guy who picked her to run with John McCain; do we really trust his judgment anymore??); Gawker had a juicy tidbit from it the other day, and if the rest of it is as forehead-slappingly stupid as this bit, no wonder the woman wants out before publication. Gawker also speculates as to why the Alaska governor decided to resign her post.

Doing a quick look around the tubes and twitter, it seems that trouble with the IRS is the most prevalent theory. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Somebody’s maturing, but I can’t say who

A year and some change ago, when she was still heard from all the time, I might have expressed a conservative amount of glee at the fact that Ann Coulter has broken her jaw. Mean, I know, but I’ve never pretended to be that nice. But the thing is, Ann has either mellowed, or people have stopped reporting on her nastiness, or maybe I’m just growing up, but this news makes me feel bad for her. A broken jaw seems like a horrific injury, and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody.

Also, after hearing all the untrained, unfocused vitriolic craziness that was passed off as cogent political commentary during the election cycle, I actually missed Ann a bit. She can be horribly mean and play to people’s worst fears, but she does it with a kind of style. I think that people know by now that Ann Coulter loves being reported on in the media she pretends to abhor, and therefore tend to take even the nastiest things she says with a grain of salt because of it. Plus, she has been known to talk a bit of smack about Republicans too, while a lot of the new breed seem to find Republicans to be above the type of scrutiny they direct toward Democrats. Unlike other conservative and Republican commentators, Coulter never seems like a psycho ranter; lots of people, myself included, often doubt that she means a lot of the horrible things that she says. People have even questioned whether “Ann Coulter” isn’t the best bit of performance art since Andy Kaufman, as Ann-the-person seems infinitely more likable and sensible than Ann-the-commentator. Even to people who should know better, Ann Coulter often comes off as too reasonable to be as deluded as her words would have you think. Did anybody ever believe that about Sarah Palin? Not that I’ve heard. In fact, I feel it’s much more likely that Governor Palin has deep reserves of crazy that she hasn’t even drilled into yet.

So: Godspeed, Ann. I wish you the most painless and quick recovery possible, and look forward to the day when the sight of you opening your mouth once again annoys me.

The one where everybody lies

I was talking last night to a good friend who lives in Virginia, when she brought up the election. I know that she’s usually pretty indifferent to politics and her husband are generally skews right, so I wouldn’t have introduced the subject at all. But once she asked me who I was voting for (Obama) and whether I vote in every election or just presidential (all of them, baby), I felt comfortable asking her the same. She said that she was as yet undecided, which was kind of monumental for her. Usually she just votes for whoever her husband supports, so the fact that she has not definitively decided to do so made me realize that she was actually kind of invested in this election. So I told her the specific reasons for my choice, and phrased it in such as way as to say why I was not voting for John McCain, rather than why I was voting for Obama. I think that enough people can enumerate all the rah rah explanations for their choice of Obama, and I didn’t want to appear too partisan. So I stuck with the policies of McCain that I don’t like, such as his support for continuing Guantanamo Bay, his tax plan, his reversal of his initial stance against torture, his health care plan (this is a big one, as she is in the health care field), and his pick of a running mate.

Surprisingly, my friend wasn’t too big on Palin, either. I somehow thought she might be into her, but thankfully this isn’t the case. I said that Palin seemed to be unable to separate her personal religious beliefs from other peoples’ rights, and that I did not want my life to be governed according to Palin’s understanding of Christianity. My friend, whose husband is religious but is herself actually atheist/agnostic, seemed to understand where I was coming from with this one, and furthermore brought up Troopergate. I don’t think that Palin did herself any favors with that one. We agreed that Palin does not seem to have the kind of temperament that one would want in a (vice)president, and that John McCain, with his frequent expressions of intense anger doesn’t either.

Then we finally got to the part of our conversation that, to me, illustrates why we are such good friends: we are in complete agreement that politicians are pretty much lacking in something (integrity, decency, honesty, some essential human thing), and that there’s probably something wrong with you if you want to be one. Probably. I do know a couple of people who have expressed an interest in entering local politics, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it gave me pause and made me reevaluate my opinions of them. You pretty much have to sell your soul to participate in American politics.

The thing that we all have to remember is that politicians will say anything. It’s better now that we have youtube and cell phone cameras and whatnot, because they can’t just go around saying whatever they want without fear of being held accountable, but still… As a politician, you learn that not only will you compromise, but you will do so in key situations and at some point go back on your word. You are a professional liar, hand-shaker, and meeting-attender. Why would anybody sign up for this? Because there’s something fundamentally wrong with them, that’s why. I know that we need politicians and, anyway, politics are a great way to funnel all the self-promoters into a job that 1) gives them the recognition they crave and 2) allow us to identify them on sight and avoid them, 3) sometimes results in good things happening for the rest of us.

I’m really into politics because I care what happens in this world, and I want to feel like I have a say in the direction of my life, but I know that this is a flawed, flawed system. Maybe I should run for office and fix it.

Kidding.

The world outside my bubble

This presidential election is so dramatic and action-filled that I really haven’t been paying much attention to other races across the country. I mean, it seems like Lautenberg kind of has the Senate race sewn up in New Jersey, so I was content not to know what else was going on around the country. BUT then I woke up and started to be myself again, and decided to familiarize myself with other races that are going on. Two races that caught my interest are taking place in Minnesota and North Carolina. Actor/writer/producer, Air America founder, and impassioned proponent of progressive politics, Al Franken, is running on the Democratic ticket in Minnesota against one-term Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. Right now, polls have Franken leading Colemen 43% to 37%, with Independent candidate Dean Barkley having as much as 19% of the vote. Last month, Coleman was ahead of Franken, so this reversal is interesting indeed. When I read this, I was a little surprised at Franken’s ability to gain traction in Minnesota, but then I remembered that this is the state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor (NTTAWWT). Franken and Coleman’s numbers are rather close, and when you throw in the presence of a third party candidate, this race is definitely one to watch. It’s also interesting to note that Barack Obama has opened up a modest lead over John McCain in Minnesota.

The race in North Carolina is also close; polls show that Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole has 44% of the vote, while Democratic challenger Kay Hagan has 49%. A third party candidate, Libertarian Christopher Cole has support from about 2% of the electorate, but in such a close race, even that small percentage could help decide the outcome of the race. I am fascinated by this race because it is dominated by two accomplished women. I know nothing about Hagan that I did not learn in writing this post, but I have admired Elizabeth Dole for years. She’s a smart, well-educated, interesting woman who is easily the equal of her politically powerful husband. If any woman would do, and Sarah Palin’s collapse under scrutiny would seem to illustrate that this was the case, why couldn’t John McCain have picked someone like her? Or Maine Senator Olympia Snowe? Either one of these women would have helped make a compelling ticket with much more of a fighting chance.

Wait, really?

I haven’t spoken about the Biden – Palin debate that took place the other night, which is a rather glaring omission. This was likely the most-watched political event EVER, and it definitely bears some consideration. I will say this: it probably wasn’t the debate that most people were expecting to see. It wasn’t a train wreck. Sarah Palin’s performance was neither crash-and-burn bad, nor did it reach the levels expected by those who believed that she was lulling Biden into complacency and setting him up for a massive trouncing. This actually bears repeating: it wasn’t a train wreck, but there were signs of a less-than-stellar performance by Palin. She pretty much immediately pitted herself against Biden and moderator Gwen Ifill, so that if and when she did not fully answer their questions, it would appear to be intentional and not due to ignorance. She stuck like glue to her talking points, but did it in such an obvious way (repeating the same MAVERICK! phrases ELITE! a lot WASHINGTON INSIDER!) that she did not come across so much prepared to debate as she did rehearsed to perform.  Biden did a good job of answering the questions put to him without looking like a bully, which is impressive, since he came across that way a bit when he was responding to Obama during the Democratic candidate debate. On the whole, I doubt that either candidate influenced anybody who wasn’t already inclined to be on his or her side. A transcript of the debate can be found here.

Today, I ran across this funny chart a couple of times, and thought I’d share it:

If you’d like to read more from the man who created this flow chart, click here.

Here they go again

In advance of tomorrow’s vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, is being attacked for a book that she wrote called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. This book is being published in 2009, and is not available to be read, yet some people have exercised their powers of precognition to determine that she is somehow biased in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket, and cannot possibly be fair. Now, to be honest, it’s not impossible to believe that personal biases or loyalties can influence how one moderates a debate; just ask George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. I don’t think that anybody who was paying attention has forgotten how awful they were when they moderated a debate between the Democratic candidates earlier this year. They asked stupid questions, soft-balled Clinton (at least Stephanopoulos did), and took almost an hour to get to substantive questions regarding Iraq, Iran, and other issues meaningful to voters.

So, it’s not impossible to believe that a debate moderator can be too much for one side or the other. But it seems insulting to insinuate that, because she is a known supporter of Democratic politics, Gwen Ifill won’t be able to attain the level of fairness and bipartisanship required of a good moderator. Maybe the questions about Ifill are warranted and come from people who are genuinely concerned about witnessing a fair debate. But maybe not.

Let’s give a moment of though to what else could possible be fueling these speculations about Ifill’s fitness as moderator. Could it be fear? A lot of the furor over this issue has been raised by Republicans and others on the right. Perhaps concern about Sarah Palin’s prospects in a debate has also contributed to questions about Ifill’s commitment to a fair debate. Let’s face it: during her interview with Katie Couric, Vice Presidential nominee Palin did not shine. In one of the most difficult exchanges to watch, she demonstrated that she did not understand the causes of the current economic collapse, and could therefore offer no cogent or even coherent answer regarding what the country’s next steps should be. Maybe it was nerves, or maybe the slowing dawning realization that she’s totally unfit for the job she’s in the running for, but Governor Palin’s miserable performance definitely did not win over anybody who wasn’t already aligned with her.

Actually, pretty much every televised appearance by Sarah Palin that has followed her energizing, successful, nasty, and entirely scripted coming out party at the Republican National Convention, has shown her to be completely out of her depth. Like the current president, she has shown herself not to be a convincing, confident extemporaneous speaker. Like him, she also seems to have trouble grasping the details and nuances of issues of great national and global import.

Unless her peformances during the month of September were part of a carefully-orchestrated Machiavellian strategy to sharply lower expectations and lull Joe Biden into a false sense of security, she is in big trouble tomorrow. And what better way to negate unflattering day-after assessments in the press than by deflecting attention onto the moderator, before the debate even begins! If Ifill asks tough questions that Palin cannot answer intelligently, then this will be used as proof of Ifill’s supposed biases, and she will be called a bully. If the bruhaha makes Ifill ask easier questions that Palin can answer in a way that makes her seem more aware than she has in any of her recent appearances, then the right will be able to say, “Look! We told you that she know what she was talking about.”

I would love to be excited to see a woman excel on a national stage at such a high level in politics, but nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me that Sarah Palin is going to be that woman.

Too Funny Not to Share

I wanted to share a video that I first saw on Jezebel, because it is just that hilarious.

Then they came for the librarians

I don’t normally end up laughing in actual amusement when I read editorials in the New York Times. Mostly, I’m laughing in disbelief, like “Did s/he really just say that?” So I was pretty shocked today to find what Gail Collins had to say to be both salient and amusing. The salience was already the icing on the cake, so the amusement factor was wholly unexpected, yet appreciated. Here’s the column.

Apparently, my nausea last night meant that I missed the part where Palin bragged about threatening to fire the town librarian for refusing to censor books. Sorry, but even if the rest of your speech didn’t make me feel ill, I would never have cheered at the thought of using mayoral power to threaten a librarian. It’s not the job of librarians to censor books. If you’re concerned with your children’s reading habits, or what they may be exposed to, visit the library with them and talk about what you do or do not want them to read. This is another part of parenting. I think enough people have piled onto Palin’s parental fitness with not nearly enough evidence, so I don’t say that expecting the library to do this is bad parenting. I will, however, say that it is passing off important family decisions that people probably should not expect strangers to make for them.

What ever happened to kindness?

I am not the world’s most enthusiastic Obama supporter, but enough of my positions are close to his that I feel comfortable voting for him. I don’t feel like the Republican party addresses my concerns, but I’v never actively hated them, or regarded them with the ridicule that I see in a lot of my Democrat peers. I understand that 2008 is an election year, and people will do what they feel necessary to try to get elected. STILL I was disgusted by both Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin’s speeches. Guiliani has no hope of getting elected to a higher office than the one he’s already held, so it didn’t hurt him to give a nasty, unsubtle, totally negative speech about the Democratic candidates. He has nothing to lose and it bought him a little goodwill from people who six months ago wouldn’t have spit on him if he was on fire.

But I was totally unprepared for how nasty Palin’s speech was. She’s been raked over the coals by a lot of people in the last week, but the Democratic ticket did not participate in the very public rehashing of all of her family’s business. They didn’t condemn either her or her daughter, and didn’t question Palin’s decision to stay in the presidential race. So why would Palin give such a dirty speech, and take cheap shot after cheap shot at Obama? The qualifications and half-truths were bad enough, but outright lies about death taxes and clean coal really make me wonder why the Republican powers that be would think it necessary to craft and deliver this speech. It definitely played to the rabid base in the convention hall, but I can’t imagine it going over well with moderates. And for somebody who considers herself a strong and committed Christian, I really wonder how such a dirty attack could be considered in any way Christ-like. In terms of delivery, she totally nailed her speech. In terms of content, Ms. Palin did little to solidify her own party’s positions on issues and gave the kind of light-on-actual-information speech that Republicans often accuse Obama of giving.