To the Hawaiian shoppers -

Any sightings of the president-elect (in the dark or otherwise)?

Yeah, Goofy, they all saw him in the dark. I think Dee is the only one here, and she had her nose buried in a Starbuck's coffee, taking its temperature.

No, I don't do the temperature shops! :-)

I haven't seen him, but everywhere he's been there have been crowds. The papers have "dutifully" reported what he ate, and what he was wearing. Can you believe he was seen swimming shirtless at the beach? HORRORS! Did people expect him to go swimming in a 3 piece suit??? Geez. And during the overnight black out Friday, he refused extra help and went to bed early (like almost everyone else, since there was nothing to do...)

:-)

Remember the scandal when Reagan stated he didn't like broccoli? Horrors, a president is not allowed to dislike something.

Obama offered to buy the press corps a shave ice in hawaii kai the other day, but they all declined as it would be improper...

When I was in journalism school, shaved ice would have been an acceptable "gift" because it wasn't large enough to sway anyone's reporting.

Did anyone notice that we had candidates this year from both Hawaii and Alaska, the last incoming states; and we had candidates who are female, partly black and partly Hispanic? We have never had that before! That was really unique. Most of the time, the campaigns were about "issues", though others may disagree that what was discussed sometimes was really an issue and not a red herring.

I'm hearing all kinds of predictions about what's going to happen in this administration, but I'm going to wait and see.

Does ice bleed if you're shaving it and you nick it?

Of course everyone noticed that the slates had diversity. It was part of thousands of news stories. We're finally entering the 20th Century, wherein a dozen countries have had female presidents before us.

Is it just me, or was all the talk about experienced, inexperienced, black, white, male, female, conservative, liberal, maverick. . . just a media frenzy? How about the best person for the job, as the voter sees it?

Slow news days. What I find is a much more interesting speculation is why anyone would want to be President? Sure, there is glory and honor and 'serving your country' and such, but get a life. 365 days a year in the spotlight for you and your family? And that won't end in 4 or 8 years. Heck, you can't even scratch your nose without it being commented upon, much less any other itch (and I'm not being sarcastic about that--rather thinking about backing up to a doorframe to scratch my back against the semi-sharp edge). Your background is examined with a fine-tooth comb for anything embarassing, such as when you threw up on the teacher's desk in 3rd grade because she kept you waiting to give you permission to go to the restroom to throw up. You say something like "I don't like broccoli" and it is worldwide news and parents are outraged because you have undermined their attempts to get their kids to eat broccoli. And then you get into really insoluble situations like the current economy. Throwing money at the problem will make it better is one theory. An equally valid theory is do nothing and let it sort itself out. Yet you must do something at a time when your best course may be to get your weight low in the boat, grasp both sides and shift your weight with the oncoming waves to try to keep the boat from overturning entirely.

You are never going to be appreciated by those who voted against you. You are likely to disappoint many of those who voted for you from some fantasy of what they thought you would do for them. Your kids may have a unique opportunity of growing up in the White House and meeting an impressive array of world leaders, but they won't have the opportunity to go build rock, stick and mud dams in the gutter on the side street after a summer rain to learn hydrological realities.

Well said. I wouldn't take the job even if it was handed to me on platter of million dollar bills.

Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it just me, or was all the talk about
> experienced, inexperienced, black, white, male,
> female, conservative, liberal, maverick. . . just
> a media frenzy? How about the best person for the
> job, as the voter sees it?

Of course that's most important, but there have been times when minority groups wouldn't have had an iceberg's chance in hell of winning anything. Don't know your age, Mert, but I remember when female news anchors on TV were unacceptable as "not seeming authoritative," (a quote from one of the network executives,) and were allowed to do only weather reports. I remember African-Americans being hosed and having dogs set upon them because they wanted to integrate restaurants and schools. Every minority had to fight hard battles, one little step at a time, to become acceptable in all kinds of jobs.

And it's naive to think that bigotry has ceased to exist. We've made a lot of progress in 40 years, but some would still not vote for a woman or African-American or Latino or gay person just because of who they are. I don't want to get political past this, because this is not the place.

Each election the news jocks have to find some spin that 'makes it different' this time. In the past it has been oldest/youngest or oldest since/youngest since. Or it is first from _______ state or first from _________ area of the country since ___________. This is nothing new. I remember the huge concerns with JFK because he was Catholic and the scare mongers were indicating the US would be 'Ruled from Rome'.

There will always be bigotry--there always has been with mankind--only its targets will change. We are currently developing a good set of bigotry criterion against Wall Street and bankers based on the actions of a few.

Sneakers, I'm 50 something. I have horrific images in my mind of battles fought by minorities, as well as attacks on minorities. I'm female, and have had doors slammed in my face. I'm not naive but am optimistic.

I'm early 60s and remember being turned down for a job by a 'Personnel' man who indicated they, "Couldn't hire women for those positions, because they required travel to conventions. Conventions are not suitable places for women."

And I remember applying for a credit card and being told that either my father or my husband would have to co-sign my application. I was single and earning good money.

I remember going for a mortgage for my first house as a divorced woman and child support could not be considered as 'income'. I had a job, I had no debt, I had savings, yet I still needed my father to co-sign the mortgage.

Things have changed for the better regarding the role of women. They have also improved for our longer-term minorities. But there will always be a new group for people to feel 'superior' to and therefore discriminate against.

I am a staunch Republican and when I first heard the remarks about Barrack, I did not like his association with Rev. Wright or Farrakan. I still believe that one should be paid for his labors and that government is too large. However, I am open minded enough to watch and wait. The President is smart, educated and is wise to put good people around him as advisers.That is the mark of a man (or woman).He just may pull it off and turn this mess around. I had not much use for Bush and Cheney and I felt the Republican candidate was too old for the job. I would dread seeing this man pass and our vp candidate become the President. Oh my God. What a horror show that would be. She is smart but not Presidential timber at this time.
Mr President, I, as a Republican, wish you well and Godspeed in your efforts.

WHY have you spammed us again in a different thread? Do you actually think people are going to buy stuff from your links?

Dee- write to J.

Go away, shops518. Peddle your wares elsewhere.