nancynall.com » Two for the road.

Two for the road.

If my energy level in the morn­ing matches my inten­tions the night before, I’m tak­ing a weight-training class as you read this. On the table for dis­cus­sion until I get back:

I saw a kid in my local Kroger yes­ter­day wear­ing an Obama T-shirt. It looked like he’d had it for a while. Obama rally in Ore­gon draws 75,000. I lived through the Rea­gan rev­o­lu­tion, but can’t recall any­one wear­ing RR T-shirts out­side of a polit­i­cal con­ven­tion. Cult of per­son­al­ity, thirst for change, or nei­ther? Early warn­ing that Obama will rock the house in Novem­ber, or just a blue-America hic­cup? Dis­cuss.

And if you pre­fer the silly, here’s this: Princess Beat­rice was attacked by the same milliner that brought down poor Sarah Jes­sica Parker last week. When will Scot­land Yard get on the case? How long will these but­ter­flies and their thirst for hair prod­uct be allowed to humil­i­ate such lovely women? (And when some­one wears a hat like this, what are you sup­posed to say? “Nice hat?”

Back in a bit.

25 responses to
“Two for the road.”

  1. moe99 said on May 19th, 2008 at 3:15 am

    Just sent you a note, Nancy. Guess where Was(Not Was) ended their tour this spring? That’s right, Seat­tle!!! And guess who only fig­ured it out last night and drove like a ban­shee to Bal­lard to the Trac­tor Tav­ern to see them after book club? And in a won­der­ful bit of karma, the guy ahead of me in line had an extra ticket, so it was absolutely worth the price of admis­sion, even though I only got the sec­ond set! They were fab­u­lous! Thank you for turn­ing me on to them. Haven’t danced that much in a cou­ple of years. Next time, I’m bring­ing my posse.

  2. Linda said on May 19th, 2008 at 7:55 am

    Nancy, it’s not just Beat­rice. It’s all the royal women. Remem­ber that weird thing Camilla had on her head when she mar­ried Prince Charles?
    And check out Autumn Kelly, the new wife of Peter Phillips, grand­son of the king.
    It’s like some mad gar­dener got ahold of them.

  3. alex said on May 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Well, George McGov­ern was a blue Amer­ica hic­cup, although from what my par­ents tell me he didn’t have any cross-over appeal and the Dems were idiots to run him just like the Repub­li­cans were idiots to run Gold­wa­ter in 1964.

    It’ll be inter­est­ing to see how the cam­paign plays out. One thing’s for sure. Obama’s set­ting a new prece­dent by tak­ing money only from cit­i­zens for this cam­paign. If he wins, it may well become the stan­dard by which all future pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates are judged. He will have accom­plished cam­paign finance reform with­out ever hav­ing to draft leg­is­la­tion.

    Wouldn’t it be great to have debate ana­lysts telling us whose answers are tainted by which lob­by­ists?

  4. Emma said on May 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am

    I like these hats. Are they absurd ….. or surd?

  5. MichaelG said on May 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am

    How do you say “Nice hat” when try­ing to sti­fle a guf­faw?

  6. Jolene said on May 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am

    I actu­ally kimd of like that hat too. I can’t quite imag­ine wear­ing such a thing, but the but­ter­flies are great.

  7. del said on May 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am

    Love the hats. But they must be worn with atti­tude and con­fi­dence. Think proud pea­cock.

  8. brian stouder said on May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am

    What Alex said.

    If I was going to do a michaelj/caliban stream-of-conciousness style polemic, the start­ing point would be how great it was to actu­ally see and inter­act with the Obama fam­ily, and way­points would include how the rest of the crowd almost lit­er­ally lit up in their pres­ence, and how there is no shame in actu­ally being excited by the prospects of a new admin­is­tra­tion with a dif­fer­ent agenda, headed by a per­son no older than many of us, who there­fore came of age in the same Amer­ica as we did (even account­ing for his unique per­spec­tive, as a mixed-race son of a world-travelling mom, who lands in Kansas, raised by Aun­tie Em – or grandma)….and end­ing with the dec­la­ra­tion that – damn it any­way! – I will NOT feel guilty for enthu­si­as­ti­cally sup­port­ing this can­di­date, nor should any­one else.

  9. john c said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am

    My 9-year-old wears an Obama but­ton on his back-pack. He hasn’t reported any issues. Grosse Pointe is gen­er­ally Repub­li­can, though “The Park,” where I live, went for Kerry and Gore.
    I was 10 in 1972 and my par­ents were huge McGov­ern fans. They had a big elec­tion night party and I remem­ber feel­ing the excite­ment and then going to bed. I was SHOCKED when I woke up and they told me he had lost. How could he lose? Every­one we know voted for him?
    My uno­rig­i­nal take on McGov­ern is that he was a good man, but the party lurched so far to the left after ’68 that they alien­ated most of their foot sol­diers. Old man Daley may have been a prickly sort. But when it came to elec­tions, he knew how to – what’s the word I’m look­ing for here? – win.
    Most of the peo­ple Obama alien­ates wouldn’t vote for him any­way. I’m ner­vous, but hope­ful.

  10. Dorothy said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    I’m sorry but I’m just not see­ing the but­ter­fly hat as neato. It looks like poor Bea is being attacked by rabid but­ter­flies high on crack. Why in heaven’s name isn’t her head list­ing towards that side?!

    Camilla’s cha­peaux looks like her blow dryer went wonky and ruined her hairdo. I’m ever so glad I wasn’t born royal!

  11. LAMary said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Autumn Kelly looks like she needs to wash her hair.

    Is it Philip Treacy who’s design­ing these hats? He’s done some really crazy ones of ships and things I think.

  12. LAMary said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Ah! I was able to do an end run around my employer’s cyber bar­ri­ers to your links and it is Philip Treacy. Really, find some pho­toes of his big hats. They may SJP’s look tame.

  13. LAMary said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am

    LAMary says:

    May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am Edit this com­ment (30 min­utes left)
    Ah! I was able to do an end run around my employer’s cyber bar­ri­ers to your links and it is Philip Treacy. Really, find some pho­tos of his big hats. They may SJP’s look tame.

  14. Sue said on May 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am

    The but­ter­fly hat looks pho­to­shopped, doesn’t it? Any­way, it appears that the Roy­als haven’t learned any­thing from Great-Great-Grandmamma Queen Victoria’s day – she used to pile on the rings to hide her ugly hands and instead called more atten­tion to them. Yes I’m being catty but geez. Talk about upstag­ing the bride.
    Brian, I want to be enthu­si­as­tic about Obama, and even about Hilary, but I’m hon­estly scared for both of them. It is the real “thing that no one will talk about”. The pos­i­tive inten­sity of emo­tion you feel is equaled and exceeded on the neg­a­tive side. I assume and hope it is being cov­ered care­fully by the Secret Ser­vice.

  15. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am

    I was raised and am still liv­ing in the broad sash across the Kleagle’s hooded robes of the 1920′s era Klan (read — Indi­ana, Ohio, West Vir­ginia).

    What you hear is “ah jes’ cain’t vote for the col­ored fel­low, but he seems like a nice guy, just don’t want him the boss of me. Bill’s wife’s alright, ah guess, but . . .”

    The rabid haters? There just aren’t as many of them as there were thirty years ago. I’m not say­ing we don’t have a long way to go, but you have to roll up with a CNN cam­era to get the Fred Phelps and David Duke con­tin­gent to froth much. And the kind of peo­ple who’d have had a kind word for those two a decade or more back, they are dis­mis­sive and unin­ter­ested in that kind of stuff.

    I’m not say­ing Obama’s secu­rity detail can take the week off, just that where i would have expected to hear angry mut­ter­ings i’m see­ing gen­eral shrugs, and maybe a “waaal, ah’m not votin’ fer him, but he might not be so bad after all. Guessin’ we’ll see soon enough.”

  16. brian stouder said on May 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Sue – def­i­nitely agree about the “thing that no one will talk about”.

    In casual con­ver­sa­tions this pops up every so often (as a ‘Joke”, don’t you know) – and my approach is to take it seri­ously and say – “always bet on the good guys” (mean­ing those Ben Affleck-looking, swivel-headed secu­rity guys)…and at least once the answer back I got was that “the good guys” might pose the threat!

    More gen­er­ally, death is always in the wings (it pro­vides the urgency in the “fierce urgency of now”), no less so for McCain – even if the assump­tion (in his case) is that his clock will sim­ply run out.

    I say – win or lose – we can­not suc­cumb to the murm­ers and whis­pers; and, always bet on the good guys

  17. Sue said on May 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Thank you Brian; I think I will take your last sen­tence to heart.

  18. Connie said on May 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Plenty of rabid haters here in Elkhart. We even had a cross burn­ing on the lawn of an inter­ra­cial a cou­ple of weeks ago. The dis­cus­sion forums on the Truth web site (our local news­pa­per for what it’s worth), http://​etruth​.com, are filled with hor­ri­ble racism aimed both at African-Americans and His­pan­ics, who, accord­ing to the posters, are all ille­gals.

  19. Beryl Ament said on May 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    I’m so glad those but­ter­flies hatched. They were still in their cocoon at Christ­mas (photo 5).

  20. Catherine said on May 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    I adore Sarah Fer­gu­son and her daugh­ters… but did Bea think to ask any­one else, “What are you wear­ing to the wed­ding?” She really sticks out in the group pix, not in a good way. As Miley Cyrus will tes­tify, it can suck to do your grow­ing up in the spot­light.

  21. Catherine said on May 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Slowly, sadly and stub­bornly I’m real­iz­ing that Hillary prob­a­bly isn’t going to make it. In any other year, I’d be on that Obama band­wagon — His cam­paign really does seem to rep­re­sent a fresh, more sin­cere, hon­est and hope­ful alter­na­tive to the tra­di­tional spin-centered cam­paign. My con­cern is what hap­pens if/when the pedestal he’s on is rocked or top­pled by scan­dal. It’s a really long way to fall. As Jeff said, though, I’m try­ing to dig down deep in my dream duf­fle (dude).

  22. del said on May 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    I’m with JohnC about Obama — ner­vous but hope­ful.

  23. Terry WAlter said on May 20th, 2008 at 6:02 am

    I’m ner­vous but hope­ful about Obama;nervous that he’ll win. To believe that a prod­uct of the Cook county polit­i­cal machine is a paragon of virtue is truly a gar­gan­tuan leap of faith. He’s just a used car sales­man in a dif­fer­ent suit. Isn’t that his buddy they are now try­ing to decide whether or not to hang? And the utter arro­gance to call McCain naive on for­eign pol­icy. McCain spent years in the Hanoi Hilton and decades in the Sen­ate. He was a near lone voice in the wilder­ness call­ing for the troop surge,which by any objec­tive stan­dards has tilted the bat­tle back in our favor. Obama-up until a cou­ple of years ago, for­eign pol­icy to him meant out­side Cook county.
    Here’s a cou­ple of nuggets for you mo’ bet­ter gov­ern­ment types. The recently retired,Ivy league edu­cated mayor of Ft. Wayne Gra­ham Richard, awarded a 3 year $285,000 con­tract to his “High Per­for­mance Gov­ern­ment Corp.” a non­profit gov­ern­ment effi­ciency group he helped cre­ate just months before he left office. This contract,just coin­ci­den­tally I’m sure, was just under the $100,000 per year that would require coun­cil approval. The first pay­ment came just before the end of 2007 (and his term), for which NO ser­vices were per­formed. Now THAT’S effi­ciency.
    And in Nan­cys’ beloved Ohio, remem­ber the Big Tobacco set­tle­ment money that was extorted years ago? $270 mil­lion.
    It was sup­posed to go toward edu­cat­ing peo­ple to not smoke. Well, let’em hack them­selves to death. The state leg­is­la­ture has bet­ter things to do with $230 mil­lion of it. They’ll spend it how­ever they damn well please.
    So while you are all load­ing up your rock sacks, remem­ber the words of the immor­tal Jack Webb; just the facts,ma’am.

  24. brian stouder said on May 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am

    the words of the immor­tal Jack Webb; just the facts,ma’am

    Well, we’ll skip the pro­tracted back-and-forth, and answer just this one non­fact -

    He [McCain] was a near lone voice in the wilder­ness call­ing for the troop surge,which by any objec­tive stan­dards has tilted the bat­tle back in our favor.

    Other than, say, Gen­eral Eric Shin­seki, who said as much BEFORE the war? (a real career-ender THAT was, with the all-knowing for­mer base­ball team owner GW Bush! Hell, a used car sales­man [as you say Obama is] at least has to make good deci­sions every day, unlike the social­ized elite ranks of MLB own­er­ship!)

    Or John Kerry, who ran on the premise (amongst oth­ers) that Bush didn’t have enough troops in Iraq, in 2004?

  25. Terry WAlter said on May 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    I would agree that the con­duct of the war was poorly han­dled between the top­pling and the surge, thus the need for the surge. There were even com­plaints dur­ing the inva­sion that they were short­handed. I (guess­ing) sus­pect that Rums­feld was a major player in this, part of the cor­po­rate lean & mean men­tal­ity. It sounds great, if you aren’t the one bak­ing in the heat,without sleep, dodg­ing bul­lets. This shows the weak­ness of the busi­ness­man as great gov­ern­ment sav­ior (see also Mitch Daniels). Wish there were more good answers out there. I just see Obama as old liberalism/socialism;which I know is pop­u­lar with many on here, dressed in a new suit.