From the Depths of GWB to the Peaks of Obama...

Originally, I intended to send this as an email to Tamra of Lucidnation.
(Check out her Blog... if you Appreciate Timely, Honest, Intelligent, Biting and Hit-the-Nail-on-the-Head Social and Political Commentary.) She had penned another brilliant Blog regarding her perceptions, experiences and feelings from the excruciatingly heart-breaking GWB selection up to last night's Obama Victory.

But, as I was proofreading it, I decided I'd like to share it with all of you.

T:

I can relate.

The election results of 2000 left me utterly shocked and horrified.
("How could so many people be so dumb?")

And, when GWB pulled the smash-and-grab of 2004, I was teetering on suicidal.
("No... Not Again." The whole situation seemed pointless. Sadly, our gullible fellow Americans fell for the flim-flam. Our country was being manipulated by fear-mongers and diving towards disaster.)

"Hmm... If not suicide, then I'd figure out a way to... Well, never mind."

Thankfully, I've a couple of beloved people in my life that I couldn't do such a selfish thing to.

O.K... Nix removing myself. Nix tempting the Secret Service have a go at it.

How to Survive the next 4 years of Yee-Haw Hell?

I clung for dear Life to the only thing left... HOPE.

Yesterday - Hopeful as I was - I emailed my close friends and family to say that, depending upon Tuesday's election outcome...

I'd either be making a spectacle of myself - jumping up-and-down, deliriously happy, embracing total strangers on the street...

Or, I'd be tearfully reviewing one-way airline tickets to the U.K.

News of Barack's (and America's) Landslide Victory spontaneously erupted on the street via the sounds of jubilant screaming from seen and unseen people for blocks all around me... the whooping and hollering multiplied and spread out in all directions. Car horns began to honk in celebratory morse code and wail. ("Whew! Can't really afford that airline ticket right now, anyway.")

"Is it True?" "Did he Really Win?" It seemed to me it was too early to know for sure.

I couldn't deal with getting my Hopes up and having them dashed again. I quickly called my Mother to verify and when she quietly said, "He won." (I could feel and hear the smile radiating from her heart to her face through her voice), grateful tears of joy streamed from my eyes.

Are you going to celebrate with the Obama volunteers? (My Mother had joined the thousands of Obama offices across the country that made phone calls and went to important states to talk with people.)
"There are volunteers who are going to meet at the office, but I wanted to take this historic moment in in peace and quiet at home.", she said. "L., I remember each of the assasinations of John and Robert Kennedy and the assasination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr...", she continued, "and the murders of students and the race riots... and I just want to be here by myself." I understood, as well as I could.

I can't know what it is like, exactly, for my Mother and for other Americans who lived during those tumultuous and tragedy-ridden times. I know the news of Barack's victory filled my own Heart with so much joy, it felt like it would burst. I grew up in the South. My first elementary school crush was on a school-mate who happened to not be white. As shy a child as I was in every other way, if I saw one child picking on another based solely upon the color of their skin, I would jump up and intervene on their behalf and berate the bully. I knew - even at that innocent age - the difference between right and wrong, and I knew racism was wrong. Of course, I'd learned about the heart-breaking events of the Civil Rights Movement. I'd seen film that depicted or was historical record of the kind of vile evil that one man can do to another for no other reason than ignorance-based hatred. I mourned for all who had suffered at those times. And, I felt anger at the racial inequalities and injustices that had managed to continue on since then.

Then Tuesday Night Happened. Barack's victory is a Ground-Breaking Moment of Historical Proportions. I know Everything that's wrong about racism or about our country won't change overnight. But, this victory is Change on a Global Scale. And, I Hope, it's Only the Beginning...

I'm thrilled with Obama's win for many reasons and on many levels.
My Best Wishes to Barack and Michelle (and the girls).

None of us is Perfect (though, the thought of Palin in the White House was - in a word - Terrifying.), but I feel that besides being Brilliant, Barack Obama is a Genuine and Compassionate Human Being. And - in spite of the many pitfalls of politics - he has managed to maintain his Integrity.

So, I'm Grateful. So Very Grateful. I Am - Simultaneously - Jubilant and Humble.

Having sworn off organized religion eons ago, I won't say the oft-repeated:

"God Bless (The United States of... ) America."

But, I will say:
"Thank You To... " and "I Love The United States Of America."

The Truest and Greatest Ideals of Our Amazing America are Alive, Well and Kicking A**... Right Here and Right Now and (Hopefully) Forever.

Thank You!
Peace.
L.

What Are The Duties of the Vice President? & A Test of VP Worthiness.

Growing concerns about Sarah Palin's qualifications (or lack thereof) for possibly taking on the position of Vice President have inspired me to post several Blogs.

After reading that John McCain told ABC's Charlie Gibson that he considered Governor Palin's overseeing of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska's proximity to Russia to be 'credentials' for National Security experience...

Well, I didn't know whether to laugh or scream.

So, I did neither.

Instead, I went online and looked up:

What EXACTLY are the Duties and Responsibilities of the US Vice President?

(From: encarta.msn.com)

* "The vice president's most important role is to replace the president if the president dies or becomes unable to manage the country's affairs."

* "The vice president attends Cabinet meetings and sessions of the National Security Council, the president's chief advisory panel for formulating and implementing policies related to the military, foreign relations, and other national security issues."

* "The president also relies on the vice president to lead important presidential committees and panels, which study issues such as environmental protection, urban renewal, and reducing the size of the government bureaucracy. In addition, the vice president often travels to other countries to represent the president at international conferences, the funerals of foreign dignitaries, and other important events."

* "The vice president serves as president of the Senate, formally presiding over Senate deliberations."

* "The vice president also presides over a joint session of Congress when it formally counts electoral votes for presidential elections."

Hmmm....

That first one's REALLY scary when you look at one of the VP candidates.

So...

How can any of us get a better idea of which candidate is better suited for the job?

EUREKA!

I've got it!!



Here's A Perfect Means By Which to Tell Which Vice Presidential Candidate REALLY has the Skill Set Required of a Vice President of these United States of America.

A Test On LIVE Television...

On Stage Left: Senator Joseph Biden.

On Stage Right: Governor Sarah Palin.

Each candidate is provided with a chair, a desk and two Number 2 pencils.

To begin, each candidate is given a copy of a World Map with all countries outlined but unidentified.

Each candidate then has 30 minutes to correctly identify as many countries as possible with Extra Credit for correctly identifying their capitals and/or their current leaders/heads of state.

Now, That's What I Call A REALITY Show.

I think I'll email Charlie Gibson... Whaddya Think?

Peace.
L.

Fact Check: Sarah Palin's ABC Interview

Recently, Sarah Palin (or her handlers/spin doctors) dug up and invoked Honest Abe Lincoln, when back-pedaling to try to explain her statement to an audience that the Iraq War was "...God's Will"... Even though she never mentioned good ol' Abe in that speech.

Now, when finding herself on the spot in a recent interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, she casts a long line into a fictional wishing well and tries to tell us - among other things - that, if we look back in history not just she, but other Vice Presidents had no experience with meeting foreign heads of state before they took office.

Go Fish!

That is utterly untrue, going back in history at least 30 years.

Then, when questioned about her glaring lack of diplomatic experience or even traveling to other continents on her resume, she offered that her inexperience translates to serving our country's desire for change in D.C.... that having such experience is the old Washington way of doing things.

Uh, Hello? Sarah? Yes, our country has a deep and justified desire for Change... But, that Does Not mean we want to replace the Incompetent-in-Chief with the Unqualified.

Peace.
L.

(From: abclocal.go.com/kgo)
Fact Check: Sarah Palin's ABC News Interview
Friday September 12, 2008 | 7:01 PM

By Mark Matthews

FAIRBANKS, AK (KGO) -- Charlie Gibson interviews Sarah Palin on domestic issues on Friday night. His questions to the Republican vice presidential candidate on Thursday night focused on foreign policy.

Here is a Fact Check of some the answers she gave.

Sarah Palin just applied for a passport two years ago, and has not travelled extensively outside of the country. Charlie Gibson asked her about her readiness to lead the country.

"Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?," asked ABC News Charlie Gibson.

"Canada, Mexico and then yeah that trip that was a trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was a trip of a lifetime and it changed my life," said Gov. Sarah Palin/(R) Vice Presidential Nominee.

"Have you ever met a foreign head of state?" asked Gibson.

"I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents they may have the same answer that I just gave you," said Palin.

Fact Check:
No they wouldn't, at least not going back the past 30 years.
Dick Cheney was secretary of defense before he was vice president.
Al Gore was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was a part of many congressional delegations to foreign countries. It was the same for Dan Qualyle, who lacked Gore's credentials but also sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Before Quayle, George H.W. Bush was an envoy to China and the head of the CIA, and Walter Mondale was a senator for 16 years before becoming vice president, and was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Palin went on to say what the country wants now is someone without the big resume.
"
We got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where yeah they've had opportunities to meet heads of state," said Palin.

Gibson challenged Palin for flip flopping on global warming; taking on John McCain's position that global warming does have man-made causes.

"Call me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there when you say yes now your beginning to say it is man-made," said Gibson.

"I think you are a cynic, I have not said that. I believe in science and have such great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that mans activities can be attributed to changes," said Palin.

Fact Check:
That's false.
Just two weeks ago, Palin is told a conservative online news service: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location." Adding that: "She isn't one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

Last year, she told the Fairbanks Daily that "She is not an Al Gore doom and gloom environmentalist blaming changes in our climate on human activity."

Poll Madness: Gallup-ing To The Right... Again.

"McCain pulls ahead of Obama in National Poll."?

Ouch.

Hearing those words from the news anchor's lips induced a slight twinge in the center of my chest.

"That can't be right", I quickly reassured myself, "There's no freaking way those ridiculous results can be scientific or accurate."

After all, McCain had just introduced Sarah Palin as his nominee for VP. Regardless of the outwardly boisterous - if not internally bewildered - support shown for McCain's choice... I mean Come On... Are You Serious?

After hearing all of the cries from both Senator Clinton's camp and the Republicans about Senator Obama being too inexperienced... McCain chooses an unknown Governor from a sparsely-populated state... who hasn't even finished her second term as Governor... who has never been a member of Congress... who can be seen in a video on YouTube to be declaring the Iraq War to be God's Plan... who also invoked God's will when encouraging another audience to pray for a a $30 billion national gas pipeline project to be built in Alaska... who reduced the aid given to pregnant teenagers in Alaska (luckily for her own pregnant teenage daughter, the Palins do O.K.) to lead the U.S. Senate and possibly be in line for the Presidency?

Then, there's the whole pitiful act of desperation shown by McCain's campaign people when they suddenly pulled out their "New" motto "Change is Coming.".
(The Original Rallying Cry - "Change You Can Believe In" - is from Senator Barack Obama's campaign - going back about a year.):

To say McCain's campaign is painfully lacking in originality and in new or good ideas is an understatement.
But, Hey... He is Right about One Thing...
Change is Coming... It's Just Not Coming By Way of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

He's a Bushie.

'Nuff said.

Back to those goofy poll result claims...

My first question would be...

Who owns/pays the salaries of those who allegedly did the polling?

Rupert Murdoch? Nah... News Corp. is another behemoth entirely.

Well, I did some searching...

The questionable poll results came from Gallup, USA Today and CBS News polls.

I checked into Gallup's practices regarding whom they choose to poll...
Apparently, Gallup doesn't adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups in a population.
Something they did often enough in 2004 - skewering things so as to make it appear as though the Republicans were further ahead "in the Polls" than they actually were (or could - be based upon exit poll numbers.) - that MoveOn.org placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with this headline:
"Gallup-ing to the Right. Why does America's top pollster keep getting it wrong?".

Maybe instead of Gallup, we should start getting our poll information from Zogby International, an independent polling firm that does adjust its pool so as to reflect a given population.

Who owns USA Today?
Gannett.
What does Gannett own?
Among other things... Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.

Who owns CBS?
Well, both CBS and Viacom are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner Redstone. Mr. Redstone is also Viacom's founder. Viacom was was split-off from CBS Corporation in 2005.

Check the current article below and see for yourself just what might explain the the alleged McCain "jump in the polls".

Oh...
In case you were unaware...
"In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement and recently a federal judge granted Viacom's request for data of all YouTube users. The blogosphere has since called for a boycott of all Viacom properties - so that means no MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon or - gasp - Comedy Central for you!" (From: neatorama.com)

My final thought:
"Hey, Gallup... Poll This."

Peace.
L.


From: huffingtonpost.com

Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?

This week's mainstream coverage of the presidential horse-race has been dominated by a series of polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket with its first stable lead over Obama and Biden. Gallup's tracking poll, USA Today and CBS News all show the Republicans with some kind of lead over the Democratic ticket. But, interestingly, all three polls were also conducted using a higher sampling of Republican voters than in July, raising a question of methodology.

In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.

Some polling experts say the changing state of party affiliation in the field is slow to be reflected in polls themselves. Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg told the Huffington Post that "when it comes to registration and turnout, the polls often do a very bad job of taking those [factors] into account," because newly registered voters aren't in the voter files used by firms that survey public opinion. "You could make the argument they are under-representing new registrants," she said, which would mean that the Democrats new edge would not be taken into account.

Monday's USA Today poll had a 48-47 split between Democrats and Republicans surveyed. That represents a nearly 10 point shift in party identification toward Republicans since USA Today's July polling. When asked for comment, USA Today polling editor Jim Norman wrote that "it's possible" that their latest sample includes too many Republicans. Though he added, "it's also possible that we have too many Democrats," because "there's always the chance of an over- or under-representation" in polls.

Still, Norman admitted that the GOP identification in the latest survey has spiked. "The party ID in our most recent poll does show a shift away from what Gallup has been getting in earlier polls, going all the way back to 2005," Norman said. "But previous conventions -- the Republican one in 1988, the Democratic one in 1992, the Democratic one in 2000 -- have also shown shifts in party ID toward the party that had the convention, and those shifts seemed to last, to greater or lesser degrees, though the election. Further, I've been told by Gallup that their tracking poll has shown a similar shift in party ID since the Republican convention. ... I guarantee you we will be watching closely in all of our polls between now and election day to see whether there are further shifts in party ID in either direction."

And it's true. Gallup's own GOP identification (including leaners) has swung six points in the last month, from 42 percent of voters to 48, according to tables provided to the Huffington Post. Meanwhile, solid and leaning Democrats have fallen from 52 to 48 percent of those polled. For political scientists who believe that partisanship is largely stable over time -- and who take note of the advantage in voter registration being experienced by Democrats during the same period -- the newly GOP-heavy poll samples can raise eyebrows.

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz is highly skeptical of the new Gallup, USA Today and CBS polls. About the latter, which showed a statistically insignificant two point lead for McCain, Abramowitz said: "One reason for the dramatic difference between the two recent CBS polls is that the two samples differed fairly dramatically in terms of partisan composition. The first sample was 35.2% Democratic, 26.2 percent Republicans, and 38.6 percent independent. The second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent. That's a change from a 9 point Democratic advantage to a 3.8 point Democratic advantage. That alone would probably explain about half of the difference in candidate preferences between the two [CBS] polls."