By Bette Dewing

I’m with those who feel official help with this epic hurricane has not been epic enough. It sure would help if the unaffected were exposed to Nova’s Pulitzer-worthy documentary “Inside the Superstorm,” which I so providentially caught when taking a TV break from writing this column. Regrettably, the paper of record’s short review, which I later checked, in essence concluded that we’d seen all this before. Ah, but what we desperately need is reminding of this heartbreaking, mind-numbing devastation and the need for epic long-term help from every last one of us who was not affected.

This and two other related documentaries help us remember what the president said on his visit to local disaster areas: “We are bound together and must look out for each other. … We’re going to have to put the turf battles aside.” (New York Times, Nov. 16.)

And put those political partisan battles aside, too; Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, with their considerable smarts and resources, should be on the front lines of this Herculean rescue, clean-up and restoration effort. So should other losing candidates. Then everyone wins.

The Times has provided much valuable storm coverage, but its Nov. 17 front-page story “Helping hands also expose a New York divide: Storm volunteers in poor areas stir resentment” should have run at a much later date.

But do remember the Times Nov. 16 story reporting how the president gave a big hug to Debbie Ingenito of Staten Island and said he understood about her husband not being there because he had to protect the house and the block. Ah, comforting hugs like the president and the first lady frequently give should be widely prescribed, and role-modeled in entertainment mediums instead of affections that get high-profilers in very big trouble.

Although faith groups are among the most dedicated helpers, let sermons and also Sabbath school lessons continue to be about meeting the needs of this epic disaster. Isn’t that what “Love one another” is all about?

Here’s to the hugely popular Thanksgiving Day Parade also getting this urgent message across—like a Charlie Brown balloon saying, “Helping is what Thanksgiving is all about this year.” And say this over the Thanksgiving dinner plates too, and include the Nova documentary in any TV viewing that day. As for Black Friday shopping, shouldn’t all holiday buying and entertaining, in part, help storm-ravaged business places and people?

Maybe this sounds dumb, but I often ask how people made out in the storm. The Cherokee Post Office clerk said, “I lost my car—but my home is okay.” She seemed glad I asked and wished me a “very happy Thanksgiving.” A 79th Street bus driver replied, “Luckily, I live far enough inland, but other family members were hit really hard.” But another 79th Street driver said brusquely, “Like everyone else!” Maybe an idea for all us unscathed ones to adopt?

And here’s to musicians getting people in hard-hit places to sing together! More so than just talking, singing gives health and hope and brings people together.

And, of course, we keep giving in orthodox ways: Bless the army of volunteers and all who labor in this arduous and even dangerous rescue and recovery work.

Meanwhile, Sen. Liz Krueger’s roundtable for boomers and seniors on longevity challenges took place on Nov. 15, and the New York Council on Cooperatives and Condominiums conference included a workshop on helping seniors “age in place.” Keep an eye out for our upcoming coverage of these.

dewingbetter@aol.com

“Obama won, but he’s got no mandate,” said Charles Krauthammer. That may be the dumbest thing I’ve seen all day. And I read Trump’s tweets.

— Touré (@Toure) November 7, 2012

Some pointed out that winning both the electoral and popular vote does, in fact, signal a mandate.

Since Obama won almost all the swing states, and we somehow elected them our deciders, shouldn’t that be considered a mandate?

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) November 7, 2012

And some rightfully called attention to the fact that the more times you say “mandate” out loud, the less sure you are of the definition.

Everyone is wondering if Obama got a mandate. If he wants one, he should just ask Biden to a movie or something.

— Justin Robinson (@JustinSRobinson) November 7, 2012

Which brings us to the question, what is a mandate, and does Obama have one? I prefer not to answer that question, because I’m really tired of the word mandate. Instead, let’s just all agree that despite whatever grumblings Republicans will put forth in the next days/weeks/months, Obama won the election, and shockingly, that’s the only thing he needs in order to, you know, be the president. (I won’t even go into all the Democratic, progressive candidates who won their Senate races, or the marriage equality measures that passed in three states, or the legalization of marijuana, or the fact that voters have affirmed that “legitimate rape” is not a thing.)

If we’re going to get all into-the-weeds about it, the last true mandate given to a president, it could be argued, was to President Reagan over Walter Mondale in 1984, when the incumbent Republican beat his challenger with 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Bush the First won his election with 53.4 percent of the popular vote, then Clinton won with 43 percent and then again with 49.2 percent. And THEN, Gore won the popular vote with 48.4 percent, and Bush STILL got to be president with only 47.9 (one might call that a nega-mandate). He nudged the needle a bit to win 50.7 percent to Kerry’s 48.3 percent in 2004, which inspired many a Republican pundit to declare that Bush had scored a mandate at the time. Obama won his first election with 52.9 percent, and according to Nate Silver, Chief Numerical Witch of the U.S.A., has received 50.8 percent of the popular vote, to Mitt Romney’s 48.3, in yesterday’s election.

Numbers! Do they make a mandate? I don’t know! The fact is, Obama won re-election and will now proceed to carry out his agenda. You can like that or not like it, but arguing about a mandate doesn’t change that fact. Now can we please stop talking about it and let the man go back to leading the country? If he needs it, he can totally have my mandate, if I ever find it under this mess of papers on my desk.

When I started this piece I found myself writing the same story everyone else has about the emergence of President Clinton as the star of the 2012 election cycle. His incredible Democratic convention speech made the arguments on behalf of President Obama better than the candidate himself – leaving pundits speechless and the party faithful hungry for more. And by cleverly extending his speech into the local evening news, he grabbed millions of viewers otherwise disinterested in politics.

The Obama cultivation and inclusion of Clinton in his reelection effort is no real surprise. Recent polling shows that 68 percent of Americans view Clinton favorably – 18 points higher than President Obama and more than 50 points higher than Congress. President Clinton oversaw the greatest economic expansion in recent history, creating 22 million jobs under his watch. But it’s not just his record that is appealing. Democrats appreciate the Clintons more in hindsight because they remember not only his ability to connect with voters, and enthusiasm for the Party faithful – but also his political acumen. Everyone misses the old days, when no one was above a good partisan fight, but politics wasn’t nasty or mean.

If Obama’s embrace of President Clinton is inherently logical, the opposite could be said about Mitt Romney. At first glance, it is stunning to think that the GOP nominee would ever see any advantage in playing up Clinton. But it was the best option he had.

While the GOP faithful still hold President Ronald Reagan in the highest esteem–and Mitt Romney referred to Reagan during the GOP primary–Reagan’s presidency was almost 25 years ago. A nice chunk of the electorate just isn’t familiar with Reagan, and think of him more as an historical figure rather than relevant to the politics of today. So while invoking Reagan might work with seniors, Reagan is not a useful standard-bearer for the voters Romney needed to reach.

Of course, Mitt Romney’s campaign also knew they couldn’t associate with President George W. Bush — the person most Americans still believe wrecked our economy and got us entangled in an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost us dearly in both lives and monies. Romney has gone out of his way not to discuss George W. Bush, and Romney is quick to change the subject if the Bush Presidency comes up.

So that left Clinton as the ‘go to’ guy. Romney may have made the calculation that Obama and Clinton had too much baggage between them to ever join forces. He was wrong.

I also believe that Romney may see much in common with President Clinton: a former governor with a focus on creating jobs; a politician who worked across the aisle when necessary, and a politician who believes he can triangulate himself in the model of Clinton. The Clinton association for Romney is about appealing to the middle, about beginning perceived as moderate. But here’s where Romney miscalculated.

The politics of the Great Recession are very different than in the Clinton era. In our hyper-partisan, Internet-fueled news cycle, Romney’s attempts to grab the middle just aren’t credible. Voters are paying more attention to the details than ever before. In the Bush years, they felt they were sold a false bill of goods – and they are now sensitive to Romney’s blatant flip-flops, like claiming credit for the auto bailout and now supportive of leaving Afghanistan in 2014 — that are spin rather than moderation.

We are now days way from determining the next President of the Untied States, and this is arguable an even more important election than 4 years ago.  We have two very different choices for president with very different ideas about government.

While both candidates have tried to associate themselves with President Clinton, only one can do so with credibility. There is a reason Bill Clinton is happily packing his schedule full of events to help re-elect President Obama, which I’m certain Clinton is enjoying. He knows that America cannot afford a President who says one thing, but will do another.  We had 8 years of that recipe and it was a disaster.

I know Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney is no Bill Clinton. And the good news is the American people know it too.

Most recently, Clyde Williams was a congressional candidate for CD 13.  He served as National Political Director at the Democratic National Committee under President Barack Obama, Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton, a Vice President at the Center for American Progress, and as Deputy Chief of Staff of the U S Department of Agriculture. You can follow him on Facebook@clydewilliams2012, on twitter@clyde2012.

America loves the underdog story. We want to hear how out of the most improbable of circumstances rose the greatest of victors. This is an American story: to find glory in the dimmest chances. We see it play out in presidential politics, in the very founding of our country, in literature, music, even branding. In 2010, Harvard Business Review published the article “Capitalizing on the Underdog Effect,” highlighting a study where consumers were given the choice between two different chocolate brands. The article explains, “One brand had an underdog story: We described it as small and new, competing against powerhouses like Lindt and Godiva. The other brand had a top-dog biography, characterized by experienced founders and a big marketing budget. The result: 71% of subjects chose the underdog chocolate.” The more consumers related to the underdog story themselves – historically marginalized groups such as “women, blue collar workers, ethnic minorities” – the stronger their alignment with the underdog brand.

What is it that makes us prefer a certain chocolate because of the businessperson’s journey to make the chocolate? Is it reclamation of our own personal hardships as springboards to success? Is our own “underdoggedness” actually fertile ground for our greatest growth? Or is it just a band-aid we give ourselves to accept the unmerciful casting of “a person in adversity or in a position of inferiority” as the dictionary describes?

In the impending presidential election, each candidate is vying to be the underdog, and each can claim it in different ways. In October of 2011, George Stephanopoulos asked President Barack Obama if he considered himself an underdog in the campaign to reelection, and the president said without hesitating, “Yes. Absolutely.” One could argue that Obama’s history unequivocally makes him an underdog.  A son of a single mother, odds against him, becomes the leader of the free world. Unlike his opponent, Mitt Romney, who, despite his privileged background, has also touted the coveted title of underdog, as every challenger to an incumbent has the ability to do. There is something so American about the branding of candidates as underdogs. It’s the story we want to hear, especially coming out of a recession and feeling like underdogs ourselves. We want someone to relate to, we want to see the restored vision for our own lives played out so that we can believe in it. As the late Democratic Governor Happy Chandler once said, “We Americans are a peculiar people. We are for the underdog, no matter how much of a dog he is.”

There are really two parts to the underdog story – first, the odds stacked against her, and then, her glorious victory. We love the journey from part one to two. We can look to the Revolutionary War as an historical context for the underdog story. Americans were set to lose – no navy, no military, no economy, no odds. However, as stacked as the British may have been in military, skill, training, and resources, there is a great distinction between those who want to fight and those who need to fight. This is the grit of the underdog – the American inspiration was the idea of a free country. The hope of the future was more compelling than the odds of the present. Americans did not win the war on sheer motivation alone (the French had a little something to do with it), but it was the one tool Great Britain did not have in its chest.

As a people, when the odds are not in our favor is when we perform the best, become the most innovative, creative, determined. Perhaps even the Great Recession has only been the groundwork for what will prove to be the most productive time in American history. The bipartisan and often vitriolic rhetoric we have become accustomed to in the past decade could turn out to be the rock bottom we need to strengthen our democracy – not because we embrace it, but because we once again learn that the humility that results from a broken practice gives us crystallized insight. That’s the gift of the underdog. We can only shift when we have finished falling and reached that hard-learned lesson at the bottom.

We have now had two presidential debates, and the issue of healthcare has been front and center.

In New York, nearly 40 percent of the entire state budget is spent on healthcare—and it’s rising every year. It’s clear that our economy won’t be competitive unless we figure out how to improve the quality of healthcare while also lowering costs. President Obama understood this, and it’s part of the reason he pushed so hard to pass healthcare reform.
After two years of arguing and lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “Obamacare” is legal. Most Americans are ready to move on and implement the law. Yet the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill—led by Romney’s vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan—is itching for a new, and wrong fight: abolishing Medicaid by turning it into a block-grant program.

If you’re like most Americans, you probably think of Medicaid as primarily providing healthcare to the poor. But it also supports elder care for seniors. In fact, one out of every five seniors in New York state depends on Medicaid, and the program is the main funding source for over 70 percent of New York seniors in nursing homes.

If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, he and Paul Ryan are keen to push Medicaid to the states, giving states more flexibility to run the program—but likely with less federal financial responsibility over time. Progressive states like New York would certainly try to maintain current eligibility requirements, but realistically would face unsustainable budget shortfalls over time. And we all know where the cost burden will rest if neither state nor federal resources are forthcoming. Thousands of seniors on fixed incomes would suddenly face not only additional costs for living expenses—but also for prescription drugs.

This sounds like a bad deal for seniors, and it is. The good news is that seniors are increasingly wary of the Romney/Ryan entitlement plans, and these issues are impacting the presidential election (even if the GOP Medicaid plans are not well-known). Polls show voters in the all-important swing states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia oppose the far-reaching changes to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the GOP ticket. Ironically, Obama is now gaining ground with a demographic group that he struggled with in 2008. Seniors backed Republicans in the last two presidential elections, but that support is quickly eroding because they don’t trust Republicans on the issue of entitlement reform.
Republican leaders love to talk about entitlement program reform as the main solution to the country’s budget deficit. But entitlement programs alone are not responsible for our budget deficit. Republicans never mention they created the overwhelming majority of this deficit by voting for President George W. Bush’s unfunded prescription drug program, an unfunded tax cut that mostly benefited the wealthiest in our society, and support for two wars that had no end.

Certainly, entitlement programs need to be reformed, or they won’t be there for the generations to come. But the notion that this burden should be shouldered by the men and women who are now in their twilight years goes against the time-honored values of American society. All must sacrifice—the top 1 percent , the 47 percent that Mitt Romney doesn’t care about and everyone else in America—but we cannot lose our essential core along the way. As Americans, we have always cared about our fellow man, and we can’t allow that to change because we now are living through difficult times.

The stakes this fall are high. For New Yorkers—and others in America, for that matter—this presidential election matters a lot. We all should participate in government, by holding our elected officials accountable. That begins on Nov. 6.

Most recently, Clyde Williams was a congressional candidate for CD 13. He served as national political director at the Democratic National Committee under President Barack Obama, domestic policy advisor to President William Jefferson Clinton, as vice president at the Center for American Progress and as deputy chief of staff of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Fairway responded by calling the incident “unconscionable” and launching a rodent investigation along with renovations that the store says are costing them thousands of dollars. Management has suggested that the nearby construction is the source of the rat problem. Upper West Side shoppers may have some sympathy for Fairway, as residents have been dealing with an influx of the furry pests throughout the neighborhood.

LOCAL PARENT GRILLS ROMNEY
Upper West Side parent and vocal public education advocate Noah Gotbaum attended an Education Nation forum with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week and was one of the few audience members able to ask him a question about his education policy ideas. After asking Romney about choice in public schools, Gotbaum said, “The parents here support the union to protect our kids three-to-one over the mayor and the chancellor. That’s a recent poll. So, to say that the unions are holding back our kids, as a parent and as parents in polls said, it’s the opposite.”

Gotbaum was citing a Quinnipiac poll released in February. The poll asked New Yorkers whether Mayor Bloomberg or the teachers’ union could be trusted more to protect the interests of public school students. Sixty-nine percent of respondents who have children in public school chose the teachers’ union, versus 22 percent who picked Blooomberg.
But Romney wasn’t interested in the poll numbers, apparently, and told Gotbaum, “I don’t believe it for a minute,” suggesting that the poll numbers could be manipulated.
“Having looked at schools, I know that the teachers’ union has a responsibility to care for the interests of the teachers,” Romney continued.

Gotbaum said in an email after the event that he felt Romney’s attitude was indicative of the bigger problems in public education.

“Romney’s dismissal of parents’ views and inability to handle the truth reflects the much larger problem in which education policy in this country is made largely by a small group of businessmen and corporate-backed elected officials and foundations who mostly send their kids to private schools yet brook no dissent whatsoever from public school parents, teachers, principals, students and educators who live in the system,” Gotbaum wrote.
GARODNICK PROPOSES SICK LEAVE COMPROMISE
Upper West Side City Council Member Gale Brewer has been pushing to pass the paid sick leave bill that she authored, but has been thwarted thus far by Speaker Christine Quinn’s refusal to bring the bill to a vote. Mayor Bloomberg has made it clear that he would veto it, citing a negative effect on small businesses. But now a new version may make its way to the floor of the council and could win over critics. Council Member Dan Garodnick proposed four amendments to the bill that so far have been well received, as the New York Times reported last week.

The biggest change would be to lower the number of paid sick days required for businesses with 20 or more employees. Currently, the bill requires businesses with more than five employees to provide five paid sick days annually, and businesses with 20 or more employees to provide nine paid sick days. Garodnick’s amendment to “remove the cliff” and simply require all businesses with over five employees to give five days quells small businesses’ concerns that the higher number would keep businesses from hiring more workers to avoid bumping up to nine days. Garodnick also proposed exempting seasonal employees, allowing employees in the service sector to swap shifts if they’re sick without having to utilize a paid sick day, and limit the time in which an employee could sue for paid sick leave benefits.

Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

The opening night of the GOP Convention in Tampa may have been canceled due to inclement weather, but it takes a lot more than bad weather to keep New Yorkers from coming out to cheer, boo or be entirely indifferent to national political happenings. Below are a couple ways to engage your political sensibilities this week in light of Republican Convention ceremonies.

Drinking Liberally
New York City’s chapter of Living Liberally is hosting a series of Republican Convention-watching events this week. From their blog: “You may want to know what the Republicans are up to at their Convention…but you may find it too frightening to watch by yourself.” The week-long festivities kick off tonight for “opening night” at 7:30 at Building on Bond in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, continuing every evening at different bars throughout Manhattan. Each event begins at 7:30, allowing plenty of breathing—or drinking—room for the nightly 9 p.m. speeches. The group will gather at The Village Pourhouse on 11th St. for Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday, and Rudy’s on 44th St. for Mitt Romney’s Thursday speech.

New York Republican Fundraiser
If you want to watch the Convention for a pricier ticket—and in Republican company—the New York Republican County Committee is hosting a “David Garland for State Senate” fundraiser Tuesday evening on East 83rd Street, and other evening events throughout the week. From the invitation: “Come enjoy drinks and light fare and watch the Republican National Convention with friends.” And a $50 price tag. More Republican-centric events for the week can also be found on the Committee’s website. The Metropolitan Republican Club is also hosting the GOP Convention Party the last night of the Convention, Thursday evening, also at East 83rd Street. The GOP Convention Party is reportedly young Republican-friendly.

Occupy Protests
If you’re interested in being involved in a slightly more hands-on way, rather than from behind the TV screen, you can likely still hop on a bus and head down to Florida with other RNC protesters. Occupy provided buses for New Yorkers who wanted to make their way down to Tampa to protest the RNC, but because of the weather, only two of five buses ended up making the trip. Due to the opening night delay, there’s probably still time—for the especially brave—to make for Florida. The Huffington Post reported: “The protest aimed to mock the RNC’s welcome event at nearby Tropicana Field, which had been billed as a large cocktail party. The activists hoped their snare drums and chants would at least spoil the mood for RNC attendees.”

—Compiled by Alissa Fleck

Alan Chartock. Photo courtesy of wamc.org.

To understand what he did and why he did it, you have to understand the realities of elections. Since about half the eligible people don’t bother to vote in presidential elections, the name of the game is to get your voters to turn out. When Romney chose Ryan he was offering a huge incentive for conservative Republicans to get out and vote. He was lighting a fire under their behinds. That’s the way elections are won or lost.

The Romney problem is that there are more Democrats and independents in the United States than there are conservative Republicans. Romney’s vice presidential choice will light an even bigger fire under the keisters of the Democrats and independents who do not want to lose Social Security as we know it or the highly popular Medicare program. Ryan is death on both of these programs.

There may be a lot of people who don’t like what the Republicans are calling “Obamacare,” but just ask any senior or anyone who just can’t wait to get to Medicare, what they think of the incredibly popular senior medical program; or ask seniors (or their appreciative children) what they think of Social Security.

I remember my late mother’s appreciation for her Social Security check. My mom had worked all her life putting money into Social Security. I admit that my mother hated most Republicans but the thought of losing Social Security or of the Republicans trying to “modify” Roosevelt’s signature program by handing it over to the Wall Street crowd to get their hands on the highly efficient program would have brought this liberal lady out onto the streets. By threatening Social Security and Medicare, Romney has given the Democrats the gift of life. No matter what he says to save the day, the words and actions of Ryan will prove to be fatal to Romney. In fact, Romney has committed political suicide by choosing Ryan.

Finally, there is Medicaid, a program designed primarily to help the poor and elderly who have no other place to turn. When those often non-voting poor realize that their health care is being threatened by the draconian Ryan, they will have a good reason to vote. As we saw, not that long ago in Florida, just a few votes can swing an election.

In New York, the Democrats should be celebrating. The New York state Senate is up for grabs and if the lower-income voters turn out, it is inevitable that they will vote for Democratic candidates down the line. Democrat Andrew Cuomo has given Dean Skelos and the Republican Senate majority every break. He didn’t veto their self-serving gerrymander bill as he promised he would. I am old enough to remember the Democratic landslide in Goldwater-Johnson in which all kids of Republicans got thrown out in New York.

To turn this election in their favor, you had better believe that the Democrats are going to plaster the television airwaves with Ryan’s picture and what he wants to do with two of the most popular social programs in American history. You’ll see crying babies and seniors threatened with eviction. When I explained how this was going to work to some elderly friends, one of them said, “You don’t have to worry, it will only be younger people who will lose these benefits.” In response, I said, “These younger folks have been putting money into these programs for years. They are looking forward to Social Security and Medicare. They are going to be very angry when and if all of this comes down.”

Poor Mitt Romney; he may be good at making a lot of money. That doesn’t make him smart. He’s just committed political hara-kiri. In New York, he’s probably the best thing the usually hapless Democrats have going for them.

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Mitt Romney. Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney appeared at three private fundraising events in the Hamptons this past weekend, raising a total of approximately $3 million, and causing quite a stir among protesters. Billionaire David Koch hosted one of these notable fundraisers at his shorefront home, reports ABC News. Oil tycoon Koch has come to be known as half of the billionaire brother duo dominating conservative fundraising.

Koch’s event was tightly secured, according to ABC, as about 150 protesters showed up to express their disgust. Occupy Wall Street and MoveOn.org supporters were among protesters who made an appearance. Protesters, who could reportedly barely see the estate from where they were permitted to stand, held signs rejecting “corporate personhood” and the price of a ticket to the event ($75,000 per couple). They stood barefoot on the beach holding signs, sailing “protest boats,” flying a small plane and singing the Star-Spangled Banner.

Those who showed up to condemn contamination of the electoral process through such fundraising means called the gathering a success, saying they took the message where it mattered.

The Daily News reports Obama cancelled a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard this year, so as to not appear to be “hanging with the billionaires” and alienate those who oppose such displays of wealth.

According to the New York Times: “Tucked into the Southampton dunes, Mr. Koch’s home is valued at about $18 million by the real estate Web site Zillow, which reports that it has seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms. Its backyard is the sea.”

—Alissa Fleck

Last Fourth of July, Meghan McCain brought Michael Ian Black home to Arizona to meet her parents. McCain, 27, a single Republican, and Black, 40, a married Democrat, decided to tour the country together to see how the two political camps can get along. They survived surprisingly well and lived to tell the tale in America, You Sexy Bitch.

When I met Meghan, I was struck by how down to earth she is, despite the fact that if her father had won the election in 2008, I would have been talking to the daughter of the President. Never adverse to speaking her mind, we discussed the media’s criticism of her, her brutal honesty, and her hope to make changes within the Republican Party.

What was going through your mind when Michael asked you to write a book with him?

I thought it sounded fun and interesting to write a book with a liberal. I’ve never done anything like that. It sounded crazy and provocative, and it included politics which is right up my alley.

Michael is so funny. Were you constantly laughing during your trip?

Yes. At first I didn’t understand his style of humor, because it’s a little dry and dark. But once you tune into it, he’s hilarious. I think I made him laugh a lot too. I’m pretty funny.

You said that Michael is the first man you brought home during Fourth of July weekend.

He was the first guy I ever brought home to meet my family, period. A married comedian with kids! Which is very pathetic on my part and shows the kind of dating life I have [laughs].

Have you ever dated a liberal?

Not a hardcore liberal, but I’ve dated independents. I don’t think I could—at that point I think there’s too much that’s different. There’s a difference between writing a book with one dating one.

Your memoir is titled Dirty Sexy Politics; your new book is called America, You Sexy Bitch. Are you trying to promote politics as being sexy?

I think on some level, but it was not purposeful to have the word “sexy” in both. If I ever write another book, I promise that word won’t be in the title! I came up with the title for my first book when I was talking about what I wanted politics to be for young people. “I want it to be dirty, sexy, and provocative,” I spouted off to a friend of mine. She said, “That’s the title of your book!” And this new one, the title came from a story that happened when Michael and I were touring the Capitol.

When you were co-hosting The View, you said that your father did not appreciate the title America, You Sexy Bitch. Is this still the case?

No, he hated it when he first heard about it. I very rarely fight with my father, but he wanted to change it. He has since come around.

You were very honest in your memoir Dirty Sexy Politics, which was nice to read.

That book and the whole experience [of the 2008 campaign] feel like two lifetimes ago. I believe that I’m open and honest almost to a fault. In America in 2012, if there’s one thing I know people respond to—it’s organic personalities. I have this theory, because America is going through such a difficult time with the recession, it’s no longer interesting to watch or listen to anybody who proclaims to be a perfect person with a perfect family. People have responded to me for being honest about things, even when those things are sometimes embarrassing or complicated. Every time I’ve shown my scars and how difficult the world of politics can be, people have really responded.

You have said that your life’s mission is to change things within the Republican Party. How do you plan on doing that?

I’ll keep speaking out, writing, blogging, and working at MSNBC. At some point, I would love to help get a woman elected in some capacity. I would love to work for a female candidate running for President as a Republican. My biggest dream in my lifetime is to see a woman President.

Would you ever consider running for office?

I don’t think that I could get elected since I’ve lived my life so openly. I grew up in the public eye, so there are many things documented about me, and they aren’t always pretty and glamorous. Unfortunately, to run for office in this country, you have to have this perfect narrative, which I sway so far from. In this book, I admit to smoking weed. Is that something voters would vote for? I don’t know. We demand such perfection from our politicians, which is why I think they ultimately become quite boring. Perfection is boring.

Besides your father, who are your favorite politicians?

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio. Michele Bachmann, which I know will surprise people because she’s quite conservative. I met her in person and interviewed her recently and really respect her. Hillary Clinton, because I love a strong woman in politics even though I don’t agree with her. Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham; love them. Nikki Haley and what she did for Mitt Romney. Obviously Mitt Romney—I’ll give him a big shout out as well.

It’s known that Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh have criticized you. How do you deal with the media’s criticism?

It’s become such a part of my life starting from when I was very young. My second column I ever wrote was after Laura Ingraham basically called me fat on national television. I opened up about how hard it is to be called fat, ugly, and a slut when you speak out in politics. I have a great support group of friends, family, and a lot of young people on the internet. I get many amazing tweets and comments on my blog and personal website. Anytime I’m feeling sad, I concentrate on the positive. It’s not easy; I don’t think you ever really get used to or get over criticism.

You studied at Columbia University and now live in the West Village. Do people recognize you in the city?

If I come from MSNBC and am all done up with hair and makeup and wearing a dress or suit, people will. I have two wardrobes in my closet. One is politics Meghan, which I wear on TV or to give speeches. The other is punk Meghan, when I wear concert t shirts and dress casual. I barely wear makeup on my off time.

In your memoir, you said that you’ve been at every Republican Convention since your mother was pregnant with you at Reagan’s in 1984. Will you be at this year’s?

I think I will! My mom is hosting a party and I’m going to help her with it. Hopefully I will be covering it either for The Daily Beast or MSNBC.

You have said that people come up to you and say, “Things would be so different if your father was President.”

People say that a lot and I don’t know if people are nostalgic of what could have been because things are still not going well and unemployment is at 8.4 percent. I don’t know how many times they actually mean it, or they are just trying to come up with something to say. I reply, “Thank you, I appreciate your support.” There’s not really much else to say.

Join Meghan and Michael at the Bryant Park Reading Room on Wednesday, July 11^th at 12:30 pm for a talk and singing as part of Word for Word Author series.