Seriously, though, thanks for that response. It’s difficult to get a balanced sense of what’s going on from outside the US. It really tends to be all about the sound bites, and any time I ask one of my compatriots, they just tell me to watch Jon Stewart. Which I totally would… if I got cable tv. Or tv of any kind. Sigh. So – thanks. And good luck with the busy month. And the campaigning. We just had a federal election called; I wish we had someone even a tenth as inspiring as Obama involved in our federal political scene…

The main thing that got me was how many previously disenfranchised people Obama’s candidacy had brought back into the franchise. That has been huge. Really big. While Clinton’s candidacy has been thrilling to see, I’m not so sure that a ton of NEW voters are streaming into the voting process.

That, and while he shared many of Clinton’s positions on policy issues important to me, he was in greater opposition to the Iraq war, earlier. (Here’s a January piece in The Nation by Robert Scheer on that issue, “Obama, Clinton, and the War.”)

The last thing is an interesting matter of identity politics. I was a youngster, freshman in college when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court. I was all exhuberant and excited, and my Chicano Studies class took up the topic in discussion section. The graduate teaching assistant (now a prof in Texas) said, essentially, “Not so fast!” And pointed out O’Connor’s record on issues of siginficance to women and feminists. Of course little did we know how much worse it could get (thinking of Clarence Thomas). But so, some 20 yrs ago, I began to detatch from valuing identity on its own terms, and tried to begin to see one’s stance as equally if not more significant.

One’s identity helps generate one’s viewpoint, certainly. And I am absolutely NOT equating Senator Clinton with Justice O’Connor (!). Just saying, I tend to slow down and moderate my enthusiasm and look more closely at what the person is about. Having a sense of commonality or solidarity based on my presumed shared experience (based on gender, or sexual orientation, or what have you) is an extra perk. But hopefully just that: an extra perk. In the case of the Clinton/Obama campaigns, I — along with so many other Americans — was in the dumbstruck position of feeling excited about the positive role model status of whichever of them wound up being the nominee. And while I agreed with 90% of what Clinton was about, I agreed with 95% of Obama.

As an aside, I was also rather concerned how well Senator Clinton would have been able to muzzle former President Clinton, had she become elected, when he was such a big presence, oftentimes a boorish one, in the campaign.

Interesting thing is, it takes a while for the identity of the candidate — if said identity is unusual in that context, say, black, or female candidate for national office — to assume the modest, contextuallized proportions it should. Hard for (white)(male) people to see straight for a bit. So it’s taking several weeks for all the dust to settle around Governor Palin. One hopes that people will eventually be able to simply look at her record, and her position on the issues, and all that, and conclude: yegods! It’s Regan/Bush with a parka and a hunting rifle! Who cares if said old school republican wears lipstick or not?!!

[Adendum] I would love to see how the fall campaign would go if Governor Palin were Sam Palin — let’s say, just to make it interesting, that Sam is just as young and just as telegenic. A discussion of the actual issues at stake in this election would be rising to the surface as fast as a– as fast as a– as a dead fish, let’s say, in a cold lake. (Do fish float? Says the hopeless sub/urbanite.)

I feel for the seasoned Republican women, like Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) or Olympia Snowe (Maine), who are watching this whippersnapper scoot to the front of the line. All the valid arguments about Gov. Palin’s unpreparedness for the job get to be dismissed as sexist (poof! don’t count!), and I doubt the same would be levelled (at least as directly, say, with the kind of persistent disrespect levelled at Senator Clinton) against Hutchison or Snowe. Which is one of the big reasons why, I’ll bet, the McCain campaign went for Palin. Cynical? Youbetcha.

I’d be tempted to say that you wouldn’t find G. Orwell in the Wasilla Library (d’oh!), but reports of the sweep of the shelves were greatly exaggerated. As is probably well-known by now, reports of her pressing the Wasilla librarian on the matter of pulling books “should the need arise,” however, and later firing her after the librarian stood her ground (rehiring her after hue and cry followed the firing), were not.

[Anchorage Daily News, "Palin pressured Wasilla librarian," 4 Sept., 2008.]

p.s. re: GOP double-speak (McCain/Palin are the mavericks?!), where in the world is George Orwell when you need him???

p.p.s. photos of your bairns are a delight, even for non-family