The night we were discussing her impending visit, I noticed a truck in a parking lot covered in bumper stickers. The most notable of these stickers? “I’ll forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive Hitler.” Yeah, seriously. What the…?

However, the real WTF moment was while we were out at the bar. Now Jill and I have always been a bit crass; it’s just who we are. After a couple of beers at a local pub (a classier joint than the outings of our early twenties; the one bartender here puts the shamrock in your Guinness foam!), we were discussing which celebrities we thought would die this year. I mean, 2009 was a year for tragic celebrity deaths with Farrah, Michael, Patrick, Brittany, etc. 2010 has potential. First on Jill’s list was Amy Winehouse. The lady bartender overheard, and joined in our conversation. She also had Amy Winehouse at the top of her list, which made us happy and allowed her to stay in our conversation.

Big mistake.

This woman said that she wouldn’t mind seeing a certain high-ranking political figure die. I don’t even want to write it into a sentence on the internet that’s how “Holy Mother of God, are you SERIOUS?” such a statement is to me.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the Change We Can Believe In™ was too good to be true. That’s not the President’s fault. The people in the other branches of government are working hard to light the flaming hoops for him to jump through. He has a lot of messes to clean up. He’s trying his damnedest and he’s doing a pretty good job with the shitty hand he was dealt. We could be living in a nuclear holocaust by now, or at least in a world where we shoot animals from helicopters. Reacting in a very unJill and unLindsay manner, we tried our best to steer the conversation back to the Isle of Sanity. I pointed out that my friend was from the Capitol, and Jill stated that many people in her land would be very sad if anything like that happened.

The bartender backpedaled a little bit. She kind of went in to why she doesn’t like him. Apparently “naming foreign dignataries” isn’t high on her list of presidential qualifications. She would prefer someone “regular.” Like Sarah Palin.

Really? Really?!

I don’t think we even really responded. The look on our faces said it all. She tried to qualify “regularity” by saying, “or you.” In retrospect, this doesn’t make me feel much better. I don’t want to be in the same category as Sarah Palin for anything but my X chromosomes.

The conversation wrapped up after I steered it to local politics and we politely asked for our tabs. I tipped fairly generously considering she had just grouped me with the newest Fox New commentator, so maybe she will finance some education or something.

I surely hope that my friend comes back to PA after this. I’m not sure I would!

Because that last time they “officially” declared Barack Obama as President, it wasn’t enough, Congress announced on January 8 that–ohmygod–Obama is going to be President! I was so shocked that I fainted. And by fainted, I mean I took a nap. C’mon people, I know it’s more fun than talking about the economy, but that was a good 3 minutes of my local news that could have featured filler stories about farms and/or attempted robberies.

In other (and slightly more hilarious) news, Sarah Palin is whining about the media again.  This time the “reason” is Caroline Kennedy’s campaign for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.  The Political Paris Hilton (although I’m starting to think she’s more of a Heidi Montag as far as level of annoyance goes) wonders if Kennedy will be “treated with kid gloves” or torn apart by the media in a Palinistic fashion.  Well, Sarah, let me answer you briefly, and hopefully without much Capslock.  Caroline Kennedy, should she be appointed to Senate, will NOT be second in line to “LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.”  She will not be allowed near any red buttons, nor will she play a large role in how other nations perceive us.  To my knowledge, she’s never hunted animals out of a helicopter and, while the Kennedys have always provided plenty of headlines over the years, I’m pretty sure none of them had an unwed teenage daughter give birth to a baby named Tripp.  So, even without the “kid gloves,” it won’t be as easy for the media to mock Kennedy.  Sorry ’bout it.

You know, I could keep going.  I could pull some quotes and make fun of this chick some more, but I’m tired.  Of her, of her thinking she knows jack shit about anything outside of Alaska, of making fun of her daughter and Levi, of the media letting her talk, etc.  I’m just going to link to an opinion piece now; it’s titled:”Sarah Palin Needs to Go Away Before She Does Even More Harm to Herself.“  I only skimmed it, but I’m pretty sure he says things I want to say, but with eloquence instead of Capslock.

Additionally, Governor Car Salesman Blagojevich will be impeached and inauguration is going to wreak havoc on traffic and be a delightful security nightmare.  Well, duh.

Sorry it’s short this week!

Okay, so maybe you won’t be thanking me, but according to Condoleeza Rice, you will be thanking Bush for all he’s done. I love ya, Condi, but are you serious? Apparently so:

“This isn’t a popularity contest. I’m sorry, it isn’t. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans’ interests and values in the long run — not for today’s headlines, but for history’s judgment,” she said.

She then goes on to say that diplomats who say people in the rest of the world don’t like Americans are wrong and that historians who think Bush was a craptastic president are also incorrect. Additionally, she says, “there is no spoon.”

Less than three weeks and he’ll be gone! Will you miss him? Me either.

Speaking of (not) missing Bush, Politico has a list of people we will miss in 2009. I totally agree with their pick of Governor Ed Rendell. I kind of adore my state’s governor, even though some people think he’s a prick. A commenter on a Jezebel post referred to him as “the Gregory House of politics” and I think that is the best short description of him I’ve ever read. He’s honestly sleazy–a true political figure. He is also the first major candidate I voted for when I reached legal age. The list doesn’t mean these folks will disappear completely; they’re simply stating that these figures more than likely won’t be fixtures on CNN. Joe Biden, Dick Cheney and Howard Dean also make the list.

Surprisingly lacking from the list is Grandma Palin. Oh, wait, that’s because we won’t miss her. Ever. (Or perhaps because the media plans on keeping her around. Ew.) Sarah Palin’s daughter Talladega–I mean Bristol–gave birth to a son in December. His name is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston and his baby pictures are worth $300,000 to People magazine. Please insert name jokes, drug-addicted mother-in-law jokes and jokes about babies shooting wolves from helicopters here.

Al Franken might get to be a Senator.  According to one report he’s leading by 48 votes with about 1,600 absentee ballots (thought to favor him) to be counted.  Commenters on CNN’s Political Ticker seem to agree that if these folks don’t want people speculating, perhaps reports with random numbers illustrating who is ahead shouldn’t surface every few hours.  Interesting idea!  If this much attention had been paid to Florida in 2000, we might be driving cars that run on sunshine and love by now.

Speaking of the dude who is responsible for the deployment of my friend’s husband, Georgie made some pardons this week and now he seems to want us to pardon his pardon.  No, I didn’t drink the special eggnog before I wrote that sentence.  Bush wants the pardon of Isaac Toussie, who was involved with some false statements about mortgage fraud, re-examined.  In addition to that sour pardon, USA Today reports that Alan Maiss, who was pardoned of “concealing knowledge of a crime,” donated to Bush’s campaign in 2003 and 2004.  The list of pardons is pretty basic, but at the risk of being totally crass, I would like to point out that Bush also commuted the prison sentence of Reed Prior who was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. (I apologized because I am now going to make the following joke: It was too soon to let Bristol Palin’s mother-in-law off the hook).

Exhibit A

I really should cover the Illinois Governor and his dumb scandal, but I really don’t see the point.  I mean, look at the guy.  He clearly looks like he sells used cars, so I’m not sure why everyone is so surprised that he was trying to sell a Senate seat.  I don’t think Obama was like, “Oh hey, why don’t you put this up on eBay and we’ll split the profit!”  So that’s the most justification I’m going to give that, because I don’t think it is all that interesting.  Sorry.

Everybody’s been weighing in about Obama picking Rick Warren to do the invocation at inauguration, so I’m going to join in.  Yes, the man disagrees with some foundation ideals of the Democrats and a lot of us have a right to be pissed off about it, but it’s kind of an olive branch to that whole red side of the country that we clobbered in November.  And, in case you didn’t notice, it’s a prayer.  At the beginning of the inauguration.  If we’re going to be pissed about anything, could it be that?  I really would love to see a greater separation of church and state, but that is another rant for a time when I’m not crashing from my sugar cookie high.  Also, can we put a spotlight on the fact that Joseph Lowry, “considered the dean of the civil rights movement,” will be giving the benediction.  Can I get an amen?

Some argue that the Cabinet is not full of “change” as promised in Obama’s campaign speeches. I’m fuzzy on what these folks expected the President-elect to do. Was he supposed to pick cabinet members using a dart board? Ask Sarah Palin how she picks baby names and modify the method for political purposes? What? It’s not like Clinton is Strom Thurmond or–dare I say–John McCain when it comes to years in the Senate.

As Obama says on CNN: “What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand … the vision for change comes first and foremost … from me. That’s my job.”

What would the letters to the editor be titled if Hillary Clinton had won in the primaries? Delightful plays on the candidate’s last name would not be possible; Hillary would not be an “Obamanation.” Granted, if it was Clinton up against John McCain, we’d be talking about how PMS might lead to nuking our allies or how bitches can’t be trusted (none of which comes up when we talk about that lovely little Sarah Palin character, who has now apparently gone rogue against her handlers). When did this race turn into one bad email forward? A look at my small town newspaper probably reflects plenty of those “Real American” newspapers. “Real Americans” don’t need facts; they apparently answer to a larger truth (where dinosaurs walk with man?) and John McCain, according to Jon Stewart, will be President of these areas (see the Nancy Pfotenhauer link below).

I live in a small town in south central Pennsylvania (an area that falls under Nancy Pfotenhauer’s “Real America“). For every liberal or moderate letter to the editor our local paper prints, they counter it with two or three conservative letters. “Barack President? An Obamanation” details Obama’s ties to the evil terrorist William Ayers and closes with, “An Obama presidency means a national breeding ground of neo-Weathermen terrorists. Talk about an Obamanation.” A letter titled “We deserve to keep what we’ve earned” seizes on the “spread the wealth around” comment and going on a tirade about socialism when the person writing it would likely fall under Obama’s proposed middle class benefits (there are very few around here who make more than $250,000 a year).

Other letters, including one from my cousin’s mother-in-law, praise the McCain/Palin campaign for being “what America really needs!” They don’t justify their claims with proof aside from Palin being a “reformer” from outside the beltway and McCain being a war hero. Apparently, that’s enough. We haven’t learned what inexperience can do in a presidency, have we?

Perhaps the issue I find most annoying in this election relates to reproductive rights. For a few weeks now, I’ve been bombarded with commercials with a lady’s voice talking about how Obama voted against protecting infants that survived abortion and how he, essentially, eats babies with a sprinkle of salt and pepper, with the image of a cute white baby rolling around on a blanket on my way-too-large television. In local print, a letter titled, “Honor God with November Vote” references only the Bible and asks, “If we can kill our babies without remorse, who’s to say that our elderly aren’t the next targets?” Presumably, the writer’s message is to vote for McCain. Another recent letter to the editor, “First issue is right to life,” ignores the fact that the economy is in shambles and we’re overextended in two wars and goes straight to the matter at hand: Obama should want to save babies because he’s black. In fact, according to this letter, “Because of [their pro-choice stances], each candidate is a contradiction to either his civil-rights heritage or his doctrine of faith.” I’m not going to judge this man (out loud) for wanting to extend his personal beliefs to my womb, but I am going to question how this could possibly be the first issue for someone right now. Hell, it’s one of the things I’ve been passionate about since I was 14 and it’s barely in my top 10. (#1 is making sure hunting wolves doesn’t become the national pastime.)

What draws me in are the Topix Forums associated with each letter to the editor. Here, wacko people like me can run amuck and say whatever they please. I enjoy opening a browser tab at work specifically to click around and watch three or four logical people post responses to illogical arguments and copied-and-pasted email forwards. I would even classify one of the more conservative posters as one of the most logical, and enjoy the opportunity to argue with him on certain subjects because at least he attempts to find facts to support his claims. Meanwhile, I grow more and more ashamed of the racism and religious discrimination that has always made my small town background something I try to hide.

As the election closes in (FINALLY!), I find myself liking Obama more and more each day. I was on the fence in the beginning, but I think the final nail in the I-might-be-a-Republican coffin was the addition of Palin into the mix. I realize that this race would likely be just as dirty if HRC was at the top of the ticket, but we would replace racism with sexism and the majority of the world might have been able to keep ignorant as to Palin’s existence. These are turbulent times, and when people are unsure of their futures, they will lash out against what supposedly threatens their way of life with little to no proof. I just wish that when political discussions move out of a person’s living room and are printed on newsprint that they would have roots in factual truths; not propaganda-filled email forwards from Joe the Plumber’s aunt’s cousin’s friend.

I’m not the only one who has noticed that the campaign ads are taking a nasty turn.  Karl Rove told Fox News Sunday that he thought both campaigns have gone too far. Other media outlets seized upon his comments and finally this question can be posed to the candidates:  Why are you guys acting like you’re in junior high?  Okay, maybe that’s loose terminology, but people are finally starting to see—and point out—the pattern of negative campaigning and how little it has done for furthering campaign objectives.  For the love of Christmas Jesus, what are their stances on the issues?1

Sites like factcheck.org look at the ads and demystify them.  But what about those who just let the ads permeate their minds?  With the television on in the background while I freelance, I’ve absorbed months of commercials through osmosis, learning only that both candidates are hacks (according to the other candidate).  Taking a look at the three most recent ads, and caring little for any facts that can’t be found by a quick Google search, I think Karl Rove was right.  (And how often can I say that?)  So here are some honest reactions from a media junkie and links, so you can view them and react yourself.

Barack Obama – “Honor”

This ad tries to point out that the McCain campaign has some ads that are completely shenanigans, but for me it’s almost as sleazy.  Quoting a bunch of newspapers out of context, especially when the quotes might be from opinion pieces, is not as effective as taking 30 seconds to dispute a lie straight up.  But instead, playing on John McCain’s honor is the campaign choice?

John McCain – “Disrespectful”

I honestly don’t even want to count this one because it basically takes quotes out of context and uses amusing pictures of Obama and Biden to accuse the Democrats of disrespecting Sarah Palin.  Yawn.  It’s kind of lame to open with the “celebrity” thing, and even more lame to claim that “his star is fading.”  I’m also not impressed by the narrator’s disdainful voice.

Barack Obama – “Still”

This ad opens with a disco ball and states, “1982: John McCain goes to Washington.”  The images go from a Rubik’s cube and an old-fashioned computer to present-day John McCain on a golf cart, then John McCain with George W. Bush.  While the ad includes a jab at McCain for his support of tax cuts for corporations, it also attacks him for not being able to use a computer or send email.  Why should I care about that?  If the President of the company I work for makes me write emails, don’t you think the President of the United States would have someone who could do that for him.  Proficient with Microsoft Outlook is not listed on the job requirements.

John McCain – “Fact Check”

I want to lump this one in the ineffective pile with “Disrespectful.”  This ad cites the Wall Street Journal’s statement that “Obama ‘air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers’ into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Pail.” A) Obama kind of had to since no one knew anything about her and B) This would have been more effective if the McCain campaign hadn’t chosen wolves in a snowy forest as a metaphor for researchers.  We all know Ms. Palin likes to shoot these kinds of animals from helicopters.  Maybe that was the point?

Barrack Obama – “His Administration”

This ad introduces us to Bill Timmons, a Washington lobbyist hired to “plan [McCain's] administration.”  Again, we see McCain pictured with Bush.  The ad cites Time as the source for information regarding the hiring on Timmons, then goes on to note that Timmons lobbies for “oil companies, the credit card industry and corporate special interests rigging the system against hard-working Americans.”  The ad fails to mention that Timmons also lobbies for Freddie Mac, Anheuser-Busch and the American Medical Association.2 The ad would have done better to plagiarize Time and point out that having someone who has worked in Washington since the 70′s and assisted all the Republican presidents in some respect does not play into McCain’s new “Let’s reform Washington the Sarah Palin way!” battle cry.  Unless you think Sarah Palin is full of it, then the move totally works.

John McCain – “Crisis”

As of September 15, this is the newest ad on McCain’s website and it’s featured on his splash page.  The ad claims that only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix our horrible economy through those much beloved tax cuts and offshore drilling.  The part that makes me cringe is this line:  “McCain/Palin. Leadership. Experience. For the change we need.”  Sarah Palin has so little experience that it’s not even funny anymore.  She was a small town mayor and the governor of a state that has less people than several major US cities.  Also, isn’t “change” the ideal that Obama based his campaign around?  Isn’t the promise of “change” how he beat Hillary Clinton?  Is McCain trying to borrow a cup of successful campaign from him?

* * *

The only thing I’m grateful for in this media circus is that these campaigns are ridiculous enough to have inspired Paris Hilton’s “campaign ad” and the Saturday Night Live opening with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as Palin and Clinton.  The media mockery almost makes suffering through the countless number of ads worth it. What’s frightening, is the most honesty I’ve seen is what was displayed on SNL.  I’m also curious to see if, after these comments from Rove, the ads will stop being so petty and juvenile.  I guess we can only hope for change—where have I heard that before?

1 http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/14/karl-rove-says-mccain-obama-have-gone-too-far/
2 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840722,00.html?imw=Y

John McCain’s TV ads
Barack Obama on YouTube (ads, speeches, interviews, etc.) ]]> http://silverfire.net/politics/campaign-ads-if-karl-rove-thinks-theyre-too-negative-they-probably-are/feed 0