Dover Bitch

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

A note about debating

I think I can speak for every political junkie out there when I say that I love to watch and participate in debates. It's hard to resist a debate, especially when the debate is one which you believe to your core is yours to win, just based on the facts.

The problem is -- when the opposition presents you with such a debate, it's usually because they want to you in it.

An example that comes to mind is the 2004 shiny object that George Bush waved in front of John Kerry: Global Test. Really, who cares what Kerry meant by "global test." It was obvious to anybody paying attention what he meant, but instead of debating about a hypothetical war in which Kerry would have to argue he would behave exactly like Bush, he would have been better served to point out that we were fighting an actual war at that time and it was based on bullshit.

Every Democrat on television or answering questions by the press should ask themselves first before every question What is the point of staying on this topic and is there something better to talk about?

If the answer to that is "There is no point in talking about this when I could talk about that," then they will control the conversation and win the day.

I just watched Michael Smerconish explain to David Gregory that McCain selected Palin in part to make people talk about Obama's experience. David responded by turning to Rachel Maddow and asking her about... Obama's experience. Perfect example.

When anybody talks about her experience and compares her's to Obama's, every single Democrat on my TV should laugh it off as a joke and stick it to McCain for his recklessness. I don't want to see one second wasted talking about Obama's experience.

McCain doesn't think he can win unless people are talking about Obama. Let's keep the spotlight on McCain. It's that simple.

Not every debate is worth having, even if it's winnable.

Labels: , , , , ,

Palin's speech

Palin's acceptance speech at the convention is going to be a real tear-jerker for the Religious Right. She's really going to go for the sympathy vote. I think it's going to be remarkable in that sense and it will be fascinating to see how much the talking heads will work to facilitate that angle for her.

I wonder how the Obama camp is preparing to respond to this. They have to know it's coming.

Labels: , ,

Question

I'm enjoying reading the Sarah Palin news so much I'm not spending any time writing about it. The absurd revelations are coming in too fast to keep up anyway.

I do have one question today, though. During the DNC, the media was talking relentlessly about the McCain ads that were timed to coincide with the convention. I know there's a new Obama ad, but are the Democrats doing anything to control the conversation? I know there's a lot for the media to talk about right now, so I don't expect them to be dropping the lack-of-Palin-vetting or Gustav or plane-with-blown-landing-gear, etc.

Usually, I am quick to point out the media's flaws (which are legion), but I always know that when they fail to cover something, it's partially due to the Democrats' lack of effort in pushing it. We have all heard the proclamations that the media doesn't create a debate all on their own. As horrible as that is, it's still an open invitation for the Democrats to create debates when it suits them.

Perhaps they just love all this Palin news so much they're letting it ride. I get that. I would, too. But I hope they have something ready to air if Zeus' bottomless pot of ugly Palin news ever runs dry.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Post-speech analysis

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Really proud

Billmon has written a beautiful diary at Daily Kos.

I'm so glad billmon is writing again.

Labels:

Impostor

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Beyond the usual pleasure of reading one of Digby's dispatches, I was happy to read this morning's anecdote about the Hillary supporter who was ready to work hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Though I've been greatly annoyed by the relentless reporting of the "rift" in the party, when Hillary gave her fantastic speech last night, I started to wonder if the media's inflation of the magnitude of the perceived internal war might actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Clinton so skillfully connected this election and its consequences to the history, sacrifice and struggle of American women for equality and fairness, I began to think maybe John McCain did the Democrats a favor with his ads fanning those flames. Clinton's Harriett Tubman reference last night was brilliant.

I also thought about Hillary's campaign and how different the outcome might have been had she taken Rachel Maddow's advice early on and focused her attention on John McCain and the GOP, instead of trying to take down Obama.

But, as Digby wrote this morning, the media narrative is like a piece of Ikea furniture. The holes are already drilled, the dowels already measured out and there's only one way to put it together, no matter how painful it is to assemble it into its catalog-photo orientation. And in the end, of course, there are obviously a few screws loose.

For the loosest screws, we can always turn to Fox News, where they set the bar low yesterday, explaining that Michele Obama's speech actually re-enforced her negative image -- that is, when you replace her words with completely different words. This will be fun to do with McCain next week. ("The glimmerings of democracy are very faint in Russia America today, and so I would be very harsh.")

Steve Benen notices today that other media outlets aren't replacing Clinton's words with their own, they're just ignoring them completely and inviting "body language experts" to demonstrate that she was essentially lying.

On the evening of June 28, a few hours after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared together in Unity, N.H., for their first post-primary joint appearance, CNN devoted quite a bit of airtime to "body-language experts."

At one point, one of the "experts" argued that the position of Hillary Clinton's navel carries great political significance: "She angles her belly button toward him. She's treating him with respect. She has her hands in a fig leaf position, which tends to be a passive position, really turning the power over to Obama. We face our belly buttons and the core of our body to people we like, have affinity toward and people we respect. And she's doing it."

It was, to my mind, some of the worst on-air political "journalism" -- I use the word loosely -- I've ever seen from a major news outlet. And yet, CBS News this morning did the exact same thing.


I'm disappointed. I was expecting to wake up and learn that anonymous sources leaked word that wasn't even Hillary last night, but an impostor. Maybe even Barack Obama in a Hillary costume.

I have the undeniable proof right here:

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Passed Over

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

The Rat[Loving] Express is rolling ahead with an ad called "Passed Over," lamenting the fact that Barack Obama didn't select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, despite the fact that she received millions of votes. The McCain camp charges that Clinton spoke the truth and Obama couldn't stand the pain.

I, for one, cannot wait to celebrate the exciting news that John McCain has selected Ron Paul as his vice president.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

McCain: Vote for me, wackos

Atrios spots a killer Obama ad that takes McCain to task for failing to hold Ralph Reed accountable for his involvment in the Abramoff scandal -- and then for using Reed to raise campaign funds.

I pray that when the McCain surrogates respond and defend Reed, the Obama camp is prepared and brings out the details of Reed's role in the scandal:

Reed is also an evangelical Christian, although his writings suggest that politics have always been his true religion. In his book, Active Faith, Reed describes his political epiphany--the moment when he comprehended the electoral potential of the religious right--far more vividly than his spiritual conversion. After he and Abramoff earned their stripes by rejuvenating the College Republicans in the 1980s, Reed joined Pat Robertson's crusade to shape Christian conservatives into a potent political movement. As the director of the Christian Coalition, Reed attracted attention for his political talents more than his ideological fervor; he was a gifted orchestrator of grassroots campaigns. Now, in his new private sector incarnation, Reed effectively rented out his conservative Christian networks to Century Strategies' various clients, for sums that Abramoff described as "chump change."

Scanlon outlined Reed's pivotal role in an October 2001 memo to the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, explaining how the Christian right's abhorrence of gambling could be harnessed to protect the Coushatta's casino business. For $575,000, Scanlon promised to engineer floods of letters and phone calls from Christian conservatives to political representatives, protesting the operations of the Coushatta's competition. He also promised to have Christian leaders condemn rival operations in radio ads and in letters to key political figures. "Simply put we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them," Scanlon wrote. "The wackos get their information from the Christian right, Christian radio, the internet and telephone trees." In another memo to the Coushatta, Scanlon noted that the quality of Reed's databases and connections would create a "political effort that truly resembles a people's movement" without the telltale marks of a "paid political operation."


I wonder how the "wackos" will feel about suddenly-incredibly-devout McCain using Reed's databases and connections. Christians already have doubts about McCain. When the McCain camp defends Reed, Obama surrogates should remind everybody how he plainly he exploited people's faith for votes and money and ask why McCain thinks that's just fine.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, August 11, 2008

POWER HOUSE

Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:

John McCain's celebrity ad was effective. It wasn't uncontroversial and it didn't please all the political scientists, but it sure got noticed, and it made Barack Obama overreact. Questions about Obama's desire for celebrity status will linger. He now has to be very careful about intersecting with Hollywood, pop culture and entertainment. Lee Atwater said the worst thing you can do in American politics is play to your negative stereotype. Well, Obama's negative stereotype now includes the idea that he may be a little too glitzy. (Speaking of negative stereotypes, when Obama was talking about the pictures of presidents on dollar bills, was he introducing the presumptuous notion that his face belongs on American currency? I wonder whom he thinks he should replace.)


At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."

In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.



Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.



The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.

And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:



That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.

POWER HOUSE.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Digby has written about Surry Hill. Probably because I was too busy remodeling my bedroom after discovering that Ed Rogers has the exact same furniture.

LATE UPDATE: I eagerly await the swift arm of justice:

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 01, 2008

Southern Strategy 2008

Cross-posted at Daily Kos (just cuz I felt like it)

Mike Barnicle on MSNBC is dumbfounded today. He didn't see any of the racial subtext in the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. Why, he asks, would John McCain want to woo crazy racist voters who would vote for him anyway? He should look in the mirror for his answer.

Let's just get one thing out there that anybody should be able to understand: There is no way -- none -- that the McCain campaign did not know that some people in America would see the racial/sexual subtext in that ad.

It doesn't matter if the ad "really" is racist. If, like Mike Barnicle, you didn't see the racism that I did, no, that doesn't make you an idiot.

However, if you think the McCain campaign was surprised that some people did see racism in an ad in which a handsome black candidate was coupled with a pair of young blondes who are famous for not wearing underwear, then, yes, you are an idiot.

These people get paid millions of dollars for their expertise in putting these ads together. They run everything by a series of focus groups. They have been exploiting racial divisions for decades. It's no secret: Former Republican Chairman Ken Melhman even apologized to the NAACP for it three years ago.

There is absolutely no way the McCain campaign put these ads on the air without expecting some people -- maybe not Mike Barnicle -- to gasp and point out the racial subtext. No way on earth they didn't know this would be the reaction from a good slice of the left. They knew it and they wanted it.

But why, Mike Barnicle asks? They already have the racist vote locked up! True, Mike, but there are millions of independent voters who, like you, didn't get the subliminal message. Millions of voters who might have liked Obama because he's not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. John McCain wants these voters, independent white voters who don't hate black people, but hate when black people "play the race card."

John McCain, the honorable John McCain, couldn't possibly have known people would think these ads were racist. right? As concerned as the McCain campaign is that they'll be branded as racists, they had no idea that anybody would get the wrong idea from those images. Nobody could have predicted...

Of course they knew. They wanted the reaction and they got it, along with the media's obtuse confusion. Now, to a host of independent voters, Obama is just another Jackson or Sharpton.

UPDATE Josh Marshall flags this must-read article in New York Magazine, which makes my point precisely.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Media de novo

When a case is appealed, it could be tried de novo, basically (but not exactly) meaning that it can be tried all over again as if for the first time.

Isn't it wonderful that we have media de novo -- campaign coverage that treats every election (if not every day of the campaign) as if there is simply no connection to the past.

It was an open secret for a long time that the GOP employed the "Southern Strategy" in order to win by exploiting racial divisions in America. But it's not even that anymore. Ken Mehlman, former RNC Chairman, went before the NAACP in 2005 and explicitly conceded that was the strategy and even admitted that it was wrong (read: immoral) for them to have done it.

But here we are in 2008 and it's a fresh start! A couple promiscuous blondes paired up with Obama in a McCain ad and how dare the Obama campaign play the race card? Everybody knows blond girls who don't wear underwear are the only way to make the point that Obama lacks experience.

On MSNBC today, they've made the point that the Harold Ford ad with the "call me" girl (and don't forget about the radio ad with jungle drums) was explicitly sexual and this McCain ad isn't.

In our media de novo, that's a fantastic point. But for anybody with a memory that goes back two years, it's nonsense. They no longer have to be explicitly sexual.

Digby nailed it yesterday with this Lee Atwater (awful) admission:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."


Our media stars are so obtuse, they couldn't even conclude that the Bob Corker ads were out of line. Of course these McCain ads are beyond their capabilities. But it doesn't help that they're willing to completely ignore history.

By the way, it's not even ancient history they're ignoring.










How dare Obama inject race into the campaign!

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

McUlysses

Cross-posted at Jesus' General

One of the most interesting things about a great poem is the fact that a reader's understanding of it depends largely on his or her own self-awareness, combined with an understanding of the world in general.

It is largely through experience, for example, that one begins to understand that Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night is not a pep talk or fight song. It takes real loss in real life to read that poem and, rather than feeling inspired to rage, instead hear the defeat in Thomas' voice as he begs fruitlessly for his father to live another day.

A reader might be similarly inspired by Tennyson's Ulysses. After all, it is the screed of a triumphant hero, conjuring up the courage to continue shaping the world despite the fact that his time has nearly passed.

However a closer reading tells us something much different. We might just wonder to whom Ulysses is speaking? Himself? Some poor servant who brings him his soup and has to hear this rant every evening?

Ulysses hates his home, is no longer interested in his wife and holds the people he rules in disdain:

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.


If he is not surrounded by people who love him, then he must be alone. Those are "both" scenarios in his mind:

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy'd
Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;


He recounts his adventures and makes sure to point out that he, himself, was the most important ingredient in every chapter:

For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour'd of them all;


In the second part of the poem, he talks about his son, yet another important person in his life for whom he feels astonishingly little:

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,--
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.


Well-loved of me? Blameless? He works his work, I mine?

In short, here is a man with little connection to the present. He's something of an ego-maniac who feels trapped in an old body and wants nothing more than to relive his glory days fighting the last war. He has little interest in actually governing, which he essentially equates with a delicate act of taming animals. Ulysses knows his days are numbered, but he refuses to let go. He sees in the ships one last opportunity to go out with divine glory:

Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.


He rallies the troops he no longer commands:

Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.


And he understands that there's a pretty good chance that, this time, he'll command a sinking ship, but he doesn't care.

It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.


Though he's completely self-absorbed and living in former glory, Ulysses does know how to lead. What fantastic language at the end! The kind of language speechwriters mimic and borrow all the time.

Which brings me to the point of this post. At the Wellstone's Donkey Democratic Club in Second Life tonight, the General will be playing Ted Kennedy's speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention. Anyone who was listening then will remember that speech. It was one of the greatest in political history.

Kennedy understood that his campaign was over, but even more, that his presidential ambitions were over. It was in this context that Kennedy chose to end his speech with Tennyson's words:

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met
To [Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."


For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.


Kennedy was to continue fighting, though the time for his greatest personal ambitions to be realized had passed. His campaign was finished, but there was time, yet, for "the cause," for "hope," for "the dream" to live on.

In recent days, we have heard Tennyson borrowed once more: John McCain's first general election ad.

Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Stand up. We're Americans. And we'll never surrender.


This is how McCain begins his first commercial. Think about that for a moment. Kennedy recognized in these words the value in persisting even at the end of a campaign. McCain is launching his general election campaign with the furious call to action of a man whose time has passed.

This is a candidate who is as quick to drop names ("foot soldier in Reagan's army") as Ulysses ("see the great Achilles, whom we knew"), despite the fact that neither should need to reaffirm to anyone their worth through past relationships.

This is a candidate who sees a "transcendental battle of our time" in the same inflated way Ulysses seeks to strive with Gods.

This is an man would be the oldest president, still fighting the battles of the last generation and refusing to "surrender."

This is a candidate relatively uninterested ("The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should") in "the sphere of common duties" and focused primarily on the terrific and glorious battles across the sea.

This is a man who left his first wife upon returning from battle and is now "matched with an aged wife" who learned, the hard way, not to mention his thinning hair ("At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t.")

This is a presidential hopeful who doesn't care if the "gulfs will wash us down." He's ready to double-down on the war in the Gulf, despite the last six years' carnage.

McCain truly is Ulysses.

This election (I assume Obama will be the nominee) will be a stark contrast between the past and the future. No speech in recent memory invokes the theme of change and progress more than JFK's inaugural.

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.


Just last week (as Hillary Clinton was associating herself with a dark episode in the Kennedy family history), Obama was speaking to Cuban-Americans and reminded us that it is time, once again, for a new chapter in America:

[I]t is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There must be careful preparation.


You can learn a great deal about a candidate by looking at the language he or she uses or borrows. You can learn quite a bit about who they think they are and who they want to be by surmising what they think the words they use really mean. I think it's clear why Ted Kennedy wants Obama to be the next president.

I also think it's clear why McCain would be a disaster.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Great moments in CNN election coverage

Earlier today, CNN's Don Lemon cut to live coverage of Barack Obama giving a campaign speech. Why? Because he was talking about Reverend Wright (emphasis mine).

LEMON: Back now to Greensboro, North Carolina. Barack Obama taking questions now, talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ... to our daily lives. And people's struggles with illness and families and finances and all of things that people normally talk about.

My pastor did say -- my former pastor said some very objectionable things when I wasn't in church on those particular days. And I have condemned those outright.

I do have to remind people though that this is somebody who was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and got boiled down in the -- they found five or six of his most offensive statements, boiled that down into a half an hour sound clip -- or a half-minute sound clip, and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to the racial divisions that we have in this country and had tapped into some of those divisions. I hope people don't get distracted by that.

(APPLAUSE)

Because, as I said in my speech -- as I said in my speech last week on Tuesday, we can't afford to be distracted.

You and I, we are both Christians. We come from different backgrounds. We come from different faiths. And there are misunderstandings on both sides. But we are both Christians, and even if you are not a Christian, we are both Americans. And we cannot solve the problems of America if every time somebody somewhere says something stupid, that everybody gets up in arms and we forget about the war in Iraq or we forget about the economy.

(APPLAUSE)

Or we forget about the things that are going to make a difference in our children's lives. I don't want that kind of politics. I want a politics that gets stuff done.

All right? OK.


Next, Obama took another question, this one about health care for America's seniors. Let's see how CNN covered that:

The young lady right here who was angry with me that I didn't call on her.

Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good afternoon, and welcome to Greensboro. Certainly hope you had a great vacation.

OBAMA: Thank you. Well, can I say this? Two and a half days is not a vacation. Two and a half days is a long weekend.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

OBAMA: Which is what I had. And it was wonderful. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. I'm B.J. Heathington (ph), and my question is, you have and all of the various candidates have continued to speak on health care, but one of the issues that we fail to forget is that the elderly care and persons with disabilities needs a special connection in this country that we are continuing forget.

Do you at this present time have a plan where you look to focus for the government to change some of these issues so that these persons can be recognized with dignity, as good servants to the community, and as taxpayers?

OBAMA: Well, let me talk about seniors. You know, the issue of elder care and seniors generally.

It starts with making sure that Social Security is here. That it was here yesterday, that it's here today, and it's here tomorrow. So, making sure that Social Security is stable is absolutely critical. There was a report recently that came out showing that Medicare will run out of money effectively...

LEMON: OK.
Barack Obama in Greensboro, North Carolina, right now talking about Medicare and healthcare in the United States. But he has mentioned something that has dogged him for the last couple of weeks, and that is what he referred to -- and he made sure he referred to him as his "former pastor" -- the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago, saying that he did three sermons a week for 30 years, and essentially what the media did was take five or six, or the most offensive statements, and boil them down to like a half- minute, 30-second clips. And he said, "I hope you don't get distracted by that," talking to the people there.

And also, someone asking him, "I hope you enjoyed your vacation." He was in the Virgin Islands, of course. CNN got exclusive pictures of Barack Obama on his vacation.

Do we have that? In the Virgin Islands, and so he referred to that. And he said two or three days is not a vacation.

So there you go, Barack Obama speaking there. But also, the reason we wanted to get you that is because he is talking about that controversy, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.


"'I hope you don't get distracted by that,' talking to the people there."

Obviously not to CNN. They openly admit that they only care about this flap and they have zero interest in covering issues like health care.

Helps explain this:

Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Iowa postscript

DB's brilliant predictions were spot-on:

I will be disappointed with one party's selections and horrified by the other's. Then, I will stop thinking about Iowa.

I'm disappointed that Dodd had such a poor showing (not that I ever thought he'd come away with a significant total). But .02 percent is ugly. The AP story about his withdrawal from the race actually contains more information about him than all the previous stories about the race combined.

Even his (threatened) filibuster of the FISA bill that thwarted Harry Reid's skulduggery for the time being barely netted Dodd any press at all. The system is simply too rigged for a person like Dodd to get the kind of momentum required to make a strong showing in a presidential race. That's a shame, but one I accepted a long time ago.

Obama's win tonight -- and the Democratic turnout -- was impressive. So was his victory speech. I don't have much to add to it that hasn't been said on TV or on other blogs.

On the other side of the coin, Mike Huckabee is a terrible candidate with the right attributes to get support from a certain segment of the nation, one that might be large enough to send him to Washington.

Huckabee is grossly unqualified to be president. There's no denying it. Voting for him because of his religion or his demeanor is inexcusable. Haven't the last seven years taught the Republicans anything?

Besides, Huckabee invented the What Would Jesus Do Loophole: ("Jesus was too smart to [BE IN MY CURRENT SITUATION].")

Memo to GOP voters: You will never, ever have a beer with the next president.

And having someone like this in the White House is just too much for me to fathom:

Five days after the tornado tore through the state, [Arkadelphia, Ark., a] city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.

In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as "acts of God."

In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region's loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state's legislature, the General Assembly.

Frightening.

Finally, the television media is as brutally bad as ever. The irony of all these jokers talking about how badly America seems to want change. Howard Fineman said that America wants "a whole new cast."

Yes, and that includes all of you. You don't have front-row seats; you are all part of the same sad show. Today's coverage, with a few exceptions, was agonizing and it didn't even matter what channel my TV was tuned in to. They were all equally bad.

While I'm on the topic... A special "For the love of God, Please Stop!" goes out to Anderson Cooper and CNN for the computer-generated pie chart floating over a hand-held panel and skewing and scaling with every movement, blocking out everybody else's heads.

It made me pine for the halcyon days when Soledad O'Brien shared her time with this guy.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 26, 2007

To talk or not to talk

DB has been tied up this week, so apologies for the light blogging. I'm also a little late getting into this topic, but here's some scattered thoughts about the dust-up between Clinton and Obama over their answers to a YouTube debate question.

Here's the brief synopsis: The candidates were asked if they would, in their first year in office, speak with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Obama came right out and said yes. Clinton said she would increase the diplomatic efforts, but she wouldn't promise to meet them in her first year, not wanting to be used for propaganda purposes. Since then, Clinton has called Obama naive. Obama has responded by saying that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was naive.

Time will tell who comes out on top. The media, naturally, jumped on the experience vs. judgment angle. I think there are other elements to this disagreement that make it interesting.

International diplomacy is more than simply one president calling another or rolling out the red carpet at the ranch. Obviously, that's important, but diplomacy is a multi-dimensional endeavor and the Bush Administration has been ineffective not just because the doors at Kennebunkport or Crawford weren't wide open, but because the doors at the State Department were essentially closed. It goes without saying that the nation's top diplomat has been more successful at shoe shopping and raising awareness of golf as a sport than she has been at bringing countries together to solve major international problems. The answer to our failed diplomatic record needs to be more than simple cosmetics.

On the other hand, who cannot recognize the absurdity of Bush's notion that it's somehow a form of punishment to be told you can't meet (or get a back rub from) him?

This debate is giving me some flashbacks to 2004 because it's not much different than when John Kerry said he could "fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." Dick Cheney responded by mocking Kerry for wanting to show al-Qaeda our "soft side." Obviously that wasn't the point Kerry was making, but in the general election, Cheney's bottom-feeding quip was effective enough.

Clinton's answer was clearly more thoughtful. Obama's was more appealing emotionally. Will the Democratic primary voters choose thoughtfulness over emotion? It doesn't look like it.

Then there is the post-debate debate. I'll just say that I think Obama's response (that it was naive to vote for this war) was a pretty good stinger, at least as far as the primary goes.

The point I think will be lost in all this is the idea that a president should do the right thing for the right reasons. The GOP came into power believing that everything President Clinton did was, by default, wrong. If Clinton did it this way, we'll do it that way. Just ask New Orleans how that worked out. Bush's policies are catastrophically bad across the board and the damage he has done will require extensive repair. But the decisions the next president makes have to be more than just opportunities to repudiate George W. Bush.

If the next president is going to speak to another world leader, it has to be because America is ready to talk at that level, not just because a talk is overdue (though it most certainly is). If it takes two or three years of strong diplomatic efforts to get to the point where a talk between top leadership can be productive, that's how it ought to be done. However, if the president feels that a meeting in January 2009 will send the right statement to the world, then that's a justifiable reason to do it, too.

But we cannot allow the next administration to exist solely to prove it's not the Cheney administration. The best way to do that is to be thoughtful and to do what's best for America.

In case you think that sounds too much like Lieberman, keep in mind that I'm not saying it to stop anybody from disagreeing with me. Or to keep America in some sort of insane biblical conflict.

Labels: , ,