Somebody who knows how to do cartoons.  This is an idea just crying to become a reality:

I envision McShame all tangled in a "bush."  I picture McShame as a tiny cartoon character tangled in this bush.  And tall lanky Obama looking on.  Maybe blinking his eyes as he realizes that his so-called opponent has gotten himself so tangled up in the "bush" that he can't maneuver at all.

Perhaps you are good with photoshop.  Or drawing.

Or maybe you have a different cartoon idea that you'd like to describe.  To inspire the cartoonists among us.

I can't believe this cartoon of McShame in the "bush" is not yet in circulation.  Or maybe it is.  If so, perhaps you can find me a link.  I tried Google to no avail.

Thanks for your help!

It's beginning to look like shame could be a huge factor in this election. People ashamed of bush. People ashamed of republicans. People ashamed of Abu Graib. Of Gitmo. Of Katrina. The list goes on. People ashamed of how the rest of the world sees us now. Of how the Founders would view us now!

McSame has hitched his wagon to bush and all the shames of bush. Maybe McShame is a better name! Together with all his own baggage, attach the baggage tag: McShame!

One thing people don't want to feel or be associated with is shame. They distance from figures to whom shame has become attached. They've tried to attach it to Obama without success. But shame doesn't easily attach to traits like skin color or an unusual name. Not any longer. Indeed, to try to do so is now shameful.

Instead shame seems to attach best to behavior. And notice how Barack's behavior leads people to feel idealism and not shame.

Seems to me this election comes down to idealism versus shame. They'll try to make it idealism versus realism. But their variety of "realism" is shameful! And we need to hammer that over and over.

Idealism versus shame.

Idealism will win. McShame will not!

    This is going to be a very short post.  But a positive post.  And to my knowledge this is a new topic and a new insight.

    Let's try positive reinforcement.  We know it works better than negative reinforcement.  Till now the message has been a negative call for a certain candidate to "drop out."  Naturally, that call sounds like a call to eat something awful.  And we should not be surprised that it doesn't seem to be working.

    So let's refrain from negative reinforcement.  And try a positive message instead:

Dear Hillary,

Please stay in the Senate!

Thanks!

    The primary has been too much for me:  I have expired!

See:  previous blog.  Watch video.   My health plan did not cover a real surgeon.  CPR was not authorized in time.

Send election results via email:  heaven@gmail.com

    Have you seen this?  Pass it on if you like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQh8__dCxeE&e

Don't miss the look on the face of the patient!

There is a new form of energy in the land. It promises to replace
fossil fuel as a means of momentum. It lies at the heart of the
Clinton campaign. Spontaneous combustion. Here's how it works.



First we must start with the Clinton Marriage. That's where it all
begins. That's what it all goes back to. Understand the Clinton
Marriage, the dynamics of this central relationship, and you will
understand the:

"combustible environment within the Clinton campaign"

First of all, bill is the center of the universe. Just like the sun is
hidden at nighttime but still there, bill is not going away and his
influence will contribute to spontaneous combustion, not just during
this campaign, but at the convention and the White House. If bill is
the center of the universe, where does hillary fit in? That's a good
question. And it goes back to:

"internal strife and warring camps"

something, which is apparently necessary for the Clinton momentum. It
is built into the Clinton campaign and seemingly built into the Clinton
DNA, the Clinton marriage, and the Clinton world view that every thing
is a fight and a battle. Whether the role is as victim or fighter, the
Clintons have written the book on attack, guilt trip, triangulation,
and dysfunction.



But don't take my word for it. Just look at the campaign. Look at
bill's governing style. Look at hillary's "fight, fight, fight"
mentality. And read today's Washington Post article.
It's clear that this "energy source," this internal combustion is built
into the campaign, just as it seems to be built into bill-and-hill.



If you are not a fan of spontaneous combustion, internal strife, and
warring camps, I am writing to remind you of the most robust finding of
psychology: Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
And if you want a picture of "experience" with regard to another
Clinton presidency, then look to the current experience of internal strife and
warring camps as your best guide.



If instead you're looking for a more peaceful White House, I strongly suggest Barack "Who's Sane" Obama.



The difference in campaigns says it all. You can read the candidates,
their marriages, and the future of a presidency. Take your pick. But
realize that you"ll be getting what's already there in plain sight.



War. Or Peace. You decide.



Me? I prefer Barack, who's sane.

    In this election, there is one candidate who stands for Sanity:

Barack Who's Sane Obama

♪♪♪

I am not a fan of David Brooks.  And usually I find his columns annoying in ways I won't even bother to analyze at the moment.  (maybe in a comment below)  But today, the day after a huge amount of press and web attention to John McCain's "judgment," Mr. Brooks actually provides some interesting information .  Though I dsagree with the conclusion he reaches.

Having done some background calling around, in an apparently fruitless effort to determine the anonymous sources for Thursday's NY Times article on McCain's ethically dubious dealings with a female lobbyist who uncannily resembles his wife,  Brooks  finds himself saddened by the degree of conflict and rage within the McCain circle of advisors.  While it is interesting that each camp of this internal war seems to represent the two sides of McCain, his long allegiance to Washington insiders, on the one hand, and his so-called "maverick" streak, Mr. Brooks fails to understand, in my view, that the internicene warfare within his circle of advisors suggests a fatal flaw in the man, not just a problem in longtime associates.

This is the issue that Brooks lays out in today's column.  Read it for yourself and see if you agree with me.  Brooks seems impressed that all these people love McCain.  I am impressed, on the other hand, that McCain seems to like the attention of warring suitors.  Be they men or be they women.  

    This is not my story.  But it's a story worth reading.  And for that reason I'm giving it a lift by posting the link here. 

This story is unique because in addition to providing a look at one person's ingenuity, passion, and compassion, it also provides a portrait of her dogged determination to find out all she could about a candidate and to get an "in person" look at him, once she gave him her support.

The story is a long one.  Very easy to read.  Reads like a novel.   I've never met the writer of this story.  It was sent to a group of us by her father.   Her father is a writer.    And she's got a flair for writing too.

Follow the link.  Read the Story.  If you like, recommend this post, so others will get a chance to read it too.

Here's a flavor of it:

I knew one person in Madison, one guy who never fails to make time
for me if I happen to be in his area. One guy who long ago broke my
heart, but who has since become a kind and caring friend. This was the
perfect stop. A chance to connect with both the past and the future
while watching real history in the making.

I made my final
decision Monday, February 11. At work. And my voucher was at home. And
the flight I had to take to make this happen was leaving at 11:10 p.m.
that night. The event was happening Tuesday night, February 12.

I sent my Wisconsin friend a note. "I might be in Madison tomorrow to see Obama. I'd love to see you if possible. Let me know."

I got home about 6:45 p.m. and called the airline.

Oh no!!

The voucher could only be used with 14 days advance notice! I was desperate. "Let me talk to your manager," I requested.

The
manager got on and said sorry, there's nothing we can do. But I refused
to give up. I begged, and pleaded. I told her this was a once in a
lifetime opportunity and besides, I had gotten the free ticket because
I had been bumped. "This is your big chance to make it up to me." It's
now 7:00 p.m.

"Okay, I'm going to authorize your ticket," she said. "But here's the catch. How far are you from the airport?"

"I can be there in a half-hour," I said, shaving the truth by about 5 minutes.

"Good,"
she said, because you have to get there before the ticket counter
closes at 7:30 p.m., or you won't be able to fly tonight.

Oh no #2!!

TPM Cafe is now in its third incarnation.  May it fare well.  We, your
predecessors bid you welcome:  Be kind to one another.  Take care of
the premises.  Those who come after you will appreciate a place
where ideas are debated (not debased), where posters are respectful
(not derogatory), where guests see a lively community open to new
members.  If you are new, please bear with me.  We need your help.  (to get this message onto the recommend list)



The new Cafe lacks one thing former members relied on - a way to
contact one another.  Thus this "Message in a Bottle" - cast onto the
flood waters - when the "change-over" left many of us as "Cafe
refugees" - bereft of our former blog posts or any way to track our
"Back Bench" membership.  Back Benchers?  Those who came to the Cafe
for conversation, not for conflict.  Those for whom "everything under
the sun" was taken literally as a description of Reader Blogs.  Who
over time imagined a little "space" we called the Cafe Saloon: "a place
where you are always at home."  (and anyone was free to come)



If you are a TPM Cafe "Back Bencher,"  this Message in a Bottle is for you:

  The Saloon Lives on.  Perhaps you, like us,
became a Cafe refugee.  Maybe you miss Chuck's poetry, Glenn's music,
Howard's stories, cscs's questions and recipes.  (Or: PseudoCyAnts, Tom
Wright, artappraiser, Eric Stepp, TheraP, nascardaughter, Emma Zahn,
The Facilitatrix, Thinking... and more!)  Maybe you miss the humor. 
The creativity.  The civility. And all the political, religious, philosophical,
scientific topics and issues we managed to discuss as well.  Devon, our
former sage, has gone missing.  As have others.  We miss you.



  We want you to know we survived the deluge.  The community lives on,
is thriving, still has room for more.  We're keeping an eye on
"developments" at the "Mother Ship."  Meanwhile we're looking out to find you at:  http://projectlucidity.com/forum/index.php

So if kind strangers recommend this post, perhaps our "Message in a Bottle" may reach you, dear Back Bencher of the old Cafe Saloon.  (Or anyone who always wanted to be a Back Bencher)

What's happened here at the Cafe is like what's happened during 7 years of bush.  It's:

"a twist on a market research technique called "deprivation
research," in which marketers measure how loyal consumers are to a
brand or product by taking it away from them."  WSJ

It's amazing the pent up interest and demand for the Constitution after
7 years of near-dictatorship.  There's tremendous longing for it, ever
since we've experienced absence of the Rule of Law, absence of the
Balance of Powers, and a judicial system perverted.  Yes, I'd like my
Constitution back!  But at this point that is still in doubt.  Serious
doubt.  Deprivation research is occurring in the nation.  An
overwhelming majority of people now say the nation is seriously on the
wrong track.  There may be disagreement about the "right" track, but no
doubt the results are in.  Will things change?  We can only hope.



Take away our Constitution.  And suddenly there's a groundswell of
loyalty and appreciation.  A desperate desire to get back to the Rule
of Law.



Here at the Cafe there is also evidence of pent up interest and
demand.  Yes, we'd like our Cafe back!  It's not the substitution of a 
dictatorship of course. And we do believe Josh and his terrific crew
are doing all they can to restore order.  But it seems we must endure
more weeks (months?) without the "home" so many of us have come to
depend on and make use of.  Will things ever be like the old Cafe?  We
can only hope!



Take away the Cafe as we've known it.  And suddenly there's a
groundswell of longing and frustration.  That cannot easily be
assuaged.  TPM and the Cafe are the means for many of us to discuss the
need for national change and renewal.  That's why the "deprivation" at
the Cafe has left us so sorely in need these past 10 days.



 Used effectively "deprivation research" only goes on for a short while.
And mostly it happens with consumer consent.  Here's a description of
it
from a Wall Street Journal article describing a hoax where customers at
two Las Vegas Burger King's were greeted with no Whoppers on the menu. 
They were filmed and these vignettes were used in Burger King
advertising.



In the case of the Constitution and the Cafe we've got a serious case
of deprivation going.  And there may be no going back.  That's what's
worrying so many of us.  Not just the Cafe.  But the Constitution.  The
nation as we've known it.

 Two amazing and gifted individuals are energizing the Democratic Party
this year.  I think both have their gifts.  And both need to be
recognized and elevated to high office.  Without splitting the party in
the process. 



Why not find a novel solution?  And make use of both candidates in terms of their abilities and strengths?



I think Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton need each other.  For each to
reach their greatest potential, they would do well to combine talents. 
I do not mean as a "ticket."  Because honestly I do not see either of
these fine individuals doing well as Vice President.  No, that would be
demeaning to either of them.  And somehow I do not think the chemistry
would work... not because they would be unable to work together, but
because each of them really does need and deserve a unique role and
vantage point.  Where each can excel.  And where each can benefit the
other.



In my view Hillary Clinton's mastery of knowledge, her legislative
expertise and ability to speak the language of policy would equip her
to be a superlative "Prime Minister."  What if we elevate her to Senate
Majority Leader and have her lead the fight for all the good
legislation that will be needed for change to come?  Why not recognize
what half the Dems have already agreed by casting a vote for her?  Yes,
I understand they voted for her as a presidential candidate.  But her
debating skills have surely equipped her best for the Senate.  Her
rhetoric is surely the type that is works well in the Senate.  And her long
experience in government will surely help her pass the legislation we
all want so much.



While Hillary Clinton would make the better "Prime Minister," I believe
Barak Obama would make the better President.  Less polarizing than
Hillary and by far the more gifted and inspiring speaker, Obama would,
in my view, be better able to unify the country and mobilize popular
support for the legislation tha Hillary could ably shepherd through
the Congress.  I'm viewing the Presidency as a means of gaining
power/influence and making use of that.  The president has the bully
pulpit.  But needs a legislative ally.  The bully pulpit works to reach
and inspire the citizens.   Obama can do that.  But as Hillary herself
has made clear, inspiration is one thing and translation into
legislation is another.  Let him inspire.  Let her legislate.  To me it
would make a perfect combination.

So I propose this solution to the train wreck we all do not want to see
happen ... for our country... or for our party:  I propose Hillary for
"Prime Minister."  And Obama for President.



A novel solution.  For perilous times.

  

Camp Clinton is "singing" the Blues: "Obama will outspend us." I think it will fall ♭(flat). Here's why:

Think of the conflicts of interest Camp Clinton has. I'll just name a few. You can think of others.

Clinton
$: Bill earned a lot these last 7 years, on the strength of his
connections and name recognition. How's it gonna look when that $
is spent to elect a spouse to an office she's claiming "experience"
for? When the $ that buys her the White House was gotten by "selling"
White House connections? It's like "selling" the White House - to buy the White House.

What happened to the People's House?

It's
also a conflict of interest when a former office holder uses a spouse
to regain an office that he legally can't hold himself any longer.

And
it's a conflict of interest when a former president has a business or
foundation that profits from his "connections" and he's actively
engaged in seeking to further those connections (through his spouse)
which only feeds his business/foundation activities and influence.

Do you really want a president who has "sold" the White House to "buy" the White House?

Don't sing the Blues for the Clintons.

Sing Hope ♪♪♪♪ with Obama.

Full Disclosure: I support Obama. He's ♮ (sharp)!

    Yes.

    Still.... Yes. We. Can.