Lusty Capitulation

Nope, it's not a post about kinky sex. You'll see. Be patient. Read on.

You haven't heard from me in a while. You can count that as a blessing or a loss -- you choose. I've been out here digesting political reality, mourning the dream of President Hillary, seething over the Palin pick, grasping the siderails as our disintegrating economic battleship rams into a Perfect Storm. Amidst it all, I've also been practicing at being sixty -- no small feat in more settled times. I might be getting the hang of it. Or at least enough of it to unleash my opinionated self again.

It's been noted that I've gone from being really pissed off at Obama to having two of his signs in my yard and a car that is covered with Obama stickers. Yes, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see Hillary campaigning on his behalf, but I'm unabashedly committed to BHO. What changed? Simple answer: Nothing and Everything.

First for the 'nothing'. I'm a Democrat down to my DNA. I always said that I would support our nominee, despite my conviction that he was not the best person for the job. Any Democrat -- and I mean ANY -- is a superior choice as compared to even the very best Republican. I cannot, with any conscience, vote Republican. I'm a partisan, through and through. I do not believe the Republican party represents my values nor do I think their value system and policies are good for the country and the world. Period. No exceptions. So it was ordained from the get-go that if Hillary lost, I'd vote for our candidate. I'm not now, and never have been a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass --- the acronym for Hillary supporters who were hell-bent on punishing the party for mistreating Hillary and giving the nomination to Barack). But I seriously doubted that I would/could be enthusiastic for the man himself and there was no way I could imagine donating money. I capitulated -- accepted the party's choice. Fell in line. OK, I also cried during his acceptance speech. I'm a wuss...what can I say?

Much to my surprise, I've given him money. Today I will give him more. I'm enthusiastic. Even rabid. What the hell is that about?

Seasoning. It's about seasoning. Not mine, his. Hillary may have lost the primary season, but she put him through hell on his way to the nom. And thank God for it. I wasn't always sure that she was pursuing the best strategy and I wanted to beat the crap out of Big Dog, but it forced Barack to get his shit together and develop a strategy in the general that could respond to whatever the Right has lobbed at him. She brought up Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright. She and her surrogates never let him off the hook. That paid off... for Obama.

The man has earned his place in the polls and in my Democratic heart. For me, everything changed as I watched him over the last few months. He's solid. He picked an outstanding running mate. He's connected to a web of advisors of exceptional talent and experience. He projects a strong, intelligent, steady leadership style. But perhaps what I admire most is his organizing skill. I know ...I dismissed that early on ...but the man knows how to build an organization and lead it. He has a ground game unlike any that has ever existed before ...except when the unions dominated Democratic politics. He has legions of workers in nearly every single state. They are young, and tireless, and they are zealots. They are exceptionally well-informed. They have dreamed up strategies like The Great Schlep, and are winning converts the old-fashioned way -- one at a time. He is competitive in swing states. I'm in awe of the campaign he has run ...he has been more professional, creative, and focused than Hillary. It hurts to say that, but it is true nonetheless.

None of us can anticipate the future and its challenges. We do know -- unless we are delusional -- that very tough times and choices lie ahead. For us as individuals. For the country. For our government. For our president. We need thoughtful leadership. A willingness to see the world clearly and still not be trapped by old mental models. This country could be falling into a death spiral. The old model says that only the pilot can right the plane. The new model says that while the pilot pulls on the stick, the passengers need to haul their ass to the back of the plane, throw unneeded shit out the windows to lighten the load, and lean backward, aiming for the heavens above.

Barack, when you seize the controls on November 4th, I'll be leanin' and throwin'.

Our Democratic Future

If you're conscious and a Democrat, you're battling either within, or without, or both. We have some really important issues rending the party faithful and there is much blood on the floor. I think that floor is going to get slippery and nasty beyond our wildest imaginings.

Three big struggles divide the party and create schizophrenic Democrats:

1. What is the role of Superdelegates? Should they support the 'popular vote' (whatever that means) or should they ensure a viable candidate based using their long-standing political experience as a factor in decision-making?
2. Is Hillary creating or sustaining an internal civil war? Should she drop out now to save us from ourselves?
3. Is Obama a viable candidate for the GE or a vanity candidate for Democrats? Will he really capture enough Americans to win the White House?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Superdelegates: They were put in place to provide balance when a primary candidate won the nomination with an agenda that appealed emotionally to Democrats (especially the far left) but that risked yielding a losing ticket in the General. In other words, it was instituted to provide pragmatic political balance to unbridled fervor. Yes, that feels anti-democratic (small 'd'). On the other hand, there is something to be said about balancing the Democrat's historical ability to shoot themselves in the foot when activists -- especially anti-war activist -- rule the primaries.
2. Hillary's persistence as a candidate: Let her stay. We may yet need her, even if we don't prefer her. More on that in a moment.
3. Obama's GE prospects: He's becoming a liability, at least for any Democrats who have their eyes open. Most Obama supporters travel in a closed social network, self-reinforcing and liberal. They dismiss the hullabaloo over BHO's association with unsavory people like Rezko and Rev. Wright. They are delusional. If Obama gets the nom, I do not believe he can win. He was NOT vetted and his rhetoric swept all those touchy-feely types totally off their feet. The rest of the country is going to open their eyes and ears come September and completely reject this man. If you think Kerry's swiftboating was inflammatory, you just have no idea what's ahead.

Obama may have more elected delegates right now and Hillary may not be able to capture sufficient numbers to outpace him. But as the furor over Obama's judgement grows -- and recall that this man repeatedly touts his superior judgement -- the Superdelegates may yet discover why they exist -- to save the party from itself. If they look clear-eyed at the GE prospects and less at the emotional fervor of a bunch of 20-somethings, they may wake up and stand up. Maybe they'll pick a dark horse who hasn't even run in the primaries (Al Gore anyone?). Or maybe they will be glad to have Hillary available and the deeply commited individuals who support her candidacy. Maybe.

This much is becoming obvious, the Democrats are risking a loss...perhaps a devastating one.. in the General Election. The leading candidate, the one who has disturbed many of us with his emotional appeals and shaky policies, may be about to burst into flames. Here we are, in March of a crucial election year, tethered to a guy who can be easily accused of supporting un-American and racially biased religious views, whose wife doesn't demonstrate much pride in her country, who is an elitist, and who has won primarily by leveraging the African-American vote and the support of extremely left-liberal academics and intellectuals. This is not a 'mainstream' candidacy, despite the rhetoric.

If he wins, we're gonna lose our ass. And we will deserve it.

Health Care Policy for Dummies

OK, I'm trying to hold my temper, but I'm sitting here watching the Democratic debate, and I want to just smack Barack Obama. He and Hillary are debating health care. The contrast between the two is remarkable. She understands the business and the domain. He simply does not. He has a pollyanna view of health care that is consistent with his lack of experience on the national stage or in the trenches where the really big and powerful play hardball.

Let me cut to the chase: Barack's plan is right of center and far too Republican friendly. He is sacrificing principle and worse, he is violating basic business principles that make coverage work. He believes he's progressive on this issue. He's not. It is obvious he's never had to actually negotiate coverage. You cannot leave anyone out of the pool and make the thing work. It is a fundamental actuarial principle of the business. And whether Cigna or the Feds run it, you have to follow the same coverage principle. You must mandate coverage, just as Hillary and Edwards pushed for.

I have been an executive in an insurance company. I was intimately involved in managing care and helping to rate applicants. Barack says everyone who wants health care will buy it if it is affordable. Bullshit. I have seen many young adults -- working young adults -- refuse coverage because they'd rather spend their money on cars, electronics, entertainment. They do not believe they'll get sick. Wolfe Blitzer is right. Those people get sick and then the rest of us pay for it. Yes, people with little income for insurance...mostly responsible adults with families...can't afford the premiums. Subsidies are the answer, not exempting them from the system.

He also spouts that he will pay for his program by focusing on prevention. To paraphrase him: we'll pay for a dietician so we won't have to pay for a diabetic's foot amputation. Right. Has this man ever talked to someone who actually cares for patients? I do. I'm a nurse practitioner. I work with people who have heart problems and many of the illnesses that go with them, like diabetes. Even if you can get people to get control of their health and lifestyle (and let me tell you, this is a rare feat), this takes an enormous amount of time and MONEY. The payback is not in a premium year. Ever. He is totally nuts and clueless to think he's going to pay for his programs with this as a core strategy. It just won't work. And I think what distresses me the most is that this guy thinks he has answers when he is so clearly misinformed.

Hillary covers her program with new taxes and savings from negotiating pricing and instituting administrative cost savings. That may still not be enough, but it is much more realistic.

You know, I keep saying that I'll support Obama but the truth is, while he's charismatic, he just isn't a heavy hitter in the policy department. Worse, he has top advisors guiding him and they aren't pointing him in the right direction. Why would anyone think that would substantially change if he were elected?

I'm sorry, too much of this story feels like 2000, when the Republicans fell all over themselves lining up behind a guy who was charismatic and seemed like a whole new animal. He was an empty suit. I'm still not sure how full Mr. Obama's suit is either.

Electronic Graveyards

From National Geographic:

Maybe your basement has a collection of dead electronics -- all those old CRTs, cell phones, laptops. Or maybe you've attempted to recycle them by giving them to charity. A few things might have been sneaked into that 'bulky waste pickup' that the city has each year. But I'm betting that you have no idea what happens to this stuff, even if you have tried to do the right thing. I sure didn't.

The January 2008 issue of National Geographic got ...well, graphic...in its expose of e-trash. It was chilling.

June is the wet season in Ghana, but here in Accra, the capital, the morning rain has ceased. As the sun heats the humid air, pillars of black smoke begin to rise above the vast Agbogbloshie Market. I follow one plume toward its source, past lettuce and plantain vendors, past stalls of used tires, and through a clanging scrap market where hunched men bash on old alternators and engine blocks. Soon the muddy track is flanked by piles of old TVs, gutted computer cases, and smashed monitors heaped ten feet (three meters) high. Beyond lies a field of fine ash speckled with glints of amber and green—the sharp broken bits of circuit boards. I can see now that the smoke issues not from one fire, but from many small blazes. Dozens of indistinct figures move among the acrid haze, some stirring flames with sticks, others carrying armfuls of brightly colored computer wire. Most are children.

Regardless of where you dispose of your e-junk, much of it generated in the U.S. ends up in undeveloped countries where poor families and their children attempt to salvage whatever might bring cash in the marketplace. Gold, copper, silver and other valuable metals are embedded in our junk. Getting it out releases toxins and carcinogens when the salvage operation is a low-tech fire tended by children and women. We don't see that though. We just line up to buy the latest gadget, mindless about what happens to the old one.

How vast is the problem? Estimates are 50 million tons a year, worldwide.

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 70 percent of discarded computers and monitors, and well over 80 percent of TVs, eventually end up in landfills, despite a growing number of state laws that prohibit dumping of e-waste, which may leak lead, mercury,
arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, and other toxics into the ground. Meanwhile, a staggering volume of unused electronic gear sits in storage—about 180 million TVs, desktop PCs, and other components as of 2005, according to the EPA. Even if this obsolete equipment remains in attics and basements indefinitely, never reaching a landfill, this solution has its own, indirect impact on the environment. In addition to toxics, e-waste contains goodly amounts of silver,gold, and other valuable metals that are highly efficient conductors of electricity. In theory, recycling gold from old computer motherboards is far more efficient and less environmentally destructive than ripping it from the earth, often by surface-mining that imperils pristine rain forests.

As always, the European Union is ahead of us. They've implemented regulation to encourage green design and take-back programs while also requiring manufacturers to implement recycling. While some of their trash slips through the current safety net, they are at least aggressively confronting the problem. In the U.S. though, the epicenter of the largest consumer society on the planet, we do nothing. The Congress hasn't ratified the Basel Convention, calling for stronger recycling and manufacturing oversight. Instead, we've lined up with Haiti and Afganistan in dragging our feet. Kyoto Treaty anyone? The EPA is pondering a certification program for recyclers, a market-based solution. Typical Bush/Republican preference for minimizing corporate responsibility.

On the other hand, there is a bright spot, however small. A company in Tampa, Creative Recycling Solutions, has made a big bet on electronics recycling. Their multi-million dollar plant is one of only 3 plants in the U.S. that can recapture usable materials from our tossed out gear. Currently, his operation isn't cost-effective, only moral. But if the U.S. implements certification and if states and municipalities move toward tighter standards, he's well-positioned to succeed.

In case you're thinking that none of this is your problem -- what happens in Ghana and China, stays there -- think again. A chemist at the University of Ohio decided to test jewelry made in China to see what was in it. Lo and behold, he found ... lead, high levels of it. The chemical fingerprint also showed that the lead was mixed with metals that likely came from electronic trash. Hmmm. What goes around, comes around. Wondering what else is in all those made-in-somewhere-else toys and things you're buying that no one has looked for yet?

So, what's a person to do? Throw up your hands and face defeat? Become a Luddite? Nah. There are some things to do.

• Before you drop off your junk on e-recycling day, find out where its going to end up. Don't assume it will be reused or recycled.
• Don't give your stuff to charities like Goodwill or Disabled Veterans. Despite their good intentions, e-trash given to charities often ends up overseas.
• Lobby your municipality or company to get a contract with a recycler like Creative Recycling Systems. They work with any size organization.
• Stop and think about whether or not you need the next generation of gadget. If you decide you do, make a plan for disposing of your old one before you acquire the new one. When HDTV becomes the standard by 2009, an estimated 25 million TVs will be affected. You're likely to own one of them. Figure out how to dump that obsolete one now.
• Raise awareness. Let friends and colleagues know what really happens to their old cell phone, TVs and computers. Kids are dying and pollutants are getting back into our own consumer goods because we choose to ignore the burden our consumption creates.
• An election is coming, remember? National candidates need to be reminded of the need to ensure the EPA implements that certification system. Lobby legislators to ratify the Basel Ban, which calls for green design and take-back programs.
• And remember, local solutions can have an impact. Get your city government to implement tougher standards for local recyclers. It'd be a start and help out guys like Joe Yob at Creative Recycling.

Face it. The reality is that if we are going to get serious about our e-trash, the manufacturers aren't the only ones who'll pay. The cost will find its way back into our next computer or cell phone. But the consequences of ignoring the problem are increasingly grim.

I Have a Very Bad Feeling ...

South Carolina results are in. We took a whoopin'. There is just no way to dismiss these results as aberrant or a reflection of the black vote alone. I truly believe this is a message to Bill and Hillary that their hardball politics were repugnant to voters. When S.C. white voters line up behind Barack, you have to be willing to entertain the idea that he just might be able to mobilize white voters in the south and west.

We have a long way to go yet, but one thing is clear: Bill needs to get out of the way. He is suddenly making this contest about him, not about Hillary. I'm deeply concerned that she will not be able to stand on her own now, not because she doesn't know how, but because his messages overshadow her. It is also possible that the tactics of their well-oiled machine are no longer appropriate to this time and place.


I have been mighty pissed at Obama supporters over the last two weeks. Their insistence that he is the second coming borders on a faith-based ardor that some days scares the piss out of me. They are intolerant of any facts that fly in the face of the reality they have constructed. That is perilously close to the dynamic we've lived with for the last 7 years. I do not think that Obama is promoting this; I think it is a reflection of the youth that dominate his campaign.

I'm a pragmatist and have said I would support our nominee, regardless who that might be. Since I declared myself one week ago, the universe shifted. The MSM has decisively lined up behind the Obama campaign and defined the narrative. The increasingly subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Obama, that stirred up the spectre of racial divides, have been toxic beyond imagining. But the bad feeling I'm having isn't about Obama supporters or Obama himself, it's the feeling that I have that S.C. was the tipping point. Hillary just might be done.

When Personality Supercedes Winning

Not again. I'm getting exhausted. We grown-ups, you know, the ones who disproportionately vote, are gonna have to slug down a case of Geritol to win this one.

An excerpt from an interview clip I saw on Olbermann last night, an interview Obama did with the Christian Broadcast Network:

"I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

This is typical. I read a lot of liberal blogs, and almost without exception, the Obama supporters scream over and over again that "I'll vote for McCain or sit the election out if Hillary is the nominee." Can I be blunt? You are assholes. Childish, immature, pouting, short-sighted assholes.

Olbermann was pissed. Obama made no effort to speak to the need for unity behind whoever gets the nomination. Instead, he seems to be willing to risk being a spoiler by not mobilizing his supporters behind the eventual nominee. I can imagine his response to my criticism: All Democrats would support both of us but I can attract Independents and Republicans that Hillary cannot. He might be right. But the key point here is that he doesn't put a stake in the ground for Democratic unity. On the other hand, Hillary and Edwards both reiterate that the most important goal is to elect a Democrat.

Why do Hillary supporters commit to the party and the big picture -- the Supreme Court, health care reform, the environment and the Progressive agenda -- while Obama supporters commit to ....Obama? Can you say "cult of personality"?

Man, this is getting old, real old.

Holy Crap ...Urrr, Matrimony!

Just released. Is this good news for Democrats this year? No question that it is the right answer morally, at least from my perspective. But I can just imagine the distraction this will cause in the primary campaigns and later, the general election. The last damn thing we need is another 'values' election in which the Fundies gear up to defeat Democrats who are constantly being asked, "So, do you support gay marriage like Al Gore does?"

I applaud Al's courage but I'm thinkin' that this time, his judgment sucks.

Saint Barack — The Halo Slips

Did you watch that debate? Did you? [if you missed it, you can read a transcript or watch it here]. Am I the only one who was pissed at Saint Barack? You know, I’ve always been very attracted to the guy. It was agonizing trying to decide between him and Clinton. Monday night, I was glad I’d walked away from him.

As I watched the man whose supporters paint him as a latter day Martin Luther King, Jr., I sputtered, fumed and swore. (By the way, lest we forget, King accomplished great things, but he had clay feet). Obama insists that his campaign won’t sully itself with Realpolitick. He harps on the need for a new civility, a non-partisan mindset. It’s all about ‘inspiration’ and ‘transformation’. He attacks, then denies it. He doesn't take ownership of his own dirty tactics, like the Spanish language ad run on his behalf by the Culinary Workers that accused Hillary of not caring about Latinos. If someone calls him on his own distortions, he calls foul, and then whines that he’s mistreated. “Can’t we all just get along?” he pleads. Will someone make that mean Bill Clinton go away? Right. Welcome to politics with Big Boys and Girls Barry.

His arrogant, dismissive style, consisting of “listen, listen” or “look, look” as he lectures and shakes his finger, sends me into orbit. When he cannot find a cogent argument to defend his past actions, he just whines, “trust me, you know what a good person I am, you know I didn’t mean it, my words are being distorted”. Worse, the fucking media plays along, defending him as a poor victim of Clintonian dirty politics.

I watched the key sections of the controversial interview Obama gave to the editors of a conservative Reno newspaper. The newspaper whose endorsement he was fishing for. No one mentions that the paper’s agenda is a Republican one. This is the interview in which Barack just happens to extol the Republican party as the party of ideas, more ideas than even Bill Clinton had during his presidency. Clearly, Obama was trying to align himself with Republicans to win their support. He did, by the way. Yet these key facts are left out by his supporters when they defend him. The media has been utterly silent about the context.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with Obama's strategy to gain votes. I do object to his saintly protestations that we all misunderstood him and are trying to sully his precious attempt to ‘reach across the aisle’. When he is called out, which is what Hillary tried to do during the debate on Monday, he waxes into a lengthy professorial explanation of what he “really” meant. If we didn’t get it, then we must be stupid or bad people who aren’t playing nice. Again, I call bullshit.

And I’m really, really sick to death of Obama supporters who prance around the blogs, spoiling for a fight and accusing anyone who is beginning to see the guy’s flaws, as racists, against change, corporatists, or worse, purveyors of Rovian politics. We older Democrats are getting sick and tired of being accused of racism or cynicism when we point out Obama's flaws and the political realities that expose his weaknesses. Slam us enough and we'll vote for his opponents. I think that dynamic may be taking hold in recent primaries.

Obama is a politician, not a saint. His senate run was essentially unopposed due to problems within the Republican party at the time. He hasn’t been tested in the mud-wrestling environment of national politics. From what I can see, he can’t take the heat very well and he sure as hell can’t think on his feet or respond articulately when attacked spontaneously. He is great at teleprompter speeches but not-so-great when he has to react quickly. A campaign against the Republican machine will require quick responses from him, not just his bevy of strategists behind the scene. This was one of Kerry’s great flaws, he wasn’t a street fighter. Hillary, on the other hand, is. You may hate that reality, but it isn’t going to go away. The Republicans will not play nice just because Barack wants a kumbaya world. That's not cynicism. It's just what's so.

Beyond the campaign, many of the most critical presidential decisions are ones that have to be made in a split-second, when experience and an understanding of context count. There are times when you cannot ponder the options for days or weeks. I continue to worry that Obama’s skill at that is poorly developed. While he is a thoughtful man -- which is a strength -- it can also be a hindrance if you lack practice at making timely decisions about complex international situations.

If we are to have a fair examination of the candidates, not just what they believe but how successful they will be in a national campaign, then I think it is reasonable to evaluate their performance when attacked. It is also fair to identify when they are pandering to the Right to position themselves for votes. If Hillary panders she is accused of ‘triangulating’, as if she is conducting a ménage a trois. When Obama does it, he’s shaping a broader vision and building a consensus with Independents and lite Republicans. That’s utter crap. Let’s call it what it is: they are both trying to win an election, whatever it takes. Playing holier than thou feels way too similar to “God is on my side”, the rationale we’ve all endured for 7 interminable years.

She won??

It's getting hot. Very hot. More divisive than ever. My candidate 'won' the caucuses though perhaps not the delegate count. Things are still up in the air. Regardless, the reported voter alignment makes for interesting analysis.

Black and young voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Black voters seem to be moving rapidly behind 'their' candidate. And youth have consistently lined up behind him, a clear trend that solidifies with every state contest.

Latinos and women overwhelmingly supported Clinton. The fact that Latinos supported Clinton despite their union lining up behind her opposition, is a huge surprise. In an open caucus in which you publicly declare whether or not you are for the union's endorsement or against it, Latinos stood up to their union and voted their conscience. I think I feel good about that but it sure may portend a dilution of the two big service unions' political power. This is important because so many service workers are Latino/Hispanic. And that demographic is the largest growing one in the country.

Women may turn out to be a wild-card in this election. The pundits and polls consistently harp on how soft Hillary's support is, especially among educated women. But women over 60 just might trump that and determine the outcome, along with Latinos. Both groups vote in high numbers.

But there is another undercurrent here that is only beginning to be gingerly discussed. There is very bad blood between Hispanics and Blacks. In my personal experience, they hate one another. The real 'race issue' here might just be the chasm between our two largest non-white ethnic groups. California is ahead....a huge Hispanic enclave. Feb 5th, here we come.

And in case anyone is wondering, yet again the turnout was huge -- over 100,000. Democrats are energized and are not staying home.

This primary season is going to be so close that we may not have a clear nominee for months. Who would have thought that? Certainly, not me.

Competence Counts

At last I chose. I’ve vacillated for months. But today, I chose my candidate. Then I sent some money. This helped me decide:

“…I'm not alone in wishing for a nation run by someone [Hillary] whose desire for our well-being is passionate but whose actions on our behalf also exude bedrock competence, someone who lacks any flash whatsoever except the flash that keeps a person assiduously doing the hardest things in life. In New Hampshire and all across the country, many female voters seem to be thinking along the same lines.”

The NV debate pushed me in her direction and away from Obama as well. When asked about his greatest weakness, Obama confessed that he isn’t an operations guy, he can’t keep track of a paper for longer than 2 minutes. He does the ‘vision thing’. He is a ‘transformational leader’. He hires good people who do all that management stuff. He declared that it is not his job to run the government. Ding, ding! Been there, seen that (for the last 7 years).

I was about Obama’s age in the early ‘90s. I was as naïve, as ‘experienced’, as full of hubris as he is. I wanted to transform health care. I had a vision. I could articulate it. People lined up to follow me. I was an executive of a large organization hired specifically to be a ‘change agent’. I failed. Spectacularly.

Coincidentally, Hillary was trying to do the same thing. She failed too. We both learned some very hard, very public lessons: transformational change is seldom a fit for large organizations or government. If you attempt it, it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do and it requires constant, hands-on intervention by the top leadership. You are setting about changing mindsets, culture, systems, processes. Due to its scope, it rarely succeeds. To quote an old manaagement professor, 'the organization always pushes back and it almost always wins'. Given Obama's loose use of the term, it is clear he hasn’t tried it. Community organizing, passing bills in a state legislature aren't even remotedly the same. What's scary, is that he thinks he knows how to do it. His near-dismissal of anyone who challenges his belief, his denigration of those who have actually done the grueling work to create change, borders on arrogance. It is certainly naive. You can only get so far on charisma. The 'American People' won't do the work. Personally, I’m not anxious to let him use the presidency as his training wheels.

Here’s how political and institutional change really works: you use insider’s knowledge and accumulated chips to get things done (see the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War”). It is painstaking work. It is incredibly frustrating. It is slow. I hate it.

As an alternative, you could seize unilateral power to dictate solutions — I believe that is the model Dick and George like best. Think about that.

But if you want to make substantial change in government and policy, you must be willing to endure the almost soul-sucking battles fought on the inside. You do what Hillary has done: you slog through for years, learning how the wheels turn and who you want to be beholden to you. When the day comes, you call in your chips. That’s the political process. That’s what LBJ learned to do. He was masterful at it. All those civil rights we have today came from the work of experienced politicians who took risks, knew how to cut a deal and which buttons to press. Activists are necessary, but not sufficient. In a democracy, the political process has to seal the deal. I hate that reality. But that IS reality.

Like Hillary, I’m impatient. I want change faster than I’m gonna get it. I alienate people with my passion and my willingness to bust some balls (which is not very feminine of me, is it?). The organization, the society, the status quo always pushes back. So you damned well better have the fortitude to fight hard and not give up. She has proven her mettle for 35 years. You can dismiss that if you want to. But it deeply pisses me off that when you spend your life positioning yourself to get the big things done, the younger generation dismisses your experience, your wisdom, and opts for ‘change’. Pardon me, but they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. I was one of them once. I learned that the ideals of youth take the wisdom and experience of age to ‘make it work’. The challenge is to hold on to your ideals for 35 years. I have. Hillary has.

There is a third alternative: revolution. And some days, I crave that option. Some days, I think it might be the only way to save ourselves. But revolutions are not begun by politicians. If you want change without revolution then you’d better be looking to someone who can navigate the corridors of power. Who can play hardball while building political alliances. Someone who knows what levers to pull. The challenges facing this country are so huge, so complex, that nothing will be accomplished quickly. But if you are a novice, you’ll get nowhere singing kumbaya and giving great speeches. The largest accomplishments of our era were made by people who were insiders and over 40: FDR and LBJ. They had plenty of enemies and no illusions. JFK’s vision, while grand, only became reality through the work of a career politician, someone today’s generation would disdain.

If Barack and his minions, who are looking more and more like a cult of personality, want transformational change, then they should remain activists. We need them to stir the pot and build a large-scale movement for a specific agenda, not just ‘change’ and ‘non-partisanship’. Revolutions are painful. Obama and his troops will have to sacrifice, they will have to step into the streets, they will have to serve. But I do not believe they are ready to run a government, not based on their few, small-scale accomplishments.

Oh, and one last thing: Obama gave an interview yesterday in which he praised Ronald Reagan as a transformational leader and extolled Reagan’s skill at getting people to follow his vision. What’s wrong with this picture?

So, Hillary’s my candidate. She’s imperfect. Sometimes I want to thrash her. Sometimes she shows poor judgment. But I’m now prepared to fight for her, warts and all. And if she loses the quest for the nomination? I’m a Democrat. I’ll work my ass off for whoever we choose. And yes, that includes Obama.

Redeemed and Noble

Thrilled? Me? I've been living for this day...so, thrilled is a tame description of my emotional state. The Wingnuts are already out in force, attempting to denigrate the one Hero I have. Will they succeed? Your answer likely depends on how much faith you have in the average American's intelligence.

Not long ago, we undertook an exercise at my workplace. The assignment: name the one person we'd like most to meet and what we'd like to ask him/her. The choices included the usual suspects offered up by a typical crowd of zealous Fundies: Bush, Jesus, an assortment of Biblical icons. I chose Al. I titled it "My Hero" and wrote a short tribute. It was shunned by most, who do not think kindly of Progressives and their longings.

I admire Al more than any other public person. He suffered a horrid public humiliation when the Presidency was ripped from him...and us. And while he took time to tend his wounds, he resurfaced stronger for the experience. In his late 50s, he decided he had work to do, and would damn well do it. He reached into his kishkes to find the one passion that would sustain him: mobilizing others to save this fragile planet. His award today demonstrates what an individual can achieve if they can rise above their darkest hour, their most demoralizing defeat.

What next? A 2008 run? God, I've been fantasizing about this possibility for so long...and today, on the announcement of his prize, I reached the conclusion that it wasn't what I wanted him to do. While we need a President with his gravitas and intellect...national politics, regardless of the nation, is not where guys like Al make their biggest mark. His achievements over the last 6 years would not have been possible if he'd been inside the system. Any system. His strength is his ability to work outside and beyond political agendas. His is a moral and spiritual quest.

Al is a Global asset. I want him to hold everyone else accountable, to forge alliances that go beyond national boundaries, to stimulate innovation and allegiance to a cause bigger than America. His agenda to help save humanity from itself cannot afford to get bogged down in the bullshit of elections.

Don't run Al. We need you far too much to lose you to campaigning. Please. Lead us...all of us...to commit to whatever it takes to leave a healthy planet as your legacy and ours.

Women Who Run With The Wolves

Am I the only one who remembers this book? Surely not. When I first read it, more years ago than I willingly admit, I instantly identified with the parallel drawn between female wolves and Wild Women. No, I don't recall details -- I'm very bad with details -- but I do recall that I felt fierce, and strong, and primed to howl at the moon.

Like now.

The alpha female in a wolf pack is fiercely protective of her young, her pack. Seems to me it's the right blend of gentleness and ferociousness. Some prefer the elephant model, but the image just doesn't resonate.

Which takes me to Hillary. You know exactly who I mean. She's compassionate...and ferocious and is prepared to bare her teeth. Mostly, we don't like that. The 'we' of which I speak, is women, not men. I'm troubled at the vitriol slung at her by women, especially the well-educated and priviledged. While I'm deeply ambivalent about some of her policies and positions, the woman is prepared to kick ass any time, any place. Some would say she is too 'male'. Maybe. But I'm a pragmatist. The world I'd like to navigate through is not the one we have since GW Fuckup has diddled it for 6 years. I don't think isolation is the answer and neither is kumbaya -- the Kucinich solution. We tried that in 1939. Ooops.

Ken Burns reminds us of what may be required - toil, sacrifice, community, perhaps a "Village". What I do know is that age -- that other taboo as it applies to women -- teaches some of us lessons. Hillary is nothing, if not a quick study. My instincts tell me she's gotten wiser, more savvy, more pragmatic. Short of a revolution ...and that's not comin' people ... we need smart, pragmatic, compassionate, agile leadership that can 'hunt' if required. Maybe a wolf is just the thing.