Comebacks to use this Thanksgiving

For those of you not looking forward to conversing with the "Righteous Right" during Thanksgiving, 236.com has taken it upon themselves to make sure you enter Thanksgiving equipped with a list of comebacks sure to put Obama haters back in their place. For example:

• The "socialist" takeover of America's banks happened on Bush's watch.
• The "Democratic" Senate has been working with a one vote majority, and that vote is Joe Lieberman. If they get to the "Magic 60," that sixtieth vote is still Joe Lieberman.
• The majority of rich Americans voted to have their wealth spread.

Click here for the complete list. Happy Thanksgiving America!

Will the real John McCain please stand up?

I think he finally did last night, when he gave his concession speech. It is a shame we lost him when he accepted the Republican nomination. I highly doubt he expected to get pulled into a campaign as filthy as his turned out to be.

I remember breathing out a sigh of relief, along with hubby, when it became apparent that McCain would be the GOP’s presidential nominee. He had, in my opinion, the most substantial and well-rounded ticket of the pack. Barring the entry of Sarah Palin into the scene, I would not have minded a McCain administration - even though I was an Obama hopeful.

His true failure was not having been the “maverick” he claimed to be. Had he fought against the negativity that his advisors essentially forced him to embrace – positively stand apart from his colleagues as a maverick does – he would have truly earned the title.

It was a nice surprise to see him bow down with that long absent touch of class. I hope that he will practice what he preached in regards to unity with the new administration. I hope he will put Country First.

(photo from nytimes.com)

History is made!

Practically every news network is now projecting an Obama victory, and I cannot help but get all emotional over this. I have the same happy feeling that I had when Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany. The election would have been ground-breaking regardless of the result as Palin would have made history by becoming the first elected female VP, but I would have received those news with angst rather than joy.

Now I do not need to resort to my "The West Wing" DVD collection for my Democrat-President fix! Woo-hoo!

I really should be getting back into bed, but I am dying to see if Obama snatches Florida for the landslide win!

Poking fun at the GOP's campaign one last time

Just a quick thought before I go to sleep...

The Redskins (by way of their game against the Steelers) predicted that Obama will win tonight's election. If they turn out to be correct, does that make them anti-American?

**lol**

UPDATE:
LeftLeaningLady: "Nah, it makes them the Blueskins."

Ha! Brilliant!

ACORN and the perils of the uninformed vote

Kaffeetrinken with my in-laws always comes with the guarantee of a fun-filled discussion about politics, religion, the economy and/or ethics. (Well, perhaps not always fun-filled, but definitely interesting and passionate.) Today’s get-together did not disappoint.

My step-father-in-law, like most Germans, used to be crazy for everything American – the food, the buildings, the culture and, yes, the politics. Blinded by this love, he zealously shot down hubby’s doom-filled predictions for US economy and foreign policy after “Dubya’s” reelection. “Bush may not be the smartest, but the GOP would never allow for the decline of their country,” he said confidently.

He is now so turned off by recent American political events, that he followed this past election campaign without his usual level of interest. Among other things we had to explain all about “that ACORN business” – which solicited this question: Why would anyone court the vote from the uneducated, uninformed and uninterested?

ACORN’s aim to “get-out-the-vote” is fundamentally a noble one. Theoretically, the more people vote, the more democratic the outcome. The alleged “potential election fraud” by false vote registration cards was nothing more than a political manoeuvre. I would pay to see Mickey Mouse to show up at the polling station with valid identification in order to make use of that “fraudulent” registration. Hence, there is no way these false registrations will have any effect on the outcome.

With some of the recent, outlandish remarks by likely voters, my step-father-in-law raises an interesting aspect. Why is it beneficial to a democracy for people to cast a vote, and therewith influence the course of politics potentially substantially, based on utterly uninformed opinions and/or currently less central or irrelevant issues such as:

• Obama is a one-man terror cell.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is anti-American.
• Obama is a Marxist.

(I tried to find equally bizarre rumors about McCain, for balance. I was unsuccessful. I am not surprised.
UPDATE: LeftLeaningLady supplied me with a few; they are listed in the comments section.)

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
• The fact that Obama would be the first African-American President
• The fact that Palin would be the first elected female VP
• The fact that one candidate fought in a war and the other did not
• How many homes a candidate owns
• A non-American middle name

It disconcerts me that in the current economic climate some voters, such as Kevin Sheen, are solely centering their vote on abortion. I respect that to some people this is a very important issue, but I find it difficult to understand why this issue is so heavily weighted against the economy and foreign policy. Such debates find their roots in religious belief, and should stay there. For that very reason did the Founding Fathers of the US insist on the separation of church and state.

An uninformed vote adds no value to a democracy; in fact it subtracts, regardless of the political affiliation of said vote. But who would get to choose which vote is informed and which is not? The aim must be to educate, as comprehensively as possible, eligible voters of the political platforms out there. Desisting from perpetual attack ads one way or the other would be a first step. Instead, entering into an in-depth, respectful debate is far healthier and democratic than fear mongering.

The message should be: Get-out, get-informed, then vote.

Favourite Election '08 Videos

Here are a few funny Election '08 clips to help calm down the election day jitters:

More from the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express

During my midday news headline check I came across this headline from MSNBC that made me laugh: "McCain: Racism will barely affect election."

Of course racism will not affect the election very much **end of sarcasm** - which is why it was made into such a big deal. For those Republicans out there who will shout at me otherwise: watch videos of the mobs screaming that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden. Notice how half-heartedly the McCain camp counters these cries. Now try to convince the rest of us that the candidates themselves did not contribute to the racist frenzy in this election and that it will not affect the outcome. You can't.

Perhaps McCain should have been more specific. Racism against blacks did not play a large role in his election campaign. That kind of racism is sadly reliant with a small percentage of Americans. The GOP did not need to play on that racist aspect, as that small percentage will categorically not vote for somebody black.

Aside from that, "classic" racism against blacks has become something of a political taboo and, if mentioned out loud, is most likely a political suicide mission. The majority of Americans are no longer afraid of black people, per se. This fear has been replaced with an irrational fear of anything Arabic by association. Note how important it is to McCain's campaign to link Obama to terrorism - unfortunately viewed as an Arabic prerogative in the current, collective American conscience. Hence racism, in that sense, plays a central role in the GOP's campaign.

It is apparent that McCain's statement is really the GOP stepping back from the milk they helped to spill, so that it does not question the legitimacy of their potential election victory.

What I think Americans need to ask themselves as election day nears is whether they want a President who has platitudinal experience but has been divisive from the start, or a President who has very atypical qualifications but fought as inclusively as possible.

(bottom image from perrspectives.com)

Biden got owned by Barbara West?!?!?

Any sane person who watches the video in my previous post would conclude that West was very droll (in the I'm-going-to-make-a-fool-out-of-myself-by-spewing-out-a-mix-of-McCain's-stump-speech-points-and-an-inaccurate-reference-to-Marxism kind of way) and that Biden came out on top.

It is, however, no surprise that things are not the same in bible-thumping Republicanland. Here are some of the comments from those nutheads regarding the West-Biden interview:

Go Barbara West!! Please keep asking the tough questions! Don't back down. It's about time. - dudehead08 (dudehead? What kind of alias is that?!?)

The backlash against the radical left elite media has started! Looking forward to the McCain/PALIN landslide! - AtlasObjectivist

This lady should run for congress and take over as John McCain's Campaign leader. - sah0620

And the absurdity goes on and on. You can read more of that delusion here.

Barbara West happened to interview McCain earlier this month. Her bias was already apparent in the way she lovingly mirrored his stump speech. What a brown-nosing groupie. Watch this video for a comparison:

Barbara West gets owned by Biden

Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke? Is that a real question?”

I kept thinking the same thing whilst watching this video. Normally Barbara West’s careless use of the word socialist would infuriate me, but she was so ridiculous that all I could do was laugh at her harebrained and biased conduct.

How in the world did Sweden become part of the interview? How can she portray it to be a worse-off country? I suppose nobody told her that Sweden consistently ranks higher than the US in multiple quality of life indices. This is reminiscent of McCain mentioning Canada and the UK during the health care segment of the third presidential debate.

Thank you modern mommy for starting my day with a laugh =)

Neiman's + Saks vs. Gap + H&M

The current buzz surrounding Sarah Palin is her designer wardrobe and the amount of money spent on it. Quite honestly, I am not bothered by this at all.

When Palin entered the scene, very few people knew who she was. We all know that a good first impression can do wonders and a bad first impression can be equally detrimental. There was a lot of pressure on the GOP to present her as someone substantial and established; someone worthy of a chance at becoming VP. What better way to do so than splurge on her appearance? She certainly needed that boost to cover up her stumbling ineloquence, which she revealed after the RNC.

On the flip-side, you have the Obamas who spend much, much less on their wardrobe and yet always manage to present themselves as substantial and established. This has been character revealing for all parties involved, no?

This works against the hockey mom image Palin has been trying to push forward lately. Despite that, I do not think it would be helpful to adjust her wardrobe now. Picture this: Palin dressed accordingly beside Obama. Now listen to them speak. Ouch for Palin!

As far as McCain goes; it is funny that he spent $5500 on a makeup artist when his party criticised John Edwards for spending $400 on a haircut.

The Good Guy and The Mad Guy

I am a proud mama.

I was in a bookstore with our younger daughter and baby today when we came across a selection of books written by or about Obama. (For those of you who do not know us personally, we have four children: a nine-year-old daughter, a five-year-old daughter, a four-year-old son and an almost five-month-old son.) Our younger daughter picked up one of the books, walked over to the pram and showed the book to baby proclaiming:

This is Barack Obama. He's the good guy on tv!

A salesclerk and several other shoppers smiled. Out of curiosity, I picked up a book with a picture of McCain on the cover and asked what she thought about him...

**frowns** He's mad on tv.

...to which she received some free candy from the salesclerk.

I am a proud mama. =)
(photos from senate.gov and washingtontimes.com respectively)

"I'm not Bush!"

Really Senator McCain? Your dance ability begs to differ. =)


(photos from news.bbc.co.uk and news.yahoo.com)

My Night with Obama and McCain...

...wasn't as explosive as I hoped. I even popped some popcorn, ready to throw once McCain got into his condescending groove. It's almost 2am - yes, I missed the rerun of the rerun. Thankfully I could watch the whole debate on cnn.com. Here are a few, sometimes trivial, points of piqued interest:

• No pin on McCain! I suppose Palin's pin was big enough for both of them.
• There was Obama looking all presidential with his nice tie and pin, and then there was McCain looking like... a director of a funeral parlour about to give a eulogy.
• Too many mentions of Joe the Plumber - by my count (by name) 15 from McCain and 5 from Obama. Oh, and it wasn't just Joe for McCain, it was "My old buddy Joe the Plumber". If Obama mentions my name 15 times, can I be his old buddy?
• McCain didn't mention "middle class" at all. But then again, that really shouldn't come as a surprise, eh? After all, they are the most important consumption factor in the US today, and are generally neglected by the GOP.
• Obama was a little flat at the beginning, but picked up later. If you weren't sure this was the case, McCain emphasised it with his visibly increasing irritation, negative and angry body language, constantly interrupting Obama, increased stuttering and change of topic when he ran out of things to say.
  
• Glad to see that Obama was no longer reduced to "that one" who "doesn't understand".
• "I'm not Bush" was a brilliant rebuttal, but leaves me wondering who he is. He's changed his position several times on some issues, which made this statement lose a little punch for me.
• McCain referred to his campaign as "truthful". WHAT?!?!?
• It's Obama's fault that the Republicans went extremely negative on advertising, as he refused to do more town hall debates. Boo-hoo!
• Obama spent an unprecedented amount on attack ads. He stole the GOP's modus operandi and beat them at it. Boo-hoo!
• It seemed that every time Obama started to paint a vision, McCain interrupted. Maybe because he lacked his own vision?
• McCain on health care: "If you like that [Obama's plan], then you'll like Canada and England." So? Is he implying that's a bad thing? Canada and the UK (albeit their systems not being perfect) are both ranked higher than the US on WHO's ranking of health care systems, so I'm inclined to believe that's a good thing.

Good night and good luck.

(photo from nytimes.com)

From the Canadian to the US Election (nur auf englisch)

I'm not happy with the result of the Canadian election. The first words to come to mind are "waste of time". All that money spent on an election that pretty much resulted in maintaining the status quo. It's a shame the Green Party did not win a seat in Parliament - I was really rooting for May.

I'm sure that there are Conservatives celebrating the win. They now have more seats in the House of Commons. They believe that Canada is becoming ever more conservative. What do they have to say about the all-time low voter turn-out? It speaks to me of the population having lost its confidence in government and none of the major parties having the right answers for the problems at hand. It is possible that the same number of people voted Tory this year as in 2006.

Let's put everything into perspective: The Tories won 37% of the votes of 59% of registered voters which are 69% of the population. That means that 15% of the population supports Harper and 85% does not. (I hope the math makes sense!) Neither do the majorities of the three major urban centres. That is Harper's "mandate".

Oh well. What's done is done. Time to move on to the US!

I'm glad that CNNI runs repeats of the presidential debates. This third one is going to be interesting. The two candidates are going to be sitting down at a table with the moderator - similar to the Canadian Federal Leaders Debate earlier this month. As I said in this post, knowledge of key issues and communication skills will be much more in the spotlight. This might work against McCain, especially with all the name-calling ridiculousness that has defined his campaign as of late. It is much more difficult to insult your opponent whilst you are sitting down with him/her at the table than not facing him on a stage.

McCain needs this win against Obama. What can he do? Hubby suspects that he is going to try to pull off what Reagan did in his 1984 debate against Mondale. He was also trailing in the polls going in. In his closing statement, he did not summarise his plans should he be re-elected. Instead he went on talking a letter he wrote several years before, fondly remembering the beautiful California surroundings whilst he wrote it. He emphasised that the actions of the present will form the world that the people who open the capsule live in. He spoke of destructive powers, preserving freedom, and the "blessed planet called Earth". He used sentences like "...what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny", which mean nothing whilst sounding like something. It was sappy. It painted a beautiful picture. It spoke to the populace. And even though he was cut off, it was perfect. He was re-elected.

Reagan was the perfect candidate to deliver such a speech. He had all the training he needed from acting. He knew how and when to control his voice and mannerisms. McCain does not strike me as someone who can pull a similar stunt off. Take a look at this clip, watch McCain saying "Enh? Enh?", and I think you'll be inclined to agree. In either case, if this turns out to be his strategy, it will be interesting to see it unfold.

Now I'm off to bed, so that I can catch the debate re-run tomorrow morning.

Giving Birth to the Republican Ticket

Oh. My. Goodness. The poor child never had a chance. Behind his wife's back, Mark Ciptak did not enter the name agreed upon, Ava Grace, on the birth registration form. He proudly named his daughter Sarah McCain Palin. Seriously.

Leaving this insane decision aside, can you imagine what the wife's reaction will be? He changed their daughter's name without consulting the mother. The parent who carried the child for nine months. The parent whose hormones are all over the place. I foresee major drama in Ciptak's near future.

(photo from Baltimore Sun)