Same Sex Marriage in the Midwest

well....i'm not exactly sure what this means for the presidential primary discussion working up to caucus season, but an iowa district court today ruled that same-sex couples can marry. the argument is based on the guarantee within the state's constitution of equal treatment to all people.

imagine that.......

judge robert hanson, in his sixty-three page ruling, wrote:

Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex.

he goes on to say that the law limiting marriage between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. this statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing."

could it be that common sense is making its way inward from the coasts.....?

this case will, of course, now make its way to the iowa supreme court...... but this is a significant victory as it comes from the value-center of the united states.

should make for an interesting weekend of political discussion.....

e.

Mitt's Latest Flip

well.....ole "i'll say whatever you need me to say to get your vote" romney has done it again. in the aftermath of twinkle toe craig's misconduct in the minneapolis airport men's room, romney has lashed out at the idaho senator.

senator larry craig, who was working with mitt on his campaign, elected to drop out of the romney camp so as not to distract.

so...... that was nice of him. i mean - we'd hate to have him come up in the romney campaign, right?

but wait...that didn't stop mitt from bringing him up anyway:

"it reminds us that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint," mitty said on cnbc. "and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game that we'll just forgive and forget."

oh, you mean....the way you want everyone to forget that you ran as a democrat to get elected as governor of massachusetts?

or the way you want the republicans to forgive you for years of being a social progressive? forget the way you supported abortion rights?

you want everyone to forget and forgive all that... so you can now run as a republican for president of the united states?

is that what you mean by speaking a good game?

so tell me, mitt: who are you currently disappointing? the dems that voted you into office because you supported their views at the time it best benefited you? or the republicans that have to listen to you constantly flip-flop on every important issue you've run on so that you can now steal the GOP nomination from a true conservative?

and have you disappointed senator craig? a loyal campaigner who made a pro-romney video that has now been ripped off of youtube...? that dropped out of your campaign so as not to hurt your chances due to association? the man you have now vilified in the public's eyes?

i'm not defending senator craig.... i mean, the 'mo needs to own up to actions. remember that he was the one that said back in february of '99 that "clinton brought this nation to this point because of his own self-gratification, setting what was good for himself above what was good for the nation." (glass houses.......)

but mitt.... seriously?

meet the press quote of the week

way over due, i know.... and i apologize, my lovelies. this week's quote comes from thomas ricks of the washington post:

"iraq, i think, is going to be much more difficult for this country than the vietnam war was...because we could walk away from vietnam." ricks goes on to say that leaving vietman was bad for the cambodians and others (obviously) but it didn't result in the predicted domino effect of communism taking over the world. but that we've "stepped into something" with iraq which is in a region with too high an economic influence on the world to just leave it.

i.e. i think we're in it for the long haul.....

e.

GOP: Good Ole Penis

i don't know why the republican party is being so kind to me as of late... but it's like everyday is my birthday.

now....let me begin by saying i don't want to imply that senator larry craig (republican of idaho) is a fag..... but i am saying he does love the cock.

hey - i know a lot of "straight" men who have sex with men. does one man's love for another man's penis make him gay? ummmm...... hmm.

revelations of an arrest back in june have surfaced concerning senator craig and alleged "lewd conduct" that took place in a minneapolis-st. paul airport men's room. earlier this month craig pleaded guilty to fellatio, i mean, disorderly conduct and paid a $500 fine.

now, mr. heterosexual craig has since come out and said he regrets pleading guilty to the charge and it's all been a big misunderstanding. "i am not gay" insists ole larry. sure, i mean, you tap your foot in your stall. tap, tap, tap until you play footsies with the man in the next stall. you rub your fingers along the bottom of the stall the way you do any ole gloryhole in any ole bookstore that simply says: "please slide your dick through.... i'm gaggin' for it!"

but he was misunderstood. a big case of "he said/he said" says the craig camp. how fabulous is that quote?

of course, nevermind the gay blogger who swears he had sex with craig back in october of 2006. and forget about the allegations of sexual misconduct in a congressional page scandal back in 1982 that made craig "hot as hell." no, wait. i'm sorry - he said "mad as hell" back in '82. "mad as hell."

it's all just so delicious, isn't it? all these holier-than-thou republican assholes who initiate pro-family, pro-values, anti-gay legislation and run as pillars of society and then get caught with their dicks in their hands. or little boy dicks in their hands.

glenn murphy jr., bob allen, mark foley, david vitters (okay - hooker titties, granted, but still).

everyday you have to wonder which anti-gay legislator will be pulling down a young man's pants next.

for a full story on senator craig plus a lot of juicy details containing his suspicious past, see the following story from the idaho statesman:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/1264/story/143801.html

what can i say? we're here... we're queer. and apparently a lot of us are republicans.

go fig.

e.

If I've Said It Once...

...i've said it a million times:

i mourn for our nation's youth.

e.

Adios, Diablo!

the new york times is reporting that alberto gonzales, the incompetent who has been running the justice department the last several years, has submitted his resignation to W. the resignation was phoned in on friday.... no official announcement has been made as of yet - but one is expected today.

i'm reading some buzz that current secretary of homeland security - michael chertoff - will be nominated as his replacement.

yeah....that's a great idea. one fuck-up for another. and right around the anniversary of katrina. brilliant.....

i guess i'll give bush one thing....he's consistent.

e.

Own Your Comments, Man

democratic presidential hopeful john edwards has been out there on the stump lately with some strong, fightin' words. which is interesting because apparently he's decided to start showing up for his own battles and let elizabeth catch her breath on the sideline for a bit.

but if you're gonna talk some smack, john... own it.

in a speech on thursday delivered in iowa (the basket in which edwards has placed all his eggs), johnny boy said, "the american people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the house or the senate."

wow....that was one helluva statement. taking direct aim at hillary, even her husband bill, and following along with his big attack theme of taking lobbyist money.

you go get 'em, tiger.....

in the same speech he went on to say, "the trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't...it's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt...and still is."

again - some strong words. but on friday, edwards said: "nothing i said yesterday has anything to do with other presidential candidates."

ummmm.....really? who are you trying to fool?

barack obama's been hammering away at hillary as a member of the establishment.... a washington insider.... and to some degree of success. why should edwards not take a page from this playbook? his campaign is going nowhere fast. he still lags behind clinton and obama in both money and polls. his wife continues to garner more headlines than he does.

so why the mamby-pamby bullshit?

maybe he had a moment thursday night to remember back to how flat his attacks during the afl-cio debate fell? maybe john suddenly remembered that the democratic faithful are tired of dems attacking each other and would rather the candidates attack the GOP?

whatever thought struck edwards (or his team) thursday night.... this lame attempt at saying he wasn't attacking any other candidate personally..... it's bullshit. and it just adds to the perception of his disingenuousness. ten minutes in a picket line.... a few miles bicycling next to lance armstrong.

he's in danger of becoming the next kerry-in-hunting drag photo op whore.

i like edwards...i do. it's true that he's not my first choice.... he's probably not my second. but if he won the nomination, i'd vote for him. i just like the way he says "hope" with that crooked little mouth of his.... but enough with the bullshit.

maybe it's all the football i've been watching lately... maybe i'm having testosterone overload.... but be a man, john. if you're gonna make the comments - stick by your words.

you'll be a better candidate for it. and i'll respect you more...

e.

Dallas 16, Houston 28

last night i returned to reliant stadium in houston to attend my second cowboys vs. texans preseason game. true....preseason means shit. but hey - bragging rights are always nice.

the cowboys just looked sloppy. especially ole slippery hands romo. he fumbled, he threw an interception and even bumbled a snap. it was poetry in motion.

in the meantime - on the hometown side of the ball: where did jacoby jones come from? hello, rockstar! on the texans opening drive..... well - on what was to be the opening drive....jones ran back a 91-yard punt return for the first touchdown of the evening.

from there - houston never looked back and lead the entire game. but even as my brother and father like to say - look at the score when the starters leave the game. that's your winning score. fair enough: dallas 6, houston 21.

now....i'm not about to get all excited - but it was nice watching the texans look solid. and i think the boys from wisconsin are gonna bring the texans to victory this season. watch for ex-packer ahman green and ex-badger owen daniels to dominate much of our offensive game (and direct from green bay, mike sherman returns for his second year as the offensive coordinator).

oh....and i believe in giving props where props are due. our boy mario williams looked great last night. even got himself a sack or two.

having said all this....watching the postgame analysis on sports center last night - you'd swear the cowboys had won. how about giving my boys their well-deserved kudos? it was bullshit.

fucking cowboys..... why does everyone love them so?

best shirt of the night:
front: the cowboys suck.
back: if dallas is america's team, consider me canadian.

anyway....i'm not getting high hopes as far as the playoffs go...but hell, i'll take a winning season for once. is that too much to ask for.....?

e.

The Rough Road for Republicans

i can't deny the fact that i'm eating up all the shit the GOP is going through these days. we're looking at 16 months of lame duck.....and their field for the 44th prez is not looking good. wow....there's so much delicious bad news to talk about i'm not even sure where to begin.

maybe we should start with the grand dumbfuck himself?

georgie's ready for bed

there's a lot of talk about what karl rove's departure means for the bush presidency. and many people are asking if bush can function without his brain. but as wayne slater, co-author of bush's brain, put it: "sure he can...because there's not much to do."

even uberconservative pat buchanan said "the bush second term is shaping up as a very big, and possibly historic, failure."

this makes me moist, i have to tell you........

howard fineman summed up the next year and a half, perhaps, best: "it's all defensive now. no more agenda. it's all about turf...he's counting the minutes until he gets out of town."

unfortunately.....at sixteen months - that's still a long countdown. fineman goes on to say, "i've always felt about george bush that he wanted to win desperately. i'm not sure he really wanted to be president."

well, fuck..... why couldn't he have spared all of us.....?!?!

i really think bush will go down as one of the worst, if not THE worst president in history. forget hoover and grant.... fuckup #1 goes to george w. ("w" stands for "why don't i fuck over everyone?"). luckily, everyone agrees he will accomplish nothing over the remainder of his presidency. he will spend all of his time on defense: defending this awful war he's put us in.

and even that's getting harder for him......

if i've lost warner....

i heard both brian williams and eamon havers of business week make a john warner/walter cronkite comparison tonight. president lyndon johnson famously said of his support for vietnam: "if i've lost cronkite, then i've lost middle america." senator john warner, republican of virginia, is incredibly well-respected. he was chair of the armed services committee when the GOP ran the show on capitol hill and his voice carries a lot of weight with the republicans in congress. today, warner further broke ranks.

senator warner said in a speech that bush should announce the withdrawal of some troops from iraq in mid-september with a goal of having about 5,000 troops home by christmas. "In my humble judgment, that would get everyone's attention...the attention that is not being paid at this time," said warner. he went on to say, "i really, firmly believe the iraqi government, under the leadership of prime minister al-maliki, let our troops down." this is the same maliki of which bush said on tuesday: "prime minister maliki's a good guy, good man with a difficult job and i support him."

of course, he also supports gonzales and miers and.... aw, hell. the list is too long.

another bad report card

all of this comes with the release of the latest national intelligence estimate which spells even more bad news for bush. from the new york times:

A stark assessment released Thursday by the nation’s intelligence agencies depicts a paralyzed Iraqi government unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year.

The assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, casts strong doubts on the viability of the Bush administration strategy in Iraq. It gives a dim prognosis on the likelihood that Iraqi politicians can heal deep sectarian rifts before next spring, when American military commanders have said that a crunch on available troops will require reducing the United States’ presence in Iraq.

oops.... still supporting maliki? still think the surge can work? jesus....how long before petreaus makes his appearance before capitol hill? oh, that's right. bush and his team will be meeting with and preparing the general prior to his testimony (in about 20 days, by the way). didn't bob gates say something about all iraqi progress reports should come from someone other than W? isn't his credibility shot?

and by the way, a recent cnn/opinion research corporation poll found that 64% of americans now oppose the war in iraq (welcome to the party) with 72% percent saying the petraeus report will have no effect on their opinion. the poll also found 53% do not trust the general to give an accurate assessment of the situation in iraq.

i'll say it again.....oops.

none of the above

in light of the "none of the above" box still being checked more than any other name on the potential GOP ballot for president - the boys are out and fighting. romney and thompson are attacking guiliani's leftist social views. romney's being attacked for flipflopping on the issue of abortion.

thompson still hasn't declared. i mean, seriously.....what is this guy waiting for? a third wife? he's about to be so unfashionably late i'd swear he was gay.

and it appears i'm not the only one over the waiting game being played by fred.

recent polls from both cbs and gallup show thompson's support waning. the cbs poll has thompson at 18% now as opposed to 25% in july. gallop shows him dropping from 21% in july to 19% currently. i think the GOP is tired of waiting. get in the fucking race already. if you want to save us....get to work.

i'm speaking as a republican here.... i could give a shit. all i care about is that the current quinnipaic poll still has hillary beating rudy 46% to 43%.

yes....there's just not a lot of good news out there right now for the republican party. and really....in all honesty.... i wouldn't have it any other way.

e.

Notes From All Over II

man, there's a lot going on...... i'm not even sure where to begin. i want so badly to talk about the GOP and their problems - but i think that's an entirely separate entry...... they got issues, children. so, let's talk about some other things, shall we?

michelle vs. hillary
okay....this is getting interesting. but i'm finding something fascinating that i've not yet heard on the airwaves. michelle obama made a comment the other day on the campaign trail that many people are taking as a swipe at hillary clinton. mrs. obama said: "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the white house."

senator obama has since said she was not taking a swipe at hillary. that's all fine and good. but here's what i wonder:

michelle obama is known for speaking her mind. she seems a formidable presence. she is a strong-willed woman with ideas of her own.... and she's not afraid to express them.

i LOVE that.......

but do you know who else has these characteristics? hillary.

think about it... and now ask yourself: is it possible that the public perception of michelle could parallel the same image they held of hillary back when bill was running for office? and as the perception of hillary has remained - thanks in large part to the right wing machine - since? i mean...that comment was kinda bitchy, yes? people have been calling hillary a bitch for a long time. and there's always been a lot of talk about strong-willed, out-spoken women hurting men on the campaign trail. from hillary to teresa heinz.

i'll be interested in watching how this all develops.

simon schama's power of art
why this took so long to get to on my dvr i will never understand. if you haven't seen it and you have any interest in art..... this is fascinating. it originally aired on pbs but is now available on netflix and for purchase.

it's like art history done by darren aronfosky. visually riveting and exceedingly informative. each hour long episode highlights a particular artist and a signature piece.

if you haven't, you really must watch.....

rot in hell (the hell i don't believe in)
it appears michael vick will plead guilty to charges in connection with his dogfighting ring. i don't believe in the death penalty - but i feel the same way about people who abuse animals as most people feel about child molesters. i don't wish him dead..... but i hope he suffers.

a doggy-style rape in prison will do me fine.

i don't understand how people can do such things to animals. and it goes beyond the dogfighting. it's what they did to the dogs after the fights. it makes me phenomenally angry.

suffer vick. you're an evil, awful man. and i hope you never play football again. that should be the LEAST of your punishment.

speaking of the death penalty...
the lone star state executed the 400th person since texas reinstated capital punishment back in 1982. johnny ray conner was 32. he is the 21st person put to death in texas this year. sad....

speaking of football....
the texans beat the arizona cardinals 33-20. matt schaub ran in a touchdown during the first quarter (so did david carr for the panthers).

california poll numbers
these are the first poll numbers i've seen from california (compliments of the field poll). hillary clinton leads the pack with 49% of the democratic vote (up from 41% in march). obama has dropped from 28% in march to only 19% now and edwards has dropped from 13% to 10%.

what's most interesting to me about these numbers is how obama has dropped since making his announcement. usually - numbers grow once your name is out there and people get to know it more. that's not happening for barack. his numbers continue to slide the more people get to know about him.

meet the press quote of the week
i have to pick two this week....although they're from the same conversation. brought to you by ron brownstein of the la times:

"she [hillary] is a real front runner. this is what you have when you have a front runner. they lead everywhere."

--AND--

hillary's "arguing that she brings the perfect blend of change and experience. that she has the experience to deliver the change others are talking about...." the problem edwards and obama face is that clinton "is more competitive with them on change than they are with her on experience."

it's good stuff, right?

e.

My 3 R's: Relief, Regret & Reinvigoration

the 10x10 is over and i feel a great amount of relief. as always, i stressed out a good deal and my nerves seriously kick my ass working up to any performance. but i have to say - i was pleased with how it went.

was it exactly what i was hoping for? no.... but it was not anywhere near as horribly awful as last year. my director was excited and involved. my actors gave it their all. it wasn't exactly my vision but it was close.

i'm perhaps spoiled by the earlier productions of my longer plays where i had a lot of creative control. but i have to learn to let go and trust the talent that has taken over my writing. the audience was pleased - i came in second once all the audience votes for "best play" were tallied. the play that won clearly deserved it. well written.... perfectly executed. my envy was palpable.

my regrets are few but they are there. i still feel the play was overwritten.... a bit too preachy. i don't think my director and actors' instincts to play up the melodrama of the piece helped any. most nights i felt the play came across as described by this snippet on theatreport.com:

"Commit for Life" by [e.] is so preachy that I thought the only thing missing from the set was the pulpit. Well directed by John Kaiser, and well acted by Larry Hermes and John Dunn, like Kaiser's written piece this point could've been driven home a LOT quicker and to greater effect. About a gay man that wants to give blood for his injured mother, but is denied because gays can't give blood according to the blood bank by laws. What could've been a shorter, play with more impact, feels like beating a dead horse. It's not that the idea of how the blood bank discriminates isn't heinous, but the point is hammered home so many times in this piece the audience finds itself feeling like a collective nail, and the "twist" at the end of this one is so predictable the entire audience could've written it on their program midway thru the play.

so - i'm not the only one that found it preachy. but maybe that's because i'm so close to the material and know all the information i talk about. i do think this review is a bit harsh... i know the piece isn't perfect but i think the second half is more powerful - less preachy.

now, having said all this.....i must have connected with the audience to come in second, right? obviously - they felt something other than being preached to. and i have to admit - at some point each night i looked around the audience to see if i had lost them.... if they were looking through their programs or around the theatre. they were not. they were watching the action on stage. i had several people each night ask if it were true. one person had gone to the website to see for herself. so a conversation has begun. maybe one day the discrimination will end...?

and i saw some people crying... and i was told about others. about a person whispering "oh god" when she realized the ending. so the piece connected and that's what i wanted. and i'll take a write up like this any day (also a post on theatreport.com):

COMMIT FOR LIFE – Next up, Hermes père shows us how it’s done (no pun intended), as a TV-style cop grilling gay madcap John Dunn about his bad behavior at a hospital blood bank. Both actors deftly alienate us then win us over (especially Dunn), and [e.] has crafted a quietly shattering script. In his 10X10 directing debut, Kaiser wisely stands aside and lets his cast probe the material, with Norelia Reed eloquently presiding like a moon in eclipse.

"quietly shattering" ---who wouldn't take that?!?

i'm not really sure i'll enter the 10x10 again. i've never been truly pleased with the experience and i'm not sure my work connects with most of the members (who average about 20-30 years older than me). but we'll see... should inspiration hit for another 10 minute play, i might.

the one good thing about the whole experience is that it's reinvigorated me and my desire to really set aside the time i need to write. i've had too many obstacles over the past several years (mostly no privacy with roommates and no time to write) - but that's no longer an excuse. i have several plays in the work and i should finish one soon. my goal is by year-end to finish my next full-length play.

where it goes from there..... i can only hope.

but at least i had something out there this past weekend. it was only 10 minutes, yes.... but it is 10 minutes that keep me going, encouraging me to follow my dreams.

e.

Farewell, Rupey

my parents were down over the weekend and brought some sad news. our little dog rupert was put to sleep on thursday. little rupey had a tumor growing inside of him and it simply took over. i don't really want to dig into details here...... all that matters is that he's no longer in pain.

we had a dog when we were younger - bandit - and, for strictly selfish reasons, we probably kept him with us a week too long. my parents swore they would never do that again....make a dog suffer so as not to lose him.

little rupert was never a planned part of the family. we had lost bandit and just brought spencer into the clan. spencer was to be the first part of my grand plan for my parents: a dog named spencer and a cat named katharine (yes, very gay). but one day my dad came walking up the driveway and a tiny, black terrier mix followed him all the way.

he was adorable - and so tiny. as black as night. he couldn't have been very old......

we put signs up (reluctantly) and said we would try to find his family. it only took a couple of hours before we all wanted to claim him as our own. we never heard from anyone and we didn't keep the signs up very long. we believe he was abandoned in our neighborhood by a family who couldn't care for him. they figured it looked like a nice neighborhood and he'd find a good home.

he couldn't have found a better one............

five dog fanatics.... and my brothers have married two other dog lovers. and rupert did receive a lot of love from his family. he was always next to someone. in a chair or on the couch. asleep at night or while we were eating at the table. a constant presence - often pushing his way into a seat next to someone - no matter who that meant pushing out of the way.

he and spencer were best of friends. and when spencer died we worried about rupey. but then sasha joined the family - a wild and rambunctious puppy - and this gave rupert something new to do. terrorize the newbie.

my parents headed home today...... it's the first chance i've had to really dwell on rupert's passing since it happened. the weekend was busy and wonderful but this was always in the back of my head. and i find it difficult to type these words.

i worry more for my parents. they return home tonight and rupert will not be there. they'll sleep without his little body between them. but perhaps the memories of thirteen years with our littlest family member will help them fall asleep.

rupert - we will miss you.

e.

Wake Up, Dems!

everywhere i go, i hear the same thing. "she's not electable." "i'm just afraid she can't win." and these are bright people. politically aware people. why then, i have to ask, do they think hillary clinton can't win in 2008?

look at the numbers, people!

the results of the latest cnn/opinion research corporation poll out this week show that clinton is viewed as the most electable candidate AND the one most likely to bring about change to the country. from cnn:

Asked which of the candidates in the race has the best experience to be president, Clinton was the choice of 59 percent, compared to 11 percent for former Sen. John Edwards and just 9 percent for Sen. Barack Obama, who is now running second to Clinton in national polls. The poll's sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

not convinced? what about this?

When asked to pick the strongest leader, Clinton again scored far ahead of her rivals, at 47 percent, compared with 22 percent for Obama and 13 percent for Edwards. She also came out on top when voters were asked who is most qualified to be commander-in-chief, with 46 percent saying Clinton, 15 percent Obama and 13 percent Edwards.

and in response to the all important "change" question: 40% think hillary is the candidate most likely to bring about change, compared with 27% and 15% for obama and edwards, respectively.

oh - and for my friends who think barack is more of a "straight shooter" than my girl. the same cnn poll finds 28% of people said hillary is the most honest candidate with 24% for barack and 19% for john.

from the latest harris interactive poll of 1,113 democrats surveyed, when asked for whom would they vote:

43% clinton
27% obama
12% edwards

nationally, cnn is reporting that an average taken from five national polls shows clinton tops guiliani 46% to 44%. a new quinnipaic poll shows hill beating punch n' rudy 46% to 43%.

so, seriously! why the doubt?

peter boyer of the new yorker made a fascinating observation to chris matthews yesterday. "i think it's interesting, in a way," mr. boyer said, "mrs. clinton has gone further down the road of convincing people that she might be an effective commander-in-chief than she has in convincing democrats that she can win. and that is a real problem." he went on to say that hill is her own wedge issue.

so again, i have to ask: why are dems so down on her? if these national polls show us anything - it's how electable hillary has become and how people see her as strong and effective. just looking at the cnn poll: hillary tops obama and edwards COMBINED when viewed as a strong leader. 59% of people said she is the most experience. 59 percent! again - obama and edwards garner 20% COMBINED! hillary beats rudy in most if not all national polls.

obama simply cannot compete with the experience question. and as donna brazille said on this week, the edwards' campaign has stalled. there have been more headlines about his wife elizabeth over the past 30 days than him. last night on hardball, there was a long report on elizabeth edwards by d. shuster. john was merely a blip.

it's time to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee, democrats! (see how you use the term "proverbial," kyra phillips?) hillary is electable. she can run as the agent of change WITH the best record of experience. she can beat the GOP.

for fuck's sake..... how many more polls do you need?

and for the love of vishnu...stop giving me the bullshit about "i really like hillary but i don't think she can win." love her. vote for her. she will win.

i say unite, brothers (and sisters)! unite! hillary 2008.

e.

Anxiety

well........with only three nights left before my little play premiers, i finally saw a rehearsal with both actors involved.

ummmmm..... i don't feel great.

it's tech week and last night was the first joint rehearsal for the two actors. there's a lot of good going on in the piece.... but i think there's waaaaaay too much melodrama. (did i just type "way" with six a's?) now, granted. some of that is my fault. i just wish for actors to minimize the melodrama in the acting.

anyway....yes, yes, yes. i understand it's only ten minutes. but i imagined a more quiet ten minutes. a more reserved ten minutes. my characters don't want to talk. they have trouble completing thoughts. this production is much more angry than i imagined. i'm afraid the angry fag will come across as, well, an angry fag.

on the up side.... one of the directors showed up totally plastered this evening! she was fabulous.......falling down and crying and screaming at the techs. i didn't really like her much before i found out she was a lush. but now - somehow - that brings her up in my estimate.

it should be an interesting night of ten plays. there are some good pieces.... and some real stinkers. i have a feeling the one opening act two will be the best.

i'm hoping for my "shakespeare in love" moment opening night. someway.... i'm not sure how, really..... it will all come together.

it's a mystery.... (i hope.)

e.

H-Town Welcomes Hillary

my girl hillary was in town this past weekend and spoke to a crowd of nearly 1,100 supporters at the cwa union hall. it was my first experience hearing a presidential candidate speak in person and she didn't disappoint.

i'm so excited about the prospect of hill being my president that i had to fight back tears several times saturday morning. just seeing her - in her now famous coral-colored jacket - makes me hope that someday i can say i witnessed a small part of history.

ready for change. ready to lead.

this is the campaign slogan you see at a hillary event. it's brilliant in its simplicity and how well it sums up why she is the best candidate for president.

ready for change: read any coverage concerning the 2008 presidential election and everyone says this is a "change" election. everyone is ready to put the past 6 1/2 years behind them. so, it's easy to make this a centerpiece of any campaign. "i promise change." obama is running as a "change" candidate. hell, romney is running as a change candidate (but i think he sees it more as he'll keep changing his views until you like what he says). it is a simple component of anyone's campaign slogan and stump speech and even hillary has adopted it. but it's the second part of this slogan that puts hillary ahead of the rest.

ready to lead: i truly believe that hillary could easily step into the white house tomorrow and lead the country. she is intelligent, passionate, compassionate and has the experience to make her the best candidate. it is this claim that she is "ready to lead" that makes her the best qualified person to step in as the 44th president. obama cannot claim "ready to lead" as readily and hill's camp knows this. of course they would use it. and it is this combination of a desire for change and the experience to lead that makes the campaign slogan so powerful.

48 stars

at the event on saturday, hillary talked about the pentagon scuffle and the cronyism of the bush administration. she talked about the need for health care and a better education system. she talked about everything she has been talking about and i loved to hear it all. i could have listened to her for hours. but it was another story she told that really hit home with me and the audience.....

hillary concluded the event with a story madeleine albright used to tell her. back in 1995, albright had been asked to represent the united states at the 50th anniversary of the end of world war II in europe. with her family's past in europe and their history of having to escape the nazis, albright was honored to attend. she spent much of her time behind what was previously called "the iron curtain." in eastern europe she was amazed to see so many american flags waving - all of which has 48 stars. she asked people about the flags and they all told her when the americans came to liberate europe in 1945 - they handed out flags to villagers. remember, in 1945 alaska and hawaii were not yet states (thus, 48 stars). then she wondered how they all still had these flags and she was told that they were passed down from generation to generation, like family heirlooms. "but why?" albright kept asking. "because we love america," they would respond. "we love what america stands for."

imagine these villagers - risking possible retribution in the old soviet block for having an american flag.... and passing this flag down through generations of family members. all because - they love america.

we no longer have this same standing in the world. 6 1/2 years of bush and cheney and rove have destroyed the world's view of america and americans.

now......i've never been a rah, rah, rah, U!-S!-A! kinda guy. but wouldn't it be nice to be respected in the world again? considered a partner and an ally as opposed to how the world views us under bush? once again looked at in a positive light because of our views and compassion for all countries?

hillary promises to restore our standing in the world. she has worked with so many world leaders she already has relationships built up across the globe. in other words....

hillary is ready for change. she is ready to lead.

e.

Bush's Brain Goes Bye-Bye

the master of evil, the king of cronyism, the spawn of satan himself will be leaving washington to return home to the heat of hell he's used to in texas.

yes. karl rove is to resign at month's end.

this leads to one burning question: will bush lose all his motor skills once his brain leaves him? or will his mono-syllabic rantings still seem the same once nothing is connected to his spinal cord?

only time will tell.....

e.

The Republicans: They're Trying (Bless 'em)

results of the iowa straw poll are in. mitt romney, not surprisingly, won with 32% of the vote. of course, romney spent the equivalent of rhode island's annual budget to win. as chris matthews put it, it's the golden globes of politics - if you spend enough money, you're guaranteed to win the ames straw poll. mind you - the other top tiered candidates didn't even bother to show: guiliani, mccain and the yet to announce fred thompson.

the big story, everyone would agree, is the surprise silver medal recipient: mike huckabee with 18% of the vote (brownback received 15% and trancredo bought 14%). ole huck has little money and didn't run any t.v. campaigns. hell, there was a negative ad being aired against huck - but he made it to second place. perhaps his conservative credentials are beyond reproach?

meanwhile, tommy thompson should make an announcement about the future of his campaign within 48 hours. i believe we'll have the first casualty of the GOP primary compliments of the former governor of wisconsin.

waiting for thompson
i heard a fascinating comment from fareed zakaria this morning on this week. as we all know, nobody is enthusiastic about the GOP field this year. polls show more interest in "none of the above" than any of the actual candidates. but there seems to be this hope of salvation from a knight in red pickup. but zakaria sees the waiting and waiting and waiting for fred thompson more as an act of desperation than any type of real enthusiasm for thompson's campaign. interesting.....

guiliani's gaffe
if you're running your entire campaign around 9/11, try not to piss off the real heroes, rudy.

while campaigning in ohio on thursday, rudy said the following:

I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers….I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.

ummmm.....i don't think. as paramedic marvin bethea said:

I personally find that very, very insulting.…Standing there doing a photo-op and telling the men, ‘You’re doing a good job,’ I don’t consider that to be working.

oh, rudy, you knucklehead. you already have the firefighters and police officers pissed because you didn't supply them with the needed communications equipment prior to the 11th. don't go dismissing their ground-zero affected health issues now just because you seem to be fine.

shame, shame, rudy.

but that does bring us to our............

meet the press quote of the week
thank you margaret carlson for providing the quote, and for doing a fabulous job thursday night hosting the lgbt debate. in response to guiliani's comments (and ego) concerning his time spent at ground zero, carlson said it's become clear that "guiliani now believes his own rhetoric...maybe there was a third tower that he kept from falling down. that's how much he's made 9/11 part of his campaign."

yeah...but you keep pissing the workers off, rudy.

chicago vs. houston
no....it's not the republicans, but it's just as disconcerting. my beloved houston texans blew a 7-19 lead going into the fourth quarter last night to lose to the chicago bears 20-19 after a bears field goal with 36 seconds left on the clock. my hottie carr wasn't behind center last night - but the team still felt the same.

i understand it's only preseason and nothing counts - but we need to get the fans excited again. and last night didn't do it.

e.

Mos, Marriage and Choice

last night six of the eight democratic hopefuls took the stage in what was billed as an "unprecedented" event. an lgbt forum televised for the first time. two hours devoted to issues that most effect the lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual community. the result was merely a rehashing of ideas and views that any casual follower would already have known.

okay, well, yeah....it's true. the candidates were more confusing than usual last night as they were actually pressed on their views.

perhaps it is my adoration for the man-on-man love that makes me take last night so personally. i know where the candidates stand. i know where my beloved hill stands... yet i still found myself somehow disheartened by last night's results.

quick scorecard: all candidates present support gay rights. four of the six support civil unions (clinton, obama, edwards and richardson). two support gay marriage (the lovable kucinich and that rascally gravel) and one still thinks homosexuality is a matter of choice (you broke my heart, richardson. you broke my heart).

background: i was hosting an official/unofficial hillary watching party. six individuals present: two fags, a dyke and three breeders. the breeders offered little. the lesbian wishes it had only been us mos.

the lez and i fully support clinton. my gay friend went in supporting edwards but quickly reneged his endorsement. edwards, while i thought was perhaps the most eloquent last night, seemed to be suddenly backing full-on gay marriage... my friends and i sat forward in our seats. i actually uttered the words, "is he about to come out in support of gay marriage?" but then edwards quickly reminded the audience: "i do not support gay marriage." he was still on civil unions... but why? never a clear answer. however, i give him points for coming right out and saying it.

obama danced around and around the subject but ultimately came to the same conclusion: civil unions only. why? again - who could tell?

kucinich and gravel promised everything the crowd wanted.... much like dennis did at soldier's field. but why not? these two candidates really have nothing to lose. and i swear kucinich must have been high. what was with all the love talk? i felt like i was watching a self-help book come to life. oh - and gravel may have helped himself by suggesting that mos could get their weekend supply of ecstasy prescribed by their general practitioner.

richardson.... i can't even talk about it. see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4vz7hqE2Q

hillary. she floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee.... my previously edwards-friendly friend started with a "my god, she's intelligent." but somewhere...hill lost my friend. and he went off (as he is prone to do). i think it was her insinuation that the lgbt community has not suffered long enough. i took her comment more as an indication that the gay marriage fight is still young and there is a long way to go before america gets there.

so where did hillary end up? civil unions, of course. but why? once again a real reason was never given.

in a feeble attempt to back my girl, i will say that hillary had to spend much of her time defending her husband and his policies to a wounded melissa ethridge.

but what was most interesting last night - to me - was the discussion that was sparked between me and my friends. three of the top-tiered candidates all support the same outcome: civil unions. so why did my one gay friend become enraged at hillary and decide on obama, when my lesbian friend continued to stick with our girl?

i think the answer is rather cynical but somewhat simplistic. i say this now with no intended condescension towards my friend... but he simply doesn't understand politics. he is learning and he will admit that he doesn't pay attention as much as some of us (probably a good thing) and that he has just recently started following politics at all.

i wish i could be an idealist like my friend...but i'm a realist. (dammit.)

i understand the need to make it through the primaries and into the general election. i understand the need to watch your dialogue and position yourself accordingly. hell, look at #43. he positioned himself as a "compassionate conservative" in the 2000 election but quickly emerged as a far-right-winged devil once in office.

what i'm trying to say is that i understand the desire for gay "marriage" in the lgbt community. but i'm also aware of where we're at as a country. a cnn/opinion research corp poll released yesterday found that a 57% of americans oppose same-sex marriage. 43% oppose both same-sex marriage AND civil unions.

one of the things that obama said that i loved - but on which he didn't go far enough - is that the word "marriage" has been taken over by religion. it's true - and that's why people have a problem with gay marriage....they see it as something religious. by extension - they see homosexuality as a sin and unworthy of this religious status. anyone who says they love gays but don't believe in gay marriage... i'm sorry but don't peddle that bullshit my way. they clearly think we're unworthy of god (i.e. second class citizens) and therefore less than them in His (capital H) eyes. of course, i don't believe in god so fuck 'em all anyway... but my friends do so i fight for them.

having said all of this..... i'll take the civil unions. sue me! i want the rights... we deserve equal rights - plain and simple. give me the rights and i'll fight for the word later. we deserve marriage - but i can live without the word right now... i don't get as hung up on semantics if the word in question is keeping us away from equal rights.

is it separate but equal - yes. but fuck it - at least give us the same rights.... the word marriage will come, i think.

of course....this all starts with getting a president elected that believes in civil unions.... therefore we need someone electable.... (there's that word...yet again!) and again - i just think hillary is the most electable and i think she'll fight for us. she can't give us marriage... she knows that. the cnn poll knows that.

but at least she'll give us the same rights.............

once last thing - and i've been saving this since wednesday when i first found it on politico:

quinnipiac university polls of voters in florida, ohio and pennsylvania -- the big three electoral college swing states -- found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate. that is especially the case among independent voters -- often the key to winning these critical states -- and much more so among men than women and republicans than democrats.

so....gravel and kucinich can go on and on about the lack of courage of the other candidates... but i guarantee you they've seen this poll - out before the debate last night. sure...it may not be much, but at least they were out there fighting for the endorsement of the human rights campaign - a gay rights group. they may have been playing it safe for the general election - but at least they were there. and at least they'll take the country in the right direction concerning gay rights should they make it to the oval office.

and i'll take that over four more years of the fucking republican party anyday.

e.

5 Brothers

no....it's not a new brand of pasta sauce. it's the name mitt romney's offspring have given themselves on the campaign trail and for the blogs they keep for romney's own website.

now, i'll be the first to admit it... the romney boys are hot. especially matt & josh. but just because i want to schtup four out of the five of them, don't mean i'm gonna vote for mitt. but the five brothers are desperately trying to help papa get nominated, four of them actively campaigning for romney.

but is it possible the romney spawn could also end up hurting him....?

at a recent event in iowa, ole fightin' mitt was asked about his five sons' lack of military service. mitt, in all his "i'm just like ronald reagan...no, really" glory answered: "one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think i'd be a great president."

ummmm....okay.

romney specifically focused in on his boy josh (one of the four, granted) and his trip through 99 iowa counties this summer in the RV dubbed the "mitt mobile." but what did rachel griffiths (the questioner, not the actress) have to say about romney's answer?

"he told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a winnebago and ride across iowa and help him get elected."

i love this woman... griffiths is an anti-war activist who has a sister who served in iraq. her question and response has to be another embarrassment to the romney camp who seems to be making a string of youtube-captured flubs.

from his argument with a radio-show host about an unwanted, mormon-focused radio interview to the new hampshire waitress who publicly shot him down... romney's frustration and short-temper have been highlighted on many an evening news show.

and now, his pathetic attempt at addressing his sons' unwillingness to join in a war he so stridently believes in is just another embarrassing moment for political fodder. on it's own - i doubt this doozy of a flub (not to mention an utterly moronic argument) will make much of a difference, but once you start adding it to the list of other idiotic mitt moments, how soon before a cell phone camera captures mitt's own macaca moment?

not soon enough, i say.... but i'll keep you posted.

e.

Notes From All Over

this is why i have to be better about writing on my blog. i take a few days off and i have mucho to talk about. let the rambling begin:

edwards falls flat
so i watched the AFL-CIO debate this evening (as you knew i would) and i was amazed at how disappointing a performance edwards turned in. this was to be his crowd. he's been positioning himself as the union candidate - but from the get-go he just came across as awkward and phony. i think he tried too hard to attack hillary and the crowd wasn't responding. he came across as disingenuous and more interested in making hill look bad than actually addressing the concerns of the audience.

biden and kuninich did not help matters. kucinich clearly stole edwards thunder with the union crowd. edwards was on board - but dennis said exactly what they wanted to hear. bye-bye NAFTA, WTO and "no child left behind." and when edwards started listing his picket-friendly credentials ("i've walked in 200 picket lines."), biden cut him down basically saying: it's great that you've stood on 20, 30 picket lines over the past two years - since you've started running for president - but where were you those six years you worked in the legislature? ouch.

"i was on a picket line on saturday"
the chicago sun-times is reporting that, yes, edwards was on a picket line on saturday...for about ten minutes. he also used that time to film part of campaign ad, even turning to the camera and saying, "i'm john edwards and i approve this message." ouch.

future cabinet posts
so edwards tried hard to control the dialogue and to strike at hillary, but hillary has two new "surrogates" (as chuck todd put it) and this is something i noticed, as well. suddenly dodd and biden are fighting for hillary. could it be they know she'll be the next president? is joe trying to firm up is candidacy for secretary of state under a clinton administration?

"i'm your girl"
which brings us to my hill. what another masterful performance. yes, she was booed once for her statement about presidents thinking big but not voicing all their thoughts (not a smart comment with the uber-secretive bush administration causing that bad taste in our mouths) - but she otherwise commanded the debate. she stayed above the fray, as lynn sweet put it. and her answer after being attacked by both obama and edwards over and over again early in the debate was a great moment. again, paraphrasing: "you know, i've noticed a lot of the candidates using my name over the past several days. but i'm here to be president, not attack other democrats. i want us to win. and i've been fighting the right-wing machine for the past fifteen years and i've come out stronger. so if you're looking for someone that can win against them... i'm your girl." my inner-feminist cringed at the word "girl" but, hey, woman connected, she humanized herself and, most importantly, she reminded everyone that she is strong and will stand up to the right. brilliant.

most everyone i heard afterwards said hillary won or obama won. i would say obama won on the debate over pakistan (i strong moment for him) but hillary won overall. mostly because all she had to do is not lose.

new poll numbers!
hillary is now ahead 22 points over obama in the latest usa today/gallop poll. hill stands at 48% (almost HALF of the democratic field) with barack trailing at 26 and edwards at 14. it would appear that her continued ascension would be thanks to her mastery of foreign relation issues, including terrorism. the "spat" between hill and barack has seemed to have bumped hillary and lessened obama. newsweek has hillary, obama and edwards at 44%, 23% and 14% respectively (identical to the nbc/wsj poll).

interesting numbers from the washington post/abc poll of likely iowa voters show that over half the voters want change and 39% want strength and experience in their next president. how does that break down?

best change candidate: obama 37%, edwards 31% and clinton 15%. hmmm.....
best strength candidate: clinton 38%, edwards 21% and obama 14%. yea!

to break it down even further: 50% of poll respondents think hillary has the best experience. only 7% think obama is the best experienced, which must be a worrisome number for axelrod and the obama camp. hillary also leads with 36% of the vote as being viewed as the strongest leader.

the same poll, yes, put obama ahead as the most trustworthy and most likeable candidate - with edwards second and hillary trailing in third. but as i heard one pundit say, "we've had 8 years of the guy you want to have a beer with. people now want competence." and national polls still put terrorism and homeland security as the top priority facing america. hillary has positioned herself as the best candidate to answer this call.

and i think it continues to show hillary's electability on the rise. and i think america will continue to warm to her (her likeability numbers are on the rise). which brings us to our....

meet the press quote of the week
compliments of mr. carl bernstein: "so much of (hillary's) character has been defined by acolytes and enemies instead of the best obtainable version of the truth... finally, maybe we're gonna get that." let's hope so...... you go, girl.

what the fuck?!?!
has anyone read about the massive fuck-up the dems have pulled off? they approved bush's previous wire-tapping and have actually increased his authority to listen in on our conversations?!?! and to top it all off....fucking gonzales gets to oversee all of this?!?!

nancy... harry... don't make me regret fighting for you guys to take over in 2004. what in the name of paul wellstone are you doing?!?!

i will back cindy sheehan in california, nancy. don't tempt me!

dipshit of the week
kyra phillips of cnn was reporting on the heartbreaking minneapolis bridge collapse when she mentioned that there had been signs of the weakened state of the bridge for years. then she said, and i quote: "but nobody crossed that proverbial bridge until it was too late."

ummm..... does she not see that it was not a proverbial bridge but an actual bridge? and that people died? what an inconsiderate schmuck.

oh - and wait for it: the bridge's reported problems date back to the 90's. i don't know how, but give the republicans time. somehow - they'll blame this on president bill clinton too. you mark my words.

e.

i heart polls

call me crazy.... call it an addiction. but poll numbers make me moist. i love 'em, i can't get enough of 'em... if they mixed well with vodka - well, we'd have some problems.

some interesting new numbers came out today.

the first numbers i found this morning were from mr. allen on politico.com. it paints a dimmer primary picture for my woman, hillary. quoting from mr. allen (that was very keith olbermann):

Polls in the Democratic presidential race have been pretty static, but there may have been some real movement. American Research Group has Sen. Barack Obama moving into a tie with Sen. Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and “surging” in South Carolina (up 12 since June), per Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics.

let's break this down into specifics of the bevan numbers:

New Hampshire - Democrats
Obama 31 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 31 (-3)
Edwards 14 (+3)

South Carolina - Democrats
Obama 33 (+12 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 29 (-8)
Edwards 18 (-4)

that is a mighty impressive bump for senator obama.

side note: much like bill, i don't want to get into the middle of the little spat between hill and barack last week (yes, yes - i wrote about the debate answer - but i moved on). i think hillary was taken aback by how well obama fought back in the second half of last week. but as that political nut craig crawford said earlier today, hillary needs to stop responding to such minor slaps and start acting like the front runner again. which brings me to the exciting numbers of the day.

nbc has released the results of their latest wall street journal/nbc news poll. great news for hillary who has surged (there's that word again) to a 21-point lead over obama: 43% to 22%. this is an increase on her 14-point lead back in june over obama (39% to 25%).

nationally, a heads-up match between clinton and guiliani has hillary winning 47% to 41% (which is better than the plus or minus 3 points). obama would also beat guiliani by a slightly smaller margin.

most impressive: a whopping 74% of poll respondents said that at least 24 straight years of bushes and clintons in the white house won’t be much of a consideration when they vote.

so....what does all this mean? well, it depends. will the democratic nomination be settled locally - in the primaries? will obama's lead in these states carry him to the podium in denver? and lest we forget that edwards is still leading in all iowa polls. what does a win there mean for john? or will a strong second-place showing for one of the other nominees carry them to win other states?

but what if the democratic primary voters are once again looking for electability (ala kerry in 2004)? would national polls swing the voters in individual states? pundits seem to agree that electability is more important for the GOP this year - which explains why a cross-dressing, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control republican may win the nomination. which brings me to my favorite 'meet the press' quote of the week. compliments of chuck todd:

if it's romney verses rudy in south carolina, will the evangelicals hold their nose and vote for the mormon or hold their nose and vote for the pro-choice guy?

well.... there are many, many more months (and polls) ahead to clear all this up. in the meantime - i'm having a blast!


and now for something completely different:
peter schrager (special to fox sports) has my beloved houston texans currently #28 in the nfl power rankings...with good buzz on matt schaub who replaces my husband, david carr. well, at least that still leaves minnesota, atlanta (suck it, vick!), oakland and cleveland ranked lower.

oy... could be another long football season in houston.

e.