The Brown Team Party

What glory is this and can there be more tomorrow?

Last night I sat down to dinner and conversation with my team mates from the Obama presidential campaign. We delivered the votes from our area in more than expected amounts. We regaled at the sight of the young people who were going to be enthusiastic , but according to the cynics, in the end, were not going vote. The polls showing Obama ahead, they would decide to stay home and text each other. They voted in record numbers all across the country.

One ward in the city recorded thousands of votes for Obama and one vote for McCain. The total was double the number of votes ever recorded in that ward. We talked about the numbers of first time voters and the people who admitted they had never volunteered for a campaign before.

We talked about the so called "grab and drag" tactic of going to supporters homes on election day and almost forcing them to the polls. In truth, this didn't happen very often. Indeed, traffic at the polls was lighter than we thought it was going to be because people had voted absentee in such great numbers.

We talked about how long the campaign was. Some had started working in the cold of winter to assure victory in the primary. As a result, many had been working on the campaign for almost a year.

We were happy bunch. The number of hectic hours, the crush of tasks in the last four days of the Get Out The Vote campaign and the poll watching were complete and out of the way. Victory, sweet victory was ours. We exchanged stories about Palin and reflected on the cabinet and leadership selections. The group talked about the moment that the feeling of success sunk in. Some said it was Barak striding onto the stage at Grant Park. Others mentioned seeing Jesse Jackson shedding tears as he waited for Barak to give his acceptance speech. Still others remembered the moment the television screen flashed the news that the West coast polls had closed and the networks declared Barak the winner, the 44Th President of the United States. We were, in the tradition of the campaign, "telling our story".

But no one was smug. Most of us knew that this was not an ending, but instead it was the beginning. No one gives up power. Already, we had all heard on the news of the conservatives scrambling to recover their dead and wounded so they could retreat from the field only to reorganize and return. Yes, it was time to celebrate, but we left on the sobering thought that indeed this was a battle won, but the war continues.

It's Not About Sarah.

The press and the public seem to be fascinated with Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate. We are evidently sexist, elitist or blindly liberal if we don't see the value in this candidate. If we claim she doesn't have experience, we are blind to the same charge against Barak Obama, because he has never had to make "Real" decisions like rejecting the bridge to nowhere (thanks but no thanks is the mantra)

There is little doubt that Palin evokes images of a better looking Rosanne Barr, a kind of Gidget goes to Washington persona. She's good looking, smart, tough and looks like she could be someone from your neighborhood. She has accomplished a lot in her short government career and like most politicians some of it's good and some of it's...well not so good. She is the stuff of mythology. Working side by side with her good looking hunky husband, killing moose in the Alaskan wild, and raising her large family, she's the mythological woman who can do everything. Why not run a country?

As David Brooks, New York Times columnist has pointed out she embodies the everyman image of the can-do American with the added advantage of not being a professional politician nor a pointy headed intellectual. She has the mythical common sense that defies education and all of those experienced politicians years of public service. She reaches across the aisle to build consensus. She fights and defeats corruption, even in her own party. She leaps tall buildings in a single bound... Okay, I've gone to far. And like most good fiction stories there is enough of a whiff of truth in all of these perceived traits and experiences to give her a veil of reality.

But there is one thing that makes Palin patently unfit for office. She's a Republican. Yes, an unapologetic member of the party that has brought you the last thirty years of grief, if your a member, or maybe a former member, of the middle class. With a mindless mantra of we need less government, less handouts to welfare queens, adherence to free market economic principles, privatize government and other such bright ideas, we have gotten Enron, the aftermath of Katrina, the dot com bubble. contaminated food, bad drugs, he mortgage crisis and the current melt down in the financial markets. The Republican answer to all of this is a huge social welfare program to save the world from unwanted pregnancies by preaching abstinence and preventing abortion, stigmatizing gay and lesbian people, arguing about the meaning of patriotism and a stupid war in Iraq.

While the middle class disintegrates, more of us do without proper health care, good paying jobs become more and more difficult to find, the cost of living keeps going up and the globe gets warmer and climatically more unstable. Gidgit and her friends want us to worry about the horror of gay marriage, the tragedy of not teaching creationism and the unfairness of allowing rape and incest victims to simply decide not to bear children that result from these atrocities. Instead of the things that really matter to all of us Republicans, Democrats and Independent citizens of this planet. Sarah Palin is a decent person who undoubtedly believes strongly in her adherence to conservative political stance on the issues and that is why she should not become that person that is a heartbeat away from being the President of the United States, as well as why John McCain should not be our next president. It's not who they are, it's what they believe in that disqualifies them for office. They are simply wrong on the issues that are important.

Hillary Supporters

When I hear that die hard supporters of Hillary Clinton will "never pull the lever" for Obama, my first reaction is why would they say this? I understand and sympathize with their disappointment. If my first choice, Obama, had been defeated, I would have felt the same way, but evidently not quite as strongly. Because this election has to be about change and the kind of change we need is not just on the edges nor is the kind of change we need going to come from Republicans. It needs to come from motivated Democrats, disgruntled Republicans and energized independents, who are just plain fed up with the lack of leadership in both parties and the demonstrated inability of the Republican Party to lead.

As such, I would have had trepidations about voting for Clinton because I'm not sure that she believes that wholesale change is not only necessary and do able, nor do I think she can do it with all of the negatives she would bring to the office, but the options are clear and I would have done it. Four more years of coddle the corporate interests, supply side economics, lassie faire social policy and funding a war without end is not an option.

Clinton's attempt to be the first women to run for president on a major party ticket didn't happen for a lot of reasons and most of them were not her fault, but circumstance often controls the outcome. Her reputation, earned or not, is out there like the Goodyear blimp at a golf tournament throwing it's shadow over the field of play. What Hillary supporters sound like and are acting like is almost a third party movement. and left to it's own devices could easily lead to to another of the famous and historical splits in the Democratic party.

However, third party's are mainly based on policy differences with the major parties and the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are not great. There is no civil rights division in the party. There is not antiwar division in the party. Women are well represented in the party hierarchy and even though women thought they had the opportunity to nominate Hillary as the first female presidential candidate from a major party, it didn't happen. No this is a cult movement. It's a movement based on personality; indeed it appears as perception of personality. I say this because this movement has no momentum if Hillary isn't in the picture, but even when she removes herself as she did with her courageous and history making speech and subsequent nomination of Obama, the movement persists.

Obama is no doubt a catalyst for the change movement. He has defined it and he will lead it, but like the "New Deal" and "The Great Society" this movement can go on without him. For I believe that the movement was looking for a leader and it found Obama. He works because the articulates the heartfelt anger and dissatisfaction people have with government. He exemplifies the need for a political atmosphere of respect and cooperation rather than the politics of the personal and animosity. I believe if Obama had not risen to this task we would have eventually found someone else.

And make no mistake, this is not over on election day even if Obama carries the day. The forces against the change in the status quo are not about to fold their abdicate their power, no matter how diminished that power might be. No, a return to a government that represents all of the people instead of those with access will not come easy and a President Obama can not do it alone. He is going to need all of us every step of the way.

What does President McCain mean for us?

If I were to just list the anticipated result of a McCain victory in November, it would look like a bullet list of talking points from a liberal blogster or commentator. But the facts are hard to ignore. I anticipate an even harder turn to the right on the Supreme Court as the retirement of some liberal justices will occur during this next four years. I'm sure that no one in the one million five hundred thousand of the US wealthiest people, currently threatened by an Obama proposed tax policy, should anticipate any tax increase. The world will wait, but not for long, I'm sure, to see what McCain will do about the mess in the middle east. Look for more troops and more saber rattling as a solution to world terrorism. In general, look for a continuation of republican policies that have gotten us where we are today, in deep trouble.

The labels on these mini-movements have feel good sounding words like trickle down economics, faith based initiatives, education vouchers, patriot act and family values. We are regaled with flag waving, bible touting, and apple pie laden images of happy folks who feel better with less civil rights and economic clout as long as they can buy things cheaper at Wal Mart.

As far as an National economic policy, I would expect it to be the same "free market Friedman policy of Regan and Bush. Slowly over the last thirty years we've been fed a line of reasoning that goes like this. If you'll just trust the rich people to run things you will be fine. After all, they are rich because they are smart and know how to run big complicated things like government. Smaller things, such as Enron, the Banking business and Restoration efforts in New Orleans, they don't do so well.

What we have is less. We have less and more expensive health care costs. We have less money to spend because the average income for most Americans is falling. We have less Government because the Republicans in particular think that government is bad for us. The results is we have less enforcement of rules that might help us such as banking regulations, healthy food inspections and corrupt business practices. We make less investment in public infrastructure.We have less enforcement of labor laws. We have less standing in the world, as our allies have turned against our go it alone foreign policy.

We do have more of some things. We have more government corruption, more national debt, and more of our young solders in VA hospitals recovering from wounds. We have more people without meaningful employment and more people without health coverage. We have more roads, bridges, levies and other infrastructure in bad need of repair or replacement.

We need more National policy on things that count, such as transportation, energy, health care, and the environment. Recent Republican efforts in this area have represented the best interests of the business entities that profit from these issues. The consumer was not invited to comment. They basically have thrown the consumer to the wolves. What has resulted is bad loans, bad food, bad health care and higher costs on everything. (Oh yeah and the stock market ain't doing os well lately either if you're looking at your 401k.)

McCain will owe his victory in November, not to the people of the country so much as the corporate America and the people that serve those corporations. It is no wonder that Wal Mart practically ordered it's employees to vote Republican. A vigorous enforcement of existing labor laws would be uncomfortable for them, much less what might come with a Democratic take over of the White House.

No matter how nice of a person John McCain is and no matter how much he might have opposed the worst of Bush policy, he is at heart a conservative republican and they, my friends. have not proven to be good leaders of our country. Yes government can be a problem. It appears that even a govenment run by people who vowed to restrict the size and pwoer of government. But be aware that the problems government might bring effect some people more than others. A conservative republcan government seems to serve only those who have much and want more.

Is Obama the Answer?

As I have articulated my disappointment and suspicion with John McCain, I have failed to look at the candidacy of Barak Obama. I do not think Obama is a Messiah. I do not think he is "the answer, the heir of the Kennedy mantle or the better version of Bill Clinton. Senator Obama is the man the Democrat votors were looking for when they realized that it wasn't the Republicans that were preventing our country for progressing into the twentieth century, but the lack of leadership and ability to engage the electorate in the idea's that matter. While I respect Al Gore and John Kerry, neither one of them were able to articulate a campaign that could get the liberal voters to the polls. (Where was the Al Gore we love to see expounding on the inconvenient truth?)

Obama does excite people in a conceptual way. He represents change, not only from the failed policies of the talentless leadership of Bush and Company, but the uninspired resistance of the Democrats. Consider the current debate on energy. The old guard Republican approach of drilling our way out of the oil shortage has little or no chance of solving the problem, but the Democrats have not come up with a compelling case for why we should build a thousand windmills either. what is needed is Obama's comprehensive plan of a national energy policy, which is going to have to include increments of transportation, pollution abatement, and just generally telling people what they don't want to hear. We need to change the way we live.

Obama, in a typical don't show your cards until all of the bets are in, has hinted his approach will be more comprehensive and I'm sure it will be or he will be a one term President. What Obama is doing is talking about issues that matter to people and he is not promising an easy time of implementation. For instance, when you talk about a sea change in foreign policy, you're talking about changing the opinion of our country in the minds of millions of people across the globe, friend and foe alike, that remember that in spite of evidence in abundance to his incompetency, we reelected George Bush. That was not a miscalculation of George Bush's, it was a colossal mistake on the part of the citizens of this country. Like it or not, voted for him or you didn't, we brought the world a incompetent leader. The power that the US has in the world makes that choice a issue for every citizen of the world and now they are deeply suspicious of our judgment.

Furthermore, if we are going to finally tackle the health care problems in this country, you only have to remember what happened the last time anyone had the nerve to take on the establishment. it is not going to be any easier this time and probably worse.

The infrastructure of this country is rotting like a ninth ward New Orleans abandon home. Bridges, roads, affordable housing stock and many other necessities, that we require to keep our life style and offer similar prosperity for our kids, is suffering from neglect and overuse. The anti-tax movement has stopped the progress of this country for almost thirty years. Even if they gave up and went away, it will take a major infusion of cash to bring our situation into anything that's reasonable and trust this, the anti-tax guys are not going to just go away.

Obama would be the first President that will have to answer for his environmental policy. prior to the recognition that we are experiencing climate change and that it's driven by human activity, everyone else got a free ride as long as gas was cheap and the road builders were happy. Now, even though we are exporting jobs and pollution to China, a drop of fifty cents a gallon my revive the Humvee industry and resume the accelerating rate and huge contribution the American automobile makes to world climate change.

Here's my point. Obama has the right idea's and has shown some competence in surrounding himself with the right people to get things done. If the stars align properly and we do elect him, and that is a big if, he will be powerless unless we persist. He has been campaigning for this job for almost two years. Those that believed in him from the beginning and those who have come around to supporting him need to understand one thing. If he wins it's not over.

In order to affect meaningful change, it will take a concerted campaign of persistent pressure on the congress and press to hold them and him accountable for the promise of change. If we elect him and than go home to watch TV sitcoms than I can assure you the effort will fail. The rich and powerful will not go away and they will be influencing every congressperson they can to hold to the status quo or even make things worse.

No one speaks for the average person in this country after the election. We are like the crowd at the NFL football game. We pay a lot of money to get in, they use us as necessary atmosphere for the broadcast and while millions get to watch commercials for everything from cars to cardiac cures, the fan in the stands freezes during the TV timeout , forgotten and awaiting the resumption of game. In the case of the country, after the election, if we let them, the politicians will forget us.

The Paris Hilton Vote Block

Even by writing about this latest fiasco, I am contributing to the thing I dislike so much about American Media. In one of his attack ad's, straight talking John McCain (Whatever happened to that man?), likened Obama to a person who is famous only for being famous, Paris Hilton. The implication is that there is no substance to Obama, he's all about the latest cult of personality. The genius here is that it doesn't make any difference if you accept the premise or not, the ad still works in McCains favor. McCain was so far off the press radar, his handlers had to do something. This ad got them the attention they so desperately needed. Talk about doing anything you need to do to get elected President, this one is going to be discussed regardless of the outcome.

Here's the sad part. This is non starter as an issue. Hillary Clinton beat this issue to death and it got her nothing. But the Paris Hilton ad gives the thing legs with the press. First Hilton's mother, a McCain contributor, whines to the press. The only thing this produces is a truly pathetic confrontation by the press with McCain. He looks absolutely silly trying to chuckle and bush off the ad as, "we were just trying to have a little fun". I think McCain shows us how desperate he is to allow his name to be attached to this nonsense, but on it goes. Now Hilton, don't get between her and a camera or you'll be risking your life, comes out with her spin on the thing. It gives her a chance to get some spot light and keeps McCain in there with her. And
what burning question does this million dollar TV exposure answer? Lest we forget, Obama is not experienced enough to be President.

The outcome of this event is not certain. My guess is it will effect how some people think about the campaign and may cause some vote shift. However, I think more than likely what it will do is what all of this trash campaigning does is direct the focus on issues that have no substance and no gravitas for us the citizens for whom one of these guys is going to be President. I would hope that McCain supporters would let their candidate know that this is silly and embarrassing to them as they try to convince others to support him. I would hope that Obama manages to keep his head and stay above this type of campaigning. I would also hope that undecided voters would discount this effort and look for substance in John McCain's plan for the future of this country instead of his silly grab for headlines and TV time. But OMG didn't you think Paris's new look is just FABULOUS!

The Constructive Use of F words

It's a three letter word used to describe a homosexual. It begins with the letter F and it goes with all of the other divisive F words that conservatives will roll out once more this summer to vilify the progressives, as they try to hold onto their power in Washington and their command of the national agenda.

As some one once said, you have to hand it to them they are the masters of legerdemain. While we are arguing about what to do about fetuses, flags, firearms and ..well that other three letter word for homosexuals, the conservative minority is, in the name of democracy, taking away our civil rights, securing the fortunes of major corporations, and serving the needs of the few, while abandoning the masses.

The enactment of change, being the watch word of this years presidential election has come down the choice between two men, John McCain and Barak Obama. If you're talking about regime change, you have to think that McCain is going to be a better version of Bush, before you'd ever define his election as change.

McCain is still going to advocate for armed conflict over negotiation. You have to understand that to these people, Democracy is not evolving form of governance, it is a set in stone almost religious belief that we must force on people if they won't accept it. He will decide for unilateral preemptive war versus building a consensus amongst our neighbors. He is still going to advocate for Friedman's free market or trickle down economics. He will submit tax breaks for the rich. McCain will owe it to his base to appoint judges that will vote for limiting the rights of individuals versus the perception of security of the many.

His policy will be the same as Bush, his delivery will be more nuanced and far more articulate, but than the standard set by Bush is so low that exceeding it has to be, excuse me, "a slam dunk". I would expect many of the same people who surrounded Bush to have influence in a McCain administration. And why not, these people succeeded in bringing us into a playground atmosphere with regard to foreign policy. Starting with the "he looked at me funny and called my dad names" reasons for the Iraq war, that resulted all time low world opinion ratings a huge deficit in our budget and not to mention loss of life and limb.

We are in the worst economic situation in decades. Please don't tell me how nice it is for many of the people. Average income in Wisconsin is down for seven years in a row. The dollar is at a record low against other world currencies. This is allowing American corporations to be bought at wholesale prices by foreign interests. Oil is selling at record high prices. World environmental polluters have had an eight year vacation. God forbid, lest I sound like a conservative, The stock market is in a mess and has lost considerable value in the last six months. Health care costs keep going up and all the conservatives have to say is that we have to install more market based solutions.

Please imagine yourself laying on a gurney, after you've suffered a heart attack, receiving quotes from various vendors trying to bargain down the cost of your need for immediate care. Or better yet, let some one whose interest lie in saving money for the insurance provider not your health, make the decision for you.

And why do things like the failure to respond to Katrina and the lack of action in regulating the banking sector, the contaminated food outbreaks and problems with prescription drugs happen and are happening more frequently. Because the conservatives believe these government agencies are the problem and they continue to fund them at lower and lower levels so that any effect they might have is hampered by their inability to respond.

If government wasn't the problem when Ronald Reagan said it was in the early eighties, it certainly has become the problem under the control of the conservatives. If you don't fund and support your regulatory agencies you get Enron, Katrina aftermath, a Housing mortgage bubble and lack of proper food inspection. Clearly Government has become a problem, because the folks running it don't believe in it and have down everything politically possible to destroy it.

If we want to continue feeling safe from the threat posed by those F words, we can continue down the road we are on. If we think our nations infrastructure, economy, general populations access to health care and the basic rights of our people are more important than the F words than we have to vote for real change.

Sabbatical notice

Actually, I'm not an academic, nor am I getting paid to not write my blog, but I am taking some time off to do some personal writing. I expect to be back in July. If you are one of my regular readers, I hope you'll indulge me.

The Denial of Change

How difficult is change? So difficult it seems that it can be denied for even the slightest reason. Think of people, whom despite all information to the contrary; don't take the job, move to the new location, marry the one that truly loves them or deny themselves opportunity, only to realize one day that it could have meant everything to them if they had. These hesitancy's, for often a door opens only briefly, can cause us second thoughts and remorse. But denial is a refuge that is deep and comfortable. Denial is one of the mainstays of religion and the most used countermanding control of the status quo. Typically, change is modeled by those opposed to it, as stepping off of a cliff into unseen depths and unknown outcomes.

If you chose not to believe there is no science, there is no rational thought and to error on the side of continuation of failed efforts is better than the unknown of change, you are bound to believe in the one percent solution. The one percent solution postulates that if there is a one percent chance that something will fail, we best not try it. If there is a one percent chance that change will damage us in any way, we dare not risk it.

My explanation is a interpretation of a theory advanced by vice-president Dick Cheney. The vice president was quoted as saying that if there was a one percent chance that a rogue state had nuclear capability than it must be regarded as true and we must act as if it were fact. In this case, he was using the idea as justification for "preemptive war" and the invasion of Iraq.

What if there was a one percent chance that a new coalition of voters would vote in their combined self interest to seek better health care and to assure that social security would remain a significant factor to assure that our aging population would not fall into poverty. What if they signalled that building a strong infrastructure in America was at least as important as building democracy in the middle east. What if people saw through the smoke and mirrors of "supply side free market economics's " and insisted on fair and vigorous regulation of the corporate business community and called for an end to "corporate welfare". Let me assure you this is the one percent that conservative Republican interests fear more than Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iran.

Just because the term for the Republican tactic of "starving the beast" or choking off funding for social welfare programs is not in vogue, do not believe for one second the tactic is not working. Let's be clear, the Republicans cast the democrats as tax and spenders. When they inherited the White House and gained Congressional control in 2000, there was a surplus and we were a hugely solvent nation. They have through irresponsible tax policy and a ultimately stupid war in Iraq indebted this country for many years to come, possibly even handcuffing progressive rebuilding for the next President. Now that friends is Mission Accomplished.

The Sorry Legacy of George Bush

I dare anyone to tell me something overtly positive about the legacy of this President Bush. From assisting in deepening the differences between rich and poor, allowing the nations infrastructure to go to hell and emasculating us in the eyes of the world with his amateur and silly foreign policy, he has weakened and hobbled us as a nation.

A willing disciple of the Republican experiment of redoing the social order with "free market economics" (his own father referred to them as voodoo economics" to his libertarian bend on the reduction of government. Bush has left the house in a mess and pretty much maxed out the credit cards. Any good parent would be practicing tough love and throwing the kid out of the house with the clothes on his back and an i-Pod stuck in his ear. But we don't do that. We let this disaster careen down the highway out of control and racking more destruction as we label him a "lame duck".

From the Republican viewpoint, the rank and file true believers and far right conservatives are sorry to see him go. After all, what I detail above as failure, they see as kind of a progress back to a better time, pre-Franklin Roosevelt to be exact. And while we allow them their beliefs, I question their logic and sense of fairness, might I say, their sense of Christian concern for their fellow man.

This transformation of our political, social and economic atmosphere to a contentious and virulent field of battle. We've lost all control on the system which should at the very least respect the rights of elected officials to express opposition to the majority opinion. It wasn't working that way. Bush in the final look was the apex of a movement that used the politics of the personal to control and intimidate opposition in to silence or at least rendered them ineffective. The amazing breadth of this tactic is that it included opposition within the Republican Party as well as the Democrat's.

One can only hope that the opposition will take control of the White House and congress and use the opportunity to turn this ship around. If they squander the chance for a opportunity fr revenge we are apt to live with a version of the Hatfields and McCoys for long time

When It's all Over

The Democratic Party's nomination process, which started as a Calvary charge is now looking like a two horse race to the finish line. The lead is changing, depending on how your counting, and there is no break away winner. All of this is interesting and, as you might believe, the press is eating it up. The problem is that the contest has ceased being about ideas and has spiralled into a contest of personalities and all of the other things we didn't want it to be about. Those other things being the possibility of having our first women president or our first black president. I think on the level of the next winner of American Idol, the country is ready for either possibility , but in the lonely dim environs of the voting booth, the concept may not stand up to with the courage it takes to vote with your head instead of your heart.

Either Obama or Clinton are capable of being President of the United States. Given the standard George Bush has set, almost anyone with a high school diploma could qualify. The question is and, in my mind, will continue to be is who can bring this country together. Pundits and Washington insiders argue that no one can. The distance between the right and left has for to long taken center stage in the conduct of our representatives, at the expense of the vast majority of those of us in the center. The masses of people who may have opinions about the direction of the society on social issues, but recognize that governance is a matter of dialogue and compromise. This inability to get our government to respond has been in the last resort our own fault, because we get the leaders we deserve. Mostly the leadership of the past has been elected by zealous factions of the extremes of both parties and they have dictated the agenda.

I would venture that Obama has changed that situation by providing a new possibility for voters that in fact represents them. His early opposition to the war, his emphasis on issues that affect the middle class such as jobs and health care resonate with the citizens who in the past haven't been motivated to become involved in the process.

There is no doubt that Senator Clinton, also has created a constituency in otherwise disaffected voters, specifically women and Hispanic voters. So here is the problem. What do we do when one of these nominee's is finally declared the parties candidate? Do we coalesce behind the winner or do we split the party and give the failed policies of the Republican Part another four years of opportunity.
PS: Do even think about the joint ticket of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. They both have a future in politics's no matter how this comes out. For either of them to run as vice-president is political death even if they win.

Old, White and Irrelevant .

Of course the Republican party looks old, white and irrelevant in this 21st century, but it wasn't planned that way. The condition it finds itself in started in the nineteen sixties like the mythical flutter of the butterfly wings. My peers, who are not. as my wife fervently points out, part of the baby boom generation, were upset with our younger brothers and sisters who embraced the Drugs, Sex and Rock n' Roll culture. Some of us have been waiting for them to pay for their misdeeds, but, unlike what we had raised to believe, mom and dad never did make them truly answer for their adventures. Not only was this disappointing in the sense that secretly we knew they were having more fun, it was also defaming our values and mores.

Some of us, have never forgiven our parents and our siblings for this disappointment. It was like getting to the gates of heaven and finding out that all of the things you had been told were wrong as it turned out made no difference at all. Imagine finding out that Mother Theresa was no better than Broadway Joe. The malcontents and angonizers are called Conservative Republicans and they refer to the rest of us by various labels, but mostly we are liberals with some kind of pejorative associated.

This election maybe noteworthy in that it could be the last audible scream of that demon that lives in the mind of those kids that behaved in the sixties and it's anger with the kids that didn't. The sheep's cloak has been coming of this wolf ever so slowly. But the betrayal of the Republican party and a true conservative movement is so corrupt that it is no longer impossible to ignore. Social conservatives motivated by ultra conservative religious factions have fueled an intolerance in the political arena that is unprecedented in modern politics. It is so narrow as to exclude even worthy followers, such as Mitt Romney, for not being sufficiently Christian and John McCain for not being Conservative enough. Either one of these guys policies is enough to make a true progressive gag, but for the true believers they are not pure enough.

And that is why the spotlight is now shinning on the Campaign of John McCain. McCain is a war hero, stalwart Senator from Arizona, and a guy that gave the Bush administration fits with his observations of their incompetence in the handling of the Iraq War. He has been a man who can transcend partisanship and get things done. He was even mentioned as a possible running mate for John Kerry on what would have amounted to a coalition ticket against George Bush in 2004. He's the "straight talking', John Wayne like figure that a lot of independents like and he is going to be formidable competition for whomever prevails on the Democratic side of the ticket. But his problem is that to get the wholehearted support of his party he's going to need to sound like one of them and if he doesn't he will suffer the same fate as George Bush I and Bob Dole. The get-out-the-vote Christian right will not perform and his fate will be in the hands of the independent voters.

In any other election, that might be enough, but unfortunately this election has a true phenomenon in the person of Barak Obama, who also has wide appeal amongst independent voters and has made the mending of our divisions the corner stone of his campaign. As McCain makes his way to the right of his party, gets the nomination and than inevitably tracks toward the center, he will be spotlighted like a prisoner crossing the barbwire zone of a maximum security prison in the middle of the night. The only thing that can foul up this plan is to nominate the only person that can get right wing conservatives to vote no matter who their party nominates, Hillary Clinton. While this is regrettable, because I think she would make and excellent President, I would not want to risk the chance to hobble the far right movement in this country by playing into their hands strategically.

This is the Democrats moment, but they must make good use of it. Wanting leadership and being a leader is two different things. I'm sorry, you can win a nomination of your party, run a competent campaign and win the office, but that does not mean you're a leader. I present the George Bush II as my proof. Obama or Clinton, (I will vote for her if she wins the nomination) must build a coalition of the center and force the radical wings of the parties to co-operate or shut up. The Democrats are discussing the value issues that effect all of us. Health care, education, jobs and repairing this nations infrastructure are things that all of us can benefit from. If they don't keep their eye on the ball and get re-involved in partisan bickering the Republicans may lose the battle but the War may still be lost.

Big Ideas? It's to Soon

In his recent New York Times (NYT) column on Bob Herbert praises the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama for their historic significance and for the genuine quality of the candidates, yet he questions the lack of vision.

"What’s missing in this campaign is a bold vision of where the United States should be heading in these crucially important early years of the 21st century. In their different ways, Senators Clinton and Obama have shown themselves to be inspirational and at times even heroic figures. But neither has offered the vision that this moment in history demands."

What Mr. Hebert knows to well is that it isn't time to roll out your vision of the future. In this artificially long, election season, which began the moment the midterm election of 2006 was settled, we are just getting the chairs arranged around the table. Pundits and policy wonks are having a great time speculating on everything from hairdo's toneer-do's . Every special interest with a power position is weighing in on which candidate will serve them best. The candidates are keeping their cards very close to their proverbial vest in order to look as vanilla as they can across the board. Once the party nominations are settled, we will see a little ankle, a glimpse of the leg and the top button will loosen on this subject, but we aren't going to see the "vision statement" in anything but the broadest terms. Laying you cards on the table before the betting has closed is a mistake even the a rube inLas Vegas knows is stupid.

However, Mr. Herbert has a good point. We should be talking more about the candidates vision of the future and he is right to demand they give to us before we vote for them. There is little doubt that we really are at a turning point in our history. It is not a campaign slogan to merely spread a tent and try to get everyone under it. Fortunately a significant number of young people get it and are energizing this movement. Their support of Obama have surprised and gotten the attention of the public in general and the political wonks in specific. What these young people have realized and what their involvement in the this political process has highlighted are issues that have been on the back burner for too long.

We need to to do, in general, is invest in this country. We need to reassess our foreign policy. We need to restructure our government to answer the needs of this century.

Investment in this country is usually interpreted as code for isolationism by right wing politicians, but the truth is while we try to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in Iraq, our own needs in this area is decaying. We need to set aside the rhetoric and take a clear look at the needs in our own country.

Leaders of the future need to recognize that the class structure in our society has changed forever and that protection for the former middle class need to be introduced n the face of global corporations. Unions, local and state government are generally helpless in the face of the strength and mobility of these entities.
Tax rules, health care protection, requiring the payment of a living wage and other so-called left wing issues become more reasonable when faced with the monolithic global corporation. We need to look at the rights and responsibility of citizenship in order to empower people to control their communities. On the other hand we have to increase the opportunity for education and underwrite that effort. We do not have a shortage ofeducatable workers in almost any field that you might name. What we have is a shortage of affordable opportunities for educable people to gain the knowledge and skills they need to serve.

(Example: Educated workers from foreign countries who are granted work permits in this country because there are shortages in their fields of expertise, are often educated for free in their own countries. College degrees in their fields can cost the American student thousands of dollars and usually is represented by debt upon graduation.)

We clearly need to debate the real issues of our time. Economic and social needs are important and have been neglected for far too long, however we still represent he strongest nation in the world and can't abandon that responsibility. Global terrorism is real, but engaging ourselves in land wars in the middle east is not the way to fight this battle.

We need to look at the world with fresh eyes. Unfortunately recent decisions by our government have damaged our reputation and standing in the world community. We need to repair that by making good decisions in our partnership with other countries to achieve a balance that allows the rest of the world to grow and prosper, rather than exploiting them for our own short term interests. We will not always like nor will it be in our best interest to witness the journey other countries will take in their own self interest. However, the directions they take and their goals, unless they include our destruction, are and never have been, any of our business. Currently, we relate to the rest of the world, like a meddling mother, who knows no limits on her justification to manipulate theirchild's lives and influence their actions. Instead, we need to be that shinning example of what works and the sympathetic good neighbor, not the global bully that gets it's way or strikes out in anger and vengeance.

Clearly, our armed forces are the best in the world, but as we have seen, and let's admit it the world has witnessed, we can not police the world. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched or resources to the maximum. We not only exhibit our limitations to the real enemies of freedom, but we are wasting our assets in yet another attempt to protect oil company assets. Rather than asking our selves why we are "hooked" on this oil consumption habit and how we could break it, we engage in war to feed our habit. Our foreign policy is always about us and as a result we are left with bitter and vengeful allies with the thinnest veneer of allegiance.

Yes, we need a big idea vision of the future, but we also have to have the dialogue in the public sector to build a coalition of thought and purpose to a new vision of America. Change does not happen quickly nor without resistance. The next President has to build a body of public approval that is prepared to remain committed and vocal in their insistence on change.

Overconfidence

They haven't decided whose won the nomination yet, but the one thing I'm starting to hear is the don't count your chickens before they hatch speeches on the edge of the discussions. Electability has been and issue from the start on both sides of the aisle. McCain looks like he's cruising to a win for the Republicans. His job is to bring the factions of his party together and in his case, this is no easy matter. The insanity of the extreme right has reasoned that John, war hero, defender of Bush's War and fiscally conservative senate voter is not conservative enough. He is evidently not pure on the loony issues, fags, flags and fetuses.

Republican conservatives don't want to hear that he is popular among independent voters, that group that ultimately will decide the election. They don't want to hear that he and he alone may be the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton. They want to believe, evidently, anyone can beat Hillary because...well because..goll darn it she's wrong and we're right, don't ya know. That is what passes for policy in a party that is so splintered that the demographics probably look like phone book with each person believing themselves to be a power broker. These are the folks that still can't believe after all the energy and money they invested in trying to bring down Bill Clinton, that he's still kicking their ass.

But they do love their cheerleaders. Remember, if Rush Limbaugh didn't exist, some one would invent him. His constant campaign to bring down McCain will only bring down the party as it will further drive a wedge between the party faithful to the point they will not vote and give up the field of battle. This is a lesson the Democrats learned post McGovern and Clinton. Maybe.

The Democrats are posed on the edge of new era in American Politics. It appears they will nominate the first woman or the first black man to become President of the United States. This is no small thing. It is suppose to be the Democrats office to take. It's generally conceded, they have to lose the election. Anti Republican feelings are running high in the country. Most experts feel that they have to take their act out of town polish it and come back another day.

Or do they? Two things can happen that could be bad for the Democrats. The Obama-Clinton fight could get so vicious as to split the party. Not only would they squander the advantage they apparently have, but they would turn the country back to a revitalized Republican Party for yet another round of disastrous leadership. Secondly, they will have destroyed the chances of two very talented and important politicians. I for one am uneasy about this slam-dunk victory for the Democrats. Given the malevolence the Republicans will bring to the general election, after all if they will sacrifice their own, what do expect they will do to the competition, I think we have a right to worry.

Lame Duck, It's not just Bush

Last night the pathetic spectacle of George Bush, in my opinion the worst President of my lifetime, gave his final State of the Union speech. It is required by law, but I'm sure most of the participants would have voted to let him e mail it. As it was, the leader of the free world stood powerless, clad in failure in front of two of his likely successors, Clinton and Obama.

I need not go through the list of failed policies that Bush pursued while in office. Enough said that his constituency, the religious right and the economically privileged are not really better off than they were seven years ago when he took office with their hopes and prayers lifting him up as the next saviour. Yes they have their Supreme Court and their tax cuts, but even those will fade. Karl Rove's dream of a generational Republican dynasty was destroyed in the wake of inept leadership, the strum and drang of the War in Iraq and the total lack of dialogue with anyone who could have told them they were not in touch with the majority of American People.

We are not a nation of bigots. Nor do we believe that getting rich is worth setting aside any commitment to the common good. We do have noble intentions. Some of us do not know what to do with those feelings. We crave action on the matter. Like the physician we seek to do no harm and feel it would be nice to leave this place a little better than we found it. From time to time, a leader comes a long that inspires us Some bring out the worst of our fears and inclinations. Some inspire us to do better.

We may have such a leader in Barak Obama. Regardless of whether he becomes President, because there is a lot of work to be done in that effort, his candidacy represents the turning of the page on an ugly story in American Political History. The rejection of the social contract for individualism, the elevation of economics over citizenship and the criminalization of poverty may have felt good as long as you were on the winning team, but when the fact that the game was rigged became apparent it behoves all of us to be a little bit ashamed.

It is a time for change. This word might become a campaign cliche, but it is true nonetheless. I believe we've had enough partisan politics. Make no mistake no matter how weakened the Republican Party might be after the election, they will not go quietly in the that good night. And if you don't believe there are some Democrats that will waste their time looking for payback, you've in for a shock.

But as the will of the people becomes more apparent, it is my hope that we can coalesce under an agenda of the real issues. The issues that balance the needs of the people against those of special interests (which will not go away either). We have problems of global proportions. The mismanagement of environmental issues, the belligerent conduct of foreign policy and the neglect of infrastructure issues are bad enough, but we must be aware the policies of change need traction. Moving from one direction to another will take time, patience and most of all leadership that keep it's eye on the business at hand.

Clinton's Folly, Bill that is...

No one owes more to a wife that stuck by him through thick and thin, than Bill Clinton. Be warned, I discount the Monica thing. She has been his conscience, his soul mate and his minister without portfolio during times when his enemies were people like Delay, Armey and Gingrich. This unholy force was enough to make anyone wish they were teaching at a small University in some obscure state, such as Arkansas rather than living in the bull ring that is Washington DC. Everything from her effort to straighten out the health care mess in the country to the hairstyle she chose was criticized by lead brains that included Moreen Dowd, who writes for a paper that is rumoured to be liberal. During the eight years of Bill's presidency she was vilified and hated by some of the highest ranking Christians and right wing nuts in the political spectrum.

Generally, Hilary Clinton was more intelligent than her opposition. She showed more class and restraint in the onset of attack after attack, than any of her partisan pot-shooters. The only time she really looked pathetic was when Bill lied. (I didn't have sex with that women.) She believed him at a time when she should have known better. At the time, she told the media that it was a conspiracy by the right wing. And it was, however for once they didn't need to rig the charge.

All of this being said, Bill has been on the campaign trail trying to get Hilary into his old job, and no one is working harder, maybe to hard. As you regular readers know I have my doubts about another Clinton White House, but that would not prevent me voting for her. I do like the prospects of an Obama White House, so sift my remarks good citizen, I'm not totally without bias.

Bill is swinging the ax that has two edges. He might cut Obama with his relentless, "his record isn't clean on the War in Iraq" and "he isn't experienced enough", but what happens dear friend when one of them becomes the nominee of the party? We will need both of them to form the coalition that will put this partisan gridlock behind us and get us moving again. That's when the other edge of the ax might hurt us.

How to Lose a Sure Thing

I, like I'm sure many others are totally dismayed at the current democratic campaigns for their parties nomination. Talk about he said she said and all of the school yard antics to go with it. I have to say, as Bill Cosby soeloquently titled his latest book, "Come on People!".

The Republican Party is in melt down. The various factions within the party are trying to position themselves for a post Bush era and they have failed to find a rally point. The candidates are stuck defending Bush's failed policies because to not do so would lose them a significant part of the party base. Remember, they have to appeal to Republican voters not the general public. The real candidate will emerge after they are nominated.
The religious right, that vaunted two edge sword that Karl Rove and company sharpened so well for Bush, can't find a candidate that will pass their narrow litmus test of social engineer and true Christian.

The anti-Tax guys, Norquist and Company, just don't get it. The mood of the electorate has changed. We have seen less government and we don't like it. It seems that lack of regulation and free market economics produces Enron, Wall StreetBanditry and home loan panics. With the rich obviously getting richer, the poor getting nominally poorer and the middle evaporating like spilled beer on a summer sidewalk, it seems the myth of everyone being welcomed at the country club has vanished.

Health care costs and educational opportunities are more important than spreading democracy to the Middle East. And while Iraq is on the back burner because the "Surge" has put a relativedegree of calm in the area, most of us still don't see the way out. Maybe a newer version of a dignified retreat?

Amidst all of this Republican chaos is the gloom of failure. Supply side economics, the hallmark of the Reagan era, has failed. Peace in the Middle East is still not a reality. We have lost the respect and admiration of most of the world including our friends. Trust me, nothing will happen on the international front until thisadministration is gone. Our domestic economy and infrastructure has been ignored to a large extent. The only thing that is sure since Bush has taken office is that Corporate Welfare entitlements are firmly in place for theforeseeable future.

And the Democrat? Fighting like kids in a school yard over which is better girls or boys, he said she said and my friends are cooler than your friends. Come on People!

The American Ayatollah's

No, they didn't insist on women wearing headscarf's or hiding their bodies completely in floor length gowns. Nor, did they insist that they travel only with male members of their own family. And they weren't Muslim extremists, but other similarities to the Taliban are frightening.

In my mind, any religion that subjugates either sex is wrong on the face of its belief system. I can't think of one religion that considers men the inferior of the two sexes. While the equality of women in American culture is new, (Yes, I know that will surprise people under the age of forty.), the blow-back from the feminist movement of the sixties has always been at the forefront of the conservative, may I say, extremists in the US. The recognition of equality between the sexes has been blamed for the break up of the traditional American Family, the higher divorce rate, the resulting escalation in single parent families, the abortion rate and the general lowering of morals in the society. Are these issues all solely the results of the feminist success?

Many men who were caught in the cross over from "a mans home is his castle" to the "why doesn't he help with the housework' eras, were frustrated, some say emasculated by events and there is no doubt they were motivated to strike back. Women who felt that the freedom to be all they could be was nice, but the practical application of the day to day reality of the concept was hard. In the early days of the movement the talk was easy, the walk, as a lot of women will tell you, was another story. Your security and future, when you have kids, a low paying job and no husband doesn't look to good and slogan and conscious raising nights out with the girls isn't a lot of solace.

Those of us that lived through the sixties thought that society had changed irrevocably on number of social fronts, but what we forget is that power is never surrendered. Finding a coalition of frustrated and seemingly disenfranchised, religious leaders formed a movement called "the moral Majority". Let me say this that while admittedly the movement gained a lot of power because of its solidarity and visibility, at its core it was neither moral nor a majority, but it often times appeared that way. T V Evangelists and mega church pastors did one thing differently than their predecessors, they took sides in the political arena. Billy Graham, used to be the pastor to presidents. He never seemed political, but he was always welcome in the White House. The new Ayatollahs however, hung their hat on the Republican party and rode the moral and social discontent to a position of power so great that even during this election process in 2008, we are witnessing the republican candidates jockeying for "Evangelical Christian" support, similar to the Democrats scrambling for the Labor Union support.

The Ayatollahs have been able to keep their flock together because they successfully convinced these good folks that these issues are personal and that they are being persecuted. The government is the problem. The government is controlled by liberal interests that do not have their best interests in mind when they legislate laws that protect gays, promiscuous single moms, and convicted criminals. This movement is highly symbolic. Prayer in school, protection for the American Flag and focus on banning abortions are all highly visible rallying points. I call The guns, flags, sluts and fags" agenda.

The problem is that while the support of these groups might be important to get the nomination from the party in some respects they are toxic in the general election. The American Ayatollahs are no different in one respect to their counterparts in the Muslim world. They have to convince their followers that they are the victims of society, that they are persecuted for their beliefs and the enemy is the defiler of their sacred beliefs. Abortion is murder and those that practice it can be justifiably killed. Women are vessels of God and should be sheltered and defended from sin and degradation. Only their husband can do that and they must trust and obey him in all things. Homosexuals are all living in sin and can not be tolerated. If we do not pray in school we are losing the Christian foundation of our American beliefs. And the latest scare tactic, illegal immigrants are a threat to our society and must be expunged from our country.

This deliberate and calculated reliance on discontent and fear is no different than their counterparts in extremist Muslim countries. Unfortunately, it worked for a long time. A minority of malcontents have held this countries deliberative process hostage for far to long. For Republicans it required being the right kind of conservative to gain admission to the inner circle, moderates from either party need not apply. And so in each election process, the candidates would march to Bob Jones University, pay homage to the Ayatollahs and get their blessing. The power, of course, came from motivating a huge voter turn out that blindly voted their pitiful one issue minds. Their need to be assured that the candidate would not make them license their guns, would not recognize gay marriage, fight to overturn Roe v Wade, allow them to pray in schools and, subtly but clearly understood was, the need to assure them that they were candidates of a Christian America.

What's changed? The stark realization that the Ayatollahs had sold out the needs of the average Joe. Somewhere along the line, people began to realize that all of these social issues were important, but not so important as to not recognize other needs, pressing needs. Poor health care delivery, the instability of jobs in a global economy. failing infrastructure and lack of emergency preparedness all became more important than abortion rights, flag burning, commencement prayers and homosexuals rights.

As a matter of fact, people became aware that nobody was preventing them from pray silently in school, forcing them to, burn a flag, have an abortion or adopt a homosexual lifestyle. They could still object to these things on moral ground and more to the point they did not have to prevent others from holding their beliefs. In short they weren't being persecuted for their beliefs, they were attempting to inflict their beliefs on others by law. Does that not sound like religious extremism? Of course it is and while you can try and call it strong religious belief, it's fascism with a holy face. I am hoping this next election deals a death blow to religious extremism in our political system. I want the Republicans to field meaningful candidates and provide honest opposition to the Democrats in matters of civil law and statecraft. The Ayatollahs will not go away, but at least they will be relegated to the fanatic fringe where they belong.

Analysis of Change

The race as of this date is still on. Obama was not able to administer the knockout blow to Clinton in the New Hampshire Primary. Nor were the Republicans able to sort out their dysfunctional differences, as John McCain won on the Republican side of the ticket While these people are running for the same office the differences between the major parties is huge.

The buzz word on the campaign trail is change. Every Candidate has been urged by their handlers to incorporate their two cents worth on the matter of change. The question is change from what. Obama and Edwards talk about changing the way we do business in Washington. Ultra partisan politics and the gridlock and stagnation it causes has exasperated the public, regardless of party or political tendency.

Bush, with the total cooperation of the Republican majority spent this country into a corner, started an war that is costly not only in money but its tax on our countries spirit and moral and he has squandered our reputation worldwide because of his lack of vision and management skills. This failed philosophy of preemptive war and supply side economics is what people want changed. How do we change that?

Some would say, vote out the Republicans. That might be a good idea and it certainly helps the Democrats in that some people are going to vote that way as they did in the midterm election in 2006. But what have the Democrats done with their majority? As it turns out, dammed little! It's clear that with a change in the White House and assembling a coalition of centrist or progressives,as they want to be called now, Democrats and moderate Republicans would help to start to straighten out this mess. Who is best sited to do this?

In the Republican Party there is only one obvious candidate, John McCain. McCain's problem is simple. He'll have a chance at winning because he is popular with independents, palatable to some Democrats and moderate Republicans, but he has to get his parties nomination. This is a huge problem since McCain has been a maverick in his own party for years. The far right wing does not trust him, the evangelicals don't like him and the Bush people hate him. You can make a case that given the low quality of the rest of the field that the party may hold it's nose and nominate him anyway, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on that happening.

The Democrats are suffering from an embarrassment of riches, to borrow the current cliche, with the Edwards, Obama, Clinton Troika on the Democratic side. Edwards is fully capable man who has forced the issue of middle class neglect and exploitation onto the agenda for two election cycles. He has enough of a constituency to be at the bargaining table and end up with some job in the new administration, regardless of which party wins, but I doubt he'll be the nominee of the party.

Reality set in after the Iowa. Hillary Clinton was so ready to be President that for a while early in this campaign she was assuming that she would be and started acting like the presumptive nominee. While she won in New Hampshire, she won in a three way race. What is interesting is that nobody is talking about what is going to happen when Edwards finally drops out. Where would those votes in New Hampshire have gone if Edwards is not on the ballot. Regardless, Clinton as the candidate is not your coalition candidate. You can argue that her husband did it with the opposition in control of the House and Senate, but we've sen Bill Clinton in action and Hillary is no Bill Clinton, regardless of her obvious qualifications. While it is true is that Hillary has more practical experience thanObama it is also true that she is far more polarizing. Obama is clearly the guy who has an involved and new constituency (See my comments about the Tiger Effect in my last blog). He can "reach across the aisle" and work with the opposition.

We need someone who can bring together the great political center of the society. Notice please, that the center of the electorate is not overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. It is the independent voter who shifts back and forth between parties. It is this constituent that the parties seek after they have received their party's nomination and than forget once the vote has been tallied. The independent voter who has no organization to fall back on, no lobbyist in Washington, they are the true victims of the system. This is the group that is crying out for change. And excuse me Mr. Rove, by serving this constituency a party can build a future of long term dominance of the political system, not by pandering to the fears and prejudices of the fringe.

Where Did You Think They Would Go?

In the search for a new community, we ended up at Starbuck's. I remember when it was fashionable, in fact "way cool" to meet the love of your life in a bar. Squares, today I think they are called "dweebs", paired off at church socials or, God forbid, they were high school sweethearts. Some will argue the grocery store and the coin op laundry are better places to meet perspective mates, but I have the sense that these people are the new breed of multitaskers. There was the health club fad which still has it adherents, but the rest of us gravitated to the coffee house.

Let me assure you, I'm not looking for a new mate, but socializing with friends and having short business meetings still is a part of my life. Like a lot of fads, coffeehouses, when observed in a rear view mirror, were a thing waiting to happen. We need a place to gather and bond as a community. I hate to sound old school, but I don't believe that the Internet will ever replace interpersonal relations. (I do think the net can help get people together, if they have a common interest.)

In my investigation of coffee houses in Milwaukee (www.espressoexpressions.com), I note that there are some group characteristics to some of them. The college hangout, the yuppie spot, the smokers spot and the Seniors roust are pretty apparent after you've stopped a couple of times. My son, Todd, in Seattle, the capital of Espresso, tells me some shops, for the most part, serve just one office building.

The coffee explosion was probably the direct result of the melt down in the two martini lunch and the neighborhood watering hole. Granted there is some of this going on, but let me assure you, it's not like it was back in the day. Health concerns and an new emphasis's on drunk driving enforcement probably did as much as anything to make people drink more responsibly, but than folks will always find someplace to congregate. My families for me figured out. I got three gift cards for coffee houses this Christmas. So I'll see you latte.

Down the Rabbit Hole with Obama

Well it wasn't Kansas but it was close. Obama's victory in Iowa woke up the press and the country to the fact that this guy is the real deal. You're going to hear pundits going on about why he resonates with the common man and that his message is messianic in it's recall of the great changers of society; Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy are most often mentioned.

What the pundits and the deer-in-the-headlights mainstream politicians don't get is that the electorate is not amazed by Obama and his populist appeal, they've been waiting for him. Maybe we are all a little surprised that our next leader is going to be a black man from Illinois, but than he's not running to be the President of Black America either. His ability to connect with a broad spectrum of people is partly because he doesn't bring the baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did.

We've know for a long time that people have had it with politics as usual in Washington. Governor Shwarzenegger in California saw it and abruptly changed his confrontational tactic's to great effect. Signaling that Republicans who are going to be successful in the future are going to be moderate Republicans. The Republican Party is not your evangelical, gun toting, tax cuts at any price, gay bashing, Karl Rove crowd anymore. People have woken up and realized that the snake oil sales men left them with a product that is of dubious value.

I don't see why we ever thought that arming the ordinary citizen, segregating Gay's and relegating non-Christians to secondary citizenship was more important than health care, education and the growth of good paying jobs. I know we bought the bag of baloney that giving the wealthy more money would benefit all of us. I just don't why. What I do know is that we did buy into this, or at least enough of us did so that people like George W Bush got two terms as president of the United States.

What Obama's victory in Iowa meant is that era is in all probability over. I've mentioned before Obama's "Tiger Effect" on the voting public. Like Tiger Woods, Obama has people who were on the outside looking in, coming into the event and participating. Young people and disenfranchised Republicans, independent voters and moderate Democrats have responded to his message His cutting across demographics has amazed the experts. His challenge will be to keep them engaged long enough to get elected.

The cynicism of the electorate is understandable since after the Democrats routed the Republicans in the last election they have done little or nothing to effect change. Why is Obama any different? Maybe to much was expected, but the price for the Democrats is that the new face looks better than same old, same old. In truth, it's not just the Republicans that the public doesn't trust anymore, it's the establishment politicians. It's to bad for Hillary, Joe and Chris and time for Obama