The Audacity of Hope

If you were watching the DNC Convention tonight, and you saw the keynote speech given by a young Illinois candidate for the Senate named Barak Obama, you saw history being made. Tonight was the coming-out party for a future President of the United States.

"Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead."

From your lips to God's ears, Mr. Obama.


Clinton says, "Word up, all you bitches, 'cause I be representin' "

Or something like that.

Just finished watching the rerun on CSPAN with Gore and Carter and watched Clinton a second time because something that good shouldn't be experienced just once.

Le sigh for Gore, because he kicked ass. And Carter, who can hold his own.

But thank god they weren't following Clinton because that would've been fucking brutal.

"Kind of like Santa Clause, but more flammable."

I missed this diary on Kos when it first posted so I'm I'm just putting it here so I can come back and laugh my ass off whenever I feel like it.

Daily Kos || Edwards vs. Cheney: Debate Jitters

As you were.

Convention, Day One

So Clinton just finished speaking and once again, I find myself both sad and angry about the sorry excuse of a man now occupying the White House. I was so disappointed in Clinton by 1998/1999 that I was looking forward to Gore with as much relief as optimism, but having watched Clinton do what he does best, I can't help feeling a certain fondness for him. And day-um, can that man speak.

I missed Gore and Carter so I'm waiting for the whole thing to rerun on CSPAN in a bit. Judging by the reaction in most of the blogs, they both did us proud. It's good to be proud of the Democrats again, to feel like we're on the right track again. Yes, the party's got it's problems -- the stuff I've been blogging for the last couple of days, the run away from its liberal nature, etc., etc. -- but it's a damn sight better than what the Republicans are offering.

Clinton said it best: we tried it their way, and our way is better.


Revolution, Democratic Party, blah blah blah

Kos continues exceptional blogging on the topic of the revolution/evolution of the Democratic Party, linking to the NY Times piece I recommended before and I'm still pushing because seriously, ya gotta read it. Kos is right: this week is the last of the old guard, the last of the old party, the last of an old way of doing things. It's not just about changing the terms, changing the rules, but changing the game.


More on the revolution

Everyone in the 'sphere has been pointing to the article in the NYT by Matt Bai about the undercurrent of change in the Democratic Party. It's a long article, but a good read. It goes in-depth about what I was trying (not very well) to say in my previous post about the revolution coming to the party. Not just blogging, which was the focus of my post, but the general populist upheaval that's just barely stirring the surface now, but, if the various movements and factions can come together and reach a critical mass, will erupt into not just a tidal wave, but a super tsunami of change. (What? It's a real thing. I saw it on the Discovery Channel once.)

Our party's traditional bastions have been slowly receding in strength/numbers/influence, buckling under a dual assault of relentless right-wing criticism and the ceding of the battle by the Democrats. Republicans have successfully dictated not just the message and terms of the debate, but the definition of our party. And we've let them. Rather than nodding our heads when they label us "liberal" and saying, "Uh, yeah. And your point would be...?", we run away from it like it's a bad word. It's not. But we never get our message out, we let the Republicans shout over us every time we try say what we stand for and instead of telling them to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down, we get into an argument about semantics and how unfair they're playing. And guess what? Mission accomplished. They've baited and switched. It works every time.

The party's long, loooong overdue for a complete overhaul. We set the message. We set the terms. And goddammit, we define ourselves. And while we're at it, we'll define them, too. Not by turning conservative into a dirty word, but by calling them out on their shit.

More than that, though, it means pushing a progressive agenda -- our agenda -- and putting the Party out front, ahead of the rest, an innovative leader that caters to its constituents. We're the party of the little guy and it's about time we got the word out.


The Revolution Will Not Be Televised*

As the election nears, with the Democratic Convention next week and more of the general voting population finally turning their attention toward the race, I become increasingly convinced that the blogosphere is going to be the the great equalizer in the struggle between the powerful and the powerless, that it'll be our weapon against a mainstream media, political machine, and corporate oligarchy that continues to shut an increasing majority of people out of the democratic process.

Even as the media continues taking their direction from the GOP 's spin machine, feeding us the manufactured news that keeps us occupied with the culture wars and disinformation and outright lies that're meant to distract us from the horrors of torture, the brutality of illegal war, the looting of our treasury, and the assault on the fabric of our democracy, the blogosphere is building an insurrection of truth and information, a movement of the regular Americans who live and work and fight and die in this country. For this country.

We're taking back our country, taking it back from an smug, arrogant, selfish, anti-intellectual, small-minded, malicious, bullying, disinterested, uninformed, lying, cheating disaster of a presidency. And taking back our Congress from a power-hungry, self-serving, outright damaging Majority. We're going to put the adults back in charge, start mending the wounds opened this last four years, rebuild the bridges that've been so assiduously burned around the world, and we're going to hold our party to the highest of standards, expect the best of them, demand it.

So my new goal is to get more people involved in the blogosphere -- even if they don't blog themselves, I'm going to try to get more people to get some of their information from blogs. I want other people to feel empowered by the information that's just a click away, and the knowledge that they aren't alone. Because together, we are mighty.

Don't believe me?** Then believe this. And this.  And this. And absolutely this, thisthis, and this.

The revolution isn't coming. It's already begun.

* post title taken from the title of Joe Trippi's new book
** all links to Daily Kos, because he believes in the revolution; but don't be fooled...his blog is only one of many in the revolution

All hail the Stewart!

God bless The Daily Show, because if I wasn't laughing, I'd be screaming.

Hey, we don't have to think, the GOP will do it for us!

Is it possible to squee over political candidates?

Because if so, I’m squeeing, baby.

So I watched Larry King last night with Edwards and his wife. I don’t normally watch Larry King, but it was John and Elizabeth and thus, I had to. It was like a law of physics, or something.

With the possible exception of Elizabeth’s wardrobe malfunction (what the hell was that blue-jacket-buttoned-up-to-her-chin thing? because hello, what happened to her neck?), they hit it out of the park. He answered questions candidly, straight-on, and (here’s a concept) intelligently. Hmmm, that might be a quality to look for in our elected officials, yes? That they understand the issues and can converse intelligently upon them? Wow, what a novel idea!

Continue to be impressed by Elizabeth. I loved her answer to the question “Is the prospect of being the Second Lady intimidating?” Not at all, she says, and in fact, she views it as a tremendous platform to do her part to make the country better. That’s the kind of thing we should be hearing. She’s not taking the “barely seen, never heard, possibly drugged 24/7” Laura Bush route, nor the “rarely seen or heard and when she does speak, she’s as scary as her husband” Lynne Cheney route. She’s not an “ambition and career are my purpose in life” Hilary or a “we would never even know who you are if it weren’t for your attempt to put ratings on music” Tipper. She’s her own woman, and god bless her for it.

And also, his response to Larry’s questions about their son’s death spurring him into politics was handled both graciously and gracefully. I imagine they’ve deflected that question more times than they care to count and have probably honed their responses, but still. It would be easy to get irritable after hearing the question asked a million times, or for your answer to sound rehearsed and stilted, but they were both genuine and as I said, gracious; more so, considering the topic.

So count me yes, officially in love with this couple. These two people are what Kerry needed to help us warm up to him. With John and Elizabeth on the ticket (yes, her too), that warm fuzziness rubs off on Kerry, even for those of us who were already well inside the Kerry camp. It’s popularity by proxy.

Which says two laudable things about Kerry: 1) that he can objectively analyze a situation on its merits (in this case, that he needed to make himself more personable to the public without trying to be something he’s not), and 2) he can make a good and informed choice based on that analysis, despite whatever his personal choices/beliefs might be (in this case, he’s confident and comfortable enough to pick someone with charm and political savvy because that’s the choice he needs in order to win, even though that someone could easily overshadow him). This is the kind of guy I want making foreign policy decisions and domestic policy.


Slow and Steady Wins the Race

Yeah, so I've been a little absent this week. Eh, what can I say? Real life waylaid me. Actually, ambushed would be more like it, but anyway....

Thomas Oliphant has a terrific article over at The American Prospect about Kerry that provides some really interesting and enlightening insight into our future President. (Yes, I know I linked to an article on Edwards a few posts back calling him the future president -- and I meant it -- but first things first: get Kerry in office and then Edwards will be right behind him after 8 years. My prediction, ladies and gentleman.)

My dad asked me a couple of months ago what I thought about Kerry. I told him that he wasn't my first choice (for the record, that would be Edwards*) but that the more I learned about him, the more I liked him. I didn't -- and don't -- think he would be the kind of figure that we memorialize like, say, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, or even, JFK. But I do think he'll be a very good president and that he'll be the kind of president we should have more often.

Anyway, read the article: "The Kerry I Know"

*Yes, I was rooting for Edwards. I hadn't heard much about him except, perhaps, his name and the fact that he was in the race. Didn't even know what state he was from. But I happened to catch an interview he did with Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week sometime in September 2003 (just before I started this blog). He was interviewing Edwards on the campaign trail (on the campaign bus, to be precise) as part of a "get to know the candidates" kind of thing. Anyway, Edwards had a chance to include ideas from his now-famous "Two Americas" speech during their conversation and it really got my attention. By the time he was finished, I was sold. Between that, the sincerity with which he said it, and his obvious charisma, I knew this guy was one to watch. (Yes, obviously, others came to that conclusion far earlier than I did, I'm just sayin'.)

I also have a soft place in my heart for Dean. I think he could be a good president, too, but I think in the end, the primary shook out probably the best candidate (Kerry) for that job in the current context. Dean revolutionized the party, though, which I think is a lot more apparent through the lense of the blogosphere. The record fund-raising of the Dems that's just now being reported, the record number of donors giving smaller amounts to achieve that end (vs. Bush's Rangers donating more money than most of us make in a year), the fact that bloggers have been given official access to the National Convention, the empowered grassroots movement, and the complete turnaround of Congressional prospects...all of these owe something to Dean's candidacy. He's the one who stood up and said -- FINALLY! -- "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Basically, he said Ron Silver's speech on that episode of The West Wing:

We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said 'liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-eductaion, anti-choice, pro-gun, 'Leave it to Beaver' trip back to the fifties," we cowered in the corner and said, "Please, don't hurt me." No more.

(thanks to Athenae, guesting over at Atrios' place, who dug up the quote a few days ago)


Lies and the Lying Liars

Steve over at No More Mister Nice Blog hits it squarely on the head:

"My opinion is that Bush didn't lie. Infinitely slicker than Clinton, Bush conveys erroneous impressions about Iraq every time he talks about Iraq, while tiptoeing carefully around actual lies like a man trying to escape alive from a minefield. His typical speech on the subject is: al-Qaeda Taliban al-Qaeda Taliban terrorism Iraq Saddam Hussein safe haven for terrorists weapons of mass destructions we must not forget the lessons of September 11. There are no lies; there's just proximity. It's Saturday Night Live's Mr. Subliminal."

This has got to be one of the most frustrating things about Bush. He makes blatantly false assertions with impunity and when he's finally called on it (or what passes for being called on it with our present-day wimpified press), he equivocates worse than Clinton ever did. It's like getting into a playground argument with a weasely little 8 year-old -- you know he's lying and he knows he's lying (and he knows you know he's lying), but he thinks he's getting off on a technicality because technically, he didn't lie. It's that smug arrogance that just makes me want to smack that smarmy smile right of his piggy-eyed little face. Am I pissed? Godddamned right I am. Because it's fucking insulting, that's why; it's one thing to be lied to, but when you and the liar both know he's not kidding anyone and he's going to get away with it anyway? Asshole.

That post did remind me, however, of one of the "bush in 30seconds" ads that Sal and I quote frequently. (Courtesy of MoveOn.org, if you didn't already know. In which case, get thee to this site and click on the winner, because you? Have been living under a rock.)


Preach it, Sistah Theresa!

Via Athenae, who's guesting over at Atrios' place:

Heinz Kerry continued, "We need, above all, a president who is not fazed by complexity. A president who likes to read. A president who loves history. A president who is rightly proud of the sacrifice of our ancestors."



Hee. It's funny 'cause it's true.

The Onion: Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue

"It used to be that I would turn on Pacifica Radio and be incensed at the top of every hour," Levine added. "Now, I could find out that Bush plans to execute every 10th citizen and I'd barely blink an eye, much less raise a finger."


Mark my words

Ladies and Gentlemen, your future President:

An Answer That's Blowing in the Wind


The AWOL Project

I've been following the Bush AWOL story since I first started my blog. Of all my grievances against Bush, this one rates, eh, somewhere in the lower 100s, of about 1001 reasons why I want him out.

Still, as a potrait of just what kind of man he seems to be -- and by that I mean the sense I get of him as a man, my instinct of him -- it's a highly instructive study. Real bloggers (as opposed to someone like myself, whose blog exists just to get my thoughts out of my head) have been doing all the legwork and research on this (it was Kevin Drum when he was still CalPundit, that first distilled it enough that I could get past the alphabet soup of military acronyms) and over the months, several more have joined the hunt for the whole story. Including, it seems, some of the print media.

The AWOL Project is a compilation of everything we know -- all the facts, evidence, and documentation the blog collective has gathered -- in an extensive and detailed report, including, among other things, an explanation of all those acronyms, Bush's military "service" in the context of the times, and the amazing disappearing act of the exact records that would definitively prove things one way or the other. In short, it's the most thorough resource you're bound to find on the subject. It's worth your time to read it.


I know nothing, this is just a feeling

For the last few months, I've had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about one of two things happening during the election season:

1) That Bush will dump Cheney from the ticket in order to plug the holes in the boat; or
2) That we'll have our very own October Surprise (new and improved for 2004!).

Now the Cheney thing could go either way. It could backfire spectacularly and cause voter confidence in Bush to plummet further than it already has. Short of him enticing John McCain into the VEEP slot, I don't think it could do anything but backfire, although this administration has broken all the rules (and laws) when it comes to politics and governance so what would normally apply with anyone else probably doesn't with these assholes. Still, I figure besides the fact that Cheney's the real power in this administration and Bush seems unable to fire anyone no matter how royally they fuck up, Cheney just knows where too many of the bodies are buried for Bush to realistically dump him. So basically, I'm with Kos on this one. Still have a bad feeling about it, but on the scale of probability, I'd say this one continues to move further and further down my list of worries.

As for an October Surprise, this could just be Democrat paranoia morphing into full-blown conspiracy theory. God knows we have every reason to think Bush & Co. would pull such a stunt. However, with this article over at TNR about the thumbscrews tightening on the Pakistanis, paranoia about an October Surprise (or in this case, July) isn't looking so crazy anymore. (Whether they're onto something in this article or they're being fed a bunch of nonsense, only time is going to tell, but we've got no reason to doubt these reporters' credibility at this point.)

So let's say the surprise comes sometime between now and the election...what happens? Well, no matter what it's going to put the Dems in a tough spot. There's a good chance that they could expose such a ploy for exactly what it is, although that assumes, of course, that the Dems will finally grow the backbone they apparently lost sometime around 9/11, that the media won't continue to report GOP press releases as news, and that the electorate is finally properly suspicious of just about anything this Administration does anymore. I'm not betting on any of those things, but we'll see. On the probability scale, still pretty high up there.

But since waking up this morning to the latest nebulous warning about a terrorist attack "sometime, somewhere", I've now got a third thing that's causing this feeling in the pit of my stomach and no, it's not that chalupa I had for lunch.

So the big secret meeting this morning was bogus, I get that. Oh, I'm sure there's increased chatter and alla that, but talk about announcing the obvious. And with no more detail than they're giving, this is any different that the unseen, unknown possibility of attack that hangs over us every day...how, exactly?

No, what worries me is the very real possibility of assassination. With the addition of Edwards, and the pathetic nature of the attacks against him so far, it's clear the the GOP is desperate. Kerry and Edwards are really looking like they're gonna stick it to the Bush ticket at this point and I don't think that's just the my oh-so-obvious bias talking. Bush is managing to sink himself without any help from us (although he'd sink faster if our side was doing its job, but I'll take what I can get) and despite a media that has no concept of investigative journalism or objective reporting.

Now, I'm not saying they would ever contemplate assassination as a means to keeping the White House -- I'm not Oliver Stone, after all -- but the temptation to fuck with our elections has got to be too strong for Al Quaida to resist and what better way than to knock off one or both of the challenger candidates that would most likely cause a lot of headache for your terrorist organization were they to be elected? You keep the guy who's been such a boon to your recruitment efforts, and cripple him further than he's already crippled himself with suspicions that he had something to do with his opponent's death(s) OR, that he didn't do enough to prevent it/them. It dovetails nicely with Al Quaida's goals of bringing down the American infidels and might very well cause a national crisis that makes 9/11 look like a lovely September day in comparison.

I hope this is just me worrying for no reason. Everyone (and by that I mean my friends and family -- my husband is the only one who agreed with me throughout) thought I was insane in 2000 when I was worrying that it was gonna be so close it'd be messy (though even I didn't worry to the extent of the Florida mess). They said I was overreacting about Bush, that he wasn't the evil incarnate that I worried he'd be. And after 9/11 no one could understand why I didn't think Junior was all that. Except for, again, my husband, who was just as distrustful as I was about the man.

The thing is, I didn't want to be right about any of that. Why I was, I have no idea -- it's not like I've got some special insight no one else does, and I don't pretened to know shit about shit -- but being right about it doesn't make me feel any better. I WANT to be worrying about this for no reason. Seriously. I really, really don't want to be right about this. I'm probably not -- what the hell do I know about politics or terrorism or whatever? Exactly squat, that's what.

Just the same, please don't let me be right about this.


More on the dangers of political purity

Last night I wrote about the GOP's recent pressure for political purity. Today's TAPPED has an article that nicely sums up what I was trying to say:

"Moderate Republicans would do well to think about what they are actually getting from or giving to the party these days. Obviously, party leaders aren't anxious to hear their opinions when they disagree with the party line. GOP leaders are looking for a top-down system where they give the orders and lawmakers blindly follow them, contrary to a spirit of the Senate that stresses individualism. And, as long as Bush sits in the White House, you can bet that he'll be the one who's really driving the agenda on Capitol Hill. This means that besides facing anger from Senate leaders, moderate Republicans may be frozen out by the White House as well, except when it's politically convenient for the president."

As the article later points out, the Democrats made the same mistake in 1994 and paid the price. The GOP would do well to heed that lesson.

One of the good guys

"John Edwards, Esq." by Joshua Green

Via Slacktivist, came across this fantastic Washington Monthly article from 2001 about Edwards' trial lawyer days, among other things. His case against the drain company, in particular, stood out to me because I distinctly remember this story running on one of the network news magazines a few years ago. The story stuck with me because of the details themselves (I simply can't imagine the horror of what these children suffered) but also because of one mother who described what had happened to her son. I never heard about the story again, which I thought strange since it was so compelling. I mean, who knew that pool and spa drains could be so dangerous?

Anyway, the article is a good read and provides some great background on Edwards. This is the guy I was rooting for well before the primaries. Good to know that my instincts about him were well-founded. Sooooo glad he's on the ticket.

On dog breeds and party purity

Had an interesting conversation with one of my coworkers this afternoon. Politics is as rarely a topic around my workplace, mainly because we're all so busy we don't usually have time to talk about anything but work, but also because pretty much everyone is in one of two camps: 1) either they all assume everyone else there believes the same thing they do, i.e. generic conservative/Republican/Christian Right, for the most part pretty moderate and really, not very political; OR 2) they observe the unwritten rule that politics, like religion, are Topics To Be Avoided In Polite Company. Which is actually a decent enough rule, really, and in the workplace, all for the best. It's fairly easy for a political (or religious, for that matter) discussion to get out of hand and that's just not the right place for it.

Having said that, though, I've been there long enough to have figured out roughly where everyone stands on a crude two-dimensional scale (admittedly, a shallow metric) and have had political conversations with several people. All polite and respectful. (And crude two-dimensional scale or not, I've talked with them enough to know I'm in the minority.

The coworker in question is also in the minority. I'd classify him as an independent -- he's a Christian, but not Christian Right, pro-life but doesn't vote an executive candidate on that issue, would like to see prayer in school, very pro-environment, a fairly strong dove, conservative fiscally and socially but believes in government as a social agent on behalf of the poor. In contemporary American politics, that makes him a schizophrenic, but really, he's an independent-progressive, as much as any label can apply to someone. (I mean, really...who votes a straight ticket or platform?)

More specifically, he's voting his religious beliefs, as he said many times while we discussed various issues. To wit: the Bible teaches stewardship of the Earth (environmentalism), caring for "the least of these" (social issues/helping the poor), pro-life (debatable, but whatever, I'll give him that), etc. As an agnostic, I was relieved to discuss the idea of progressive politics in conjunction with Biblical teaching with someone who obviously believes very strongly in their faith. I've always wondered how the Right has managed to turn those two things into mutually exclusive propositions, so it was nice to know that there really are Christian Progressives out there.... I've heard of them, of course, but I've also heard of the Loch Ness Monster, doesn't mean I'm putting money down that there actually is such a thing.

Anyway, he mentioned going to see Fahrenheit 9/11, which I was surprised about even though I know his political leanings. More surprised that he loved it. I don't know why I expected he either wouldn't go or that he'd hate it, but the fact is, he was quite taken with the points the film raised. Which led to our discussion about various things in this Administration that have been enraging us.

The thing is, we both come from a different perspective and have major issues that we disagree about, but on this Administration, we agree that there's nothing either of us can find remotely redeeming about it. The abortion issue is a perfect example: obviously an important issue to him, as it is to me, and we're on opposite sides of it. But regardless of what our candidate believes, we both agree that what's more important is the larger issue of the damage Bush is wreaking on our country in every respect. (I guess The Shrubbery really is a uniter!)

It struck me later that our party's umbrella is large enough to encompass an agnostic pro-choice gun control liberal AND a Christian school prayer pro-life progressive. Not to say the other side's umbrella isn't large enough for the same sort of thing, but it seems to me, in my most biased and subjective view, that the Republican Party, at least in the last 20 years or so, has systematically purged itself of its dissenting voices in the interest of some kind of ideological purity that strays so far from the party's original roots as to be nearly unrecognizable.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, actually, and reading others' thoughts on the same idea in the blogosphere at large. What I'm wondering, though, is how long the GOP can sustain such a thing. Darwin's theories aren't just applicable in nature. And as biology has demonstrated time and time again, purity will eventually weaken anything, be it a dog breed or a political party.

So here's what I'm getting at (finally!).... I'm starting to wonder if, with the Bush Administration, we're seeing the really horrific effects of what you might call political inbreeding.


A makeover for the occasion

To commemorate my newfound enthusiasm for updating my blog, I've played with some of the cool new templates (can you tell I haven't been to blogger in awhile?) and have settled on a right pretty new look.

Am also loving the new and improved interface muchly.

Oh happy day!

Okay, so I've been away for a bit. Does it help that I've felt guilty about it?

Well, we just got busy in October, like super busy, and then there was a lot of family yuck. (For which I've started a separate LiveJournal to keep that stuff separate; I've decided I want to stay strictly political here.)

Actually, I had a lot to say during the primaries, especially during the Dean Scream nonsense, but again, real life called. And then the 9/11 Commission hearings ("...it was a series of actionable items...") and the horror of the torture scandals just basically sucked me dry. I've been in a political depression, worrying that I actually am facing a future for my country of dictatorship and oppression (which we're already flirting with now) at the thought of Bush winning and I just couldn't summon the energy to put into words the utter rage I'm feeling. Coupled with the indescribable mess that Iraq's become and the continued fubars of Bush and Co., it was just overwhelming. Oh, and life stuff, also.

Well, life stuff is still going on and will for the foreseeable future (at least until the Big 4 house projects are done, then Sal and I plan to focus all of our energies on political stuff). But with the VEEP announcement, I'm all re-energized and I've just got to start writing about this stuff like I originally intended or I'm gonna bust.

I was fearful -- yes, fearful -- that Kerry was gonna go with Gephardt, even though the blogosphere CW was saying that Edwards was it. And then this weekend the Gep-winds started blowing and several blogs were citing some unnamed reliable sources that it would be Gep. At which point, I could feel my heart sinking.

But then late last night, someone posted in the comments at DailyKos that some aviation message boards (who knew?) were saying they'd painted Kerry's plane(s?) with "Kerry/Edwards" and I was so excited I could hardly sleep. I even got up early, which happens, like, never, turned on the TV with a mixture of excitement and dread, like it was either gonna be Christmas or a death sentence, and then did the Snoopy happy dance right there in my bedroom when I saw the news.

So now I'm all happy happy joy joy. And thinking my ticket is brilliant, because I just know that they floated the Gep thing and leaked it to everyone to plunge expectations, get everyone all down and depressed, so that when they announced Edwards, it would be that much bigger and better. Brilliantly played, sez I. (And I guess I owe Gep a thank you for allowing himself to be a sacrificial lamb).

May the frogmarching of the current administration commence....

As for the blog...will try to post semi-regularly like I originally planned when I first set this thing up. We'll see. Time is always an issue, but I'll try to do it from work as much as I can. I'm reading about 25 blogs/day so that alone sucks up more time than I can spare in the evenings (though RSS feeds are a gift from on high). But this year more than ever in my lifetime -- perhaps in the history of the U.S. -- it's important that I use my voice and my rights to restore the honor to my country.