Barack and Religion

I was reminded today of Barack Obama's reaction to Don Imus' "nappy headed ho" comment. He rightly condemned it, stating that his daughters were "beautiful, African-American, tall, and I hope someday will be interested enough in sports to earn a scholarship." He was offended for his daughters as African-American women.as he ought to have been. When asked if Imus should be fired, he stated that, "I don't want to enable programming consisting of such offensive comments," and," he wouldn't be working for me."

Okay, fine. I'm with him all the way. I was, as a woman and as an American, EXTREMELY offended by Imus' remarks, and even more, puzzled by them. I also felt he should have been fired.

Contrast this reaction to his reaction towards his 'spiritual mentor' (and, no matter how he denies it, his political adviser), whose comments he initially felt were 'no big deal.' What I don't understand is why he would fire Imus but not fire his spiritual mentor. Why he is offended for his daughters when they are attacked as African American women, but not when they are attacked as white women. I dont understand why he is not offended for his wife, whom he has described as carrying the blood of slaves and slave owners. When Rev. Wright attacked white people, he was attacking Barack Obama's FAMILY. When he attacked this country from the pulpit, he was attacking EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in that sanctuary. Yet, Barack Obama seems to have no problem at ALL with that. Doesn't think it's any big deal. Doesn't think having his children being TAUGHT this is a problem.

What message is he sending to his children by his silence and refusal to 'abandon' Mr. Wright, by having his children listen to such attacks on them, and hardly daring to even MENTION the family that RAISED him until it was expedient for him to do so? Seems to me that the message he's sending to them is that half of who he is (really more, when you consider they are the ones who RAISED him) and a great portion of who THEY are is something of which to be ashamed, to hide and to pretend is non-existent-- unless it suddenly benefits you to trot it out. Is that the message we should be sending to our children? Isn't that what offended so many blacks about those who 'passed' years ago? Is that REALLY the message he wants to send to the majority of American voters?

That hatred by one individual is more acceptable than hatred by another?

The Potomac Primary

Well, the voting is over-- for us, anyway. Despite the very bad weather, a large number of people voted. ESPECIALLY for a primary. I did go vote, though the weather was bad. We DID get to leave school a LITTLE early, and I went to vote immediately.... and was told that I was in the wrong place. What? I've been coming here for five years! Yes, well, apparently they changed some polling places-- I guess there have been a lot of people moving into the area, so they needed a second polling place. So, off I go-- it wasn't all that far away, so that was good. The thing that bothered me when I went in to vote (aside from the fact that there are just these little stands with small sides, no real privacy at all) was that there was a sign as you go in that says, "No children under the age of 12 will be allowed into the voting booths."

WHAT? First, only children 12 and over need to understand about voting? I remember going with my mom from the time I was little; it was an adventure, and she'd let me pull the lever to cast the vote after she'd made her selections. And, second, what about parents who don't have anyone to watch their child while they vote? They don't deserve to vote? That upset me.

ANYWAY, voting went well, no major lines, actually-- despite the fact that turnout was high.

However, today people are asking why Hillary and Huckabee don't just quit. Um, excuse me? I could SORT of see it with Huckabee; after all, he is over 500 delegates behind. But, even so, he has obviously touched a nerve with the ultra-right neo-cons, and has the ability at this point to have a very important voice at the RNC, so why would he quit? Not to mention, he seems to be angling for VP, though he says he isn't.

And, as for Hillary, she and Obama are within a VERY few delegates of each other. Why would ANYONE even THINK of asking why she doesn't quit? Did people ask Obama why HE didn't quit when he was several delegates behind (but still relatively close?). No, because it wouldn't have made sense. And it doesn't make sense here, either. We still have more than 1/4 of the primaries to go, and some very large, important states still. I can't imagine why anyone who is still in it would get out now. Even Giuliani didn't quit, he just suspended his campaign.

Supposedly, it is to allow 'unification' of the parties, so they can get behind a candidate and begin to think about November and a VP candidate. In my opinion, it's still way too early to even think about those things. We are looking at a possibly brokered convention on the Democrat side, and even possibly on the Republican side, if McCain doesn't get the required number of delegates. Which IS possible, because a LOT of Republicans are refusing to vote for him.

And that could cause some MAJOR problems if he is the candidate in November. There are lots of people who are saying they will either just stay home or vote for Hillary/Barack.

It's going to be a LONG 9 months!!!!!!

Likeability

I was listening to the radio on the way home from work today and again heard this claim that in presidential campaigns, the most 'likable' candidate wins. I've heard this before. I've even heard this about Hitler. How he was charming and had charisma in person. I have never seen it in any of the films I've seen of him-- in all of them, he looks to me like a madman, out of control. His eyes were some of the darkest I've ever seen, showing the deep mental illness that was there.

I wanted to ask "WHAT is your definition of likable?" since it was implied that (except for Ford/Cater, who were both likable, but Ford pardoned Nixon), the most likable candidate has always won... and that somehow, McCain is more likable than Hillary, but Barack is more likable than McCain. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to.... so I decided to do some research into what most people consider the definition of 'likable.'

'Charisma' is one definition of likability. Part of that is 'making one feel good about him/herself when in your presence.' Or evoking sympathy or empathy. Or agreeable.

Now, all of these make sense. To me, someone who is likable is sympathetic or empathetic him/herself. I really truly believe that the eyes are the window to the soul, and to be likable to me, a person needs to have something in their eyes that tells me there's a 'there' there. That there's some depth and that there is genuine interest in and concern for others. However, by this definition, George Bush, Ronald Reagan and John McCain are NOT likable in the least.

I've even found one definition (of course, in sales) that talks about 'likability' as being chameleon-like, flexible enough to change your personality to suit the client/customer. That, to me, is the ANTITHESIS of likability. Manipulating people by pretending to be something you're not is NOT the way to my heart (although, I guess it IS the way to a lot of people's pocketbooks).

Is it someone I'd like to 'have a beer with?' Yeah, I guess. Someone I'd like to spend time with. But, I've been thinking a lot about it over the last few hours and the most important criteria for likability for me is HONESTY. I have to be able to look into your eyes and see that you mean what you say, that you are being honest, open and, actually, vulnerable.

Now, vulnerability is a kind of difficult thing. It is, in fact, the part of film acting that I have the most problem with. The reason is that I have done so much stage acting, which, of necessity, has to be bigger and broader. And, as such, is often not as honest or vulnerable. Emotions and movements, and even your speech, often have to be exaggerated to 'read.'

On the other hand, the camera is about as intimate as it gets. You can whisper and be heard, you can raise an eyebrow slightly or turn your head a fraction of an inch, and speak volumes. The camera sees EVERYTHING.... and that includes deeply into your eyes. It sees either truth or deception there. It sees your past there. It sees YOU. You are honestly not playing a character so much as YOURSELF in that situation, which is quite a bit different than onstage, often. And you have to be WILLING to not really hide behind a character, which you can do on stage. You have to be WILLING to allow people to SEE into your eyes-- to SEE into your soul in a way which is impossible on stage. To open yourself up to the ultimate intimacy and vulnerability.

THAT, to me, is and always has been, likability. It is why I like watching Julia Roberts-- she is vulnerability personified. It is why I ADORE Dame Judi and Helen Mirren... and Kate Hepburn. It is why I always, always, ALWAYS look into the eyes.

Now, by MY definition, the more likable candidate has NOT won the presidential election many times. I have NEVER understood what people mean when they keep saying that George Bush and Ronald Reagan are/were 'likable.' Ronald Reagan was a bad actor reading a script badly. I could see from the beginning that he didn't believe what he was saying.... and by the second term, I KNEW something was seriously wrong, though I didn't know what it was. I could see that he didn't even UNDERSTAND what he was saying-- and it gave me shivers when I saw two photos during his second term: one of him from just prior to his first inauguration-- vital, healthy, riding his horse, and the other a contemporary one in which he looked very ill to me. The change was SHOCKING, and not the typical aging, either. I was not surprised to hear he had Alzheimer's. The eyes told the tale-- there wasn't anything in there, especially by the second term. Before that, there was a wall. One behind which he hid himself (maybe to protect himself from people knowing what he MUST have been starting to sense? That something was wrong? I don't know). He never let us get to know the real Ronald Reagan. Only the 'character' he wanted us to see-- and he was playing a character.

As for Bush, I could feel the insincerity rolling off of him in waves the first time I heard him speak, when I didn't even know who he was. I looked into his eyes and saw-- nothing. Just hearing his voice makes me feel slimy and like I need to take a shower. I would NOT want to 'have a beer' with this man-- I'd be too worried he'd stab me in the back. I see no sincerity, no empathy at all. Looking into his eyes, I don't see that he RECOGNIZES other people outside of his close inner circle as even EXISTING... and some of his statements (like the 'reality-based' stuff and the 'decider' nonsense) only corroborate it. I don't feel that I have been given the opportunity to know the real George Bush in any way-- and it makes me wonder if he's hiding it or if it just doesn't exist. I don't see the wall as I did with Reagan... I simply see... nothing.

I guess I do have to admit that politicians are salespeople and by the 'sales' definition-- being chameleon-like and flexible to suit the personality of the client-- it may be true that both of the above men were likable. The problem with that is that the entire definition feels dishonest and just plain ICKY to me. I don't WANT to be around someone who changes who HE is to suit the people around him. I want to be with people who are willing to share and whom I can trust and feel that I know. Honesty , trust and reliability are high on my priority list.

I just read an article the other day that described the 'perfect wife.' This was supposed to be a woman who cleaned up after her children without complaining, who cooked the foods her husband likes and 'learns to like them, too.' Who 'treasures' his snoring or taking the covers off, and feels grateful to pick up his clothes. Who smiles when he works late because he's 'willing to provide for the family.' Who laughs at his jokes, even when they're not funny.

My biggest problem (aside from not raising independent, capable, ready-to-be-adult children) with this definition of the 'perfect wife' was the fact that the 'perfect wife' in this scenario was NOT being honest with herself OR with her family. And PARTICULARLY not her husband.

How can you have a relationship, ANY kind of relationship, without honesty? And that goes for my president, as well. I may not be in the same room, but when I listen and watch him/her talk to me, I want to see that it is real and honest and TRUTHFUL.

And that seems to be my problem with the definitions of 'likability' that I've found... none of them involve truth, REAL intimacy, or honesty. And by those definitions, many of the presidents we've had in the recent past were NOT likable. And those who were seem to have been the least successful.

It is, in fact, one of the definitions of a sociopath-- someone who can change to suit the circumstances, can 'blend in' and present a facade of emotions to the world, but doesn't actually feel or understand them; one who cannot empathize with other people. And THAT scares me in a leader.

Tsunami Tuesday!

Well, this is it. Half of the country is voting today. I really don't understand why they don't just come together and decide on a date for a national primary. We have national general elections, don't we? Especially with the race to be the 'first,' which led to two states having at least some of their delegates taken away because only CERTAIN states are allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before Feb. 5. Which makes no sense to me. And what also makes no sense to me is why those two states thought it was SO important to hold their primaries BEFORE today that they were willing to GIVE UP those delegates. What, really, was the difference in voting two weeks ago and voting today? Really? Did their votes cont more? (No, actually LESS, unless the parties change their minds and decide to seat those delegates anyway). Would they have had LESS of a voice if they'd had their primaries today? No, not as far as I can see.

Since it looks like the Republican candidate may be pretty much decided today, I'm following the results carefully... and I am very interested to see how the delegate splits shake out for the Democrats... although that won't be known for a while, it seems. They have to do the district-by-district counts for that.

Today will definitely tell us a lot, though!

"If you live in a Super Tuesday state, come out and help choose a president!"

Elections

Okay, I haven't said much about the elections, but I have been following the elections very closely.

Now, I cannot STAND George Bush. He is a lying, scheming, snakeoil salesman. Which gives me a huge problem with John McCain.... he of the "I'd be happy to have soldiers in Iraq for the next 100 years, and so would the American people." Um, not THIS American person! He talked about how we still have soldiers in Germany and Japan, and South Korea. And how this is okay. Well, IMO, it's actually NOT okay. I don't see any of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul who would NOT simply carry on the absolutely disastrous road down which Bush has taken us the last 7 years.

Which leads me to the Democratic debate last week. I have to say, I'm glad the fields on both sides have been whittled down-- it was just mindnumbing watching 9 people trying to get their comments in.

I thought the Democratic debate between Hillary and Barak was amazingly well-done. I liked the way they focused not so much on their differences with each other, but their differences with George Bush and the Republican candidates. I first saw Barak Obama when he spoke at the Democrat Convention, and I was enthralled. He was one of the most powerful speakers I had ever heard. And I think he still is.

However, vague, general, uplifting rhetoric doesn't tell me much. I have yet to hear any specifics about how he would get us to the point he keeps telling us we'll reach. I thought he had a very rough start at the debate, and was very unsure of himself... and, hey, I DEFINITELY understand how intimidating such a situation can be, especially when there are now only two-- the focus cannot be deflected. And I thought he found his footing, and became more sure of himself as the debate went on. I STILL didn't hear any specifics from him, however.

I thought Hillary was strong right out of the box. She was prepared, she detailed her past experience with clarity and thought towards the relevance of it. Much of which I had never heard about before. Unfortunately, when the word 'experience' comes up, most people tend to ask, "How does being First Lady give her experience?" I think they totally neglect her experience and success as an attorney, the fact that she is on two of the most powerful committees in the Senate, including the Armed Services Committee, the almost universal praise for her work in the Senate from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and her other work over the last 35 years. Now, as for her time in the White House, no, she wasn't in charge, but it DID give her an opportunity to see first-hand what the job entails, how things work, what's necessary, and to develop rapport and relationships with foreign leaders. I think it has greatly informed her foreign policy, an area in which Barak seems to be lacking.

She was calm, confident, professional, and clear. She explained things about some of her votes that most people outside of Congress wouldn't likely know... and Barak continued to claim he'd been against the war from the beginning. Something which has demonstrably been proven not to be true. He focuses on the fact that she voted for the resolution, without including the fact that ALL of us, INCLUDING members of Congress, were LIED to and manipulated to GET that resolution passed. Barak's response was, "I think it's more important to be RIGHT from Day 1." Yet, he himself said that he didn't know how he would have voted. I have a problem with that.

Considering the options, I will most likely vote for whomever is the Democrat nominee; frankly, I don't know if it will happen, but I'd love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. I would love to see him in the VP debates, and see what he can do 8 years from now, after he's really been involved. I think he could be an EXCELLENT president with a little 'seasoning,' but not right now.

And, frankly, I've had enough of people complaining that Bill would be 'involved,' and 'making phone calls.' Firstly, I don't believe that will be necessary. But if it is? Why NOT????? Anybody really think that GWB, who surrounded himself with his father's advisers (who proved failures the FIRST time around, but that's another issue) hasn't asked Daddy for help? There aren't a whole lot of people who HAVE the experience of being president, and the connections that provides-- what is wrong with using their expertise? Why is that a bad thing?

And, I"m frankly tired of her being called 'cold, heartless and ruthless' when she has done nothing that any male candidate hasn't done. Have ANY of the men been called such things? Of course not. And it happens ALL THE TIME. A man is 'ambitious' and 'aggressive.' A woman is 'cold' and 'a bitch.' And those SAME PEOPLE, when she dared to show a little emotion, suddenly called her 'weak' and 'manipulative,' and blew it WAY out of proportion. To the point that when I actually SAW the video, I wondered if I was missing something. I heard it called a 'sobfect,' a 'breakdown,' and other such ridiculous things-- she most CERTAINLY didn't have a breakdown, nor did she go on a crying jag. She didn't even actually CRY, she simply choked up and teared up a bit when talking about our country's future, which is obviously very important to her. I have to admit, I've done the same thing, on more than one occasion, thinking about what has happened to our country over the last 7 years.

Then we have 'decolletege-gate.' AGAIN, when I heard about it and then saw the video, I thought I MUST have missed something. What she was wearing was an attractive, professional suit, which didn't even really SHOW any cleavage; maybe, perhaps, the hint of it.... would any man have DAYS spent on his attire like that? With the REASON she was on the Senate floor (which was an important one), being ignored? I seriously doubt it. Does anyone even remember what she was talking about? Probably not (the cost of higher education). Does this happen to men? Of course not. Yet THIS was compared to a man coming on the floor with his FLY UNZIPPED. As if it was somehow indecent. Women wear more 'revealing' outfits in offices all over this country, and as someone else pointed out, IN CHURCH. And, up until this point, she had been criticized for her 'man suits.'

Meanwhile, with regard to Barak, I STILL hear people spreading the gossip that he was raised Muslim, that he IS Muslim, that he swore in as a Senator on the Q'uran (NONE of which is true), and that it would be an insult to our military to elect someone with the name Obama. HUH????????? And people such as that Shari person on The View (who has to be the dumbest adult woman I've ever heard of), spread this further on national television, and when called on it, simply said she had 'heard people say it.' OMG! I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be a basic intelligence test in order to be able to vote! (No, not really, but sometimes I wonder if we REALLY want people who make their decisions/judgements this way deciding who our leaders are? Look what we got when we had people basing their decision on 'He MUST be perfect. He's a Christian.').

We need change-- change from the last 7 years. IMO, either of the Democrat candidates will provide that, none of the Republicans (except Ron Paul) will. My decision between the two of them has nothing to do with the 'race' card or the 'woman' card. It has to do with their records, their plans and their qualifications to be a leader.