Value system

Ever wondered what the term "traditional family values"(TFV) actually means? I have. Maybe it's written down somehwhere.
But those who espouse these TFVs may have a point. I mean, take the case of Vito J. Fossella, a congressman from New York City, that infamous den of inequity. Fossella was arrested in Virginia recently for drunken driving. His blood alcohol level was measured at .17, more than double the state's legal limit of .08.
Fossella apparently told police he was on the way to take his sick daughter to the hospital. But, within a week, a spokesman for Fossella told members of the media the congressman was on his way to "visit friends."
Both statements were apparently correct. Fossella was on the way to see his mistress, with whom he had a 3-year-old daughter. This obviously came as a shock to his current wife, with whom he has a son.
So do we really want people like Fossella representing us in Congress?
Well, let's see.
Fossella is ... gasp! ... a conservative Republican, a strong supporter of President Bush, who voted to impeach former President Clinton for his TFV violation, who the New York Times reported "created an image ... as the embodiment of traditional family values."
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge here. Maybe they are the traditional values of his family.
But cheap shots aside, I think this really shows that temptation is not a partisan issue and those who put themselves up before the world as guardians of our moral compass better make damn sure their own compass is working.

Sour grapes

I am tired of hearing Clinton supporters railing about how sexism is at the root of their candidate's travails. It's almost as if the only possible reason Obama could be beating Clinton is because she's a woman.
Get over yourselves. She made a colossal strategic blunder in her campaign of inevitability and now is paying that price. Are there some voters who won't vote for her because of her gender? You bet your sweet bippy. Just as there are those who are voting FOR her because of her gender. And just like there are people voting for or against Obama because of his race.
Before we go any farther let me get this out front. From the beginning of this race I made it clear to those who asked me that I could support any one of the three Democratic frontrunners. I had no favorite. After John Edwards dropped out, I still took the position that either Democratic candidate would be far superior to another Republican. And I still believe that.
But after watching the campaign, I believe Obama is the superior candidate. I don't expect those who have gone to the wall for Clinton to agree with me. Too bad. If the Obama campaign were to implode and Clinton became the nominee, I would vote for her.
But when I see Clinton supporters quoted as saying they'll jump ship to John "Pander Bear" McCain before they'll vote for Obama, I see a whole bowl full of sour grapes.
I only have two words for those Clintonistas who will cuddle up to the Pander Bear: Supreme Court.
The delicate balance for causes near and dear to those who profess to support Clinton would be upset if McCain were elected. John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice on the high court, is 88 years old and probably won't make it through another presidential term. My suspicion is that he probably held out as long as he did in the hopes a Democrat might be elected. (I know he was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford, but Ford was carrying out a delicate balancing act of his own, trying to calm the country down after the hugely divisive Watergate scandal.)
So if Clinton supporters desert the party in droves and help elect McCain, it'll be on their heads when McCain beefs up the conservative majority on the court - one that will probably last the rest of our lifetimes.

It's all over but the shouting

It seems clear that Barrack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. Well, to almost everyone.
Hillary Clinton is pushing ahead despite the overwhelming odds against her. Clinton has her own reasons for keeping on keeping on. Whatever those reasons are, one thing is certain: Hillary Clinton is no political neophyte and can read the proverbial writing on the wall as anyone.
Maybe it's as simple as wanting something so bad you can't believe there isn't SOME way to get it. At this point it would take a virtual tsunami on a level exceeding the Rev. Wright to swamp Obama's growing advantage.
The real question now is: How can Democrats extricate themselves from this unsettling dilemma and emerge without shooting themselves in the foot?
It just goes to show you how unpredictable politics can be. Six months ago not even the most savvy political junkie could have predicted the current state of affairs. At the time McCain was an afterthought and Obama wasn't even high enough in the polls to rate underdog status.
That just proves that six months is two or three lifetimes in politics. And the election is still six months away.

Poor, poor pitiful me...

An interesting tidbit picked up this morning. The federal poverty threshhold, which details who is eligible for various federal benefits and programs, is $21,200 (not sure if that's gross or net) for a family of four. Let that roll around on your tongue for a while.
Poverty level? That barely pays the rent and food bill, never mind utilities, clothes for the kids and gas for the car. Or maybe that assumes anyone that poor can't afford a car, in which case they'll probably have to take a bus to work, but that ain't free either.
So when the state says they are cutting off benefits - say, child care benefits so people can continue to work - to anyone making 150 percent of the federal poverty level, that establishes the cutoff point at $31,800 for a family of four.
And you think you've got it tough.