I have not been thinking a whole lot about monogamy the last few months, because what a relief that I'm single again, and it's no longer relevant. For the moment, but thank God for a moment of relief.

But I did a lot of thinking about it the past few years, as we both went back and forth trying to figure out how we wanted it. The frightening thing to me was not just the added difficulty of finding someone who wants roughly the same level of openness/closedness as you, the scary part was being 40 and still not knowing what I wanted. How could I possibly agree on the terms of a relationship for the next 40 years if I still had not figured it out.

My ex came to the definite conclusion in the past year that I needed an open one, but I think that was mainly just his insecurities talking. What I really want, I still don't know. I've been feeling that I most likely would end closer to closed, but maybe with occasional three-ways or something. But nobody is allowed to go off completely on their own.

That's my best guess, but it is scary not to know.

It's slightly comforting to read this Salon interview posted today with Diane Middlebrook. I'll post the head and deck of the piece to give you an idea:

"Her Husband"
Diane Middlebrook talks about why the marriage of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes was a soaring success despite his infidelity and her suicide -- and why promising to be sexually faithful is folly.

She makes a convincing case--or perhaps it just seems so obvious once you hear it out loud--that nobody can ever knows what they will want twenty years down the road, and we're kidding ourselves when we pretend we do. We may be sure we want/need a monogamous relationship, and we may well be right. Today. But that doesn't mean that's who we will be in 20 years. And as we evolve as people, we just have to renegotiate.

I think she's on to something. More and more the thinking I have been doing lately leads me toward that conclusion. With all aspects of my life, I have to cede a little control, accept that I can't completely drive this train, and I don't know exactly where I want it to go. I have some idea, but some of it I'll find out when I get there.

I accepted that years ago with every other aspect of my life, and have been living it that way. So why on earth, when it comes to my love life do I think it's possibly to work it all out in advance, and agree to a set of rules that will bind my behavior for 40 years. Seems foolish.

God, that sounds a lot like giving up on marriage totally. But I don't think it has to. All marriages evolve, right, and you change the rules as you go. It just seems that for many people, the idea has been that everything else can change, but that one rule cannot be broken. Hmmmmm. That sounds like a preposterous exception.

It does feel like a weight off. I don't have to know, or commit to a certain set of conditions forever. I just have to find someone else who is also open to future flexibility. And then pray that we don't flex in opposite, intolerable ways.

God. Love lives are hard.

OK, enough of that. 7:50 p.m. Time for a quick workout, quick bite, gussy myself up and go find someone to sleep with. Probably won't end up marrying him anyway. Probably won't even drag someone home either, but you never know till you're out there.

I asked if I was being too hard on Kerry.

Response from recent frequent commentor Nevsky42 (a self-described Deaniac, but hasn't drunk the koolaide, based on his/her thoughtful, balanced comments):

No, you're not being too hard on Kerry. Unlike Lieberman (who really should have known better), Kerry had been given the front-runner mantle by the press and had every opportunity and an electorate begging for someone to stand up to Bush. Kerry's got no one to blame but himself for making Dems look to Dean, Clark, and Gephardt . . .

That's pretty much the story. I was all set to support him myself last spring, but then I started listening to him. Good guy, I've got nothing but respect for him as an individual, but not even close to the communication skills to be president.

Why I don't get--what I will never, ever get about the press, is why the hell can't they ever see that? They never, ever see that. All they ever look at are the guy's resume, his geography, his potential appeal to various interest groups or power brokers, his chances in key states, blah blah blah.

They look at all the stupid details, and never stop to notice the big things. Can he talk? Can he hold an audience? Can he deliver a clear message, can it deliver it strongly enough to shatter through the information roar at the national level? Does he relate to people the way they want a president to relate to them?

Good God, how freaking hard is it? I talked to a Dean staffer I know way back in April or May, when Kerry was still touted as the frontrunner, and he said nobody in the Howard Dean camp was worried about Kerry. Really? I was astounded. "Have you seen him talk?" my friend asked.

Not really. I'd seen him over the years, but never in a situation where I listened to him as a potential president. Any fool could have seen he would never develop a national following. Why couldn't the press? Because they never ask themselves the right questions. The obvious ones.

Well here's a twist. Kerry is joining Dean in opting out of the public money, and--let me quote from AP here, because I love the way the characterization at the end: "will take out a personal loan to help fund his struggling White House bid."

It's nice to be a millionaire. He can't get his hands on all his wife's Heinz fortune though, unless he can show she gave it to him before the campaign, which his people admitted they can't. But:

Kerry advisers have said he has several million dollars of his own money he could tap for his race

Now here's the odd part, and it's apparently the gist of what Kerry is proposing to do:

. . . unlike rival Howard Dean, he plans to keep his spending to the $45 million limit the program imposes for the primaries. He will not follow its state-by-state limits.

Odd and bullshit. Those pledges never mean anything. He'll change it again later if it becomes convenient. If he had taken the money, he'd be stuck with the decision by law. This way he can/will do whatever he wants.

I can see the April speech already: Since the race is decided, and Bush is now the enemy, and spending all he wants, we will no longer be bound by the limits either. Too bad the "we" won't be Kerry.

I wonder what Kerry is hoping to accomplish with this? I imagine he thinks he can bash Dean for ruining the system by jumping ship, while he stays within the main framework. He's out of his mind if he thinks voters are going to split those hairs.

But that's one of the fundamental problems with John Kerry. He shows little grasp of how to communicate with a national audience.

Good insights from Josh (a zealous Wes Clark supporter) in the comments:

as long as the race remains crowded, it's bad news for clark. gephardt is still seen as the trusty, insider's anti-dean, and clark's competing for military support with john kerry.

Exactly. Not to mention the whole lost in the crowd problem for everyone in the field. That's more of a problem for Wes Clark than, say, John Kerry, because only one of those people has more than one chance in a thousand of beating Howard Dean. And it sure as hell is not John Kerry.

(Poor Kerry. Am I picking on him too much? Same for John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, who's he kidding? Dude, you picked the wrong party.)

Time to save the party and call it a day, guys. Let's get ourselves a two-man Dean-Clark race, and find out for sure who the strongest man is. We need to through that moron out of the white house next year.

Hard to believe we'll have any dropouts before Iowa, though, probably not till New Hampshire. Hopefully a handful will do the right thing shortly after.

If they don't, the press will largely do it for them, but they'll still be in there hogging precious moments during the debates.

First the dislaimer. HUGE DISCLAIMER:

At this early date, national polls mean very little. They measure mostly name recognition, and a bit of actual voter interest. Most Americans are not paying attention yet. Much better to watch the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where people are, and the candidates have spent a lot of time with them, in person and on TV.

They can have some value for trends. If you're rising, that's good, sinking, not good.

So with that warning, the latest numbers, just released, with the two previous periods ( October 24-26, then October 10-12) in parentheses:

Dean 17 (16) (13)
Lieberman 15 (12) (13)
Clark 14 (15) (18)
Gephardt 12 (12) (10)
Kerry 10 (10) (11)
Edwards 7 (6) (6)

A few solid trends: Howard Dean rising, about 30% in a month. That's pretty big.

Wesley Clark falling--losing nearly 25% in a month, though that was coming off the huge high of his entry, and the drop appears to be possibly levelling off. This is the big surprise to me--not this latest news, but the fact that his campaign has not caught more steam. I thought it would have. He definitely has his own little army out there: they do have strong meetup numbers, and they are energized. But he hasn't built to much on that yet. Maybe it just takes more time. But that's one thing he's running out of. Big, big mistake to wait so long. But he's far from out of it. Just gradually losing his grip.

Surprising jump back up by Lieberman, after months of steady decline. May well be a one-time blip, though. A single change from period to period is not much to get excited about.

Most of the others flat. Gep had a jump or blip mid-month that he didn't build on.

There's much more data and analysis at the Gallup site. Very interesting stuff. Read it.

Just watched the opening of Ryan Opray on The Early Show. Man, he looks great with all that beard scraped away, to uncover the dimples again. He's got his hair spiked up, head-to-foot in black, except for just the rim of a white T-shirt underneath. What a hottie.

And that blazing smile just never quits, does it? I think that's what I like best about him. He's got to be the happiest Survivor in memory. That boy is always cheerful, always cheering up the crowd. (But when he's sad, he looks so sad. Heart right out on his sleeve, love that about him, too.)

God, he reminds me so much of my ex. Ryan if you're still single, I'm available. Heeheehee.

Oh, God, I'm not supposed to get stalkerish, am I? I'm not, I'm not, I swear I haven't even visited one freaking fan site for him. (I'm sure plenty are out there.) Just indulging for a moment. He really does remind me of my ex, though--sweet guy, always smiling, brightens up every room he walks into. I think those are the most important qualities I'm looking for in a husband. Doesn't have to be Pretty Ryan, just somebody like that. And the dimples sure don't hurt, either.

(Oh, you want to hear what he said? I've got to get back to work, no time to watch the whole interview yet, but I'll be back in an hour or two with a full report. Worst case, maybe three.)

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 9 Comments

Really, I don't. Never have, hope I've made that clear. But the minute he turned into Evita . . .

But I sure don't love him, either. I spent some time over at Fans of Reality TV last night, and there's still waves and waves of admiration and adulation for the guy. Please. Things have started to turn, some of the crowd has wisened up to what Joe said the moment he turned so many heads in the (second?) episode: That he was going to wear really thin, really fast.

I thought a woman there named thatocconorgirl (a name I also love) nailed him perfectly:

"I'm so sick of Rupert's delusions that Survivor was created for him and that he owns everything on the island and how dare anyone do anything to make his game less than perfect."

Captures my feelings about him exactly. This game has gone to his head so badly, he is acting so entitled, so demanding, soon he will require the lower castes to prostrate themselves before him and back out of an audience with him so as never to reveal their hindquarters to the tender vision of the emperor.

The final signal will be when he requires them to address him as "your grace . . ."

I'm already picturing his Early Show appearance. At least I'm hoping it goes like this: The first thirty seconds he does nothing but apologize: "I made such an ass of myself. I got so drunk with power . . ."

I don't think he's a bad guy, I just think a lot of pepole behave really badly when they're drunk. I've been known to.

But all I've got to go by is this game, and if he gets madly drunk with power and starts chanelling Colonel Kurtz--(can I mix in one more character reference?)--I want him booted. The sooner the better, and I do believe I'll get my wish. Who the hell wants to live under Colonel Kurtz?

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 9 Comments

Well, that's the end of his chances against Shrub.

Maybe not, but that definitely tips the balance toward Howard Dean as the stronger competitor to Bush. Dean would be able to spend all spring and summer, Wes Clark would not.

But it will help Clark get through the primaries, assuming voters don't chose on that basis--and I doubt many will, but Dean has been expert before at making powerful issues out of important issues most people never paid attention to.

From AP:

Clark Opts Into Presidential Public Financing System
Kerry Close to Decision on Opting Out

... The decision announced Thursday means Clark will be limited to $45 million in overall primary spending and face state-by-state spending caps. He will be eligible for up to about $19 million in government funding, money that would have been hard to make up given his late fund-raising start.

"It's a pragmatic decision at this point," Clark said Friday morning in Concord, N.H., where he officially filed for the Jan. 27 primary. "Maybe if lightning strikes, I'd have to reconsider." . . .

Clark has been seeking to capitalize on Dean's decision to opt out of the post-Watergate system. Clark campaign chairman Eli Segal sent a donor appeal Thursday noting Dean's recent decision and the possibility that Kerry will follow.

That's crappy: give someone more chance to beat Dean for the nom--I see him as the only real threat to Dean--but then weaker to knock off the real enemy if he does. Wes Clark needs to reconsider.

If you've never seen Ryan Opray's audition tape, get your butt over and watch it now. 

Very unconventional, very creative. And hot. And fun. Entertaining.

It's a silent film, with big block subtitles over his face and body. Much beefier body.

Different personality than the one we met on the show, but i like it. Compliments the rest of him nicely.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 9 Comments