Going After Palin

This is going to be a very short blog entry, because as we all know we are not allowed to go after the new vice-presidential candidate. This tactic is not new. It was very much true in the Obama/Clinton campaign. Every day Hillary Clinton was savaged in the press and sometimes by Obama operatives, but any criticism of Senator Obama was deemed racist. When Bill Clinton said it was a fairy tale to believe that Obama had always been consistent in his criticism of the war from the beginning, his words were distorted and he was deemed a racist. He had brought up a legitimate issue, but instead of addressing it with legitimate debate and illuminating the issues, he was just called names. I believe this election is too important not to talk about the elephants in the room.

It is true that the issue of Sarah Palin's seventeen year old daughter is not a topic for political discussion. It is also true that many in the media and blogosphere have gone way over the line in attacking Governor Palin and even spreading lies about her. That said, there are plenty of legitimate issues that may be getting lost now as everybody tries to appear not to be picking on Sarah Palin. The McCain camp has even gotten it down to a science in defending her. If someone asks a legitimate question about her qualifications the question is not answered. Instead, in the old bait and switch tactic, the McCain operative will bring up some inappropriate question that may have been asked earlier to show that their vice-presidential pick is being treated unfairly.

Let's look at just a few things that do need to be considered carefully over the next two months. Although, the Governor's daughter is absolutely off limits my own daughter has questioned why, when the issue first arose, did not the Mother consider declining the offer in order to avoid placing her daughter into the media spotlight. Did it not occur to her that it might be best to refuse the offer in order to protect her daughter's privacy and better address family issues? Her daughter and family could be enjoying blissful anonymity as they address private matters, except for a choice that Sarah Palin has made.

I might also briefly touch on the question of whether it is such a great idea for the daughter to marry the child's father. It might be, but if the descision is being made to satisfy some preconceived notion of family values, it could also be a disservice to the baby and her parents. It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to compound that mistake. I don't know what is best, and I know nothing about the relationship the couple may have, but I do object to anyone who believes that it is always and automatically best for the couple to marry.

I am also troubled by the Republican talking heads who are working overtime to defend every aspect of Sarah Palin's background. The question in my mind is whether or not it is a plus to have to be working so hard to defend one's vice-presidential pick. I thought such choices were supposed to generate as little controversy as possible. Senator McCain and others have insisted that the primary qualification for a vice-presidential candidate is the experience which makes them qualified to be president on day one. Now, Republicans are tripping over themselves to try to explain away apparent contradictions about her experience. There are other issues which are coming to the fore such as an ongoing ethics investigation, apparent reversals on her actions as mayor and governor such as being for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' before she was against it. Is she really the maverick and fighter against corruption that she is portrayed as being. It almost seems as if there are two Sarah Palins; the one we are learning about through the media, and the one being portrayed by Republicans at their convention. Stay tuned.

No, To Palin

Let me say first that I know absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for Vice-President. But, I believe that is precisely the point. I'm quite sure I am not the only person in America to whom this pick is unknown. I cannot say anything negative about this woman, and suspect that she is a very fine and capable individual. Yet with two months to go in this election to introduce an unknown to the electorate and expect him/her to be accepted without question strains credulity. A free lance writer, Joe Klock, has pointed out in a recent column that it is highly questionable that we go through this 18 month process to choose a presdidential candidate, and then our vice presidents are selected by one individual. The concern becomes particularly acute in the case of John McCain who is clearly picking a potential president that we are stuck with no matter what choice we might prefer. I feel that Senator McCain has not taken this choice seriously. He is the one who has been harping about experience and yet has chosen someone who is new to the national political scene, and who's resume is quite thin.

I have known many wonderful women throughout my life, and even a number of men, who I believe would make excellent vice-presidents. They may be school administrators, presidents of professional and non-profit organizations, college educators etc. They have demonstrated adminstrative experience, intelligence, skill, wisdom, integrity, and fairness. I would have no problem voting for many of them to fill such a lofty position, because I know and have confidence in them. There is no reason why the rest of the country would or should support them for such an office, because in this country the people decide who to choose for their elected officials. These choices are to be based on knowledge of the candidate over the course of time, not taking John McCain's word for his choice. For eighteen months we have watched Barack Obama slog through the snows of New Hampshire to the sunny climes of Nevada and New Mexico. We have decided for ourselves yea or nay what we think of him based on his presentation of himself to us.

For John McCain to thrust such a new face upon us at this late date seems a travesty of the process. If my understanding is correct, he himself never met Sarah Palin until last week. This choice does not seem to me to be a serious one. It may turn out to be a politically smart choice. However, if this is the way Senator McCain plans to govern this country, I am not at all encouraged.

Beyond Denver

The streamers and balloons along with the Greek columns have all come down, and the Democrats have wrapped up their show in Denver. They seem to be getting a fairly significant bounce out of the convention. What is memorable, however, and what will continue to matter as the Republicans prepare for their show in the Twin Cities?

Michelle Obama presented herself as a wife and mother in contrast to the caricature of her that had been developed throughout the campaign. It was impoprtant that Michelle soften her image among those who had questions about her, and I believe she did. Hillary Clinton made the case for the Democrats and Barack Obama. Of course we are told that she didn't go far enough, but it's hard to know which part of her endorsement of Senator Obama the media didn't understand. Bill Clinton stated the case as only he can. His ability to frame the issues and make complicated concepts understandable to us simple folk is still second to none. The question remaining about the Clintons is not whether they were effective at the convention, but whether they will continue to be used effectively throughout the coming campaign. We are told that Joe Biden's speech was disjointed and not well delivered, but my impression is that Biden is going to be a strong stump candidate, and is going to be a tough and effective fighter for this ticket in many battleground states.
I think the Obama campaign was effective at this juncture because they were able to get prominent Democrats like the Clintons out there validating this ticket.

Yet, everything rises or falls based on the performance of the candidate himself. He needed to tell us his program for the next four years, and how he was going to deliver a better America. The theater in Denver was hard to beat. The enthusiasm and inspiration among the delegates was palpable. By all accounts Obama went even further than expected in talking tough, showing willingness to go after McCain, and appearing ready to stand and fight toe to toe even in the foreign policy area which is considered McCain's strong suit.

It is difficult to fault the four days in Denver as carefully crafted drama that has achieved the required bounce and moved the campaign forward. I believe Obama did indeed blunt some of the McCain attacks of the past few weeks, and reenergized his base of partisans. The Republicans are likely to gain a few points during their week as well. It is too early to speak intelligently about the Republican Vice-Presidential pick. One thing that hasn't changed, however, is there will still need to be a campaign after the conventions. It looks like it will be a long and difficult campaign for both candidates. The debates are going to be critical. The issues are going to be joined. Unfortunately, it looks like negative adds will also play a major role. When it is all over the American people will make the final judgment as to who will be the next President of the United States.

It's Biden!

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, how should I feel about the choice of Joe Biden as the vice-presidential nominee? Surprisingly, I find myself far more disappointed than I expected to be. After all, it has been clear for some time that Obama was not moving in Hillary's direction. However, I believe many of Hillary's supporters are having a similar reaction. For those of us who believed, there was something special about this election and something special about Hillary. I believe we are already seeing that in the fact that there seems to be no Biden bounce for Obama, and several commentators are saying for the first time that McCain could actually win this election. Hillary supporters who say they will support McCain have moved from 16% to 27%. I believe this represents a stark contrast to the incredible excitement the ticket would now have if Hillary had been chosen. Yes, there are plenty of Hillary detractors out there, but how many of them would have been voting for Obama anyway?

Accepting the fact that it simply was not meant to be, Joe Biden clearly represents my second choice as the best person for the Veep position. He exemplifies many of the qualities that Senator Obama most needs in a running mate. I believe that, even among Hillary supporters, Joe Biden will wear well over time. He has a personal story of triumph and tragedy that Americans will respond to. He clearly says what is on his mind in a way that I think will resonate with the American people. He is a regular guy who should be able to connect with voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc. His foreign policy experience is exceptional, and his relationship with John McCain makes him an ideal person to challenge McCain's rhetoric and negative ads. He may be an attack dog, but I believe what he says will be seen as making sense. Who knows, he may even make a few calculated 'gaffes' so as to be seen as a real person by the voters.

Congratulations to the 'scrappy kid from Scranton'.

The Softer Side of Benedict XVI

John Allen's column in the National Catholic Reporter describes Pope Benedict's queston and answer session with priests in Northern Italy during his recent summer vaction. We get some important insights into the mind of the Holy Father which appear to be quite different from those of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

On evangelization Bemedict exemplifies what John Allen likes to call 'Affirmative Orthodoxy', which basically means not hitting people over the head with constant references to arcane points of Catholic teaching. Benedict emphasizes focusing on others instead of self, and he talks about exemplifying basic human decency and goodness. The message seems to be that we ought to evangelize more by the example of the lives we are leading than by an aggressive attempt to inculcate specific points of doctrine.

When asked about concerns such as too few priests, Benedict acknowledges the problem and admits that he doesn't have the answer. He invites responsible dialogue and indicates that we are all searching together for the right path to address these concerns. This focus on collegiality and dialogue is refreshing and should give those in the Church pause who respond to every suggestion or idea as if it represents the great heresy of our age. We are all called to give the Church the best of what we have to offer, and we should not be silenced or trivialized if our words appear to challenge long standing practices. The days of 'well, we've always done it that way' are simply not good enough any longer, even in the Church.

Finally, Benedict talks about how he has mellowed in his assessments of people and their worthiness to receive communion. He believes that if there is even the 'slightest spark of faith' people should be given the benefit of the doubt. He recommends mercy over severity. These remarks suggest that pro choice Catholic politicians and perhaps even divorced Catholics remarried in civil ceremonies should be given the benefit of the doubt when approaching the Eucharist.

Benedict XVI is no liberal reformer, and has made clear his adherence to the continuation of Church teachings without significant change. Yet I believe in one important respect he is moving the Church forward. I believe he is focusing on the human element that we all have in common. I believe he is saying that some things are more important than orthodoxy. Recall Jesus' words to the Pharisees about the emptiness of many of the prescribed rituals. I believe Benedict is calling us to end the struggle in the Church between conservatives and liberals. Our common love of God and search for the truth should ensure that we always operate with respect for one onother. Our journey of faith takes many twists and turns and the role of the Church should not be to beat back every spark of dissent which might actually turn out to be part of that right path for addressing concerns in the Church.

What's Going On With Women Priests?

According to the National Catholic Reporter 6 women have been ordained as Roman Catholic Priests this year by duly consecrated bishops. Additionally, a total of 32 female priests have been ordained in the past two years. These numbers represent female priests in the United States, but do not include significant numbers of women priests ordained in several other countries.

What is going on here? Can this be a significant movement, or are we looking at a meaningless gesture of a fringe group of dissidents whose actions will be forgotten in short order? Only time, of course, will tell. But while we are waiting for time to tell us, what are we to make of this women priest movement in the Roman Catholic Church?

The Bishops of the dioceses in which these ordinations have taken place have condemned them. The Vatican says that all associatied with these events are automatically excommunicated. The ordinations are said to be invalid. They are certainly illicit. No one can question that they go against current church regulations. The ordinations are only invalid, however, if one accepts the premise that it has been ordained by God that women are by reason of biology incapable of being ordained priests. The female Bishop who ordained these women was consecrated, as far as we know, by a male Roman Catholic Bishop who was in good standing in the Church at the time. Just as the question of the validity of Anglican Orders was debated in the Church for many years, the validity of these ordinations will be a subject of much scholarly discussion for years to come. It can't be decided by a fiat from Rome.

I am actually surprised to see women's ordination rise to the level of a key issue in Church reform circles. I would have imagined married priests, birth control, or some other such issue as being the key question that would spark a major movement. Clearly I underestimated the passion and determination of women, particularly women in the Church. I would not be surprised if the Vatican too may be grossly underestimating the power of women in this regard. A look at the history of women, especially in this country, on the isue of the right to vote, the right to compete for jobs with men in every area tells us that once women decide they intend to have a seat at the table, they will not stop until it occurs. The Vatican may discover it can only resist the onslaught of women for so long.

It's really hard to argue against the right of women to hold positions of authority in the Church, as the Anglicans found out. The scriptural evidence is inconclusive, and can in no way legitimately be used to rule out women priests no matter what Rome might say. The role of women in the Church has been such a dominant one that the notion that the 'old boys network' can continue to call the shots indefinitely is unlikely. Nuns have of course run schools and hospitals, and have had growing influence in the operation of parishes. Lay women have been the mainstay of support in terms of attendance, participation, devotion, and doing everything from cleaning to providing leadership in many parish activities. I don't believe women are going to continue to allow themselves to be second class citizens in the Church for much longer.

I recommend reading the homily of Fr. Roy Bourgeois which can be found in the National Catholic Reporter. Fr. Bourgeois is a Maryknoll priest who concelebrated the ordination Mass and gave the homily in support of the woman being ordained. I believe something is brewing in the Catholic Church today. Clearly as in most organizations change seldom comes from the top down. The Second Vatican Council was a major exception to that rule, and God bless Pope John the XXIII for his actions. The courageous women who are making a statement with their ordinations could represent a blossoming of the work of the Holy Spirit from below. It is a long overdue development. Come Holy Spirit.

The 'Sojourner'

There is a fascinating article in the New York Times by David Brooks which is well worth reading. The August 5th article is titled "Where's the Landslide"? It basically discounts the often cited notions of race or inexperience as primary factors in the failure by Barack Obama to run away with the November election at this point. Rather the article concentrates on what it sees as Obama's status as a sojourner. Brooks points to Obama's failure to demonstrate significant roots in any area of his life be it where he was born and raised, his family, religion, college, teaching, community work, or Congress. He seems to be just passing through. He is generally well regarded in all of these spheres, but not really well known. John McCain by contrast, comes from a military family and fits into a niche that Americans understand. Every president fits in to some category whether its the Kennedy clan, small town Jimmy Carter, or backwoodsman, Andy Jackson.

How important is this focus on understanding a candidates roots? Brooks feels that while Americans are not particularly hostile to Obama they are still trying to figure him out. One would think the vast array of experiences that Obama has had would be more of a plus. Clearly it is with some people. Young people do not seem to have the same concerns as older folks, perhaps because many of them have similar backgrounds. Young people today seem to be less interested in where they came from than they are in where they are going.

What might the sojourner factor tell us about the coming election? It might tell us that Barack really needs to get large numbers of young people out to vote. It certainly tells us that the debates are going to be critical in helping people make up their minds in this election. Moreover, this is a candidate who still needs to do more about making real contact with everyday American people. He needs to have a beer with the guys at a local bar, and not just as a photo-op. He needs to sit down at the diner and have lunch with the locals. He cannot continue to remain above the fray and appear to be distant and detached. He neeeds to let his hair down and really let people feel that they know who he is deep down. He especially needs to spend time and connect with people in battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Finally, it may also be that he needs to take another look at Hillary Clinton for vice-president. Maybe the baggage of the Clinton Clan is just what he needs to establish some roots in his campaign.