Madelyn Dunham, 86, died today in Hawaii. As the world knows by this point, she very much had a hand in raising our potential future president. It's a sad day for this to happen, and I cannot imagine the compartmentalization it will take for the candidate to keep on the trail today, and maintain equanimity tomorrow. Though then again, this is what we've seen, he's extraordinarily good at.
Her passing makes this election take on all the more aspects of something fated, meaning, his winning. I just had my 19-year-old daughter walk into my office in tears, she's so anxious, she so wants him to win. "It will be such a shame if he doesn't," she said. I wonder if we had any teens this wrought, for either candidate, in 2004.
And my kids want nothing better than to see Palin take it.
Posted by: Zev | November 03, 2008 at 04:04 PM
With apologies to Tafv and other thoughtful teenagers everywhere, the 2004 election didn't have a good looking African American candidate who delivers a speech like, well, Barack Obama. My thirteen and eleven year olds support him but they couldn't tell you what he stands for. My five year doesn't support him. He's supporting some guy named arockabama. I think he worked a phone bank for him last weekend. My god, a 42 year old corporate litigator called me today in tears because Ms. Dunham died. She and her husband have the creepy Fairey poster framed in their family room. No Nancy, you are right. The 2004 candidates did not engender a mindless cultlike following. That's not a bad thing. That allowed us to focus on important things. Like John Kerry's war record.
OMG, Palin's wearing blue jeans on PBS. Gotta go!
Posted by: Robey | November 03, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Speaking of Palin, CNN has a banner up (no link yet) that Alaska's Personnel Board found that she did not violate ethics law in the 'troopergate scandal.'
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 04:39 PM
Nancy, if Obama loses, bring Tafv into the room, sit her down at a computer, and have her watch this three or four times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LZNc_TP_o
Trust me, she won't feel so bad about Obama not being President ;-)
PS - sorry I didn't make it into Ristretto this weekend....wife got called out of town on business and have a 7 and 5 y/o that wouldn't get out of their jammies....
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Not alot of sympathy from across the aisle... real Christian values guys.
I think I am going to stop visiting Drudge after the disgusting manner they have handled this news, including a small link next to a photo of Obama supposedly flipping the bird.
PS Robey- I still remember when the Bush people were questioning McCain's war record, the three downed planes, the signed confession, the cheating husband, the drug use, the black love-child, etc. So when you bring up Kerry's record, I'm curious what you have done for your country.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
Posted by: Eric | November 03, 2008 at 05:07 PM
I've never had a chance to vote for a candidate I believed in until this year. Democrats were blessed with an actual choice in this year's primaries. In 2000 and 2004, I can tell you it was really hard to get excited about Al Gore or John Kerry. I voted for Nader in 2000, like many other stupid assholes, not realizing what a huge mistake that was. 2004 was just a bad, bad year and John Kerry was never going to be the man for the job. I remember cringing during the debates, desperately trying to find one iota of inspiration in what he was saying. To top it off, his running mate consistently acted like a little child.
I imagine millions of Republicans feel the same way this year about McCain.
Posted by: Sue | November 03, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Cry me a river over 'Swiftboating' Eric. I think what Robey meant about Kerry's war record is that THEY (the Kerry campaign) made that that the campaign centerpiece rather than focusing on the issues. They didn't have to roll him out at the DNC Convention with a cheesy salute and a "reporting for duty!" proclamation.
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Sue, if you voted for Ralph Nader to be President of the United States of America, you have absolutely NO STANDING to question Sara Palin's qualifications to be Vice President.
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 05:20 PM
I agree on the Drudge link; utterly idiotic.
Posted by: Zev | November 03, 2008 at 05:28 PM
guess what, aroyo. I don't need standing to question Sarah Palin's qualifications. I'm gonna do it anyway. Except, there is no question. News flash: her lack of qualification has been proven to be a drag on the GOP ticket. That fact is not being debated anymore. By anyone.
p.s. I still don't believe you read that Troopergate report. :)
Posted by: Sue | November 03, 2008 at 05:35 PM
That fact is not being debated anymore. By anyone.
It's being disputed plenty on conservative blogs.
Posted by: Zev | November 03, 2008 at 05:40 PM
Wow Eric, you are seriously irony impaired. I supported McCain in 2000 and was appalled by the insinuations made about his record. I was equally appalled by the attacks on Kerry's record. He was there and that's what counts. I was making a joke. BTW, that's me on the right:
http://flickr.com/photos/9426080@N06/3001463918/
Posted by: Robey | November 03, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Oh, apologies, Robey. Sometimes irony and sarcasm don't become apparent in print. i'm a little punch drunk today.
I can only wonder how the residents of Baghdad felt the night the war was announced to start!
PS- Zev and I agreed twice in a row!
Posted by: Eric | November 03, 2008 at 06:47 PM
"her lack of qualification has been proven to be a drag on the GOP ticket."
Baloney. The only people who have been saying that are blue staters who wouldn't have voted for her (or McCain) anyway. Palin's addition to the ticket gave me and most other Republicans a reason to go out and vote for McCain, where before there was none other than keeping Obama out of the White House.
And as far as qualifications go, Palin's far exceed Obama's. Like it or not, that's a fact.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | November 03, 2008 at 06:47 PM
"Zev and I agreed twice in a row!"
Yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owl3OIxu6qc&feature=related
Posted by: Zev | November 03, 2008 at 07:06 PM
"She played well in August, but not in November," Tavis Smiley on Sarah Palin (on Larry King Live but two minutes ago).
It is not "a fact" her qualifications "far exceed" Obama's, nor does she strike me as particularly bright. Charismatic? Sure. Smart. Yeah. Also, steely; I think comparisons to Cheney are apt. Though I don't think he goes in for the religious exorcisms. Though there's an idea.
Also, how do like that transparency on Palin and her campaign's part, about releasing those medical records? I would have bet my right tit they didn't release them before election day, as they said they would. Oh, wait, sorry! Not supposed to talk about that! I'll tell you, they -- as in, two fairly conservative women -- were talking about it last night. They have a deep mistrust of Palin.
I'm going back to what I originally blogged about her: if she can't take care of her family (one son a years-long drug user, one daughter pregnant at 17) while being an elected state official, why am I going to elect her to be vice-president? How do you think it would play if Obama were the father of such kids?
Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann | November 03, 2008 at 07:07 PM
So you won't elect the Mother of a drug abuser but you'll elect the actual admitted drug user? FWIW, I don't think either is a dis-qualification in and of itself.
Programming note: Anybody watching Frontline? Check your local listings West Coasters. It's a McCain - Obama love fest biopic with some of the best journos around, ex-politicos and priceless footage of Law Review prez Obama and POW McCain. I really admire and respect both of these men. I just happen to agree with McCain on most things. That doesn't mean I'd want to spend the weekend in the Hamptons with him. Obama gets the nod there.
Posted by: Robey | November 03, 2008 at 07:42 PM
"It is not "a fact" her qualifications "far exceed" Obama's"
Yes it is. Palin has years of executive experience, whereas Obama has none. A rather important point when were electing someone to the highest political exectuve post in the country.
"if she can't take care of her family (one son a years-long drug user, one daughter pregnant at 17) while being an elected state official, why am I going to elect her to be vice-president?"
If attacking Sarah Palin's family and parenting skills is the best you all on the left can do, then it just underscores how weak your arguments against her are. For months, all I've been hearing from the left is how she is a religious extremist, hates books, and is stupid. In my lifetime I've heard those very same insults thrown at Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. They were nonsense then, and they are nonsense now.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | November 03, 2008 at 07:54 PM
I didn't say she was stupid; I said she was smart, charismatic and steely. Where did you hear stupid? As for her religious extremism: I don't care if she worships hamsters, but she doesn't get to tell anyone else they need to, and -- news flash - evangelical Christians are required to proselytize. Required, nonnegotiable. That she might have the resolve to keep a wall between church and state remains to be seen, but her predecessors, esp. Bush, have not.
Are you saying that parenting skills mean nothing? You're kidding, right? But why not play along with me: if Obama had a son who was a former drug addict and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you wouldn't even bat at eye? Bullshit. These would be issues, and people would make mincemeat of him and his wife.
They are not THE issues I have with Palin, but yes, as a mother who takes the role extremely seriously, they do make me ask, well, what's going here? Who's minding the store?
Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann | November 03, 2008 at 08:08 PM
"How do you think it would play if Obama were the father of such kids?" Uh...Nancy, you are a mother. Obama has a 10 year old and a 7 year old. Are you claiming it is proof of good parenting on his part because neither of them are confirmed to be on drugs or pregnant yet?
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 08:20 PM
What, am I speaking Swahili here?
I'm going to try this really slowly, since the question is apparently alluding readers: if Obama were the parent two teenage children, one of whom had been a years-long drug user, the other who is pregnant, would this be an issue? Would this be something by which you might partially judge the candidate? Maybe you wouldn't, but I assure you, there are people who would. There would be people who would wonder (as I wonder about Palin): if he can't take care of his own household (not that we have complete control over our teenagers), then why should I trust him with the care of the country?
But I suspect you do know what I'm asking, but you're not going to touch it; the "kids are off limits!" flag will be raised here because it's Palin.
Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann | November 03, 2008 at 08:32 PM
"but she doesn't get to tell anyone else they need to, and -- news flash - evangelical Christians are required to proselytize."
While I find your description of "evangelical Christians" questionable, it's beside the point here. When has Sarah Palin ever told anyone what or who they need to worship? Except for when addressing the congregation of her own church, I can't recall a single instance. And even if she had, so what? We have freedom of speech and religion in this country.
And on the matter of religion, I should point out that the Constitution says nothing about a "wall of separation" between church and state. On religion the Constitution says simply: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of that means that there shall be no state-supported church, such as Church of England. Otherwise, the federal government is free to acknowledge the spiritual (i.e. "In God We Trust") as often as it pleases.
The phrase "wall of separation" comes from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It has no legal basis or standing. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson was not even involved with the writing of the Constitution - he was serving as minister to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
"Are you saying that parenting skills mean nothing? You're kidding, right?"
No, I'm not kidding. The matter is irrelevant to whether or not one is qualified to hold office.
"But why not play along with me: if Obama had a son who was a former drug addict and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you wouldn't even bat at eye?"
I might bat an eye, but ultimately I would have to conclude that a family's privacy should be respected. That is something I feel very strongly about. If Palin's family problems are supposed to disqualify her from the vice-presidency or the presidency, then I suppose Al Gore's problems with his son should have been equally disqualifying.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | November 03, 2008 at 08:41 PM
Palin has for a long time been a member of a "spiritual warfare" group that prays to God to kill its enemies, one of whom was Mother Teresa (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/palins-spiritual-war-netw_b_139646.html .) This goes far beyond anything that Bush, Reagan, or Jimmy Carter was involved in. But on the plus side, she's certified free of witchcraft influences, so we should be happy about that.
"Family Values" type people generally say that raising the chilluns is the most important job a body does. If the result of four attempts at that job is one in the Army as an alternative to prison for drug abuse (not simply "use", but way over-use) and another knocked-up out of wedlock, that can't go down as a success.
So if the person in charge can't manage her own household, why should we believe she can manage a whole nation?
Posted by: Richard Bennett | November 03, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Here's a quote from Sarah Palin's father, given in an interview earlier today:
“I’m just so proud to be Sarah’s father. Years ago I taught her to field dress a moose. Tomorrow I want you to see her field dress a donkey!”
Excellent.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | November 03, 2008 at 08:52 PM
Nancy, this is the 'Swahili' you are speaking. You are more concerned about the behavior of the CHILDREN OF THE VP CANDIDATE than you are about the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT that you support. Does that not strike you as a wee bit WEIRD? You Black Knight admitted to using cocaine and being a lifelong cigarette smoker....but has NOT released his medical records yet like you've been crowing for Palin to do to prove she's the mother of her child. Pot? Kettle? Good grief.
PS - maybe this will FINALLY shut Andrew Sullivan up. Its as much as Barak has released on himself:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/11/03/110308shp.pdf
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 08:53 PM
>> I really admire and respect both of these men.
I agree. What a wonderful thing (so many have fought for that) we can go to bed gnashing teeth in a civil society and wake up friends. The system is working.
Posted by: Eric | November 03, 2008 at 09:01 PM
I think there might be more focus on Obama if the same were true. But I wonder: the boy is now clean and in the army? And the girl is going to try to make a family with the father? I don't know, that could almost be a positive for Obama or....Palin.
Posted by: Jason S. | November 03, 2008 at 09:03 PM
Richard, I would pray to God to kill my enemies (if I had any enemies....um...and if I believed in God).
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 09:05 PM
oh, it's getting ugly now! I just saw a video of Obama bowling. Holy god that was some bad bowling. I think I change my mind (no, not really. never). I just watched a round up of funny campaign clips.
I saw a hilarious clip of Dennis Kucinich say he once saw a UFO. I miss Dennis Kucinich!
And I also just saw McCain's agree/disagree/agree-what-am-I-saying-you're god loving people Pennsylvania quote. WOW.
And did anyone hear George Bush's "fireside chat" encouraging Americans to go vote. :)
YES WE CAN!!!! Obama-Biden 2008!
You heard it here first, if Obama wins, I'm getting an O tattoo.
Posted by: Sue | November 03, 2008 at 09:49 PM
Sue, You're getting an 'O' tattoo if he wins? What little respect I had for you is erased. You seemed to be at least snarkily tolerable. But the fact that you are so in the tank for the Ducks shows you for the shrill bandwagon fan you are. Go Beavs!!
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 09:56 PM
"And as far as qualifications go, Palin's far exceed Obama's. Like it or not, that's a fact." That is one of the most asinine comments I've read from a commenter on this blog, and one at that who is pretty consistent in this manner.
Mike, it is OPINION, and YOUR opinion at that, not fact. At this point you simply sound like an ass who's backed into a corner and is lashing out with lack of critical thinking and logic. And if you feel that is a personal attack, then yes, yes it is.
And really at this point, I could give a rip about Palin's parenting skills. It's been her consistent inability to clearly show and articulate history, current domestic and foreign affairs and basic reality really in this election as well as her abysmal voting record in Alaska, lack of professional (and perhaps personal)ethics and inability to balance a basic public budget for that of the common good in her public service career that I think are the real problematic issues here. Oh, and that 150K wardrobe while expounding her "Joe the Plumber common people" hypocrisy and rhetoric (Louis Vitton, etc.) is disgusting, yet a perfect example and symbol of Palin and the party she represents: a party of selfishness and greed hiding behind empathy. Enough is enough.
And so I close with this: Bring it On. My great grandfather, and his father before him and so on back to the revolution fought for and in our great nation against tyranny and government B.S. like the kind I am witnessing in the current GOP and dudes, I am ready to take up arms now as well for the cause. So, like I said, bring it on because at the end of the day, the people have spoken in the polls and at some of the largest political rallies of our generation (all democratic BTW) and the people are pissed.
Our current conservative government has had plenty of opportunities to show strong leadership and make things better over the past 8 years and frankly, they have blown it at almost every turn. At this point, it is irresponsible and frankly, I feel a danger to our nation and to democracy as a whole to support such a destructive platform. Ideological? Yes, certainly. Mis-informed? Hell no, quite informed. Angry? yep. Fed up actually.
And I would like to close by telling certain commenters to go...themselves, but Nancy wouldn't like that very much so I'll just let it hang as is.
Posted by: Lizzy | November 03, 2008 at 09:57 PM
ha, aroyo. I am, in fact, also in the tank for the Ducks. If Obama loses tomorrow, I'm going to hide in the tank forever.
Posted by: Sue | November 03, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Lizzy,
Love ya too, sweetie! ;)
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | November 03, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Lizzy gets the prize for the 'positive' post of the evening. "asinine, ass, lashing out, abysmal voting record, lack of ethics, hypocrisy and rhetoric is disgusting, selfishness and greed hiding behind empathy, and much, much more capped off by a good ol' 'Go F&ck yourself.
Good on you Lizzy. Thanks for bringing rationality and civility back to American politics. And thanks for exhibiting what kind of tolerance we can expect from the Obama cult following.
PS - are you also a Scientologist? Not to stoke the fire, but I also think L. Ron Hubbard is a douche-bag.
Posted by: aroyo | November 03, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Let's just bear this in mind as we enter voting day: the election returns from the Eastern Time Zone are going to seal the deal, so if you're going to have an election night party, start early. By 7:00 PM Pacific Time, it's going to be all over, and maybe as early as 5:00 PM.
Posted by: Richard Bennett | November 04, 2008 at 03:09 AM
"Palin has years of executive experience"
Too bad that didn't include learning what the VP actually does.
Posted by: Drive-By Commenter | November 04, 2008 at 04:29 AM
I read this blog all the time but have never commented. Mostly because I argue politics all the time with my dad and brothers, so I don't need to do it here. Anyhow I just wanted to say that I think it's terrible that a post about somebody's grandmother passing away is so hateful. Even I a very liberal Democrat who voted Obama could refrain from that if the roles were reversed and it was McCain's mother. That's sad.
Posted by: Kirsten | November 04, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Well, yes; it started as a post about the passing of a woman Obama called "the cornerstone" of his life and segued into... other. I don't think anyone here -- actually, I know, because we've discussed death before and I am always impressed, touched actually, that no matter where we stand politically, everyone here reaches out to offer condolences, advice, a hand -- meant to disrespect this woman's passing, or the emotional impact this has on Mr. Obama. So, let's put this post to rest.
Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann | November 04, 2008 at 08:52 AM