That's what we've got ahead of us if we want to take the White House in November. But it's ours to take and the GOP's to lose. And I'm all for Democratic Unity; we just have to get around the fact that the RNC is set to air ads featuring Hillary Clinton saying that "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,..." Kind of a bummer to have the Repuglicans attacking your nominee without doing any of the attacking themselves.
In other news, Rush Limbaugh said that if Obama wins it will be because he's black. Interesting. Because, in the long tortured history of the United States, the one sure way to win something was to be...black. Right? As if I need to say it again, this guy's an idiot. Especially because, in the same rant, he said that the growth of big government can be traced to when women got the right to vote. Worse, in the same rant, his caller said that s/he teaches at a home/private school and often "brings the kids" to listen to Limbaugh's opening monologue. Now THAT's quality education.
Which brings me to a Pat Buchanan rant that's been sticking in my craw for weeks now. He said that it's not fair to take West Virginians to task for saying they wouldn't vote for a black person if you are not also going to take all the North Carolinian black people to task for voting 'en masse' for a black man. Chris Matthews dodged the charge. But what he should have said was, "There is a difference--and a very real one. The people in WV said they would not vote for Obama because he's black. That's a statement of racist intent. Yet, black people have been voting for white people for years, but they're racist too because they vote for someone this year who happens to be black? NOT the same thing. There are numerous white officeholders who'd be jobless if black people didn't vote for them, which is a whole different situation than someone saying they simply just do not intend to ever vote for a person of a certain skin color." I just needed to get that off my chest because it doesn't seem like anyone in the MSM is making that point.
On a completely different note, but still on the topic of Hard Work, a study shows that "if a stay-at-home mom could be compensated in dollars rather than personal satisfaction and unconditional love, she'd rake in a nifty sum of nearly $117,000 a year. At-home moms reported working an average of 94.4 hours per week, said the survey. That's according to a pre-Mother's Day study released in May by Salary.com, a Waltham, Massachusetts-based firm that studies workplace compensation...This year, the annual salary for a stay-at-home mom would be $116,805, while a working mom who also juggles an outside job would get $68,405 for her motherly duties. One stay-at-home mom said the six-figure salary sounds a little low." Amen to that, sister. And the 94 hours sounds a little low too, especially if you consider that we do both day and night shift, no matter what. If the kid is up all night sick, so am I. And guess what?! I'm also up the next day. And moms who work outside the home have to go to work the next day too. That's a lot of hours, y'all. Believe it. I need a raise! ;)
In other, other news, Ken over at Popehat has, via Miss Manners, a response to those well-meaning strangers who just have to know if your kids are "real" sisters. I love Miss Manners and I love Ken, so this is a delightful post for me: