Thoughts about the Inauguration

I need to get my thoughts in order about this, because they're very complex.

Number one, it simply doesn't feel real to me. I've been waiting for this day for eight years in a way that I hadn't waited twelve years for Clinton's.

The election of 2000 was horrible and heartbreaking. It's not about the long, drawn-out recount, or the way it was eventually decided, or whether or not it was stolen - while I believe it was, there is absolutely no way to prove it and it's not the reason for the heartbreak.

It's this - even in the year 2000, and before, the public perception of GWB was, well. Special. No one thought of him as terribly bright or involved. This is in contrast to Clinton, whom we know is brilliant, or GHWB, who everyone acknowledges as intelligent or, for that matter, Gore. No one thinks of Gore as less than bright. But we thought of GWB as, well, dumb. Not smart. We knew he'd failed at everything he tried before; we knew he skated by in school (and, yes, so did his next rival, Kerry, but this isn't about Kerry.)

It may not have been true, but that was the public perception of GWB. You can see that from the comic portrayals of the time - and comedy reflects opinion. It doesn't give it.

And that was what was heartbreaking - half of this country (or half of this country that voted) voted for the dumb guy, the guy they wanted to have a beer with, the guy they could party with, even if the guy had stopped drinking/partying himself. George the polititician, if you will. And I can't understand that.

This is not a party thing - there are and always have been brilliant Republicans and idiot Democrats. This is an anti-intellectual thing that is downright scary.

And since that day half this country voted for Bush, I've been worried about this country, and I've been waiting for someone else. In 2004, Kerry lost. But Katrina hasn't happened and the war was, well, not at the level of unpopularity it is now, although it was down there and the economy was floating on its bubble, and Bush the incumbent won.

McCain - I really don't doubt McCain's intelligence. I don't even doubt Palin's. And if he were being sworn in tomorrow, I wouldn't be happy, but I'd still be relieved that we had someone better.

But tomorrow isn't just about getting a new president, or an intelligent president or a Democratic president, although it is all of the above. Nor is just about getting an African-American president, although that is also a great and good thing. This is about Barack Obama himself.

I did NOT vote for him in the primary. I voted, proudly, for Hillary Clinton. I voted for her for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I truly believed she'd be a great president, and a better one. But also - I knew deep in my heart that Obama would win the primaries, and I would be able to vote for him at the general election, but this would be my first chance to vote for a possibly viable female candidate for president, and no way could I let this chance pass by.

And that's when I noticed how Clinton was treated - if she was calm and cool, she was called unemotional and robotic; when she cried, she was called weak or even opportunistic. She was held to a standard no male candidate was, and when she reached it, she was called "bitch" or there were suggestions that she and Obama go into a room together and only one leave (thank you SO much, Olberman.) And Obama said not one word about this - about how no one deserved such treatment.

And then there were the more rabid followers - people who said they'd vote for McCain rather than Clinton (you all heard about PUMAs after the primaries. There were people on the other side as stubborn.) People who went into Clinton supporter's livejournals (not mine, but friends of mine) to say awful things. This isn't hearsay - I've seen it.

What was the result, for me? I was polarized, too. And therefore, I was sad and depressed when this country nominated an African-American for president. And there was a time I wasn't all that sure I was going to vote top of the ticket - no way would I vote for a Republican - especially the McCain who emerged during his primaries, who was not the man I'd admired in 2000. But I was bitter and depressed and it took awhile to get over it. (However, I did predict that Clinton would be secretary of state, while everyone else was saying Veep or Health and Human Services. I thought both were too limiting for her.)

What did it for me, personally? When he spoke about using green energy to not only help the environment and make us more energy independent (both vital issues for me) but also to create jobs and help the economy. And I realized that this man *thought*, that this man understood how everything is related and works together - and *that* was the sort of person I wanted as president, that I'd happily vote *for* as president. (And the beautiful and real diversity of the Democratic party didn't hurt at all.) I was completely sold during the Democratic convention.

And then he won. He probably won the day the stock market crashed, although Palin didn't hurt him, nor did it hurt that GWB's approval was so very low, but he won and he won big. And this country elected, despite all worried and doubts, our first African American president, and that's important. What is also important is that we elected a brilliant, thoughtful man who considers his decisions before he makes them, who concedes mistakes, who is polite and respectful (for the most part. He needs to stop calling women "sweetie", other than his wife and daughters.)

So, tomorrow is a day I've been dreaming of, and a day that will harbinge change for our country, with a leader we can trust. And I'm afraid of having too high expectations, I'm afraid of hoping things will change overnight and knowing they won't. And it still doesn't feel real.

(And one day a woman will become president. And one day we might even elect a non-Christian, although that's a very distant dream.)

Bush's final address as president- live blogging

1. Obama as symbol of hope and pride.
2. Thanks Cheney and his parents, wife and daughters. Thanks us for our trust - yeah, that got us far.
3. Talking about 9/11, and how it affected him. Talking about the morning briefings to keep us safe. Um. Talked about Homeland security - how it gave us new tools. And we've taken the fight to the terrorists.
4. Iraq is our friend? Really?
5. Seven years since a terrorist attack on our soil.
7. America owes a debt of gratitude to those who volunteer to serve.
8. Advancing the belief of democracy is the best way to national security. Because people don't vote in terrorists. Tell that to the Palestinians.
9. Humanitarian aid.
10. talking about how he's improved things - NCLB, new medicaid, lower taxes, harder-to-get abortions and a more conservative Supreme Court.
11. Bad economy, but free enterprise is resilient.
12. Has had setbacks, but always acted with the best interest of the country at heart, even if people don't agree.
13. Enemies are still out there. Must resist complaceny. Must never let down our guard.
Still very insular - yet resists isolationism and protectionism. (Yeah, well.) "If American does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led." We must always advance the cause of peace. There is good and evil in the world.
14. Introduces heroes.
15. Proud to have been president.
13 minutes. Done.
14.

I'm spending New Year's weekend in a country inn

It's a bunch of mostly modern Orthodox Jews - men in crocheted kippot, women in hats and skirts.  And it's been fun, mostly.  The smaller kids, fascinated by the yarn I was winding, gravitated to me, and I ended up making both a tiny hat and a tiny purse - dolly sized.

But there's also politics.  And this crowd believes that the only focus should be Israel, and many also believe that only Republicans care about Israel (and yes, a lot are plain scared of Obama.  *Shakes head.*)

I am focused on Israel.  I think it is important.  However, I also believe that the best protection Israel has is not a US that says, "We support you" but a US that is strong militarily and economically, and is respected overseas.

That is not us.  That has not been us for a long time now.  We are fighting two wars, our economy is falling and the rest of the world thinks we're willing to attack on a whim.  All bad things.  All under Israel's great friend Bush.  Who actually doesn't care about Israelis anyway - just his religious goals.

Anyway, I heard praises for Fox News, I heard men repeating rumors (we don't know anything about Obama, we don't even know where he was born, we haven't investigated the Ayers thing - all things that were, in fact, investigated.  And found to be nothing.)  One man thought that the Republicans have found a connection between Madoff and Obama and therefore Obama would not become president.

1.  This shows a sad lack of knowledge of the US Constitution, since there is no mechanism for removing a president-elect before inaugauration.

2.  If the Republicans could have done something, if they actually knew something, they'd have done it already. 

3.  I cannot imagine what that sort of connection could be,  besides maybe Obama had ALSO been scammed,and there's no evidence of that.  Blagojevich is a bigger threat and yet, he isn't one.

My biggest amusement - all of these things?  From the web and Fox news, but I was naive for believing the web and MSNBC (which I am aware is biased.  It's biased mostly my way, but I know it is.) 

The Blagojevich appointment

Rod seems to have found the one person who wouldn't turn him down if offered the job.  He must have gone down a list to find him - and I also suspect he doesn't like Burris very much, since all this appointment has done is humiliate the guy and all his guilelessness - I get the impression, he's regarded as a lovable loser in Illinois.

Ah,  *just* the person one wants as one's senator.  I'd take Caroline Kennedy over that.  (I actually wouldn't be completely upset if she *were* appointed.  I just hope someone else is.)

Once again,  I think the Illinois state legislature should vote on a replacement themselves.

Israel and the current conflict

This is an ugly situation and ugly things are happening. I could wish, and do wish, that Israel could have or would have found another way to defend herself.

The facts are that they tried not responding, and that didn't work (big shock.) They tried a blockade, but Hamas doesn't care about the ordinary Palestinians under their control, and it failed. It also got Israel into a lot of trouble, but then, in the court of world opinion, Israel can do no right.

Maybe they could have found a different way of responding militarily, but the reports I've read said they'd been planning this for months, which means they did explore other angles. Or they have very bad leadership (absolutely NOT ruling this one out. Israel's government is capable of deep stupidity. And deep stupidity leads to disaster. See Lebanon in 2006, for example.)

But they do have a right to exist. The fact that antisemitism still exists in all parts of the world, the fact that I just read in a left-wing blog (by someone who was roundly criticized and then banned from the blog - there is absolutely antisemitism on the left, but at least there are also those aware of it) that Israel is a blight on humanity and has no moral right to exist - Jews still need a place of safety.

And the policies of the Christian right, however much they support Israel, are not "safe." They hold no love for Israelis as a whole or even as Jews. They are seeking to bring their version of a Messiah back, which requires a Jewish state and Jews living there. Once that happens - well, they'd love all Jews to convert to Christianity (these are not cruel people), but they know most will die, along with all those who do not subscribe to their particular beliefs.

They have what they believe are their own best interests at heart.

There are those on the left who support Israel for purely pragmatic matters - they are our closest allies in the area, and, if they are strong, they're a stabilizing force in the area. This is good because the war in Iraq is profoundly destabilizing.

It's bad now. I wish they could have or would have made a different choice, and there's no good outcome from this, but there's no good outcome period. I don't know.

Blagojevich's Crime

He doesn't actually seem to have committed one. He has all these expletive-laced phone calls (expletives not being a crime) about what he'd *like* to get for naming a senator, with the threat that otherwise he'd name himself, yes.

But there is no record of his actually asking for these bribes. There were some dealings with Jesse Jackson, Jr's people, but even those don't seem to be incriminating.

Now, maybe the fact that he *knew* that he'd only get "appreciation" from the Obama camp if he appointed their choice proves something - that he'd asked for a bribe and was turned down. That would be a crime, yes.

But today I read this article. And what I saw was that Blagojevich's Chief of Staff (who has since resigned) sort of feeling out the possiblity of something:

Sources also confirm that Emanuel made the case for picking Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett during at least one of the conversations. In the course of that conversation, Harris asked if in return for picking Jarrett, "all we get is appreciation, right?" "Right," Emanuel responded.

I do find that interesting. Maybe, off the record, Blagojevich asked Harris to approach Emanuel about what they'd get for appointing Jarrett, but what Harris did was confirm what he'd probably said to his boss all along - that they'd get nothing but appreciation. Blagojevich clearly wanted more and had ideas for what he wanted, but wanting more is not a crime. It's slimy, but it's not a crime. There is no evidence he or anyone in his employ actually asked.

I still wouldn't want him as my governor if I lived in Illinois, but unless Fitzgerald has other evidence, he's going to stay in office for awhile.

(As for the new senator - before 1913 and the Seventeenth Amendment, US senators were elected not by popular vote but by the state legislatures. It would not be a bad thing to go back to this in this one case. This would avoid the need for either a special election or removing Blagojevich from office.)

Reverend Warren (Religious Privilege #2)

President-elect Barack Obama (and it's really interesting how that title is so easy to say these days) asked Reverend Rick Warren to say the invocation at his inauguration, and that bothers me immensely.

One reason is the same as pretty much anyone else - Obama ran on a platform of human rights, which include women's rights, reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. Warren opposes gay and reproductive rights. He has other views - environmental views, views on poverty - that do jibe with liberal values, and he has been known to reach out to members of other faiths (not that he agrees with any of them) including Jews, and not with the immediate objective of converting them.

(He's a good evangelical - making converts is part of his belief system - it would be wrong in his eyes to let anyone burn.)

However, it sends a very definite message to some of Obama's supporters. And that message isn't far different than the message he gave to women and to those who support net neutrality - "You guys are going to support me no matter what I do - you have nowhere else to go." That is, the abusive boyfriend statement.

I'm not terribly surprised - but what's going to happen four years from now, if he continues this way? It doesn't pay to alienate your supporters.

It's not a good idea - there are other people he could have chosen - he's made many African-Americans upset because he didn't choose an AA minister for this historic occasion, and I doubt any of his white followers would have blinked if he had (so long as it wasn't Rev. Wright.)

However, that's not my only objection. My other is bigger - why an invocation at all? Why bring anyone's religion - his, mine, yours - into this? I can understand wanting a blessing before becoming president - he will need all the help he can get - but why shouldn't that be done in private? It's a state occasion. Keep religion out of it.

And if you're going to do it, why only have representatives of one branch (Protestantism) of one religion (Christianity) there? Why only political diversity on that stage? Obama almost never mentions differences of faith in his speeches. I'm not saying there should be a rabbi up there, although it would be nice, and he should also have a Muslim clergyman there as well. But some non-Christian would be a pleasant surprise.

But that's not even an issue. Of course there will be a Christian invocation and a Christian benediction - anything else would be "special".