The View & A Gaffe

Another "gab fest" show that I can not tolerate. Supposedly aimed at women, in a certain demographic, blah, blah, blah........ Just can't stand it. Although I have to give them credit, they have had numerous candidates, and their spouses, on as guests. Something that the alleged "queen" of chat would not do. The View had John McCain on to grill him about various issues, MLK Day and Roe v. Wade. Even though I did not, nor do I, watch this show I have to commend them for having had the pluck to have him as a guest, I am sure that ratings had nothing to do with it! NOT!! I guess Oprah feels that being at the top of the heap she does not need to think of such lowly pursuits as ratings any longer.

They even had Michelle Obama a few weeks back. They are at least giving equal time to both sides. I heard that they even painted a very lovely picture of her to try and soften the edge that many say she has and how she has alienated many from her prickly personality. Maybe they will have Sarah Palin next.

Then we zoom in on Chalie Gibson's alleged interview with Sarah Palin. It was meant to be this big journalistic coup for his network. Well, according to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer Mr. Gibson actually made a huge gaffe and stole a phrase that was actually coined by Mr. Krauthammer himself and then went on to use it incorrectly!! I think that people who review his script need to take better care and make sure that he is both better informed and prepared. You never know who might be watching. Also, it seems as if took on that condescending tone, that most jornalists have been adopting with Ms. Palin, and that too is getting quite old and tired.

Sort of like Charlie Gibson's reporting.

Another Hypocrite

Not surprising, it seems that her majesty, Oprah, is declining to have Sarah Palin as a guest on her show. At first she outright said no, but as the backlash began she then recanted and said that AFTER the election she would have her on. We all know what a HUGE(no pun) supporter she is of Obama, I think she would marry him if given the opportunity, and it would cause conflict for her. As someone who has never been a fan this does not surprise me.

Although she sure has had her fair share of other "controversial" guests. Tom Cruise mad a total ass out of himself on her show and she continues to gush and fawn and have him on, even after all his crazy Scientology gaffs about post-partum depression and the like. She had writer James Fry back, to chastise him, after he was shown to have lied when he created his best selling book about his drug life and all that other crap was that proven to be false.

So, all these years that she has been an alleged pusher of women's issues and her magazine is all about "make yourself better girls" she is deciding not to showcase a professional working woman/mother who is her biggest demographic? Like I say, I am not, nor have I ever been a fan, and this just seals the deal for me. I hope, as I have heard, that many working and professional women are and will be boycotting both her show and magazine.

Threat or No Threat?

There is certainly not any short supply of article's to read about McCains choice for VP. I read an informative one in the NY Times yesterday and this good one at Alternet today. The writer, Heather Gehlert, is no lover of the Republicans, but she makes some very good points and has some excellent contrasts; especially when it comes to issues that actually cause people to vote and how people usually think when they look at candidates. Sadly, it seems, the majority do not read nor care about actual issues, but rather at superficial things like appearances and who & what clubs and venues people belong to. Check out a few of the tidbits from the article, but it is very good, as well as informative, so you may want to read it all.

"That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the issues.""

When I read this I think of people, like my mom, who don't read much about issues, but who watch the nightly news and the "talking heads" on Fox etc. and take what they say as the gospel about candidates. She "just knows" that she doesn't like certain candidates, but cannot really tell you why. She doesn't like Obama's wife, but can not give specific details about what makes her feel this way.

"In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused, intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.

Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood American families. He said he would protect American families.

Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of voters feel good."

You can see some this in the large numbers that turn out for the Obama concerts that end up actually crying at his mere appearance, they want to feel good and they are so overcome with emotion that this becomes their voting mantra. Drew Weston, from Emory University, is a clinical, personality & political psychologist who has studied this phenomenon and written a book about it; "The Political Brain:The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

"(T)he vision of mind that has captured the imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."

I think that Timothy Egan, of the NY Times, summed it up best when he said," Palin brings a bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate her at your peril."