Their sheer audacity, repeatedly demonstrated, to say and do anything to get elected makes my stomach turn. I can’t even bear to listen to the bald-faced lies she and her surrogates are telling on TV without changing the channel.
They clearly want to keep the party divided by stoking sexism and disenfranchisement claims so they can steal the nomination this time or get it in 2012.
The Clintons disgust me. And so do their supporters who are gullible enough to think Obama “took it away” from them by playing by the rules.
Hello, and thank you for your faith-based return to my site.
I’ll stick around if you will.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
Today in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton was greeting a crowd when a group of people, some holding Edwards signs, began loudly shouting “HEY HEY…HO HO…THE STATUS QUO HAS GOT TO GO!”
Senator Clinton walked along the crowd greeting voters, and when she reached the protesters and attempted to greet and speak to them, they ignored her entreaties and continued shouting. The senator approached several individuals in the group and reached for a handshake, but each person refused to shake her hand or speak with her.
First off, even though this goes without saying, I’ll say it anyway: This isn’t a slam on Edwards, or an attempt to indict those who support him. And unlike some of the folks here who state (presumably with a straight face) that Obama’s supporters make it less likely they’ll support the candidate, I’m not suggesting either the candidate or the lot be judged by a few vocal people.
What I’m saying is this: I too harbor a dislike of Senator Clinton and the establishment of which she is a part. I think she’s a creature of Washington who’s the least likely to take on a corrupt system. I think her Iraq vote is a travesty. And the actions of her surrogates has, in some cases, been indefensible.
But she’s still a loyal democrat, a longtime public servant and the former First Lady of the United States. She and her husband fought battles against the Newt Gingriches and Ken Starrs of the world. Some of those battles were a result of their actions, but many were for us, the party and our core beliefs. And as a woman, she’s the only one who has to deal with jackasses interrupting her appearances to demand that she “IRON MY SHIRT.”
I feel just as strongly, as an Obama supporter, that “THE STATUS QUO HAS GOT TO GO.” But if I cross paths with Senator Clinton and she offers me her hand, I will shake it. And if she attempts to speak with me, she might not like everything I have to say during such a brief and fleeting encounter, but I’m going to acknowledge her.
Maybe I just misunderstand the meaning and point of protest. That’s a fair assumption. Still, I think there ought to be a basic civility that we afford to a United States Senator, particularly one who has gotten up every day for the past year to promote many issues and policies that the leading democrats all agree are in the best interest of the country.
It’s just my $0.02, and I can only hope those in the crowd somehow read this today. Let’s all advocate for change, but let’s also cool the personal animus. Next time think of the sign you’re holding and what your candidate would expect. And when Senator Clinton offers you her hand, shake it.
P.S. I can’t say I’d extend the same courtesy to the war criminals and constitutional scofflaws in the White House. They can go to hell.
P.P.S. On second thought, I wonder if this kind of tone is a natural outgrowth of the kind of rhetoric we’ve seen from some on the campaign trail. The differences between the candidates have been played up as much, much more than they truly are. We’ve been told over and over that this is an “EPIC FIGHT” and that one candidate is part of what we’re fighting against. Heck, the other candidates didn’t even acknowledge (to mention congratulate) Senator Obama when he won the primary.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
Boy, what a disappointment.
As a longtime (and still) Obama supporter, I was ecstatic when he won the Iowa caucuses and delivered a speech that blew those of his rivals out of the water.
Sure, I had some slight concerns about Obama’s statements after landing in New Hampshire. He shouldn’t, for example, repeatedly and overtly ask a state that is proud of its independence to “do what Iowa did” in voting for him.
And why even assume the mantle of frontrunner, declaring that if New Hampshire votes for him then “I will be the next president”? That statement confirmed the Clinton talking point that this primary is now about Obama, when he could have remained the insurgent for one more cycle by instead hanging the “inevitable” mantra on Hillary and challenging New Hampshire not to do Washington’s bidding.
But anyway, on to tonight’s debate.
First, the positives for Obama:
He was strong in the first half of the debate, when the focus was largely on foreign policy and health care. His positions came across as just as reasonable and thoughtful as the other candidates. And throughout the entire night (and with a major assist from Edwards), he kept Hillary from landing a blow and getting the withering sound bite she needs to shift momentum over the next three days.
But as the debate wore on, I became perturbed. Obama:
1) Got himself sandwiched in between the argument over whether change was the result of experience and hard work, or the result of an “epic fight” between us and them. During an entire stretch, Obama seemed to disappear altogether with Richardson.
2) Seemed weak, naive and, indeed, “academic” when, just after Edwards and Clinton staked out strong opposing positions on how to effect change, Obama provided a middling answer that spoke vaguely about how “words do matter” in achieving change.
3) Gave Clinton and Edwards a totally free pass on their votes to authorize the Iraq war. I almost screamed at my television for Obama to jump in when Clinton talked about how the election represented the end of George Bush’s blank check in Iraq. Obama had several chances to put both Clinton on the defensive by using her Iraq and Iran votes to invalidate her arguments of representing the right change from Bush. For reasons that mystify me, he chose not to.
I have no doubt that the media will continue a narrative of Obama vs. Clinton (with a passing mention to Edwards’s assist against Clinton). But there was, I think, a striking contrast drawn tonight between the change Edwards offers and that offered by Clinton. Obama was lost in the middle, surviving the debate but failing to draw a clear, compelling, nod-inducing contrast that would seal the case for a triumph on Tuesday.
I previously said that I will not vote for Edwards, and I hadn’t been compelled to reconsider before tonight’s debate. But I feel uncomfortable now, because for the first time Edwards’s argument (and Obama’s lack of a vigorous response) got to me, making me wonder for just a moment whether we were about to send the wrong candidate into the general election.
Maybe Obama was just tired and off his game. I hope that’s the case, because if he’s decided to coast and assume the voters are already sold based on his win in Iowa, he will lose. The media will still largely ignore Edwards, and Obama just might take New Hampshire anyway. But he needs to remember that, with his liabilities, he will have to vigorously sell himself every time he opens his mouth from now until November.
If Edwards proved one thing, it’s that he continues to drive the change debate and, contrary to what I said a few days ago, he needs to remain a significant part of this race. I have no doubt that if all of New Hampshire had seen this debate rather than hearing the media spin, the entire dynamic of the race would have changed. Who knows — maybe it still will.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
Via Political Wire, it’s looking like Ron Paul’s candidacy is gathering steam:
In an interview to be aired later today on Bloomberg’s Political Capital with Al Hunt, Rep. Ron Paul said he has raised more than $9 million in the past two months and he predicted his presidential campaign will exceed its $12 million fourth-quarter goal.
Paul said he has begun “spending generously” in key early-primary states. He is competing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, and said he expects to have money to campaign through Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when at least 22 states may hold primaries and decide the nomination.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Paul and his increasingly freepish cult of online supporters can no longer be dismissed. No longer marginalized as the Kucinich of the Right, Paul has clearly struck a vein with libertarians who make up sizable portion of the Republican rank and file.
But in the end, I don’t believe his candidacy will significantly damage any of his Republican opponents during the primary process. That’s because his party has no other change candidates running in this election (though some, like Romney, will pivot in that direction in the general).
On the other hand, the Democrats do have change candidates in Obama and Edwards. One of them will emerge from Iowa as the clear challenger to Hillary Clinton. And he will need anti-war independent and Republican votes to help overcome Hillary’s lead among Democrats in New Hampshire.
We don’t want those voters to have a protest vote with the Republicans. Paul gives them one. So rather than challenging and forcing change within his own party, Paul’s candidacy will have the opposite effect. He denies Obama or Edwards a crucial bloc of votes, thereby helping to realize the Republican wet dream of Hillary Clinton as the Republican unifier in the general election.
Paul can also wreak havoc in the general election, as another Texan demonstrated 15 years ago. The Politico speculates:
Though Perot has been off the stage for a decade, strategists in both parties recognize that his supporters remain a key bloc and that voters’ dissatisfaction at the end of the administration of the second President Bush has echoes of the mood when his father was booted from office.
What’s more, neither party has geared up to focus on pet issues of the Perot crowd: opposition to immigration, unfettered trade and foreign wars.
It’s a policy mix that one of the main students of the Perot movement, College of William & Mary political scientist Ron Rapoport, refers to as “economic nationalism.”
Paul has recently made noises about a third-party run. With an anti-interventionist, anti-NAFTA platform, what’s to stop his candidacy from ballooning to Perotian (Perotist? Perotese?) proportions? Sure, he helps Hillary again by siphoning the votes of Republicans who hate her as much as they hate the war. But his effect on the election with Obama or Edwards as the nominee is less clear.
What should progressives do to mitigate Ron Paul as a threat? As we see with other candidates, every press boomlet is followed by a wave of skepticism. It’s far too dangerous for Obama or Edwards to attack Paul, even under the radar. But thankfully, they don’t need to, because when the blogosphere makes noise, the traditional media now takes notice.
This is the time to end Paul’s honeymoon and challenge him on specific policy proposals. Make him state and restate at every campaign stop that he wants to abolish the IRS, Social Security and the Department of Education. And make it clear that he’s an unabashed racist who would yank American foreign aid from the third world.
Libertarianism is often far more attractive in the abstract. Then voters realize the libertarians would hand over control of the federal government to Corporate America and isolate the country on the world stage.
Let’s make sure Iowa and New Hampshire voters know they’d simply be substituting Paul’s fiscal lunacy in place of the deranged foreign policy positions of his opponents.
P.S. A 90-minute PBS debate between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be great for our democracy. Just an idea.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
Rolling Stone published a wide-ranging interview with Al Gore in its latest issue, covering the climate crisis, his (lack of) plans in the presidential race and his view of the Bush administration. When the interview turned to Gore’s view of the Bush regime, he issued a stinging condemnation:
RS: If you were a historian, how would you describe the Bush administration from that point of view?
Gore: They have done so much damage to the spirit of America, to the worldwide reputation of America, to the morale of our people, to the core belief that we’re capable of managing our fears without sacrificing our freedom. But nobody’s going to be surprised to hear me give a thumbs-down rating to Bush and Cheney.
RS: What’s the worst damage they’ve done, other than the climate crisis?
Gore: They have promoted the idea that freedom and security are mutually exclusive, that you can have one only to the extent that you’ve sacrificed the other. That is an un-American idea. When our founders framed the Constitution, they understood the reality of war. When the Declaration of Independence was written, it was written by Americans who were in danger of being hung. They had reason to fear for their very lives, every single one of them, but they insisted on the protection of habeas corpus and freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, and the separation of self-government from the establishment of a religious dogma as an official set of beliefs. They had real courage that bridged their devotion to freedom and their need for security.
But instead of courage, this administration has used fear to undermine the system of checks and balances and the carefully balanced relationship between separate branches of government and the principle that all of the operations of our self-government should be accountable to the people. The arrogance and unaccountability of absolute power is corrupting, and our founders knew that so well. They embodied in our nation a universal principle derived from a millennium and a half of history, from Athens to Rome through the Enlightenment to the American Revolution. But all of that has been blithely ignored by this administration because of their lust for power.
This has got to be the most trenchant and spot-on criticism that anyone has leveled at this administration. Succinctly stated, it encompasses and indicts a whole host of offenses, from the moral travesty that is the Iraq War, to the suspension of habeas corpus, to the so-called PATRIOT acts, to Guantanamo Bay and torture, et al.
Sure, our leading candidates have made broad critiques that explain why Bush’s policies are bad for America, harmful to the middle class, etc. But it’s this historical context that reveals the actions of the Bush Administration and its apologists (Rudy McRomney) to be at best the epitome of weakness, and at worst, a predatory perversion of the American idea.
Gore added:
It’s not just the excesses of Bush and Cheney — it’s the failure of our Congress, our courts, our free press, and all of us, to speak up and prevent this degradation of the American idea.
Right on.
I don’t know about you, but the decision of Sens. Schumer and Feinstein to support Michael Mukasey for Attorney General is the last straw for me. I give up on this Democratic congress, because as Gore points out, they have placed political calculus above bedrock principles that deserve to be fought for, win or lose. And then they wonder why Americans don’t know what the Democrats stand for.
So my hopes rest with our next president. And he/she will not unite the country and restore the American idea by exploiting divisions to win with 51% of the vote. Rather, they will need to appeal to independents and non-fascist Republicans by offering this kind of devastating strategic frame.
The question is, do we share Gore’s concern, and will we nominate a candidate who can do that?
Read the previous DKos diary, which covers Gore’s thoughts on climate change and a presidential run. Or read the entire article here, starting on page 54.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
Josh Marshall posted some criticisms of the Obama campaign, and is being praised in some quarters for urging the Obama campaign to “take it” and “make his move” and “win”:
Obama isn’t so much running for the nomination in the sense of reaching out and taking it. He’s trying to show us how marvelous he is (and this isn’t snark, he’s really pretty marvelous) so that Democratic voters will recognize it and give him the nomination.
But that’s not how it works in this country. I don’t know if it really works otherwise anywhere else. But you have to really want it, come out and say it, take it. I thought about qualities that describe what is at issue. ‘Toughness’ seems to bound up in meta-national security mumbojumbo. ‘Ruthlessness’ sounds too, well, ruthless. You have to want it enough that you reach out and take it. Which isn’t always pretty and admirable. But that’s what it takes.
I disagree that Obama has to somehow seize the narrative now, and then struggle to keep control of it over the next three months. Follow me over the jump and I’ll explain my reasons why.
It’s funny, because these entreaties to “take it” are just as vague as observers accuse Obama of being on the campaign trail. Now, I don’t disagree that Obama needs more traction, but when it comes to tangible specifics about what Obama has yet to do, his critics fail to offer any.
But let’s presume that by “take it,” these observers are referring to sharper sound bites and more direct attacks on the Washington establishment and Hillary Clinton.
- John Edwards has trying to “take it” and break into the MSM narrative by more pointedly attacking Clinton. Where has that gotten him, either in the national or state polls, financial resources, local activism or endorsements?
- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt tried to “take it” in 2003, and we see what happened on caucus day. Others may differ, but I would say Dean failed because he peaked too early and couldn’t close the sale by looking and sounding presidential. Gephardt was punished for his negativity in the closing days of the race.
- John Kerry and John Edwards ran more positive campaigns (at least compared to Dean and Gephardt who were at each other’s throats), and it gave their campaigns new life when it came time for voters to actually make a decision.
This time around, Democrats know that the Republican opponent will be much less formidable than Bush in 2004, and are much more likely to fall into the column of the “hope” candidate than one who goes nuclear. That’s why I think Edwards’ attacks on Clinton won’t necessarily benefit him.
Obama is right in the thick of things in Iowa, with by far the best organization there and the most energetic supporters. It is mistaken to assume his campaign needs to panic now over national polls that reflect little other than name ID and general popularity.
Is the clock ticking? Yes. Obama needs a better sound-bite quality to his criticisms of the Washington establishment, and he has to make clearer the stark choice that lies before the voters as they choose between himself and the rest of the field. But I’ve learned to be more patient with the campaign after the beautifully timed and very strong energy plan he unveiled, just as Al Gore is set to make a splash on climate change. It shows his campaign knows what it’s doing.
The mainstream media wants a contest, and come November they will be looking for a reason to bring Clinton down, just as they did with Dean. Once Obama starts to hit hardest (my guess is late October), he’ll need to ride that wave to the caucus. If he ‘attacks’ now, the MSM will be looking for a new story by the end of the month.
My bottom line: Obama is perfectly positioned now, and late October into November will be the best time to pounce. He will peak just as people turn their attention to the holiday period, hopefully receiving Al Gore’s endorsement in December. In the meantime, I like that he’s staying in the headlines with bold policy proposals while remaining financially and organizationally strong.
Sounds like a great strategy to me.
[Note: See my original Daily Kos post here.]
I’ll try to make this succinct so as not to harangue and detract from the point I want to make about last night’s democratic debate.
Over the past week we have heard some very shocking and disheartening news about the pace and nature of climate change. We were told that:
Arctic sea ice has melted to its lowest level on record, declining a jaw-dropping 386,100 miles.
According to leading climate scientists, climate change is “occurring far in advance of the worst-case scenario,” outstripping previous predictions “in the most horrible way.”
“Catastrophic” climate change is now unavoidable. The now-inevitable changes caused by CO2 emissions will displace millions of humans and expose them to drought, hunger, flooding and infectious diseases, as well as cause the extinction of innumerable species.
See where this is going?
In last night’s Democratic debate, there were nearly TWO FULL HOURS of questions and answers.
- John Edwards was asked about how much he pays for a haircut.
- Mike Gravel was questioned about his personal bankruptcy.
- All the candidates were asked for their favorite bible verse.
- All the candidates were asked whether they prefer the Red Sox or the Yankees.
And yet, in TWO FULL HOURS of Q&A, there was not a single question on climate change. Not one.
And what’s worse?
There was not one comment from any of the “leading” candidates on global warming. (For the record, both Dodd and Kucinich attempted to mention carbon reduction when they were asked about nuclear power plants, but both were quickly cut off by Tim Russert.)
My friends, I’m utterly speechless.
You see, I’m not surprised that a mainstream media that wants us to pay attention to O.J. Simpson and Britney Spears would chose not to expend time on the genocide in Darfur. Or the turmoil in Myanmar. Or the devastation and inaction in New Orleans. Or the news that there are three blacks or latinos in jail for every one in college. Or even the plummeting dollar and increasingly probable recession next year.
But climate change, as we now incontrovertibly know, is the defining moral crisis of our time. The facts are in, and we know that our actions today will displace and eventually kill millions tomorrow. Our children will be tomorrow’s Katrina victims.
I am beyond outraged, not only at the media’s willful ignorance of this issue, but also at the fact that our own candidates refuse to evangelize and prepare the country for action on a looming crisis that will wreck the future of untold millions.
To the Democratic candidates: Your lack of leadership disgusts me. You seek to lead the free world in 15 months, yet you lack both the moral concern and fortitude to force this issue and declare that the climate crisis is more important than haircuts and baseball teams.
This is the corporate media’s game, but it requires your obedience to work. And time and again, you pander in the hopes of favorable mention during the post-debate spin, and confine your advocacy on the gravest issues to interest-group checklists posted within the bowels of your web sites.
You lack the leadership that is so sorely needed in this age. You lack audacity.
If you cannot (read: will not) muster the courage to consistently and loudly speak out on this slow-motion train wreck, why should I believe you will mobilize American society once in office?
If you cannot (read: will not) end the disastrous Iraq occupation by 2013, why should I believe you will expend the political capital to ensure the transformation needed to address begins by 2012? Even if it is your only accomplishment. Even if it means no universal healthcare. Raising taxes. Banning products and substances at a cost of more American jobs. Forcing fuel standards that put American car makers at a competitive disadvantage. Yes — even if it means approval ratings of 29%.
When our grandchildren wonder how such a technologically advanced society was unable (read: unwilling) to reorder itself to ensure its own survival and prosperity, we will think back to nights like last night. And we will think about how hard you, our prospective “leaders,” tried to “look presidential,” to challenge yet not challenge, and to not sound “shrill,” while our corporations and governments placed mortgages on the spoils of your acquiescence.
I was prepared to open my wallet again for one of the leading candidates this week. No more. There is one person whom I believe can be this generation’s Winston Churchill, and he wasn’t on that stage last night.
They’ve had their chance. They have not led. He will.
And if he doesn’t? Well, as we’ve seen with our own eyes over the course of this campaign, we’re fucked.
“You have a very dour demeanor,” the doctor says in a tone that suggests he’s leveling with me. “Do you know that?”
I’m caught off guard, and for a second I don’t know how to respond. No one has ever told me that before. Even if it’s true, what does it have to do with my not eating for days?
The doctor folds his hands and leans back in his chair, letting his statement hang there in the air. We study each other, with his look one of serenity and mine one of bewilderment.
I slowly repeat his statement, my mind pondering and scrutinizing each word. Very…dour…demeanor. Me? Really?
Finally, he begins to speak again. He explains to me that even though I haven’t eaten for four days, I probably don’t have any of the ailments I’d feared: cancer (at 27!), a digestive disorder, a tapeworm, etc.
“Do you ever stare at yourself in the mirror?” he asks.
“Yes.” I don’t think he’s about to make some observation about my appearance, or God forbid, my hygeine. But this is unfamiliar territory, and I am afraid nonetheless.
“What do you see in the mirror? How do you feel?”
I think for a few seconds before responding honestly.
“I feel like I’m looking at a stranger, like I don’t recognize myself. Sometimes I feel like I’ve somehow lost everything that made me who I am. Like I’m just a shell of a person.”
He leans forward again.
“See…the reason I keep coming back to depression being the cause…”
The doc stops himself mid-sentence. Then he reaches over and grabs the hospital tray that he brought in with him.
“Here,” he says, pushing it toward me. “Eat this.”
I take the tray from him and lift the cover to peek its contents. It’s packed with food: meatloaf, corn, broccoli, toast, mashed potatoes, peaches, orange juice, and a diet soda. It smells good, in a generic hospital food sort of way.
As I grab the knife and fork and begin to dig in, the doctor explains the procedure for voluntarily admitting myself “for observation and counseling.” I translate his words to mean he’s offering me a spot in the psych ward. In between mouthfuls I manage to decline his offer.
He keeps talking, knowing I’m too busy eating to look up at him or respond. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out a sample of pills in a box. “I call these happy pills,” he says, with a grin. “Follow the instructions, and see if they make you feel any better.”
He holds them out for me. I accept them, but only out of politeness. I’m dead set against taking them, but make sure to show gratitude nonetheless.
He stands up and looks down at the hospital tray. I follow his eyes and realize that all the food is gone, with only diet soda remaining. I don’t drink soda.
I feel his hand on my bare shoulder, and look up at him. He’s shoots me a sympathetic look. “In the meantime, ya gotta eat.”
He takes his hand off my shoulder and offers it for a stiff handshake. “Take care of yourself.”
“Thank you,” I call after him. “I can go?”
“See Mary at the front desk. She can sign you out and refer you to some primary doctors in the area.”
Ten minutes later, I walk out of the hospital, dazed, and clutching a list of area psychiatrists.
During the car ride home, I leave all the windows down, letting my left arm hang out of the driver’s side window so the hot air tunnels through my t-shirt. I’m barely paying attention to the other cars on the road, instead pondering the dissonance between the way I see myself and the way other people see me. Maybe I do have emotional needs that tend to go unattended, I think to myself. But do I really appear gloomy and depressed to the outside world?
I finally get home, and trudge up the stairs to my apartment. When I open the door, I immediately pick up the scent of eggs being fried. Josh, my sometimes-roommate, is hanging out.
As I round the corner, our eyes meet but he quickly looks down at the pot of food on the stove. “Hey,” he offers. “I used all your Egg Beaters.”
I realize that he’s nervous — ready to support me if I have bad news, but hoping there isn’t any.
“They think I’m depressed,” I sigh as I walk around the counter and take up a stool beside him. “Do you think so?”
“I don’t know…” his voice trails off for a moment. “You seem pretty much alright this week.”
I notice that he doesn’t say this in a reassuring, “that-can’t-be-right” tone, but rather, an “I-don’t-know-if-it’s-my-place” one.
“But last week…”
I sigh again, not wanting to think about it.
Finally, I lift my head up. “Let’s go out to eat.”
“What? Now?”
“Yeah.”
“But the eggs are just done!”
“Leave them.”
As he looks down at his handiwork, I slip the spatula out of his hand and turn off the burner. “Let’s go.”
“Alright,” he acceeds, still staring at the pot as I begin to back away.
“But I want pasta then,” he demands.
“Me too.”
“And you’re paying.”
“I always do.”
He snickers and I laugh heartily, and each of us shoots the other a glance at the same time. The look we’re exchanging isn’t one of insecurity, wondering if the other person will take offense. Rather, it’s one of mutual pleasure, the kind that says “See? This is why we’re friends.”
In that instant, I feel my spirits lift. I’m in good company, and I feel damn good myself.
We’re gonna go eat a huge, gut-busting meal. I toss the “happy pills” into a drawer and, rushing to catch up to Josh, I grab my wallet, keys and cash.
And a banana.
It’s rude of her, I think, to come marching into the room like that. Especially after that nice doctor before her had set the bar so high. Unlike with him, there was no courtesy knock, and she let the door bang loudly against the doorstop, striding in without bothering to look up from her clipboard.
In the three seconds it takes her to strut into the room and take her seat, I size her up. She’s another youngish staff member — maybe in her late 20’s. She has light brown skin — maybe Native American or Indian — and straight, shoulder-length black hair. She’s thin and looks athletic — maybe a tennis player, I speculate.
Damn, she’s beautiful, I think. As she comes closer, pulling up a chair and continuing to study her clipboard, my eyes are locked onto her face, examining its perfect symmetry. In the time it takes me to sit up and face her, my mindset has quickly changed from one of irritation to one of curiosity. She doesn’t have the same uniform as either the nurses or the doctor. Who is she?
“Hi,” I offer, both looking for and expecting some acknowledgment of my presence.
“Hi…,” she sighs back. She’s writing now, and it’s clear she hasn’t prepared in advance like she’s supposed to. Why? Is it because she’s just busy and tired, or irritated and looking to dispatch with me as soon as possible? I need to know.
I silently watching her as she explains without looking up that she is a dietitian.
“Okay,” she says, while assertively dropping her pen in the clipboard’s holder and making eye contact for the first time. “We did not find any sign of a physical problem in your blood.”
That’s the best news of the day, but I don’t spend much time rejoicing. I’m preoccupied by the way her eyes have narrowed into a frown and her lips are pursed when she isn’t talking. It’s a kids-like-you look, I think, one that conveys disdain. And what was with her emphasizing the word “physical” when she said they didn’t find a problem? Was that an allusion to the mental stuff again? Every time she speaks, I notice how her hand gestures betray her impatience.
This is an important conversation about my health, but I can’t help but feel a tinge of disappointment anyway. I wonder what she thinks of me, why she dislikes me. She must’ve seen one too many frat boys trying to score some Prozac for their buddies, or whiny emo-kids who can’t cope after getting dumped. I begin to feel resentment at being lumped in with those groups, and I’m soon frowning too.
I don’t like this girl. She’s lecturing me. There are too many why-didn’t-you’s and you-should-be’s in her speech pattern. I can’t get a word in edgewise, and it wouldn’t matter anyway.
When she finally stops talking, her silent and expectant stare makes it clear she’s done and just waiting for me to say I don’t have any questions so she can leave.
“So…” I begin, looking for a way to convey my incredulity and unwillingness to drop the subject without being to rude. “I’m just supposed to eat on a schedule, indefinitely, and completely ignore the fact that I have no appetite?”
Her response is immediate and unapologetic.
“Look at this.” She stands up, swings around and leans against the bed next to me so we’re both facing her empty chair. She thrusts the clipboard in front of my face.
“You’ve lost 12 pounds from your weight at last checkup.”
I can’t tell what she’s pointing at. There are notes scribbled everywhere. I’m feeling chastised.
“You’re dehydrated, and your blood sugar is very low. Your potassium levels have gone way down too, and that’s what your heart depends on–”
“So I should eat a banana?” I interject, looking up at her.
Her head immediately cocks back and she laughs out loud. I’m not sure how to take it.
“That’s right!” she says, her eyes confirming that her reaction isn’t meant to ridicule or patronize me, but rather, it reflects her pleasant surprise at meeting a guy who knows something about nutrition.
I feel my spirits lift. That was a big risk, throwing the banana question out there. I knew I was right, but she could’ve kept on steamrolling me anyway. It would have been embarrassing. But it paid off, and hopefully now we’ll at least get along.
I decide to impress her further by telling her I eat double-fiber, whole grain bread. And Gardenburgers, and soy milk, and nutrition shakes, and cans of mixed vegetables, and a daily multivitamin. We’re really getting along now.
“Listen,” she says, leaning toward me and speaking in an almost confiding tone. “When you don’t eat, your body goes into starvation mode. Your metabolism slows down, and your body keeps going by using whatever fat and nutrients you have stored away.”
She pokes me twice in the ribcage with her pen. I laugh and sheepishly point my smile away from her.
She lifts the clipboard again and points at another spot that I can’t read. “Your body is breaking down muscle to keep you going,” she says, serious now, and turning to look me in the eye.
The door opens again, and in walks the doctor. I surmise that he doesn’t knock first when he knows the patient isn’t alone, and nothing untoward should be going on. The dietitian stands up, pats me twice on the shoulder and walks past me toward the door. “Take care of yourself,” she shoots back over her shoulder.
“Okay, thank you!” I watch her walk out.
The doctor sits down, studying me and waiting for my attention to come back from the girl who just left. As I turn to him, I sense impatience growing within me.
“So,” I ask, partly pleading but mostly exasperated. “What’s wrong with me?”