What Happened To The New Deal

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

Howard Zinn asks why neither candidate wants to talk about the New Deal and offers up a potential speech one of them could give. I would argue that neither of them want to invoke that image because both hope to appeal to those who consider themselves “independents”, people who have voted Republican in the past but are disenchanted for various reasons and appealing to a “New Deal ethos” would be considered “too radical” for such broad based appeal. And invoking the “New Deal” would be a frank admission that we are teetering far too closely to collapse. Americans, above all like to “feel good” about themselves and their country. Never mind the blatant hatred those on the right have for the “New Deal”.

As Zinn notes, the “New Deal” was really an accommodation with capitalism, not rejection.

We might wonder why no Democratic Party contender for the presidency has invoked the memory of the New Deal and its unprecedented series of laws aimed at helping people in need. The New Deal was tentative, cautious, bold enough to shake the pillars of the system but not to replace them. It created many jobs but left 9 million unemployed. It built public housing but not nearly enough. It helped large commercial farmers but not tenant farmers. Excluded from its programs were the poorest of the poor, especially blacks. As farm laborers, migrants or domestic workers, they didn’t qualify for unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Social Security or farm subsidies

Indeed, what many on the right fail to grasp is the extent to which the “New Deal” sought to save capitalism, not replace it. If one accepts Zinn’s description, the “New Deal” was much better than a band aid, and much less than real structural change.

You can read the whole Zinn article with the speech he wishes somebody would give here.

FDR, as Zinn sees it was largely forced into the “New Deal”.

The innovations of the New Deal were fueled by the militant demands for change that swept the country as FDR began his presidency: the tenants’ groups; the Unemployed Councils; the millions on strike on the West Coast, in the Midwest and the South; the disruptive actions of desperate people seeking food, housing, jobs — the turmoil threatening the foundations of American capitalism. We will need a similar mobilization of citizens today, to unmoor from corporate control whoever becomes President. To match the New Deal, to go beyond it, is an idea whose time has come

Although he asserts, that it needs to be resurrected, he also answers his own question. We might need a mobilizations of assertive citizens pressing and making demands, and that is exactly what we don’t have. Working class and middle class Americans were once able to mobilize and create a collective voice through unions. An NY times editorial notes that 12.1 percent of Americans belong to unions and that in the 1970’s  almost one in four workers belonged to one.

The editorial goes on to suggest that

There is little doubt that American workers need unions. Wages today are almost 10 percent lower than they were in 1973, after accounting for inflation. The share of national income devoted to workers’ wages and benefits is at its lowest since the late-1960s, while the share going to profits has surged. The decline in unionization has been a big part of the reason that workers have lost so much ground

Alas, it is easier said that done. Workers are not exactly competing as equals in the market place.

The future of organized labor is not cause for great optimism. Employers have become more aggressive about keeping unions out. Competitive pressures from globalization, deregulation and technological change have resulted in the loss of many union jobs.

Zinn might also want to ask of the two major candidates, why aren’t you raising the issue of unionization? Why aren’t you aggressively supporting the idea of helping workers organize in the face of employer opposition? They both certainly want union endorsements. Unfortunately, they want to both appear friendly to business interests, as well. After all neither want to offend capitalism, suggest the market doesn’t exactly work except for a few. Years ago, many in the middle class landed there precisely because of union membership, or because of policies unions agitated for. Today, many in the middle class enjoy entertaining the fantasy that they “made it on their own”. They fear aligning themselves with the poor and working class because if they do that, it suggests some punishment of their own accomplishments.

I don’t see the working class as being passive so much as silenced. Unions didn’t just allow bargaining for wages, they created a sense that collectivization was the only bulwark against the much stronger hand of capital. The idea of working class identity has largely splintered and disappeared as a recognizable social contruct. In the south, it has become increasingly aligned with culture politics ( The south will rise again, the Confederate Flag ) that has been successfully copted by the right. In the north, it has been shuttled aside in favor of the neighborhood, an idea that was once connected to the larger role of unions and is now an isolated island.

Unionization won’t solve all of our problems in negotiating with capital. Neither candidate wants to discuss either a “New Deal” or the crucial role unions play because they fear pissing off “moderates” and “independents” who are likely hostile to those notions. They fear acknowledging the “schisms” that are readily apparent as evidenced by two presidential elections that were very close.

Ironically enough, Americans are not as enamored of the free market as the Dems fear and the Republicans wish when it comes to discussing unions. A Gallup poll conducted in 2007 found that 60 percent of Americans approve of labor unions.

Ordinary Americans do recognize they are getting screwed in the market place, they are not just consumerist clones with no wish to talk about a new “social contract”. They are waiting to hear the words. Who dares to speak them?  

They say that Sex Sells… We have another buyer!

In the last couple of years, money and power sure have translated into sex when it comes to our National Political and Religious figures.  

First we had Mark (Underage Page) Foley.  I don’t know if he paid anyone anything, but it was certainly his undoing in the end.  He turned the page on his Congressional career, so to speak.

Next up?  President Bush’s spiritual advisor, Reverend Ted Haggard.  

While serving as President of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted was outed by a male prostitute for snorting meth and having gay sex, like that viewable on sites like 18twink and its contemporaries.  Ted then resigned his “position” as we all know.  

After spending time in teh Gay-hab, three weeks of intensive counseling, the Rev. declared that he was now completely hetrosexual.  The team working those three weeks with Haggard are not unlike Professional Golfers.  Those guys are GOOD!

Moving forward a few weeks, we then find out that Senator David (Diaper Dandy) Vitter’s name shows up on the DC Madame list, where it is learned that he has been frequenting a hooker with the same name as his wife (Wendy) and was wearing diapers as part of his kinky thingy.  

True to Republican form, however, Senator Vitter said that in his defense he always selected the girl who made the lowest bid, so he is fiscally responsible.

In a “backdoor” manner, even John McCain gets a mention, although not for anything he himself was found to be actually doing.

His Florida Campaign Co-Chairman, State Senator Bob Allen was popped by undercover police in a park Men’s Room for asking the guy if Allen could perform oral sex on the undercover cop.  Allen offered to pay the guy $20.00 for these services.  Seems like a win-win, if you’re into that kinda thing.

Then last June, we had Larry (Lavatory) Craig getting busted in the Minneapolis airport for playing footsie with an male undercover police agent in the public Men’s room.  His encounter did not bring about an immediate resume’ update, but it did end his Senate career sooner than he likely would have preferred.  Senator Craig vowed to serve out his term. And when Larry Craig makes a vow, he means it! Okay, well, except for that marriage vow.

Then, it happens!  Not unlike the Boston Red Sox World Series victory in 2004 reversed the Curse of the Babe, Eliot Spitzer’s spending habits of $4300.00 a pop reversed the Curse of the Republicans!  Once again, all due to a Babe.

A Democrat was caught playing their game of “hide the salami somewhere where your spouse will never find it.”

Today, I’m sad to say, not unlike the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series AGAIN in 2007, another known Democrat is AGAIN in hot water for paying for sex.  

The husband of Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI) was caught in a police stakeout of a Residence Inn in Troy, Michigan after visiting a prostitute that was working out of a room there.

Thomas Athens, also owner of TalkUSA Radio and previously the program director of Air America, married Sen. Stabenow in 2003.

Police said they saw him enter the room February 26 and leave 15 minutes later.

Mr. Athens told police that he had paid the 20 year old woman whom he had visited $150.00 for sex.

$150.00?  I’m thinking Eliot Spitzer might want a rebate about now.  Then again, $150.00 for 15 minutes works out to $600.00 per hour.  

.

.

.

I’m either in the wrong business, or…….

SO

What do you think?  

Is it money and power that makes people think they can do these things without reproach?  

Is it just human nature?

Or is it something else?

YOU tell ME…

Chinese Human Rights Activist Jailed, Dalai Lama Issues Appeal to World Leaders

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

Hu Jia’s jailing is not directly connected with the riots in Tibet, but this ironically timed sentence reveals one of the underlying, systemic problems with the Chinese government that is at the heart of this conflict: the inability to criticize the government freely and without reprisal.

From the BBC:

Hu Jia was sent to prison for what many other people would not even consider a crime – he was convicted for writing five articles and giving two interviews.

The 34-year-old has long sought to publicise what he believes are injustices in China, concerning the environment, HIV/Aids and human rights.

Beijing’s First Intermediate People’s Court interpreted these acts as an attempt to subvert “the state’s political and socialist systems”.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asi…

Mr. Hu is married to blogger and human rights activist Zeng Jinyan, who is currently under house arrest with their infant daughter.

The New York Times illustrates the difficulties activists like Hu face in a country where freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, but tethered by legal practice:

China’s subversion laws, like those over state secrets, are deliberately vague and grant prosecutors considerable leeway in determining “subversive” speech – even though freedom of speech is included in the Chinese constitution.

“The line between ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘endangering state security’ is very ambiguous,” Mr. Li said. “In the criminal law, the article concerning subversion of state power contains only 30 words. And neither lawmakers of the judicial branch have given any further explanation.”

The lawyer added that the defense team had tried during the trial to clarify what constituted free speech, and what did not. “Only in that way can we protect the freedom of speech from being restrained or disregarded in the name of state security,” Mr. Li said.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…

Whereas John Edwards ran a presidential campaign based around the concept of “Two Americas”, Mr. Hu appears to have been jailed, in part, for a blog posting pointing out the existance of “Two China’s”:

In another blog posting, Mr. Hu wrote about China’s political formulation known as “one country, two systems” under which Hong Kong is part of China yet is allowed a more democratic political system. Mr. Hu argued that all of China should be democratic.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…

Instead of jailing Mr. Hu for these observations, Chinese authorities probably should start listening to him, as it appears that the presence of “Two Tibets” is one of the underlying causes of the unrest there:

Critics say Zhang’s twin policies of massive government investment and intense political repression in both regions may have helped breed resentment among their native populations, many among whom feel left behind by economic growth and marginalized by the arrival of migrants from China’s majority Han ethnic group.

link: http://ap.google.com/article/A…

The reaction to this systemic inequality by Chinese authorities is now to close ranks and examine party officials for how “loyal” they are to the policies of the local government:

In an even more revealing statement, Zhang appeared to indicate at least some local officials had shown themselves as insufficiently loyal during the recent unrest.

“We absolutely will not condone violations of political and organizational discipline and will definitely find those responsible and meet out harsh punishment,” said Zhang, a protege of president and party chief Hu Jintao, who was the communist boss of Tibet during the last major protests there in 1989.

Formerly a top official in another ethnically troubled region, Xinjiang, Zhang has reportedly already overseen the firing of dozens of ethnically Tibetan officials seen as politically unreliable.

link: http://ap.google.com/article/A…

In his appeal to world leaders, the Dalai Lama points out that the systemic inequality experienced in Tibet is shared throughout the region:

I believe the recent demonstrations and protests are a manifestation of the deep-rooted resentment not only of the Tibetan people in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), but also in the outlying traditional Tibetan areas now incorporated into Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, where there exist substantial communities of ethnic Tibetans.

link: http://www.dalailama.com/news….

In his statement the Dalai Lama repeats his call for “an independent international body, to investigate the unrest and its underlying causes”.

This is why unfettered freedom of speech is so important for any society. Our comparatively young country has many problems, and is plagued by systemic injustice. From health care, to poverty, to civil rights, to economic inequality, to worker’s rights, and across a wide swath of our political landscape injustice festers, growing at times even in spite of the bright light that illuminates it.

But the more we can talk about these problems, the more we can organize and take action to try to fix these problems. That is why those of us on the progressive left continue our mantra that criticizing our government isn’t un-American, but instead the heart and soul of what being American is all about.

If we lose or dilute this right, we lose the core principle that allows our society to function.

Please keep all sides of the conflict in Tibet in your thoughts, prayers and meditations, as well as fellow blogger and activist Hu Jia and his young family.  

McCain Nears 72–or Really 83?

John S. McCain, III will turn 72 in August, 2008. McCain’s age, health, and mental acuity will inevitably be factors in the campaign.

Will American voters be paying attention? Will McCain release full and accurate information on his health?

And how can one distinguish whether McCain’s behavior and judgment are normal and acceptable, or are deteriorating and therefore potentially dangerous? When is a gaffe a symptom?

Several actuarial and medical data points suggest that McCain’s upcoming 72nd chronological birthday could well be the equivalent of a biological 83rd birthday.

Below the break are a few guidelines and links to help inform an assessment of McCain’s age, health, and fitness for the Presidency.

(Cross-posting at Daily Kos, Raising Kaine, and Bits of News.)

library - 4844

John McCain on the Stump (AFP, April 1, 2008)

Chronological Age Vs. Biological Age

McCain will turn 72 on August 29th, 2008. If he were to be elected in November, he would become the oldest-ever first term President in American history.

But what if McCain’s biological age is really greater than his chronological age? Below are a few data points extracted from actuarial tables.

A 72-year-old white male has a 3.5 percent chance of dying within the following year.

But remember that McCain suffered 5 1/2 years of torture, stress, and poor nutrition in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Researchers have found that prolonged stress actually ages human beings prematurely at the cellular, DNA level, as reported by CBS in 2005.  Stress results in a thinning out of telomeres, the DNA “ends” that control aging. Here is the money quote from that report on 60 Minutes:

It was as though there had been in excess of 10 years of extra aging in these individuals’ blood cells. … And that’s actually an underestimate. That’s a very conservative estimate.

if each year of the stress of detention added two years to McCain’s biological age, a biological 83 year old white male would have approximately a 10 percent chance of dying by the end of August, 2009.

If each year of such stress added three years to McCain’s biological age, a biological 89 year old white male would have slightly more than a 16 percent chance of dying by the end of August, 2009.

Of course, as the researchers cited in the CBS report pointed out, some individuals have a better than average ability to cope with stress. How much damage did McCain suffer to his DNA’s telomeres?

As old as old McCain undeniably looks in recent photographs and on TV, some who have recently seen him up close have remarked that he looks even older in the flesh. He moves stiffly, and his wartime injuries (two broken arms, a badly injured knee, multiple bouts with dysentery) must cause him some discomfort. Although there are no public reports that he takes painkillers, his sporadic flat, wooden performances in public make one wonder whether he may be on more medications than his acknowledged multivitamin, daily low-dose aspirin, occasional Claritin, and regular Vytorin to control high cholesterol.

Malignant Melanoma: a Dogged Opponent

The overall 10 year survival rates for an elderly white male with melanoma are typically high–in the high eighties percent range. McCain has already survived 15 years after his initial melanoma surgery in 1993.

However, McCain has had three recurrences of melanoma since the initial diagnosis and surgery: two instances in 2000 and one reported instance in 2002. Although McCain has not released his medical records since 1999, the New York Times recently reported in some detail on McCain’s melanoma. The article notes that the most serious of McCain’s melonomas was the one removed from his left temple in 2000. It was classified as a Stage IIa (on a scale of I to IV) tumor; the 10 year survival rate for patients with this kind of lesion is a very respectable 65 percent. After the recurrence in 2002, McCain has now gone six years without a reported recurrence. The prominent bulge and scar on the left side of his face reportedly resulted from the 5 1/2 hour operation in 2000 that involved the precautionary excision of non-malignant lymph nodes, part of the parotid gland (which produces saliva), and tissue surrounding the tumor.

McCain's Surgery (Doug Mills/NYT)

McCain’s Scar from Surgery for Melanoma in 2000 (Doug Mills/NYT)

Yet as Dr. Richard L. Shapiro, a New York University melanoma surgeon, noted in the same New York Times article:

With melanoma, a patient is never completely clear….

And according to this Harvard Medical School link, melanoma patients have a high risk of developing brain tumors:

More than fifty percent of patients with melanoma develop brain metastases; that type of cancer has the highest brain metastasis incidence rate…. The interval between initial diagnosis and central nervous system involvement may be long; people with melanoma should see their doctors regularly for follow-up exams. Metastatic brain tumors are most frequently multiple in number (about seventy-five percent of the time), and are associated with a high incidence of seizures (twenty-five to thirty-seven percent of people).

Besides battling melanoma, McCain may also have a significant risk of familial heart disease. While he is fond of pointing to his nonagenarian mother as an indicator of his likely longevity, voters should be aware that McCain’s father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., died of a heart attack at the age of 70. Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., died of a heart attack (likely brought on by war-related stress) at the age of 61. In treating his high cholesterol, McCain is probably not extending his life by taking Vytorin; note the recent reporting on Vytorin’s lack of effectiveness in reducing the incidence of heart attacks. In short, McCain has already lived longer than his father and his paternal grandfather, both of whom died of heart disease.

McCain certainly is having regular checkups and asserts that he is in good health. In early 2007 he was claiming to exercise regularly:

McCain told reporters that he exercises frequently, including sit-ups, push-ups and swimming when he can, and that he and his wife hike, camp and backpack often when they’re in Arizona.

McCain told reporters that he had hiked the Grand Canyon rim-to-rim in the summer of 2006, when he was nearing 70. Would he be up to a repeat performance today? Perhaps McCain is as healthy and vigorous as he claims, but where is the credible photographic or video evidence? Such assertions of physical vigor seem oddly reminiscent of another septuagenarian’s alleged physical feat back in 1966. Remember Mao Zedong’s famous staged swim in the Yangtze River in 1966 as he pushed China into the agony of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?

Although Mao was in his early 70s, party propagandists claimed that the Chairman had swum nearly 15 km in 65 min. that day–a world-record pace, if true. The contention elicited guffaws from foreign observers, who took the claim as a sign that China was descending into political madness.

Mao Swimming the Yangtze at 72

Mao Swimming the Yangtze at 72

McCain may also end up reminding us of what happened not long ago to another superpower with an aging, infirm, unimaginative, ideologically hidebound ruling caste. Recall the animatronic Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev (died in 1982 at the age of 76), succeeded by the equally frail Yuri Andropov (died in 1984 at the age of 69), and then by the debilitated Konstantin Chernenko (died in 1985 at the age of 73). By the time the energetic and intelligent Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power, the Soviet economy and political system had already reached the brink of implosion and was impervious to mere reform.

In any case, McCain’s odds of dying–or at least of experiencing a major problem with recurring melanoma or with familial heart disease–in the coming year may be relatively low, but they are more than trivial. McCain’s odds of suffering from diminishing physical and cognitive capacity within the next few years are significant and need to be entered into the nation’s political calculus for this year’s election.

Gaffes or Symptoms?

If McCain continues to make frequent mental “gaffes” (walking in full battle regalia through a staged event at a Baghdad market and proclaiming normalcy, falsely asserting that General Petraeus does not even use an armored vehicle when moving around Baghdad, singing “bomb, bomb Iran,” conflating Iran and al Qaeda multiple times; stumbling badly as he tries to read speeches from teleprompters; appearing physically listless and emotionally wooden at evening rallies or on Sunday morning Meet the Press, etc.), something more than than chronological age and “senior moments” may be at work. The gaffes could be resulting at least in part from his advanced biological age and medical conditions. Some observers in the blogosphere are already referring to such stumbles by McCain as “senior moments” or as “McCain moments.”

McCain’s mental performance and physical fitness unavoidably will be important factors in the campaign, as will his choice of vice president–and potential (and even likely) successor.

Scrutinizing McCain’s performance on the campaign trail will not be a simple question of measuring his energy and calculating his judgment and experience. At what point do advancing years and physical debility begin to have an unacceptable impact on intellectual performance? Will voters feel confident that McCain’s judgments would be carefully considered and rational, and not the artifacts sparked–in the worst-case scenarios–by incipient dementia or an undiagnosed brain tumor metastasized from a wandering melanoma cell? Erratic behavior often has a direct organic cause.

McCain released his medical and psychiatric records in 1999 but has not done so since. Although he has promised to do so, he has not released them as of today, April 3rd, 2008. If and when he does release the records, will they be redacted and carefully censored?

The “keepers” surrounding national leaders have been quite adept at concealing their bosses’ frailties from the public. Consider, for example, the handling of Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, Franklin Roosevelt’s paraplegia, John F. Kennedy’s Addison’s disease, and Leonid Brezhnev’s practically comatose state. Even if McCain does not at this moment have a medical condition which would disqualify him from occupying the White House, voters need to be alert for any signs that he may be developing such a condition.

Spotting such an alarming development may not be easy, given McCain’s reputation for erratic behavior. As fellow Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi has said of McCain:

He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.

If such behavior, normal for McCain, is regarded by the voting public to be acceptable, what would McCain have to do to render his behavior unacceptable to the public and to the generally fawning mainstream press?

While each individual ages mentally at his unique rate, studies by psychologists show:

Subjects between 65 and 75 started to show considerable slowing in response times and efficient processing.

Of course, one’s life experience can help compensate for such a decline in cognitive abilities. To what degree does the value of McCain’s experience counterbalance his obvious physical and apparent mental decline?

A key conundrum, as described by three Harvard researchers in an interesting study published in 2007, may turn out to be this one:

One of the challenges to studying the aging brain is that the early signs of Alzheimer’s disease are very subtle, and it is difficult to distinguish between the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease and normal aging.

Here are some behavioral symptoms typically found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease:

In early stages of the disease, people may experience personality changes such as irritability, anxiety or depression. In later stages, other symptoms may occur, including sleep disturbances; agitation (physical or verbal outbursts, general emotional distress, restlessness, pacing, shredding paper or tissues, yelling); delusions (firmly held belief in things that are not real); or hallucinations (seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there).

Such symptoms are clearly not traits that any citizen would want to see in a potential President. So voters need to watch McCain’s words, manner, and behavior–very carefully. Will he display the judgment, mental agility, energy, and political skills required for the job that he seeks? Or will he prove himself to be physically and mentally unfit for such enormous responsibility?

And voters need to remember that McCain’s DNA is likely biologically more like that of a white male who is 83 years old than that of a white male who is approaching 72 years old.

Everyone makes mistakes, but at what point should McCain’s individual “gaffes” be considered a clear pattern of behavior? At what point would voters conclude that McCain should be regarded not as the unusually vigorous 72-year-old that he will surely claim to be on August 29th, but rather as an increasingly frail, cranky, and cognitively impaired biological 83-year-old who would be ill-suited for the pace and pressures of the Presidency?

Here, for example, is one recent photo that does not portray McCain in the most Presidential light:

maverick

John McCain Unhinged

And here is another:

capt.3c9e72e95ffe44e7a6262963c376b15e.aptopix_mccain_2008_cama103

John McCain Channeling Grandpa Simpson (AP)

Three Questions for Voters (and for the Media)

1. Will voters and the media give McCain the benefit of any doubts? Or will they pay careful attention to his missteps and misstatements on the campaign trail? Will the media report accurately on McCain’s alertness and stamina?

2. Will McCain’s gaffes eventually be generally regarded as a pattern of behavior demonstrating physical and mental decline? Will his energy level and quality of judgment be called into question?

3. If McCain were to suffer a medical crisis during the campaign, how would such an event affect the general election? Would voters even find out about such an emergency? Surely the public would need to start asking questions if McCain were to disappear for a stretch between now and November on an ostensible “vacation” with no photo or video coverage.

Pony Party, ‘the reigning Lorelai’

…..at the risk of making Docudharma look like a Gilmore Girls fan site…

I’m having ‘a moment’.  The constant Hillary-bashing that I’m seeing, hearing, and reading in nearly every area of my life has me absolutely sickened.  In no way do I choose to defend Hillary’s choices, votes, politics, or even her very candidacy; it would just be really nice to see ANYTHING she has said or done evaluated objectively.  And yes, I can hear you wondering…”73rd, whatever does that have to do with The Gilmore Girls?”

For years, my oldest daughter, whom I have lovingly nick-named ‘thing 1’, watched the program religiously.  Before her accident, many of her friends referred to the two of us as ‘the Gilmore Girls’.  It could be because I am a single mother, youngish for the age of my children, and annoyingly non-traditional in both my parenting and general lifestyle.  It could be the closeness of our relationship.  Regardless, I have never been particularly fond of the comparison, as the mother in the program is self-centered, annoying, and a bit of an attention whore.  And ‘thing 1’, though as responisble, smart, and beatiful as her TV drama counterpart, wasn’t nearly as motivated.  Even before the car accident, the ivy league didn’t appeal to her whatsoever.  

But since her accident, I’ve become painfully aware of how she, and my relationship with her, contributed to and defined the person I was.  A person I no longer am, since her accident.  A person I miss almost as much as i miss the person she was.  And the person I am now is almost wholly defined by my relationship with her, since my life has basically become about caring for her.  We’re linked, for better or worse, till death do we part.  And yeah, it feels a little creepy to type ‘wedding’ words to describe my relationship with my daughter, but there it is.  We’re stuck with each other.

And that’s pretty much why seeing Hillary bashed, daily, from all sides, reminds me of the Gilmore girls, and of my daughter.  My life has become the consequence of someone else’s choices.  Sure, my own choices figure heavily, but ultimately I’m bound to someone else’s consequences as wholly as I’m bound to my own.  Bound by choice….no doubt, but in a situation where, to me, there just IS no other choice.

So, quite reflective of the seeming futility of my efforts in our own little universe, I understand why someone in Hillary’s position needs to see things through.  Needs to keep going.  And while I can’t say that anything that anyone has said about her…her campaign, her history, or any other aspect of her life they feel free to criticize…was somehow wrong, or even inappropriate, I can say that there have been many occasions where, had Obama or his staff committed the venial sin du jour, it would have been declared ‘silly’ or ‘inappropriate’ to even mention it. And vice versa. I remember a time when an Obama staffer ‘crashed’ a Hillary staffer’s conference-call for the press, and it was passed off as ‘no big deal’.  I know for sure that if a Hillary staffer had done the like, coverage would have been VERY different.  

At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is a person.  And while I don’t wish her to win, I equally wish that she didn’t have to lose.  I’m having ‘a moment’ where I actually identify with Hillary Clinton, whom I would have defined myself as differently from as Lorelai Gilmore.  Sadly, I’m not entirely at liberty to define myself any longer…but I, too, am staying in the race.

(I auto-publish the A.M. pony, and am typing this after another sleepless night trying to keep ‘thing 1’ quiet so that ‘thing 2’ can sleep.  Having just read it over before posting, I am well aware that it is incohesive nearly to the point of incoherence.  and for that, i apologize.  I’ll probably redact it heavily in the morning)

😉

Saving the American Left w/poll