Leelila_Strogov's Blog

While Barack Obama made headlines as he flew over Iraq with General Petraeus, television images showed John McCain riding a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush. Now Obama is leading the headlines at the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal – all of which seem to collectively agree that the Iraqi government’s announcement that it would favor a plan to withdraw U.S. troops on a timetable similar to the one proposed by Obama (by the end of 2010) is a victory for the first-term Illinois senator. There’s no doubt that Obama’s reception in Iraq was less as a presidential candidate, and more as a visiting head of state, something the media is generally claiming has bolstered the first-term senator’s credibility as a player on the world stage rather than a man too young and inexperienced to be commander in chief. 

Although some have neglected to mention the precise circumstances of his visit, Obama is spending a week touring the Middle East and Europe as part of a congressional delegation that includes Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democratic Senator Jack Reed, both critics of the war. But since his visit comes at a time when U.S.-Iraq strategy has become so key in the presidential campaign, his trip is widely viewed as an attempt to convince voters that he has enough cultural clout to succeed in the Oval Office when it comes to keeping our country safe and improving our image abroad. 

Assuming this is indeed the intent, is Obama’s strategy working? Does this announcement along with Obama’s warm reception in Iraq convince you that he is the fresh thought-leader we need to reverse the damage America has incurred from the war on terror? Or does his visit elicit that “give me a break” response so many seem to have when it comes to the Obama halo?

Relationships between politicians and their constituents are not entirely unlike romantic courtship; there are stages that need to be overcome before a successful union can emerge. First there’s euphoric infatuation, then comes the power struggle (as you’re confronted with the fact that another person’s values and ideals are seldom identical to your own), and finally, with the right amount of compromise and understanding, the stage is set for acceptance. With both lovers and politicians, that means initially oohing and ahhing at everything they do, and then, after a bit of time and examination, challenging them to a series of tests and ultimatums that will ultimately determine if the match is a viable one. If all goes well, the couple ultimately negotiates on what concessions will be made, and what needs to simply and tenderly be accepted.

Whether left, right, or center, we seem to be going through our rocky phase with both McCain and Obama these days. Each are getting pounced on, not just from their opponents, but among their own supporters.

In recent weeks, McCain has left many Republicans unsettled about his ideological bearings by toggling between reliably conservative issues like support for gun owners’ rights and an emphasis on centrist messages like his desire to tackle global warming and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. There are also those pointing to a character deficit, demonstrated by his allegedly "ruthless" dealings with his first wife, Carol, twenty-five years ago. (He was apparently dating Cindy McCain while still living with his first wife who became disabled in an accident, and even applied for a marriage license in preparation for his new wedding before his divorce had been finalized.) Once packaged as a selfless, courageous war hero with conservative ideals, McCain is now being accused of being selfish, immoral, calculating, and worst of all, improperly fit for his conservative suit.

Despite Obama’s exquisitely delivered messages and rock star status (he did beat the invincible Clinton and is planning to accept his party’s nomination in a 76,000 seat football stadium), he appears to be getting the brunt of it, charged by his disgruntled own of rushing to the center with such reckless abandon it’s enough to produce “whiplash,” doing a near about face when it comes to such issues as security wiretapping, gun control, the death penalty, campaign finance, and Iran and Iraq. In response, Obama just published an op-ed in the NY Times delineating his 2-year plan for troop withdrawals in Iraq, rebutting the notion that he has ever modified his position at all: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html
?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

In the meantime, Newsweek reports Obama’s hurting -- losing some serious ground that’s brought his lead against McCain down to just 3 points (44-41), within the margin of error, and a far cry from the 15 point lead they’d attributed to the Chicago senator just 3 weeks ago.

So what are your gripes when it comes to this phase of the presidential mating game, and where do you think your heart and this election are ultimately headed? 

A fascinating new Swedish study has shed some light on the possible correlation between the architecture of our brains and our sexual orientation. Detailed analysis of the brains of 90 people -- both gay and straight -- found that gay men have brains with architecture strikingly similar to that of straight women. Lesbians' brains, on the other hand, are similar to those of straight men. In the study, that used both MRI and PET scans of the subjects' brains, researchers found that straight women and gay men both have highly symmetrical brains, with equal-sized right and left hemispheres. In straight men and gay women, however, the right hemisphere is significantly larger than the left. 

The scans also found intriguing differences in the amygdala, the section of the brain that apparently makes connections between stored information and emotional reactions. In straight women and gay men, the amygdala is rich in connections that allow for sophisticated interplay of thoughts and feelings. In straight men and lesbians, though, the amygdala shows more "fight or flight" responses. "It's a more action-related response," one of the study's authors explained.

Researchers believe the brain differences originate in the womb during pregnancy. Their theory... that exposure to male hormones "masculanizes" the brain, and that when the levels of these hormones are unusually low during the gestation of a boy and high during that of a girl, the child's sexual orientation becomes gay. 

I found this study to be so interesting not only because of the light it may shed on gayness, but on straightness too! I didn't know the differences between the way straight men and women process information and emotions was that stark and biological in nature, but I guess maybe they are... though we are, of course, so much greater than the sum of our biologies...

So what's your reaction to all this? Does this new study confirm or challenge your belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" or an inborn characteristic? And does it either solidify or change the way you view the whole idea of gay marriage, something many will be thinking about with the upcoming November ballot measure that could ban same-sex marriage in California?

Finally, do you think this study sheds any light on some of your own relationships with people of the opposite sex? 

I have always loved to drive. From the driver’s seat, life always seemed like a clear set of uncomplicated decisions: head straight towards the beach, make a left at the light, go three blocks past the railway station. In the late night or early morning, there’s also something especially comforting about the road. Sound, temperature, and color – even the air from a cracked window – take on a certain sumptuousness. Even in traffic, I tend to have fun wondering exactly where those people with eighthundredmillion bumper stickers and painted flames on their cars might be off to. In the car I suddenly notice everything: the sun setting, the blues and oranges of the sky mixing into black, windows in the distance lighting up along the hillside, the guy on the corner with a cigarette in his mouth and a ring of keys the size of a donut on his belt. And as such, the inside of a car has always seemed to me to be the perfect place from which to consider myself and others, come up with a theory about who I am amidst the vast universe surrounding me, and have it all set to music courtesy of my radio, CD and iPod.

That said, enjoying something and being good at it are two entirely different things. And a good driver I have never been. I’m not sure if it’s bad hand-eye coordination, depth perception, peripheral vision, or what. But in my teens I totaled the two cars my parents gave me, and since then, I’ve pretty consistently had several accidents a year. So I’m finally doing what I probably should have done a long time ago: I’m taking driving lessons.

Paul, my driving teacher, is a hard-nosed pragmatist who I sometimes accuse of lacking even one ounce of testosterone (he’s so insanely critical of a heavy foot on the gas pedal you honestly have to wonder). But I have to admit I’m learning a ton from the guy, and not just when it comes to the plain old mechanics of safe, defensive driving, either. He’s one of a group of people known as “hypermilers” who engage in a method of strategic driving that’s based on… maximizing a car’s gas mileage. It was started by some truck drivers a few years ago who were trying to save money, and seems pretty relevant with today’s crazy prices at the pump, whether you’re trying to economize, be greener, or reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil. With a few techniques he’s mastered, Paul manages to get between 40 and 70 mpg in regular old cars!

Perfecting hypermiling requires some dedication, but here are a few of the more basic tips I've learned:

Slow down – Efficiency peaks at 55 mph. On average, you can assume that every 5 miles an hour you drive over 55 is like paying an additional 30 cents per gallon for gas.

Accelerate gently – You waste a lot of gas (okay, I waste a lot of gas) gunning the engine at those red lights. Where’s the fire, anyway?

Cruise control (or just cut out the jack-rabbit driving) – Keeping a steady speed on the freeway can save about 35% on fuel consumption.

Coast instead of braking – When you see a stop sign or a yellow light ahead take your foot off the gas and let your car slow down by itself. If you wait until the last possible minute to brake, you’re wasting all the gas you used when you could have been slowing down.

So I’m curious to hear about whether or not you guys knew about hypermiling and whether or not it’s something you would try? And if you already have tried it, I’d love to hear your experiences. What are your reasons for doing it, and what are some of the tricks that seem to work?

Finally, do you love driving as much as I do, and if so, why?

When JFK uttered that famous 1961 line in his inaugural address about not asking what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country, nobody rolled their eyes. Despite capturing just two-tenths of a percent more of the popular vote than Nixon, JFK understood that he had the mandate to assume a certain level of authority over other people’s lives. He also understood that deep down, people almost always like the way a real leader makes them feel: How we find ourselves working harder and pushing ourselves and thinking in ways we wouldn’t be able to if there weren’t this person around who we respected and believed in and wanted to please. In other words, he understood that a leader is someone who can help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.   

Today, it seems safe to say that we’re in pretty dire need of some solid presidential leadership. We’ve got a jigsaw puzzle of a war to solve, a flailing economy and a broken healthcare system. Our public schools are failing. And there’s a heated national debate over what’s less humane: exploiting or deporting our illegal immigrants. Then there’s the energy crisis which in many ways serves as the backdrop of our personal and professional lives, as well as the underpinning of so many of the other major issues on the presidential discussion table (i.e. the economy, the war, global warming, etc.). The bottom line numbers look like this: We Americans use over 20 million barrels of oil a day. We produce the equivalent of 8 million barrels, and are forced to import another 12 million. Since our nation’s policy is to use corn in the production of ethanol (a horribly inefficient means), we’re negatively impacting our, and the world’s, food supply, when we use this option to replace some of our imported energy. Every acre of corn for ethanol is an acre unavailable for soybeans or wheat, whose prices then also rise – a ripple effect that impacts everything from meat to milk and soft drinks. And our cultural susceptibility to the charms of materialism doesn’t seem to be waning: our incessant telephoning, e-mailing and texting, long hours on the road, and steadfast devotion to the flickering tube, all show no signs of dimming. 

To fill our insatiable need for energy, we’re relying on an ever more dubious cast of characters—funneling billions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela—that are at best unfriendly and in some cases, actively anti-American. And as China and India compete with us for these finite resources, the prices are… well, you’re living it… going through the roof. Complicating the issue is the notion that if we sit around for much longer and let the process get hijacked by vested interests, there may not be enough crude left to go around to fuel another try. Consider that even if we distilled our entire corn crop into ethanol, the fuel produced would displace less than a sixth of the gasoline we currently guzzle. The outlook for hydrogen looks even worse. In truth, any shift to alternatives or better efficiency will take years and perhaps decades to implement. The U.S. car fleet, for example, turns over at a rate of just eight percent a year. That’s as fast as consumers can afford to buy new cars and manufacturers can afford to make them. This means that between the time it would take to get manufacturers to retrain workers, and design and retool cars, and the time it would take to get consumers into an entirely green fleet, we’re looking at upwards of fifteen years. Whoa. 

Our next president is obviously going to have to engage in a great feat of intellectual gymnastics, as well as serious leadership, to devise our short and long-term energy strategy, balancing the urgency and enormity of the task at hand with their own political agendas (not to mention the extraordinary pressures he’ll face from powerful interests). He’ll also have to administer some serious tough love when it comes to shocking us out of our complacency and dictating new energy habits for both American companies and consumers. 

So my questions are as follows: Is addressing the energy crisis at the top of your list when you think about how to cast your ballot in November? What are the most important issues for you when it comes to this election? And which, if any, of the presidential candidates do you think possesses the intellectual horsepower and leadership ability our country needs? Finally, what individual sacrifices do you think our next president should be asking of you?

There's no doubt about it, Hillary Clinton won a decisive victory over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania. But let's make sure we keep things in context: she didn't score a knockout. Her best chance of vying for the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so overwhelmingly to cause a conflagration of doubt over Obama's electability--one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she might not be an infinitely stronger candidate to battle McCain in November. But her numbers in Pennsylvania have declined in the last few weeks; in the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Wright, Clinton was ahead by as much as 20 percent in polls. By contrast, her victory last night reflected a lead of 9.4 percent.

Obama, of course, cut into Clinton's lead by outspending her two-to-one on advertisements. But Clinton seriously impaired her own chances by going negative on Obama during the April 16th debate--and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. It's hard to know for sure, but the polls seem to show that these tactics cost her, especially among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as bar brawls.

And so Clinton struggles to remain relevant in the Democratic race. She's still hanging on, waiting for a miracle--whether a huge gaffe on Obama's part, or some sudden halo-inducing episode of her own. For now, undecided superdelegates seem unlikely to ignore Obama's advantage and risk a massive and bloody civil war among Democratic voters.

But Pennsylvania wasn't just about Hillary and Obama. The specter of McCain loomed large as issues about Obama's overall electability were called into question. While Obama was able to curtail Clinton's advantage, he couldn't erase it. And even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost the greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. And, he did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. He also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland and Virginia. Some pundits are saying Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate are growing more obvious with each successive primary; that his suspect associations--whether with Reverand Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko--may have tarnished his image, and ultimately undermine his ability to attract middle class Republicans and Independents.

So, what are your thoughts about the candidates' chances now that Pennsylvania has spoken? Do you think Clinton has any chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead and capturing the nomination, or do you think Obama's pretty much got it locked up? Finally, do you think either Democrat stands a chance of rising to the challenge of beating McCain come November?

 

Money is one of those things we’re not supposed to talk about. It’s often considered in poor taste; a habit attributed to people who don’t know any better. How much we make, how much we spend, how much we have saved… those questions tend to be intrusive ones that we address only among those we’re closest to. I have never been one to keep to those rules. If you ask me how much money I make, I’ll tell you. If you ask me how much I paid for my home or my car or my shoes, I’ll tell you that too. If you ask me how much money I have saved… I’ll probably also tell you unless I think you might be trying to con me out of it. I tend to talk about the money I’ve made, and lost, with relative ease. Sometimes I want to share my excitement or disappointment (kind of the way you would at a Vegas roulette table), and other times I want to court the advice of someone I respect (I tend to be very good with money in some ways and absolutely clueless in others). I often wonder why my impulses are so skewed in this regard, and my conclusion is that beyond a certain point, money is simply not all that important to me. I grew up with parents who were alternately poor and well off; first among children whose parents could often be seen with food stamps, and later with kids who had summer homes in the Hamptons and French Alps. And I guess I finally came to the conclusion that people are people whatever they may have. So unlike many I know, I consider money to be nothing more than currency for goods and services. It isn’t a true measure of success for me (excellence is, not earning power… and I think the two aren't necessarily congruous), and having more rather than less of it is not something I find impressive. As a result, it’s not something I’m particularly secretive about. On the flip side, the effect of my attitude on people who are otherwise very shy about their finances tends to be that they feel pretty open with me. They know from my history that I value people far more for their ability to charm and thrill than I do for their wallets! Which brings me to Michael…

Michael is a smart, down-to-earth 31 year-old New Yorker who called me recently in a near panic. He’s about to inherit a large sum of money. So large it makes him downright nervous. Until now, he’s done just fine for himself and likes his life the way it is. He has a job he finds satisfying. His friends are close and true. His girlfriend loves him for all the right reasons. Now about to experience a $70 million windfall, he’s worried about how his life, his ambitions, and most importantly, the social sincerity of those around him, might change. So, after weeks of agonizing, he’s decided to do something unusual. He’s giving it away. All of it. Before he even has a chance to touch it. The big question is how to do it in a manner that is both meaningful and effective. While I’m no expert in this regard, I’m trying to help him figure it all out. And as I do, I figured I’d open it up to you guys to weigh in on too. A few parameters to keep in mind:

1) He wants to give it all away in 10 years.

2) He wants to give it away in the United States only – no overseas donations.

3) He doesn’t want to give any money to schools. He thinks that’s the government’s job.

4) He doesn’t want to give anything less than $1 million at a time – so no small grants.

On a specific note, how do you think this money would best be donated?

On a more general note, how would you characterize your relationship with money? Is it important, and if so, in what ways? Do you think that you are often assessed by your financial picture, and if so, how does that make you feel? Finally, does the amount of money someone else has effect how you view them?

The world as we know it is going to come to an end. This much is certain. The relevant questions are how and when. The current hypothesis is that Doomsday will occur no later than 2 billion years from now, when the sun expands, boils off the oceans, and turns our green planet into a small floating ash brick. But if we're far less lucky, the end may come as soon as August, when a black hole created by scientists in an underground tunnel across France and Switzerland, swallows, you, me, and all 6.6 billion souls on this fine earth in one big gulp. A guy named Walter F. Wagner from Hawaii contends that this is a real possibility, and has filed a federal lawsuit seeking a stop-work order on the Large Hadron Collider, a mammoth atom-smasher that a collective of about seven thousand physicists from eighty countries are about to fire up. The goal: to form briefly-lived new particles that will hopefully shed light on such notions as dark matter, string theory, gravity and ultimately, the origins of the universe. But the new supercollider, Wagner warns, will hurl atoms together with unprecedented energy, causing an "irreversible implosion" and "forming a miniature version of a gigantic black hole." Several holes, he says, may be created at once, and as they fuse, they'll swallow all matter in their vicinity, and soon, the entire earth.

Oh please, say the particle physicists who run the collider. They've already run the equations, and any microblack holes they might create would vanish in a nanosecond. Maybe so. But scientists have been known to be wrong. So I ask you this: What would you do differently if you knew the end was near? Quit your job? Ride a motorcycle cross-country? Be relieved the Democratic presidential campaign is finally over? Tell that woman you’ve been snubbing for the past year that she just might be the love of your life? Tell me…

The latest USA Today / Gallup survey asks voters, among other questions, whether or not candidates are “honest and trustworthy.” McCain pulled ahead of the pack with 67% answering in the affirmative, Obama came in slightly behind him at 63% and Clinton was at the bottom of the pack with a paltry 44% answering the question in her favor.

Dick Morris (former political advisor to President Bill Clinton) says that “Hillary simply cannot tell the truth.” The examples he offers up are as follows:

Admitted Lies

-Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

-Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

-She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

-She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

-She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

-She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

-Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

-She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

-She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

-She opposed NAFTA at the time.

-She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

-She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

-She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

-The billing records showed up on their own.

-She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

-She was always a Yankees fan.

-She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

-She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

I personally like the idea of having a woman in the highest office in this country. But I also think it's supremely important that the President of the United States have a healthy relationship with the truth. 

Is Hillary toast?

 

So the former President has made another comment ripe for inquiry and interpretation.  After waxing poetic about the friendship his wife and Senator McCain apparently share, and then musing about a potential general election fight between them, he had this to say (to a group comprised mainly of veterans) during a visit in Charlotte, North Carolina:

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

Considering the timing of this remark—in the midst of Barack Obama’s attempt to sufficiently disassociate himself from his seemingly unpatriotic pastor—Bill’s comments strike some as a low blow meant to try to throw Obama, yet again, under the Democratic bus. But Bill’s spokesperson said no no no, these people have it all wrong, and explained it like this:

“Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate’s patriotism. He was lamenting that these kind of distractions ‘always seem to intrude’ on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism of the ‘politics of personal destruction’ which dates back 16 years.”

So here go my questions (and my apologies in advance for asking so many… I’m in a curious and unrestrained mood at the moment during which my typing is trying desperately to keep up!):

-How do you interpret Bill Clinton’s remarks? Do they cause either Bill or Hillary Clinton to lose credibility or affection in your eyes?

-Now that the dust has settled some on Obama’s Pennsylvania speech, do you think he was able to adequately answer the questions posed to him about his connection to Wright’s rhetorical excesses, or has he lost the support and/or respect you afforded him prior? (Or did the speech merely serve to confirm your feelings about Obama’s character, whether positive or negative?)

-Do you think the current Democratic stalemate—and ensuing bitterness between Clinton and Obama—is ultimately going to be destructive to the Democratic Party as a whole, and beneficial to McCain in the general election?

One last thing… Just as an FYI, I’ve decided not to vote in this general election. I heard an interview with General Patraeus recently during which he said he doesn’t vote because he thinks it’s important to his job function that he remain as neutral as he can. When I heard that, I thought it made a lot of sense… This is the first presidential election during which I’m working as a journalist; I think that knowing I’m not voting is going to allow me to feel as agenda-free as possible. So rest easy knowing I’m all ears… not mouth… 

There’s a word that’s being thrown around a lot in this whole Spitzer debacle: Schadenfreude. The word is of German derivation (schaden = damage, freude = joy), and literally means the enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others. It’s an uncommon word for what, unfortunately, describes a pretty common emotion. When it comes to the popularity of everything from Monica-gate to Britney Spears’ failings, we as a society love to watch and make fun of and revel in the painful moments that the publicly successful occasionally have to… well… publicly endure. In Eliot Spitzer’s case the rewards are particularly sweet because of the haughty and self-righteous carriage with which he glided through his political life. That said, I’m determined not to yield to the temptations of Schadenfreude. Yes, what Eliot did was plainly stupid… Yes, he engaged in a complete lapse of judgment… Yes, his actions will even be deemed by some as supremely pathetic. But he’s a fellow human being. And how many of us can say we aren’t guilty of ever lying, or being hypocritical, or even being downright arrogant about something we really had no right to be arrogant about? And how many of us can also say that there is not a moment in our history (and perhaps even quite a few), that if singled out, circled, and zoomed in upon, would not make for one moronic, ridiculous and even pathetic, image.

So for Eliot’s sake, and for the sake of sincerity, and yes… even for the less noble sake of protecting my own karmic well being, this is the message I’d like to send out to the guy:

---------------

The game isn’t over till you’re dead. This is the land of opportunity, redemption and transformation. Get some good psychiatric help and do as you’re told. Stay with your wife if you’re in love with her, leave if you’re not. If she leaves you, accept it as your fate, move on, and make your alimony and child support payments on time. (Then find someone you adore who loves you as you are--after your psychiatrist has given you the thumbs up, but while you’re still down in the public eye--and marry her fast.) Be a good husband. Be a great father. Become active in a charity you're passionate about. Tour the college circuit and give speeches on opportunity, redemption, transformation, and the rewards of acquired humility and wisdom. Be sincere. Write a book. When you’re done, join one of the television news networks as a political commentator. You’ll be just fine.

---------------

Feel free to take this opportunity to write your own message to Mr. Spitzer. No pressure from me to be kind, either. Not all of us live in glass houses… And chances are, the less kind you are, the more entertained I’ll be, anyway… ;-)

First, I want to apologize for disappearing for so long (or at least so uncharacteristically long for me). My maternal grandfather, to whom I was very close, passed away just over three weeks ago, which put me in a bit of an odd place for a while. I have this tendency, when I’m going through something emotionally new or strange (whether good or bad), to kind of shut down and go silent. As someone who is a generally decent enough communicator, this is something I’ve never quite understood about my own emotional make-up. But it is who I am; I can’t really talk much about things I don’t understand just after they’ve happened. Now, three weeks later, I’m finally starting to come unwound, accept my grandfather’s passing as well as its circumstances (which I’ll get to later), and maybe best of all, find some solace in the many memories with which he’s left me.

A little bit about my grandfather and what made him so inimitable and endearing to me: For better or worse, he was the black sheep of the family. While he didn’t live with us, after my grandmother died, he spent an awful lot of time with me and my family while I was growing up; he was sort of a Kramer-like presence in our home. And at a time when my parents were trying to raise me as an educated, disciplined, and poised young lady, he always seemed to be doing or saying something they deemed misguided and a bad influence. For a while when I was in junior high school, for example, he took charge of driving me to school. But often, if I wasn’t much in the mood for school, we’d end up somewhere else entirely – either at a park, a local diner, or the best – a movie theater – going from one film to the next for the entire day, with popcorn and Jordan Almonds serving as lunch. My parents caught onto this when they demanded an explanation from me after being handed a stack of “sick notes” in my grandfather’s handwriting at a parent-teacher conference. Another time, my grandfather told me that all people worth knowing have an affinity for three things: coffee, scotch and cigars. So at the tender age of twelve, Grandpa Jacque began my character-building: he would feed me a swig of black coffee in the morning before holding out my backpack behind me like a gentleman holds out a ladies’ coat, and began to teach me to distinguish between different blended and single malt scotches and Dominican versus Cuban cigars – this on select afternoons at the kitchen table with a pageant of text books spread out for when my parents arrived home from work. (In fairness to my grandfather, he really did only let me have a few tablespoons of scotch at a time, and a puff or two of his cigars.) In one of his most notorious displays of intransigence, he pondered out loud while eating my mother’s beef stew, that not all of the Ten Commandments struck him as particularly sensible: “I mean coveting your neighbor’s wife?” he said one day. “Okay, it isn’t the most prudent thing in the world to do. But just thinking about it doesn’t mean you’re going to do anything about it. To devote a whole commandment to it?” That one got him kicked out of my parents’ house that night… and got me the evil eye from my mom when I told her that her reaction wasn’t exactly in keeping with Honor Thy Father and Mother.

When I look back now on my childhood, despite my parents’ constant consternation, I realize the gifts my grandfather gave me: permission to be fallible and human, and sometimes even naughty, in the confines of what was otherwise a very strict upbringing; and the notion that having fun is sometime a lot more important than getting ahead. While I was being driven through dawns and dusks to spelling bees and violin recitals and gymnastics competitions, it was my grandfather who would whisper in my ear that I should remember to always do things out of love, not obligation; that the most knowledgeable, hard-working, and disciplined people in the world, without passion, were often the most tedious to be around; and that people too obsessed with winning seldom won people’s hearts. I later found he was pretty much right about all these things.

 

The end of my grandfather’s life, though, was the real clincher, and pretty much in keeping with its thru line. At 84, of perfectly sound mind, but with a failing body, he took 150 sleeping pills, and called it a night – his last night. The note he left said this: Don’t be upset. I had a great time while I was here. But it’s time to go. Life just isn’t fun anymore when a pretty Yugoslavian woman has to help you to the bathroom. I’m sad, but I understand what he did. There’s something to be said for coming and going on your own terms, and without apology. So just in case he’s out there somewhere and can hear me, this is what I’ve got to say in response: Don’t worry. You aren’t really gone. A piece of you lives on in me.

 

More than 14.6 million Democrats went to the polls on Tuesday, compared to only 9 million Republicans. Ask anyone reasonable why, and they'll tell you -- there's an obvious and sizable enthusiasm gap between both parties. Where it seems Democrats would be happy to have either Clinton or Obama sew up the Democratic nomination no matter who they're individually supporting right now, there is already some serious grumbling from the GOP about McCain not being nearly conservative enough, if at all. Ann Coulter went so far as to call him “an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation ‘Republican’” whom she claims is likely to drive her right into Hillary’s arms. Whoa...

So, what do you make of all this? Do you think McCain has some serious worrying to do in light of these numbers, or do you think once the general election rolls around that the playing field will start to equalize? Also, do you think this next election is a slam-dunk for either the Democrats or the Republicans and/or do you think only one or the other of Hillary or Obama stands a chance against the maverick 71 year-old come-back kid? And ultimately, what remains the most important issue to you when it comes to your vote? The economy, national security, the war in Iraq, healthcare, securing our borders? Finally, do you find this election exhilarating… depressing… or something else entirely?

So, it’s official. The 71 year-old comeback kid is truly back. Rudy’s strategy worked – just not for Rudy. Remember the New York mayor’s plan? To win the GOP nomination despite being out of step with social conservatives by counting on Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson to split the conservative vote in the early states, eliminating the possibility of a momentum candidate, thus allowing Giuliani to win Florida and go into Super-Tuesday with the winning game close to his pocket. But, the scenario still required that he compete in the early states, even if he didn’t win them over, in order not to fade into the recesses of people’s minds. John McCain lacked Giuliani’s fundraising machine and campaign experts, but he strode bravely into the fight, anyway – a fitting strategy for a war hero and famously “maverick” senator. And it worked.

Romney’s people are right to point out that they haven't lost the war yet, and that next Tuesday’s balloting is the real test, not Florida’s. But let’s be honest with ourselves, McCain has already taken on an air of inevitability not yet felt in this campaign.

So how do you feel about Florida’s results, and how do you feel about McCain? Do you think he’s not only capable, but fit, to take on the politically battle-tested, thick-skinned Clinton(s)? Do his age and health worry you at all? And do you think the bitterness of the Democratic contest now has the potential to help the Republican cause, and ultimately McCain more than any other Republican candidate? Are you more inclined to vote for a party this time around, or are you waiting to see who the final faces are behind the banners? (i.e. Do you feel strongly that we absolutely need either a Democrat or a Republican in the White House no matter who they may be, or could you swing either way depending on the candidate?) And finally, are you convinced that McCain and Hillary will be the chosen contenders, or do you think that in politics, as in Hollywood, the night is still too young?

A penny for your thoughts…

It's the latest moniker for the duo throughout cyberspace. And let's face it -- just a month ago, it would have been considered an obvious and undeniable fact of Hillary’s presidential campaign: Bill was among the greatest assets in her war chest. The former president might as well have been a walking magnet when it came to attracting Democratic voters. All he’d have to do was show up, and in would follow a roomful of voters, readily transformed into Hillary fans with one subtle encounter of that invisible electric current known as Bill Clinton.

But… this is Election 2008 where the only constant appears to be change. And considering the exit-poll data from Saturday's voting in South Carolina, where Obama’s numbers doubled those of Hillary’s, it seems like things are changing fast. When asked to rate the importance of Bill Clinton's campaigning as a factor in their voting decisions, 58% said that the former president's campaign efforts were important. But these voters also said – surprise! – that they voted for Obama, 48% to 37%. So it seems like the gusto (or disgusto, depending on how you look at it) with which he campaigned, turned off at least a few former in-the-bag voters. He then pushed the envelope even further on Saturday evening, after it was clear Obama was the night’s victor, by making that ever-tactful remark that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88.” It was a comment that many read as an underhanded attempt to label Obama as the mere “black guy” among the presidential contenders. The sting was that much worse coming from a man who, during his presidency, so thoroughly embraced the African-American community, and vice versa.

What followed was a lot of hand-wringing from all corners of government and the press, along with the swift and vigorous movement of two high-powered Democrats into the Obama camp: Caroline Kennedy, who compared Obama’s ability to inspire to that of her father, JFK; and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, allegedly completely deaf to the vehement pleas and protestations of Bill himself.

But for all the brouhaha, the biggest and least containable question to emerge from the Clinton-Obama escapades this past week seems to be whether or not Bill is fit for the position of "first laddie." Is it reasonable to expect someone with his lack of restraint and comfort in the DC political landscape, to be even remotely capable of taking a hands-off approach when it came to his wife’s job? Or would we be looking at something closer to a co-presidency? And if so… would this scenario be welcome, or deeply troublesome and rife with conflicts-of-interest? Curious to know what you guys think…

Finally, do you think this is an issue Obama should or will address in the days ahead? Right now, polling shows he’s trailing Hillary in most of the critical February 5th states. If he decides to pop that big question, it would make for a very bold – and dicey – move. But he just may determine that he’s got more to win than lose by testing the legs of the Clinton table with such heavy baggage…