children get up early. we have 6 new folks downstairs in my neighbor's 'apartment,' as it were, relatives of the sichuanese wife who lost their home in the earthquake. two of them are kids - two boys around 9 and 11 - nice kids so far but weekends sleeping in are bye-bye. they roller blade in the courtyard, play swords running up and down the stairs, you know, kid stuff. noisy, thumping kid stuff.
life after the quake is simmering down. the two flat-screen tvs on every bus has stopped playing new daily slideshows of photo footage set against sad music. my company - as most companies - has gathered donations from employees, matched the total, and sent them to the red cross. the three minute moment of silence, which was not silent at all but filled with screaming air-raid sirens - has come and gone, the three days of remembrance is over.
clinton lost. i wonder if, when running for president, someone on staff is responsible for counseling the candidate about the possibility of a loss and how to manage. i wonder if preparing for losing is part of the game; or if the candidate is treated much like a coddled athlete and shielded from anything that might affect the mental state needed for wins.
sherry and i scoffed when we heard clinton and obama were in a runoff. america would elect a black man before a woman, and although i wasn't totally convinced, damn it if we weren't right. i am sure that sexism played a part in it, just as i'm sure that the clinton name was an enormous hurdle - we californians love the clintons, it took me a while to understand that just as we love them, many many other people loathe them - and her confrontational stance, her tenacity that translated negatively in the press. i do not personally support girl-power rhetoric, i find it to support negative generalization and to not be representative of my views, but as a girl, i am positive that it would have been enlightening to have a woman in office. gender matters, even if we like to believe it doesn't. in this race, there were many aspects to her personality, and obama's, that led to the results as we know them today. his ability to appear transcendent, just as she appeared to be rutting around in the bi-partisan dirt, was as legitimate a factor in the race as her faultlessly impressive preparation. i wanted to support the practical - her strong foundation of experience and provision - over his idealism, but in the end it was the practical interpretation of that practicality vs. his optimism that forced my hand. his platform of transcendence, as gossamer as it sounded, translated into leadership, and that is what will matter in the bi-partisan election. facing off a rottweiler with a pittbull isn't a guarantee. maybe a unicorn will work better?
i can't say that i ever would have believed that before. so i suppose we will see.
2 comments:
getting a visa is tough these days. check your email. what did your family do?
I would have voted for a woman in a heartbeat if she seemed like the best candidate. But she sounded so full of shit it was crazy. Many of her speeches that I heard sounded like elementary school class officer speeches. She was saying random-ass empty promises like "If I'm elected we're going to cut the college drop-out rate in half", that's it, no explanation. Just stank of B.S. to me. Especially the part where she said, "If I'm elected class president, I promise to put vending machines in every classroom and improve the cafeteria food and make it pizza day every Wedesnday"... :)
Post a Comment