Political Nanny : Fred Thompson

Hollywood Happy Ending

Madeline Holler — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:42:00 GMT

Sure, the candidates come and go (most of them having already gone). But as a nanny, you still care. Which is why Political Nanny is happy to report that one of her charges has found work in the day job that he ill-advisedly quit to run for president.

Fred Thompson is back in Hollywood.

Sure, even if the 65-year-old were to reprise a role as enjoyable as that of the forceful, determined, hardworking Arthur Branch on "Law & Order," any viewing of the masterful thespian will be tainted by still-fresh memories of his lackluster performance as a presidential hopeful.

But he's back where he belongs: surrounded by liberals, agents, scripts, outlandish riders and long periods of time off. Break a leg, Freddy, break a leg!

Photo: Reuters

Scrapbooking the Election: Candidates' Kids

Madeline Holler — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:29:00 GMT

Remember when this presidential campaign looked more like a Disney On Ice tour, what with all the little, little kids running around getting their pictures taken with the stars of the show? Even Grampa Mitt, whose own children are now five strapping grown men, hauled his willing grandson around to mug it up and sway the minds of undecided voters.

Unlike a fairy tale, election Neverneverland takes some serious funding and voter approval to return to again and again. One-by-one, daddies have packed up their Iowa rental homes or emptied their already empty campaign schedules or headed back to the North Carolina compound.

The youngest campaign kids -- and our final hope ... yes, hope! ... at hearing the pitter-patter of little feet in the White House -- are Barack Obama's 6- and 9-year-old girls, Sasha and Malia (pictured above). The rest of this election's second generation aren't as cute as the Obamas. Still, Political Nanny thinks we should familiarize ourselves with who could be calling Mr./Madame President "Mom" or "Dad" next year:

John McCain has a multi-layered family tree -- some of his offspring are way grown-up kids from a first marriage, some way grown-up kids from a second marriage and some thrown in later for good measure. His daughter, Meghan, is very visibly involved in his campaign (she's traveling with him and blogging about it ... and also offering make-up tips). McCain's youngest daughter is Bridget, who you may remember is the daughter he adopted from Bangladesh that some sleazy South Carolina Bush operatives used to undermine McCain's values credibility back in 2000.

McCain: Bridget, 16 and Meghan, 23

Hillary Clinton finally took the muzzle off of Chelsea last month, following the senator's New Hampshire win. Now we not only see Chelsea at all her mom's rallies and debates, we also get to see video of her talking to younger voters.

Clinton: Chelsea, 27

Mike Huckabee is the father of three grown children, a daughter and two sons. His daughter works on his campaign (watch her here ... she has a fantastically rich Arkansas accent) and clearly has it together. Political Nanny doesn't think Huckabee will be the next president ... but Sarah? Well, seems like we'll be nannying her a couple of decades from now.

Huckabee: Sarah, 24

One of Huckabee's sons, David, might be the former governor of Arkansas' skeleton in the closet. In 1998, when the boy was 17, he was involved in the hanging of a dog at a Boy Scout camp. What makes this a problem for Huckabee is that he appears to have fired the director of the state's police force for not helping him out with the problem.

Huckabee: David, 27

Mitt Romney has all five of his sons working hard on his campaign. They've got a website with personal blogs (a few of which need some updating, Ben!). And these guys, what with there being five of them, are all over the campaign trail riding bikes and shaking hands and flashing their big white teeth at the cameras. (Any chance at least one of these guys is gay or liberal or pro-choice or deeply in debt or unmarried or infertile or atheist or anything interesting like that?)

Romney: Tagg, 37

Matt, 36

Josh, 32

Ben, 29

Craig, 26

Ron Paul's "kids," Ronnie, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy, are all way grown and parents and some of them are even grandparents. Pictures of them are hard to find. But here's one with Ron and some of his grandkids. To see Paul's two daughters go here.

That sure is one big happy Family Campaign photo album! Awwww, aren't they all so cute?

Toys For Political Junkies' Babies

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:08:00 GMT

Many of you have privately confessed to Political Nanny how your obsession with this election has cut into your quality parenting time. Days and nights of on-demand newsfeeding. The agony of letting pundits cry it out. You know everything about the remaining candidates, yet you've forgotten your own flesh-and-blood's birth weight and shoe size.

No need to abandon either of your babies. You can rear children and obsess about the nation's future at the same time. There are plenty of activities to bridge these two seemingly opposing interests.

Political Reading for the Whole Family:

Political Nanny already told you about the children's book Why Mommy is a Democrat, wherein loving, kind, Democratic squirrels watch in disbelief as elephants behave rudely. Now the companion, Why Daddy is a Democrat is available to promote a smug satisfaction in progressive voting. In these beautifully illustrated pages, we are told that Democrats support schools (of fish!) and make the earth feel better (it gets sick!) and give police and firefighters the support the need to do their jobs well. Why ever do liberals get accused of having simple, simple minds?

Go interactive with Pat the Politician #2. In the manner of the children's touch and feel classic, Pat the Bunny, this new twist on an old favorite let's kids get in touch -- literally -- with the candidates.

According to the catalog, kids can ... Pull Hillary's purse strings. Fluff John Edwards hair. Scratch John McCain's war rhetoric. And don't forget to wave bye-bye to George Bush. Pat the Politician #2 is perfect for every voter, Democrat or Republican. Features 20 interactive pages with 22 color illustrations.

Role-Play With Political Finger Puppets:

Are your little ones missing the finer points of all this political rhetoric? Act it out in words they understand with these presidential candidate finger puppets. There are five candidates in the set -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, George Bush in a dunce cap and, sadly, Fred Thompson. After you exhaust all three minutes of play with the Thompson puppet (mimicking in real time his failed campaign's light scheduling), turn Thompson into Romney with thick crop of black hair (just clip a patch from your child's Webkinz dog and stitch or glue as necessary). Only have white fur? Fine. He'll be Ted Kennedy. Just position him on your thumb so he can be near his new BFF Barack, who is inspiring the rest of the toybox atop your index finger. Alternately, insert ball bearings into Thompson dolls face and play-act an angry John McCain.

Is your child more of an issues voter? Consider the hours of fun with the gay marriage finger puppets (two men, two women and a priest). Are you raising a security toddler? Then go for the five-man axis of evil "Terrorism" set.

So you're a childless cat lady but you read a parenting blog? No judgment here, we promise. And there's something for you and your much-neglected Fluffy too. Political Pet toys. A soft, safe chew toy for the light of your life. Choose from world leaders, presidential candidates and controversial filmmakers (that's Michael Moore, right?).

Go ahead and start watching the Florida returns. Enjoy all two hours of the debates in Los Angeles on Thursday. Tune into Hardball without guilt. That baby you hear crying? She doesn't need you. She's just interviewing fingerpuppet Hillary. And the swearing? Don't worry. That's her playing with post-Florida Rudy.

Now Casting 'Election 2008: The Movie'

Madeline Holler — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:36:00 GMT

Eventually, the 2008 Election is going to make a great epic movie. Sure, we don't yet know the ending. And yeah, so far the story centers mostly on the campaign and surprise Iowa win for a bi-racial Senator, and a pretty decent tearful plot-twist, courtesy of the ambitious, conniving, first woman to do anything important in this country ... ever! There's also the tension building over a New Hampshire comeback for the aging Republican stalwart. Comic relief/hints of horror from the fundamentalist Christian with populist appeal threatening the hopes and dreams of a Morman businessman with daddy issues. There's the 9-11 Mayor, the stinking rich son of a South Carolina mill worker and a second-rate actor on a ubiquitous television franchise to squeeze in there too.

You couldn't write this stuff! But somebody will. Though it's a bit early to be drafting a script -- and hiring a script doctor to come in and punch up those debate scenes (let's be honest, Monday night was 10 minutes of rancor surrounded by 100 minutes of the usual) -- we can start thinking about other ways to get this project greenlighted. Help Political Nanny cast the lead roles:

Slate has made a solid case for Reese Witherspoon as Hillary Clinton in this very amusing video that cuts several Hillary moments with those of another Witherspoon role, Tracy Flick in the 1999 movie "Election." The anger at a lifelong ambition suddenly under threat. The singular focus on winning. The tears. (If it gets on your nerves the first time, go back to it later and watch it again. Eventually, you'll love it.)

How about the rest?

For obvious physical reasons, Mike Huckabee should be played by Kevin Spacey. We're sure Spacey's already brushing up on Scripture, guitar chords and radical weightloss techniques in anticipation of this film (think Spacey will go fat suit or real weight-gain for background scenes as a tax-hiking governor of Arkansas?). It's so the role he was born for, not that Bobby Darin disaster he got a little too into a few years ago.

Fred Thompson could play himself. And he could play himself playing himself on Law & Order and it could get a little Being John Malkovich only with Southern aphorisms and lots of scheduled naps.

Political Nanny feels like Mitt Romney could be played by Tom Cruise (in lifts), what with them both being Scientologists ... or Mormons ... or whatever. Same difference. If Cruise refuses the height-enhancing orthotics, his hair could land him the Edwards role, which leaves Romney open for ... suggestions? A young Charlton Heston?

Joe Biden's role would be too small for the talents of Alec Baldwin, but we'd like to see him do it anyway. The two come so easily unhinged that we feel, just like the real Biden, Baldwin will steal the few scenes he's actually in.

Only Tommy Lee Jones and a box of jawbreaker candy could do the role of John McCain any justice. Which leaves Robert Duvall to play Rudy Giuliani (mmmhmmm, good one, huh?! And we know Duvall would say yes!). But Chris Dodd? We'll have to have open casting for him unless you've got some ideas.

Barack Obama has said he'd like Denzel Washington to play him in the movies but thinks his ears make Will Smith a better fit. Fine, but Political Nanny likes any excuse to watch Denzel so he's got her vote.

Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Gravel can be played by extras. After all, this film's got a budget.

And Dennis Kucinich. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. Now, keep an open mind on this one. Political Nanny sees Mike Myers channeling a little Austin Powers channeling the comeback role of a lifetime. Think it'll work? (Julianne Moore gets to be the hot Mrs.K!)

Political Nanny also hears Ralph Nader is thinking about getting in the race. Who's going to play him? Jim Carey? John Turturro? Alan Alda? The talented and versatile Fred Thompson? Fred's got time to rehearse and he'll be available since, well, he called it quits Tuesday and will only appear in the first 20 minutes of this politico-historical epic.

That leaves squeaky Ron Paul, sweet Bill Richardson and gasbag Chris Matthews, who would no doubt want to play himself. Any suggestions? We're looking for an Oscars sweep.

Photo: Wonkette.com

Candidates' Cribs: Their Digs, Pre-White House

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:10:00 GMT

Readers, rest assured. America's housing market meltdown won't leave any of the candidates without a very, very pleasant roof over their heads. But you're kind for caring. How about we take a peek at those roofs and do a little real estate market analysis, you know, on behalf of those candidates who don't manage the upgrade to something bigger and whiter.

Mother Jones was kind enough to assemble a photo album of many of the top candidates' domiciles and CNBC ran the numbers.

John Edwards, that son of a mill worker, lives in the most expensive house of any of the candidates. His rambling $6 million compound, which he purchased in 2007, has risen in value over 4 percent. Think he went the exotic loan route? Incidentally, the average home value in his North Carolina county is $365,000. He's defintely on the other side of the tracks . And when this Chapel Hill estate won't suffice, he's got his $1.08 million beach home.

Rudy Giuliani lives in a $5.25 million nine-room co-op in Manhattan's Upper East Side, by far the best of all the candidate's cribs, in Political Nanny's opinion. The Manhattan housing market has been quite good to him -- the median price of a Manhattan apartment has risen 14 percent since moving day a few years ago. The average cost of a Manhattan apartment is $1.5 million, which, in local money, is kind of slummy, right?

Next up, John McCain's $3 million Phoenix condo (which, according to MoJo, is actually two condos combined into one). We all know the market in Arizona's cities is tanking. The average home price in Phoenix is $428,000, down 1.8 percent in the last nine months. Now, from the outside, his condo looks like a hospital. But for beauty, he can always go to his $1.1 million 6-acre ranch in Sedona.

A tie between Hillary Clinton's Westchester, N.Y., home price and the home Mitt Romney has in Belmont, Mass. There are others. These houses cost the candidates $1.7 million. Clinton has a slight edge in that her neighborhood's prices are down just 2.8 percent, while the Romney's are watching a 9 percent decrease around them. For the Clintons, the average price in the area is $1.13 million. For Mitt and family, the median home price in Belmont is $680,000. (MoJo pictures his $3 million New Hampshire house on a lake, which should not be confused with his $5.5 million main residence, a former ski resort in Park City, Utah. Yow!)

Barack Obama bought his almost-South-Side Chicago house -- a beauty -- for $1.65 million in 2005 (the height of the market, what was he thinking?!). The average value of a home in his area is $310,315. Overall, prices are up 1 percent, so, he's doing OK and won't likely need to take advantage of Hillary's mortgage bailout plans.

Missing from the market analysis: the stats on Fred Thompson's McClean, Va., home, which set the Thompsons back $3.3 million. With prices dropping in the Northeast, though, we'd hate to see him get upside down on his financing. And also Mike Huckabee's Little Rock McMansion, which he and his wife paid $525,00. Sounds like a steal, but we're guessing it's one of the more pricey homes in Arkansas. Which would explain why they registered for house-warming gifts after they bought it.

Now, for any of the candidates trying to establish some Green credentials, Political Nanny's advice is: install solar panels and change those incandescent bulbs, quick! Most of these rather enormous homes likely have an oversized and embarassing carbon footprint. We're just saying ...

Finally, the ones missing from the collection are two that Political Nanny would have really liked to see and also a pair that could give some perspective: the homes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Send over the links if you think you have tracked either or both of them down. Is Political Nanny alone in imagining Kucinich's digs might bear some resemblance to Austin Power's pad? No, only her?

Primary's Baby: N.H. Girl Stalks the Candidates

Madeline Holler — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:47:00 GMT

You can tell a lot about a presidential candidate by the way s/he holds a baby. OK, not really. But we're going to deeply analyze it anyway. Why? Because it's fun, because it's naughty, because Political Nanny wishes SHE would have thought of doing what this forward-thinking and shameless contributor to Slate has done.

Darren Garnick, a New Hampshire resident, hauled his five-week-old daughter Dahlia to campaign events around his home state, handing her over to candidates and capturing the moment in a stillshot. The results? Fabulous! The slide show is at once a marvelous demonstration of parenting at its least protective and political coverage at its weakest. In other words, refreshing!

First up is Barack Obama, who winds up holding Dahlia on two different occasions -- the first time in a sweet (and completely competent) traditional infant cradle hold, the second time while Dahlia wears a "Black Power" bib at a rally. Let's look at the cradle hold: Obama is clearly a man who put in the hours with his own kids. He's got two, but they're young and there's not a lot of distance between daily baby-holding and this picture. (We need to keep that in mind when we look at the pics of some campaign trail parents whose own days of second-nature infant handling (the floppy necks!) are decades behind them.) At the rally, Garnick reports that Obama kissed Dahlia's forehead (melt) and then held her up for cheers.

Next up, Rudy Giuliani is stuck with the screeching girl in a fleece pumpkin costume. He looks like he's going to drop her, but he hangs on tight. He was at a disadvantage -- how do you securely snuggle with a squirmy winter vegetable? Let's not judge Rudy too harshly.

Then there's John McCain, who launches the beginning of a curious trend in the baby holds: he's circled his thumb and four fingers around one of Dahlia's legs. Political Nanny doesn't recall doing this with her babes. Perhaps it's an older generation male thing? Because Edwards, Kucinich and (look closely) Romney are doing it too. Political Nanny is not saying it's harmful, just curious. Did they learn this in a Kissing the Baby workshop at Let's Play President summer camp?

What you really want to know, though, is something about Hillary Clinton's baby snuggling chops. Well, hold your "cold-heart" comments, she does just fine with Dahlia, who gazes right into the mother-of-one's eyes. Sure, there's a bit of stiffness in the hold, but Hillary's kid is pushing 30. Maybe it's been awhile. Please note, however, that Hillary is doing that protective palm-around-the-shoulders upper hand thing, which Political Nanny always appreciates when strangers hold her little ones.

In addition to the leg-grip, Mitt Romney does the fingers-around-the-neck upright baby display so competently, he'd make any OB/Gyn proud (except maybe Ron Paul). Garnick notes that the picture, which includes Romney's wife, looks like the New Hampshire father is giving up Dahlia for adoption to a rich white couple. Agreed!

Finally, we see Huckabee and Chuck Norris in a horizontal split-screen shot. Huckabee's doing the hands-under-armpits-with-dangling legs hold (baby facing outward), while Chuck Norris has turned his arm into a seat, allowing Dahlia to rest against his chest. He lays a hand -- it's a registered weapon! -- protectively against her chest. Well done, Chuck, well done!

Garnick didn't get Dahlia into the arms of Fred Thompson (who didn't do much in New Hampshire) or Duncan Hunter (what a relief!) or Ron Paul (coulda shown Mitt a thing or two). And he admits Mike Gravel freaks him out, so he didn't stand a chance. But Political Nanny is grateful for the slideshow and its insight. How will the candidates handle Iraq? Who cares! How are they going to cuddle the nation?

Photo: Slate.com

Break Out the Diapers: Candidates Demand a Change!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:00 GMT

Candidates from both parties are beginning to sound like a room full of neglected toddlers wearing sagging, saturated diapers. "Change, change, change," they all yelled, screamed, demanded, whimpered during a weekend of debates in New Hampshire. "I'm here for change!"

Well, hold on a second, Mitt and Hillary and John McCain. Just last week you were bragging about your experience and training and ability to, if elected, go on the potty starting from Day 1!

But Political Nanny understands. You're all wetting your pants after the Iowa Caucus when the new kids Barack and Mike got most of the attention and a whole lot of love -- love and support you had hoped (expected?) would mostly be yours. Since everyone is reading these not-totally-surprising-but-still-very-notable wins as Americans wanting change, well, that's what you'll all give them: change!

In Saturday's Facebook/ABC News back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates and again on Fox for Republicans on Sunday, the talk was about change. Change in immigration. Change in healthcare. Change in Iraq. Change in foreign relations. Change in the status quo. Change in monetary systems. Change in leadership style. Change in change.

The Republicans:

On Saturday, Fred Thompson sounded like he was BSing, a lot, let Political Nanny just get that out there. He seemed caught off-guard. John McCain was ready with a zinger for Romney at nearly every turn. Giuliani got in a couple as well. It was kind of a Mitt Romney pile on. Interestingly, Mike Huckabee sat back a bit. Answered his questions. Stayed out of the fray. Safe.

Side note: perhaps Political Nanny is starting to identify with her captors, and some kind of mainstream media Stockholm Syndrome is clouding her judgment, but Saturday's debates were the best so far for both parties. There was no schtick to upstage the candidates (like videos or planned questions from the audience), and Charlie Gibson allowed the candidates to talk and ignore the clock a bunch.

Even better, Gibson followed up on a couple of points Political Nanny has been curious about: He pressed Republican candidates, who say tax credits are the way to get more Americans insured, by crunching the numbers -- basically laying out how $15,000 in annual premiums (which is essentially what employers are paying for a family) can't possibly be written off the taxes of families with incomes of $60,000. They would only be able to write off something like $3,000. (This is the same problem I see with health savings accounts (Guiliani's healthcare strategy). How do you build up enough to cover ongoing health checkups -- particularly for families who have young kids (well baby checkups must add up to a fortune) and need those expensive immunizations and still have something left over for a catastrophe or, say, minor surgery?)

So Charlie crunched the numbers for them, which no one responded directly to, but that's about when John McCain jumped in and said the trick is to control inflation, so that healthcare won't cost $15,000. Riiiiiight. Huckabee said we have a "disease care system," and not a health care system and wanted to shift to prevention and, of course, control costs (yet have it remain a free-market enterprise. Hmmm.). Romney wants the states to handle it how their governors see fit. But he wants to give support (and money?) at the federal level.

The Democrats:

There was some fun sparring to watch, especially as Barack Obama and John Edwards hooked harms and took on Hillary Clinton, later pointed about by moderator Gibson and getting a laugh from Clinton, "you noticed?" Overall, Clinton wanted voters to believe that she doesn't have to convince them that she's a candidate for change (see? "change!"), since she's been about change her whole life. Then she cited a few things that she's changed, particularly getting healthcare for children in Arkansas. And said, as the first woman president, she would quite distinctly embody change.

Edwards wanted us to know that he has lived through the struggles facing American families and that his desire for change is personal. And possible: he claims he has never taken money from lobbyists or PACs and that he wouldn't allow lobbyists in the White House and, therefore, would be beholden to no one but Americans.

Obama defended his ability to inspire as an important catalyst for change, that inspiring Americans builds momentum and support for change.

Bill Richardson said, "I love change," after also defending experience, a notion that has taken a beating as of late. "What's wrong with experience? We want to change this country, but we have to know how to do it." (Political Nanny detected a defense on behalf of Hillary. So kind.)

Speaking of Richardson, Political Nanny would like to hug him. He provided just the right kind of levity the debate needed to ease the tension and pull the rhetoric back a little to remind everyone they were talking about real issues, actual events, and American lives.

Next up ... the New Hampshire Primaries tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 8).

Election Milestone: Candidates Take First Steps In Iowa (Quick, Get the Camera!)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:38:00 GMT

Political Nanny is sitting on pins and needles, at once excited, deliriously proud of and terrified for her candidates. Today, the 15 reach such an important milestone: the Iowa caucuses. They look so grown up! It seems like just yesterday ...! It's all happening so fast (well, not really.)

As the unruly group of them toddles around on stages, grabbing at microphones, saying "cheese" for the camera, and slobbering all over Iowans one last time in hopes of charming each and every one of these Midwesterners to go out tonight and be counted at the caucus (and chances are, they won't), Political Nanny is watching and trying to remember Iowa is not the final word. It's the first, only the first. We caregivers -- those of us experienced with cadidate-children -- know that the early walker in Iowa will not acurrately predict who gets to sit in the White House highchair. (Remember little guy Dick Gephardt?) See, there's time to catch up.

In the meantime, Political Nanny will be watching her babes today as they smile and shake hands and talk pretty and learn their numbers (polls and precinct percentages are the new flashcards!). She'll be watching tonight as the reports come in. Tomorrow, she'll usher the remaining ones over to New Hampshire for primaries there next week.

Those little buggers never could sit still.

Candidates, Political Nanny Loves You. Now Change!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Over the past three months, Political Nanny has grown to love her lot of disagreeable, argumentative, name-calling, cackling, power-praying little presidential candidates. They're approaching the first of many back-to-back primary election milestones -- only three days until Iowa! -- but have already blossomed into tough and sturdy and, how shall we put this, flexible campaigners.

But could they be better? Oh, couldn't we all. In the spirit of starting anew, Political Nanny has made some resolutions for the campaigning men and woman of 2008.

Over at the Democrats' favorite playground ...

Barack Obama: resolve to inspire (again … and, alone!). What happened to the guy who swept us all off of our feet nearly four years ago? This sparkling source of hope has gotten dull from so much positioning and polling and over-wrought handling. Get back to the basics -- make change feel possible! Make it feel inevitable! If the old caucusing biddies in Iowa (or New Hampshire or South Carolina) weren’t going to vote for you months ago, they’re not going to vote for you now. Indeed, one person can change the world. We just don't want Oprah to think it's her!

Hillary Clinton: tear down that wall! This distance you keep from the voting public reminds us of a certain guy president and no, we’re especially not talking about your husband! So let us in. Let us ask questions – any question! Not pre-approved ones! Trust us! We’ll do the right thing! Trust yourself! You've got the answers!

Joe Biden: Keep on keeping on. You know everything, you really do. You probably even know you don’t have a chance to win. But the candidates need you – America needs you. In government and in this campaign. You turn meta-answers into concrete plans, Joe. You say what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.

Chris Dodd: Be (even more) like Joe. With two of you, oh, how the front-runners won’t get away with pandering to the polls!

John Edwards: John, sweetheart, listen. You have got to expand your message to the middle and upper middle class (who look more like the lower- and middle-class you're talking about, everyday). Here's the deal: the mortgage industry is handing you talking points for these people who, to be honest, you might sorta be alienanting with your anti-corporate talk (you see, that’s where they work!). But with housing, ohhhhh, housing. Just bring up housing, foreclosures, bubbles, all of it -- and they’re listening. They're listening to you.

Bill Richardson: Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the vice presidential stars.

Dennis Kucinich: Don’t go changing to try to please Political Nanny. She loves you just the way you are.

Mike Gravel: Come here and give Political Nanny a hug, you silly guy.

Now back at Camp GOP ...

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. So much to love. So much to loathe. Political Nanny would like you to be your own guy. She knows that Republicans often get bullied by big scary Christians who claim to be friends. But would real friends ask you to be someone you’re not?

John McCain: Resolve to stay tough. And be strong. You keep hope alive for conservatives who don't necessarily think the church and state are one and the same. Oh, and next time a supporter mentions The Bitch, show some sac, dear John, and don't be so quick to laugh.

Mike Huckabee: Michael! That's enough! You, my boy, are a man of faith. But you must also resolve to be a man of respect. If all you have to offer Americans are platitudes and religious references, please reconsider your leadership goals and run for president of the Southern Baptists. Because Political Nanny likes her America inclusive, cohesive and as plural as it can get.

Fred Thompson: Sit down, honey, let’s talk. Political Nanny thinks you don’t actually want to run for president. And you know what? That’s perfectly fine. No shame in “spending time with the family.” So, whenever you’re ready to call it quits, know that millions of others are ready for it too.

Duncan Hunter: Still more are ready to see you go, Duncan. So, Political Nanny would like to see even less of you in the new year, young man. You can use the extra down time for painting murals on your very special wall.

Mitt Romney: Political Nanny thinks you’re a good boy, Mitt, she really does. But you want your buddies to like you so much that you’ve changed your mind, mainly by closing it. You say such damaging things to millions of families in the U.S. and completely dismiss millions of others. Political Nanny wants to see you be the truest, most honest version of yourself in 2008.

Ron Paul: You're doing something right, Ron Paul. Look at all those people giving you money! But that doesn't make you perfect, not by any means. In the new year, Political Nanny would like you to work on (1) living in reality, (2) increasing your dosage of paranoia-tempering thorazine and (3) smiling.

And last but not least, a New Year's resolution for her GOP debate interloper and possible candidate (please, please, please) Alan Keyes: Just. Do. It.

Happy New Year, kids! And Happy New Year, voters! Let's resolve to get together everyday for a little election downtime with Political Nanny!

Political Nanny Drops Her Cynicism for One Candidate's Christmas Message

Madeline Holler — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:24:00 GMT

Political Nanny has spent a bit of time watching all her candidates' Christmas ads, the craven, the wee bit cringe-y, the creepy. She's got a cynical eye, your Political Nanny, always noting signs of pandering, never allowing her heartstrings to be tugged, knowing experts have manipulated every nano-second of the campaign ad "viewing experience" to maximize her affection for each.

So imagine Political Nanny's surprise when she found herself tearing up and sinking into an emotionally charged holiday message from one of her more low-key guys. Little Freddy -- lazy, laid-back, low-energy Fred Thompson -- brought her this little craft project, a snowflake that drips with glitter glue and glass beads and what she hopes is genuine deference to real people acting on the orders of a failed leader and his advisors.

Political Nanny's opinions of the military and the war in Iraq are complicated. And using armed forces and separated families and young people dying to make her like a candidate a little bit more should raise the hair on her neck and get her wagging a finger and setting up the Naughty Chair. But this doesn't. Political Nanny's fine with it. Maybe it's the noticeable lack of Jesus talk (which she prefers). Or the clever way he avoids campaign issues (which is so Fred). Or the general feelings of melancholy and a weakened resolve to push away sentimentality that she gets this time of year. Who knows. But Political Nanny can appreciate Fred Thompson's Christmas Card more than most.

Settle Down and Use Your Indoor Voice

Madeline Holler — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:02:00 GMT

Tantrums get attention. So do screaming, sobbing and hand gestures that proclaim, "he did it first!" Those sorts of actions don't give caregivers and innocent bystanders the warm-fuzzies. Instead, they make everyone in the room shake their heads, utter lame excuses and leave.

So it goes with politicians who move into the realm of speech-stump meltdowns. We all watch while candidates go after each other -- both overtly and in coded messages. But it's hardly endearing. Voters say they don't like it when candidates turn negative, such as when debate topics devolve into name-calling and verbal rock-throwing. So the candidate who appears to rise above this childish behavior -- speaking with an indoor voice in campaign ads, using their words during debates -- may be doing themselves a favor in the long run in terms of getting voters' respect and support.

Who seems to be turning the other cheek, pasting on a happy smile and delivering a positive, plan-studded message the most? Which of Political Nanny's charges appears to be explaining positions more than tearing down opponents? According to this New York Times/CBS News poll it is the once-inevitable-and-now-fighting-like-the-rest candidate, Hillary Clinton. Of the registered Democratic primary voters polled, seven out of 10 think Clinton is running a positive campaign. Four out of ten think the opposite.

(Sidenote: Political Nanny thinks this is great. Because she has been standing by for years with her shovel, ready to bury that all too prevalent sentiment that strong, argumentative women are being shrill and/or bitchy.)

Back to the poll:

Six in 10 Democrats said Barack Obama used his words to explain, not attack. But a quarter thought he has been going the 2-year-old route and throwing political fits to get his way.

And bad news for John Edwards, if perceived attacks don’t turn into votes. Because 45 percent said he spent more time explaining his positions (that’s fewer than half!) and 29 percent said he has spent more time speaking negatively. Political Nanny finds this surprising, since she feels like she has a better understanding of John Edwards' positions and his plans for the country under his leadership. Though he has seemed a little negative lately.

For Republicans, 53 percent said Mike Huckabee has been explaining more and 9 percent said he has been attacking more. Apparently the rest of those polled had no opinion. Wha …? Republicans, it's OK to talk about your feelings! You're talking to a pollster, you're safe.

As for Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, more than half of the Republicans polled said both spent more time explaining than attacking (and yes, this poll was after the YouTube/CNN "sanctuary mansion/sanctuary city" debate). Four in 10 said John McCain and Fred Thompson did more explaining. Again, many expressed no opinion.

More results from this poll of 1,133 registered primary voters will be posted later tonight and tomorrow morning here.

Political Nanny Can't Help But Play Favorites

Madeline Holler — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:09:00 GMT

Political Nanny truly adores most of her charges, those rascally politicians begging for everybody’s attention and keys to the White House. Like any caregiver, each has earned her affections in different ways.

She is moved by the unselfconscious determination of Hillary; loves the charm and ease of Mike H., Joe, Chris and Barack; delights in the unpolished edges of Rudy and Dennis; winces at the grit and anger of John M.; and appreciates the attempt to be earnest by Mitt, Ron, Bill and Fred. Her Mike G. gets a little lost in the shuffle. Duncan and Tom get on her nerves (she quietly blames their parents).

But little John E. has to be Political Nanny’s favorite, always saying the right thing, always trying his best. He, too, is charming and determined. And kind. So kind. He seems to know what’s important, what the country needs now (or at least what Political Nanny needs now), how to help, what has to change. Perhaps he’s too earnest, too helpful, too smart. Or perhaps Political Nanny is just that gullible -- or old-fashioned, praising the actions and words of yet another white rich guy who wants to be head of the class. Maybe kind and topical just doesn't cut it -- maybe that shouldn't cut it!

It doesn't matter, actually, since John E. hasn’t managed to get most of anybody’s attention, even Political Nanny’s, and it doesn’t look likely that he’ll get enough of anybody’s support, even hers. Political Nanny wishes there was a little more of John E. in each of her other charges. Which would make picking a president just that much easier. If that were the case, she’d like the rest even more.

Here’s the latest endearment to come out of her little John E.’s mouth (she could do without the background music) that speaks to Political Nanny in just the right way. He doesn't just make a promise of healthcare for all, he makes an honest (if quick) assertion of who and what is in the way of accomplishing exactly that. Who else is pointing fingers (at the problem, not each other)?

Debate Summary: God and Guns Good; Taxes and Immigrants Bad; Families and Kids ... Huh?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:04:00 GMT

The CNN/YouTube Republican debate last night was not a win for parents and families. But what involving Republicans ever is? (Oh, settle down, Political Nanny’s just feeling cranky.)

Only one question came close to being directly related to families and children, and it's not even one of the top concerns reported in the Parents magazine survey that Political Nanny has posted about a few times. The family-ish question?

Lead in toys. That’s right! Lead and toy recalls! A YouTube mom, flanked by her two beauties, wanted to know what each candidate would do about keeping toys with lead from being sold in U.S. stores. Duncan Hunter said we should only buy American-made toys (suuuuuure. That’s doable! We’ll start sewing our own clothes and building our own laptops too!). Others said blah, blah, blah. You know, none of the answers gave Political Nanny any confidence that at some point she won’t have to chuck the entire contents of her daughters’ room, which, incidentally, isn't half has filled with shit as the question-asking woman's playroom appeared to be. In any case, screw lead-filled Thomas, we're fighting a war!

Demographics of YouTubers: there were not a lot of females in the mix, a few African-Americans (none of whom had their very direct questions satisfactorily answered), loads of Jesus loving from YouTube and the candidates, some gun rights battles, and bizarrely some kid asking the candidates to comment on a Confederate Flag hanging in his bedroom. (Seriously, how did a producer win the argument to run THAT question?). Oh, and immigration, immigration, immigration. A real knock-down, drag-out fight over who hates immigrants more. It was a draw, except Mike Huckabee hates them, loves their kids (more on that in a second).

No questions on the economy (though some on Social Security and the national debt). Super-nothing on the mortgage crisis/housing market meltdown, and zero, zero, extra-zero on education. Seriously? Not one question on schools? Giuliani and Romney did mention schools in answering a question about black-on-black violence, but it's not like they mentioned plans or, heaven forbid, funding.

There was one question on college tuition, but it was a disguised accusation that Huckabee loves illegal immigrants' kids more than the children of military personnel, because he wanted to give them scholarships to go to college. Naturally, he denied having a preference. Also, nothing about gas prices, nothing about healthcare and nothing about the environment (nothing! And these are all things, we don't care how conservative the pickings, the next president is going to have to deal with).

Oh, and guess who should have been disqualified from asking a question but wasn't? Grover Norquist – whose bad facial hair mixed with low-quality video and my computer screen (had to watch online while eating dinner – West Coast time) made me think it was some guy trying to look like Hitler! Go look! Anyway, how unfair is it that he got to ask a question but not "professional bloggers"? There were rules! Whatever. The super-right wing guy wanted to know whether the candidates would sign a pledge not to raise taxes and oh, yes, yes, yes, they’d all sign. That is, until Fred Thompson got to answer and he said he wouldn’t raise taxes but he makes his agreements between himself and the American people and not between himself and Grover Norquist. Take THAT, sneaky, sneaky Grover.

The questions were clearly picked to see where on the spectrum – from center, to right, to Tancredo – each of the candidates' positions (and beliefs … it’s all about their beliefs!) are. So, no wonky policy, just scrambling to appear conservative, while hoping not to get busted with evidence of a more centrist past (tough going, eh, Mitt and Rudy?). Good times.

One more thing, Political Nanny would like to humbly apologize to CNN for incorrectly presuming they would not ask a couple of questions that, indeed, were asked(!): the one about jail time for abortion doctors and what’s so wrong with gays in the military. Political Nanny likes to believe great minds think alike so, CNN, keep it up and you’ll get to hang out with the gifted kids someday. (Incidentally, the answers on jailtime and abortions -- ahhbahhbahh, I know, the states would decide! The states would decide!; answers to gays in the military ranged from it's unfair that someone with strong Christian values should have to serve alongside such sinners (Hunter) to don't-ask-don't-tell is working (McCain -- saying this despite the fact that the question-asker, there in Florida at the event, said gobs of gays are discharged from the shorthanded U.S. military simply for telling or getting caught or whatever.)

The New York Times political blog has all the questions that were asked, if you’re curious, and CNN has plenty of blather about rancor and out-takes of the "debates" themselves.

Campaign Like a Pregnant Woman: Let's See Those Presidential Birth Plans!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:05:00 GMT

Political Nanny, like a good many Americans, has truly yet to make up her mind about whom she’ll vote for in February (when her state’s primary elections will be held). She’s been a solid supporter of many of the candidates in alternating five-minute intervals since, what feels like, the dawn of time. Her vote is still up for grabs. So know that she’s not secretly stumping for one certain candidate when she says this:

John Edwards seems to be the only Democrat who’s actually backing up talk about issues with plans. Fred Thompson seems to be the only Republican doing the same. Like a couple of well-researched, control-freaks mid-pregnancy, these two candidates have started recording details of what they'd like to accomplish and what they will tolerate during the arduous labor of a four-year presidential term. Sort of like a birth plan. And we find that helpful.

No, sure, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani) are answering a lot of questions – lately those not asked but implied in the form of attacks on each other. We feel certain we know what they think about some of the biggies – Iraq, mostly, and healthcare. Oh, and maybe a little global warming for the Democrats and immigration for the Republicans? But their discussion of these issues feel general. In the modern birthing paradigm, they're saying more "I want a natural birth" than clarifying their wishes with details like "no epidural, intermittent fetal monitoring, unlimited use of a birthing ball, pre-mixed Enya loop only at a volume not above 6" in their quest for a healthy presidency.

Since you're reading Political Nanny, you’ve likely got more specific kinds of demands too – education, safety, college, the housing/mortgage crisis, price of gas, secure retirement, those kinds of things.

You might even care about sad stuff that doesn’t necessarily affect you directly, but makes you feel like crap knowing your child lives in a world where it’s tolerated: things like hunger in the U.S., or our weirdly segregated cities, or the fact that people charge their utility bills to credit cards, or can’t go to college despite stellar grades but because of a lack of citizenship or money or both. Or New Orleans. Does anybody think people should STILL be living in FEMA trailers in New Orleans?

And childcare! No one talks about childcare, yet Political Nanny believes that if the U.S. slayed the childcare beast, then problems like stagnate wages; retirement, college, and regular old savings; education woes like school readiness for all and achievement gaps; and work-life balance issues for moms and dads would kind of simmer down for a while.

John Edwards is going there. And Fred Thompson too. Not on all of these issues, but, for example, just before Thanksgiving, Edwards's campaign launched “One Can Change America,” which is supposed to not only get our votes but spur us to action regarding hunger in the U.S. He also put out a plan for how he’d make home heating fuel available to more Americans. (If the elections really were like giving birth, John Edwards would sooooo hire a midwife-doula team, don't you think?)

Fred Thompson has released plans for reforming Social Security and taxes -- not exactly social causes in Political Nanny's mind, but hey! They're actual plans! (Thompson would, in birthing terms, take the epidural in the parking lot and check out 12 hours after having his baby. He's not, metaphorically speaking, about transformational experiences and the empowerment of birth, right?)

What we mean is, these two candidates are talking nuts and bolts of presidency – what they'd like to accomplish and how. Which, sure, where’s the money going to come from? Won’t you need support from Congress? What makes Edwards, for example, think he can do what no one else has managed to?

But it’s exciting when the leading candidates drop some of the positioning and careful talk and planted questioners and I’m-more-qualified-than-her/him statements (because, judging from the last seven years, you’re all qualified! Now move on.) and just talk about life in the U.S., what they know about it, and how they’d like to see it changed.

Oh, and even more exciting is when they break through the news machine and actually get these plans written and/or talked about. Because we suspect there are more plans out there. We just need to find them. Political Nanny is looking. But like the L & D nurse who just came on shift, Political Nanny has to figure out which of her patients requested the anethesiologist and when the hell she can ask the woman in Room 36 to get out of the birthing tub. She's only got a few scribbled notes attached to a clipboard to go on.

Rudy, Fred and Johnny Happy to Kiss Your Boo-Boos

Madeline Holler — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:21:00 GMT

Three of the top GOP candidates have proposed healthcare plans that wouldn’t even cover their own cancer-surviving asses.

The LA Times looked at research on the proposed healthcare plans of Fred Thompson, a lymphoma survivor, Rudy Giuliani, who battled prostate cancer, and John McCain, who beat melanoma. None of these guys would be guaranteed coverage by their own plans. That is, if they needed their own plans for coverage, which, don’t worry, none of them does.

The market-based GOP plans' weakness, according to researchers comparing the proposals, is that they rely on the private market, which loses money on cancer patients’ and their expensive treatments.

One policy researcher tested 22 insurance companies to determine whether any would cover a hypothetical breast cancer survivor five years after successful treatment.

“Eleven companies said they would deny coverage, and six said they would issue a policy at standard rates. One company said it would charge double the usual premium. Another said it would issue a policy but exclude future cancer treatment. Three insurers did not respond.”

An expert insider said most companies wouldn’t consider a cancer survivor for 10 years and would only issue a policy at a higher premium.

"For example, a person treated for a small, localized melanoma could be covered after five years at a higher premium. But if the tumor were larger or deeper, that person would have to wait 10 years. For prostate cancer, a man with a less severe form of the disease could be covered after five years of being cancer-free, at a 40% higher premium.”

Political Nanny is fairly certain a tax break couldn’t begin to make up for that. What's left? A boo-boo kiss? Spiderman Band-Aids?

Nanny Cam: Immigration Ad Where Thompson Plays DA Playing Himself!

Madeline Holler — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:08:00 GMT

Who needs Hollywood writers when you’ve got entertaining campaign ads? Tancredo’s is entertaining – sort of “24” as interpreted by a San Diego Minuteman’s kid.

Even better is this from Fred Thompson, also talking immigration, but in the manner of Arthur Branch, the district attorney he played for several seasons on NBC’s Law and Order. We can’t recall the details of the ad, having been too busy bracing ourselves for the final black screen … *Dick Wolf *… and wishing Fred, I mean Arthur, I mean Fred, would just put his feet up on the counter and take a sip of whiskey. (Political Nanny watched a looooot of Law and Order when she was pregnant.)

Choose-Lifers Chose Fred

Madeline Holler — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:38:00 GMT

Single-issue conservative voters got their pro-life marching orders yesterday when the National Right to Life Committee announced its endorsement of Fred Thompson for president.

What put Thompson over the top for this once-influential-but-we’ll-have-to-see-now special interest group? Was it his long-standing opposition to abortion? Not exactly. While Thompson consistently voted against abortion rights as a Senator, he also consistently put in long work days as a lobbyist on behalf of abortion rights for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Nevermind these inconsistencies, he says, because his "heart is now fully engaged" with his head, ever since (hold on to your heartstrings) he saw a sonogram of the fetus that is now his 4-year-old daughter (cue daughter to run up on stage). No word on whether voters can ignore all his other actions/votes/opinions/experiences pre-dating the young girl's conception.

What's extra interesting is that Thompson is a state’s rights man and has said he doesn’t favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion in the United States. Which is something the group that just endorsed him has worked hard for for decades.

So why didn’t the NRLC just go with someone like Huckabee, whose views are quite in alignment with the group’s goals to ban all abortion everywhere? The group has gotten used to having a seat at the national policy table and in their view, Thompson’s the most electable conservative of those who, like Romney and McCain, have had a change of their unstopped beating hearts.

Nanny Approves: Social Security Rescue Plans Unveiled

Madeline Holler — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:25:00 GMT

Political Nanny isn’t saying she loves the recently discussed plans for Social Security reform, or that she approves of them, or even understands them much. It’s just nice to see candidates, and the media who cover them, step away from the feel-goodery/gender card/good performance/bad performance discussions and step toward, oh, I don’t know ... substance?

Let’s start with Fred Thompson: Over the weekend, he released his plan for Social Security reform, proposing to scale back benefits (pretty ballsy for a guy whose contemporaries might hate him for that) by attaching payouts to the cost-of-living index, rather than the wage index as it is done now. Since the cost-of-living typically increases more slowly than wages, benefits would increase more slowly too.

Quick side note: have you ever seen a social security check? Damn, they’re small.

Thompson also wants to allow workers to voluntarily divert two percent of their income into individual investments. This amount would be matched by the federal government and be an add-on to regular social security benefits.

He did not call for the Bush plan, which would have switched everything over to private investments.

Another quick side note: why is there a cap on the amount that can be invested in IRAs? Is anybody in favor of lifting that or is that essentially what he’s talking about here with the two percent plan?

Barack Obama wants to raise the amount of taxable income in an effort to keep the program solvent, saying wealthy men like him and BFF billionaire Warren Buffet wouldn't mind the extra hit. Hillary Clinton has said she wants to grow the economy to replenish the fund. (That last one feels chancy, doesn't it?)

Experts have projected that the program will spend more than it brings in 2017 and be totally bankrupt in 2041 (hey, most of us are going to still be alive then!).

Last quick side note: do any parents who have taken a break from paid employment to stay home with the kids for a few years wish there was some kind of “social security” for us? I’m not talking about a totally free ride. But all those zeros on my annual social security statement make me feel pretty shaky. Of course, as small as those social security checks are, maybe I’m just talking about the difference between one or two cans of cat food a month.

Who's Your GOP Daddy?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:40:00 GMT

A tiny focus group of Virginia GOP voters predictably named Fred Thompson as Granddaddy in an exercise asking them to assign family roles to each of the Republican candidates.

Guess who they chose as father?

Rudy Giuliani! Mind-boggling, I know. I think of him more as a brash older cousin who brings a different girlfriend (or is it wife?) every year to Thanksgiving. Are the paternal pickings really so slim for conservatives?

The twelve members of the focus group tagged Romney an uncle. (Or a long-lost relative, as one member remarked.) No filial associations from the focus group for the rest of the candidates, which, when you're John McCain, doesn't that just hurt?

Here, let me give it a try: Trancredo and Hunter (who? I know) are the Montana cousins you never see and always forget about. And McCain? He's like the bitter, defensive great-uncle, who mumbles stories from 'Nam while the rest of the family ignores him.

Now let's play house with some Democrats. Bill Richardson is the cranky grandpa who sits in front of the TV all day yelling back at newscasters. Obama is the high-achieving older brother who secretly smokes in the garage. Joe Biden divorced your sister 10 years ago but still calls Mom on holidays and special occasions (thank God for caller ID). And when Hillary Clinton won't give you the keys to the Prius (and she never does), you go and ask Kucinich, because he'll give them to you every time. Gravel is your aunt's brother-in-law (or is he your dad's second-cousin? I forget), who shows up for Christmas dinner once a decade, eats and leaves.

Where do Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul fit on this dysfunctional family tree?