Stars and barred

Last week was one of those homeostatic great times after tragedy. I really do believe that because the devastation of the Charleston, South Carolina mass shooting in which 9 people were slaughtered by a white supremacist 24 year old man, was followed by the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality. Sometimes I think that our young people will rise above the crappiness of their elders -- that the irrational hatred of another group of people will just disappear. And then it doesn't.

After the shooting there was a call to remove the confederate flag from the capitol of South Carolina. Across the country, people were astonished that the flag still flew. Because they lost. Because the only banner that should fly is that of the United States of America. Because the USA won.

That much most Americans could remember from our 10th grade American History class. But this past week, the history of the Stars and Bars was splashed everywhere on social media and the fact that it was flying over the capitol of an American state is galling.

But I never knew.

Back in the early 90's, Hootie & the Blowfish played the Waikiki Shell. One of my friends invited me to go to the concert with her and some friends. Who didn't like a little Hootie? We didn't have seats as much as we had a picnic blanket and hung out on the lawn with our cooler and some pupus. The concert was going along swimmingly when lead singer Darius Rucker stopped the concert between songs.

The exchange went something like this:

"Miss, I see you are waving the confederate flag. Why are you doing that?"
"Because you're from South Carolina. I am too!"
"Yes, we are. But we don't stand for the kind of hate that flag represents. Please don't wave that here."

A cheer went up when she took her flag down. (You must forgive my dusty memories, but it went something like that. That at least was the gist of the interaction.)

In my ignorance, that little memory was tucked away until last week when it rose up and demanded to be polished. It reminded me how easily we forget the terrible things that have happened in our past. The Stars & Bars are a sigil not of Southern Pride, but of oppression and hate depending on which side of the flagpole you're on.

I'm with Hootie & the Blowfish on this one.

Go Fish

This topic has come to me. It's bugging me. I've decided to address it. It is controversial and will likely label me as a heretic (which isn't a title I necessarily reject).

I have a lot of Christian friends. Not just Catholic, but Christian friends. Some of them born again and some that belong to other religious faiths. Really, it is near impossible not to have Christian friends here in the US. I'm writing today to talk about 2 of my pet peeves with modern Christians:  1. Asking me if I "prayed about it," and 2. Quoting scripture.

The thing is, I think both of those things really shut communication down.

Let's examine the first.

Say I'm talking to a friend about some annoying habit my kids have. So many to pick from...hmmm...  How about fighting with their siblings? That's common and a constant noise in my house. The boy picks on his sisters and his sisters antagonize him. It is a constant drone of sibling rivalry here in the Haddon home. So I might be sharing the latest play by ridiculous play with a friend of mine when out of the blue she says, "So have you prayed on it?"

That one sentence is a show stopper. Why? Because if it is a real question, it is as if something on my face or my demeanor says that I have not spoken to my God about it. What if I have? What if I haven't? What business is it of yours? And plus, what kind of response is exactly being elicited here?

"Yes, in fact, I spoke to God about it yesterday and He went on and on about spare the rod and spoil the child. Also that I might want to consider selling my son into slavery. Might decrease some of the conflict at home."

Really?

Or maybe, "No, why don't we have a prayer session right now? Because clearly, since I'm still having these lingering problems I am probably not praying right. Never had complaints from God before, but maybe with your guidance, my point can get across to our creator."

Does that sound too snarky?

Maybe it is only meant as a reminder to talk to God about it. But even then, who are you to give me such a reminder? Have you looked into my brain or heart and discovered me lacking? Have you yourself talked to our Lord was told, "Wow, that's the first I've heard Tess talk about that!" I'm thinking probably not.

I don't know what to say to the question, although I'm tempted in giving my most honest and non-snarky response.

"Sorry, I don't talk about my conversations with my God with other people. Your question suggests to me that you don't want to hear about my problems. Sorry to have bothered you. "

While the place where the question comes from is likely sincere and truly, truly meant to be loving, it isn't. At least not to me. It is a way to say, "Hey, you need to talk to God because talking to me does no good at all. Even if all you want is a sympathetic ear. Even if all you want is validation that you're not the only parent who feels like this. You need to bring that up with God and not me."

Now on to the second:  quoting scripture.

For me, it feels like nails on a chalk board. It brings back vivid memories of a debate I took part in during the 5th grade. I loved debate during class. I loved making arguments and felt pretty dominant. I remember leading the discussion on legalizing marijuana on one of those occasions. That was a great day. Then I was picked to lead a debate about women's rights. It was a total no brainer, I thought. I went into the debate armed with facts about how women were being paid 40% less than men for the exact same job if he made the argument that there was no discrimination. That women were people afforded the same rights and liberties as their male counterparts under the Constitution. My rival, a boy whose initials were J.C. (take that as you will), only had his bible. He likely got a hold of a concordance and just looked up where in the bible the subjugation of women to men appeared. I remember standing there completely disarmed. I was in Catholic school. I am a cradle Catholic. And there I was in the unenviable position of trying to argue against the bible. Now, with some knowledge under my belt, I might have argued how God chose a woman to bear His only begotten son, how Jesus first appeared to women when He rose from the dead, etc. but that day, in front of my class, my words were silenced. I couldn't think of how to argue against that.

In using quotations, the speaker is doing 2 things at the same time. They are bolstering and boasting. They bolster their statements by drawing from the words of other people of note. There is the implicit challenge that you might disagree with me, but can you disagree with Matt, Mark, Luke or John, and thereby disagree with the big boss Himself? Then there is the boasting, which may or may not be intentional. People who quote scripture show the single minded focus to memorize the bible. They become a walking concordance by memorizing where in the bible the verse is from, telling you exactly which bible verse it is, but stopping short of telling you why that particular verse is relevant. Should be completely obvious to you since you profess to love God and Jesus. See how much better they can walk the path because they have read it and recite it?

Oh man. That bugs the heck out of me.

I don't have that fever to memorize scripture. Sure, like most people, I've got my favorite verses, but you won't find me quoting them to anybody else. Maybe that makes me a bad Christian. I have my bible. I read it, probably not up to the standards of most evangelical Christians.

I'm Catholic. We have priests to read it for us.

Silly Pit Bull

Lipstick's for people.

What is politics as usual?

Would it be having "tests of loyalty" because blind obedience is better than thinking employees?

Would it be using your office to settle personal vendettas or perhaps allowing non-staff like, oh, I don't know, your spouse to use government offices to settle personal vendettas?

Or would it be more of a change to use the position to be respectful of your opponent as opposed to seeing them as your enemy?

I still like John McCain. Not terribly fond of the company he keeps.

War

I heard a program the other day about that Nigerian prince who needs your help to get $8million out of the bank and all you have to do is send $2000 for transfer fees. A group of people decided to punk one of the guys who perpetrate this type of crime by promising the scammer that they had money and they lead him all over the place into dangerous territory. The host asked why the scammer didn't suspect that this was wrong. That they were lying to him and that the payoff wasn't going to happen. He had spent over 6 months in war torn countries waiting for his payoff. He said something that really resonated with me. It was, "At some point in a scam, you have gotten in so deep, you have to believe. You've come so far, you must believe that you'll get your payoff." I believe we're there. We've thrown resources, but more importantly lives of our soldiers at this scam on the American people. And nobody wants to give up there because we've been suckered. We are the poor granny who has sunk her life savings into the belief that the Nigerian prince will be by with her $8 million. Just a little more money, Granny. It will all turn out right. Does the death of more of our soldiers make the sacrifice of those who have died already more profound? No. There is no winnning. Just like there is no $8 million in Nigeria waiting for you.

Turning Point

Fw: The Next American Idol

From: David
To: Tess H; Dwight; Norman
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:19:41 AM
Subject: FW: The Next American Idol

Even Palin had more political experience than the Hawaii Born next Pres.

David

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience. You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. But time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. We all have to start somewhere. The Senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol! Please, please forward this before it's too late!!!!

From: Tess H
To: David; Dwight; Norman
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:12:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Next American Idol

While I would have preferred somebody more experienced, apparently people found Hillary too polarizing a figure. Barack is the only choice that makes sense.

I cannot see how continuing to have a republican administration will be the solution to our current problems. After 8 years of Republican leadership, we have gone from a budgetary surplus to our economy being heavily leveraged overseas, on the brink of depression and more divided as a country than ever. We have a president who is again trying to tell us that the sky is falling, but his credibility is so low, nobody wants to believe him. Sad thing is, he may actually be right for once. Hank Paulson is a smart guy but he raised major red flags by including no oversight in the initial bill he put before the house. WTF? Was that supposed to be a carrot so we could fight about it and feel like we won something when it was struck from the bill?

What I fear is that people will support McCain because they wish they had a do-over. A do-over from voting Bush through in the primary of 2000. I have always said that I like McCain. His mistake was being a proponent of deregulation. Deregulation that is at the core of the republican economic theory is largely responsible for the economic crisis we are in right now. Rules have always been in place to prevent the kind of lending that has lead us here. But deregulation and lack of enforcement is finally showing its ugly teeth.

A vice-presidential candidate choice often covers the areas that a presidential candidate lacks. It is a telling choice. In Biden, we have experience in spades and a compelling personal story. Just about as American as you can get. Cut him and boy bleeds red, white and blue. He is hardly a rich fat cat senator as he routinely is ranked as one of the "poorest" senators on the hill. In Palin, we have youth, a shaky reputation as an agent of change, and a social conservative with a uterus. I still am puzzled as to how she ever said "yes" to McCain when he asked her to be his running mate. She knows her own knowledge level and has not considered the national stage and international stage before she was asked to be veep a month ago. Even conservative pundits are calling for her to step down as the veep candidate. In her, McCain's campaign is showing its opinion of women, they should be seen and not heard. 3 interviews. 3. And might I add, they were disastrous interviews. She may be bright and a quick study, but there is a strong chance that she would be president. McCain is old. He would be the oldest president if he were elected. McCain is healthy. Now. But it is conceivable he's put a dangerous but pretty neophyte in the #2 slot of his ticket.

McCain has a reputaion of a hot head. In this time where we need more diplomacy, do we really need a hair trigger president? We watch the debates waiting for him to blow up. He didn't. Good on him. This time.

ugh. done now. Why did you get me started?

Tess

Deja-vu all over again

Here's the thing, to quote our sitting president, "...Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Remember the last time our congress was urged to act -- quickly and decisively? Remember how we were rushed and coerced and bullied? Remember how we're still paying the price heftily?

So here were are again. It is the same administration going to the well. This time it is Hank Paulson asking us to had over $700 Billion dollars. (I don't know if the word billion should be capitalized but I think maybe it should just because of the immense nature of the word. I don't think I can keep the concept of "billion" in my head without it blowing up.) If Hank has his way, we'll be signing over $700 Billion by Friday. With NO oversight. With NO transparency.

Seriously?

Guess what, Hank. You can talk all you want about how you welcome oversight and transparency. If your proposed bill you're pressuring Congress to pass by Friday didn't have that phrase in there, I might have believed you. Were you hoping that we wouldn't notice? I bet you were. Shoot, the American public has pretty much proved that we can be victimized over and over and not really ever notice.

Not no, but hell no. Let's say we bail out these banks and insurance companies. But let's say that we put conditions for the bail out. Let's say we have complete transparency and oversight. Can we say regulation? Yeah, de-regulation has worked just so well. I'm kind of thinking we could use a dose of old fashioned regulation, administered just like the nuns used to in parochial school -- with a firm ruler snap to the knuckles if you step out of line. Make the $700 Billion a loan that they must pay back with interest. Make a moratorium on home foreclosures. After all, there was a lot of predatory lending that happened. We also have an opportunity here to raise some revenue for the United States Government. Housing prices tank much more, we'll have further shrinkage of the dollar, further loss of confidence, further loss of GDP.

This administration is totally against oversight and holding people accountable. Unless you're a teacher. Then by all means, hold them accountable.

Oh man, more rants to come.

Fw: Response from Senator Murray

From: Senator@murray.senate.gov
To: tesshaddon
Subject: Response from Senator Murray
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:45:06 -0400


Dear Mrs. Haddon:

Thank you for contacting me about S. 1738, the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008. It was very good to hear from you.

The Combating Child Exploitation Act was introduced by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) to provide additional resources, strategies and coordination to combat crimes against our children. The bill is currently before the full Senate for consideration. You will be happy to know that I am a cosponsor of S. 1738 and I fully support this effort to give our children greater protection from those who would harm them.

As you may know, S. 1738 would increases penalties for crimes against children. It would create a National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction and establish within the U.S. Department of Justice a National Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force. It would also create a grant program to support state and local ICAC task forces. Finally, the Combating Child Exploitation Act would authorize increased numbers of agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other federal agencies to combat these types of crimes.

As a U.S. Senator, I have made the health and safety of our children one of my top priorities. I will continue to fight for strong federal support for programs that prevent child exploitation, aid victims and assist in the investigation and prosecution of these despicable crimes. Please rest assured that as the Senate considers legislation on this issue, I will keep your concerns in mind. Please keep in touch.

I hope all is well.

Orders from Empress O

I rarely watch Oprah. But clever Oprah knows that a lot of people don't watch her show during the afternoon because who has time to watch her show in the afternoon? She now re-broadcasts her show at 9pm.

Last night's show gave me nightmares.

Oprah did a show called "Internet Predators: How Bad Is It?" One of her guests was a cop who wrote a computer tracking program to find child pornography. These cops have to watch gut wrenching videos of children -- infants & toddlers -- getting raped. Oprah showed a pedophile manual detailing how to molest little girls based on age, the youngest group being 0-4 years.

She interviewed a cop who has to make a judgment call every day on which pedophile to arrest and investigate. He said that it made him sick that every piece of paper, every case left on his desk, meant that another child would be raped that day.

This cop she interviewed said that with the internet, the pervs have a major advantage. They're able to interact with each other and normalize their deviant behavior. They're proliferating exponentially and the kids are getting younger and the activity more and more violent. Imagine how many of these criminals could be caught, how many children could be rescued, if we had the funding for law enforcement. Look, I know this is a major downer, but you'll be glad to know that Empress O has a battleplan.

Here is where you come in.

Help pass Senate Bill 1738 -- The Protect Our Children Act. The act gives more funding to law enforcement and establishes a national task force to find the perpetrators. It only takes a few moments. You go to www.senate.gov and from there you can find your senators' home pages and email them directly. Empress O has even made it easy with a form letter you can email if you don't feel like you can write something on your own.

There is a little bit of politicking here because this bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D), and has been endorsed by both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. The republicans have a similar bill (S. 3344) co-authored by Sen. McCain that has also been stalled. McCain's bill is actually a complimentary bill to 1738.

Who cares who gets credit? At this point, I don't care who gets bragging rights. I only care that the bill passes. Look, I don't claim to know or understand these bills and their differences.

But I do know that as a mother, my stomach clenches every time I think about the fact that there are these monsters amongst us. I think about all those other children enduring this abuse. I just want to scream.

Obama and McCain sure make a lot of talk about reaching across the aisle. How about some action on this?

Pass. The. Bill.
Make. It. Law.

(I hate writing like that but sometimes jarring punctuation is the only way to make a point.)

PUMA-MA

I think I'm a Pumama. If you're not too familiar with that term, it is because I've modified it a little bit. There are Hillary supporters who are calling themselves P.U.M.A. which stands for "Party Unity My *ss." I think I have an extra M.A. on the end of my acronym because I think it is a load of manure to think that if you supported Hillary, you should go support Palin since she's being unfairly portrayed in the media because she is a woman. That's crazy making.

Here's the deal, the differences in the stances between Hillary and Barack were pretty small. They agreed on all the big issues -- where it counts they supported the DNC platform. It looks like Barack has taken some notes from Hillary as far as health care and that is great.

But as a litmus test, I did a very unscientific quiz put up on ABC.com. On *every* point, I agreed with Obama's statements. It is hard to do better than *every*.

So -- I'm a PUMA-MA. I'm in the Obama camp.

Tokin'

The other day, I was listening to Rick Steves on the radio. He was being featured on the NPR station. If you're not familiar with Rick, he's the author of the series of books on Europe through the back door. He also hosts both a television and a radio program on travel. Dude has a great life -- he's turned his passion into his job. Lucky shmuck!

Interestingly enough, this particular day, he wasn't the interviewer but the interviewee because he is also an activist for the legalization of marijuana. He's been an activist for the past 5 years.

How can that be? He is hardly the picture of a MJ activist. He's totally clean cut -- actually a little nerdy to be truthful. He has an elf-like voice and really, you just want to pinch his cheeks he's so darned sweet. He wears glasses for heaven's sake! He's also incredibly well traveled and is a student of humankind. His travels are more about meeting the people than seeing the sights. You can tell by just what he talks about.

He was invited to speak at Hempfest. He said that yeah, he did stick out like a sore thumb, but the people he met there were a vibrant part of Seattle. That they had a peaceful gathering, they left the place cleaner than they found it and it was just a large group of folks enjoying their music. People there are not only environmentalists but human rights activists. How can this be wrong?

What really struck me was how he spoke about the Netherlands. The people of Europe have a much different view of alcoholism and of MJ abuse. They have the same problems as we do. They are just as intolerant of DUI and drug abuse as we are. But they've shifted their thinking. They've shifted it from a problem of law enforcement to a problem of healthcare. And because they've removed the criminal nature of drugs, the government has a chance of regulating it, putting controls into place to reduce the amount in the streets, and generating taxable revenue from it.

Right now, hot button items are overcrowding of prisons, deforestation and global warming, the national deficit. While legalizing MJ wouldn't fix all of these problems, it certainly would help.

With the decriminalization of MJ, there would be less people in prison for possession -- less time for law enforcement to spend with this crime. According to Rick, we've arrested 800,000 people in the last year for MJ possession. We have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. We imprison the poor and minorities when they are in possession more frequently than we do the wealthy. That is the inherent racism and classism of the war on drugs.

If MJ were legalized, the moratorium on growing hemp for paper and textiles would be lifted. Instead of destroying forests for paper, we'd use hemp which is a harvestable crop within a year as opposed to a 30 year crop of trees. We could grow the hemp here instead of having other countries do it for us.

How much tax revenue would be generated from the sale of MJ? How much easier would it be for us as a society to make sure that it doesn't fall into the hands of minors? That if there is abuse, it is happening where the person can get help. Plus, I haven't even written anything about the medical uses of MJ.

Eh, this whole marijauna thing isn't new to me though. Back in the day, I know this will come to a shock to many of you, I was kind of a nerd. Well, one of the smart kids to be precise. In the 6th grade we were introduced to debating. Now granted, being a kid in Waipahu who could actually speak proper English without a pidgin accent was a huge leg up with the teachers, but a hindrance with the peers. I'm sure you understand. Well, the illegality of MJ came up as a topic for debate. I don't really remember why. I may have suggested it in the first place. I gained a huge amount of street cred with my fellow classmates because this nerdy little girl who always was picked by the nuns to do the readings in church was actually advocating the legalization of marijauna. Sad thing is, I was right about it back then. It should be legalized.

The Seattle Bar Association advocates the decriminalization of MJ. Not surprisingly, the ACLU also advocates it as well. It is nice to know that there is a core of nerds like Rick and me who are out there not because we want our next joint, but because we want to see our society move forward. We're spinning our wheels, people.

It has been a tough decade for me

That is politically. I've consistently chosen the losing candidate for the highest office for the past 8 years. Notice, I didn't say wrong. I said losing.

Can you imagine what the world would be like right now if Gore had taken his rightful place in the White House? What would have happened that day in September that cracked our feeble eggshell of perceived safety had Gore been in the top job? That day it happened, my husband wisely and with prescience said, "We are so angry as a nation. We've got our hand balled up in a fist just looking for somebody to hit." And then we did. Twice. I believe Gore would have hit once -- justly and righteously. But the guy who got the job had another agenda. Now, even his own people speak out against it.

Then in 2004, I thought for sure that John Kerry would be the guy. How could he lose? He was the smart choice. He ran circles around Bush in debates. Hadn't the country had enough? I wept in the car listening to Kerry's concession speech. My husband was shocked at my emotions. I had felt like I was holding my breath since the 2000 election waiting for 2004, when all that was wrong would be put right. When I finally thought I could start breathing again, turns out I had to suck it up again.

And here we are in 2008. This was the time when it was finally going to happen. When Hillary was going to take the White House back and restore sanity at the top. She's seasoned. She's smart. She paid her dues. From the first debate to the last, she's come out swinging and on top. She was strong in the first and strong in the last. But I guess we don't care about debates as a nation. Her inevitability turned into smoke. Again, I chose the losing candidate. This sinking feeling is getting to be quite familiar.

*sigh*

Well, I'm thinking if I'm going to learn anything from this, I had better turn my brain around. I've never been the popular girl in school. I always seemed to go against the crowd. I guess some things never really change. I'm thinking that I should pack it up, decide to campaign for the other side. I'll embrace the Bush administration and its continuation in Senator McCain. Like those Republicans who still believe in Bush (all 27% of them), I'll hold my nose and support McCain. And maybe, if I tell the universe that I'm voting for McCain, I'll continue my losing streak just long enough for the country to be set right.

Bellwether

Definition:

Main Entry: bell·weth·er
Pronunciation: \ˈbel-ˈwe-thər, -ˌwe-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, leading sheep of a flock, leader, from belle bell + wether; from the practice of belling the leader of a flock
Date: 13th century

: one that takes the lead or initiative : leader; also : an indicator of trends

There has been a lot of punditry based on bellwether states in this election cycle. I went to good old Wikipedia to see exactly which states are the bellwether states, and which ones went for my girl. Here's what Wiki said:

In the United States, Missouri, often referred to as the Missouri bellwether, has produced the same outcome as the national results in every presidential election beginning in 1904, except in 1956. The American bellwether states are [1]:

* Missouri - 1 miss (1956) from 1904 on, perfect since 1960
* Nevada - 1 miss (1976) from 1912 on, perfect since 1980
* Tennessee - 1 miss (1960) from 1928 on, perfect since 1964
* Ohio - 2 misses (1944, 1960) from 1896 on, perfect since 1964
* Delaware - 2 misses (2000, 2004) from 1952 on, perfect from 1952 to 1996
* The three states of Alabama, New Mexico, and Ohio - the candidate that wins at least 2 of them, perfect since 1912 (when New Mexico became a state)


Now, here is what the results of the primaries look like:

Missouri: Barack Obama
Nevada: Hillary Clinton
Tennessee: Hillary Clinton
Ohio: Hillary Clinton
Deleware: Barack Obama
The hat trick states: 2/3 for Hillary (NM & OH), 1/3 for Barack (AL)


You know I want my girl to be at the top of the ticket. But I think that these bellwether states can't be counted on. Sure, the only perfect record that exists amongst the bellwethers is the trifecta -- and Hillary won that. Eh, I just don't get my hopes up.

I thought maybe I'd look at which way the states went in 2000, when Bush got in even though the popular vote went to Al Gore. That offered me no help. All the bellwethers went to the dark side, I mean the republican party, except for DE (which went for Barack) & NM (which went for Hillary).


How about 2004 you might ask? Yeah, doesn't that look familiar? Only Deleware went for Kerry out of our bellwethers. The rest, including New Mexico, went for Bush.

Do I know what any of this means? I kind of think it is like reading tea leaves. Maybe Aunty Priscilla can have a go at it. She learned a lot of cool tricks on her travels including palm reading, reading tea leaves and tarot reading. But I think anybody who travels around the world just using her wits for currency would have to be open to unusual skills to make it. She's got some amazing stories. And can read your tea leaves.

People don't pay attention to history any more. George W. Bush broke the rules of history when he was elected and then re-elected. All bets are off. The election this year will be a history making one no matter which way it goes.

Next time Hillary is in town, I'm having Aunty Priscilla and her over for tea.

Hillary Clinton's March 4th Victory Speech

I got a phone call last night from my fellow Hillraiser (do I count as a Hillraiser if I'm in Gen X?) when she heard that Ohio went for our girl. Rock on Hillary!

I tell you, I had all but given up. Sure, I contributed last week when everyone else was ringing the death knell for her campaign. Sure, I stood up for my girl in our local caucuses. Sure, I still supported her even though my brothers and even my husband all said that I was wrong. And boy, am I glad I persevered.

The language today is really interesting. I had previously posted that I could see Hillary extending a hand to Barack should she get the nomination, offering him the VP spot. That I could not see him doing the same for her. And today, I think that suspicion has been proven correct. Hillary was asked if she would consider being on a ticket with Barack and she stated that could be where they were headed. Barack, when asked the same question, said that it was premature to say.

I wish that they would meet in a back room somewhere. I wish they would come out with some kind of compromise. I wish they would announce that they would be at the top of the ticket together. That the primaries would simply be finalizing a Clinton/Obama ticket vs. an Obama/Clinton ticket, that would be enough to unite this party. And man, do we need uniting in a bad way.

Hillary needs to keep on running hard. She needs to stay relevant. If it is inevitable that Barack take the nomination, make it also inevitable that she take the VP spot. We cannot heal a rift in this party without that concession.

Hillary Clinton Ad Featuring Jack Nicholson

Spillary, Bill's House

I've just returned from my caucus. I am still shaking from the experience. Shaking in a good way.

I talked to a regular caucus goer, an older lady who was sitting next to me. She said she went every 4 years since she could vote, and only missed the 2004 caucus. Anyway, she said that in her precinct she only had about 15 people come to caucus last time. This year there was more like 150. And in that sea of people, about 70% were voting for Barack Obama. 20% were for Hillary Clinton. 10% were still undecided. Can you believe that? Undecided! Out of my precinct, they even got a delegate. But I suppose, it is still a long way until the convention. And I just don't want a difficult contentious fight within the party. We need unity and depth.

Anyway, I was one of the 20%. I've supported Hillary Clinton since she declared her candidacy. I've heard Barack Obama speak and I swear, he makes my pulse race, my spirits rise, and my heart swell. He inspires. But I am pragmatic. I know that like in love, romance and roses eventually fade and what you are left with is substance. If there is nothing more than lyrics and poetry to base your relationship upon, then you are doomed.

I LIKE BARACK OBAMA. And should he get the nomination, I shall vote for him. I'll even rally for him. But I hope that he will start out to heal the rift in the party by holding out a hand to Hillary if he does win the nomination. I can see Hillary asking him to be her running mate. I cannot see Barack Obama doing the same.

And so today, I stepped far out of my comfort zone.

After 4 or 5 people spoke up for Barack Obama, a genuine love fest for him, and knowing that I was one of 23 in my precinct to support Hillary, I decided that I had to speak.

I could feel my heart racing the second I decided that. I knew I was going to stand up and as I addressed my neighbors, I shaked and trembled from all the adrenalin. I have never been afraid to speak publicly before, but never have I had to be the lone voice for a very small minority.

I opened with, "I'm addressing you from the unenviable position of being in the minority. I am speaking for Hillary Clinton."

A lot of it was a blur, but I did manage to say that she has 16 years of experience working for health care reform and that I am a nurse. I also managed to say that if you look at her subcommittees, she deals with matters of trade, finance, defense, and also childcare, healthcare and education. She's up to speed already with detailed plans of how she'd get things done. Her years as first lady, she was the face of our country to many foreigners. She is experienced with speaking to foreign dignitaries. She already knows where they keep the extra pillows and blankets at the White House. (Okay, I didn't say that last bit.) I ended with saying that I like Barack Obama. That if he is at the top of the ticket, I'll vote for him. But if I had my way, I'd have Hillary at the top of that ticket.

I didn't get booed. I did have a couple of people of the Obama camp try to get me to switch sides. Making arguments about electability and how polarizing a figure Hillary would be. But I am voting for whom I want, not trying to guess how others will vote. Plus, I don't get why people are so anxious to keep Bill Clinton away from the White House. Last time he lived there, we enjoyed 8 years of prosperity and peace, right? And he has Hillary's ear. Rock on, I say. I edited my remarks in my head so that I would not speak out against Barack Obama. If he gets the nomination, he gets my vote. I just want a little more seasoning on my president. We've had a handsome, young, charismatic but unseasoned president for the past 7 years. It hasn't worked out too well for us so far.

I'll probably get lots of anger about that last statement, but at least you'll comment. Right?

*Update -- the title of this post comes from an NPR feature of a group called the Capitol Steps. Here is a transcript of the program when my husband & I first heard of Spillary.