MotherReader

I know most of the kidlitosphere bloggers don’t like to talk about politics on their blogs, but I gave up that high ground long ago. Um... sorry? Anyway, I’m offering a safe space to comment about the debate last night because I feel that some of us — and by that I mean me — need to talk about it.

Now my motto is, “If you can’t say anything nice, at least make it funny.” Based on that, I searched the opinions for a good bit about the debates that rang true, but was also funny. This is the only one — so far — that made me laugh:

McCain came off as sour, agitated and petulant. Obama — man, nothing rattles that guy. But McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping “You can’t handle the truth!” Jack Nicholson moment.

Gotta love movie quotes. And this was from Crunchy Con, a blog about conservative politics and religion. Makes you wonder what the liberals are saying! Oh wait, that’s me.

I found that quote in a round-up of opinions from Andrew Sullivan’s blog, a great place to find out more about the debate if you’re so inclined to do so. Or you can read the transcript at the New York Times. Like you’ve got that kind of time.

My main thought watching the debate was that Obama was calm, cool, articulate, and... presidential. McCain was like the angry old guy at the homeowner’s association meeting sniping about untrimmed hedges on the neighbor’s lawn.

Now there were times I got mad. McCain’s assertion that talking about horrible things shouted at rallies equals slandering all Republican rally attendees is a ridiculous diversion from a serious issue. I don’t think “health” of the mother should be put in finger quotes, no matter what you think the “pro-abortion movement” (my quotes are deliberate and derisive) is doing.

I was baffled by the rising celebrity of Joe the Plumber. Anyone else think that maybe Joe just needs a good accountant? Oh, and there were moments of amusement. The crowd actually laughed at the question of the moderator, “Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?” Obama talked about why Biden would be good president if need be. McCain instead talked about Palin like she was his feisty kid, even saying that he was proud of her. Gee, thanks, Dad. One of the best examples of Obama’s coolness, and his way of turning the topic around, was at this point in the debate.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think she’s qualified to be president?

OBAMA: You know, I think it’s — that’s going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she’s a capable politician who has, I think, excited the — a base in the Republican Party.

And I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John.

I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.

Personally, I wouldn’t have been able to hold back a laugh at that question. This would also have been an ideal time for Obama to make sure that McCain understands that Palin’s son has Down’s Syndrome, not autism. I would have paid money to see that correction by Obama with a pointed and yet totally cool look. Awwwk-ward.

Overall, I thought it was certainly a more interesting debate than the other two. I do wonder if McCain realizes that going completely negative during the debate gave Obama the opportunity to answer all the criticism with his actual policies and the actual truth. In some ways, the whole debate came off more like the world’s angriest interview of Obama.

So, what did you think?

It wasn’t easy making a new America that we could all enjoy in our own political ideology. It wasn’t easy, but it was fun. And you can do it too!

First I had to put Maryland, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Hawaii in the blue — which was a given for all states concerned.

Next, we had to make some tough state trades. We’re giving up New Mexico for Idaho; North Carolina for Indiana and West Virginia; and Colorado for Kentucky (this is clearly the most painful). But most importantly we need a land bridge to connect the East and West coasts, so a big sacrifice needs to be made. We’re giving up Florida for Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. It’s unfortunate, but necessary. You know what? Given global warming, Florida isn’t going to be worth much soon anyway. Sorry about Disney World though.

There you have it. Welcome to the Divided States of America. Let each section run itself as it sees fit. Lately, it seems like the only option.

(Another well-written article has come out on the disgrace of the McCain campaign attacks, this one stating, “[H]e is attempting to resurrect the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by dint of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us. It’s an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation as riven and fearful as ours, it is also a dangerous one. After all, it is a short leap from toxic words to toxic deeds.” The article also notes something that I saw as I watched McCain trying to talk around the angry mob, that “McCain seems ashamed, and he has good reason.”)

Originally, I thought that John McCain had sold his soul to the Republican Party. Now I think it’s possible that he has sold his soul to the devil. Lately it doesn’t seem like a big distinction, but it is. It really is.

I disagree with the ideology of the Republican Party, and think that cutting basic social services to undocumented immigrants is wrong. I am appalled with the political strategy of the campaign, and think that wasting the time of the American people on stupid issues like “lipstick on a pig” is wrong.

However, I am absolutely horrified by the current approach of McCain/Palin, and think that inciting angry mobs with insinuations and lies is wrong. Not just wrong in ideology or wrong in politics but morally wrong. Like God-Should-Smite-You-Down Wrong.

Who’s with me? Khaled Hosseini, author of The Kite Runner, says in a Washington Post editorial that not only is the jeering use of Obama’s middle name insulting to Muslims, but more importantly, “The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin... [to] denounce the use of Obama’s middle name as an insult.” He goes on to note that the most recent attempts to change the level of disrespect have been small.

Along with middle-name teasing, which we should have been done with in grade school, we hear that we don’t really know Obama. This message coming after two books he wrote and twenty months on the campaign trail — and delivered by someone who apparently doesn’t read and has been on the campaign trail for barely one month. We hear that Obama “pals around” with terrorists and felons. Of course, Ayers bombed buildings before Obama was an adult, and the University of Chicago and two nonprofit boards seem to have vetted him into society, but somehow Obama should shun him. Now Rezko was convicted after Obama had dealings with him over his house and property, but somehow Obama should have predicted that and shunned him too. The Wright controversy won’t be coming up, because Palin has her own preacher issues. Plus, it’s a lot of work to paint someone as both a radical Muslim and a racist Christian — but looking at the campaign, it was still worth a try.

Now McCain and Palin take all this crap on the road and get people really, really angry. The party line is that they can’t control what the people in the rallies say, things like “terrorist” and “get him.” Oh, or what people do, like threatening the media after Palin slams the media. Bullshit. If they’re going to rile up the people, they have to take the responsibility. Or, as said in this New York Times editorial, “The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder.” The writer, Frank Rich, begins his article starkly and bluntly, noting our biggest fear with an African-American candidate.

And I swear, if some angry, idiotic person takes this sewage and does something stupid, unmentionable, unconscionable, then John McCain is going to hell. And at that point, the country’s going to hell in a handbasket with him.

I wouldn’t do this, but I feel you may be looking to me to provide you with these latest Saturday Night Live Tina Fey sketches, and I dare not disappoint. As a compromise, I’ll just provide the link. Okay, the link and two of my favorite bits:

Palin: “Can I call you Joe?”
Biden: “Of course.”
Palin: “Okay, cause I practiced a couple of zingers where I call you Joe.”

That one actually explains a lot.

Ifill: “Governor Palin, would you extend same sex rights to the entire country?”
Palin: “You know, I would be afraid of where that would lead. I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.”

Ooooh. Snap!

I found this interesting article in The Washington Post that helped me understand why so many people thought Palin did well in the debate. In “Artful Dodging Trumps Evasion, Studies Show,” it’s noted that:

... most people are extremely poor at spotting even dramatic discrepancies between questions and answers. They found the failure was especially acute when answers were semantically linked to questions... The psychologists found that irrelevant answers delivered fluently and with poise scored higher with audiences than answers that were accurate, on-topic, but halting.

Another editorial opinion blames, quite scathingly, the press for letting Palin off the hook. Me, I blame Joe Six-Pack. Mainly because I can’t believe that we can now use that expression as an endearing reference to the down-home, regular American in the political arena.

Okay, okay, one more day of politics. Sarah Palin actually did well in the debate in that she spoke in a folksy way that people seem to enjoy (“doggone it”), she looked directly in the camera like a trained newscaster (or a celebrity), and she recognized her audience as the people watching on TV (Ifill who?). It was an... interesting approach to the debate to just ignore the questions posed if she didn’t like them. I wouldn’t have guessed one could do that. And apparently any trace of substance was totally off the table in favor of generalities, slogans, and jingoism. I read a comment somewhere that compared the debate to her cramming for a test and then padding the exam questions. My thoughts? “You betcha.” In case you missed it, here’s a short video of debate highlights that sums up the style pretty well.

In honor of her victory over low expectations, here’s a little something from Slate on The Poetry of Sarah Palin. They note, “It’s been barely six weeks since the arctic-fresh voice of Alaskan poet Sarah Heath Palin burst upon the lower 48. The poems collected here were compiled verbatim from only three brief interviews. So just imagine the work Sarah Palin could produce over the next four (or eight) years.”

On the Bailout

Ultimately,
What the bailout does
Is help those who are concerned
About the health care reform
That is needed
To help shore up our economy,
Helping the —
It’s got to be all about job creation, too.

Shoring up our economy
And putting it back on the right track.
So health care reform
And reducing taxes
And reining in spending
Has got to accompany tax reductions
And tax relief for Americans.
And trade.
We’ve got to see trade
As opportunity
Not as a competitive, scary thing.
But one in five jobs
Being created in the trade sector today,
We’ve got to look at that
As more opportunity.
All those things.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)

Already from last night we have, “I may not answer the question / The way you want to hear / But I’ll talk straight / To the American people / And let them know my track record.” What more is there to say? Oh, Poetry Friday is hosted at Two Writing Teachers.

Okay, I’m trying to avoid politics, but today, with the Vice-Presidential debate, it’s gotta be fair game. Right?

So I find myself fairly amused that Sarah Palin might do well tonight simply because expectations are so very, very low. How low?

Several members of the media, including MSNBC anchors and guests and an NPR reporter, have asserted that Gov. Sarah Palin faces “low” or “lowered” expectations in the upcoming vice-presidential debate and that she therefore faces a lower bar for victory than Sen. Joe Biden. They have made these assertions — that she will win if she simply beats (lowered) expectations...

Basically if she doesn’t freeze up, giggle uncontrollably, or drool on herself, she could be seen as doing fine. You have to laugh.

I was heartened by the Washington Post article that noted, “Six in 10 voters see her as lacking the experience to be an effective president, and a third are now less likely to vote for McCain because of her.” What the poll fails to state is that the other four voters are in comas. Or at least that is the only explanation I can discern after hearing Palin’s response to Katie Couric’s question about what newspapers she reads.


Reading? What’s that all about? The video is even funnier in its own way than the new Saturday Night Live sketch. Though, that said, I did totally crack up at “Katie, I’d like to use one of my lifelines.” That line wasn’t from the real interview, but parts of the skit were actually word for word. You have to laugh.

So with all of this, why does McCain think Obama is gaining in the polls? Here is McCain’s exchange on  Fox & Friends, as released by the Fox News Channel:

HOST BRIAN KILMEADE: Right now a recent study says and the polls reflect that Barack Obama is gaining ever since this crisis has landed in everyone’s kitchen table, why is that?

McCAIN: Because life isn’t fair (laughs)... He certainly did nothing for the first few days. I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face to face meetings.

Because life isn’t fair. What a great slogan that would be for their campaign. McCain/Palin: Because Life Isn’t Fair.

I mean really, you have to laugh. Because I’m not — I am NOT — going to cry.

In case you are wondering if the SNL sketch with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin is as good as people say... um, it totally is.

Speaking as someone who procrastinated on buying her plane ticket until this week, let me state that there is still time to be part of the Second Annual Kidlitosphere Conference. I got a sneak peak at the lineup of topics, and it looks fantastic.

If you’re an author and want to find out how blogging can work for you, this conference is the place to go. If you’re a book blogger, and are looking for more ideas for growing your audience or expanding your voice, this conference is for you. The conference will be great for both authors and bloggers looking to share ideas, meet people, market books n’ blogs, and generally network. And you’ll have a blast.

Can you trade in frequent flyer miles? Set up a book marketing event nearby? Call in your education training requirement? I don’t know, set up a lemonade stand? It’s going to be great and we want you there.

(On a totally unrelated and political topic, I was watching McCain on the Presidential Forum last night and thought, “Man, why isn’t this guy running for president?”)

Feel free to skip this post on the political nature of words. I wasn’t going to write it, but I can’t stop myself from writing it any longer. Forgive me.

The new lines have been drawn in this race for the White House, and they are no longer about the concepts of experience and change. They are about the words.

Not terribly long ago, regardless of your party affiliation, the decisions were fairly clear-cut. The Republican and Democratic candidates were in line with their parties’ platforms. Sure, people could argue about a maverick reputation or a liberal bias — and that’s pretty much what we’ve been doing for the last few months — but in essence, each candidates represented his party’s platform.

But not everyone votes on party, so focusing on the two candidates themselves, you could decide which was more important to bring to the White House in 2009 — experience or change. Again, people could argue about the details of these concepts — and they did — but the essence of the argument remained the same: Is it more important that our next president have lots of political/governmental experience or that our next president bring change to our current policies?

That’s a real choice. Certainly I’m simplifying, but that’s what it boiled down to for this election. Experience or Change.

So, now McCain/Palin have decided that they want change as their agenda. Not actual change, mind you, but the word. Because apparently, repeating the word is enough. People now believe that the Republican party is going to bring change — to the office held by the Republican party — and it’s all because the McCain/Palin ticket is running on “change.” Again, the word, not the actual concept.

And this scares me. Because the words that candidates use have to matter. They have to be true, and they have to mean something. If candidates can just make stuff up, then hell, I could have run for president. (Perhaps I can also be thin if I just say it enough. Thin... thin... thin... Poof! Size 6!)

On that topic comes this article from The Washington Post today: “As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone.”

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters’ opinions of the candidates. “The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there’s a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she’s new, she’s popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent,” Feehery said. “As long as those are out there, these little facts don’t really matter.”

Somewhat related (but mostly included because of its great headline) is this article from The Wall Street Journal, not known for its liberal bent: “The GOP Loves the Heartland To Death.”

[McCain] seems to think that small-town people can be easily played. Just choose a running mate who knows how to skin a moose and all will be forgiven. Drive them off the land, shutter their towns, toss their life chances into the grinders of big agriculture... and praise their values. The TV eminences will coo in appreciation of your in-touch authenticity, and the carnival will move on.

Then there is this article from The Guardian, which offers a frightening global view alongside its acknowledgment of the facts about Palin: “The world’s verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.”

We know one of Palin’s first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a “rhetorical” question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m “Bridge to Nowhere” project in Alaska — in fact, she campaigned for it — but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough — but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.

And just to remind us that words can also bring us hope, and yes, make us laugh, from The Onion we get: “Obama Modifies ‘Yes We Can’ Message To Exclude Area Loser: ‘Yes We Can, Except Nate Walsh,’ Obama Says.”

“I have always said that the change we seek will not come easy, that it will not come without its share of sacrifice and struggle,” Obama continued. “And the last thing we need is dead weight like Nate Walsh adding another 20 or 30 years to the process.” The speech, entitled “A More Perfect Union Minus Nate Walsh,” was 26 minutes long and contained the words “change” 12 times, “hope” 16 times, and “Nate,” in conjunction with the phrase “with the exception of,” 34 times.

I’ll try to get back on the books, and writing, and libraries. Really, I will. But I had to get this out of my system. I hope you understand.

When Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! Voices from a Medieval Village, by Laura Amy Schlitz, won the 2008 Newbery Medal, I wasn’t confident that kids would pick up this book and read it if it weren’t assigned. It is an interesting book of poems as stories. I enjoyed the look into the lives of the medieval people, and I liked how the tales were connected. But it seems more of a classroom book than a pleasure book. I’m wondering now that it’s had a chance to reach the public, what do kids think of it? Anyone know?

When I read it at the beginning of the year on a particularly moody day, I copied part of a poem to use for Poetry Friday (today at Wild Rose Reader). I haven’t felt like posting this cynical, hopeless poem until this week, when the Republican convention and Sarah Palin have me feeling rather cynical and hopeless.

Father is the miller
As his father was of old,
And I shall be the miller,
When my father’s flesh is cold.
I know the family business —
It’s been drummed into my head:
How to cheat the hungry customer
And earn my daily bread.

Oh, God makes the water, and the water makes the river,
And the river turns the mill wheel
and the wheel goes on forever.
Every man’s a cheater, and so every man is fed,
For we feed upon each other,
when we seek our daily bread.

Of course, there’s more to the poem about how everyone from field to mill to bakery cheats and nothing ever changes. And there’s more to my thoughts on the RNC and Palin, about how everyone lies and nothing ever changes.

I have to say that this week I feel like I’m in a bad dream or Bizarro World or even 1984 (“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”). The candidate touting experience as the most important qualification for president picks an inexperienced running mate. Long-time Washington insiders are talking about shaking up Washington. The party in charge is running as the party of change. Palin tells us that she respects her daughter’s “decision,” but doesn’t see the connection to choice. She asks us to leave her family out of the discussion, but she uses them as her main talking point. The Republican party says they represent real Americans, but the convention was one big hall of white people in a country that is nearing a majority of minority populations. And perhaps most disturbing for me, I’m agreeing with most of a Krauthammer column. Up is down! Hello is goodbye! Prada is Payless! This perpetual state of cognitive dissonance is making my head hurt!

(Deep breath. Watch Change video. It’s going to be okay. I hope.)

FatherReader here, making a brief guest post (in no small part because Pam’s busy trying to get the kids ready for the first day of school tomorrow). But since she didn’t want to leave you, dear readers, without original content over the long weekend, she asked me to fill in. So be forewarned — I can’t claim to be as wittily smart-assed as MotherReader, so I tend to make up for it by being merely long-winded and inflammatory.

That said, I’m really just going to pass the buck and post a video we both found amusing this week. See, Pam and I are convinced that the main reason the G.O.P. campaign machine has promulgated the previously-unheard phrase “arugula-eating” in its attempts to smear Obama as elitist is that they needed something new: The de facto phrase when making such a smear — “latté-drinking” — just might raise some uncomfortable backlash accusations of racism. Y’know, what with Obama being of... blended racial heritage.

But rather than delve into a whole discussion on that topic (feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments section, of course), I just thought I’d post this similarly-themed Onion News Network segment. And then go see if I can pick up some arugula while waiting for my own morning latté.

Just a little something for your amusement.

Okay, my amusement.

I’ve got to say it. Obama’s speech on race was extraordinary. It’s late, I’m tired, and I did not need to spend forty minutes listening to him. But I did, and... wow. Oh, and he wrote it himself. Double wow.

If you haven’t seen the speech, you can find it here or along with the Washington Post article. I couldn’t resist pulling out this one part for my book-loving peeps:

And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

“And reading to them.” Yes.

Dear John,

Stop calling. I’m tired of getting messages on my answering machine reminding me that today’s the primary and to get out and vote for you. It’s over between us, Mr. McCain. It has been for a long time. In fact, I take that back. It never really even started for us, which only makes your continual calling all the more pathetic.

Okay, there was that brief flirtation years ago. But c’mon, the Democrats were putting up Kerry. In comparison, you looked so strong. But nothing happened with us. You have to admit it. I didn’t even give you my digits, which also makes your calls pretty disturbing.

You know this is hard enough for me already. Yes, I’m talking about Clinton and Obama. We need to talk about that. I’ve always been a fan of the Clintons and stuck through the tough times with them. I did. I like Hillary, and I love the idea of a woman president. But for years the country has been acting like an married couple hashing over the same old arguments and not getting anywhere. For the love of Pete, the last election had a huge focus on Vietnam. VIETNAM! Do you realize how long ago that was? Shouldn’t our attention be somewhere else by now? You were no help with your whole Prisoner of War thing going on. Not that I don’t appreciate what you did. Honestly. It’s just time to move on.

I’m with Obama now. He’s strong too, but he’s a fresh start. We need a fresh start badly, so badly. I can’t work out the old issues anymore. Red state, blue state. Clinton, Bush. Back and forth. It’s draining. With Obama I feel needed, wanted, excited. It’s good. It’s really good.

So John, the calls have got to stop. I’ll always treasure the good in you, but I can’t be yours. I can’t. I’m an Obama Girl now.

Sincerely,
Pam (Pookie)