Leelila_Strogov's Blog

If there’s one thing I’ve come to find pretty reliable in news and in life, it’s that people are seldom logical, clear-of-vision or even particularly consistent. A woman who overpays the IRS may steal lipstick from her mother’s purse; managers who support the noblest of charitable causes may mistreat their own employees; a grown male teacher who is utterly sincere about keeping his 15 year old daughter safe and protected may simultaneously be inappropriately eyeing his own 15 year old female students; and otherwise moderate, and even successful people, will gorge, gamble or drink themselves into oblivion. We humans are a pretty confused and confusing lot.

But once in a while you stumble upon someone who goes a bit beyond the realm of those normal irregularities of human texture. Someone apparently sane suddenly exhibits such a massive failure of judgment and reasoning that you have to wonder about the integrity of their whole eye/brain/spinal-chord assembly. I’m thinking Nixon during Watergate or the sweet mother of ten years who suddenly drowns her kids in a bathtub. And frankly, I’m starting to wonder if John Edwards is treading very far from such territory. 

I mean, okay, so the guy cheated on his wife. A wife, at least according to his political narrative, that he was supposedly immensely devoted to. A wife sick with cancer, and who, it’s looking more and more likely (despite his protestations to the contrary), had relapsed and found out she was terminally ill while he was misbehaving. In fact, according to the newly credible Enquirer, who is sticking to its original story, while Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter may indeed have temporarily ended in 2006 like he claims, it was rekindled shortly thereafter, leading to a daughter with whom he visited at least three times since her birth. I’ll admit, it doesn’t look great on paper. But if we’re going to be grown-ups about the whole thing, we’ve got to face that there’s nothing particularly jaw-dropping about the scenario: A high-powered ambulance chaser finally gets his chance on the campaign trail. He’s getting to sleep in the wee hours of the morning and waking to cantaloupe-colored sunrises. Living between suitcases and a private jet. High on exhaustion and dreams of victory. And here, this new age sweetheart who thinks his every waking moment, his every smile, is worth capturing on film, is bringing him coffee, mussing up his hair, talking to him about the power of his aura and the greatness for which he’s destined. Overtaken by desire, a child is conceived. At 54, High Powered Attorney is reassured his boys can still swim. And with the odds of naturally conceiving at 43 looming at a mere 3%, New Age Mistress is convinced this represents nothing less than the supremacy of fate. It isn't hard to fathom. We all have our vulnerabilities.

So no… it isn’t the possibility of all this that makes me wonder about Edwards. What’s so intriguing to me about the evolving saga are not the bare naked facts, or the timing, or even the likely fruit of such a transgression, but rather the circuit-blowing complexity Edwards appears to have gone through in order to save a political career that was not only doomed because of precisely these machinations, but that would have doomed the chances of his entire party had he managed to work his way onto the Democratic ticket, whether as a front-runner or VP. In light of this, we’re looking at a potentially lethal combination of selfishness, narcissism, and utter stupidity.

I mean, did Edwards really think he could eternally sustain a political career while avoiding the exposure of an affair that took place while he was campaigning? And in trying to mop up his mess, did he truly think, as a public figure, that no one would question campaign aide Andrew Young’s claim to the paternity of Rielle Hunter’s child despite the fact that a) Young appears to have a criminal history, b) no one has come forward to corroborate any romantic relationship between Young and Hunter, c) Young is not listed on the birth certificate as the father, d) even Young’s mother says she isn't buying the story, and e) Hunter herself, after publicly stating Young is the father of her child, then invokes a sudden demand for privacy in refusing a paternity test? Did Edwards think his I-will-have-nothing-more-to-say statement would put a cap on all the inquiry? That his on-camera interview would feed the mainstream media to satiation? That he could traipse around Washington avoiding questions about the thousands upon thousands of dollars that had been funneled Rielle Hunter’s way, or dodge any scrutiny into the financial help she and Young received from Fred Baron, Edwards’ longtime chief fundraiser, to move them both across the country? I don’t know how Edwards’ mind works, but I certainly wouldn’t want him to be my president or vice president or attorney general or regular attorney or even friend, frankly. With friends like that who needs… well, you know…

But forget my take. What’s yours? Is Edwards insane, dumb or just a normal guy who fell into some inconvenient circumstances? And who has been hurt most by his whole dig-a-deeper-hole debacle? Edwards himself, his family, Rielle Hunter and her daughter, the friends and associates who appear to have been trying to help him, or the whole Democratic party? Finally, are there any winners here besides the National Enquirer? Do you think this will, and ultimately should, help McCain and his supporters’ cause? 

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…

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.

 

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… 

In general, I’m not a superstitious type. I’ve always believed that life delivers what it will, sometimes by negotiation and other times by sheer chance: whether a satisfying job, an enigmatic lover, or a big whacking loss when you least expect it. For better or worse, the texture of existence isn’t exactly smooth…

Still, I’ve been oddly attracted to some of those quirky little fortune cookie messages I’ve found (or have they found me?) – enough so, that I’ve even saved a few in my wallet for occasional reference. Now, a new book coming out in March explores, among other things, the history of that message-in-an-edible-bottle. The Fortune Cookie Chronicles by Jennifer Lee claims that the origins of the bizarrely shaped cookie can be traced to Japan rather than China. (I’ve actually been to China, and funny enough, there wasn’t a fortune cookie there to be found!)

Whatever its origin, I thought what better time than now to take out that little stack of notes hidden in the folds of my wallet, and remind myself of what moved me to hold onto them in the first place. So here they go:

 -Splendid minds may contradict each other.

 -You will continue to take chances and be glad you did.

 -You are not so charming that you do not have to pay.

 -It is good to save water. Shower with a friend.

 -Things are going to get even weirder.

 -To understand everything is to forgive everything.

Anyone with me on the magical allure of the fortune cookie? What are your favorite fortune cookie messages?

One of the alternately wonderful and terrible things about the world of the Internet is that there are no rugs under which to sweep things, no awnings under which to duck for cover, and no arbiter calling the shots on what’s fair or legit. Rumors and scandal take on a life of their own, with people in the Blogosphere weighing in, often in that vicious, snarky tone that anonymity seems to invite. So once a story’s out there, it's fair game, starting at the bottom of the credibility food chain with scattered internet chatter, sometimes garnering the attention of gossip columnists and the tabloids, and then occasionally exciting the more established media enough to get us poking around. With John Edwards, we seem to be in the middle of just such a cycle, as scrutiny into his relationship with a 43 year-old woman named Rielle Hunter is mounting online, with recent speculation reaching pretty outrageous proportions.

It all seems to have unfolded like this: 

In 2006 John Edwards meets relatively unknown filmmaker Rielle Hunter at a bar. She pitches an idea to do a series of web videos about him meant to paint him in a relaxed, informal way. Through Edwards’s One America campaign, she’s hired, traveling around the country with him while filming. The first video debuts in January of 2007. Her company gets a check for $114,000.

In August 2007, after Hunter’s work with Edwards is long complete, an oblique insinuation appears in the NY Post’s “Page Six” that says the following: “Which political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he’ll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture.” Bloggers are incited, creating a firestorm of speculation online about Edwards and Hunter. Soon enough, they're complaining that the web videos Hunter created for the Edwards campaign have suddenly disappeared, no longer available online either through Hunter's production company or through Edwards's One America campaign.

In September 2007 Huffington Post Blogger Sam Stein writes about his extraordinary efforts trying to track down the Hunter-Edwards web videos. He claims he tried to get some information from assistants on the project, to no avail. He claims that neither Hunter nor her business partner would talk to him. He says that Edwards’s people finally offered to let him see the videos in private, while accompanied by a campaign staffer, but did not give any plausible explanation as to why the videos had vanished online. (They’ve since allegedly resurfaced: http://www.webcastr.com/politics/politics.
html)

In October 2007 the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is allegedly having an affair with a “mystery woman” who traveled with the campaign and whom he allegedly initially met at a bar. An Edwards spokesperson denies the allegations. Hunter denies the allegations too, even though the Enquirer hasn’t yet mentioned her by name at this point. Bloggers pounce. The LA Times mentions the scandal and the denials on their website, but not in print, to a flurry of online comments, many berating the Times for covering the “news” at all in light of the source, that “paragon of journalistic virtue" known as the Enquirer.

On December 19th, 2007 (yes, just over a week ago), the Enquirer trumps their old juicy story with a new juicy story that offers up the following allegations:

-Edwards and Hunter had allegedly been having an affair for over 18 months.

-Hunter is allegedly 6 months pregnant. 

-Hunter allegedly told a source that Edwards is the father of her yet unborn child.

-Hunter is allegedly in hiding, recently having moved to North Carolina from the east coast, and is being financially cared for, housed and protected by close former Edwards campaign staffer Andrew Young.

-Once Hunter is allegedly pressed by the Enquirer to reveal who the father of her child is, she and Andrew Young allegedly issue a statement 24 hours later saying that he, Young, is in fact, the father, not Edwards.

-The Enquirer can allegedly find no evidence that Hunter and Young (a 41 year-old married man with children) have had any prior romantic involvement.

-Sources close to Young allegedly think his paternity claim may be one elaborate cover-up to protect his friend’s presidential aspirations.

The piece is full of those sadly nuance-free details that tabloid news stories (and regular news stories and sordid rumors) are often simmered down to -- steamy emails, hotel rendezvous, sheriff's deputies being called in on the press, etc., so it’s hard to know what to believe. The details are mind-bending, though. If you haven't read the whole thing, and want to, it can be found here:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_chil
d/celebrity/64426

There are several theories going around the Blogosphere about this one:

1)    That Edwards did have an affair with Hunter, but that she may be crazy enough to have gotten pregnant by some other guy, telling her friends and Edwards that he is the father even though he isn’t. (One blogger even added, “I mean, how do you get pregnant at 43 by accident?”)

2)    That Young is indeed the father, but that the two kept their tryst properly under wraps till now.

3)    That the whole story linking Edwards to Hunter romantically is nonsense altogether, just as the two claim, and that even worse, it's possibly even a Clinton-orchestrated rumor being peddled by the Enquirer under the influence of one of the paper’s owners (Roger Altman) who happens to be a big Clinton supporter.

The mainstream media hasn't given any significant attention to this one yet, something I do find a bit curious given its inherently high sensational value, especially as Edwards pulls ahead of his two more high-profile rivals in Iowa. But what do you think? Is this evidence of restraint by journalists? A sensitivity to Edwards' cancer-stricken wife? An overall discomfort with the sordidness of the topic? A sense that the evidence is too thin? Irrelevant?

On another note, I’m curious to know if you suspect there could be some kernel of truth here. Yes, the Enquirer is the home of alien-birthing women, Bigfoot sightings and three-legged ice skaters, right? But then they’re also the venue in which the first pictures linking OJ to a pair of Bruno Magli’s were published, and where the first details about Monica’s stained blue polka-dot dress were revealed. Are we supposed to feel at all reassured by the notion that if they are making this up, it’s pretty elaborate stuff, and that they’ve picked quite a target -- a former trial attorney who could have the lawsuit of the century on his hands when the dust settles? I have to admit, I’m perplexed.

Finally…

It’s an old question, I know, but it keeps resurfacing: Do we care? In general, how do you feel about the ethical obligations of presidential hopefuls? Should we expect presidential wannabe’s to be morally superior to our next-door neighbors; to have better-calibrated moral compasses than the rest of us? To be unconditionally loyal to their spouses? Or is it high time we finally cave and admit that they too are human, and that the behavior of humans, however well-meaning, is often paradoxical, complicated, ambiguous, and well... sometimes just plain strange.

Or maybe it’s just that we don’t want our presidents and would-be presidents lying to us. Period. Even if it is about their private life. Maybe we want someone with the courage and foresight, and yes, even the brains, to either keep the things in their life they’d feel compelled to lie about to a minimum, or else opt for a simple, “It’s none of your business.”

What do you think? Inquiring minds want to know… I’d like to know too.