Stumping is clearly a throwback to the days when politicians campaigned in small towns, didn’t have PA systems and there was no such thing as TV coverage. They stood on a stump to be seen and heard.

When’s the last time you saw a politician standing on a stump?

Bill Clinton Stumps For Wife in Baker City. In the pic, he’s standing on concrete steps.

Is Obama ’stumping’? 550,000 results in Google say yes. Hillary is stumping to the tune of 1,650,000 results while McCain is stumping around with 962,000 results.

No politician is going to be seen standing on a stump for fear of someone from the Green movement asking why the tree was cut down. No more stumping. Or soapboxes for that matter. When’s the last time you saw one of those?

Even in the most casual perusal of any of the big newspapers you will likely find mention of the “race card“.

Apparently the card may be played at any time, by any player, although the outcome of playing that particular card is uncertain. What is certain, is that nearly every player will be accused of playing the card at some point in the game. With no clear rules about how the card is to be played, or even if it should be played, journalists often see that card as the only card in the deck.

Is the mere mention of race considered playing the race card? Do we live in such a small-minded world that even mentioning black or white can be viewed as racist?

Given that nearly everyone thinks of politics as some shady, backroom activity to begin with, should anyone be using playing cards as a theme? Do we want to think of our politicians gambling with our futures as they would with a stack of chips? Bluffing us with a poker face, dealing from a stacked deck, while they rake in the chips after we’ve all gone all in?

What if we refuse to play until they add some better cards to the deck. How about the honesty card? Or the “Feck Opuc” card? For that matter, they can take the “change” card out of the deck too. The only thing the politicians want to change are the faces at the table.

Yet again. Like a phoenix from the ashes… err, more like recovering from a really bad case of burnout. If you don’t know, I write for more than one blog, and I needed a vacation.

Playtime is over though. At least for another year or so.

I cringe when I read that a group of people may be ‘impacted’ by a hurricane or politics, or for that matter, that anyone may be impacted. I know that a wisdom tooth may become impacted, but my OED says nothing about people being ‘impacted’.

Does anyone know when ‘impacted’ gained favor over ‘affected’? Or why?

In little more than a day you can take your pick of stories that best fit your opinion of the Microsoft bid for Yahoo!. Once you get past the Microhoo and Yasoft jokes, you can find everything from How The Mighty Have Fallen to Futures Jump on Microsoft/Yahoo Potential Merger to Why Microsoft’s Bid Helps Google, IBM and Apple.

From The NY Times,

Today, Microsoft lacks both the weaponry and the nimbleness to compete with Google. Its operating system monopoly gives it no advantages in this battle. People can use Microsoft’s operating system and browser to get to the Internet — and to Google — or they can use Apple’s.

Yes, that’s true. But aside from Gmail, Google has very little in the way of destinations in their lineup. How many millions of queries are made with the goal of using Google’s search engine to arrive at a Yahoo or Microsoft property?

The blogging world is abuzz with news, comments, flames, opinions and the deal hasn’t taken place yet. Want to feed your thirst for opinion? Start here. 5,167 entries in the past 12 hours. Lots of opinions here at Webmasterworld as well. Not content with one story, Search Engine Land had five on the subject.

Many discussions center on the perception that Microsoft is evil. And with 1,690,000 results, it looks like a lot of folks think Microsoft is truly evil. Then again, check the results for Google is Evil…

Innovation you say? Microsoft doesn’t innovate? Take a look at Google’s product offerings and apart from search and AdSense, where is the innovation?

As for me, I’m going to try to ignore the ordeal until the merger takes place, if it takes place. What happens after the merger is what I’m interested in.

Yesterday I heard a politician say, “We’ve reverted back to Cold War policies.” Revert means to return, or go back to a previous state. No need for the word ‘back‘ in that sentence.

Then there’s “ATM Machines”. ATM is the initialism for “automated teller machine” so when my daughter says “Stop at the ATM machine” I hear, “stop at the automated teller machine machine.”

A few days ago my daughter asked me to “try and help her with her paper”. When I asked whether she wanted me to try to help her, or actually help her, I got a dirty look. She immediately said, “Okay, help me”. Then she called me a grammar snob.

She was joking, sort of. I don’t correct people in public, I don’t write letters to editors if I see a slip in the paper because I know I’m not perfect. I make mistakes, and sometimes, I make them purposely.

I don’t have a problem starting a sentence with the word and. I don’t mind if you dangle a participle. But I want my daughter to know that one is being dangled. And that some people freak out if you start a sentence with the word and. I prefer May I to Can I when permission is being sought but I don’t lecture when my daughter says, “Can I go to the movies?” I know she knows the difference.

When she’s speaking to adults, her grammar changes. When she’s around her friends, she reverts back to teen-speak. Guess she doesn’t want to appear to be a grammar snob. ;)

I didn’t know about the SEMMYS until I found a reference in my referrals yesterday, so I had to check them out. Matt McGee over at Small Business SEM has been busy. Very busy. So go check out The SEMMYS, and make sure to read the posts Matt has bookmarked over the last year. You’ll find a lot of good reading there.

Oh, and make sure to vote for your favorite posts from the list of nominees. Below is a timeline for the award process:

January 14/15: Official Launch
January 21: Judges’ deadline to decide category finalists
January ~23: Finalists announced; public voting begins
January ~30: Public voting closes
February ~1: Winners announced

Nice job Matt, and everyone else involved.

Oh yeah, I was nominated in the Rant category. There are some fantastic rants in that category, so the odds that I make the list of finalists are slim but it was a pleasure to be nominated.

One of the questions I see quite often is “How do I write for a female audience?” I don’t know the answer to that question, in fact, I’m not sure that question should ever be asked, let alone answered and definitely never answered by a guy. I have two reasons for thinking that men shouldn’t try to write for a female audience.

1. You can target age groups, ethnic groups, political groups, techies, gearheads, animal activists, conservationists, sports fans, etc. In all of the above groups, and almost every other group, you will find both men and women.

Any attempt by a man to write for a female audience is almost certainly doomed if the man writing thinks that something special needs to be done to gain the interest of female readers. If you target their interests, there’s no need to target sex.

2. Men don’t understand women. We like to think we do, but we don’t. That’s why we lose so many arguments. Watch any guy in an argument with a woman. Eventually, he’ll get louder, wanting to express himself, not even noticing that the woman is no longer listening. The woman will wait until she knows she’s being heard before saying anything. The man wants to express himself, the woman wants to be listened to.

Now if you’re starting to think that I’m going to claim that I understand women, you’re wrong. I don’t even begin to understand them and that fact became painfully obvious to me when Hillary won the New Hampshire primary.

When she got weepy on national TV, and found some sympathy from Obama, I thought her political campaign was over. Even the sympathy she got from Obama was a bit back-handed as he said, “the campaign trail is tough”. When he said that, my first thought, and the first thought of the guys I was having dinner with was, “Oh bull, how will she deal with a real crisis”?

So when the pundits announced her victory in New Hampshire I was shocked. Where did the support come from? Women. Her crying bit apparently made her seem a bit more human. Not weak. Not fake. But caring and thoughtful, more real if you will.

My first words were, “Oh, suck it up already”. Which was quickly followed up by a female diner that said, “Well, at least she really cares”. Which made me want to cry…

Groan. :(

It was difficult to watch the second half.

I recorded the game. Anyone want a DVD-R coaster?

Small words have the largest impact. Small words can become the hammer to drive your point home, while big words tend to soften the blow.

Culled from a recent paper: “The panel felt the Senator was being disingenuous.”

What? Lacking in frankness or candor? He prevaricated? Equivocated? Misrepresented? Fabricated? Do any of those words come close to the power of, The panel felt the Senator lied? Everyone understands the word lie. None of the other words carry the clear meaning that lie conveys.

Large words tend to creep in when we write because we’re showing off, or we think our writing sounds better, or we look smarter if we use large words. Trade your syllables for clarity.

Instead of utilize, use.

Trade terminate for end. Don’t eliminate larger words, get rid of them. Don’t substantiate the facts, prove them. People aren’t impecunious, they’re poor. The writer wasn’t assiduous, he took great care. The lady at the DMV wasn’t obstinate, she was stubborn.

No one wants to read the words of a lexiphanicist…