Saturday, April 19


I just realized that I wrote my first post for this blog on April 18, 2004. Four years and 3,309 posts later, I am no better satisfied with the direction of this country than I was then. I am not much more confident that we will elect a Democrat to the White House this year than I was when John Kerry was challenging W. Our choices will likely be between Barack Obama and John McCain. What a relief after eight years of the Shrub! Two more arrogant, entitled men who think their "judgment" is a superior substitute to hard work, research, slogging through policy issues, and "feeling the pain" of the masses.

These past four years, I've been laboring under the delusion that Democrats were united more than ever in recent memory, in our primary pursuits: to win a majority in Congress and to take the White House; to advance a progressive agenda that includes a rational and diplomatic foreign policy; universal healthcare; fair taxation; an enlightened and forward-thinking energy policy; a reclaiming of our civil rights; re-establishing the United States as a country that does not torture, a bulwark of democracy and a supporter of democratic values throughout the world; strengthening the tools and agencies of government by eradicating the partisanship that has so weakened them; supporting scientific and medical research and combatting the climate crisis; and putting qualified judges on the bench that will balance the rightward swing of the judiciary; abolishing the electoral college in favor of the popular vote and revising ballot processes to ensure that the people's will is carried out in elections. Besides all that, I've expected our next Democratic president to rebuild our broken military, get us out of Iraq in the quickest manner while preserving the safety of our troops, and to freaking REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS.

That's a boatload of stuff for any one president to accomplish, or even to set in motion. There's only one candidate I have the slightest notion could tackle it all, competently and effectively. That's Hillary Clinton. I can't even imagine (and believe me, I've tried) a Barack Obama walking into the Oval Office on Day One with an aide reciting in his ear the limited litany of issues I've just mentioned. Every time I try, I see two scenarios only: (1) the deer-in-the-headlights look on Obama's face, then its relaxation when he realizes that if W could get through it, he could; (2) a gesture of his hands brushing off the detritus on his shoulder as he responds, "There are people for that, right?"

With Hillary, I can so clearly see her saying, "I know all that, I've got a policy and implementation plan all ready for each of them. Ask Ann to give you the schedule."

Back to the fourth anniversary. Here I've imagined for the past four years that this was going to be the Great Awakening, that the disasters of the Bush years would have proven so conclusively how risky it is to install an untried, inexperienced, gut-truster in the most powerful position in the world, that Democrats, with their wealth of worthy candidates, would offer an irresistible alternative: a grownup. Not so much.

But just as awful for my idealistic expectations, I've been witness this past year to an ugliness among the left blogosphere, a rampant sexism that I thought was a thing of the past, among the media and the blogs, a glee at the prospect of finally, FINALLY getting rid of the Clintons and all those pesky inferior mainstream Democrats, that has sickened and depressed me. What's happened to the progressive community? Have they been infiltrated by neo-Republicans? Has KOS really just been lying in wait for all these years since he ostensibly converted from ReThuglican to Dem, just to extract some kind of sick vengeance against our Party, or is he just lusting for influence?

Okay, that was a bit of hyperbole (I think, I hope). But my point is, it's not a happy anniversary for me. I'm disappointed in Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, the so-called "progressive" blogosphere, in so many folks with whom I thought I'd found a home over the past four years. I don't despise them. I don't even understand why they despise me and all the other Hillary supporters. I certainly don't understand how they could despise Hillary Clinton herself. I've put a lot of time and energy into those 3,309 posts (make this one 3,310), hoping to touch base with other like-minded people, maybe provide a little information and perspective to some, add to the civil political discourse in a small way, but mostly to feel connected to a community that offered, I thought, hope that after the eight long years of Bush/Cheney/Rove we could win one again. Now that the on-line left has adopted the same principles, rhetoric and tactics they so decried in their Republican opponents, I feel the four years were in some respects a waste of time, based on an illusion.

Labels: , , ,


Obama, his aides and supporters can claim all they want that the Clinton campaign has been negative while they've transcended politics-as-usual and been restrained in their criticisms of Hillary, but the record shows that is an outright lie. BO got where he is through the graces of the Chicago machine and by absorbing and implementing its tactics in his campaigns from the beginning of his political career. This race is no different. His melodious voice and his cool, elegant affect have been able covers for the fact that he is, at bottom, just another talented politician.

The weeks of WWTSBQ quit rhetoric from the BO kool-aid drinkers have culminated now in a frenetic, all-out war to destroy Hillary Clinton, and with her, the Clinton legacy that gives her so much credibility and good will from those who experienced, and are old enough to compare it to that of Republicans in the White House, the peace, progress and prosperity during the years of Clinton leadership. Since Barack's unflappability became flappable in the Wednesday debate, since that beautiful voice stuttered and stammered trying to answer questions that, at this late date, he should have been fully prepared to address, the Obamabots are terrified and in high shrill. Those were Obama's only real assets -- lacking any kind of substantive record or the ability to offer any solutions not cribbed from Hillary or Edwards, his demeanor and charm were his only campaign drawing cards.

So now it continues, only in a louder voice: WAAAAAAAAHHHH. She made him look bad! ABC made him look bad! We're not going to take it anymore! It was okay when it was Hillary who was being attacked, but THIS IS THE PRECIOUS.

So who's been speaking in Republican talking points, who's promoting unity? Obama conflates the Clinton and Bush administrations, and denies the progress made under Bill. He wants to "fix" Social Security. Hillary will "say or do anything to win." "Mandates don't work," so he won't include one in his healthcare plan, a sure flounder in the idea of universality. Hillary voters will vote for him if he's the nominee, he says, but he's not sure his voters will go to her. Michelle Obama will "have to think about it" as to whether or not she will support Clinton if she's the nominee. Hillary says, "yes yes yes," Barack can beat John McCain, and more, she will do everything in her power to elect him if he is the nominee. Hillary is "in her element" when the dirt flies. His "judgment" is so good it attaches him to people like Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers. Hillary, as I was just told in a comment on AmericaBlog, is a "succubus," and her supporters are "mindless goose-steppers." Lord Kos agrees that she is "not really a Dem."

Here's more evidence that the Obama campaign's unity shtick and "transcendant politics" meme are b***s***. (Thank you, Donna Darko.)

One last thought: When Obama said in his now-famous speech in North Carolina (video below), "I don't blame Washington for this -- because that's just how Washington is" (referring to the nasty questioning he endured in the debate), I wondered, who DO you blame? Hillary? For putting in the knife and twisting it a bit, as you so elegantly suggested? Yeah, that was the implication. So it was Hillary he was wiping off his shoulders and his shoes, right? But this ungracious gesture is part and parcel with his "You're likable enough, Hillary," his going out of his way to avoid shaking her hand at the SOTU, his sexist references and sly suggestions of racism. But this is the Teflon Man -- nothing sticks to him.

Yes, Obama supporters have exhibited some ugly mama-slapping behaviors and said some vile things during this primary campaign, against Hillary, against Bill, and against her supporters. But the unity candidate encourages them, gives fuel to them, laughs at them. That's some way to build Democratic Party unity, man.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 18


Having just watched Hillary on The Colbert Report (h/t Tennessee Guerilla Women), I'm reminded of nothing so much as a gift I once received from my young niece. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Go ahead, watch, it's short. But man, does it get across the primary reason so many of us support this remarkable woman for president.

The setup: Stephen is about to introduce the topic of Wednesday night's debate when his rear-projection screen slips from an impressive graphic of the Liberty Bell and other Philadelphia icons, to color bars. Stephen starts yelling for help, but he's told by a producer or someone over an open mike that the A/V team is in New York and there's no-one to solve it. Stephen cries out to the universe, "Are you telling me that there's not one single person in this massive theater who can fix this mess we're in?"

Enter stage right, Hillary Clinton, who calls out, "I can."

Hillary exchanges a few words with the producer, tells him what to do, and voila! The graphic screen returns.

Stephen thanks her profusely, and Hillary responds, "I LOVE to solve problems. You call me anytime."

And, as she exits, "Call me at 3 a.m."

Baby, that's the person I want to be president at this critical time. We have LOTS of problems, and Hillary has made a life's work of researching problems and finding solutions. I remember reading long ago how from the very first when Bill and Hillary got together, their idea of fun was studying policy, discussing policy. They are a most unusual couple, and peculiarly suited to governing. They listen to all sides, attack a problem like a diagnostician would a disease, and once they've figured out what's necessary, they find out what's doable and plan a strategy around that. You may call it "triangulation," but I call their methodology a "formula for success." They've been planning how to make the world better for most of their lives. It's why the musical theme of their inauguration, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" was so completely appropriate. (I remember screaming with delight when I heard it strike up, it was so perfect!) It's how they've been able to achieve so much actual good for people, from the Arkansas Attorney General's office to the governorship, to the presidency, and afterwards, and all along that time, in their capacity as private people as well. Bill's foundation is doing incredible work battling HIV AIDS throughout the world (among other things), and Hillary has pursued a Senate career where she has won the admiration and yes, even friendship, of many on the other side of the aisle, and amazingly has won the regard and ENDORSEMENT of dozens of the most distinguished flag officers of the American military.

More and more every day, with evidence like Obama's performance in this most recent debate before me, I am convinced that Barack has more in common with George W. Bush than is comfortable. No, I don't mean their stands on issues -- I'm talking about their personal journeys and their present personalities and characters. Both have given evidence of men who have "issues," as they say, with their family. Both have staked their claims to the presidency on their "judgment." Both have a tendency to disparage their non-supporters as unenlightened, uninformed, or intellectually deficient. Both exhibit an innate arrogance and sense of entitlement. Both have enjoyed a considerable press affection, which has denied the American people an opportunity to know the real man. Both have had very easy lives, yet seem to want some kind of credit given them for "overcoming," despite their relatively smooth and easy rise to prominence and fortune. When W was sElected president in 2000, the American voters had absolutely no idea how he'd actually govern. We've seen how that turned out.

You don't have the first idea how Obama will govern, either. Or McCain, for that matter.

Hillary is another story. She's mapped out in detail precisely what she will do as president. We have her performance as a Senator, her very public priorities and activities as First Lady of the U.S. and Arkansas, her decades of work with the Children's Defense Fund, her grace and steadfastness of character as displayed during a life of Kennedyesque crises played out in the media and before American and the world -- we have all this, triumph and drama, secret sorrors made public, an affection and respect for her (and Bill) by the world that dwarfs anything she/they ever experienced in their own country.

We know Hillary. We know she doesn't give up. We know she has a plan for darn near anything anyone can imagine. You know, I understood what Chelsea meant when she said her mother would make an ever better president than her father. Much as I love and appreciate Bill, Hillary has qualities that will make her a better president. Oh yes, he's the better politician. Hillary will never have his charisma or speaking ability. But Hillary has discipline. She's proven an ability to win over opponents (who's the unifier?), from her success with her New York constituency to the military, to such unlikely characters as Newt Gingrich and Rupert Murdoch.

Yes, Hillary can fix this mess we're in, not that it will be completed within her two-term administration. We don't even have a complete picture of just how bad it is. But she makes long-term plans, she's completely in the weeds with them, and that's why she's so good in the debates on issues. She's mastered them. She's not just mouthing platitudes and stump-speech statements.

And if not Hillary, who do you think can set us on the right track again? Obama? McCain? Unlikely. What would give you reason to believe so?

UPDATE: Oh yes, I forgot to tell about my niece's gift. It was a coffee mug I still treasure, which reads on one side: "They finally found something that does the work of ten men ..." Then on the other side it finishes, "... one woman."

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 17


The "independent student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania" has chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton over Obama. They demonstrate great good sense in their editorial explaining why they made their choice.

We want to believe that Sen. Barack Obama can accomplish all he promises. His soaring rhetoric and compelling vision have inspired us and many other students.

But while Obama's charisma far outshines that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, her public service, political experience and tenacity tell us not only "Yes we can" but also "How we can." As such, we endorse Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

Our endorsement is not a rejection of Obama's leadership qualities. But choosing the president of the United States is too important a decision to make based on hope alone. After finishing his term in the Senate and better showing us what he can do for the American people, Obama could one day be a remarkable president.

Clinton, on the other hand, is ready to lead this nation now. A successful champion for change, her experience in the Senate and as first lady gives her a better understanding of how Washington works. She has the ability to turn policy into reality. And her mastery of causes central to the Democratic Party's platform makes her better suited to challenge presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

Take her leadership on health-care issues. In 1993, then-first lady Clinton urged America to embrace universal health care during her keynote speech at Penn's commencement. Unfortunately, she was far ahead of the times. Her proposal was met with fierce resistance and ultimately rejected.

Refusing to give up, Clinton helped to expand children's health insurance in the late 90's instead. More than a decade later, her new policies - and the concept of universal health care itself - enjoy wider support because of her past work. Indeed, of all the candidates still in the race, she offers the most comprehensive health care proposal. And as with most of her plans, she also has a way to fund it.

Some doubt Clinton's ability to bring the country together. But, in New York, her senatorial campaigns united a surprisingly wide coalition of supporters across political and socioeconomic boundaries. She can do the same this November.

Others are concerned with her support for the Iraq War Resolution. But since then, she has pressed the Bush administration for accountability and demanded a responsible end to the war. She also has far more exposure to national security and foreign policy.

Ultimately, we are confident in Clinton's ability to implement her agenda. It's this quality that has brought leaders like Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell to her side. And it's this quality that convinces us to support her as well.

Labels: , , , ,


Can anyone cite for me anything that Barack Obama actually achieved as a community organizer? He repeatedly cites his work as a CO as a badge of honor, but I've never heard him refer to any actual accomplishment, and a quick Google search doesn't help. Anybody?

ALSO: Here's me being maybe superficial, but Obama's hair was clearly grayer in the debate last night. Was he advised to let it gray to add gravitas to his affect?

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 15


Hello again. The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I've just been overwhelmed with work, a family wedding, and the impending wedding of my own eldest daughter. Though I've been somewhat out of touch, I've tried to keep up with events via my Blackberry net browser at odd times. Still, I've not had the time or energy to formulate or publish my thoughts. But here goes for now:

I've been exasperated and bewildered by the efforts of Obama and his "progressive" blogosphere swooners to besmirch and besmear Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic president since LBJ and the only Dem two-termer since FDR. Good Lord, are we Democrats now to believe that the POTUS with the 60%-area positive rating when he left office is comparable to the administration of the sub-30's-approval rating GWB?

Then, driving home from work tonight (finally, an eight-hour day!), I heard on NPR somebody (I was only half-listening at first) introducing a segment on the brands of the presidential nominees. Some marketing pro asserted that Hillary is not a brand, she's a brand extension -- of Bill's brand. Aha! Light dawns. *No, I'm not stupid, I'm just sometimes so rational that I can't comprehend irrationality.* Of course! If Hillary is perceived as an merely an extension of Bill rather than a political force on her own, then it's incumbent upon the media, Obama and all the other sexist pigs who can't see her in any other way, to infect the Mother Ship! Then the virus that was delivered to the MS will pass down to the satellite, which will in turn be obliterated.

Yes, Hillary and her supporters are determined to destroy the Democratic Party, so they must be destroyed first to save the party -- and the Obamaheads are eager to spread that meme by completely demolishing the greatest marketing asset the party has at its disposal. What's that, you say? Why, the peace, prosperity and progress we enjoyed (to hear Obama tell it, it was more suffering than pleasure) during the eight years of the Clinton administration.

And that's really the dilemma of Obamaworld. Hillary is undeniably an inheritor of that legacy. Love her or hate her, she spent eight years being branded as part of "two for one" -- the clear implication being that she was Bill's chief advisor and confidant. If his administration accomplished it, she is associated with that success. There's no getting around the history that has been seared upon the American mind: that Bill was not a solo act. (Hillary, however, as a Senator has been perceived as completely her own person.)

Were Hillary not running, I have no doubt that Obama would be portraying the Clinton administration as a model, invoking memories of those comparatively happy years in contrast to the havoc wreaked by the Rethuglicans, and Bush, since they have controlled the mechanisms of government. But he can't do that, because his opponent Is a Clinton! I admit, it's a conundrum for his strategists and supporters.

Well, no, as it turns out, not so much. Obamaworld (OW) and the media have decided that THEY'LL "destroy the party" (as they accuse the Clintons of contemplating), by themselves elevating the candidacy of the amorphous BO to a movement, a CAUSE, irrelevant of any semblance to policy passion, according to traditional populist or liberal agenda, and oblivious to an equal, Hillary-supporting half of the party: several of the largest, most important, most reliable voting groups in the Democratic Party: women, working people, and non-AA minorities. Casually inserting their anti-female bias and elitist "creative class" postures into all their attitudes, speeches, postings, editorials, they project upon Obama their desire to create a Leader in their own image -- whatever they are, that is the image they see in Obama.

At my age, I feel an incredible shrinking from my life-long advocacy of liberal progressivism, and yet an expanding awareness that gender bias is the untold, unexposed story of the day. I am the mother of five -- two sons and three daughters. And the wife of one -- The Sage, the smartest, most imaginative, handsomest man and the love of my life, father of our children and husband from my junior year in college. And, thank God, I have never for one day of a thirties-plus marriage, felt in any way constrained or directed by my husband in any way. I can honestly say that since my marriage at the tender age of twenty, I have always been just me (at whatever stage I was in). And nobody that counted (that would only be my spousal unit) suggested otherwise.

Not so much in the working world. Yes, I've been aware of the obstacles I've faced every step of my way to and through corporate executive positions. I wouldn't have achieved what I have without recognizing it and dealing with it. Many years ago I acknowledged the reality of the "conventional wisdom" that a woman would have to be better, more creative, more prepared, more effective, more productive, more everything to attract the attention and approval of those who could help advance her career. But I'd begun in recent times to forget the gender thing. For the past 10 years or so I've thought in terms of value only, and felt confidence in my own. It was quite a shock when I was told, after 18 years at my Fortune 200 company, having won literally dozens of awards in my field, that the new management didn't see a future for me with my company, and cuts had to be made anyway because our salaries were too high. There were two director-level executives who were female at that time. We were both replaced almost immediately by younger men, but decidedly not at lower salaries.

This campaign has found me bemused, but not fatally so. As I've followed the Democratic primaries I've progressed from disappointment to outrage to despair to bewilderment to exhaustion. But what has continued to motivate me is the rampant, overt sexism demonstrated almost ad infinitum by the MSM, the Obamaheads and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Almost equally, the sly racist strategy implemented by the Obama camp in the form of posturing as "post-partisan" and "post-race" while flinging accusations at the Clintons, who have been arguably the most sensitive politicians in recent memory to the interests of Americans who are of African descent, has also alienated me.

Our oldest daughter is marrying over the Memorial Day holiday. She graduated from SMU six years ago, magna cum laude, with a triple major in Finance, Real Estate and Organizational Development. She was so single-mindedly set on her future career that she never had a television in her entire four years in college. She went straight from graduation to a coveted Wall Street analyst's job in investment banking at one of the nation's premier firms. Her internship, naturally, was in New York. She told us the story, when she returned, of the first convocation of the 70-or-so top trainees from around the nation and the world. Each was asked to stand up, tell their name and city, and their chief area of interest.

As my daughter told the story, each of four young men who were from Texas, recited their name, city, and said something along the lines of, "And I hunt."

My daughter's turn came last. "I'm M------ C------," she said. "I'm from Dallas.

"And I guess I better learn to hunt."

In her years since, when she gave evidence of the most promising intellect and personality, she has confided in me the most egregious examples of sexual harassment. She and her younger sister, our beautiful middle daughter who is also now in her mid-twenties, have already fought battles in their young professional careers that I could not have imagined were they not displayed to me so vividly.

I'm so tired I'm obviously wandering. But truly -- when it gets down to the old "authenticity" argument, who do you really relate to, someone who drinks beer in a certain way? Have you ever watched your friends when they drink beer? Is there only one cool, accepted way? Is there only one "authentic" way to order a sandwich? Come on! Who do you really want to feel is in charge of our country? The corner bartender? The life of the party?

I totally agree that the president of the United States should understand and value the lives of all of the disparate peoples included in his charge. That doesn't mean that (s)he has exactly the same interests or life experience -- that would be impossible. But it does mean that the POTUS, in the ideal, should value and listen to the concerns of ALL of the people, not just the privileged few.

Who do you think understands, or even cares about you?

1. John McCain, the privileged child of the military elite, who divorced his first wife who was disfigured in an accident so he could marry his younger, wealthy mistress; a man who has established, with the help of an abetting media, the brand of a principled maverick while reneging on almost every stand he ever took when proven to be politically unfeasible or unpopular;

2. Barack Obama, who YOU DON'T KNOW. Forget about any demographics -- and I'm a marketing executive! When we're talking about authenticity, we're really talking about truthfulness. What do you KNOW about this man? What record does he have to demonstrate his most deeply felt principles, his priorities? What are his vulnerabilities in the general election? What do you really know beyond the catch phrases of "hope" and "unity"? Are you ready to surrender your vote and influence, after your accumulated experience and years building to wisdom, to the threat that "if Obama doesn't win the nomination" the youth (which historically do not vote) will rebel?

Hey, I'm one of those who questioned authority as a teenager in 1968 and 1972. I could very easily extrapolate and say that if the oldsters had listened to us, we would have ended the Vietnam War much earlier and saved many more American lives. But since I was so wise then, even in my youth, and also demonstrated my superior wisdom in vociferously opposing W's war in Iraq to anyone I could get to listen (not just one cautioned speech), I guess I'm uniquely qualified to be president.

So I'm an archaic Baby Boomer, a racist (since I support Hillary) though a committed civil rights worker in my native South when it was actually dangerous to be so; a faith-clinger out of economic necessity (although I'm a devout Christian and make a six-figure salary); and should be totally dismissed since I was raised in small-town America (where we all hate immigrants and love guns).

To paraphrase the sanctimonious dismissal of Hillary's candidacy with my own for Obama's, "Sure, it would be great to have an woman (African-American) president -- just not THIS woman (African-American)."

3. Hillary Clinton. One of (at LEAST) the most-examined lives on the planet, who has exhibited a toughness unsurpassed by any contemporary American male politician, a commitment to improving the lives of Americans, a faithful and forgiving wife and partner to her husband (family values, y'all ???), and the mother of an exceptional daughter -- and that's only her personal values! Add to that her complete mastery of economics and global politics; her total commitment to supporting our troops in substantive, not rhetorical ways; her proposals for universal healthcare and energy independence; and her standing and respect among the leaders of the world and our own military, her lifelong active support of issues that impact women and children -- well, what's to figure?

I've gone through the past few years with almost all my acquaintance assuming that because I'm an outspoken Democrat and (what others perceive as in various forms) feminist, that I would be an automatic Hillary supporter. The funny thing is that though I've been, as far back as a north Arkansas resident when he was running for governor, a Clinton adherent, and defended First Lady "Hillary Rodham" for retaining her maiden name (I did, too, until I had children), I was not initially a Hillary backer. Somehow, I don't even know how, I'd gotten the idea that since she was raised a Republican, her liberal credentials were suspect. As a populist, I found John Edwards' candidacy more to my liking. But since JE dropped out of the race, I studied the two remaining candidates. I found myself completely on the Clinton side. In some ways, that surprised me. I had absorbed some messaging that indicated to me that Obama was somewhat of a grass roots/working-class/community organize-focused candidate.

As I've followed both Obama and Clinton and their campaigns, I've become engaged as I've never been -- for Hillary. Her mastery of the issues, which is not just evidence of her intelligence and work ethic, but of her CARING to understand and try to develop solutions for the problems various and united Americans face -- is unmatched among all the campaigns in which I've witnessed for more than 50 years. I never expected to feel this way about Hillary. I suppose that I, too, as so many Americans have, absorbed so much of "maybe some woman, but not THIS woman" propaganda, that I saw HRC as an icon, not a person.

I am so glad, and feel so privileged, that I took the time to examine the life, policy positions, and accomplishments of this extraordinary woman. And having come to a position of complete confidence that she is, at this critical and complicated juncture of our national life, the unquestionably ( in my mind, at least) best qualified person to lead our nation away from the precipice to which W and the Rethuglicans have led us, and poised us to. That Obama might still win our nomination, I must face. But more and more I find myself viewing himself as Elmer Gantry, and while I will summon up the energy and time (despite my crushing schedule) to support Hillary for POTUS, I simply have no such motivation to apply myself to Obama's campaign.

So it's 10:30, and I've spent the first evening I've had in more than a week blogging, when I could have been resting. What a dweeb I am. But this is the most important election of my fifty-something life. I want Hillary Clinton to be in charge of my country. She's the only person I can imagine who is competent and engaged enough to tackle the mess that W will be leaving behind. I imagine the reasons so many of the over-50 voters are supporting her reflect my own. We have seen so much of futile war, economic displacement, and division in our lives. It is patently clear to me that in Hillary Clinton, we have an instrument of progress, unity and hope ... if we will close our eyes to the detritus disseminated by the haters and open our hearts and minds to the authentic person, the hardiest, the embodiment of American values -- Hillary Clinton.

Yes, I'm crushingly tired, physically, mentally and emotionally. But if Hillary can keep on keeping on, so can I.

Labels: , , ,