A longish post about how I think I must be living on another planet

This afternoon, in a symbolic move, I put this up:

That was then

I studied it for a while, contemplated simpler days where it was all about Lieberman’s attempt at folksiness and Gore’s lockbox.
Then I covered it up with the newly arrived-in-the-mail this:

No longer a November 7th election

And I just wish people would remember that this is the election before us.
I was astonished at fellow bloggers who wrote about yesterday’s debate: “a clear win for Cheney" (here) or “a quintessential draw” (here).

Were we listening to the same debate? We are not confusing it with the Lieberman-Cheney discussion of four years back, are we?

Because really, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean by that. A “win” (or “draw”) means different things for different parties. From the Democrat standpoint, a “win” for their party would happen if the debate did not derail the momentum from the last debate – a tough standard because Cheney appears knowledgeable (how he can have credibility at this point is beyond me, but for many voters, he does), much more in control, indeed more “presidential” than Bush. Nothing was derailed. Indeed, many news sources today applauded Edwards’ command of the facts, his seriousness, his attempts at setting straight the wild record that Cheney was flaunting. As a side note, even on the “let’s have another peek at our true blue (or red in this case) Cheney” front, Cheney lost points. So much has been written this morning about his petulance and disgruntlement. We now have George and Dick, the two angry boys who cannot believe that the country, indeed, the world would question their command of the playground.

To me, there was no doubt, then, that Democrats “won” what they needed to win last night.

A “win” for the Republicans would have happened if Cheney had managed to say something that hadn’t already been said by the GOP that would freshly cause one to feel enthusiastic about the same old same old stuff, both in terms of the economy or the war. It would happen if Cheney presented compelling evidence that would discredit Edwards’ or Kerry’s strong allegations. It would also happen if Edwards, the novice in the campaign, would appear stupid, uninformed, weak, etc. We know all about Cheney and his command of (illegitimate) facts. The spot light was on Edwards. The so-called ‘most embarrassing moment’ of Cheney stating “I am meeting you for the first time” turns out to be incorrect, foolish and not responsive to anything voters are worried about (remembering, too, that many many voters were happy to put Edwards on the presidential ticket).

The Republicans lost because they did not undo any of the damage from last Thursday, nor did they manage to let Edwards look bad. Their mission failed.

A draw would happen if both parities gained something or gained nothing. How can you think that this was the result? The Democrats gained by solidifying their momentum. They lost nothing. The Republicans, on the other hand, only rubber stamped a Cheney that we already know all too well, and they failed to get out of the swamp that GWB put them in. Even if you love Cheney (oh dear!), he is not running for president. His work was to make Bush’s lackluster performance look good after all. True, it, too, was an almost impossible assignment. I dare say, Kerry is skilled enough to have pulled it off, but Cheney could not (boost his running mate).

So where is the draw or the Cheney win? I must have been watching a different channel. I just called Charter and purchased upgraded cable. Maybe that’ll help for Friday’s debate – we’ll all be on the same page. Or screen.

Twenty-eighth street pre-election diary*

at 1 East 28th, you'll find plenty of pickles 

This post is all about pickles. How ever did the cucumber in brine come to depict “a jam,” as in “I am in a pickle”? Or “a muddle”? Or “a plight”?

I should imagine a brine bath would be restorative more than muddling. You know, in the spirit of preserving and rejuvenating, in the way that salt baths typically are. Thus perhaps a brine bath would be in order for a Vice President who, as the NYT today said, appeared “dyspeptic.” I know the references is to “disgruntlement,” but for me, it connotes a man with severe indigestion. I flashed back and imagined Cheney squirming with the kind of heartburn you experience from eating too many pickles. It is maybe in anticipation of this uncomfortable digestive issue that the Republicans, in negotiating the terms of the debate, insisted that the two men remain seated at a table.

As to who is the better “preserved” candidate? It is no secret that Edwards looks far younger than his 51 years. But if we stay with the pickle metaphor as implying a muddle or a plight, I would think that the older gentleman last night found himself in one time and time again. It is hard, after all, to stand in support of a platform which has put this country in the pickle that it finds itself in at the moment – here and abroad. Thus, if you actually listened (or read this morning, as I did) to the substance, I think the brine is swirling around the older one. Um, we all do listen to the substance, don’t we? Don’t we?

On 28th street there is a pickle shop, run by a man who moved to NY from Turkey some while back. He loves New York, he loves his pickles. I found the place by chance, but now I am a complete fan. Yes, it reminds me of pickles I used to buy from barrels in Polish grocery stores. Poles are fussy pickle eaters. None of this sweet vinegary stuff you buy in jars here for your burgers. We like ‘em brined and seasoned with fresh dill. But in this NY place of pickles you can get something I have never tried before: chocolate-covered pickles. It is amazing how many ways you can get into a pickle and how many ways you can get at a pickle.

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)

a pickle for every occasion