We, THE VOTERS, Choose...

I know I said I was going to stick to "people candy," and I meant it. I mean it. But I've been so caught up watching what was going on in the Nation's Capital just lately that I thought I'd explain what has diverted my attention.

The health care debate.

Not in the traditional sense. It's very hard to focus on the health care debate in totem because that piece of legislation is so huge and sprawling that unless you have every second of every day to devote your full attention to it, you miss a lot of it.

I don't have that luxury of brain-drain.

But I am finding some odd similarities between what is going on and another issue in our not-too-distant past.

I want you to think back about a dozen years to the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation and what went on during that time.

As a lot of you know, I don't have a huge amount of political party affiliation in my soul. I just don't. I also have utterly no sense of athletic competition. You could take me out on a tennis court and beat me to death with a tennis ball before I'd ever figure out why I should chase after and swing for it. I don't feel the need to cling to either political party, either. Genetic deficiency on both counts, no doubt.

But during and after the coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation, I got a good number of angry questions from RED-faced friends, all wanting to know why the media had let Mr. Clinton "slip through our fingers" unimpeached. They generally blamed the media for the failure to prosecute Mr. Clinton for what they perceived his crimes were. (Please don't write to tell me what you perceive his crimes were. I covered that mess for months. It's over. Let's move on.)

I tried to tell them that it wasn't the media's fault that Congress didn't act; it was their own fault. It was the decision of the American public indicated through poll after poll that President Bill Clinton would not be prosecuted because they were tired of the ongoing struggle in Congress. Members of Congress read those polls, along with other surveyed statements, real or implied that the Business of The People needed attending to and that if members of Congress voted President Clinton out, then voters would push them out in the next election.

A very few of my RED-faced acquaintances believed me. Others did not and decided from then on that I was either just another liberal member of the East Coast media elite or stunningly naive. Or both. I've accepted my position in their thinking. (As I said, "it's over. Let's move on.")

Now I am noticing that history may be repeating itself.

Some of my friends are now BLUE in the face from holding their breath for passage of health care reform. Health care reform may or may not pass, but it does seem to be remarkably slow in going through the motions on Capitol Hill.

And it seems possible, according to some media accounts, that Members are starting to figure out that if they vote for and pass the current health care reform legislation, they may find themselves operating outside the Beltway after the next elections.

As for me, it all combines to make me feel a bit GREEN... around the gills.

"What We Must Hope for, is Hope Itself!"

Well, I've paraphrased. And badly. But I think hope is going to be that important this year.

In just a few short weeks, we shall have a new president; a new leader for this country and the most powerful man in the Free World. And since it has been well-noted that he comes to the job a mite bit under-prepared but proclaiming himself the Leader for Change, I would like to note that what he does do well is something we haven't seen in awhile.

He's an awfully good orator. Yikes! The man won election in good portion because of his speaking skills. Remember the last time we had a great public speaker who gave us all hope in the house? Yes, Bill Clinton was good at that, but that's not who I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of Ronald Reagan, who had some level of executive leadership experience having run the "Fifth Largest Economy in the World" of California.

(And please, don't email me to say that GWB is a good orator because I will have uncontrollable giggle fits for days. The 43rd President spent most of his five six months as a President slumping to the side at podiums from coast to coast. Just once, I wanted one of his handlers to approach him during a speech and whisper in to his ear, "Sir, the American people are watching. Show them the respect they deserve by standing up straight, please?)

Ronald Reagan was also the Great Communicator. His talent as an actor was legendarily mediocre, and he wisely moved into public speaking and politics as soon as his good looks began to wane in Hollywood. (Wow, these days, that would have put him running for office at age 23, eh?) He spoke eloquently, to the people, with excellent command of the language but without pretense of high-mindedness. He was down to earth but incredibly compelling.

And he made us all feel better about our country and ourselves, as Americans. He knew that we wanted to feel good about being a Super Power and that to have a hero, we needed a villain. It was so gratifying when that Villain ran out of money and with all the flourish of a vaudeville curtain torn aside, the Berlin Wall came down. Fortunately, he knew he wasn't the be-all, end-all intellectually, so he hired good help, too, to carry out his ideals and they became our ideals. He provided our best image of ourselves.

So now we have Barack Obama, elected because he makes us feel good and we all want to join in the change and be part of the future of racial equality in this country. (Nevermind that it doesn't exist. There's a saying in Hollywood: "Fake it 'til you make it.") President-elect Obama is everything we like in a President in these United States.

He's tall, slender, youthful and good looking with a strong, well-educated woman by his side and two beautiful daughters to raise in the White House. And one heckuva public speaker.

The man brings together all the best traditions of public speaking, from Martin Luther King's use of anaphora (repeated phrases, like "I have a dream...") to his dynamic vocal delivery, use of pauses and pacing, and even his exceedingly apparent personal confidence. He exudes the hope that we are looking for.

And let us hope that he can deliver on it. Otherwise, 2009 may be very dark indeed.

What Will We Talk About On Thursday?

I think we can all expect that on Wednesday, the day after the voting, we will still be talking about who was elected. The media will do the most unsufferably long examination of the campaign and a completely over-the-top, self-absorbed and outright self-destructive examination of the coverage in which we'll find ourselves completely innocent of all charges of bias in reporting and covering the election.

Not exactly news, but we'll call it that, yes?

So what will we talk about on Thursday? It's rather like the 1970's housewife who has to answer the daily grinding question of what's for dinner?

Here are a few of my suggestions:

Global warming?
Child Poverty in Orange County, CA?
Internet Marketing?
Nut harvesting in the Amazon?
Why Gas Prices Always Go Up Stunningly AFTER an Election?
The Economy? (Stupid!)
The Ethics of Being Giving More Lower Priced Christmas Gifts Manufactured by 7-Year Olds in Southeast Asia or Fewer Higher Priced Gifts Made by Overpaid Kentuckians?
Inflation in Apartment Living in Dubai?

But please, no more Proposition 8.

This or That?

So here we are... less than 30 days and counting. And what do I think? I think... what I usually think. I think there's a reason that I rarely actually register to vote. I recall when avoiding that civic duty was enough to get me out of jury duty. Sigh. Ahhhhhhhh, those were the days. Doesn't work that way anymore... darnit.

Back to the topic at hand: presidential elections.

I have friends who have never been able to see beyond the history-making involved in this election.

I have friends who don't seem to see beyond what it will do for them.

I have friends who, at this moment, seem to be resigned to their fate as far as who will be leading this country.

As for me personally... well, I did see someone promising an awful lot of stuff in his speech accepting his party's nomination. "If you've got health care, I'll get it for you cheaper. (HUH?) If you don't have it, I'll get you Congress' health care." (DOUBLE HUH?? In case you aren't aware, friends, we can't afford for Congress to have Congress' health care.)

But I'm a reasonable person who understands that Congress sets the taxes and spends the money in this country. So this doesn't particularly bother me.

I am a little concerned that one of the candidates admits he is under-experienced about the economy. But in consideration of his opponent's level of experience in the federal government in general and foreign diplomacy in particular, I'm less concerned about that.

What I do see is that electing one of these two could give the economy and consumer confidence in this country such a boost that it might help lift us out of our doldrums. It might motivate banks to start lending, businesses to start investing, consumers to start spending, and otherwise get the dollars circulating again.

And if it doesn't, I'm willing to let that particular candidate ride down into the volcano.

I recall about 16 years (count with me... "4 administrations ago? Oh yeah, I remember who!") the election of a brilliant (but morally flawed) man into the White House. The saying then was "It's the ECONOMY, Stupid!" And for the American voting public and him, at that time, it was.

And so it is again. Except the economy is a cyclical thing. I think if Bill Clinton were truly honest, he'd admit that. He knows it. (Why shouldn't he admit it? A month or so ago, he admitted that Democrats in Congress were responsible for the mortgage meltdown. He's gotten some honesty streak in him... belatedly.) His election signaled a younger crowd and new generation riding into Washington. It cheered the voting public.

But again, mostly, he rode the economic cycle upwards. It would seem apparent that we're hitting a downtrend that will likely last a year, possibly two more. So if the man who seems likely to be elected according to the national polls does win, I say good for him. Let him try and goose the economic mood upwards a few notches. If he does, then he deserves to win. But if, as seems more likely, his "boost' is short-term and the recession is here for a long and ugly haul, then it'll be interesting watching that next president ride it into the volcano.

As a member of the press, I'll happily trot up to the edge of the thing to get a better look.

In Fairness...

So there they are: the Ladies of The View. It started out as Barbara Walters' innocuous little daytime program inhabited by four women of various opinions and ideologies. But it didn't stay that way for long, did it?

There was Rosie O'Donnell, who scrapped her way to an early out by fighting so viciously with "poor little Elizabeth Hasselbeck" that no one could doubt the air kisses and friendship on air were exactly that: on air.

Rosie left, and Whoopie arrived to fill out the frame. Now we get a daily dose of Whoopie, Joy Behar, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Sherry Shepherd, and sometimes Walters herself. And the ladies topics have uptick'd, too.

Elizabeth was gone one day this week and to "level the playing field," Walters brought in E.D. Hill from Fox News. Nice, huh?

Except that maybe Walters' math is a bit... off. It's been known to happen among us "media types." Let's take count.

Whoopie Goldberg, who last week suggested that all the banks in this country just drop the interest rates for all those homeowners facing foreclosure. Just drop them. Drop the rates. Drop the profits. Drop the corporate responsibility to all their shareholders. Just drop it.

I'm going to venture out on a limb and chalk her up in the liberal cue.

Joy Behar, who if you've watched any of the shows at all, is so firmly behind Barack Obama as to be almost out in front of him. Same category.

Sherry Shepherd, who has set records for apologizing for statements (often about the other Ladies) spouts off most frequently in favor of Barack. (Isn't it a bit obvious if you're calling someone by their first name?)

Ms. Walters also seems to weigh in particularly in favor of Mr. Obama's candidacy.

By my count, that's four against one. Since Ms. Walters says she was "leveling the playing field" by bringing in E.D. Hill, I must say that's a huge compliment to the often beleaguered Hasselbeck, if Walters thinks four on one is a "level field" in any game.

Where Is that Fat Lady?

Did I miss something? Did I fall asleep and wake up in December? Because I don't remember an election where the Big Faces on tv seemed more inclined to suggest that "it's all over."

I think this is somewhat amusing because I remember all the times that the networks have banded together to steadfastly promise not to call the results too early in the evening, before the states where polls closed last (ie Pacific Coastal States) had finished their voting.

And I remember eight years ago when were were all stuck covering "The Election" for an interminable two months. I think that was possibly the worst.

But here we are. It's early October. And I'm getting the impression that some folks are inclined to say it's over.

I got a note over the weekend from a friend on Capitol Hill. He said he was depressed because the Ohio Atty. General was "allowing early voting using same day registration with no id requirements and no polling place observers permitted, at least not Republican observers. The Dems are literally picking vagrants off the streets and running them through the polling places."

I'm a little skeptical of that report, but it is interesting.

And then there are the polls showing McCain to be sinking. It's hard not to think the worst, particularly when Mr. McCain threw in the towel in Michigan, signalling to anyone who is watching that clearly, blood is in the water.

I hate to see this ending when it seemed to be engaging the minds of so many. Plus, I wonder who is going to buy all those ad hours if the political campaigns go away? Maybe those media folk ought to learn which side their bread is buttered on, and button it up with the dire predictions for a few more weeks?