Strangely, Obama places his pivotal first meeting with Auma at Chicago airport rather than the Greyhound terminal, where she says it happened.

This strikes me as more likely than not a memory error. I have done research on emotion and memory, and at emotional times, we tend to remember stuff that is central to the experience (seeing his sister), but make errors at stuff that is peripheral (was that place people travel to and from a bus station or an airport). Memory is always reconstructive; it doesn't work at all like the tape recorder our subjective experience of it makes it seem to be. These sorts of semantic confusions in events written about years later are totally unremarkable.

There may be trust issues with Obama, but this story shouldn't provoke them.

I agree, justin.

(I think I'd be quivering suspiciously if I could figure out how the error was of some subtle benefit to Obama - but I can't.)

More glamorous and compelling that she'd come out through a herd of international travelers at the airport than meet him in the Greyhound terminal where the crowd has to be more boringly domestic. Plus, you aren't exactly standing back behind some roped off area at the Greyhound terminal. More like on a bench with a drunk nodding off on your shoulder.

There may be trust issues with Obama, but this story shouldn't provoke them.

True, that. There are others who have trust issuses. Howie Dean wants a do-over:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble_14

What I find important is that you can openly blog these issues. Reading an article about Cuba makes me appreciate this site even more so.

"It's a sort of telegraph service," said one young man, shrugging as he waited in line to use the computers.

Hidden in a small room in the depths of the Capitol building, the state-owned café charges a third of the average Cuban's monthly salary — about $5 — to use a computer for an hour. The other two former Internet cafes in central Havana have been converted into "postal services" that let Cubans send e-mail messages over a closed network on the island with no links to the Internet.
No wonder they risk floating over here.
I hope that Cubans will be privileged to communicate on this site one day. Amy could change the island with her virtual presence.

You don't necessarily have to vote for the lesser of two evils. You can always write-in a candidate or just stay home. If enough people do either or both, then it sends a message loud and clear. Swing voters are highly prized by the two major parties.

Given that the book is titled "Dreams" it's not unreasonable to conclude that Obama's narrative is of how he dreamed he'd meet his sister. There's an awful lot of detail included for a mis-remembrance. It's also not unusual for autobiographies to not actually be autobiographical.

I send messages on my blog every day. Writing in an unelectable candidate is childish and useless. I want somebody in The White House who isn't economically retarded and an utter asshat. And I will vote for the least retarded asshat running, except if they're a religious nutter, and then I'll probably vote for the more retarded candidate.

I'm getting nauseated just thinking about it.

I'm getting nauseated just thinking about it.

Thanks for using "nauseated" (which means "to feel or suffer from nausea") instead of "nauseous" (which means "to cause or inspire nausea").

I want somebody in The White House who isn't economically retarded and an utter asshat.

Agreed. There certainly isn't anyone like that running, though.

You're welcome. I try to be correct, except when it gets in the way of something communicating or sounding good.

There certainly isn't anyone like that running, though.

So depressing. I voted for Obama in the California primaries, not because I like him, but because his health care plan is slightly less socialist and slightly less utterly ridiculous than Hillary's.

To make this clear: This was not a vote FOR Obama, but for Not Hillary.

> If enough people do either
> or both, then it sends a
> message loud and clear.

This is not true.

This is not true.

Yes it is. So there.

My less snarky reply would be: prove that it's worse than the "lesser of two evil" voting method. There is no substantive difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush, or Barack Obama and John McCain.

I don't have to prove nothin', it's your contention, and you offer no evidence. It's not about the "worse than the lesser" of anything: You said it sends a loud and clear message. That's teenage thinking, to imagine that you can pout in corner of the Prom until the captain of the football team comes over to ask what's wrong. Your vote just isn't that valuable. If your insights and persuasion are so weak that you can't posit an opinion, then they aren't worth much either.

Ok, fine: Stay home and do your nails. We'll call you if we need you.

Hmm, okay let's think about this. The two major parties keep offering up candidates who are further and further to the left, and shit-sandwich voters keep voting for them. Furthermore, when asked to vote for someone else, they offer up the self-fulfilling prophecy that they won't vote for someone who's unelectable.

Years of chafing under leftwing bullshit gave us the Contract With America. Shit-sandwich voters like you gave us George W. Bush. Don't worry about calling me; you'll be too busy patting yourself on the back.

Your vote just isn't that valuable.

Well no shit. But a voting bloc is valuable.

Ten years ago if someone had told me that it would be a Republican president and Republican congress that would preside over the largest federal spending increase in 30 years, I would have laughed in their face.

We've seen some moderation since the 2004 election bloodbath, even though there were still plenty of voters afraid to vote on principal back then. Also, the democrats elected were overall more conservative.

Another example I just recalled: the ballot initiative to abolish the income tax in Massachusetts. This measure almost passed with 45% of the vote in 2002, and looks likely to pass this year. Did I mention this is in Massachusetts? Nothing like living under the greater evil to change one's voting habits.

Speaking of Massachusetts, the implosion of MittCare proceeds apace. We'll see what this does to change opinions on "univeral healthcare." Of course, this boondoggle was proposed by a Republican who almost became the party's presidential candidate. But he's not a democrat. We all know that's what really matters when voting. Principal? Pfft.

> But a voting bloc
> is valuable.

A non-voting bloc is worthless. Got it?

Yes, you're right: The liberal party isn't making liberals happy, and the conservative party sin't making conservatives happy. So what? People are often displeased with the performance of their public servants, who should therefore be replaced. Yes, this is a human process full of dishonesty and quibbling, and it stinks to high heaven. But how simple do you want life to be? I don't see what good sitting mute can bring.

I've never so much as worn a lapel pin for a candidate, and there aren't any out there nowadays that inspire any enthusiasm either. But there are plenty of people who do care enough about candidates to get them elected.

The beauty of the American two-party system is that extremists never get very far. George Will once said "California is not politically immoderate." As it turns out, the rest of the country isn't, either.

A non-voting bloc is worthless. Got it?

The trick is getting them to vote. Witness the never-ending quest for the youth vote. And as I said before, writing in your vote is another option to staying home (and a better one, in my opinion).

The beauty of the American two-party system is that extremists never get very far.

Far from it. Extremism is subjective. The proposition that "All Men Are Created Equal" was once extreme. Segregation was once mainstream. Limited government and individual responsibility are today extreme, while they were once mainstream.

If the federal government actually adhered to the Constitution, then this system would indeed be beautiful. But tyranny of the majority is the reality today.

> The trick is getting
> them to vote

Then why are you smirking about staying home to teach people a lesson?

> the never-ending quest
> for the youth vote

Of course... Brand loyalty is a famous component of the typical human soul. Families named Pepsodent, Tide, Pepsi and Bush have done very well by exploiting this truth over the years: Once they've got you into the habit of looking for their familiar packaging, then they've gotcha for a lifetime.

> If the federal government
> actually adhered to the
> Constitution

Men with a greater tolerance for boredom would ask you what you mean by that, but it's pretty clearly the mundane cluck of the High School ugly duckling who wants her feelings more strongly caressed than anyone wants to help with....

C'mon Sugar, theme of our prom is Colour My World! *Now's* the time for you to step out onto that floor in your lime-green taffeta gown and show the world how to dance! It's a night of starlight and magic and anything could happen!

"Strangely, Obama places his pivotal first meeting with Auma at Chicago airport rather than the Greyhound terminal, where she says it happened."

It sounds like one of those things families fight over at Thanksgiving dinner.

Amy, stop it. You're too young to be a cynic!

I was watching a clip of Larry King interviewing Bob Dole. He asked (and I paraphrase): Why do conservative republicans dislike John McCain. Bob Dole, to my (albeit, old-age fading) recollection said, “I don’t know.”

I’ve been thinking about that and I wonder-- how much more hypocritical can you get than today’s far right conservative? These people hate … really hate, John McCain, who is, need I remind them, the nominative head of their Republican party. Supposedly, they hate him because he’s too much of a moderate. Actually, he dares to sound (gasp) somewhat LIBERAL with his leanings. Oh dear. Oh dear.

So, what’s a right-wing conservative to do? Well, if you really hate someone, you vote for the other side. Yes indeedy, ‘Cause we all know THAT makes sense. So now you have right-wing conservatives turning out en-masse to vote for, who else but Hillary Clinton. Yes. A female, liberal democrat. And get this: it’s because they think their own Republican nominee, WHOM THEY HATE, can win.

No, it’s not just you. That kind of thinking can make anyone’s brain turn fuzzy with the far-fetched rhetoric, hypocrisy, and the just plain illogicalness of it all.

Politics is a funny thing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/do-texas-republ.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/heart-ache-texas-republicans-crossing-over-to-vote-for-obama/

And the most telling:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334669,00.html

It’s enough to make your brain scream more than when it sees a politician all dressed up in their Don’t-Blame-Me,-I’m-Just-The-Ugly-Tie get ups.

Obama is a decent man. He's not perfect, I'm sure. But he's decent and kind. That sounds pretty good to me. Isn't that the most that any of us can want to be?

I want much, much more from the people who live so well on my money, and spend it as if for my benefit.

Then why are you smirking about staying home to teach people a lesson?

It's a bit hard for the parties to notice a bloc of dissatisfied voters when said voters keep voting for their candidates.

Men with a greater tolerance for boredom would ask you what you mean by that, but it's pretty clearly the mundane cluck of the High School ugly duckling who wants her feelings more strongly caressed than anyone wants to help with....

Nothing says intellectual bankruptcy like ad hominem.

Obama is a decent man. He's not perfect, I'm sure. But he's decent and kind. That sounds pretty good to me. Isn't that the most that any of us can want to be?

Sweet jebus. I'd prefer economic literacy to a good smile, but I'm old-fashioned I guess.

Me too, Crid. And I'm sorry to sound like an Obamican fanatic, which is the strange position I've found myself of late to be in... BUT, living off of your - mine - Amy's - Name-Your-Americans' money, is one of the reasons I like Obama's GoggleForGovernment.com idea.

You/we/the-American-public need to start SOMEwhere with what the heck these politicians are spending our hard-earned money on. His idea seems like a good start to at least get that going. Will it work? Hell, I don't know. But I DO know that when I worked for Corporate America, it was much like what we see every day with political dealings ...

Meetings take place in closed rooms, without the consult of the people on the front lines. Sadly, decisions were very infrequently made, though lots of stories were cast about. At the end of most of those meetings, congratulations (and subsequent promotions and bonuses) were made to the biggest talkers. But details such as exactly WHAT was to be the objective and who was going to be responsible for it was never decided.

Goggleforgovernment.com is a least a start in the right direction.

I've read from you, Crid, that politicians are who we, as the public, HIRE (vote in, as it were) to serve us. At least I think that's what you've said - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As such, shouldn't they be telling us what the heck they are doing?

And if that is true, then why does it seem so crazy to think that there is finally someone who thinks similarly that is running for a government office out there?

> when said voters keep voting
> for their candidates

You really want us to beg, don't you, little fella?

Ok...

Golly, Jordan, who do *YOU* want us to vote for?

We won't ask twice. See Amy's adjacent post: If you want to express an opinion, you (and your imaginary "bloc") oughta put it out there on your own dime, no matter how certain (or lonely) you are.

> ad hominem.

Perhaps I missed your point. Did you intend to say something precious about the constitution? Nobody meant to interrupt you, but we'd all be tremendously grateful if, as you consume our attention, you could say something worth reading... Because you aren't likely to do so.

Look, you don't wanna vote, then don't vote. But it's annoying when sullen people pretend to be personally (but always arcanely) clued in to obvious, common-sense (or constitutionally-prescribed) solutions to our problems... Miraculous "principles" unconsidered by "shit-sandwich" commen men.

Jordan said: Sweet jebus. I’d prefer economic literacy to a good smile, but I’m old-fashioned I guess.
____

Hey Jordan, I’m in a good mood. A smile sounds good to me.

I was writing mainly with an overall psychological reference in mind. But if you wanna talk economic literacy, that’s okay, too. Where would you like to start? The ill-thought-out repercussions of NAFTA? (The repercussions of which is why it doesn’t need to be thrown away, but simply renegotiated).

Or perhaps you’d like to discuss the complete illogicalness of accepting lobbyist campaign monies while maintaining that one can be immune to what lobbyists are ultimately paying for? … And how these decisions subsequently affect the everyday life of the American people ...

Or – my latest favorite (just thought of it in the car on the way to work this morning, I know, I know … I’m a little slow) how America is bound to turn once again to unions -- as the imbalance of earnings between the owners and the worker-bees is becoming so out of sorts that our society is resembling more and more of a serfdom.

Since you didn’t give me anything to go on, I just made all that up. At the risk of completely hi-jacking Amy's subect matter, was there some other economic literacy you had in mind?

Sorry, been gone all day, don't have much more to add, but I sure do enjoy me some vintage Crid technique. (Sounds like something Mr. Miyagi might have taught.)

was there some other economic literacy you had in mind?

You might start by learning the definition of a serfdom. Were you to do so, you'd find that a serf faced a maximum tax rate of 33 percent. How much do you pay? Remember to include the employer's share of your Social Security since it's your money, Medicare, tolls, excise taxes, fees, income tax, sin taxes, sales taxes, stamp taxes for cigarettes and liquor, plus all of those taxes Congress likes to stuff in your phone/electric/water/garbage/cable/satellite bills.

You might also investigate the free labor market. If you don't like how your company is run you can always find another job. Or, better yet, start your own company. There's nothing stopping you except, perhaps, the unions.

You really want us to beg, don't you, little fella?

Ok...

Golly, Jordan, who do *YOU* want us to vote for?

It's less about who I want you to vote than who I don't want you to vote for. It's understandable that you'd have difficulty reading though, since you're so busy stomping your feet and exercising some bizarre prom fetish. Like I said, I encourage people to vote for a more free-market candidate.

Perhaps I missed your point. Did you intend to say something precious about the constitution? Nobody meant to interrupt you, but we'd all be tremendously grateful if, as you consume our attention, you could say something worth reading... Because you aren't likely to do so.

And yet here you are again. Weird that. Get it all out of your system now.

Look, you don't wanna vote, then don't vote. But it's annoying when sullen people pretend to be personally (but always arcanely) clued in to obvious, common-sense (or constitutionally-prescribed) solutions to our problems... Miraculous "principles" unconsidered by "shit-sandwich" commen men.

I never said I'm not voting. Once again, I'll be writing a candidate in. Sullen? Hardly, but anyone who's not writhing around in anger would probably appear that way to you.

These principles aren't miraculous or arcane, and I certainly don't pretend that they are. Free markets and limited government used to be the defining principles of American conservatives. Now it's "our guy at any cost."

Or perhaps you’d like to discuss the complete illogicalness of accepting lobbyist campaign monies while maintaining that one can be immune to what lobbyists are ultimately paying for? … And how these decisions subsequently affect the everyday life of the American people ...

Boy howdy, you've got me there. Why, the massive size and unchecked power of the federal government wouldn't have anything to do with the appeal and effectiveness of lobbying, now would it? And tell me what does Obama intend to do about this? Oh right, he intends to increase the federal budget by $200+ billion. Yeah, that'll help. Of course Obama would never accept lobbyist money:

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Bah, sorry for the botched html.

And you, dear Curly, might start by learning how to read a sentence. Were you to do so, you’d find that I did not say that our society IS a serfdom, I stated “our society is resembling more and more of a serfdom,” – key word: resembling.

While you’re busy looking up the definition of “resemble” you could further entertain yourself by looking up the word “analogy.”

> Like I said, I encourage
> people to vote for a more
> free-market candidate.

You said that?

> somebody in The White House who
> isn't economically retarded and
> an utter asshat.

... doesn't exactly express your preferred fiscal direction...

For the record, I'm OK with people who aren't completely full of piss... But it makes me nuts when people think there's some better way to run a show then letting voters vote how --and when-- thet want to. The little people are running this shop.

You said that?

> somebody in The White House who
> isn't economically retarded and
> an utter asshat.

... doesn't exactly express your preferred fiscal direction...

I guess I wasn't clear enough when I approvingly noted the Contract With America, the implosion of MittCare, and the initiative to abolish the Mass. income tax. My bad.

For the record, I'm OK with people who aren't completely full of piss... But it makes me nuts when people think there's some better way to run a show then letting voters vote how --and when-- thet want to. The little people are running this shop.

Yeah, I can see that it makes you nuts. I never said anything about forcing anyone to vote a certain way or at a certain time. Despite my dissenting opinion, people are still free to vote for Big-Spending-Economic-Luddite B, or if they're feeling particularly ballsy, Big-Spending-Economic-Luddite A, and they can feel good about not being "completely full of piss."

> Despite my dissenting opinion,
> people are still free

Great. Thanks.

> I guess I wasn't clear

Well, the contract with America thing was adjacent to shit-sandwich voters part. Now, we all know there are individuals out there who need to clarify their thinking a little bit. But I'll never understand how people can be so contemptuous of the entire American voting public... (Unless it's just a way to be condescending towards a hundred and twenty million people in a very short amount of time.) This is humanity's best, you know what I mean? And people want to pretend it can be mocked and told what to do.

I'll never understand that. Democrats do it, but Republicans aren't supposed to.

> Despite my dissenting opinion, > people are still free

Great. Thanks.

No need to thank me. The Constitution grants your rights, not me.

Well, it doesn't grant rights. But you get my gist.

Sigh. One more correction and I'm done, I swear.

Despite my dissenting opinion, people are still free...

I phrased that poorly, and just want to note that the dissenting opinion is not in regards to people's freedom to vote as they wish. I was referring to the idea that people should only vote for the 2 major candidates. Hopefully, nobody misunderstood.