“Stand in back of the white line”.  He didn’t say it in a nice or courteous way, it was an order and we were surprised because there was no reason why he couldn’t have been polite.  We were on line waiting to get into the Pepsi Center in Denver. The convention had not started, there were no VIP’s in the area, and there was no visible threat—except the Denver Police swat teams riding around on tanks.

David just got back from the Olympics and he said he was embarrassed about the Denver “police state” mentality.  He said he would have not been surprised if it happened in China—which it did not. In fact, when they took his watch, camera’s and other metals that might set off the security machine, they placed all his belongings on a red velvet tray.  Pretty nice huh.  Such is not the case in this beautiful, peaceful city.

My cousin Miki, who was with us while we proceeded slowly, very slowly, through the line, insisted the security personnel were not from Denver.  Maybe they’re not but they are taking orders from someone and it ultimately reflects on the city,  (Don’t tell Miki but I think they were from Denver and probably had just gotten off the tanks).  Anyway, there was lots of “walk over there, you can’t walk over there, you need a star on your credential to walk over there.”  It does not bode well for the rest of the week.  Let’s hope yesterday was just a practice and instead of swat teams with machine guns we will see some buses transporting delegates.

Monday August 25

The good news is that it’s much easier to get into the Convention Center—which is not the actual convention center – that’s the Pepsi Center.  (Isn’t it wonderful that every building is named after a product.  And for a mere$4 you can buy a Pepsi or a Diet Pepsi or any Pepsi product).  The Secret Service Agent who was most reasonable about letting the young women who were with the Lifetime TV group stand in the shade instead of the sun, told me that security was tight because of the information they had about threats.  The bad news is that the police remain in overkill.  For example, we walked past a protest 15 blocks away from the Convention where there were no less than eigthy five police in riot gear and no more than 5 protestors, yelling at one another.  One of the protestors  carried a sign that said “Homo sex is a sin”.  This clearly threw the police for a loop because they, like me, probably didn’t know what a homo was.

On another note, David came home from China sick as a moose—dogs don’t always have to take the heat. Our wonderful doctor called in a prescription, and while we waited we sat outside a Starbucks, that happened to be around the corner from the Credentials Center.  It’s the place to sit if you want to see everyone you have ever known in your entire political life.   Of course it is. Everyone has to get a credential. It was such fun catching up with the people I wrote about last week—the people you see (at the most), only every four years, and often for many more.  You see young adults who were babies when you met and grown up’s with children who were still in college when they worked with you on their first campaign.     You exchange gossip, information about politics and of course, what parties you think are a must on the list.

This ongoing four day reunion is the only reason to be in the middle of such chaos.  Sure there are some interesting politics, like someone is spreading rumors about Hillary giving up her delegates, and Hillary people protesting in the street. The Hillary people think the Obama confidantes are spreading them. The Obama people deny that they are involved. And that’s probably true.  So who do we think would benefit from rumors of divisiveness? Maybe the Rebulicans?  Rumors, gossip and misinformation is an unfortunate reality in Karl Rove run campaigns.  And the media are so easy they will write or broadcast anything they think might be controversial.   I wonder what the Democrats will do next week?  I truly hope it’s entertaining.

ShareThis

In the category of never mind about me, let’s talk about me; a note of passing. When I was pregnant with Jordan I refused to wear dowdy maternity clothes and unless you are a celebrity and you don’t care what hangs out, most maternity clothes are unattractive.  I was going to say unseemly but then I would have to be specific in definition – in this case “contrary to accepted standards of good taste.”   Anyway, David was shooting a story about Gene Upshaw the famous football player turned NFL players union representative.  Gene was wearing his official number 63 black and silver football shirt.  He was a big guy and the shirt was enormous.  David explained how whacky I was about maternity clothes and in joking, commented that the football shirt was probably something that would fit me and I would even wear it.  After the shoot finished, Gene took off the shirt and made it a present to me. Twenty two years have passed but I still have the shirt.  Last night when I heard that Gene died, I put the shirt on, said a prayer and sad goodbye to this generous guy who I never met, but wanted a poor pregnant lass to have something to wear.

As long as we’re on the subject of kids, over the last fifty or hundred years (maybe a little exaggeration)  I have spent a great deal of time hanging out with people in their twenties.  It has kept me pretty young and I think sensitive to the issues they often suffer.  Some were my students, some Jordan’s friends and some friends of friends.  It has, for the most part, been a joy. I truly love these kids and if there was a profession called “Kid Hanger Outer” which would pay you for hanging out with (housing, feeding, talking to and loving) young people, I would be an expert in my field.  But it unfortunately costs rather than pays.   In all the years I have been a participant in young lives, I have had only one disappointment. There is a young Iraqi scholarship student presently living with us.  I will not go into detail about how unpleasant he has been (He’s a Christian whose first comment about Jordan’s room—which I cleaned out for him, was that her Jewish star freaked him out).  His family has always been safe and ffor the most part, not endangered by the war,  but suffice to say, we are not parting as friends.

Anyway, I began to think about how so many of us do what we can to make children feel wanted and supported and yes, loved.  The Olympics is coming to an end but is there any better example then Michael Phelps’ mother.  A single parent who found a way to encourage a child everyone believed was beyond help.  She heard “He’s a problem” and “He’ll never be successful” so many times, it would have been easy to say, “oh well”.  But she made a decision to find a way for him to win “the gold” – in life as well as sports. Then I watch “The Nanny” (there is no reasonable explanation for this action but I am fascinated by the total inability of people to cope even when there are no financial problems) and  I see people who abuse their kids or are at a loss to deal with or provide discipline guidelines.  I sit there and think, there should be a test for people to take before they make a lifetime commitment to caring for a child.  Now don’t get excited, this is not a test that the government gives and ultimately makes a decision about whether anyone can  have a child.  This is a  self help test,  which might have a question like:
1.    If your child throws a tantrum in a supermarket because you won’t purchase some crap candy  would you;
a.    Flee
b.    Scream
c.    Hit
d.    Ignore it
e.    Talk them through it
f.    None or All of the above.

I’m not going to answer the question because I don’t know what you would do and my kids have made it through the tantrum stage. Jordan sulked and Seth did the “no bones” thing. That’s when they fall to the ground—totally limp—like they have no bones and scream.  Sometimes yelling “she hates me” or stuff that adds to the humiliation, but we got past it.  You’ll have to ask Seth how I handled it, but he is a perfect adult so whatever I did  didn’t cause any real trauma.

There are parents who try to be friends with their kids and parents who are afraid that if they discipline a child, the child will hate them.  Kids need parameters and they need their own friends.  They want you to guide them through difficult, challenging, or sorrowful experiences, and in order to do that you have to be a parent not a pal.   I could go on about what terrific parents we were but that would be boring and repetitious. I would rather leave you with this incredibly insightful piece of advice, (relevant whether you do or don’t have kids),  we can have disappointed expectations about how children behave (ours or other peoples’), but when we’re dealing with them, it is a mistake let them have disappointed expectations about us.

ShareThis

At the same time that you are inseparable 24/7,  you don’t necessarily know anything about one another’s real lives.  You may know if someone has a spouse and children, but that’s not a given because it’s not important within the context of the campaign, (unless there is something that impacts on the day to day political operation, like a kid has a birthday or a wife has a baby and the player needs to be away from the HQ)   Anyway, a strange thing happens and you start to live like the only people in your life are the campaign people—you don’t have much time for anything else.  You can guess what that means.  Yes, live like the only people who are important in their day to day, are the campaign folks.  And they often have affairs, (which are not catered).  And we are now finding that some candidates have also gone astray.  (Campaigns are not a healthy place for people who want to stay nice).

Today I was wondering what the political players must be thinking about the Candidate Forum last Saturday.  I wonder if, when Pastor Warren asked the question about morals and what the Candidates had done in their lives that they felt was just not up to what they would consider acceptable moral standards, the staff took a deep breath and prayed the answers would be more acceptable than some  candidate actions.  Barack Obama talked about trying drugs when he was young and John McCain talked about his choices in Viet Nam.  Neither mentioned any marital infidelity.

My guess is that Obama has not cheated on his wife (she would have killed him and we would not have a candidate), where we know John McCain certainly did.  Is fidelity important for a nation’s leader.  In France the citizens don’t care.  In Italy there is only trouble if the wife finds out—the voter is irrelevant. I’m not sure what the standards are in Africa, and in the Middle East they just keep marrying everyone – or is that Utah?  Anyway, it’s supposed to be different here. (This is not a personal judgment I am merely the blogger). Here’s what I found so interesting.  Pastor Warren was interviewed about whether he thought that it was possible for Elizabeth Edwards to forgive John.  Warren said he thought Elizabeth could forgive John— forgiving someone was Christian and important. (As a Jew I feel a little left out – what else is new). But he also said that it would take a long time for her to trust him again, if ever she could.   Mr. Edwards would have to earn her trust.  Forgiveness and trust were two different things.

John McCain cheated on his first wife, but in answering the question he felt his Viet Nam decisions were more important and worth mentioning.  But not his marital infidelity. Whew!  I guess my question is, if cheating on his wife was not worth mentioning, can we trust that if he is not faithful to the American people that will not be worth mentioning either.  It’s just a question and I mean it in the nicest possible way.

ShareThis

After years of avoiding a relationship with the Face Book, my cousin was pretty insistent that I had to get with it and make it a part of my life, so my daughter helped me to sign on. I may now be the lonliest person on the Face Book.  Sure I have friends on the Face Book.  I reached out to everyone whose names I recognized.  And thank God none of those people rejected my appeals to “be my friend”, but no one actually chats with me.  Maybe it’s the picture. The picture might be a little depressing because it has a “Brother Can You Spare a Dime” theme. Or maybe it’s my profile which talks about my love of acrobatics.  Acrobatics is a little like gymnastics, but it’s a different version. For example, it does not include anything rhythmic (like when they use the silly ribbons in a synchronized effort).  Nor does it include anything synchronized like diving or swimming or trampolining. But should that impact on my face book popularity.  I am in such turmoil. Should I change to accommodate what attracts other people?  That would be politic but so not me.

I’m trying not to take it personally. But how else can I take it… it is personal.  I mean I see people who are on the face book talking to 10 or 20 other people at a time.  But not me.  I think I’ll just go sit in the dark.  And speaking of sitting in the dark, that’s where I am again about John Edwards.  So now we learn in the “NY Daily News” that Elizabeth forgave him because it was really she who wanted to be in the White House.  It was the way she wanted to live out her life. No one who has ever been in the White House thinks it’s a stress free environment but to “each his own” as my mother would say.  The “News” went on to talk about the videographer –I can’t bring myself to call her by name, maybe (as another friend refers to her) “Webikins” is more fitting, and Edwards good friend Young, who says that it is his baby.  He has a wife and three kids with no visible means of support.  Supposedly,  when the story broke, the gruesome twosome (Hunter and Young) fled to the west coast where, unencumbered by actual work, they lived in a multimillion dollar dwellings.  It does go on and on.  And the more I hear the angrier I get with all of these political, irresponsible,  egomaniacal, idiots. (Am I being too harsh?  Because I mean this in the nicest possible way.)

ShareThis

ShareThis

On a happier note. Well, not really happier but different…

Once upon a time (you know I love that as a start because, as you can see,  it’s always more than once and you can usually identify a time, so that adds a touch of irony), there was a middle class young man who worked hard to become a success. Which he did… and along the way he got married, had children, suffered some devastating tragedy and became a very rich lawyer (very rich).  Then he went on to become a US Senator, a Vice Presidential candidate and he even ran for President.  This has all been in the news non stop because along with all his other achievements he became a liar and a cheat.  Quite simply, what he really was, was a dope.  My friend Sarah says that about a lot of politicians because she thinks it’s the best and easiest way to describe their mental capacity and behavior - and she’s right.

Ok, so it turns out that John Edwards is what so many people thought- a fast talking, too slick, ambulance chasing,  attorney at law.  He had an affair with a younger -but not too young-woman who he then hired to produce his web cast video’s. Whew, that’s unusual. A politician who has an affair with someone and then pays them for whatever.  But here’s something different.  He actually told his wife (who was then and now suffering from terminal cancer), that he had an affair.  I wonder why.  Did he get herpes?  Did she get pregnant?  Who knows.  But I always ask myself the same question.  Why would he jeopardize all his deep and important relationships (children, friends) to get laid.  Bill Clinton said he did it because he could.  Spitzer never said why, but he absolutely thought he could. Patterson did it because his wife did it. Who cares.  They did it because they wanted to get laid and there was some financial transaction involved.  Oh, maybe the video maker is not a prostitute but there’s this thing about screwing around with “the power”.  Young artists want to sleep with established artists because they think that the talent will rub off?  Youthful political staffers (interns) want to sleep with the candidate because they think it will give them access to the “power”.  Or, as is the case with the Senator, President, Painter, Journalist, Chef, these women (like the men), also do it because they can.  And there’s usually no thought about any other person.

The media discussion is non-stop and revolves around the fact that Edwards has ruined his political career. Hello, in case someone missed this.  John Edwards has no political career.  He was an afterthought from the time he dropped out of the primaries.  He is a “was been”.  He probably went back to some day job but who knows because he is, as my mother would say, part of the “what was, was” crowd.
He and his family have reached some kind of accommodation.  And I have to say, when he talked about it with Bob Woodruff, I was convinced that he was sorry and he will continue to work for the poor.  But I’m so easy.

I have such mixed feeling about the whole situation. This is in no way a defense of the man or his actions. But it is nobody’s business whose baby the video maker delivered.  That is between her and the little baby Jesus.  (He went through this trauma with his parentage).  Second, Elizabeth knew about the affair  and decided her marriage was worth saving.  It doesn’t matter whether or not her cancer was in remission. The woman has a terminal disease.  There’s nothing she can do about it, but if you recall, when they talked about whether or not he would stay in the race, she said she was going to live whatever life she had left and obviously, she decided to do it with the sleeze. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)  Third, he clearly thought no one would find out.  (In my book it says someone will always find out-but he didn’t read it.) It happened in 2006 and regardless of the National Enquire reports (the writer said he didn’t understand why Edwards wouldn’t answer questions at 2:30 am), there was some desperation in Edwards actions.  Maybe he was running away or looking for a distraction from the cancer and what will become his reality. (Lance Armstrong left a wife with cancer and people are still wearing his bracelets).  And Lastly, don’t we have anything better to do than yak about our disappointment with an ex elected official who really doesn’t owe anyone but his family any explanations about his apparent lack of a moral core.  Or maybe lastly should be, “And they lived happily ever after?”

ShareThis

Anyway, I have a narrative I want to share.  It starts the way all good stories should:
Once upon a time (I like that for a beginning), there was an attractive, some would say beautiful, maybe adorable, delightful, woman who crafted a blob with her husband.  It was an entertaining endeavor filled with insight and illustrations and while it was sometimes controversial, it was always well intentioned (and pithy).  Anyway, the female in our narrative was never quite sure what she wanted to do professionally when she grew up, so she decided not to grow up professionally and instead she worked in Presidential campaigns every four years. Well, as you can imagine this meant that she had to find other things to do in between the elections. ” Oh my, oh my”, she muttered after the results of every election was announced.  Sometimes she worked in the government, you don’t have to know much to do that. Sometimes she worked at a University or had her own business and once she even worked in television.  There were many more jobs but they all revolved around who or what would happen four years later.

The man in the narrative (who was mentioned briefly but not described with as much accuracy as the woman), grew up in the west.  No not like a cowboy because he was Jewish and Jews don’t often want to wrangle a cow - they just want to eat them as a steak or a pot roast.  He wanted to be a photographer, but that wasn’t a real job (no Jewish mother wants her kid to have that much fun) so he majored in political science, pretended he was going to have a career as a … who knows.  He became a photojournalist and traveled the world.  He always knew what he wanted to do when he grew up, which is why he didn’t wind up in politics working on a Presidential campaign.  Oh no, he is doing much more interesting things and if you were to go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr1Z70lvGEg it will take you to China. But you will not see Olympic Athletes or VIP’s.  No that’s not part of this narrative.  You will however see this important photojournalist unpacking his suitcases. What an amazing achievement.  Not everyone can unpack that amount of stuff,  but here’s the really wondrous thing-over 100 people actually went to you tube to watch him do it-oh, and there’s some nice music.

Where is this narrative taking us?  It remains unclear. After all, what is a narrative but a story which doesn’t necessarily have to have a point. And what is politics but an action that hardly ever has a point.  But let’s get back to the word instead of the action.  I have no idea what it means when someone says, “he wants to be part of the narrative”. What the heck is the narrative? I guess to be part of the narrative you have to participate. You need to get a job with the campaign, or write a blog about the candidate, or even become a pundit who doesn’t have to know anything, but can talk about  nothing and make it sound like something.  To become part of a story you have to get the writer to include you.  They are different because you can act to become part of the campaign narrative, but unless you are the writer someone else has to include you in a story.  It used to be that we called a campaign a campaign, not a story.  Like a good narrative, a campaign does have a beginning a middle and an end. Sure they both have characters and a plot.  They are, as we say, synonymous.  Hey, maybe we’re getting to the point.  If they are synonymous then we can say “he wants to be part of the story”. If that happens then there will be no need to use the word narrative when you’re trying to get people to think you know what you’re talking about.  What a bunch of crap.  We all know that no one in politics knows what they’re talking about.  I would suggest as an alternative to not knowing anything,  we all watch the photographer unpack his bags.  Now there’s something at least we see he knows how to do.

ShareThis

The article went on to explain other equally evasive technologies, like one where you can set your phone to call another phone and leave a message while you’re out not doing what you were supposed to be doing (very confusing), and my own personal favorite which (skipped to e-mail) provided background sounds that mimic being in a traffic jam - so when you’re late for work it sounds like you are stuck in traffic.

Then there were some quotes from people who use these technologies and even some admissions about using the technology to mask cowardly behavior.  Although cowardice is not the nicest of qualities, I wasn’t as annoyed by that as I was the people who thought that avoiding a real conversation was absolutely fine. The  “It’s too difficult and time consuming to have to explain my feelings or behavior to anyone regardless of the relationship or their feelings” is yet one more example of the kind of self indulgent and entitled people so many of us have become.  (Some of us have not, and you know who you are.)

Anyway,  Like so many other things in a dynamic and changing world, we are hard pressed to think about the consequences of our development.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if the people who invented these technologies hadn’t been forced to have face to face-or at least person to person — conversations with their investors?  There would be no technology.  Or if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett had avoided having any conversation about the state of education in the world, and had just left voice mails for one another. I hardly think any of their generous giving would have ever gotten far enough to have the kind of impact it has had on the world.  But let’s get back to Ms. Gorman not Groman.  I don’t know her, but if the Times had used me as an example of inept behavior I would find it upsetting. She works in marketing.  What kind of a person, who makes a living by understanding “people and markets,”
doesn’t have the depth of character to offer another human being a simple explanation.  I don’t buy the “It takes too much time.  I didn’t want to have any unnecessary confrontation” explanation.
Talk about an absence of depth. How shallow does a person need to be not to empathize with what other person in the relationship might have felt.  She liked the guy and didn’t want to what…. hurt his feelings?  have to explain herself and her decision? take a little time away for hair and nails treatment? or was afraid to hear what he might have wanted to say.  It’s not the cowardice I have a problem with, it’s the total lack of interest and character.

The technology is going to continue to develop.  People will take advantage of every improvement and anything that makes life ‘easier.’  That’s the way it should be. There is no law which says life can’t be simple and pleasant.  My concern is that if gone unnoticed, the new technologies will also take away something we cherish-like our humanity.

ShareThis

A few years before one of  my favorite uncles died, he got lost finding his way to his house.  We found him not far away sitting in a parking lot in tears.  It was the last time he drove, but it was also the first  time I had ever seen him frightened.  He was an artist and a flyer and had been under enemy fire in WWII, so seeing him devastated by a trip to the grocery was beyond horrible.  But now it happens to me.  It’s not that I get lost, it’s just that I can’t remember the best route to get somewhere, so I find myself driving in the wrong direction.

When you are young you have so little to remember that your memory appears infallible.  You can remember names and dates and even where you put some treasured or essential item… like a recipe or the keys to your house.  But as you get older your mind fills up with crap and before you know it, you don’t remember your spouse’s date of birth.  And it’s not only that your mind fills with poop. We are now forced to remember hundreds of words and numbers so that our lives remain secure-passwords and log-ins and God knows how many bank passcodes and account numbers.  Here’s an embarrassing example.  My friend Kerry and I have a joint checking/debit account we use for entertainment-dining out, shows, movies etc.  It prevents us from having to do that “divide up the check” thing.  We just use our card.  A few weeks ago I thought I better check to see how much money we had left in the account.  (We have been having a great time spending). I couldn’t remember our password or ID.    I called Kerry to see if she remembered. No luck.  Neither of us had any idea about the names or codes we  (to be honest I) had selected.  So I had to go to my branch and find out-yes it was mortifying and yes, I did finally write and put them in a safe place, but I’ll be darned if I remember where that is.

Anyway, that is the reason Barack Obama should be the President. Was that a stupid transition or what?  OK I’ll try again.   There are now a generation of people who understand all the technical information some of us deign to forget. They thrive on it.  John McCain lives in a world where other people remember or do stuff for him, a world where fighting a war rather than negotiating a peace makes sense,  where bread costs a $1 a loaf and milk will always be $2 a gallon. Where hummers are normal and desirable (whether or not you need to go off road), so drill more rather than look for alternatives for oil , and the military knows what’s good for the country.   Obama is one of those people who gets the change in technology and the way we will have to live in the future.  It’s why everybody’s kids love him.  They don’t see his race, age or lack of experience as a negative - they get him and his rhetoric about what their lives might be.  That’s the transition, now we can go back to that’s why Obama should be the President.  It’s all about looking at the world in a different way.  It’s like when someone asks you how to describe where you live. You can say the street, the town, the country, the world, or the earth.  It’s just a different way to think about who you are and from where you come.

We all need to move past the 50’s 60′ or even 90’s thinking about the possibilities in life.  Who would have imagined -even 10 years ago-a “Bluetooth” or an “i phone”.  Ten years ago we were carrying cell phones that were bigger than our TV’s - well maybe not HDTV’s… but who would have considered those.  Or the “i pod” or a “Blackberry” Or the face book, My Space.  Nor would we ever have conceived of how annoying they can be. Who would ever have conceived of all the stuff we now have available?  Other than the inventors or the geeks.   There is a generation of older people that can learn to use these incredible tools, but they don’t really understand the impact.  They think about the limits rather than what can be limitless. (Thankfully we’re not that generation).

The technology has changed the culture-for the good and the bad.  The bad news-people are not as courteous about space, and manners seem lost in an airport or on a train where everyone is having a conversation with someone for whom you don’t give a damn.  Politics has become impersonal and distant - voice mails and e-mails have replaced face to face contact.  But the good news is that people around the globe are connected and interdependent in unimaginable ways.  The leader of our nation has to understand all this in a way that someone over 70 never will.  John McCain might be a nice guy (with terrible judgment about the commercials he runs), but I bet he doesn’t remember where he puts his keys and more importantly, his mentality will always be the cold war instead of hot link.

ShareThis

The McCain people need to make up their minds about exactly what they want Obama to do. First they say he doesn’t know anything about Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan because he hasn’t ever been there. Then when he goes to these places and is well received they say, it’s all a political ploy and why did he need to go there. Do they want him to be schooled in the way of the world or do they want him to just stay at home and be a long distance decider. They have released so many conflicting commercials that I’m no longer sure they know what they want. Are the same people making and buying the media for these spots-it looks like there may be two different campaigns doing the buy. The commercial I saw this morning first shows Obama with the troops having what looked like a pretty good time. But the point of the spot was that Obama spurned the wounded troops in Germany when he didn’t stop by and say hello.

Additionally, the energy ads are also confusing. McCain cannot talk about the energy crisis (he doesn’t suffer from it because he’s a rich guy), while talking about drilling for more oil, rather than funding research and development for alternative energy resources. The ads that blame Obama for the oil crisis are ludicrous. To actually think the American people will believe that any Senator is responsible for the high cost of oil is ridiculous. While it may be true that if people want more oil they have to elect John Sidney McCain, it is only because he will allow his friends in the oil companies to make more money and continue to keep us dependent on this substance oh so foul. (What about the commodity speculators) Personally, I think they should both be talking to T. Boone Pickens, who seems to have an actual, sensible, alternative energy plan.

The Obama campaign explained that up until the time they got to Jordan, he was on a Congressional delegation so they could visit whomever.. not the Palestinians- but whomever else wanted to chat. They insist that, although the Pentagon didn’t say they couldn’t visit the troops, the campaign felt that (since by the time they got to Germany they were using campaign funds), it would be viewed as using the wounded vets for political purposes - is this confusing enough? Anyway, they didn’t go and McCain feels terrible because Obama dissed the men and women who have served the country so well. Nevermind it was a needless war based on a lie and McCain continues to support it). We know, however, that if Obama had gone, McCain would be screaming about using those who have served the country so well, for political gain.

What I find a bit disturbing is the rhetoric of both campaigns. Obviously, I think McCain is desperately trying to get some attention and thinks he has traction here because wounded Vets not getting the attention they deserve tugs, at our hearts. If only McCain had thought about this before, there would be no wounded Vets, but that’s another conversation. Clearly, there will be no agreement about whether Obama should or shouldn’t have gone, but when Robert Gibbs (no longer Communication Director or Press Secretary, now Senior Campaign Strategist), says Obama would never have used the “wounded warriors for political gain,” and repeats that four or five times you know he’s talking from campaign script and if it is not dishonest, the repetition of script is certainly annoying.

Here’s what I think is happening and they all better be careful because they are treading on the sensibilities of a frustrated and pissed off electorate. The McCain people are crafting a picture of John McCain as a “straight talking loveable down home guy who will always tell the truth.” This is happening at the same time they are painting a disturbing portrait of Obama as a guy who can admit when he’s wrong, and doesn’t get what real people think or feel. And, in some ways the Obama people are playing right into their hands because their script is sketchy and inadequate. Two examples of this come to mind: the success of the surge, and no visit to the ‘wounded warriors” in Germany. For whatever Obama’s rhetoric about the two subjects, the impression is just what McCain wants it to be. It smacks of Hillary’s inability to say she was wrong when she voted for the war. It doesn’t matter what the reason is … the perception IS reality. Someone in the Obama campaign needs to write a new “change” script and modify using the “experienced” Republican tactic of repeating the old script enough times that the public finally says “OK, I believe, I believe” and just moves on to the next topic. No one can have it both ways– no matter right or wrong.

ShareThis