I hadn't heard about this, "escape," but reading it now I agree with Karen. That really is frightening. It's confirming the fears that Obama really is just a kid-senator with a great gimmick that got him the White House. How many people dream of getting a chance at the White House, and they're joking about wanting to escape from it?

It's embarrassing to have the man who's supposed to be the 'leader of the free world' joke about "escaping" the White House - the building that so many people yearn to get into.

It could have been Obama's mother-in-law, who is living at the White House, was just too much for Barack to hang around. She could be next. The wheels on the bus go thump thump thump.

Hey, let them leave! I'd prefer Biden any day.

Karen, Don't you think that the left is very often adolescent? (a very, very immature adolescent -- my teenagers and their friends wouldn't dream of such self-centeredness). An immature level of narcicism, disdain for authority, etc. We could laugh at it, if it weren't so sad.

Karen - of our generation don't you think 50% are a "me first" narcissistic lot? It goes back to Vietnam - where half of us felt we had the duty to go and half felt they didn't.

And look at how Clinton behaved when confronted with Monica Lewinsky...

Personally if on my resume all I had was "community organizer" and 144 days in the Senate before running I would be scared to death of the job. You have to have some degree of inflated self-ego and narcissism to take that job as B.O. has done...

This of course is a layman's persective

Indeed, the love of your life, the fair and fetching Karen, speaks the truth. They are like little children, who are completely out of their element in The White House. They are the epitome of the dumbing down of America. For all the fancy schooling, they know nothing. About history or the economy or how to behave like adults. The fact that Obama was always stating (during the campaign) that Michelle always put him in his place, or told him what to do, etc. spoke volumes about his immaturity and insecurity. It is not very manly to hear this from a man. It is very different from the tone you take about your Karen; you say how much you adore her or how brilliant she is but you never have her 'putting you in your place'. What kind of leader does that? A weak one. And that's what we've got. And the left loves him. For his weakness and his childishness. Color me sad.

To slychologize a bit...I'd bet that the Obamas weren't really expressing their *own* feelings, but rather the feelings they thought the kids wanted them to have. (They assumed kids want to get out of school, therefore, by analogy...)

As Karen says, this is ingratiation rather than setting a proper example..but I don't think it necessarily means that they were *really* glad to be out of the White House. These people are actors...actually, Robert, you could do an interesting post on politicians as actors, starting with our present President.

Adulation. He was suffering an embarrassment with regard to the nomination and needed a fix of adulation.

Lighten up folks! I think we are taking this far too seriously. Let's save our emotions for some of his bigger mistakes and deeds. At this rate we will have a hard time keeping our blood pressure in check if we start getting agitated every single day about every small thing he does or does not do. Let's try to be different from those lefties who used to get all worked up about every small thing Bush did!

And finally, let's not forget; all politicians without exception are human beings and therefore are first and foremost concerned about their own self-interests. We can't really trust any of them.

oy, no surprise

The campaign was no more serious than those tv competitions which are all the rage. The Democrats and then the Americans voted for image over substance, and that's what they got. Robert, you have a great screenplay to write about the presidential "mouse that roared," or "accidental president."

From New Zealand, and as a conservative blogger, may I say that the ideals of the USA are triumphant at the moment.
Lefty cynics here, and there are many, are silenced by Obama's election. Whether or not he becomes a good President, or whether he's destructive to US ideals we'll wait and see, but the saying "only in America" is now said with respect.
I share the angst over the anti-semitism of popular thought and the abandonment of the human rights ethos of the 70's and 80's in the face of the islamist assault on freedom, and welcome with gratitude the blogosphere bypassing the MSM.
The pendulum swings...

I've always thought them children. The proof for me came September 12, when (possibly excepting Hollywood) nobody wanted Gore in the Oval Office, and everybody was glad the adults were in charge. Unfortunately, the grown-up faces of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld only LOOKED re-assuringly competent. As they rapidly botched the opening phases of the war, and floated silly domestic policy initiatives, they ended up showing themselves pretty much as incompetent as the crew they ran against.

The GOP lost a golden opportunity to teach our country that we need tough, smart adults at the helm. They lost the opportunity by having none present.

Karen, your analysis is always educational for me. I'd love to know if you see any grown ups on the political scene today, on either side of the aisle. I vote straight ticket R, but I would love to be able to do it with a smile some day!

As a recently laid off person, I am not that happy with the Obama recovery plan. I believe that he should lower taxes across the board for both the citizen as well as for businesses.

This will give the business funds to hire more people, whilst concurrently people will have a little more to spend.

I do not mind sitting it out for one year but I am concerned about this thing going longer.

The problem for someone in my situation is, if I felt that things would be better in one year, then I can take a course in my field, or work as a volunteer which I am actually doing part time.

But if things will no be better in one year, then it behooves me to take any kind of job, be it in the mailroom or as a dishwasher, as something is still better than nothing.

The problem for the unemployed is the uncertainty, and this man, is not inspriting confidence for me at this time.

Everyone:

Thanks so much for all your articulate and informative comments. As Karen and I were reading the comments we agreed that Seraphic Secret has the smartest readership in the blogosphere.

Adam:

Unemployment is hell. Most men define themselves by their careers. When there is no work, the sense of self is shattered. When I'm between projects I feel like I'm disappearing. We sincerely wish you all the best. Do stay in touch.

Maj. Hilts:

It's been far too long> Good to hear from you. We believe that Bobby Jindall is an adult and a future Republican POTUS.

Ayrdale:

Ah, New Zealand. Great soldiers come from your small land. Okay, only in America. But that's just a passing PR phase. If Obama puts the U.S. into a full blown recession with this stupid trillion dollar plan, well, it won't only be in America, but a world-wide depression.

"Our Dancing Daughters" is a wonderful movie. Since I was familiar only with the old, "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" Joan Crawford, I had no idea that she was so beautiful and vital. A movie like that is perfect escapist fare, and I applaud you for watching it on a depressing news day, after a depressing news week.

It was scary enough to think that Obama was a socialist. To know that he is a stupid socialist is even more scary. Stupid, egotistical people -- and I think he is one -- can be very dangerous with power, even more dangers than people who are just one or the other.

But Bobby Jindal wants to teach creationism in science classes

Bromide:

President Barack Obama and his wife worshiped in a proudly racist, America and Jew-hating church for over 20-years.

Clearly, we have a different measure of a man's suitability for office, not to mention morality.

As long as he keeps creationism away from the science classes, I am fine with Jindal. As you indicated, everyone indeed has a different measure for judging people.

One might look at how Jindal handled preparation for hurricanes expected in New Orleans last fall. He had the benefit of hindsight, fair enough, but few politicians are smart enough to understand and use track records to guide policy.

Contrast with current foolish ideas seriously discussed in Washington:

- National health care (see the track record in the UK and Canada)

- High taxes on the rich (see the Laffer Curve, the tax cuts of presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and the disaster of the Carter years)

- Price controls (see the Nixon gas price controls in the early 1970s, and rent control in NTC and SF)

- The bipartisan consensus on giving a trillion dollars to the same Wall Street parasites who caused the current economic crisis, and giving the givernment a bigger say in how they do business (see the Soviet Union, today's Europe, Japan in the 1990s, and the US in the Great Depression)

I'll take Jindal over the current crop of third-stringers running things. Any day. May as well leave creation in the science curriculum. It beats evolution as a theory, since evolution has demonstrably NOT happened, at least not in the 5000 years we've been writing down history. Were it true, we'd have at least found ONE documented example of something evolving from something else.

Virgil

I would suggest taking a look at Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It has everything to do with science and nothing to do with politics. And yes, evolution by the way has produced something from something else. Read Jonathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch". Again, evolution is not politics; it's science. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative ideals. One of the sad things in this country is that we have conflated science with political positions when it's not necessary. It's almost as if believing in evolution is a sin if you are a Republican, when the two actually have nothing to do with each other. I have many conservative, proud Republican friends who are against teaching creationism in science classes (They don't mind it being taught in a class about the history of ideas though).

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against creationism; it's just not science and therefore does not belong in a science class.

Sounds like an intriguing read! If it has happened, it has happened. I'd thought there had always been finches.

Much of what's taught in science class is religion (see "Global Warming"), or uninformed perspectives on improperly measured data.

A radio personality illustrated this by discussing the "sunlight deficit," pointing out that, for the latter half of 2008, the amount of daily sunlight was decreasing steadily in the Northern hemisphere, while increasing in the Southern hemisphere. Based on his computer model tracking the data, he predicted that the Northern hemisphere would be in total darkness by late Spring 2009. The analysis was very similar to what we're given by the Global Cooling (in the 1970s) and Global Warming (early 21st Century) panic crowd.

My tongue-in-cheek point is simply that, since "science" classes are filled with faith-based dogma anyway, may as well toss in the Bible, since it's a better source for so many other things.

Virgil

I would also suggest the Bhagavad Gita, but not in science class naturally. It has many beautiful and interesting philosophical points in it! About the above, I agree that Global Warming is sometimes taught as fact and dogma. That's why I think it's a misnomer. Climate Change is a better term. The real focus in science classes should be about questioning and critical thinking. As Bromide mentioned, there's obviously nothing wrong if creationism is not taught in science classes; naturally philosophy and poetry are also beautiful but don't belong in science classes. Some people think that just because something is not science, there's something bad about it, which is nonsense. I don't know when this conflation began in this country; religion and science are about different things and I don't know why people have to mix up the two. In India where I am from, there is almost no conflict between the teaching of science and religion, and the two stay separate and coexist in almost complete peace!

HA:

A less dogmatic approach to subjects, combined with a critical analysis of all sides of an issue, would be a brilliant way to run an education! We should import it. No wonder IIT is so frustratingly successful.

Of course, the fights wouldn't be as much fun, but that's just me...

I apologize for hijacking this thread. And I'm not even all that hot on the creation issue (I have no idea how long G-d's days are, and wasn't present at the beginning, despite what my troops say)!

Virgil