The wolphin knows...

Is losing an option? Really?

Despite my annoyance with the youth vote clout, the ongoing elitist positioning, not to mention the disgusting anti-Hillary rhetoric the "free press" dished out like Grandma's mashed taters & gravy during the primaries, the least damaging outcome/future course for us in the US seems very clear....BO & company.

Yet, in spite of all the lunacy of the past 8 years, defeat seems possible....how is that possible?

Mr. McKay points to the ever-narrowing ownership of the mass media as the root cause; I certainly think it plays a role.

But are the Olbermann hijinks of MSNBC truly an antidote, or a further delegitimization of journalism? It's embarassing and damning for our future as a country! Yes, it is that serious!

I thought PBS might be the sensible alternative, but the old-school journalists (you know, the ones that sometimes bothered to have substantiated facts in place of their self-serving opinions as the basis of their reporting) are a dying breed everywhere!

Stop the madness -- cuz the madness means there's a real chance that our current administration will be our future administration.

I know it's easy to believe that the "facts" are self-evident, that reasonable people should recognize the seriousness of our current situation and act accordingly. Clearly, that ain't happening!

Any suggestions as to how to reverse the tide of poor journalism? Because politics will always be politics, and the 4th estate once stood as a balancing force against politics, but no longer. How's the blogosphere the answer? In it's current state, it simply is not. Objectivity isn't a high-falutin' ideal to be much admired but never pursued. But that's where we're at...isn't it?

John, how could you?

The Enquirer gets a new lease on "credibility" with their scoop on John Edwards....and herein we see the little bit of truth that sometimes eeks out of the darkest hole.

Is this man done forever? Well, for the sake of supporting his children, I hope he remains employable. Beyond that, geez, what an a**hole thing to do!

But then, in the land of president wannabees, marital infidelity is practically a calling card! What gives?

Yes, you can blame those boomers for making the personal political....so are we better or worse off for knowing about candidates' infidelity and/or judging our Chief Executive by how s/he treats those purportedly closest to him? Katie Couric asked the presidential contenders during the primaries, with interesting responses, and interesting comments from readers/viewers about their responses, including one that pointed out Bush has been faithful to his wife, but a dismal failure as President, ergo, not necessarily a good predictor.

I still think it matters because it is one barometer of personal integrity, which must be constantly tested when you hold the office of President; I would also say that how couples, presidential or otherwise, deal with the aftermath of infidelity is even more important than the initial affair.

Sigh...maybe people's concern with fidelity and other "integrity issues" highlights our desire to have a superhero in office. But superheroes are best left to myth; all of us are called to make super or heroic efforts in our own lives, with our own choices, rather than waiting for one person to save us from ourselves, our apathy, our indifference. Oh, and there are those two other branches of government to consider...one of which we can, in theory, affect.

Elites - what the folk really want but don't want to admit?

Soooooo.....the political marathon enters the final stretch. Are we all just a little fatigued? Fed up? Dismayed?

Some interesting developments...

Obama's "summer supporters" included a large contigent of college/university professors (the "educational sector") -- and I can hear the clamoring of "elitist, elitist" begin.

I would say that most presidential candidates in recent memory would be considered "elites," if by nothing more than their net worth. When the average is $4 million for House members and $11 million for Senators -- yeah, I'd call that elite.

But, in this telegenic and webgenic (is that a word?) era, elite is even more about image. The argument could be made that of course our President should be better than the average! But columnist Paul Krugman pointed out how this sensibility gets flipped in elections....people don't want to support those "that look down their noses at regular people," as Krugman noted in his op-ed.

I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest that people drop the rhetoric, anger, resentment, self-serving platitudes, etc. and "get real."

Obama can be quantified as an "elite" through his personal wealth (median U.S. household income of married families was $69,716, according to the US Census Bureau; Obama's 2006 networth estimated between $450K to $1.1M, according to OpenSecrets.org), authoring two published memoirs (before 50 years of age), and his being a U.S. Senator.

John McCain is also an "elite" by these definitions -- even more so, in strictly objective terms of money, being from a well-known Navy family, and being in the U.S. Senate for almost a quarter century. But McCain's case isn't all that interesting....his elitism (the little house gaff, for example) is pretty self-evident.

So in that sense of "elitism," the two major candidates are at least equal. But why does elitism bother us? Do we want an "ordinary Joe" in the White House? Or even someone that thinks like any "ordinary Jane"?

Why does the elitist tag stick to Obama? In one regard, I think it's a characteristic that he's actually proud of: he's spent a lifetime being an outsider in one way or another, and I guess most of us can relate to that "outsider" feeling at some point in our lives. The potential difference, that which makes some people rankle and say "elitist, elitist?" He's chosen to emphasize it -- how he turned that "otherness" to his advantage. Now will people buy it? Or resent it? Or perhaps a little of both?

I think this has a huge generational underpinning - the millennial voters that are being exalted as the answer to all our worldly woes, namely. The authors of Millennials Rising (ugh! what a name), Howe & Strauss, identified 7 major characteristics of this generation: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, achieving, pressured, conventional. That last bit is most interesting to me-- "conventional" - so how does that translate to a progressive "uprising"?

Nonetheless, Obama's narrative is something this generation is responsive to, compared to older generations, just as Hillary's narrative held greater sway with "women of a certain age" and what I would call old-timey Dems (union workers, blue collar). "Different" hasn't had the same negative connotations to millenials, nor has it been a synonym for "opposition" in their lifetimes. Different means innovative, but in a "safe" way (remember, millennials aren't particularly interested in a traditional "revolutionary" approach).

I guess I'm just staying true to my GenX self - cynical & disillusioned - or so the experts have pegged us ....but here's the deal. The eldest of the millennials are 26 years old -- and the "best and brightest" among them may just be starting to get a taste of life outside the comforting womb they've been in since their physical birth. I know I've said it before, but I don't particularly trust these young 'uns to solve the world's problems on their own. Where's the talk of them working with everyone else that's on the planet? Those who know the reality of mortgage, school loans, credit card debt, full time work & full time family, or those grandparents/great-grandparents watching their carefully-planned retirement/pension get eaten alive by the hyrdra of personal/corporate debt+medical expenses+stagflation.

Since Obama's tapped into this youth demo, I make another association of his purported elitism with the focus on the youth, to the exclusion of the rest of us that will be financing those kiddies' education, world travels, social benefits, etc. Add in the idiotic commentary by since-demoted "anchors" and others about "small-town" and "small-state" voters, as well as all those "die-hard Hillary supporters" that are "older, uneducated women (thanks Campbell Brown)" (TBO was shocked to find out he's a 60-something woman)...oh yes, I could go on and on.

This is where politicans must carefully navigate - between making their candidacy an emotional pitch (for better or worse, because you'll capture some and seriously alienate others) or a reasoned choice.
In reality, most of us mere mortals make our presidential picks (and lots of decisions) through a complex process entailing emotion, reason, altruism and self-interest. This could get interesting!

Yo, Barack

Hmmmm...interesting....Barack's official site requires you to register; you can skip it on Hillary's.

Why must I register to check your stuff out, Barack? Oh, I'm sure it's handy to track how you're reaching out via your web presence, but, anonymity is one of the useful features of the web...so get with it, dude!

Oh, wait -- one point of entry requires sign up, another does not...same website....tricky, tricky, tricky!