A couple of odds and ends today, including a birthday party for five-year-olds, a clarification from a longtime reader, and even a rare musing on the political front.

Let's start with the most pressing issue of all: Alexandra turned five this past Sunday and she celebrated in style with a girls-only tea party at our house. Maya's mom, Joan Vastardis, came up all the way from Savannah and helped to turn the dining room into a little girl's dream, with more balloons than Times Square on New Year's Eve. And it must be noted that these balloons were not "imported" from some party store, ready to go. No indeed. Maya and Joan spent two days blowing up every single balloon themselves and fashioning them into a humongous arch.

And they were just getting started. This being a tea party, the table was elaborately set. I thought I had walked into the Ritz Carlton for a second. But the best part was that the "tea" was actually chocolate milkshake and the tea sandwiches were accompanied by mini pizzas. My kind of party.

My mom came up from New York and Alexandra's pals had a grand  old time. I'm not sure what is about a hammock that drives little kids crazy but it seems like we spent a lot of time giving the girls "scary" swings in the backyard. They laughed and laughed.

Alexandra got neat presents. The constant refrain of "It's a Fairytopia Barbie!!!! It's a butterfly Barbie!!!! It's a Barbie Barbie!!" made me laugh a little because my sister Jennifer was never allowed to have Barbies as a girl and I thought my mom would pass out. (I guess it's a sign of the times that the issues we once associated with Barbie (commercialism, unattainable body image), while still present, have been replaced by a whole host of more pressing ones (video games, Jamie Lynn Spears, Paris Hilton).

 Anyway, I know I go on about Alexandra a lot but as any dad will tell you, my daughter is the best kid on the face of this planet.

 To see just a couple of pictures from Alexandra's birthday, including Maya's fabulous invitation, click here.

*****

I have a quick clarification that comes to us from a reader in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Well, actually the reader hails from Alexandria, Virginia but I've always wanted to pretend that I have readers in Sioux Falls.

I mentioned the other day that I had previous experience with out-of-the-ordinary weather at Belle Haven Country Club, having shot a wedding there a few years back  after a pretty severe hurricane left most of the golf course underwater.

(It pretty much left all of southern Alexandria under water, come to think of it. Take a look at the radar map I just Googled from that week in 2003 . How would you like to be worrying about that on your wedding day??)

What completely escaped me at the time of writing was that the bride that day was none other than Laura Gonzalez, not only one of my favorite brides of all time but one of the nicest people I've ever met, period. She has helped at every Photo Marathon charity fundraiser we've held. She comments on every new photo of Alexandra. Laura even managed to find me tickets to Bruce Springsteen's last D.C.show when all hope seemed to have been lost. How could I have forgotten?!

Laura wrote me this morning and said: "I had to giggle as I read your new post.  Record breaking 107 degree heat at a reception at Belle Haven? OUR wedding reception there on the day after Hurricane Isabel?"

And so today's lesson, class, is that  neither rain nor snow nor 107 degree heat can leave even the slightest mark on a truly great wedding or, more importantly, a truly great couple. I said this two days ago but now that I know the couple involved the last time was Laura and Tony, I'm even doubly sure of myself. If you look at the photo above--the one of the exuberant bride, not the big storm--you'll see one of my favorite wedding images of the last 11 years. Pure joy.

****

Lastly, I just wanted to get something off my chest regarding the political news of the day. Because I have clients who hail from both sides of the political spectrum, I usually don't bring up the election and all. Bad for business, some would say.

But my concern over what is happening with Barack Obama's vice-presidential vetting committee actually is not rooted in partisan politics but rather good old-fashioned leadership.

If you're not paying attention to what's going on (and after the primary season we just endured, you can be excused from paying attention), here's the scoop: Barack Obama sewed up the Democratic presidential nomination last week, something he's been  fighting tooth and nail over for the last sixteen months, not to mention something he's probably been dreaming about for his whole adult life. It's everything he wants, right? And picking a vice-presidential running mate is by far the single most important decision on his plate. With this one pick he could potentially win or lose this election.

So what's the first thing this candidate of youth, this candidate of change, this candidate of business-not-as-usual does towards this end? He appoints a committee of attorneys and insiders with nary a young person nor outside-the-beltway voice to be found to help scutinize his picks. Caroline Kennedy is wonderful and all, but it's the very notion of needing this kind of committee in the first place that bugs me here. People often wonder when it is exactly that a candidate of hope and change gets mired in the old school ways of the past and I'm guessing that it's right now. It's the point  at which you turn away from your own instinct--the instinct that has gotten you to this juncture--and instead turn to the old guard, the elders, the well-heeled for advice. Candidates always love to go on and on about that mother with the sick kid who works three jobs in Ohio but, Lord knows, no one ever seeks her out for advice.

Here's a terrible example: You're married for 35 years and you and your spouse finally get to take the vacation you've always been dreaming about. Now it's with in reach. So what do you do? You assemble a panel to tell you what countries you should visit. But don't you think you should do that yourself? Surely you've given this much thought in the last few decades, right? This is your moment to choose, not someone else's. Surely you have your own itinerary in mind.

Another bad analogy: You're going to climb Mount Everest and you train for years and years. Then, in order to find the person you trust most on this planet -- the person who could potentially save your butt on the icy Hillary Step (wrong, Hillary, folks) -- you assemble a group of friends to look for a climbing partner. They give you some names to consider. But again, wouldn't you --and you alone-- know better than anyone else who that person should be? Haven't you been in the climbing game for years and years?

I am not being naive here. I know that vetting committees have done this for candidates since the beginning of politics. The candidate is too busy and doesn't have time to look into the souls of his potential running mates, let alone look for potential conflicts of interests like, say, getting extra special interest deals on loans during a mortgage crisis. (George Bush famously looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and found it to be warm and fuzzy. We all know how that turned out.) But Barack Obama is running on a ticket of change and maybe he needs to rethink some of these old business-as-usual practices. He should be vetter-in-chief here. He's burning the candle at both end: he wants the advice, when he should be more invested personally, and then when things go south, as happened with Jim Johnson, he pulls a Peter, practically denying he ever knew the guy. All of this makes him look not-in-charge and not-so-loyal at the same time.

This choice is his and his alone. He needs to make it all on his own and he needs to make it decisively-- not by committee, not by smoke signal, not under outside pressure.

 Matt