As soon as I heard that McCain was considering a female for VP, it was obvious why he might. The attempt to seduce enough disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters was seemingly, his best shot at gaining a insured lead. Cynical? Of course. Practical? In politics, never underestimate the power of appearance. It need not be based on what is actually true, appearance is the great surface seduction, that can mask any number of counter realities.

I think this is a great opportunity for Americans to shift from appearance based reasoning, to fact. The problem will be, the media is for what continues controversy, and image based conclusion is one sure way to keep internal contradictions gnawing away from the inside. It seems in my view, that McCain chose a woman to pick up the damage that occurred in the Democratic primary. Interesting enough, he designed his election strategy in response to the Democratic result. One break with tradition was hard fought, the other, picked up on the debris of another hard fought fight. This is in keeping with conservatives claim on and manipulations of, the commons. In some respects, has so called Teflon John now partnered with another criticism resistant ingredient?


Some of the first response to this pick in VP’s, was that Biden would have to be extra cautious in arguing with Palin. This seems quite like the alleged bias accused of the men in the Democrats primary treatment of Hillary Clinton. I looked around to my female friends, asking what the problem was that was being claimed by the Hillary camp. Did not know, was the response. They did not see the sexist presumption. Though Barack is a non white man, I have not heard nor seen any indication that he must be handled with kid gloves.

But apparently, it is now being widely assumed that a man cannot engage in tough debate with a woman without being assumed to be some kind of abuser. Is this really how certain women, and some of their male supporters interpret rugged debate? Most of us know what it is like to suppose something, then have that supposition reinforced simply by looking for its evidence.

This can be a kind of hindsight reverse logic, where there, the belief is “proven” backwards by connecting selective dot’s to the result. I assume many Obama supporters would have likewise claimed an obvious bias had he been defeated. We do not know how those who assume image is the tangible proof of the result, figure the facts to their conclusions, or if actual facts are even necessary for a prebiased world view. This makes, or should make, us all critique our own motive and conclusions where much emotion comes into play, for image will be used as proof as well as conclusion. Opinion by its very nature, must argue how logic fits into reality, but as is true of me here; just because I say this does not make it true.


It is long overdue in the USA, to have those who seem to have been kept from power by appearance, now accepted as every bit as worthy as any one else’s appearance. It is an acknowledgement of the truth that We the People does indeed not exclude anyone, whatever their sex or physical appearance is. I wish that were completely true, but it remains, seemingly a taboo for men to have facial hair without being assumed to be choosing to be something other than wholesome. We also do not know if those considered quite overweight or handicapped, really are included in the imagery of who or what a president can be. Prejudice must be acknowledged wherever it is, while we celebrate where it seems to have been removed. We seemingly effortlessly sever others from their humanness when we feel we are both different and better, be it by looks or ideology.


A curious feature has emerged between these two precedent setting candidates; Obama did not run on his race particularly, indeed, it had to be in some ways bypassed. Palin announced that Hillary Clinton’s referenced 18 million cracked glass ceiling, is broken by supporting herself. That is a direct reference to appearance and image as an advantage in an election, through your opponents outcome in looks, rather than needing the vetting of overcoming it as a handicap, as Hillary herself blazed that path by metaphorical machete.

That is a fundamental difference hinting strongly at a reactive manipulative strategy, based squarely on how you opponents personal choice looked. It is a liberal outcome by default, as defined by the conservatives themselves, and not necessarily, what it appears to be. But I suspect for some, appearances are all that truly count, policy’s will be viewed as secondary.


We live in an age where the character of an individual is often judged by what they have. This having has been made a sacred calf, whose worshiping is seen as character in and of itself. All the proud having and achieving, irregardless of damage to others or the earth we exist on. In many ways, that philosophy of ownership is its opposite, disownership.

It is contempt for the common ground, those things that connect and sustain life itself. Instead of owning consequence and responsibility in the commons sense, the scientific sense of deeply investigating cause and effect, the notion of the lone fulfilled individual is placed above the altar, then it placed up on the cross of accountability and reality, but named, branded and tagged, liberalism. In this church of separation and denial, everything makes perfect sense if it follows the logic of rejection and promotes the fulfilment of the essentially self made individual. Individuals who claim the bubble of us and them beliefs, having no need nor desire to confront the actual problems of humankind and our place on earth. Do whatever you like. But if you do not like us or claim the ownership of property and possessions has problematic terminal inclination, we will persecute and shame you.

A church of having and keeping has come to be, with it’s own values of who is worthy and who is not for those who seem to not believe the same. In much of the private sectors and to some degree the political, we often consider those a success who achieve much materially in the world. We may try to look to higher, more transcendent qualities in our elective officials, yet material survival is still the elephant in the living room not spoken of.

Power interest attempt to institute their ownership of the commons, that great field of connections humankind and the environment exist in. Corporate world interest are trying to put that commons under their own eminent domain. Democracy is essentially atrophying as that elephant moves through the commons, appropriating what it needs to survive. Not concerned for where or on who it steps or what it leaves behind.

This political season, in new ways, the positive gains in appearance may be met later by equally negative choices by their result. As always, looks can be deceiving. As wrong as it can be, many judge someones character on looks and historical assumption, and not how they really are right now. That investigation is what needs to be looked into, though much is revealed by a candidates choices, it is the “why for” that indicates the owning.


Thanks all you Hillary and Barack supporters who actually made McCains choice possible. Thank you for your persistence. Now do you know actually why you vote? Meaning, what presidents actually do with their office. Are some 20 months in a governors office really the President to be qualifications today? Yet as conservatives are saying, Obama’s experience doesn’t really count?

Ah, to be some people who live in profound contradiction as if it were their best cake ever.

No thanks. I’ll pass.