Thank You

I'm feeling rather gushy and happy after last night's crowning of Barack Obama as President #44-elect. So, I wanted to throw out a few words of thanks.

Thank you to the American people, for heeding my request to give the Democrats the best chance they had to win the presidency. Thank you for voting and not just becoming complacent and staying home when it looked like the election was in the bag. Thank you for recognizing the Palin stunt for what it was and for seeing through the campaign of everyone's favorite Republican-with-an-independent-streak to recognize that 2008 McCain was not 2000 McCain. I love you all.

Did She Really Say That?

I just watched Sarah Palin's speech from her rally in Ohio today.

At the 4:40 mark of the video, she asserts the following:

"Our campaign is about the future. It's about these kids who are here today. And, you know, our opponents...Our opponents, for a campaign that likes to talk a lot about the future, our opponents, sure really, talk a lot about the past and point fingers backwards. And they look to the past, because that is where you can find blame. But we join you in looking to the future, because that's where you find the solutions."

I understand how something like this could play well. No one wants to be involved in the blame game. It could also be a little bit of a veiled attack on how there's not a lot of voting history in Obama's record to compare to the long history that one can look at with McCain. However, at the 12:55 mark of this video, she says:

"It was just a couple of weeks ago that Joe Biden said to a voter that he's against clean coal. And Barack Obama has opposed offshore drilling. Now, you heard the other night in John McCain and Barack Obama's debate kind of a flip-flop on that, but you gotta go with someone's record, where they'd been in the past to let you know where they're gonna lead you."

So, let me get this straight. Your history is off-limits as a blame-game tactic, but you have to look at your opponent's record as a predictor of future actions. While I completely agree with the latter position, you can't have it both ways. Either we're looking forward or we're learning about how these people will lead us? I really don't see how those are mutually exclusive methods for looking at a race.

One other thing, when you're trying to oust the incumbent political party from the White House, blame seems a terribly effective tactic.

Brief Return to Posting

I know I've been out of commission for a while. Soon enough, I will be back in regular mode, and I will explain what I've been doing for the last month. However, I just wanted to check in and thank the Iowa voters for jumbling up this presidential election season. For those of you that haven't seen the results yet, here's how things shook out last night.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama came in first, with John Edwards second, and Hillary Clinton in third place. This is a beautiful jumble. On the Republican side of things, Mike Huckabee got the top spot, Mitt Romney came in second, and Fred Thompson in third. That's a crazy pile. I have to say that I love the fact that the two declared frontrunners (Clinton and Romney) did not win their respective caucuses. That's probably because I tend to root for the underdog, but I'll take it, regardless.

I know Iowa doesn't determine the nation's pulse, and this one primary doesn't mean that Obama and Huckabee will be the candidates, but it just bodes for a competitive primary season, and that makes me a happy camper. Now we just have to wait and see what New Hampshire does with the next phase of the race. Clinton and Romney are still expected to win there, but we'll just have to see.

A Word of Caution

To start with, I tend to view Texas A&M University as a bit of a microcosm of the country in general. Maybe it's because I see their tendency to be conservative coupled with their strive to be progressive, which looks rather like middle-America. Maybe it's because I really loved going to school there, and that's where I developed a lot of my world view. I don't know, but there it is. I tell you this to preface my little history lesson. Texas A&M was founded in 1876 as an all-male military school. In 1963, the first black and female students were accepted and began attending the university (1 and 2). Blacks were admitted at equal status (always with the "legally" on this one, unfortunately) with whites in 1964 (1). Women achieved equal admittance status with men in 1971 (2). In 1976, Fred McClure was elected the first black student body president at A&M (1). Brooke Rollins was elected the first female student body president in 1994 (3).

I share this not to say that women have it worse than blacks, but to throw out a word of caution to all Democrats out there. I do not believe that this country is ready for a female president. Much the same that A&M embraced blacks in the student body more readily than women, the US can handle a black man in the presidency right now more readily than a woman. And here's a bold prediction that I'll make a year ahead of time: if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, we will have another Republican in office for the next four years.

It's an issue that has plagued powerful women for centuries: How do you make it look like you're as capable as a man in "manly things" without diminishing what it is that makes you female? Can a woman be powerful and feminine at the same time? Look at Hillary -- everything about her is criticized in the press. If she dresses like a businesswoman, she looks "boxy"; if she wears something flattering, she's being a tease (4). If she's too serious, then she's cold and calculating, but if she tries to lighten things up, her laugh is ridiculed. She just can't win....and that's kinda my point.

Right now we can't even stomach the thought of a woman as our boss (5). If a female boss is met with resistance, can we really take a female political boss? There has been a lot of talk about whether a woman belongs in the military (6). Can a female Commander-in-Chief be respected? I don't think she can. And she will mobilize an opposition faster than you can say "Hillary".

Months ago, I opined (that's my new favorite word, "opined". Do you like it, too?) that the Republican party was smearing Barrack Obama because they wanted to see Hillary win the Democratic nomination. And it's working so far (7). And, I'd venture to say that a significant amount of her money is coming from the Republican party -- people that want to ensure that she has enough money to beat Obama and Edwards (either of which I believe could beat any Republican nominee that they put forward).

So, I reiterate what I've said before. Stop supporting Hillary. She can't win, and I don't want to see another Republican in the White House for a while. I'd love to see her drop out of the race for the good of the party, but that seems to be too much to ask. Let's switch our focus, though, to Obama vs. Edwards. And the decision isn't which one to pick for president, but whether we have an Obama/Edwards ticket or an Edwards/Obama ticket. I currently believe Edwards/Obama would be more winnable, and currently, that's all I want. A winnable ticket to be put forward by the Democratic party in 2008. Please vote in your Democratic primaries as they come up. And please don't vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Please? Pretty please? Is that really so much to ask?

References
1. Resource from the Cushing Library on the history of African Americans at Texas A&M University.

2. The history of Texas A&M, as recorded in the Texas State Handbook.

3. News release from A&M regarding a speaking engagement by Ms. Rollins.

4. An LA Times article about Hillary's clothing choices.

5. An Economist article about the perceptions of being disciplined by a male or female boss.

6. A history of women in our military.

7. ABC News coverage of polling in Iowa placing Hillary well in the lead.

From On High

Our office is on the 18th floor in downtown Austin. From my desk, I have a view of Congress Avenue and the Capitol. It's a great view, and distracts me more often than I'd like to admit. In the last week, we've noticed two highly organized protests proceed, with police escort, up Congress to the Capitol grounds. These sorts of things happen so often that one of our team members brought binoculars from home to enable better viewing of the goings on in the street.

The protest on Friday was pretty big, and seemed to have something to do with the Trans-Texas Corridor. It involved horse- and donkey-drawn carriages, of all things. I was disturbed that the animals didn't have little poop-bag-collectors. However, it appears that my concern was for naught -- at the end of the protest march line there was a giant street-washing machine. I had seen sweepers before, but this was like a carpet steamer and washed the street, too.

Today there was another protest march. This one was much smaller and we couldn't see the signs to see what they were protesting. However, they were all coordinated, wearing the same lime green shirts.

As a result of these viewings, I have learned a few things about organizing a protest march:

• Make sure lots of people are there, and make sure they bring their animals.


• Call the police, and get them to escort you so the inconvenienced drivers can't do anything to you.


• Be sure to color-code your wardrobe with the others in your group. This also makes it hard for protesters to change their mind and try to slink away.


• Make your signs two-sided, so that people all around you can see what your cause is. Maybe add a third side on top of your signs for people in buildings with binoculars.


• List your event on the Texas Capitol Events page to further propagate your cause to the masses.

If you follow Heather's basic rules for protests in downtown Austin, there will be a group of people on an 18th floor that will appreciate it. We don't do a very good job trying to make up what you are protesting.

Probably Not the Right Reaction

As I normally do, I scanned the day's headlines when I got to work this morning. I saw one that bummed me out: "Cheney OK after Afghan Blast".

I don't normally wish people dead, but I'm not so sure Dick is a person.

Get Behind Obama

I have decided that I am now supporting Barack Obama for one reason: the Republicans are afraid that he can beat them.

It is so obvious by the way the elephants are waging their war on Senator Obama that they want the Democrats to put forth Hillary Clinton for the 2008 presidential race. They feel they can beat her. And if they feel they can beat her, I don't want her in the race. So, this is my call to all independents and democrats out there -- vote in your Democratic primary next year for Obama. Make sure that he is there running against whoever the Republicans can put forth.

Rudy Giuliani vs. Barack Obama could be a race that I could actually want to vote in. And I think this country is ready for a classy president who actually knows what he's doing. I'm tired of lesser-of-two-evils voting situations. Please help me (and the United States) out.