On the Mend

I'm quite sure it was all your good wishes that have brought me back from the brink. Word was received today that 95% of the production force in my Phlegm Factory has been outsourced to China.

---

Oh wow! I can breathe again. And...what's this? The door to the Wonk Center of my brain just became unstuck....

There's a Meez animation that lets your character jump around while holding Barack Obama on your shoulder. I was so going to use that today. Until I realized that it also includes drop kicking Hillary Clinton. That seemed a little mean. I don't want to drop kick her. Slap her, sometimes, yeah, but not drop kick her.

Update: the whole "drop kicking" thing apparently is just when you first dress the Meez. Because this is just cute and non-mean, don'tcha think? (I just did this for Hat. Carry on). So, about Indiana. Spin from the Clinton camp will tell you that a win is a win. Math, which is far less prone to manipulation, will tell you that a 2% victory means she gets 41 delegates and Obama gets 38. Overall, he's still leading by every mathematical formula. He's even closed the gap on declared superdelegates to a mere 6. Trust. I'm willing to bet that within the next few weeks we'll see him pull even in that count, if not move ahead.

Her electability argument is waning; the numbers simply don't support it. And, if I were in the Clinton camp, I would definitely move off the message that the blue collar/white male "base" supports her more. For why? Democrats haven't won the blue collar/white male vote for over 30 years. Doesn't matter what they might be doing in the primary...that "base" is all but nonexistent come the general election. Any Democratic candidate is going to have to try and convince that bloc to vote their economic interests. And whenever he/she does, the GOP is going to charge in and remind them that the Dems want to take away all their guns and make them live next door to married homosexuals. And they'll freak. Like they always do. Point is, if that's all she's got, it ain't much.

Which is why she's ramping up the argument for the "disenfranchised" voters in Michigan and Florida.

Let's be clear about something. If anyone "disenfranchised" the voters in those states, it was their own party officials. Here's how it works: the DNC sets the election schedule. States vote in the order the national party determines. Period. Michigan and Florida decided to jump the gun. The party said "don't do it or your delegates won't be seated". They did it anyway and then have the temerity to cry foul. I guess I'm looking at this like a parent, but if I tell The Child she has to do something or else and she doesn't do it, it's my job to impose the "or else". If I don't, not only does she not learn her lesson relative to personal responsibility, she also gets the idea that I don't mean what I say. In my view, the party should stick with their "or else" and not seat those delegates. Why? Because if Florida and Michigan can break party rules without consequences, what's to keep any state from following party rules next time? Especially after this election. Hell, Indiana's primary hasn't mattered since 1964. You don't think they didn't love all the attention last night? What's to keep Pennsylvania from wanting to be the new Iowa?

If I were head of the DNC I'd be telling the state chairs to suck it up. They screwed up. And if the Democrats in those states had any sense, they'd be calling for the heads of their party leadership for putting them in this situation. But at the end of the month the Rules Committee is meeting to settle the matter. Florida is easier: both candidates were on the ballot and delegates could just be apportioned accordingly. Clinton won Florida but including those delegates doesn't put her ahead. Michigan is more problematic because Clinton was the only name on the ballot. She's suggested that Obama can have the "Other" votes and she'll take hers. She's generous like that. Personally, I think a revote is the only way to go there, but sounds like no one is excited about that possibility. I think she's afraid she could lose some delegates, I think he's afraid that somehow people in Michigan blame him for the kerfuffle. (A Clinton supporter actually tried to insinuate that last night on CNN. And promptly got stomped on. That would be a terribly, terribly disingenuous position for the Clinton camp to take).

Bottom line, even if delegates from both states are seated and even if Clinton gets the majority of them, the margins are not large, which means he'll get almost as many delegates as she does. And since he's already up by 155, it's still not going to put her in the lead.

Meanwhile, what in the world is John Edwards going to do with his 19 delegates? He's been sitting on those since, what?, February? What is he thinking and more to the point, why isn't anyone else asking that question? Is he waiting to release them to the first person who promises to make him Attorney General? Of course, releasing those delegates doesn't mean anything one way or the other. They'd be free to commit to whoever they wanted; although, I'd make the assumption that the majority of them would go to Obama because I think his positions are more in line with Edwards than Clinton. But I could be wrong about that. Still, it's a puzzlement.

---

The worst thing about this cold has been that food doesn't taste good. For me, that's like, like some kind of really bad thing for which I'm suddenly incapable of producing an example. I'm not sure that was even a cogent sentence. Dinner should be really yummy tonight, is my point.

Oh, and I gave myself bangs last night. I think it makes me look younger.

---

Oh, ok, fine. But I only did this for the Hat. Because it's her birthday month. And from the looks of it, the whole "drop kicking Hillary" is just for "fun" when you first dress your Meez. Because obviously this is just me and Barack having a good ol' time.

This Post is Boring But I Have to Get This Off My Chest

Here's something you don't know about me (unless you actually know me). I have really crappy teeth. Crappy in that they break easily and aren't very straight and also, I have a huge overbite. The overbite I don't mind. It's not like I have a horsey overbite; that would be wrong. I have what the dental types call "100% malocclusion". Which sounds horrible but it really isn't. The worst thing is that my two front teeth are actually broken and have been managed over the years with epoxy fills that look like, uh, crap. And because the epoxy is a temporary fix, every 6-9 months one of them falls out. Like the one that fell out right before Christmas. Which I haven't had fixed because I've decided enough of this crap already, I'm going to get them permanently dealt with.

I should have done that 20 years ago. It's one of those things where you figure it's going to cost so damn much that it's not worth doing right now. I'm over that. Not to mention, we're not talking about a cosmetic issue here. I mean, it is cosmetic in the sense that looking like Mammy Yokum and being forced to laugh with my hand over my face so I don't startle the children is getting old. But since the teeth are, in fact, not whole, it's a dental problem.

Also, for 20 years I haven't bit into an apple or eaten corn on the cob. I have to slice my apples and cut the corn. In other words, I can't even use the teeth the way God intended. I'm so over that.

When I was pregnant with The Child I had one prayer: "Please give this child my metabolism and her father's teeth".

And God laughed.

She got my metabolism AND my teeth. Poor thing. Actually, hers are stronger than mine but they are all cattywhompus and snaggly. Which kills me because a) her baby teeth were so perfect and 2) hello? I know what it's like to feel self-conscious about your smile and I don't want her to live with that.

I'm obsessed with other people's teeth. It's the first thing I notice. When I watch a movie or TV program I'm always checking out people's teeth. In fact, I think the reason I like British actors so much is because the Brits famously don't care as much about that stuff as Amuricans seem to. Lots of 'em have snaggle teeth and nearly all of them have an overbite.

The Cardinal once told me that he thinks women with an overbite are way sexier than women who don't. It's one of the reasons I ♥ him so.

I took The Child to the orthodontist yesterday. She had some orthodontia about 3 years ago but they mostly focused on trying to correct her bite. It didn't work. They straightened out her front teeth, a little. She wore a retainer for a while. Then she stopped. But the teeth are still OK. Her bite, the main focus of their efforts, wasn't altered in the least. I didn't want to throw any more money at that particular problem.

So the ortho, who's a very nice woman, said yesterday that The Child has to see an oral surgeon first, because she's got 2 baby teeth that still haven't come out and don't look like they are going to. Which is part of her snaggle tooth problem. Then she said, "And he'll talk to you about options relative to jaw surgery".

I gave her the stink eye.

Someone explain to me the wisdom in performing jaw surgery on a person who is still growing. It's not like she doesn't have a jaw. It's not like she has trouble breathing or eating or speaking, which are the only things I can think of that would be a reason to do something so drastic. Not to mention that my dentist told me that if The Child decides to have jaw surgery when she's an adult, it will go better if she has straight teeth. Hello? Let's all get on the same page, shall we?

Anyenamel, we'll go to the surgeon to deal with her baby teeth and when he starts to talk to me about jaw surgery I will tell him that it is duly noted for the record that he talked to me but we are not going to do that right now. I just want my baby's teeth straighted so she doesn't have to spend her entire adult life feeling self-conscious.

And if after all that the orthodontist says she doesn't want to fix the teeth without the surgery, I'll find another orthodontist. Or we'll just move to England.