Sure it would be great if the Dems took Chambliss' seat.  And sure he's a nimrod.  But here's a deep thought for you.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for Saxby Chambliss to have to serve as a the 71st most (least) senior Senator... in the minorty party... during the administration of an African-American President named Barack Obama.  Remember, this is the guy who, in 2001, told law enforcment officials that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line."  Can you imagine how it will irritate someone like him to have to refer to Barack Obama as Mr. President?

Since we don't really need a veto-proof majority (nor are we likely to get one) can't we just concede this seat for the pure entertainment value? 

I am listening to the McCain-Palin talking points of late and I'm hearing that Senator Obama is a Socialist.  He wants to "redistribute" the wealth.  He wants to raise taxes on the 5% of America that pretty much ran the show for the last 8 years and use that money to cut checks to people who aren't paying taxes.  And it is, apparently, a bad thing to redistribute the wealth - at least if you're talking about redistributing it to actual PEOPLE. 

Now, corporations are, of course, a different story.  It's okay for the government to step in and redistribute the wealth (also using our tax dollars) to protect a corporation from financial ruin - but God-forbid the government step in and help Anita the Grocery Checker/Night Janitor, or Sam the Busboy/Convenience Store Clerk.  I know it's discomforting to think of these non-tax-payers as people, but they are.  The working poor are not lazy.  They are WORKING - that's where the name comes from - but they are not making a living wage.  They do not have health insurance because they either work for a company exempt from having to provide it, or they do not work enough hours at a single place of business to qualify.   You can work 80 hours a week, but if you don't work enough of them for a single employer, you're out of luck.  Working 80 hours a week at minimum wage in the state where I live earns you less than $25,000 a year gross.  So if the average health insurance plan costs $12,000, I guess you won't have private insurance either.  Unless you're a magician and can make the other $12,000 cover food, childcare, transportation, rent, and the co-pays and deductibles that you still pay out-of-pocket, and the incidental expenses that occur in every family.

Oh, I know, infusing these large financial institutions with capital will make it possible for Anita's bosses to take out loans to improve her working conditions or pay her higher wages.  Perhaps Sam's bosses will be able to take out a loan for a new dishwasher or maybe to install bullet-proof glass for him to sit behind while he guards the cigarettes and beer coolers at your local grab and go.   All that money trickles down - right?   I think we know that's not what is going to happen. 

It seems this enormous infusion of capital is designed to help big fish swallow up all the struggling little fish.  JPMorgan can buy the struggling community bank that Anita's and Sam's bosses do business with and we can have a massive centralization of the already contracting financial system.  Then when one bank is all we have and its largest stockholder is the U.S. government, what do we have?

Sounds like socialism to me. 

So, I say, if we're going to be "re-distributing" let's have a little equity.  I want the people who do work in our communities (work that, quite frankly, the uber-wealthy wouldn't dream of doing for themselves) to benefit as well.  It's not like I'm asking anyone to clothe, feed or visit anyone in jail or give up every penny they make and follow Jesus.  I'm just asking the people who have the most to give -- who have been given the most to work with -- to quit trying so hard to hang on to all of it and share it with those who work just as hard but haven't reaped the same financial benefits. 

 "To whom much is given, much is expected."   

Have you ever been the victim of a female bully?  Sometimes you don't even realize it's bullying because it's done with a smile and, perhaps, a wink.  Make no mistake, though, it's bullying.   I think it is particularly fitting that Tina Fey is winning kudos for her impersonation of  Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live this season.  Of course she looks like her, but I think her dead-on imitation is so good because as she proved in 2004 in her script for the film Mean Girls, Tina Fey understands them.  And Sarah Palin IS the quintessential mean girl.

She charms the boys with her looks and her faux-confidence and they fall all over themselves to win her favor.  Take, for instance, Alec Baldwin, who said he would move to another country if George Bush is elected, but will tell his female equivalent that she's "way hotter in person" and "a delight" before linking arms and strolling off to give her a tour of the set.  I'm not sure what that was satirizing other than Alec Baldwin selling out.  She simultaneously courts and intimidates the smart girl, dangling the possibility "friendship" all the while letting her know that it is conditional upon her compliance.  Why the girls subjugate themselves to that need is something I'll leave for mental health professionals to decipher.   The mean girl is obsessed with getting what she wants and she will do this by any means necessary.  She will lie.  She will cheat.  She will market her body and soul.  She will destroy your reputation.  She will use you, abuse you, and ignore you depending upon her mood.   She will talk about you behind your back.  She will say ugly things about you to your face.  She suppresses her conscience to appease her ambition.  She has no desire to serve, only to be serviced.

Looking back to my own high school experience, I don't remember a Regina George or a Sarah Palin in my past.  Naturally, that makes me afraid that I might have been a mean girl.  But I know that so many grown women AND men have been bullied by a mean girl.  And we should ask ourselves two very important questions.  First, is this who we want to lead our country after John McCain strokes out during one of his seething fits?  And more importantly, is this someone who has earned the privilege of uttering the words, "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night?"

No No No.

A few years ago, I began to recognize that my children's willingness to comply with my instructions seemed to correlate with how I communicated with them.  If I could speak calmly and directly about what I expected, they listened.  When I raised my voice, they became more obstinate.  So I was searching for an intelligent way to address this that was different from the thousands of child-rearing books that are out there.  One morning after a yoga class, I was scanning the bookshelf and I came across a book about non-violent communication by Marshall Rosenberg called, Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World.  As I inspected the table of contents it seemed to address peaceful communication beginning with our internal dialog and extending outward to our dialog with others.  It was attractive to me.   The subtitle reminded me of a comment someone had made to me years ago when my children were very young and I was struggling with a sense of futility in everything I did.  I longed to have a career again where I felt like I was changing the world.  She said to me, "Elise, you're raising your children.  That IS changing the world."  I've carried the pressure of knowing that with me for several years and as I flipped through the book, I realized that by learning to consistently "speak peace" to my children, I would be giving them that gift to take out into the world - perhaps changing it for the better.   So I bought it.

The premise (with my apologies to Dr. Rosenberg for my brazen oversimplification) is that when we learn to recognize and speak what is "alive" in us - what we observe, what we feel, and what we need - we are also more alert to what is "alive" in others - what they observe, feel and need.  When two people or a group of people are tuned in to what is real, they can respond in a meaningful and ultimately beneficial way.   It has been challenging using this with children who are in elementary school, but on good days, we still try.  I have confidence that in addition to keeping my blood pressure down, it will ultimately help them to recognize and articulate their feelings and needs as they mature.  And, as Dr. Rosenberg states in his book, "People who are in touch with their needs do not make good slaves."  So perhaps I'm establishing a sense of autonomy in them that will serve them well in their personal and professional lives down the road.

Lately I've been thinking about what it would be like if presidential candidates were able to communicate this way.   What if they told us, their constituents, what they observe in the world - without blaming it on someone?  What if they told us how it makes them feel as a member of the human race - without blaming someone else?  What they told us what they need from us - besides their vote?  Or what about using this idea on a global scale?  What if we had a president who was willing to sit down across from an adversary and articulate what we, as a nation, see, feel and need? 

The reason I'm supporting Barack Obama is that I believe he expresses the language of peace - both in word and in deed.  This has been a really ugly campaign and I don't want to excuse the negative campaign ads.  I think they diminish Senator Obama and those of us supporting him.  And I don't support his unleashing of the 527's which I believe are an affront to our political process.  But aside from those things, I think he is, at his core, a voice of peace and of reason.  Right or wrong, I don't see that in John McCain.  Many will call me naïve, but I am still an idealist at heart.  I believe that, like people,  a nation can realize redemption if their policies promote justice, love kindness and reflect humbleness - these are the foundations of peace and, if you read the bible, what the Lord expects of us (Micah 6:8).   I'm weary of a government that plays to my fear and distorts the truth in order to get me to support their latest "campaign".  I'm ready for less executive privilege and more executive prudence.  I don't buy the argument that if you meet with a foreign adversary you somehow validate their position and sanction their actions.  Did Richard Nixon's visit to China legitimize communism for the rest of the world?  I'm ready for a leader who is as adept at listening as he is at articulating his position.  Jesse Jackson, in one of his more rational moments said, "Leadership has a harder job to do than just choose sides.  It must bring sides together."  When was the last time we had a leader that did that? 

In early July, in what appeared to be a flip-flop from his previous positions, John told George Stephanopoulos that a tax increase (payroll tax increase) wasn’t off the table if it became necessary to shore up Social Security.  When questioned about this comment on Fox News, Tucker Bounds said, essentially, that John McCain doesn’t speak for the McCain campaign.  We all laughed at it at the absurdity of this statement.  John Harwood of the New York Times said on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that it was more likely that the campaign didn’t speak for John McCain.  Harwood asserted that McCain was a maverick (remember most mainstream media-types were still on the tire swing then) and he was going to do and say whatever he wanted.  Clearly, one of those statements was true – they weren’t on the same page.  I believe, though, that we are now seeing the difficulty (for McCain and his supporters) that this has created.  You’ve got a lot of people, none of whom are on the same page, throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.  This week someone tacitly threw racism into the mix and lo and behold it stuck, but not to Obama, to the McCain campaign and its supporters.   

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain is an ass.  He’s a very angry man.  A doctor friend of mine who works for the VA believes he probably suffers (and I don’t use that term lightly) from untreated post-traumatic stress disorder.  I think he’s a misogynist, too.  But, I find it hard to believe that John McCain is okay with the tenor of his campaign rallies during the past week.   I saw something on his face yesterday – and you know John McCain’s face NEVER lies even when his lips do – when he addressed the crazy lady who looked like she lived with 300 cats and called Obama an “Arab.”  To me, it looked like embarrassment.  Shame about where this campaign has gone – what it has snowballed into as he has lost control.  Sarah Palin HAS energized the base – the foundation of the Republican party – by doing what she’s always done, speaking in generalities about things that sound good to everyone, but don’t have a lot of substance to them.  But what the handlers have done with her is dangerous, they’ve given her script after script and sound byte after sound byte and she has run with them full-throttle giving no thought to what they mean.  That base that she’s energized has come into focus for John McCain and I think he recognized just who that is.  It’s the angriest, most frightened, most hateful, and most ignorant element in this country.  THOSE are the people cheering him on.  Can you imagine what it must feel like to be John McCain and realize that the people you appeal to aren’t the cream of the crop, but the bottom of the barrel?  That’s harsh, I know, and judgmental, but wallowing in ignorance ISN’T something we want to encourage.  It’s bad enough that his supporters think Barack Obama is Muslim and that he’s a terrorist. They holler these things out at the rallies with pride and venom in their voices.  Isn’t the anger and hatred that is being, at best, condoned and, at worst, incited at McCain/Palin rallies the same behavior we saw from Germans in the 1930s?  I’m not comfortable calling Sarah Palin a racist or anyone else in the McCain campaign for that matter.  But they know that there are people who will never vote for Barack Obama because he’s black, because he’s Muslim, because he isn’t named Joe Smith and they’re exploiting that.  They’re manipulating people’s fears and anxieties about someone they don’t feel like they know, they’re casting him as the reason for their suffering, and they’re driving a wedge deep into an already present divide. 

I saw reflected in John McCain’s face yesterday, a cognitive dissonance between what he believes and what he allows the people around him to characterize as his belief. What it looks like to an objective observer is that John McCain doesn’t know who he is or what he believes.  He turned over his entire campaign to lobbyists.  He let them tell him who he could and couldn’t pick to be his running mate.  You’ll never convince me that a misogynist like John McCain would have EVER picked Sarah Palin – but his managers saw a forceful, yet malleable tool in her so there she is.  They tell him what to say, what to think, and when to do either of those things and if he screws up, they go on TV and tell the whole world that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  I don’t mean to make a victim out of this guy.  He is the one who relinquished control of this campaign, but I don’t think anyone is looking out for John McCain the man.   

I was mesmerized by the fantastic article that came out this week in Rolling Stone Magazine.  It drew a very troubling picture of John McCain the military man and the public servant.  There is definitely evidence of erratic behavior that dates back decades. But there was a sadness to his story, as well.  This is a man who was born under two very long shadows and has spent his entire life trying to crawl out from beneath them.  Whether he lacked the intelligence to do so or was simply too lazy… well, there are certainly arguments for both.  He has, though, demonstrated tenacity and guile, and the combination of those two qualities has gotten him quite far by most standards. But at what expense?  Everything he’s achieved, he’s done so dubiously.  He used his family name to get into Annapolis, to get plumb assignments on choice aircraft carriers, to get into War College.  He used questionable connections with lobbyists and his marriage into another wealthy family to get him into Congress, and possibly to get him the Republican nomination for President.  He’s never accomplished anything on his own merit or through legitimate hard work – or if he has, like, say, campaign reform legislation, he’s ultimately undermined it.  This isn’t a guy who should be president; this is a guy who should be in therapy – intensive, in-patient therapy.   He’s the textbook result of a child who’s been given everything they want, but nothing they need.  He’s never been allowed to try something and fail – to absorb that into his persona and ultimately grow from it.  But while I’m sad for the young man and what he was denied, when he entered adulthood, he became complicit in staffing out his own destiny.

So there he stands on a stage in front of an angry mob shouting racial epithets at members of the media and advocating violence against Barack Obama.  He’s got to know that we’re just days, hours, moments away from one of those yahoos letting the n-word fly and when we get to that point – well, I shudder to think what we’ve become.  And I can’t believe that John McCain wants to be president of what we will have become.  He wants to put a stop to it, now – but I think he’s a day late and a dollar short – not short of will, but of influence.  This campaign – hell, his whole life – has become a runaway train with McCain at the caboose and about 1000 cars worth of crazy, angry people between him and the conductor(s), who wouldn’t have it any other way. 

So who is the real John McCain?  Until he figures it out for himself, the world may never know. 

I'm sitting here listening to a bunch of white men congratulate themselves on saving us from… what – a fiasco that they helped cause. Harry Reid kisses Judd Gregg SQUARE ON THE MOUTH. Then he kisses Mitch McConnell – I wonder if it tasted like cigarettes. There were also pecks on the cheek for Max Baucus and Chris Dodd and the Senate Finance Committee. Then McConnell, Dodd, Baucus, and Gregg all took their turns at the podium to offer their congratulations TO THEMSELVES. Harry Reid is impressed (with himself?) because they all were able to hammer this out in such a bipartisan way. Max Baucus said this was a turning point that they would all look back on with pride. Judd Gregg expressed his pride in their accomplishments, as well. Give me a break. I've seen an awful lot of self-aggrandizing behavior in my life, but this takes the cake!

In three short years working on the hill I saw Members congratulate themselves on all sorts of things. There was sweeping welfare reform in 1996 after months of deciding just how many children should suffer because they didn’t choose their parents wisely. There was the excitement of passing appropriations bills IN DECEMBER after who knows how many continuing resolutions beginning the end of September. I worked for 3 weeks without a paycheck because the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill hadn’t passed and Newt Gingrich shut down the government. Of course, “non-essential” employees weren’t supposed to come to work but my boss deemed us all essential so that we COULD be paid if and when the bill finally passed. Note that as I walked through the Hart Senate Office Building one day during that shut-down, the doors to the Ethics Committee were locked and the lights were off – ethics always being optional and, thus, non-essential. But after everyone opened back up for business and the money started flowing again, there was the self-congratulation for all their hard work… just doing their job… late, and badly.

But this is ridiculous. Do you think we don’t know that they all were part of the problem to begin with? So they passed their bill – with well over $700 billion in play now. It still has to go to the House and who knows what they’ll do. They’ll probably pass it. I just want to know, where has this bipartisan cooperation been on the other important issues that face us, like healthcare, taxes, education, Social Security, SCHIP, the erosion of the Justice Department, the War… shall I go on? Why does it take imminent disaster for our leaders to act like leaders? Could we maybe get some of this collaboration when we AREN’T on the verge of collapse? When we AREN’T in the middle of an election? Maybe just on some random Thursday they could all get up, eat their Wheaties and go to work – just like they do on Main Street – do their jobs – just like they do on Main Street – get along with their co-workers – just like they do on Main Street – and go home without having a press conference to congratulate yourselves for doing what they do on Main Street 356 days a year.

There’s a reason that “the classics” are so-named. No matter the period in which they’re written their themes are timeless and one can always find relevance to his or her present situation. Les Miserables is one of my favorites, made even better by a musical that made it palatable for those who might be reluctant to dive into the 1000-plus-page unabridged version, but still wanted to experience the beauty of the story and language (all set to a masterful score). For anyone unfamiliar, the story begins in 1815 following the defeat of Napoleon and after if the restoration of the monarchy. This is a period of French history marked by conflict between the ultra-royalists -- the haves -- and liberals -- who had a lot too, but still wanted more for the poor and basically just hated the monarchy. In 1830, Louis-Philippe overthrew Charles X and put in place a constitutional monarchy – which is, essentially, a form of monarchy in which the ruler (whether elected or inherited) is limited by a constitution. Usually the limitations take the form of a need to consult and representative body or religious authorities. Hmmmm… sounds familiar. After the Orleanists – led by Louis-Philippe – took power, the haute bourgeoisie (that’s the mid-1830’s version of the term WASP) were a dominant force in France leaving everyone in the middle-class and below to fend for themselves. Les Miserables also includes a fictional account of an 1832 uprising in Paris in which several aristocratic students led a revolt of working class and poor citizens after the death of Jean Maximilien Lamarque – a leader who had sympathy toward the working class. The uprising failed and hundreds of people were killed. The story paints a grim picture of what life was like for the poor and working classes in France – not that it had been any better under Charles X, but you got the idea that these people were fed up with being ignored and treated like second-class citizens. Hmmm… sounds familiar. I’m not a historian. But from what little I do know (and based on a firm belief that history DOES, in fact, repeat itself) there is a flavor to our current political – and financial – situation that reminds me of this story. The road to our own constitutional monarchy is somewhat different – a little less bloody (the 2000 election, notwithstanding) and with many more players. But what we have today – is a society that is dominated by the socio-cultural elite (haute bourgeoisie) made up of lawyers, doctors, denizens of Wall Street and the rest of the ultra-wealthy 2% of the population. And I’m not blaming a particular party for this – don’t misunderstand – there was plenty of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush policies, coupled with Republican-controlled and Democratic-controlled Congresses that got us into this mess. But 30 years of sliding down a steep slope into poverty with plenty of people landing right on top of you as they hit bottom too can make for an angry working poor class. Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to call the defeat of the “bailout bill” a revolution, but perhaps it was an uprising? A shout from below that the working poor and forgotten in America are still here and they still count for something. And how suitable that the shout came by proxy from none other than the U.S. House of Representatives -- the very body that, in James Madison’s design, was intended to represent the people and public opinion. Now, I’ve said I’m not a historian – I’m also not a wizard about our financial system so I really don’t mean to comment on whether the bill was good or bad or right or wrong. I’m just sharing an observation that the events of yesterday might just have been worth noting as a mini-rebellion of sorts. The people are crying out to be heard by their government and I think they’re saying “You’re right, we DON’T understand, but you sanctioned the system that got us into this mess – the system that is incomprehensible to so many of us. So before you go and give all those financial institutions a big mulligan, I suggest you do a better job of HELPING us understand.” Maybe the brave “nays” were actually doing their jobs – which is just as surprising to them as most of them thought they were just trying to KEEP their jobs.

My husband hates English peas. My daughter and son hate ALL green peas. I don’t know if it’s an inherited textural aversion or if it’s just coincidence, but I just can’t get away with serving peas in my house. I used to try and fool them – by hiding peas in pasta dishes with dark or heavy sauces. When my kids were babies, I tried to distract them with songs or crazy antics when I brought out the baby food jar thinking that if I could just distract them with something funny or nice to look at, I could trick them into swallowing just a few bites. It worked a bit on my daughter, she’d swallow a bite of peas and then she gagged. I immediately followed the gag with a bite of something she liked – pureed spaghetti and meat sauce or mashed-up macaroni and cheese. Then we’d go through the cycle a few times with me dancing a jig while putting a spoonful of peas in her mouth. The gag. The chaser. But then she started to figure out that when I danced, she ended up eating something that she didn’t like and she stopped. I guess there’s something to Pavlov’s theory of conditioning after all. As she got older and wiser, she became more skeptical of me and she would judiciously scrutinize each container I brought to her highchair. She learned to recognize the peas and she just wouldn’t open up her mouth. When my son was old enough to eat, I tried the same thing – because, it had sort of worked last time and my son was a more malleable child from the start. But this time, I did wise up a bit. I removed the peas from the jar and I never put them in the same container twice. I still kept my circus act going, but I did it before each bite no matter what it was so he wouldn’t learn to associate the dance with the peas. And, you know what? My son learned not to eat anything from me for a while because, in his eyes, I was a big old food liar. I had to work to regain his trust when it came to mealtime and, to this day (he is 6 now) it is very difficult for me to get him to try new things. I guess children can’t be fooled by the gimmicks and stunts of their parents (not in the long-term anyway), anymore than the electorate can be distracted by bright shiny objects and exploits performed by politicians campaigning for our approval. You can package your war for oil as a preemptive strike on a nation that’s hoarding weapons of mass destruction, but once we choke on the multi-billion dollar flavor – the jig is up. You can distract us with a stunning vice-presidential pick or a cancellation of your party’s nominating convention or a faux suspension of your presidential campaign but once we swallow what you’re feeding us, we’re going to learn to be skeptical of your song and dance. Please stop treating the American public as though we are children. As voting adults, I think I have at least earned the right to make an intelligent choice from a menu that doesn’t lie about its entrees. If I order the lean beef and a side of broccoli and you bring me a fatty set of pork ribs slathered in sauce with a side of baked beans, I can assure you I won’t be coming back for more.

I was just having a lively debate with a close friend of mine who disagrees with me about… well pretty much any issue you can disagree about in America.  I love this person, I respect this person to my very core and we openly disagree DAILY.   Now, if all you do is watch TV, you should believe that the fact that we disagree and the fact that we love each other – or that we even speak to one another – should be mutually exclusive.

But this is not the case.

I think one of the fundamental reasons that our government (any government) is so dysfunctional is that many of our leaders have lost their ability to simultaneously respect and disagree with one another.  “ I respectfully dissent.”  Can’t you just hear the guy in the blouse and powdery white wig suggesting that (insert flamboyant regional accent here) “although the Senator from La-la land has nothing but admiration for the Senator from East Nowehere and his earnest desire to see an outcome that is agreeable to all parties, I must disagree on these points” and he proceeds to calmly, yet passionately explain his position.  This stuff was uttered and, in most cases was meant with sincerity, in our own nation’s history.  But today, although the words may still echo through a legislative chamber or a debate hall, the sentiment behind those words has vanished. 

The debate last night is a good example.   How are we supposed to believe that Senator McCain has ANY respect or admiration for Barack Obama when he won’t even acknowledge him with a courteous glance – not ONCE – during a 90-plus-minute debate?  I think everyone agrees that these guys have overarching ideologies that are in direct opposition on almost any issue you want to pick.  They don’t agree on the War in Iraq.  They don’t agree on welfare – corporate or social.  They don’t agree on reproductive rights.  They don’t agree on how we should organize a healthcare system, an education system, or any system that exists or might exist in our social structure.  But they do, in my estimation, agree that America is a great nation to which we should all give the very best that we have to offer.  Barack Obama and John McCain has each been chosen by members of his own political party (all well-meaning Americans) to represent them in this presidential election and to me, that garners each man at least some respectful eye-contact.  When you put up a wall (whether physical or proverbial) between yourself and another human being – it is a broken relationship.  People in a broken relationship have a REALLY hard time solving problems.

To illustrate, let’s look at an instance when people with opposing ideologies coupled with mutual respect have successfully come to the table to work on a problem.  The SCHIP program has its roots in a cooperative, relational, political conversation between Senator Orrin Hatch – a stalwart conservative Mormon from Utah – and Senator Ted Kennedy – an old-fashioned liberal Catholic from Massachusetts.  These are men who served together and, over time, developed a friendship upon which they built a program that served hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. who, before had slipped through the cracks of our healthcare system.  They probably knew that they weren’t going to be able to agree on legislation that would fix the entire broken system, but they found common ground – the desire to help some poor children receive coverage – and used their considerable talents to make a difference.  Isn’t it amazing what can be built on a foundation of respect?

So it’s not impossible.  But if you aren’t able to acknowledge your opponent as even a legitimate entity, then what foundation do you have for building ANYTHING?  Is this what we can expect from McCain when he meets with world leaders?  I don’t agree with you.  I don’t like you.  And I will not acknowledge your presence.  In some cultures, that isn’t just rude – it’s unforgiveable.  But maybe McCain isn’t going to meet with leaders with whom he disagrees.  Perhaps he’s afraid that making eye-contact will cause him to erupt in anger or that looking at them -- recognizing their human face – will somehow legitimize their opposing view (like Ahmedinajad’s outrageous words about Israel).  Maybe he’s going to set “preconditions” that include “my way or the highway”.  I’m not sure how you can maintain positive diplomatic relationships or transform negative or non-existent ones when you are fundamentally unable to see your counterpart as a person.  If the eyes are the window to the soul and you won’t look into someone’s eyes, then you cannot see their humanity, a component of common ground .  How can you believe that transformation (see: change) is possible for yourself but deem it impossible for another?  And if you’re not looking to be transformed – always looking to grow – how can you create it in anyone else, let alone a nation? 

If John McCain refuses to look at Barack Obama – his peer, whether he will admit it or not – how can we expect him to look at us and see what we need as a nation?   

There's been a lot of talk about John McCain's motives for "suspending" his campaign and calling for a delay to the debate scheduled for Friday.  His polling numbers are on the decline, his number of solid and leaning electoral college votes are ebbing hourly according to realclearitipolitics.com, generally he seems to have lost his footing and it is costing him dearly.  I believe that beginning last weekend when pundits were saying that he has "lost the week", AND the nation's economic system (though it did rebound a bit last Friday) continued in a downward motion, he realized that there was no way for them to get around devoting at least a portion of the first debate to the economy -- even though it was slated to be foreign policy-focused. 

Given the importance of first debates to presidential elections, McCain realized that his chances for another bounce were weakening and he decided it was time for another Hail Mary.  Don't you know, that he was studying, practicing the narrative, preparing for his shining moment in Oxford when he was going to show the American people his foreign and security policy prowess and fortitute.  Obama would look like an amateur -- though an extremely articulate and calm one -- or at the very least, weaker than John McCain and isn't that the point of the debate. 

But now, here's the pesky faltering economy to mess up his moment of glory -- again.  Since he is decidedly (and admittedly) less knowledgable about domestic economic policy, he knows he can't win against Obama in this arena. He HAD to do something drastic -- again.  So he announces that he's suspending his campaign (but he doesn't actually do it, because who will be checking in the battleground states, right?) says that the economy (which according to him was fundamentally a-ok just 9 days before) is now in crisis and that he must return to DC immediately because only he can save the day.  Perfect,he thinks to himself, we'll hammer out a deal, the economy will be fixed overnight, people will forget that this crisis ever happened, and the first debate can be held one week late (in place of the Vice Presidential debate, and wouldn't THAT be the icing on the cake) and we can focus on foreign policy and international affairs and the surge and 9/11 and all that stuff that people think I know a lot about.

Only he forgot a few things.  First on all, just because he doesn't know how to use "the Google" doesn't mean that the rest of the world is like him.  Yes, John and Sarah, you're right when you say that small town America is underestimated and overlooked -- they are wired to the hilt and they know where to look.  They are going to KNOW that you're still running commercials and speaking at conferences and taking interviews AND cancelling your appearance on Letterman -- and they're going to know WHY.  Second, when the economy is in crisis in an election year, that is precisely the time that people want to hear presidential candidates debating this issue -- not 2 weeks later.  They don't care how much time you need to study -- you've been running for President for the last 19 months.  If you don't know it by now, you're not going to know it.  And no one wants to hear about the situation in Georgia and Russia while their struggiling to pay their bills in a neighborhood filled with forclosed homes wondering if they're next.  They want to know what you're going to do about it and they want to know NOW. And finally, I think the general public (see: voters) are becoming desensitized to your stunting.  I mean, you can only watch David Blaine hang inside a box so many times before it becomes uninteresting. And I don't think David Blaine is who were looking for in a President.  We the People have figured out your recipe and, to quote David Letterman, it smells.

Look at the states where he's losing ground. Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsyvania, Missouri, Florida.  It's a veritable fertile cresent for Barack Obama to swoop in and say, hey, I feel your pain and you deserve something more from me and from John McCain than just political grandstanding.  You deserve to be spoken to like intelligent, well-meaning voters who want to make informed decisions.  You deserve a debate -- between John McCain and myself this week AND between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin next week.  DO NOT settle for anything less.