The presidency and the toll it takes

I’ve spent a lot of time tonight on the New York Times website, much of it reading about the long strange trip of Sarah Palin as well as the paper’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

The latter article also led me to an interesting interactive feature on the Times’ various presidential endorsements from 1860 to the present day. Aside from picking the winner in 22 of the 37 elections (59.5%) over the past 148 years, the Times has also provided some photographic evidence for the (not terribly revelatory) theory SLP and I have, that the presidency ages a person like few other jobs (outside of, perhaps, coal mining) could. Witness below the shocking deteriorations that a mere 4 years in the Oval Office can produce.

First up we have Honest Abe. Now we all know that his first term was probably about as rough as any in the history of the country. And it shows.

I’m not an historian, so I must confess I don’t know much about what was going on in the mid-1880s. Whatever it was, I get the impression Grover could have done with a little less of it.

In 1912, voters had just one question: Is this Mr. Wilson, who fancies himself a President-to-be, in fact, a bogey-man? By 1916, they had their answer.

By the time FDR took office, the suckitude of the job had once again reached levels not seen in 70-odd years. The only things we have to fear are fear itself and premature aging due to the rigors of the highest political office in the land. Having to pretend you aren’t paralyzed isn’t exactly all it’s cracked up to be, either.

Now, in 1980 Jimmy Carter at least does not show the ravaging physical deterioration typical of an incumbent. I suspect it may be due to the cannabis everyone in the country was smoking so heavily at the time (or so I’ve been led to believe). So he still has that youthful glow, but it’s clear nonetheless that something has harshed his mellow.

We all remember well enough what was keeping the smile on Bill’s face by 1996. But everything else in his life brought on the gray hair.

Two Americas, close to home

I’ve been thinking for quite a while about how the divide between “red” and “blue” America does not occur at the state level. There are not “red” states and “blue” states. The winner-takes-all distribution of electoral votes (a foolish conceit that, fortunately, has only twice ever resulted in the “wrong” guy getting the job, but unfortunately, one of those was George W. Bush in 2000) belies the fact that the divisions occur on a much smaller level, between urban and rural, or between urban-plus-unionized-industry-towns and suburban-enclaves-and-rural-backwaters. The big mystery to me is still how the Republicans managed to convince the rural backwaters that their interests are being represented. (And lest my prejudices be misconstrued, let’s be clear that I’d prefer living in a rural backwater over a suburban enclave.)

With all of the hoopla over Michele Bachmann in the last few days — mainly in the form of the rest of the country realizing what a lunatic she is, even though most of us here in Minnesota (except in her own district, apparently) already knew it — I’ve been thinking more about these strange divisions.

Among the anti-Obama rumors spread since he announced his candidacy was the claim that he had taken his oath of office on the Qur’an. Not true. Never mind how problematic it is that such a fact would be considered outrageous; it’s in line with McCain cluelessly retorting to the woman (also in Minnesota, what the hell’s going on around here?) who claimed Obama was an Arab (how’s that again?) that, no, he is in fact a decent family man. Islam itself is not a pejorative. The fact of the Qur’an matter is that the congressman who took his oath on that book is none other than Keith Ellison, my congressional representative, from Minnesota’s Fifth District. Yes, the district directly adjacent to Michele Bachmann’s Sixth District.

That people’s values and sensibilities could be so segregated, based as far as I can tell upon little beyond population density, to create a situation where one (highly urban) district elects the nation’s first Muslim representative to the House, on the very same day that an adjacent (mostly suburban) district would elect the ultimate ignorant xenophobe, leaves me so flummoxed that I can’t find my way to the end of this sentence. Elbridge Gerry himself could not have drawn so convoluted a map dividing red from blue.

Needless to say, I consider Michele Bachmann an embarrassment to Minnesota. So even though I’m not in that district, I’m supporting Elwyn Tinklenberg, and I would encourage anyone who can afford to do so to make a contribution to his campaign, regardless of where you live. Besides the fact that he has a friggin’ awesome name (and a decent sense of humor — check out the videos on his site), he’s a good Democrat committed bringing sanity back to the Sixth.

David Sedaris on the election

I’m posting hand-me-down blog content here. As is often the case, I have just become aware of something I feel is blog-worthy by reading it on Daring Fireball, simultaneously affirming its blog-worthiness and obviating the need for me to blog about it myself. But I know a few among my meager audience probably do not read Daring Fireball regularly, so I’m helping to spread the word nonetheless.

It is frustrating that often I learn about articles from the “current” issue of the New Yorker from Daring Fireball (or, in the case of the infamous Obama cover, from… everyone) on Monday or Tuesday, when (and it frustrates me to no end) I won’t actually receive my copy in the mail until Friday or Saturday. I’m not sure what crime I’ve committed against Condé Nast besides living in an insufficiently sophisticated region of the country, but they punish me weekly by delaying the arrival of the magazine until after the rest of the world has already moved on.

Anyway… this week’s “Shouts and Murmurs” column is by one of my favorite writers, David Sedaris, and he dishes up a great metaphor for the current election. I’ll rip my block quote directly from Gruber:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

Indeed. You can read the full article here.