Lightning Strikes Randomly Sometimes

Once upon a time, there was a female candidate for Vice-President. She had little experience on the national stage. However, she added excitement to the campaign of an older, more experienced yet dull candidate. The year was 1984. The candidate was Geraldine Ferraro. In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had been a U.S. Representative for six years. That was the sum and substance of her experience as an elected official.

Fast forward 24 years. Sarah Palin is nominated as John McCain's running mate. Liberals are outraged. How can someone whose only experience consists of being a small town mayor and governor for two years be qualified to be next in line to be president? Let's state the obvious here. Sarah Palin was not the most experienced Republican, or even the most experienced Republican woman, to be nominated as Vice-President. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Elizabeth Dole both had better credentials. However, Sarah Palin was an articulate, attractive, post-feminist, Middle-America candidate who could add excitement to the McCain candidacy.

Is this unfair? Consider that the Democrats have nominated a charismatic four year Senator anchored by a Vice-Presidential candidate with decades of experience. The Republicans have nominated a Presidential candidate with decades of experience propped up by an exciting yet inexperienced Vice-Presidential nominee. There is a certain yin and yang here. Presidential campaigns are rarely won by experienced yet unexciting candidates. Otherwise Walter Mondale and Bob Dole would have been president. The race for President is akin to the finals of American Idol, except that each team has two players. Both tickets contain experience and excitement. This will make it a horserace to the end.

Neither Geraldine Ferraro nor Sarah Palin was the most qualified candidate to be Vice-President. However, to be the first of anything is as much about being in the right place at the right time as it is about merit. Sometimes symbolism is more important than substance. In this election year, the symbolism of a butt-kicking hockey mom who rose from the PTA to national prominence is the counterpart to the plucky, young son of a Kansas mother and a Kenyan father who was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and achieved excellence at Harvard and in Chicago. Both exemplify elements of the American dream.

On an unrelated note, I had the opportunity to meet Geraldine Ferraro in 1982 when I spent a semester in Washington. I found her to be unimpressive. She spoke about how difficult it was for a female candidate to be elected. However, the briefing materials provided to us stated that she had outspent her male opponent by a ratio of 6:1. When questioned about this, she gave an evasive answer. Perhaps she said that if she had been a man instead of a woman, she would have raised even more. I am not sure any more. However, it does show that someone can be plucked out of obscurity and then return there or can achieve lasting fame. However, the whole process ia about as random as being struck by lightning.

Remembering Our Trips to Ukraine

One of the more interesting and rewarding things that our family has done is to make friends with the Drozd family in Lazarivka, Ukraine. Back in 1992, Valeska answered an ad looking for penpals for Christians in the former Soviet Union. She began corresponding with Natasha Drozd, an English teacher in a small village. Their familiy consists of Natasha, her husband Viktor, and their children Dima and Ulia.

We have traveled to visit them three times, in 1998, 2000 and 2005. There is nothing quite like spending time with a family to get to know a country. The hospitality that we received was unbelievable. When we first visited in 1998, we were often the first Americans had met in person. They opened their homes to us and we divided our time between sightseeing and dinners that ran late into the night.

The language barrier was not that much of a problem. Of course, Natasha speaks excellent English since her profession is teaching that language. Over the years, Dima and Ulia have become strong English speakers as well. We were able to talk to Viktor a bit in German. Val and I both took German in high school and Viktor learned some while he was stationed in East Germany during his mandatory service in the Red Army. The fact that none of us were that strong in German meant that we had to fumble around for the right word some of the time, but we were able to get the idea across most of the time.



Here are a few photos from 2000. I didn't have a very good digital camera on that trip, so I wasn't able to get very many pictures. I took a lot of video which I will try to convert to digital some day.



Our most recent trip in 2005 was the most emjoyable because the children were old enough to travel well and to fend for themselves much of the time. Kristen and Stephanie spent many hours playing outside with the neighborhood children and going to their homes. They learned how to milk a cow, while their friends learned how to play Gameboy.

I took a lot of pictures on our last trip. With the help of Kristen's friend Catherine, I have combined them into a movie that I uploaded onto Youtube. These photos cover home life in and around Lazarivka and trips to Zhytomir and Kyiv. I have used the Ukrainian spelling of these cities rather than the more familiar Russian version of Kiev.



Our children have grown up together around these trips. In 2000, Dima was 10, Kristen was 8 and Stephanie and Ulia were 5. In 2005, Dima was 15, Kristen was 12 and Stephanie and Ulia were 10. Today, Dima is 18 and will be starting his second year at the university in Kyiv. Ulia is now 13. Here is a current picture of them.

How the Democrats Can Still Lose

At the outset, I need to admit that I am supporting John McCain. However, I have not been very optimistic about his chances. As a result, I have been very surprised to see just how close this election is shaping up to be. According to Real Clear Politics, if the election was held today, John McCain would win the popular vote by a narrow margin and Barack Obama would win the Electoral College by a scant eight votes. Looking at yet another photo finish, you would think that both parties would be battling for the middle ground. However, when I listen to commentators on the Democrat side, it sounds like they are staking out positions on the far end of the spectrum. This seems like a prescription for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, feminist Gloria Steinem attacked Sarah Palin, stating, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need." What is the evidence that Sarah Palin opposes "everything most other women want"? According to Ms. Steinem:

She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Is this what most women believe? I did some research on the abortion issue. Gloria Steinem, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton oppose any limitations on abortion, while Sarah Palin opposes abortion. Who speaks for most women? None of them actually. Women are as conflicted on abortion as the rest of the population. Depending on how you ask the question, either 75% of women believe that abortion should not be banned or 61% believe that abortion should be banned or restricted. This is because a plurality of 38% of women polled support restrictions on abortion but not banning it altogether. When added to the 23% of women who oppose abortion, they make a majority.

Sarah Palin is a unique individual. She is a strong, independent woman who happens to be very conservative. If Democrats attack her as an extremist in a dress, they run the risk that hockey moms, armed forces moms, NRA moms and moms with special needs children will decide that Gov. Palin looks a lot more like them than Gloria Steinem.

The Nation quoted Air America host Thom Hartmann as saying, "It's not left vs. right. . . . It's all of America vs. right-wing cranks." Liberal journalist Ariana Huffington was quoted in the same article as stating, "The problem is with the media, which presents 'all sides' when often there is only one side." What message do these liberal commentators convey? If you are not with Barack Obama, you are a right wing crank who opposes all of America. There is only one side to the issues and that is the liberal side. In other words, you are either for us or against us. That is a reckless strategy guaranteed to alienate the middle. Granted, this is not Barack Obama speaking. However, Sen. Obama can certainly lose credibility if he accepts support from people who want to take the country in a direction it is not ready to go.

Sometimes people who care passionately about politics make the mistake of only talking to others who share their beliefs. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw after the 1988 election where two tweed-coated professors are talking and one says, "I voted for Dukakis. You voted for Dukakis. Who the heck voted for Bush?"

This is shaping up to be an historically close election. On the one hand, you have a Democratic ticket which has a charismatic but inexperienced presidential candidate from the left side of his party anchored by a bland yet experienced vice-presidential nominee. On the Republican side, you have an aging one-time maverick with substantial experience propped up by a brash hockey mom outsider who has even less experience than Sen. Obama. There is a yin and yang between experience and excitement on both tickets. The election will be decided in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, most likely by a very small margin. Both parties will be well advised to rein in their more ideological supporters and shoot for the middle if they want to win.

A Matter of Perspective

During the Olympics, I was awed by Nastia Liukin's elegant lines as she towered over the tiny Chinese gymnasts and her own teammate Shawn Johnson. However, I read in today's paper that the 18 year old Texan is only 5' 3", the same height as my daughter.

Last night, Kristen attended a Quinceanera for her friend Erica. Erica stands a good two inches taller than her own father, making Kristen appear slight next to her. So, you have two girls the same size and about the same age, one of whom appears tall and willowy and one of whom seems diminiutive. However, it is just a matter of perspective, since they are both the same size.

An Unfortunate Turn of Phrase

On Friday, I commented on former President Bill Clinton's elegant turn of phrase at the Democratic National Convention. However, another Democrat, fomer Rep. Charlie Wilson from Texas gets the award for the Convention's biggest gaffe:

We should be led by Osama bin Laden. I mean Obama and Biden.

No doubt the red meat conservative commentators will jump on this as proof of the Democratic Party's true convictions. However, sometimes a slip of the tongue is just a flub and not a window into the hidden psyche.

I recently finised a nine day trial which involved three appraisers: Mr. Coleman, Mr. Powell and Mr. Smith. By the end of the trial, both laywers (myself included) were repeatedly getting the three appraisers confused, even though each of them have simple, distinctive names.

I hope that my liberal friends will remember this the next time a Republican gets their words crossed.

Nice Turn of Phrase

I missed most of the Democratic National Convention because it coincided with the first week of school and soccer practice. However, I came across a quote in the newspaper that bears repeating:

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

--Bill Clinton

In one sentence former President Clinton managed to frame the Democratic view of what America should be in a positive manner, while offering an implied rebuke to the Republicans. Admittedly, it is an example of rhetorical overstatement, since Clinton himself used the example of our power in Bosnia and Kosovo. However, as someone who appreciates a nice turn of phrase, I note that it is economical in its use of words, it is symmetrical, it is positive rather than negative and it uses subtlety rather than a blunt instrument for its critique. Hats off to the author and to former President Clinton for delivering the line.

Talking Past Each Other

Recently I had a conversation with a friend about the presidential race. We come from different perspectives. She grew up in the 60s and is a long-time Democractic activist. I grew up in the 70s and am more conservative. I respect the fact that she continues to ask me to vote for liberal, pro-choice candidates even though she knows that I will probably say no. However, a recent conversation that we had shows how difficult it is for persons with different perspectives to have a meaningful conversation.

First, she politely asked if I planned to watch the Democratic Convention. I politely said no, but didn't explain why. The reason was that with trying to balance my childrens' school activities, soccer practice and work, it is unlikely that I will be watching television again until November. However, my unexplained answer could be taken as apathy or disrespect.

Next, she asked me if I planned to vote for Barack Obama. When I said no, she pressed her case. She told me that she had been hearing lots of negative things about John McCain. However, I hear a constant stream of negative information about Barack Obama, most of which I filter out.

After that, she told me that the Childrens' Defense Fund had given John McCain its lowest ranking. I don't know what a Childrens' Defense Fund is or what positions it advocates. As a result, the intended message--that John McCain doesn't care about children--was received by me as--some liberal advocacy group is unhappy with John McCain. Without a context, the information was not very useful.

Finally, she told me that John McCain had graduated fourth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, while Barack Obama had been editor of the Harvard Law Review. The intended message was that John McCain was a slacker who got by on his family connections, while Barack Obama had earned his position through merit. However, there was some context that my friend didn't have. I had very good grades in college and a high LSAT score. I was offered admission to every law school I applied to, except for Harvard Law School. Therefore, I tend to see Harvard Law School as a bastion of Eastern elitism rather than a meritocracy. (Please don't tell any of my friends who went to Harvard). On top of that, despite an excellent law school education and good grades, the most formative years of my legal education were when I was practicing during my 30s and 40s. As a result, the fact that John McCain barely skated by when he was 21 years old doesn't mean much to me. (Especially since the same could be said about John Kerry and Al Gore as well).

At this point, we ended the conversation. Our brief exchange didn't change my mind. As a matter of fact, we really didn't communicate that much as all. What seemed blatantly obvious to my friend struck me as largely irrelevant. If two people start from the assumption that George W. Bush is the worst president in history and that John McCain is just like him, then a discussion of Sen. McCain's flaws might seem very persuasive. (Personally, I think James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were worse). However, making the same argument to someone who respects Sen. McCain's integrity and independence will come off as partisan and shrill. What would have been more interesting would have been to find something positive about Sen. Obama which would appeal to someone right of center. For example, how would Sen. Obama be good for small business? How will Sen. Obama reach out to people of faith? What will Sen. Obama do to reduce gas prices?

I hope that my friend doesn't think that I am picking on her here. However, the failure of two intelligent people to communicate with each other has gotten me thinking.