“Sure.”

The original picture by the realtor. I’d have a before and after shot if it would STOP RAINING already.

She goes on to explain that she’s been driving past our house for two years, that she has a house very similar to ours that has the gigantic, overgrown shrubs like we used to, and that she’s getting ready to rip out these unwieldy shrubs, and she’s totally in love with all the work that’s been put into the flowers and new shrubberies, and OMG what are those flowers on the edge of the garden shemusthavethemimmediately. (The allium, natch.)

Chef wandered the yard with her trying to remember all the names of the stuff I’ve planted. Then he called me and I squee!-ed like a fan girl. Somebody’s getting a card next Christmas/April.

Meanwhile I’m taking mental notes about what worked and didn’t work so far after the obsessive bulb-planting I did last fall. I’m ripping out and/or transplanting some poorly placed daffodils and definitely filling in some spots around the side of the garden. Also, hostas, ferns, lilies, and petunias.

Which is why I think NARAL’s official, early endorsement of Barack Obama is a bit confounding because NARAL has given both Clinton and Obama consistent 100% ratings on reproductive issues. [via]

Nancy Keenan, director of NARAL, explains the official endorsement on HuffPo with a general “he’s a uniter, not a divider” stance, which is great and all, but I’ve yet to see a difference between the candidates on reproductive issues except that Clinton’s been around longer than Obama and thus has a more detailed record* on the books. Both candidates have been on the right side of the issue at almost every opportunity available, which makes me wonder if NARAL wants to jump in early to claim some monetary advantage over other PACs by siding with the candidate that currently looks like the winner.

Meanwhile EMILY’s List** president Ellen R. Malcolm says in a press release:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

Some kerfluffle has erupted over the “final three weeks” part of her statement, which is silly, personally, because candidates were never expected to drop out of the primaries until recent years. Way back when, the official party candidate was chosen at the national conventions, not before. As I’ve mentioned before, a longer primary process allows states that are less important in the existing primary structure a chance to see the candidates up close and generate conversation and excitement about the democratic process. Wake the fuck up, DNC. This is a good thing.

Oh, remember back in the day when NARAL and Planned Parenthood both endorsed Joe fucking Lieberman as the candidate for reproductive choice? That was nice.***

Why the rush? What’s the agenda? And is it all about money?

[via]

UPDATE: Mnemnosyne comments below but fleshes out the opinion better IMO at Feministe. Probably the most likely tactical take that I’ve seen so far, despite the “NARAL doesn’t owe anyone anything!!!11! OBAMA w00t!” arguments:

What they’re doing is making their choice between Clinton/DLC and Obama/Dean.

We have two factions of the Democratic party fighting it out for control right now, and the fact that the heads of those factions are (respectively) a white woman and a black man is disguising the underlying battle for control of the party.

NARAL went with the DLC over the Dean faction last time and endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. They got burned — bad. Now they’re pissed, and they’re signaling that they are not going to blindly support DLC candidates anymore.

The surface battle is white woman vs. black man and a lot of people are responding emotionally to that, but underlying that is the question of whether we’re going to stick with the DLC’s 50%+1 strategy for winning elections or go with Dean’s 50-state strategy. That’s the calculation that NARAL is making, especially since both Clinton and Obama have a 100% rating on reproductive rights.

I agree with this, even if I’m not thrilled with NARAL’s official non-answer of an explanation for endorsing Obama, but I also believe, due to the timing, that this is about getting attention, publicity, and regaining relevancy in the movement for NARAL. It’s not necessarily a bad thing for a PAC to be a PAC, except that I expect PACs with an idealistic single-issue focus that represent me in some form to remain true to their ideals and not fall prey to political opportunism, regardless of the scale of opportunity. Moreover, M’s observation that “the surface battle is white woman vs. black man” speaks to how ravenously hungry so many of us are for minority representation in the national spotlight, which explains in part why we’re all so goddamned angry about the primary in the first place.

Also, what she said.
__________________
* Admittedly I’m squidgy about Obama being on record saying he’s unsure about whether life begins at conception, but in the context of the quote it looks like he’s aiming to give a non-answer so he doesn’t upset social conservatives. Rhetorically, it’s no different in context than the “safe, legal, and rare” stance from Clinton. Still, it would be nice for a candidate to detail publicly that life doesn’t begin with “ensoulment” or magical super sperm.

** EMILY’s List is an organization aimed at electing pro-choice women for governor and congress, so it’s clear what their agenda is, and like Cara I don’t see anything disrespectful about Clinton in the initial statement by Keenan (see here for another press release from the pro-Clinton National Women’s Political Caucus). But NARAL, I don’t get it.

*** Do yourself a favor and recall the last endorsement shit storm that surrounded NARAL’s picking Joe Lieberman — and in their favor, the anti-John Roberts ads.

I’d go with a liberal such as Obama over a Clinton conservative, regardless of the impact on electability as the election would be lost from the start if our only choices were Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Fortunately we do not have to face such a dilemma as Obama is likely to bring in far more educated, affluent voters than Clinton is likely to bring in socially conservative, uneducated, and working class voters.

Good to know we’re looking to replace democracy with a so-called meritocracy, except as I recall, our current president is a Harvard MBA. Great idea!

Maybe the uneducated, low-information hillbillies are smart enough to know when their candidates don’t speak to them or generally give a damn either way. But what do I know? I’m just a dumb hick.

[via]

Except for the addition of Tasha, I heartily agree.

Except for the constant moving — and the promiscuity thing, I hasten to add — I fear my parental skills most resemble Mrs. Flax from Mermaids. Or maybe I just want to flatter myself by making Cher comparisons.

Which pop culture mom reminds you of your own? Yourself?

Except my sweatpants don’t yell at me for being antisocial. Chef, however, is on your side.

via Dooce