The Rational Psychic

For years now, well, maybe just months, I’ve wanted to earn some cash from writing my humble opinions on the internet. I’ve been told repeatedly by those with more common sense than me that this feat is nearly impossible. The wisest of these have said that, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, even attempting such foolishness may bring on such dire consequences that one shouldn’t even attempt it.

I’m not doubting the good intentions of these folks who would warn me away from a disastrous fall. I have reminded them, however, that I really don’t have that high of a height to fall from.

In spite of all the good advice and warnings I’ve gotten from these folks I still want to see how this can work. The only way I can justify this to myself, however, is if I let you in on the process.

As I move along with this experiment I’ll let you in on the results of my decisions and give you some ideas on how profitable or how useless this effort is.

My first attempt to earn money will be to go with Google AdSense. My impression is that this is the most common and perhaps the easiest way to get going with the process of making money from a blog

I’ll keep you informed.

As a pretty good president who I didn’t care for once said: “Well, there he [she] goes again.” Ronald Reagan used that one to great effect during some of his debates (1984?).

In the following video we get to see Hillary Clinton at her high school declam best and high school theatrical worst as she mocks Obama, claiming that an Obama candidacy somehow depends on the kindness of angels along with a miracle or two. She follows it up with points targeted to the debate but shows us her, rather threadbare, I think, notion of what is entertaining and funny. Like when you were in second grade and that kid, Joey, would pick his scabs and use them in his art projects–that kind of entertaining and funny.

Here’s a link to the video of her at a recent campaign stop in Providence, RI.

Are you calling me stupid?

Two things that are going on in this video that I don’t like. This general lecturing style has been her hallmark all along. I think it stinks. Why? Because I’m a big boy and I don’t need a leader to “tell me how it is” as much as I need a leader who will say, “I’ve got some great ideas on how to get where you want to be going and if you walk with me a bit, I can share them with you.”

Does this black and yellow outfit make me look…?

Secondly, and this is a touchy subject, but her fashion sense is appalling. Am I the only one here who ever learned to enjoy “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or that catty makeover duo from NYC who say stuff like, “Those pants make you look like a schlub. Throw them out now or I’ll do it for you?” You’ve seen these, right? Granted, I don’t expect Mrs. Clinton to have as much free-time as you or I. But would you look at the bumblebee outfit she’s wearing in this video, for God’s sake!? She looks like a high school vice principal who is lucky to get out to TJ Maxx or Lane Bryant twice a year. This is the kind of woman who says, “I never throw ANYthing out!”

Frugal, but misinformed. Her match in the area of bad officewear would, of course, be John McCain. His stuff looks a little stale and frumpy to me, too (Social Studies teacher at same high school). But then, this is part of what will make him beatable in the Fall: he IS a bit stale and frumpy. And I don’t think I have much for the male Democratic contender except he should find suits and shirts that make him look less rail-thin. Remember John Edwards? Now that guy had great taste in clothes and knew how they were supposed to fit. I guess you could argue he looked a bit too good to be true.

And, therefore…

OK, I went on a bit of a tear with the fashion comments. But you know what? If I had a tenth of these folks’ cash and half as many places to wear the stuff–I would be tailored suits all the way, baby. Savile Row for the daytime and Armani for the evening. You’re considering sending me to meet with Vladimir Putin? Outdress him, dammit. That’s the way detente is achieved and how global foes should be vanquished. If you’ve got a great and inspiring message won’t a swell wardrobe just put that exclamation point on what you have to say?

Ask Henry Kissinger if you don’t believe me.

“Change you can xerox.” Catchy. I wonder if it’ll be enough for Mrs. Clinton. What do you think?

I watched the 60 Minutes interviews of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I think that these interviews were not incredibly revealing in terms of content (no surprise) but showed a lot of the difference between their rhetoric and personalities. To give Senator Clinton her due, I would never want Katie Couric interviewing me for a story about my run for the presidency. Questions regarding a possible Obama victory, such as, “Even in your deepest, darkest moments, when you’re exhausted, you don’t think, ‘I’m so tired, I’m going through this, I’m spending so much money, I’m so tired, and this could be all for naught,’ what if that happens?…” I’m thinking, Is Katie Couric doing an interview for her high school newspaper? Is Senator Clinton seeking votes for Homecoming Queen? And speaking of high school, Couric brings up the fact that Clinton was had gained the nickname “Frigidaire” during high school. With interviewers like Couric, who needs Republicans?

Still, Hillary later had to attack enthusiasm in order to make a case for herself. We all know this has got to be part of her repertoire in order to make Senator Obama evaporate, but it’s ugly to watch. Essentially she’s saying Obama needs to clear his plate from the adult table and sit with the rest of the kids. In response to a question about the “thousands” showing up at Obama and whether or not it translates into real votes or momentum for Obama Clinton discounts makes an argument for false consciousness. “I don’t see that,” Clinton states, and proceeds to tell us all that her experience “trumps the…y’know…the excitement factor.”

I think I’ll vomit if I hear Clinton utter that line about being ready on “Day One” again. I’m not ready for her level of cynicism to take over again. I think that independents would see a Clinton candidacy and victory simply trading one guise of the devil for another.

Obama’s interview with Steve Kroft revealed little, I felt. However, if you look and listen a little closer, you find out some of the best things about Obama. For example, when it’s pointed out that he hasn’t really run anything other than the Harvard Law Review, he says that he’s running his campaign, which has gone from 30 to 700 paid staffers and hundreds of thousands of volunteers in just a year. He makes the point that sometimes length of time in power doesn’t equate to effectiveness. While a lot of companies have been around for longer than Google, he argues, Google’s performing–I guess that’s a quality over quantity argument.

In the interview, Obama answers Clinton’s statement that Obama is untested against Republican attacks while she has been “vetted.” Obama said “going up against the Clinton machine is no cakewalk. They’re pretty serious about winning as well.” When asked about how he’s holding up under the strain of the campaign, Obama is understated: “It turns out that even under this kind of stress I’ve got a pretty even temperament. I don’t get too high, I don’t get too low.”

His responses in this interview and others always seem measured and appropriate to the situation. We haven’t been treated to any Howard Dean-like moments for the press to skewer him on. I like Obama’s ability to be cool under pressure and his distaste for dirty tactics.

If the experience question is a factor for you in discounting Obama as a contender, I’d like to suggest a biography of Lincoln to you. It’s called A Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and it shows that sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong and the best man for the job has experience in understanding other people and himself, not in the columns of legislative and administrative experience. I don’t think that Obama and Lincoln are the same man but I do think that Obama is a rare person in American politics at this time and would go into the White House with more experience than Lincoln.

^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ # ^ #

This excerpt is from a Reuters wire story: Clinton did not spell out why Solis Doyle was being replaced, and a Clinton spokesman said the move did not reflect any change in the candidate’s overall strategy.

But Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said the shake-up “can’t be a good sign.”

He said that replacement of Solis Doyle along with Clinton’s acknowledgment last week that she had made a personal loan to her campaign of $5 million were indications the candidate and her aides are concerned about the direction of the campaign.

“It indicates that they understand that things have not gone as well as they had hoped because if they had, the campaign would’ve been wrapped up by February 5,” Sabato said.

Obama’s landslide victory in South Carolina seemed to be a turning point in the race.

Sabato said that while Clinton may be in a bit of trouble, “It’s not over,” he said, adding that if she does well in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she could win the nomination.

Until about three weeks ago, I was on the fence regarding my selection of either Clinton or Obama as the best candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

What has turned me toward Obama recently has been his consistent message of hope and what appears a sincere desire to unite the country against the divisions suggested by ideology, color, gender, etc. and Clinton’s willingness to play the political game by the same tired rules that produced the presidency we’ve lived under for seven years now (divide and conquer, identity politics, demolishing your opponent at the expense of energy and effort to build up your own platform and rhetoric).

Clinton is the candidate who made the move to make race a part of this campaign. She can apologize, but this was done willfully and on her behalf.

I was very hopeful that we could at least maintain the high road during the nomination process within our own party. We will need to be united after the convention and this is not the way to create unification when a moderate Republican such as McCain is running.

I voted for Obama in Minnesota’s caucus because, to date, I see him running the more principled campaign. I see him appealing to our better nature. I think Senator Obama offers the promise of unification, a departure from past conflicts and their drain on our spirit as well as the opportunity to follow a candidate who believes that, given a choice, Americans will choose a positive vision of our country’s future over cynicism.

The 2008 presidential campaign offers Americans a referendum on the political strategies which caused citizens to suffer under the increasingly divisive presidencies of the last 28 years. If the candidates proceed in using the same divisive machinations (identity politics, the rhetoric of tearing down your opponent, etc.) used in the past, I have no doubt that they may achieve success on a short-term basis.

The issue isn’t whether or not such tactics and strategies can be used to win elections. The issue is: do these tactics result in effective presidencies and periods of positive growth for the nation as a whole?

What I saw at our caucus in Mankato, MN (pop. 30,000) was a large number of college students attending, a large number of people who were most likely newly-naturalized citizens from East Africa (Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc.) and many, many people who were attending their first Democratic Party caucus, including myself. Democratic Party officials were quoted as estimating that the turnout on Tuesday, February 5 was four times the largest previous turnout!

The result in our precinct was 74-25 in favor of Barack Obama. The percentage of Minnesota’s Democrats who voted for Obama in the caucus was 66.5%. From the my perspective, I saw a large number of new caucus participants coupled with an overwhelming margin of victory for Obama. The most sensible conclusion I can form is that Obama’s message of promoting a unified American people is seen as being more genuine and substantive than Senator Clinton’s message of experience based on experience as First Lady and her four additional years of service in the U.S. Senate.

I do not want to vote for the ends over the means. For me, Barack Obama’s candidacy exemplifies a means of seeking the Presidency which is demonstrably better than that of his rival for the Democratic nomination.

^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @

P.S. CNN.com estimates the Democratic delegate count as being 823 for Clinton, 741 for Obama. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. If Barack Obama’s first name were “Roger,” what do you think his present delegate count would be?

P.P.S. If Senator Obama were to have it be known that his childhood nickname was “Bubba” as in, Barack “Bubba” Obama, how would his chances to win the November general election be seen to improve or decline? Discuss.