Well, it’s Sunday evening, and there’s not a whole lot going on today. People are still absorbing the Palin announcement and waiting for the Republican Convention to start tomorrow. So, with that in mind, let’s listen to some music.
Kasai Allstars are a supergroup from Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I first became exposed to them on the Crammed Discs release, Congotronics 2. Congotronics is a series of albums that Crammed has been releasing over the last few years. The first was an album from another band in Kinshasa, Konono N°1. This week, Crammed releases the third album in the series and the first by Kasai Allstars, called In the 7th Moon, The Chief Turned Into a Swimming Fish and Ate the Head of His Enemy by Magic.
Kasai Allstars are quite different from Konono N°1. Konono N°1 have a buzzing, distorted, propulsive sound based on electrified thumb pianos called likembes. Their sound, while based on traditional melodies and forms is very close to post rock and other avant garde kinds of indie rock. Kasai Allstars have a more traditional sound, using electrified traditional instruments like the likembes Konono N°1 use, but they use a wider array of instruments, including electric guitars and traditional acoustic instruments and percussion. They have a complicated, polyrhythmic sound that’s less aggressive and more open than Konono N°1’s.
Kasai Allstars is made up of members of different musical groups from around the Kasai region, as well as from five different tribal groups, each with a different language and musical tradition. The fusion of these different styles has helped to produce a really fascinating mix of music, complexly rhythmic and melodic.
The new album is a vibrant example of an exciting music scene in a troubled part of the world. Both Kasai Allstars and Konono N°1 are worth checking out if you find the airless, suffocating feeling of most “world music” boring. I saw Konono N°1 a few years ago when they toured the US and I definitely found the bleeding edge where chin stroking hipsters met dancing hippies, but it was still a great show. Take a few minutes this Sunday and check it out. I promise it’ll be more fun than reading more about Sarah Palin.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Even Creepier Than I Thought
According to Politico, John McCain is calling Sarah Palin his “soul mate.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the kind of terminology you use for a lover or a wife?
John McCain, in his first television interview since his shocking vice presidential pick, said that he saw in Sarah Palin "a partner and a soul mate."Last time I checked, McCain and Palin were both married (to other people), with quite a few kids between them. Perhaps McCain is working on compounding the surprise of the Palin pick by ditching Cindy McCain, marrying Palin and making it the first husband-wife presidential ticket. That would certainly catch a few headlines.
Taking Cover
Looks like Bush and Cheney are going to skip the Republican National Convention next week because of Hurricane Gustav. Presumably, they want to avoid a repeat of the visuals that we’re all familiar with from Hurricane Katrina. I guess an old dog can learn some new tricks.
McCain and Palin, meanwhile, are touring the gulf coast in the run up to both the RNC and the landfall of a hurricane. The response to Katrina was so poor it has Republicans scrambling to be seen as taking it seriously. That being said, it’s pretty distasteful for a candidate to spend their time doing photo ops and politicking while a region braces for a hurricane.
McCain and Palin, meanwhile, are touring the gulf coast in the run up to both the RNC and the landfall of a hurricane. The response to Katrina was so poor it has Republicans scrambling to be seen as taking it seriously. That being said, it’s pretty distasteful for a candidate to spend their time doing photo ops and politicking while a region braces for a hurricane.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Questions Asked, Questions Answered
Ross Douthat, my second favorite conservative Atlantic Media blogger, sums up the presidential race so far:
I would add, too, that there's a lot more to running a successful administration than having a President with decades of foreign policy experience. You wouldn't know it from listening to John McCain of late, admittedly, but that's because foreign policy experience is his trump card against Barack Obama, so he's playing it as often as he can. But an effective administration needs to be able to communicate and charm and finesse its way through difficulties, to appease its base and reach out to the middle, to talk fluently about kitchen-table issues and appear in touch with the hopes and fears of the average voter. This is not, to put it mildly, the sort of politics and governance that John McCain excels at. And consider, for a moment, the political landscape that he wakes up to every morning. He's running for the Presidency at a time when the Republican brand is in the toilet, with a party that seems unable to excite its hard-core supporters or woo swing voters, and a leadership - McCain included - that gets the heebie-jeebies when called upon to discuss any topic save terrorism, 9/11 and the Surge. Even if by some Jeremiah Wright-aided miracle he edges out Barack Obama, he'll limp into the White House as a John Major-in-the-making - an aging politician who won an election that belonged by rights to the other party, facing Democratic majorities in both houses, a media that will be primed to treat Senators Obama and Clinton as the default co-Presidents for the next four years, and a conservative base that's just waiting for an opportunity to turn on him. Does this sound like a recipe for a successful Presidency?Nope, Ross, I can’t say that it does.
TPBP Week in Review
Another week, another smashed record in posts by Aaron and myself (this will be the 40th I believe), and another DNC convention have all come and gone here on TPBP. Traffic and comments were very strong, and I even somehow finagled a job in politics. A banner week all around I say.
But, you're not interested in these silly empirical measures are you? I know what you all want...on to the reader awards.
Comment of the Week: This first award goes to reader "Marna R" in for her comment in last week's Week in Review post. Were there longer and slightly more insightful comments? Perhaps, but we've all got to keep a reasonable perspective and I think that the glory and reverence of TPBP has got to supersede all else.
Commenter of the Week: 'pw' again. Most comments. Best comments. Case closed.
A big thanks for making Aaron and I a part of your routines. In the coming week, please check back for our analysis of all things political (and some things not).
Post Script: Dome, you're a shell of a man. You're half dead to me. Pay your $1 homage to TPBP and make your world right.
But, you're not interested in these silly empirical measures are you? I know what you all want...on to the reader awards.
Comment of the Week: This first award goes to reader "Marna R" in for her comment in last week's Week in Review post. Were there longer and slightly more insightful comments? Perhaps, but we've all got to keep a reasonable perspective and I think that the glory and reverence of TPBP has got to supersede all else.
Commenter of the Week: 'pw' again. Most comments. Best comments. Case closed.
A big thanks for making Aaron and I a part of your routines. In the coming week, please check back for our analysis of all things political (and some things not).
Post Script: Dome, you're a shell of a man. You're half dead to me. Pay your $1 homage to TPBP and make your world right.
Housekeeping
As some of you know (and many of you don't), after quite a lot of effort and rejection, I finally got a job on Capitol Hill. It's very low level and the work won't be glamorous, but it's a start and a chance, and that's all I needed.
As happy as I am, an unfortunate reality of my new position is that my relationship with The Pseudo Body Politic will have to dramatically change. Specifically, to continue to editorialize on political issues, and directly administrative this blog will be incompatible with working as a Congressional staffer.
So, I'd like to announce that, beginning Tuesday, I will be handing all administrative duties for TPBP over to the capable hands of my co-blogger Aaron. More importantly, I will end my commentary over all domestic and even most international political issues (damn it all, I was starting to enjoy those running diaries).
Fear not, as I plan on remaining an active contributor to this blog. Things like "The Extinct Blog of the Day" will continue, as will me complaining endlessly about the DC public library system. With Aaron's permission, I will also continue to do the "Week in Review" and hand out of the commenter awards. As many of the topics I previously commented on will no longer be available, I've got a couple of tricks up my sleeve and will be unveiling several other regular segments into the works here at TPBP in the next week. I'm also in discussions with one or two other capable individuals to make weekly or bi-weekly posts so that the insightful analysis that has always been the focus of TPBP will continue, and Aaron doesn't drown in the responsibility of carrying the full editorial load.
When I started TPBP six weeks, 145 posts, and 55,000 words ago I could never have predicted the degree to which I'd come to enjoy the small but vibrant community that was created. I wanted something that would take up time while I pursued the first step of my occupational dream. Little did I know that it would sharpen my editorial and writing skills, and give me an excuse to make myself even more interested and knowledgeable about politics and current events. Though it's difficult to be sure, I think the creation and maintenance of this blog were at least a small part of the reason I got the aforementioned job, which is press related.
This is starting to read too much like a farewell address, which is stupid since I'm not going anywhere, but I'd by lying if I said I wasn't sad about not being able to engage in the analysis and ensuing discussions that I've found so personally rewarding on a daily basis. Thanks again to everyone for reading, writing, and commenting. I have and continue to appreciate it more than you know.
As happy as I am, an unfortunate reality of my new position is that my relationship with The Pseudo Body Politic will have to dramatically change. Specifically, to continue to editorialize on political issues, and directly administrative this blog will be incompatible with working as a Congressional staffer.
So, I'd like to announce that, beginning Tuesday, I will be handing all administrative duties for TPBP over to the capable hands of my co-blogger Aaron. More importantly, I will end my commentary over all domestic and even most international political issues (damn it all, I was starting to enjoy those running diaries).
Fear not, as I plan on remaining an active contributor to this blog. Things like "The Extinct Blog of the Day" will continue, as will me complaining endlessly about the DC public library system. With Aaron's permission, I will also continue to do the "Week in Review" and hand out of the commenter awards. As many of the topics I previously commented on will no longer be available, I've got a couple of tricks up my sleeve and will be unveiling several other regular segments into the works here at TPBP in the next week. I'm also in discussions with one or two other capable individuals to make weekly or bi-weekly posts so that the insightful analysis that has always been the focus of TPBP will continue, and Aaron doesn't drown in the responsibility of carrying the full editorial load.
When I started TPBP six weeks, 145 posts, and 55,000 words ago I could never have predicted the degree to which I'd come to enjoy the small but vibrant community that was created. I wanted something that would take up time while I pursued the first step of my occupational dream. Little did I know that it would sharpen my editorial and writing skills, and give me an excuse to make myself even more interested and knowledgeable about politics and current events. Though it's difficult to be sure, I think the creation and maintenance of this blog were at least a small part of the reason I got the aforementioned job, which is press related.
This is starting to read too much like a farewell address, which is stupid since I'm not going anywhere, but I'd by lying if I said I wasn't sad about not being able to engage in the analysis and ensuing discussions that I've found so personally rewarding on a daily basis. Thanks again to everyone for reading, writing, and commenting. I have and continue to appreciate it more than you know.
McCain's Judgment
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin is “bold.” “Bold,” as opposed to, say, “wise” or “competent.” I haven’t quite wrapped my head around it, even now that I’ve had almost a day to think about it. However, like Andrew Sullivan, I find the pick pretty cynical. The only consideration McCain seems to have settled on is keeping the evangelicals happy. Palin is an evangelical Christian, a mother of five and extremely pro-life. She’s also accused of using her powers as governor of Alaska to get her former brother-in-law fired. Palin only looks clean compared to Alaska’s uniquely corrupt political culture.
That last bit is what has me really baffled. By all accounts, McCain has barely met Palin. If I were Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, I would be pissed. McCain went over his head and picked someone with an arguably thinner resume and a brewing corruption scandal because he’s trying to game disaffected Hillary supporters. In the end, that's the only thing that makes this pick make any sense at all: McCain cynically trying to manipulate identity politics. “Here’s your chance to vote for a woman.”
The New York Times has an analysis of the pick. In part, they say: “The selection of Ms. Palin offered clues to how Mr. McCain would govern: holding deliberations to a tight circle of advisers, looking beyond the obvious options, taking risks and relishing surprise.”
That, more than anything, should give us all pause. These are exactly the traits that have given us eight years of the Bush Administration. Secrecy, keeping a tight, very limited group of like-minded people, and preferring to go for flash and surprises before considering good government and sensible choices. It’s lunacy to think that Sarah Palin is ready to be president. She may have more “executive” experience, but she gives every indication of never having given a moment’s thought to the issues that are confronting the United States.and not just Alaska.
That last bit is what has me really baffled. By all accounts, McCain has barely met Palin. If I were Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, I would be pissed. McCain went over his head and picked someone with an arguably thinner resume and a brewing corruption scandal because he’s trying to game disaffected Hillary supporters. In the end, that's the only thing that makes this pick make any sense at all: McCain cynically trying to manipulate identity politics. “Here’s your chance to vote for a woman.”
The New York Times has an analysis of the pick. In part, they say: “The selection of Ms. Palin offered clues to how Mr. McCain would govern: holding deliberations to a tight circle of advisers, looking beyond the obvious options, taking risks and relishing surprise.”
That, more than anything, should give us all pause. These are exactly the traits that have given us eight years of the Bush Administration. Secrecy, keeping a tight, very limited group of like-minded people, and preferring to go for flash and surprises before considering good government and sensible choices. It’s lunacy to think that Sarah Palin is ready to be president. She may have more “executive” experience, but she gives every indication of never having given a moment’s thought to the issues that are confronting the United States.and not just Alaska.
Friday, August 29, 2008
R & R
I'll be taking the rest of the day off, as I'm blogged out from all the convention posts. May all your Friday afternoons be relaxing and enjoyable. Fear not, I'll be back tomorrow for the weekly recap among other things.
My Favorite Coincidence of All Time
I swear to you that Aaron and I in no way coordinated the titles or content of our respective Palin reaction posts. Very funny.
Huh.
Palin. Interesting. Like Andrew Sullivan says, this kinda undercuts McCain’s “inexperienced” argument. My feeling is that this is an attempt to win over disaffected Hillary supporters. It is certainly an unusual choice – I’m surprised (and saddened) that he didn’t pick Romney or Lieberman. On the whole, I think this is a smart choice on McCain’s part, although I don’t know how it’ll play for his base. My assumption was that he was going to throw the hardcore conservatives some red meat. This is a much stranger choice.
Huh?
Sarah who? I hate posts like this because I feel like a hopeless Democratic hack, but seriously? My first reaction was to bring up her wikipedia page. I knew she was the first term governor of Alaska, but nothing else. Before that she was apparently the mayor of a town with a population of 5,000. Before that, she was a councilwoman in that same city. Before that she was first runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest. I guess she's also involved in a moderately sized abuse of power scandal back in Alaska.
Huh? Sarah Palin? Everyone seems to believe this is an overt attempt to get Clinton Democrats on board, but I simply don't understand how that's going to happen. Clinton's whole appeal was predicated upon the image of her being a tough, established, experienced (and fairly hawkish) figure. Almost no one in the United States has heard of Sarah Palin. She won the Alaska governorship by pulling in 114,000 votes, the most she's ever received. This seems like an overt attempt to co-opt Obama's change message. He's paid lip-service to the idea before, but (smartly) had predicated his whole campaign on fear and mistruths meant to emphasize Obama's "otherness". This pick really muddles that message for me, and makes him answer a bunch of questions he should be avoiding.
I'm kind of dumbfounded. Other reactions?
Huh? Sarah Palin? Everyone seems to believe this is an overt attempt to get Clinton Democrats on board, but I simply don't understand how that's going to happen. Clinton's whole appeal was predicated upon the image of her being a tough, established, experienced (and fairly hawkish) figure. Almost no one in the United States has heard of Sarah Palin. She won the Alaska governorship by pulling in 114,000 votes, the most she's ever received. This seems like an overt attempt to co-opt Obama's change message. He's paid lip-service to the idea before, but (smartly) had predicated his whole campaign on fear and mistruths meant to emphasize Obama's "otherness". This pick really muddles that message for me, and makes him answer a bunch of questions he should be avoiding.
I'm kind of dumbfounded. Other reactions?
Obama's Speech
It would be fair to say that I’m hopelessly in the tank for Barack Obama. I honestly don’t think that there’s another choice to be made – John McCain would be a disaster for the United States and for the world. So, it most likely won’t come as a surprise to hear that I thought Obama gave a great speech last night. Reading the blogs this morning, it seems like it pretty much broke on party lines – progressives loved it, and conservatives hated it. I guess that makes sense. As much as the media likes to pretend that bi-partisanship is the default, desirable status that we seek, there are real, fundamental differences between the two outlooks. Last night, Barack Obama laid out the progressive vision of governance – and did it masterfully.
Obama had some impossible expectations to fill, and it is impossible that he could fulfill them all. The AP claims that Obama didn’t lay out his policy vision. I’m not sure which speech they watched last night, but it certainly wasn’t the one I watched. Not only did Obama lay out specifics of what he’d do as president, but if there were ever any question about what he’d do, you could simply go to his website, where you can find specific, detailed descriptions of the policy changes that Obama is calling for.
If you want to keep on presenting both sides of the political debate as if they were both equally worthy, it makes sense to continue to air conservatives complaints. There are real, honest differences, and in case after case, the conservative vision is simply wrong. The media is afraid of being called biased, and so those real differences get elided. You don’t want to step on delicate conservative toes by implying that they’re simply wrong on so many issues.
Obama had some kind words for McCain last night, too. Certainly, he was unsparing on why McCain is wrong, but he never implied that McCain is a bad person. This is a courtesy that will certainly not be extended to Obama next week. A lot of progressives find this to be a worrisome choice – they think it shows weakness. I disagree. It’s the only way Obama can go. The media is largely an ignorant creature. It’s very reactive. It is possible that it will miss the difference in tone between the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign – but I don’t think it’s likely. The tone between the two is going to be too stark, too apparent for people to simply pass it off as the way the game is usually played.
Obama had some impossible expectations to fill, and it is impossible that he could fulfill them all. The AP claims that Obama didn’t lay out his policy vision. I’m not sure which speech they watched last night, but it certainly wasn’t the one I watched. Not only did Obama lay out specifics of what he’d do as president, but if there were ever any question about what he’d do, you could simply go to his website, where you can find specific, detailed descriptions of the policy changes that Obama is calling for.
If you want to keep on presenting both sides of the political debate as if they were both equally worthy, it makes sense to continue to air conservatives complaints. There are real, honest differences, and in case after case, the conservative vision is simply wrong. The media is afraid of being called biased, and so those real differences get elided. You don’t want to step on delicate conservative toes by implying that they’re simply wrong on so many issues.
Obama had some kind words for McCain last night, too. Certainly, he was unsparing on why McCain is wrong, but he never implied that McCain is a bad person. This is a courtesy that will certainly not be extended to Obama next week. A lot of progressives find this to be a worrisome choice – they think it shows weakness. I disagree. It’s the only way Obama can go. The media is largely an ignorant creature. It’s very reactive. It is possible that it will miss the difference in tone between the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign – but I don’t think it’s likely. The tone between the two is going to be too stark, too apparent for people to simply pass it off as the way the game is usually played.
Running Diary: The Culmination
Pre-speech thoughts:
Thanks Keith Olberman for reading literally several hundred words of the speech before he gives it. Why can’t you just wait? I guess you can talk about themes if you want, but why read whole passages? And, if you’re the Obama campaign why in the hell should you hand it out? I find this stupid. Nobody’s going anywhere. There aren’t people all over America who were going to go to bed until Keith Olberman decided to be the biggest spoiler of all time.
That said, I’m excited. I realized today that my expectations were impossibly high and have tried to rein them in a bit. I still believe he needs something special though.
Andrea Mitchell is really a struggle. She seems especially confused tonight.
Olberman’s just losing it in general. He just said, “For those people who say Obama hasn’t defined change, there are 1,000 words devoted to that in this speech. Those people will be hit over the head by a 1,000 word document. And, it will hurt!” he tells us. Indeed. For reference, this diary – sorry document – will probably be slightly over 1,000 words. 1,000 words are about two single-spaced typed pages. Watch out.
Obama Video: Who’s doing that voiceover? Shit, who is that? Sam Waterston? I should know this. Oh, right, the video…it’s great. No, really, it’s great. This is the best one, better than Kennedy’s even, and that one started out on third base.
10:12: Out he comes to some pretty cool music. They just showed a full stadium camera shot. Impressive.
10:14: The crowd is showing little sign of quieting down. He’s said, “thank you” about 50 times.
10:15: Finally, we’re under way…ep…he just “accepted” the nomination. Off the crowd goes again.
10:15: More Clinton homage? Will we ever be done with this? Seriously, they lost. People are either on board or they’re not, one more mention’s irrelevant.
10:18: Starting off with the economy. “America, we are better than these last 8 years.” Good line.
10:21: “We are more compassionate…than a government that sits on it hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes” That’s what I’m talking about.
10:23: “I don’t know about you but I’m not ready to take a 10% chance on change.” HA!
10:24: I love the emphasis of, “A nation of whiners.” I didn’t expect him to be this forceful. Not by a long shot. He’s such an effective speaker when he really believes what he’s saying.
10:25: I don’t believe Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of American’s, I just think he doesn’t know.” I couldn’t be any happier with how this is going so far.
10:28: After a long biography section where he talks about his hardships growing up and his mom dying from cancer while arguing with insurance companies “I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks celebrities lead, but this has been mine.” What a line. I’m speechless.
10:40: I’ve just been listening. He’s going into his stump policy items. They sound good, just like they always have.
10:44: Sorry, but I’m not sure why Obama seems unhappy that Iraq has a budget surplus. That’s never made any sense to me. Would he rather they were in debt?
10:47: This is getting a little long.
10:48: Excellent bit about patriotism not being the exclusive realm of one (read: Republican) party. Glad somebody finally went there. Only took 8 years.
10:50: He mentioned the gays! Good for him. He’d been quiet for too long. I’m tired of Democrats invoking the rights and support of the LGBT community for 5 months every four years and then dismissing them during the general election and actual presidential and congressional administrations.
10:53: I’ve always loved the, “it’s not about me, it’s about you” line. Brings me back to that Iowa speech I linked to yesterday. I’ve always felt it was very empowering.
10:56: Invoking MLK. I’d forgotten to be honest.
10:58: Last line, “And in the words of scripture, hold firmly, without wavering to the hope that we confess.”
Post-speech thoughts:
I’m very tempted to simply link to the speech and leave it at that. He is the most inspiring political figure in my lifetime, which I’ve said many times before. It’s impossible for McCain to approach the oratory ability that Obama has. It may make me a demagogue, or at least a hopeless partisan, but I simply do not understand how you could compare these two men and go away finding McCain the more capable leader.
This speech accomplished the impossible for me. He successfully traversed two roads that I didn’t think intersected. He managed to hit back against McCain (forcefully and effectively), while giving us the lofty and inspiring rhetoric he’s so gifted at. It was the best speech of the convention. It was filled with effective attacks, and profound and zinging one-liners.
I came to Washington, to work in politics and government, for a multitude of reasons. And one of them, and not a small one, was the chance to be doing that during an Obama administration – during an administration that might work towards the ends that I care about. I thought that if I worked hard and got lucky enough, I could have a tiny hand in what would happen. After dozens of rejections, and more than one night spent laying in bed, wondering if I should have even come here at all, I got a job today. So, I’ll get my chance, which is all I can ask for.
I’m reminded of the horrible film that was Braveheart, where the Earl of Bruce and his leper dad are fighting about why the Earl was so willing to help William Wallace, and the Earl tearfully says, “Because I want to believe.”
I want to believe, and so do a lot of people I know, and millions of others that I don’t. There are many others who would call me a hippy, or a dupe. As anyone that has ever met me can attest, I’m neither. We all need to learn that hope and pragmatism, hope and realism, hope and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. The last 8 years of crusading, fear-mongering, anti-intellectualism cannot have been the answer, and in 70 days we get to decide if it will continue to be.
I don’t know where I’m going with any of this, but it’s late, and so I’ll leave it on the same note Obama did. Although there were better lines in the speech, lines sure to be more frequently repeated tomorrow, despite being an agnostic I can’t stop coming back to the last one: “Hold firmly, without wavering to the hope that we confess.”
Rating: 5 LSs of 5
Thanks Keith Olberman for reading literally several hundred words of the speech before he gives it. Why can’t you just wait? I guess you can talk about themes if you want, but why read whole passages? And, if you’re the Obama campaign why in the hell should you hand it out? I find this stupid. Nobody’s going anywhere. There aren’t people all over America who were going to go to bed until Keith Olberman decided to be the biggest spoiler of all time.
That said, I’m excited. I realized today that my expectations were impossibly high and have tried to rein them in a bit. I still believe he needs something special though.
Andrea Mitchell is really a struggle. She seems especially confused tonight.
Olberman’s just losing it in general. He just said, “For those people who say Obama hasn’t defined change, there are 1,000 words devoted to that in this speech. Those people will be hit over the head by a 1,000 word document. And, it will hurt!” he tells us. Indeed. For reference, this diary – sorry document – will probably be slightly over 1,000 words. 1,000 words are about two single-spaced typed pages. Watch out.
Obama Video: Who’s doing that voiceover? Shit, who is that? Sam Waterston? I should know this. Oh, right, the video…it’s great. No, really, it’s great. This is the best one, better than Kennedy’s even, and that one started out on third base.
10:12: Out he comes to some pretty cool music. They just showed a full stadium camera shot. Impressive.
10:14: The crowd is showing little sign of quieting down. He’s said, “thank you” about 50 times.
10:15: Finally, we’re under way…ep…he just “accepted” the nomination. Off the crowd goes again.
10:15: More Clinton homage? Will we ever be done with this? Seriously, they lost. People are either on board or they’re not, one more mention’s irrelevant.
10:18: Starting off with the economy. “America, we are better than these last 8 years.” Good line.
10:21: “We are more compassionate…than a government that sits on it hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes” That’s what I’m talking about.
10:23: “I don’t know about you but I’m not ready to take a 10% chance on change.” HA!
10:24: I love the emphasis of, “A nation of whiners.” I didn’t expect him to be this forceful. Not by a long shot. He’s such an effective speaker when he really believes what he’s saying.
10:25: I don’t believe Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of American’s, I just think he doesn’t know.” I couldn’t be any happier with how this is going so far.
10:28: After a long biography section where he talks about his hardships growing up and his mom dying from cancer while arguing with insurance companies “I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks celebrities lead, but this has been mine.” What a line. I’m speechless.
10:40: I’ve just been listening. He’s going into his stump policy items. They sound good, just like they always have.
10:44: Sorry, but I’m not sure why Obama seems unhappy that Iraq has a budget surplus. That’s never made any sense to me. Would he rather they were in debt?
10:47: This is getting a little long.
10:48: Excellent bit about patriotism not being the exclusive realm of one (read: Republican) party. Glad somebody finally went there. Only took 8 years.
10:50: He mentioned the gays! Good for him. He’d been quiet for too long. I’m tired of Democrats invoking the rights and support of the LGBT community for 5 months every four years and then dismissing them during the general election and actual presidential and congressional administrations.
10:53: I’ve always loved the, “it’s not about me, it’s about you” line. Brings me back to that Iowa speech I linked to yesterday. I’ve always felt it was very empowering.
10:56: Invoking MLK. I’d forgotten to be honest.
10:58: Last line, “And in the words of scripture, hold firmly, without wavering to the hope that we confess.”
Post-speech thoughts:
I’m very tempted to simply link to the speech and leave it at that. He is the most inspiring political figure in my lifetime, which I’ve said many times before. It’s impossible for McCain to approach the oratory ability that Obama has. It may make me a demagogue, or at least a hopeless partisan, but I simply do not understand how you could compare these two men and go away finding McCain the more capable leader.
This speech accomplished the impossible for me. He successfully traversed two roads that I didn’t think intersected. He managed to hit back against McCain (forcefully and effectively), while giving us the lofty and inspiring rhetoric he’s so gifted at. It was the best speech of the convention. It was filled with effective attacks, and profound and zinging one-liners.
I came to Washington, to work in politics and government, for a multitude of reasons. And one of them, and not a small one, was the chance to be doing that during an Obama administration – during an administration that might work towards the ends that I care about. I thought that if I worked hard and got lucky enough, I could have a tiny hand in what would happen. After dozens of rejections, and more than one night spent laying in bed, wondering if I should have even come here at all, I got a job today. So, I’ll get my chance, which is all I can ask for.
I’m reminded of the horrible film that was Braveheart, where the Earl of Bruce and his leper dad are fighting about why the Earl was so willing to help William Wallace, and the Earl tearfully says, “Because I want to believe.”
I want to believe, and so do a lot of people I know, and millions of others that I don’t. There are many others who would call me a hippy, or a dupe. As anyone that has ever met me can attest, I’m neither. We all need to learn that hope and pragmatism, hope and realism, hope and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. The last 8 years of crusading, fear-mongering, anti-intellectualism cannot have been the answer, and in 70 days we get to decide if it will continue to be.
I don’t know where I’m going with any of this, but it’s late, and so I’ll leave it on the same note Obama did. Although there were better lines in the speech, lines sure to be more frequently repeated tomorrow, despite being an agnostic I can’t stop coming back to the last one: “Hold firmly, without wavering to the hope that we confess.”
Rating: 5 LSs of 5
Thursday, August 28, 2008
China Grove
Michael McDonald? From the Doobie Brothers? Com'n up next, America, with their hit "Horse With No Name"!
Treadmill
Due to overwhelming popular demand and positive reactions by TPBP readers from all over the world to my spate of running diaries, the trend will continue tonight with Obama's speech at Mile High Stadium. I'll post it first thing in the morning, as I still don't have the interweb at the Pseudo Mansion.
Extinct Blog of the Day
Today's bankrupt blog chronicled the fall of the Enron company, and was apparently "sponsored" by the people that brought you "The Smartest Guys in the Room". Sounds pretty sweet. Anybody out there want to sponsor TPBP? We come cheap, believe me.
Quote of the Day
"May I just observe that while Barack Obama relies on having well-written speeches to make his oratorical performances impressive, Bill Clinton is just relying on pure skills of awesomeness to make texts that are pretty disjointed on the page seem incredibly compelling." -- Matt Yglesias over at Think Progress
Au Contraire
John Cole has the exact opposite take on the state of the race as I do. For me, the crux of all of this is media framing and portrayal, and I just haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that they'll be anything other than sheep to the Republican Party's shepherd.
Uncle Joe Running Diary
I just couldn't get enough during Bill's speech, so I rolled the running diary dice with Amtrak Joe (link to speech is here). Enjoy:
Biden’s video: Apparently, he’s a great father and grandfather. Very salt of the earth. It was ok I guess. Came off as more contrived than Michelle, Kennedy, or Hillary’s videos in my opinion.
10:32: Off we go.
10:33: He loves his family.
10:33: A shade more than he loves the Clintons (but just a shade). Is it necessary to pay this much homage to the Clintons?
10:36: He seems nervous, which I find surprising.
10:37: He loves his mom. Apparently, he’s very, very normal. I’m poking a bit of fun, but the bit about his mom’s advice was pretty touching. It helped that she kept smiling and leaning over to the person next to her and mouthing, “that’s true”. He’s definitely settling in a bit.
10:40: Talking about the pain of Americans is solid. He’s tying this “we get it and John McCain doesn’t” bit together nicely as it relates to the economy.
10:44: Pan to Bill Clinton who looked legitimately interested.
10:45: Crowd’s clapping for John McCain’s “heroism”. “He’s my friend.” “Our friendship transcends politics.” Sigh.
10:46: There are a bunch of McCain policy descriptions, followed by “That’s not change, that’s more of the same.” This bit is ok. They’re clearly putting all their eggs in the “3rd Bush term” basket. Hope they realize that meme requires media help that’s not coming.
10:50: “We’ll hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we will help Georgia rebuild!” Don’t know how much more I’ll be able to write. I can’t really hear because of all the blood coming out of my ears.
10:52: In fairness, the rest of this foreign policy section is solid and direct. He’s explicitly questioning John McCain’s judgment, which is a step in the right direction.
10:55: Closing sentence, “God bless America, and may God bless our troops.” Might sound a tiny bit contrived if not for his son being a soldier…but he is, and it didn’t.
Thoughts: A step in the right direction to be sure. I’m tempted to say it could have been even more pointed, but it’s been enough naysaying from me for one evening. It’s tough to comment a lot because I thought it so utterly fit expectations (which were fairly high) without exceeding them. Obama needs to blow me away tomorrow. It feels like a long, long time since Iowa (the most moving 15 minutes of rhetoric I’ve ever heard live – watch it if you’ve never seen it).
Rating: 3.75 LSs of 5
Until tomorrow…
Biden’s video: Apparently, he’s a great father and grandfather. Very salt of the earth. It was ok I guess. Came off as more contrived than Michelle, Kennedy, or Hillary’s videos in my opinion.
10:32: Off we go.
10:33: He loves his family.
10:33: A shade more than he loves the Clintons (but just a shade). Is it necessary to pay this much homage to the Clintons?
10:36: He seems nervous, which I find surprising.
10:37: He loves his mom. Apparently, he’s very, very normal. I’m poking a bit of fun, but the bit about his mom’s advice was pretty touching. It helped that she kept smiling and leaning over to the person next to her and mouthing, “that’s true”. He’s definitely settling in a bit.
10:40: Talking about the pain of Americans is solid. He’s tying this “we get it and John McCain doesn’t” bit together nicely as it relates to the economy.
10:44: Pan to Bill Clinton who looked legitimately interested.
10:45: Crowd’s clapping for John McCain’s “heroism”. “He’s my friend.” “Our friendship transcends politics.” Sigh.
10:46: There are a bunch of McCain policy descriptions, followed by “That’s not change, that’s more of the same.” This bit is ok. They’re clearly putting all their eggs in the “3rd Bush term” basket. Hope they realize that meme requires media help that’s not coming.
10:50: “We’ll hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we will help Georgia rebuild!” Don’t know how much more I’ll be able to write. I can’t really hear because of all the blood coming out of my ears.
10:52: In fairness, the rest of this foreign policy section is solid and direct. He’s explicitly questioning John McCain’s judgment, which is a step in the right direction.
10:55: Closing sentence, “God bless America, and may God bless our troops.” Might sound a tiny bit contrived if not for his son being a soldier…but he is, and it didn’t.
Thoughts: A step in the right direction to be sure. I’m tempted to say it could have been even more pointed, but it’s been enough naysaying from me for one evening. It’s tough to comment a lot because I thought it so utterly fit expectations (which were fairly high) without exceeding them. Obama needs to blow me away tomorrow. It feels like a long, long time since Iowa (the most moving 15 minutes of rhetoric I’ve ever heard live – watch it if you’ve never seen it).
Rating: 3.75 LSs of 5
Until tomorrow…
Slick Willy Running Diary: The Treatment
Pre-speech note:
Richard Wolfe of Newsweek (who I’ve always thought was a smart, good journalist) just said that Obama’a people only saw Bill’s speech an hour before he gave it, and that Bill didn’t employ any speechwriters at all. They also said it would be “way over” the 10 minutes he was allotted. Ok then. Here was go. I’m legitimately curious about what he’s going to say.
9:03: Bill enters to “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”.
9:04: The crowd’s going pretty nuts for Bill.
9:05: 1st sentence. “We have important work to do here tonight.” YES YES YES! That’s exactly what somebody needs to say.
9:10: I love his two points of emphasis, domestic policy and foreign affairs.
9:11: “Clearly the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore American leadership around the world”. Exactly. Now tell me why John McCain can’t do it.
9:12: Close…he’s talking about why Obama can. Not enough though. Not enough. He’s got to stake his entire experience and judgment on McCain’s lack of ability to do the job. Maybe not the ex-presidential thing to do, but damn it, this is no joke.
9:14: Ok, Obama’s great. I get it. I want to be scared of McCain. Scare me.
9:17: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” Great rhetoric. It’s probably not going to get Obama any votes or anything, but…hey, it’s a helluva line.
9:18: Now he’s starting to hammer at the “Republicans”. It sounds great. He hasn’t said McCain’s name once. Sorry, but that’s a problem.
9:20: His first mention is that he’s a “good man”. “He loves his country every bit as much as we do. As a senator, he has shown his independence of right wing orthodoxy on many important issues.” Seriously? Again, this is the first time he’s mentioned his name.
9:21: He takes a swipe at him after that, but not a big one.
9:24: Too analytical. I want him to tell me to take his word for it.
9:24: “In this case, the third time is not the charm.” Ha.
9:26: And, we’re done. 23 minutes. If they did intend it for 10, it was pretty long.
Immediate thoughts: He’s a great rhetorician, and this is another great example of that, but I have reservations. Maybe this convention was all about getting HRC’s voters back on board, and hopefully it achieved that…however, and I’m sorry to belabor this point, but is anybody EVER going to really rip into McCain? Sadly, the answer must now be no. I’m sure Biden will, but one man doesn’t make a message. Obama’s going to go lofty tomorrow, he’s in a stadium for god’s sake, and confrontational rhetoric isn’t his forte.
The Democrats had to say (over and over again) that your kids aren’t safe with McCain’s hands on the wheel, steering for Russia – that your daughters and mothers and their doctors aren’t safe from imprisonment – that every member of the LGBT community isn’t safe from discrimination. That people (even Americans) aren’t safe from torture.
They didn’t. Their only real goal here was to bridge the gap with Clinton’s supporters. They did that by concentrating on why Obama is great and qualified, and not by making McCain an utterly unacceptable alternative.
Republicans won’t bother with this. They won’t spend all their time telling the Christian Right that McCain’s devoutly religious. They’ll portray Obama as a Muslim foreigner. They won’t go to the Twin Cities trying to get the Rush Limbaughs of the world on board by talking about how John McCain will send all Mexican immigrants in freight cars across the Rio Grande. They’ll tell you that Obama will give California back to Mexico and take your jobs – creating a huge monolithic government that collects 90 cents on the dollar from your paycheck in taxes.
And next week, when they repeatedly shout all these lies, the Obama camp, and people like me will call them lying bastards, and they will be. But, if we’d spent the same amount of time calling him a dangerous, frightening, liar to begin with, those transparent falsehoods would feed into the narrative that had already been created. I haven’t seen one, single, person on stage really questioning John McCain’s truthfulness. I haven’t heard one, single person explicitly say that his foreign policy vision is dangerous and destabilizing. And I’m telling you, that’s a mistake.
For the first time ever, I see a real path to victory for McCain, and it’s a sinking, frightening feeling. Obama had better have some real magic up his sleeves tomorrow.
Rating: 3 LSs of 5
Richard Wolfe of Newsweek (who I’ve always thought was a smart, good journalist) just said that Obama’a people only saw Bill’s speech an hour before he gave it, and that Bill didn’t employ any speechwriters at all. They also said it would be “way over” the 10 minutes he was allotted. Ok then. Here was go. I’m legitimately curious about what he’s going to say.
9:03: Bill enters to “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”.
9:04: The crowd’s going pretty nuts for Bill.
9:05: 1st sentence. “We have important work to do here tonight.” YES YES YES! That’s exactly what somebody needs to say.
9:10: I love his two points of emphasis, domestic policy and foreign affairs.
9:11: “Clearly the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore American leadership around the world”. Exactly. Now tell me why John McCain can’t do it.
9:12: Close…he’s talking about why Obama can. Not enough though. Not enough. He’s got to stake his entire experience and judgment on McCain’s lack of ability to do the job. Maybe not the ex-presidential thing to do, but damn it, this is no joke.
9:14: Ok, Obama’s great. I get it. I want to be scared of McCain. Scare me.
9:17: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” Great rhetoric. It’s probably not going to get Obama any votes or anything, but…hey, it’s a helluva line.
9:18: Now he’s starting to hammer at the “Republicans”. It sounds great. He hasn’t said McCain’s name once. Sorry, but that’s a problem.
9:20: His first mention is that he’s a “good man”. “He loves his country every bit as much as we do. As a senator, he has shown his independence of right wing orthodoxy on many important issues.” Seriously? Again, this is the first time he’s mentioned his name.
9:21: He takes a swipe at him after that, but not a big one.
9:24: Too analytical. I want him to tell me to take his word for it.
9:24: “In this case, the third time is not the charm.” Ha.
9:26: And, we’re done. 23 minutes. If they did intend it for 10, it was pretty long.
Immediate thoughts: He’s a great rhetorician, and this is another great example of that, but I have reservations. Maybe this convention was all about getting HRC’s voters back on board, and hopefully it achieved that…however, and I’m sorry to belabor this point, but is anybody EVER going to really rip into McCain? Sadly, the answer must now be no. I’m sure Biden will, but one man doesn’t make a message. Obama’s going to go lofty tomorrow, he’s in a stadium for god’s sake, and confrontational rhetoric isn’t his forte.
The Democrats had to say (over and over again) that your kids aren’t safe with McCain’s hands on the wheel, steering for Russia – that your daughters and mothers and their doctors aren’t safe from imprisonment – that every member of the LGBT community isn’t safe from discrimination. That people (even Americans) aren’t safe from torture.
They didn’t. Their only real goal here was to bridge the gap with Clinton’s supporters. They did that by concentrating on why Obama is great and qualified, and not by making McCain an utterly unacceptable alternative.
Republicans won’t bother with this. They won’t spend all their time telling the Christian Right that McCain’s devoutly religious. They’ll portray Obama as a Muslim foreigner. They won’t go to the Twin Cities trying to get the Rush Limbaughs of the world on board by talking about how John McCain will send all Mexican immigrants in freight cars across the Rio Grande. They’ll tell you that Obama will give California back to Mexico and take your jobs – creating a huge monolithic government that collects 90 cents on the dollar from your paycheck in taxes.
And next week, when they repeatedly shout all these lies, the Obama camp, and people like me will call them lying bastards, and they will be. But, if we’d spent the same amount of time calling him a dangerous, frightening, liar to begin with, those transparent falsehoods would feed into the narrative that had already been created. I haven’t seen one, single, person on stage really questioning John McCain’s truthfulness. I haven’t heard one, single person explicitly say that his foreign policy vision is dangerous and destabilizing. And I’m telling you, that’s a mistake.
For the first time ever, I see a real path to victory for McCain, and it’s a sinking, frightening feeling. Obama had better have some real magic up his sleeves tomorrow.
Rating: 3 LSs of 5
Streaming the DNC
If, like me, you are unable to watch the DNC on television, there is a streaming version of it available on their website. It’s actually a pretty great feed – high resolution and quick, much better than the youtube links I’ve been watching so far. I wish I had discovered it earlier. As it stands, I found it via Andrew Sullivan. It sounds like I’m not missing out on the color commentary. One complaint: it doesn’t work with my preferred browser, Opera. C’mon, DNC! Get your act together. Opera is the way to go.
This is More Like It
Bill Clinton was very comfortable up on stage again. He gave as full throated an endorsement of Barack Obama as anyone could have hoped for. This should finally put all the questions of unity and the pathetic PUMA people to bed. My favorite moment was definitely the “power of our example instead of the example of our power” line. It summed up a pretty stark difference between our foreign policy under Bush and what we hope it will be once again under Barack Obama.
A lot of people seemed to feel Biden’s speech was something of a stumble. I thought there were a couple of verbal mistakes, but beyond that, I though it was actually a pretty strong speech. He didn’t take it to McCain quite the way people wanted to, but I think he made a very good argument for why he is on the ticket. If there are people out there who view Obama as being strange and scary, who can’t quite wrap their heads around him, I can see Joe Biden being a reassuring presence, and I think this speech laid out why. Biden has a very compelling back story. Visually and emotionally, I hope he’ll be able to pull in any wavering Reagan Democrats.
Kerry’s speech was absolutely a barn burner. It was short and it was very much on target. For all the nervous Democrats watching the convention and asking, “When are they going to go after McCain?” here you go. I especially enjoyed the contrast between Senator McCain and Candidate McCain. The difference is stark, and it’s one the Democrats need to keep laying out. McCain really has completely handed his reputation over to the hardcore of the Republican Party. How much longer can McCain’s reputation survive the realty of McCain’s actions? Speeches like Kerry’s last night will hopefully help the media to make the connection.
Tonight and all through the convention so far speakers have gone out of their way to mention their admiration for John McCain. While they’re noting the changes his public persona has undergone in his pursuit of the Republican nomination, both John Kerry and Joe Biden made specific mention of their longstanding friendship with John McCain. I think this is exactly the note they need to hit. The public perception of McCain as Maverick is too strong to simply dismiss. The Obama campaign needs to deal with it straight on: Sure, John McCain used to stand for change in the face of Republican orthodoxy (this isn’t strictly true, but leave that aside). But to get the nomination, he has gone against all the things he used to stand for. Kerry laid this out really well last night.
This line of attack accomplishes a couple of things. First off, the public needs to have the contrast between the two McCains made abundantly clear. You can’t ask for a better image than McCain voting against his own immigration bill. Secondly, because of the media’s deference to McCain, it’s going to be tough to go after him straight out. McCain almost always gets the benefit of the doubt. When he misspeaks on something as fundamental as the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, it’s not because he simply doesn’t know the difference, but a temporary stumble.
Finally, and I think this could be important, or it could rebound on the Democrats. I’m honestly not sure which it will be. But one thing that I like a lot about how Obama has run his campaign is the contrast. While constantly emphasizing and acknowledging McCain’s service to the country, Obama has kept up his critique. McCain has done great service, but that was a different McCain. All the while, of course, McCain has stooped to some pretty ugly campaign tactics. It isn’t enough for him to say he thinks Obama is wrong – Obama has to be almost treasonous in his wrongness. I have no doubt that the Republican Nation Convention is going to be a pretty shocking display of ugliness and jingoism. It’s pretty much the only thing they’ve got left. But, and this is the gamble the Obama team is taking, eventually the media is going to have to notice the difference in tone. And once that becomes the narrative, ugly, angry McCain biting at the heels of the straightforward, hopeful and optimistic Obama, it’s going to be very hard for McCain to keep those independent voters.
A lot of people seemed to feel Biden’s speech was something of a stumble. I thought there were a couple of verbal mistakes, but beyond that, I though it was actually a pretty strong speech. He didn’t take it to McCain quite the way people wanted to, but I think he made a very good argument for why he is on the ticket. If there are people out there who view Obama as being strange and scary, who can’t quite wrap their heads around him, I can see Joe Biden being a reassuring presence, and I think this speech laid out why. Biden has a very compelling back story. Visually and emotionally, I hope he’ll be able to pull in any wavering Reagan Democrats.
Kerry’s speech was absolutely a barn burner. It was short and it was very much on target. For all the nervous Democrats watching the convention and asking, “When are they going to go after McCain?” here you go. I especially enjoyed the contrast between Senator McCain and Candidate McCain. The difference is stark, and it’s one the Democrats need to keep laying out. McCain really has completely handed his reputation over to the hardcore of the Republican Party. How much longer can McCain’s reputation survive the realty of McCain’s actions? Speeches like Kerry’s last night will hopefully help the media to make the connection.
Tonight and all through the convention so far speakers have gone out of their way to mention their admiration for John McCain. While they’re noting the changes his public persona has undergone in his pursuit of the Republican nomination, both John Kerry and Joe Biden made specific mention of their longstanding friendship with John McCain. I think this is exactly the note they need to hit. The public perception of McCain as Maverick is too strong to simply dismiss. The Obama campaign needs to deal with it straight on: Sure, John McCain used to stand for change in the face of Republican orthodoxy (this isn’t strictly true, but leave that aside). But to get the nomination, he has gone against all the things he used to stand for. Kerry laid this out really well last night.
This line of attack accomplishes a couple of things. First off, the public needs to have the contrast between the two McCains made abundantly clear. You can’t ask for a better image than McCain voting against his own immigration bill. Secondly, because of the media’s deference to McCain, it’s going to be tough to go after him straight out. McCain almost always gets the benefit of the doubt. When he misspeaks on something as fundamental as the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, it’s not because he simply doesn’t know the difference, but a temporary stumble.
Finally, and I think this could be important, or it could rebound on the Democrats. I’m honestly not sure which it will be. But one thing that I like a lot about how Obama has run his campaign is the contrast. While constantly emphasizing and acknowledging McCain’s service to the country, Obama has kept up his critique. McCain has done great service, but that was a different McCain. All the while, of course, McCain has stooped to some pretty ugly campaign tactics. It isn’t enough for him to say he thinks Obama is wrong – Obama has to be almost treasonous in his wrongness. I have no doubt that the Republican Nation Convention is going to be a pretty shocking display of ugliness and jingoism. It’s pretty much the only thing they’ve got left. But, and this is the gamble the Obama team is taking, eventually the media is going to have to notice the difference in tone. And once that becomes the narrative, ugly, angry McCain biting at the heels of the straightforward, hopeful and optimistic Obama, it’s going to be very hard for McCain to keep those independent voters.
Heath, Ohio's Favorite Son
My former congressman, Bob Ney, is out of prison and accusing the Bush Administration of taking “bloodsport to a new level.” Ney, of course, was sent to prison for 30 months for accepting bribes while a congressman. Makes you feel good to be an Ohioan. Some things that I didn’t know about Bob: he speaks Farsi (that was a pretty big shock) and, while he was in congress, would start drinking at 7:30 in the morning (this was less of a surprise).
But why, you ask, does Bob Ney think that the Bush Administration had it out for him?
Ney, by his own admission, is a drunk and a felon. He just got out of seventeen months in prison. It certainly isn’t hard to believe that Cheney didn’t want to see a normalization of relations with Iran. It definitely isn’t hard to imagine the Bush Administration mismanaging our foreign policy because it didn’t fit in with their preconceived notions of how the world works. That being said, Bob Ney was a drunken congressman taking bribes – we don’t really need any outside excuses to explain why he was taken down.
Still, it’s always nice to see what people from your hometown are up to.
But why, you ask, does Bob Ney think that the Bush Administration had it out for him?
[Ney]: But at the end of the day, you know, I brought a lot of things on myself. . . And I did some things that were wrong. But I also believe that part of this was fueled in the sense of the Iran issue. It's been no secret that when I went to prison I gave permission for a secret meeting I'd had with Mr. Guldimann [Tim Guldimann, then Swiss Ambassador in Tehran] who came from Switzerland. He presented a document that was absolutely incredible, where Iran would have recognized Israel and a whole host of other things, would have let our inspectors on their ground; and I sent that to the White House.
I'll stand by that today; the White House denies it, but Colin Powell's former assistant admits that that came over to the State Department and the White House wanted no part of it. And I believe that every step of the way, and I think it came more from Cheney's people, but every step of the way that I attempted to deal with Iran, it got pretty harsh back. And so I think part of this, I made the bullets, I gave them the bullets, but I think some of the force was also involved with, you know, Iran and people that would rather see those countries not communicate, no matter who is head of Iran.
Ney, by his own admission, is a drunk and a felon. He just got out of seventeen months in prison. It certainly isn’t hard to believe that Cheney didn’t want to see a normalization of relations with Iran. It definitely isn’t hard to imagine the Bush Administration mismanaging our foreign policy because it didn’t fit in with their preconceived notions of how the world works. That being said, Bob Ney was a drunken congressman taking bribes – we don’t really need any outside excuses to explain why he was taken down.
Still, it’s always nice to see what people from your hometown are up to.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Slick Willy Running Diary
I'll be doing a running diary of Bill's speech tonight. I'm as interested in its contents and tone as any other speech during the convention, with the possible exception of Obama's in the stadium tomorrow night.
In my estimation much rests on both of them, because as contrived as they might be, conventions matter, and from my observation post the first half of this one has been lackluster.
I'll do my unleveled best to get the running diary and tonight's recap up as quickly as possible.
In my estimation much rests on both of them, because as contrived as they might be, conventions matter, and from my observation post the first half of this one has been lackluster.
I'll do my unleveled best to get the running diary and tonight's recap up as quickly as possible.
Ted Stevens Keeps On Truckin'
This is just full of win. Ted Stevens has won his primary battle against six (!) Republican challengers. Looks like we’ll have Ted Stevens to kick around for just a little bit more. He’s 84 years old, under indictment for allegedly concealing $250,000 in gifts from an oil services company and he’s insane. Even if Stevens isn’t convicted and manages to beat the Democratic challenger, Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, he’ll be ninety years old at the end of his next term. It really is striking the extent to which earmarks help incumbents stay in power. Since joining the senate in 1970, Stevens has never won by less than 59% of the vote.
The Democrats Are Still Pro-Choice...Right?
Why won't any Democrat mention abortion except to say that everyone thinks it's not an ideal outcome, and talk about the new, pointless, "abortion reduction" plank in the platform?
This is just another classic example of the political axiom of the last 15 years: It's the Republican's field, and the Democrats are lucky they get to play on it. Why let them frame this debate?
This is how to frame the debate: You know what John McCain wants to do? He wants to imprison women who get abortions, and\or doctors who perform them. Do you know anyone who's had an abortion? I bet you do. He wants to charge them with a crime. Think that's a good idea? You think prohibition against abortion is going to work? How'd it work with alcohol? How's the War on Drugs going? What in the whole wide world makes you think that this will work any better and be any more enforceable? Remember: He's GOING to throw women and their doctors IN PRISON. Is that what you want? This should be repeated at every conceivable opportunity, all the time, by everyone in the Democratic Party.
Watching Democrats be weak on this position fucking infuriates me. It would be one thing if this were an electorally untenable proposition, but every poll I've ever seen on the issue puts the support for overturning Roe v Wade at around 40%. I'm pissed off even thinking about it.
This is just another classic example of the political axiom of the last 15 years: It's the Republican's field, and the Democrats are lucky they get to play on it. Why let them frame this debate?
This is how to frame the debate: You know what John McCain wants to do? He wants to imprison women who get abortions, and\or doctors who perform them. Do you know anyone who's had an abortion? I bet you do. He wants to charge them with a crime. Think that's a good idea? You think prohibition against abortion is going to work? How'd it work with alcohol? How's the War on Drugs going? What in the whole wide world makes you think that this will work any better and be any more enforceable? Remember: He's GOING to throw women and their doctors IN PRISON. Is that what you want? This should be repeated at every conceivable opportunity, all the time, by everyone in the Democratic Party.
Watching Democrats be weak on this position fucking infuriates me. It would be one thing if this were an electorally untenable proposition, but every poll I've ever seen on the issue puts the support for overturning Roe v Wade at around 40%. I'm pissed off even thinking about it.
DNC Recap: Day 2
I know tonight's speeches are just hours away, so I'll try to keep this belated recap brief. I obviously didn't catch all of the speeches, but I'll briefly report on the ones I did. Also, thank you for the scoring suggestions. I thought all of them were solid, but I'm going to go ahead and go with "lucid spells" in honor of John McCain.
Barbara Boxer: Whew. Just be glad I couldn't find a link to the actual speech. At least it was short. Looking at my notes from last night all I have written is, "Cliche, cliche, cliche." and "Yawn." That pretty much sums it up.
Rating: 0.5 LSs of 5
Ed Rendell:
I thought Ed was really strong. He's got this way of earnestly throwing shit in your face while having a big smile on his that just works. His attacks on McCain's lack of an energy policy were effective. Favorite line: "The only thing that will be recycled are the tired old policies of George Bush". Second Favorite line: "The only thing green about McCain's policy is the $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies."
Rating: 4 LSs of 5
Mark Warner:
Sure hope you win that Virginia senate seat Mark! If he puts that same level of dedication into getting Obama elected, well...maybe the Democratic chances of turning Virginia really aren't that good. I'm being overly critical. It was a decent speech with some nuance, but what's all this hucky-dory, reaching across party lines, post-partisan crap? This is electoral politics my friend, and as Rachell Maddow said, that might be ok for governing, but not an election.
Hillary Clinton:
I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with Aaron, and quite a few commentators and say I thought her speech was weak overall. My notes for the speech were as follows:
-"me me me" (is that absolutely necessary?)
-better turn this around right now
-they shouldn't have let her on
-now it's "we we we"
-does she realize she lost?
-"twin cities" bit was funny
-"were you in it for me or.." is really great
-meh
I know what you're thinking. It's surprising I didn't make a career out of academia with that notetaking ability huh?
Anyway...The beginning -- not just the very beginning, but the entire first 1/3 to 1/2 was all about her. There were so many more mentions of "me" than "him" or "Barack". I understand that a lot of people are still interested in her, but there was way too much of this. The unequivocal bulk of this speech should have been focused on two things. The first is telling every one of her supporters that they have to vote for Obama. I'm talking mother of guilt trips here. If you vote for McCain you're spitting in my face and in everything I believe in. If you vote for McCain you're literally showing that you don't care about women and women's issues.
The only bit like this was with the, "were you in it for me or for that mom with cancer" etc. part, which was fantastic. The speech should have been filled with stuff like that. The other thing she should have done was absolutely eviscerate John McCain. She should have directly addressed her role in his television spots, and portrayed him as a crazy old man. She should have talked about how his recent sabre rattling on the Georgia/Russia conflict revoked her commander-in-cheif "threshold" comment. Again, she did very little of this.
I know this is beyond cliched, and I hate putting people I've never met on the metaphorical couch, but I'm not buying it. I'm not totally convinced she wants Obama to win. I think she sees a 2012 Clinton inauguration as assured in the incident of a McCain victory -- and I don't think that's a miscalculation on her part. I think that feeling of entitlement has turned into resentment. It's not that simple of course, and I think any intelligent, ambitious, adult in her situation would have conflicted feelings, but I simply can't shake the feeling that she's not on board.
Rating: 2.5 LSs of 5
Barbara Boxer: Whew. Just be glad I couldn't find a link to the actual speech. At least it was short. Looking at my notes from last night all I have written is, "Cliche, cliche, cliche." and "Yawn." That pretty much sums it up.
Rating: 0.5 LSs of 5
Ed Rendell:
I thought Ed was really strong. He's got this way of earnestly throwing shit in your face while having a big smile on his that just works. His attacks on McCain's lack of an energy policy were effective. Favorite line: "The only thing that will be recycled are the tired old policies of George Bush". Second Favorite line: "The only thing green about McCain's policy is the $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies."
Rating: 4 LSs of 5
Mark Warner:
Sure hope you win that Virginia senate seat Mark! If he puts that same level of dedication into getting Obama elected, well...maybe the Democratic chances of turning Virginia really aren't that good. I'm being overly critical. It was a decent speech with some nuance, but what's all this hucky-dory, reaching across party lines, post-partisan crap? This is electoral politics my friend, and as Rachell Maddow said, that might be ok for governing, but not an election.
Hillary Clinton:
I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with Aaron, and quite a few commentators and say I thought her speech was weak overall. My notes for the speech were as follows:
-"me me me" (is that absolutely necessary?)
-better turn this around right now
-they shouldn't have let her on
-now it's "we we we"
-does she realize she lost?
-"twin cities" bit was funny
-"were you in it for me or.." is really great
-meh
I know what you're thinking. It's surprising I didn't make a career out of academia with that notetaking ability huh?
Anyway...The beginning -- not just the very beginning, but the entire first 1/3 to 1/2 was all about her. There were so many more mentions of "me" than "him" or "Barack". I understand that a lot of people are still interested in her, but there was way too much of this. The unequivocal bulk of this speech should have been focused on two things. The first is telling every one of her supporters that they have to vote for Obama. I'm talking mother of guilt trips here. If you vote for McCain you're spitting in my face and in everything I believe in. If you vote for McCain you're literally showing that you don't care about women and women's issues.
The only bit like this was with the, "were you in it for me or for that mom with cancer" etc. part, which was fantastic. The speech should have been filled with stuff like that. The other thing she should have done was absolutely eviscerate John McCain. She should have directly addressed her role in his television spots, and portrayed him as a crazy old man. She should have talked about how his recent sabre rattling on the Georgia/Russia conflict revoked her commander-in-cheif "threshold" comment. Again, she did very little of this.
I know this is beyond cliched, and I hate putting people I've never met on the metaphorical couch, but I'm not buying it. I'm not totally convinced she wants Obama to win. I think she sees a 2012 Clinton inauguration as assured in the incident of a McCain victory -- and I don't think that's a miscalculation on her part. I think that feeling of entitlement has turned into resentment. It's not that simple of course, and I think any intelligent, ambitious, adult in her situation would have conflicted feelings, but I simply can't shake the feeling that she's not on board.
Rating: 2.5 LSs of 5
Apologies Etc.
My apologies for not posting over the last 24 hours (my inbox is filled with emails from the masses, begging for more witty and insightful political analysis). I've had some serious problems at the Pseudo Mansion with the interweb, and now the library has seen fit to block all blogspot addresses. I asked about it, but their "tech guy" was gone today. There really is no limit to the black abyss of death that is the DC public library main branch. Speaking of which, I got an email from a reader who happens to be a librarian, and they said that the DC public system is infamous all over the country for being a cesspool. Can't say I'm shocked.
So, I now find myself in Caribou coffee, getting wired, and well...getting wired. The saddest aspect of these interweb shenanigans is that there were a ton of posts I had wanted to do. I'm putting my nose to the grindstone the next couple of hours, trying to crank out as many as I can (quantity not quality I say), so keep checking back.
So, I now find myself in Caribou coffee, getting wired, and well...getting wired. The saddest aspect of these interweb shenanigans is that there were a ton of posts I had wanted to do. I'm putting my nose to the grindstone the next couple of hours, trying to crank out as many as I can (quantity not quality I say), so keep checking back.
Clinton's Speech
Hillary Clinton’s speech last night was very impressive. She hit all the notes she had to: linking Bush and McCain (I liked the Twin Cities line), saying unequivocally that Obama was the nominee and it was more important to make sure that a Democrat was in the White House next year, not McCain, and that Democrat was going to be Barack Obama.
The nonsense about PUMA and the Clinton dead-enders has largely been pushed along by the media: the idea of a party being pulled apart by a contest as long as the Democratic primary is a compelling narrative. Funny, then, that they aren’t mentioning the real issues that are currently dividing the Republican Party. The religious fundamentalists are not comfortable with McCain, and his courtship of them has been among the more distasteful things in an extremely distasteful campaign (Georgia was one of the first countries to convert to Christianity? What does that matter?). The two front runners for McCain’s vice presidential pick, Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman, are obviously divisive choices for the Republicans. Their coalition is falling apart around their ears, but all the media can talk about is how Obama hasn’t courted Clinton supporters enough? Hopefully this speech can put paid to that notion.
The nonsense about PUMA and the Clinton dead-enders has largely been pushed along by the media: the idea of a party being pulled apart by a contest as long as the Democratic primary is a compelling narrative. Funny, then, that they aren’t mentioning the real issues that are currently dividing the Republican Party. The religious fundamentalists are not comfortable with McCain, and his courtship of them has been among the more distasteful things in an extremely distasteful campaign (Georgia was one of the first countries to convert to Christianity? What does that matter?). The two front runners for McCain’s vice presidential pick, Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman, are obviously divisive choices for the Republicans. Their coalition is falling apart around their ears, but all the media can talk about is how Obama hasn’t courted Clinton supporters enough? Hopefully this speech can put paid to that notion.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Obama's Economics 101
Andrew Sullivan mentioned this article in the New York Times Magazine by David Leonhardt on Obama’s careful, sophisticated economic policy proposals. It explains, in detail, why Obama’s economic policy is resistant to the kind of reductionist, Club for Growth soundbite that McCain trades in. It’s long, but it’s rewarding reading.
Framing and Pushback
DP has a very good roundup of the speeches from last night below. I think he said it better than I could, so check that out for a recap of the night’s speeches. I’ll just throw in a couple of thoughts of my own.
Like DP, one of the things that has frustrated me about this election cycle is the fact that the Obama campaign even has to take the time to prove that Obama is a normal American and not a scary, creepy unknown. I think this is something the media really should have put down before it got around so much. When McCain and McCain surrogates say that Obama has put his own ambition before his country, the press corps needs to call them out on it. It is simply absurd to think that anyone would go through the exhausting, expensive process of running for president while they harbor a secret hatred for the United States and the things the US stands for. McCain, Fox News, talk radio and the rest of them can go on and on about it – it’s what they do, and it isn’t anything we shouldn’t expect. But the other cable networks, the three big networks and especially newspapers should feel a responsibility to not allow themselves to be a transmission vector for this garbage. It’s not true and everyone who’s paying attention knows it’s not true. Unfortunately, the Republicans are adept at gaming the message. Twisting the framing of a narrative is really the only thing they’ve got left. Michelle Obama’s speech last night was a definite attempt to push back, and a successful one, I think.
While I understand what the Democrats were setting out to do last night, I can also understand why so many have felt underwhelmed by the tone tonight. There wasn’t a whole lot of attacking. One thing I think is tough for the Democrats is going on the attack. Voters and especially the media, are used to Republicans on the attack: conservatives are nothing without their false sense of victimhood and a strange other to attack. Matt Yglesias says there certainly could have been both the Obama boosterism with a couple of shots at McCain thrown in for good measure. I agree, I would like to have seen some more shots at McCain directly. Hopefully, the next couple of nights will see some more of that, after the warm fuzzies of last night.
Like DP, one of the things that has frustrated me about this election cycle is the fact that the Obama campaign even has to take the time to prove that Obama is a normal American and not a scary, creepy unknown. I think this is something the media really should have put down before it got around so much. When McCain and McCain surrogates say that Obama has put his own ambition before his country, the press corps needs to call them out on it. It is simply absurd to think that anyone would go through the exhausting, expensive process of running for president while they harbor a secret hatred for the United States and the things the US stands for. McCain, Fox News, talk radio and the rest of them can go on and on about it – it’s what they do, and it isn’t anything we shouldn’t expect. But the other cable networks, the three big networks and especially newspapers should feel a responsibility to not allow themselves to be a transmission vector for this garbage. It’s not true and everyone who’s paying attention knows it’s not true. Unfortunately, the Republicans are adept at gaming the message. Twisting the framing of a narrative is really the only thing they’ve got left. Michelle Obama’s speech last night was a definite attempt to push back, and a successful one, I think.
While I understand what the Democrats were setting out to do last night, I can also understand why so many have felt underwhelmed by the tone tonight. There wasn’t a whole lot of attacking. One thing I think is tough for the Democrats is going on the attack. Voters and especially the media, are used to Republicans on the attack: conservatives are nothing without their false sense of victimhood and a strange other to attack. Matt Yglesias says there certainly could have been both the Obama boosterism with a couple of shots at McCain thrown in for good measure. I agree, I would like to have seen some more shots at McCain directly. Hopefully, the next couple of nights will see some more of that, after the warm fuzzies of last night.
DNC Convention: Day 1 Recap
Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi's speech was just kind of weird. I've always been a big fan of hers politically, but during this speech she seemed on edge (nerves maybe), as though it were an act of will for her to stay on message. I thought the writing was poor as well. As for the "Barack Obama is right, and John...McCain...is wrong!", I'll just say it wasn't the stuff of rhetorical legend. I know Republicans have made juvenile crap the politics du jure, what with tire gauges, and waving flip-flops at their last convention, but this strikes me as gimmicky and not serious. Was the crowd supposed to follow along? It seemed so. I'd rather she just clearly and seriously said the same thing with the tone of authority of someone who should know, rather than use it to get the crowd pumped up. I know it's a big party, but it's not Wrestlemania.
Rating: 1.5 of 5
Caroline Kennedy: Rating her speech is difficult as I'm tempted to rate this on a curve because she's just not a particularly compelling speaker. That said, I thought she did well. She seemed more at home discussing "Teddy" (which makes sense) than politics, and it didn't come off as contrived, which was the only real worry. Comparisons of her father to Obama are hard to dismiss, as I don't remember her going to that well before.
Rating: 3 of 5
Ted's Video Tribute: Given the circumstances as they relate to his health, his family's legacy within the party, and the growing consensus of him as one of the party's elder statesman, this would have been impossible to screw up, and they didn't. It's worth watching, and may have been the most memorable moment of the evening.
Ted Kennedy: His speech is complicated for me. It's impossible not to admire the determination to be involved given his recent diagnosis with a brain tumor, and the moment was pretty inspiring, but it would be an intentional oversight to leave it at that. I've seen literally dozens of hours of speeches he's given, and have even had the opportunity to catch him in person on the Senate floor on a couple of occasions, and he's clearly struggling a bit -- but only a bit. His words were halting at times, and it appeared that he had some problems following the teleprompter at others. I should add that there was nothing embarrassing about his address at all, and that if you'd never seen him speak before, you might not have noticed -- but, I have and I did. I thought his tone was good, but I thought the writing was only pretty good, not great. If time permits, I'm going to do another post on the speech I would have written if given the opportunity, as I think he could have been really special.
Rating: 3 of 5
Michelle Obama: I thought the speech was quite good, given the parameters that had been set for it by everyone else: you've got to iterate the Obama's American story, make them seem less exotic, tie them to the American dream etc. I acknowledge the necessity of this, but find the premise to be wrapped in a lot racial undertones that I find offensive. So, nonobjective me is left with a speech that went well, but that I wish didn't have to be given. There's no denying that she's a strong, intelligent women, and for what it's worth, would make an excellent first lady. She's certainly a role model for me in terms of using her extensive education to change her local community.
I know everyone loved the bit with their kids at the end, but there's a nearly Pavlovian adverse reaction I have to kids on stage in situations like this. I just don't like to see them used as political pawns, no matter how useful and effective it might be -- and don't kid yourselves (pun intended), pawns they were. The same as kids at pro-choice or pro-life demonstrations holding signs. Probably the same reason I'm queasy about kids at church. Exposure is one thing, but advocacy?...perhaps I'm being a political prude, as I'm not about to argue the kids were somehow damaged by their appearance (they probably loved it). I'd be curious as to the thoughts of others.
Rating (on anyone questioning the Obama's "Americanism"): 0 of 5
Rating: for Michelle Obama's speech: 4.5 of 5
What did everyone else think? Feel free to treat these posts as open threads to post whatever you'd like as it relates to the convention.
Rating: 1.5 of 5
Caroline Kennedy: Rating her speech is difficult as I'm tempted to rate this on a curve because she's just not a particularly compelling speaker. That said, I thought she did well. She seemed more at home discussing "Teddy" (which makes sense) than politics, and it didn't come off as contrived, which was the only real worry. Comparisons of her father to Obama are hard to dismiss, as I don't remember her going to that well before.
Rating: 3 of 5
Ted's Video Tribute: Given the circumstances as they relate to his health, his family's legacy within the party, and the growing consensus of him as one of the party's elder statesman, this would have been impossible to screw up, and they didn't. It's worth watching, and may have been the most memorable moment of the evening.
Ted Kennedy: His speech is complicated for me. It's impossible not to admire the determination to be involved given his recent diagnosis with a brain tumor, and the moment was pretty inspiring, but it would be an intentional oversight to leave it at that. I've seen literally dozens of hours of speeches he's given, and have even had the opportunity to catch him in person on the Senate floor on a couple of occasions, and he's clearly struggling a bit -- but only a bit. His words were halting at times, and it appeared that he had some problems following the teleprompter at others. I should add that there was nothing embarrassing about his address at all, and that if you'd never seen him speak before, you might not have noticed -- but, I have and I did. I thought his tone was good, but I thought the writing was only pretty good, not great. If time permits, I'm going to do another post on the speech I would have written if given the opportunity, as I think he could have been really special.
Rating: 3 of 5
Michelle Obama: I thought the speech was quite good, given the parameters that had been set for it by everyone else: you've got to iterate the Obama's American story, make them seem less exotic, tie them to the American dream etc. I acknowledge the necessity of this, but find the premise to be wrapped in a lot racial undertones that I find offensive. So, nonobjective me is left with a speech that went well, but that I wish didn't have to be given. There's no denying that she's a strong, intelligent women, and for what it's worth, would make an excellent first lady. She's certainly a role model for me in terms of using her extensive education to change her local community.
I know everyone loved the bit with their kids at the end, but there's a nearly Pavlovian adverse reaction I have to kids on stage in situations like this. I just don't like to see them used as political pawns, no matter how useful and effective it might be -- and don't kid yourselves (pun intended), pawns they were. The same as kids at pro-choice or pro-life demonstrations holding signs. Probably the same reason I'm queasy about kids at church. Exposure is one thing, but advocacy?...perhaps I'm being a political prude, as I'm not about to argue the kids were somehow damaged by their appearance (they probably loved it). I'd be curious as to the thoughts of others.
Rating (on anyone questioning the Obama's "Americanism"): 0 of 5
Rating: for Michelle Obama's speech: 4.5 of 5
What did everyone else think? Feel free to treat these posts as open threads to post whatever you'd like as it relates to the convention.
DNC Convention Rules of the Game
I'll be doing the DNC convention recaps in a movie review format, complete with ratings -- using the traditional star scale, with zero stars being the worst possible score with five stars being the best.
I wanted to come up with something to award other than stars (like elephant snouts or AARP discount points, etc.) but couldn't come up with anything clever. So, I'm opening this up to our wide readership. If any of you offer a witty enough suggestion, you'll have my gratitude, as well as front-runner status in Commenter of the Week. I'd offer cash, but I'm sure that's enough incentive.
I wanted to come up with something to award other than stars (like elephant snouts or AARP discount points, etc.) but couldn't come up with anything clever. So, I'm opening this up to our wide readership. If any of you offer a witty enough suggestion, you'll have my gratitude, as well as front-runner status in Commenter of the Week. I'd offer cash, but I'm sure that's enough incentive.
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Convention from Over Here
I’m going to put up some opinions about the convention as I have them this week. Not living in the US, I won’t be able to do it in real time – prime time in the US is the middle of the night for me. But I’ll try and come up with my own twist on things to supplement Drew’s more immediate take. I’m sure that you guys can wait a couple of hours while I sleep in.
In the meantime, enjoy Drew’s scintillating thoughts!
In the meantime, enjoy Drew’s scintillating thoughts!
Ayers, McCain and Obama
TPM has the Obama campaign’s response to the American Issues Project’s $3 million dollar ad buy attempting to link Obama to Bill Ayers. I like what the ad is trying to do: it says upfront that Obama denounced Ayers’ crimes (there’s that word again, back from the primary – maybe he should’ve rejected them, too?). What I really like about it, though, is the way it plays on the “McCain is an old man” theme. “Why is McCain talking about the sixties?” The ad mentions that Obama was eight years old at the time. It's quite a contrast.
It’s pretty strong stuff, I think. I would much rather the campaign dealt with this like it’s a non-issue: why is he even bringing this up? The ad then pivots into the economy, the war, and McCain’s link to Bush. I think this is the tact to take. Don’t dwell on it, and move on to attacking McCain. As they say, more of this.
It’s pretty strong stuff, I think. I would much rather the campaign dealt with this like it’s a non-issue: why is he even bringing this up? The ad then pivots into the economy, the war, and McCain’s link to Bush. I think this is the tact to take. Don’t dwell on it, and move on to attacking McCain. As they say, more of this.
The Clintons in the Popular Imagination
Below, DP wonders about what the perceived hatred of Hillary Clinton means for an election and if it even exists. I agree that conservatives by and large won’t vote for a Democrat. That’s why they’re conservatives – they disagree with what the Democratic Party wants to accomplish. They’d vote against Clinton just as they’d vote against Obama. What’s more interesting is that there’s this idea out there that Clinton goes beyond that general dislike into a new realm for conservatives.
However, there’s a hardcore 28% of the population that would vote Republican no matter what happened (incidentally, I would be very interested to know what this group consists of, demographically). I think this is a group that does have a frothing, irrational hatred for all things Clinton which runs deeper than their hatred for the Democratic Party per se. They would never actually vote for a Democrat, but the Clintons themselves really seem to get under their skin.
I always found it strange that the media hasn’t put the whole “Bush Derangement Syndrome” that was such a popular canard during the run-up to the Iraq War into more context. Rush Limbaugh started each show during the Clinton Presidency as “America Held Hostage: Day Whatever.” The 28 Percenter’s level of derangement isn’t even comparable.
I think there’s also a block of voters who generally vote Republican but are willing to say they disagree with what Bush has done. I think these people don’t dislike Clinton any more than they dislike any other Democrat. When it comes down to it, they’re going to vote Republican, but they’re willing to tell pollsters that they would consider voting for Obama (when he’s not the frontrunner). Once he’s the nominee, though, they start saying things like “less oratory, more details.” There has to be something wrong with Obama, or else they’d have to vote for him.
Electorally, I think this results in a couple of things. There’s a slightly larger group of people who vote Democratic on a regular basis, but I think there’s a higher percentage of Republicans who would never consider voting for a Democrat. Look at what happened with McCain: you had Rush Limbaugh talking about how McCain’s nomination would destroy the Republican Party. Well, now they’re all lined up behind McCain. But you don’t have the media talking about whether or not the Republican base will turn out in November the way you have them talking about the Clinton supporters!
Beyond that, I think it’s more important that the media is stuck with the idea that “people hate the Clintons,” despite Bill being very popular as an ex-president and Hillary being a very popular senator in her state. The media as a group was so scarred by the Republican gains in the early nineties, and especially the explosive rise of conservative media (especially in talk radio, but also Fox News) that they’ve gotten the anti-Clinton meme burrowed deep into their collective psyche. They don’t hate Clinton, but they love the idea of people hating Clinton. It’s an easy narrative to convey.
I think this is why Democrats are usually labeled “the most liberal X.” The media loves the idea of “bi-partisanship,” even if that usually presents itself as “Democrats giving in to Republicans,” which results in a further solidification of the perception of Democrats as being weak. The media classes have bent over backwards to not be perceived as being biased, so much so that it's created a negative perception of Democrats. They won’t call out Republicans for not being “bi-partisan,” (i.e., giving in) because that would imply that Republicans are wrong, which is a value judgment. But when Democrats are unwilling to “reach across the aisle,” they’re being strident, too liberal and, worst of all, partisan.
However, there’s a hardcore 28% of the population that would vote Republican no matter what happened (incidentally, I would be very interested to know what this group consists of, demographically). I think this is a group that does have a frothing, irrational hatred for all things Clinton which runs deeper than their hatred for the Democratic Party per se. They would never actually vote for a Democrat, but the Clintons themselves really seem to get under their skin.
I always found it strange that the media hasn’t put the whole “Bush Derangement Syndrome” that was such a popular canard during the run-up to the Iraq War into more context. Rush Limbaugh started each show during the Clinton Presidency as “America Held Hostage: Day Whatever.” The 28 Percenter’s level of derangement isn’t even comparable.
I think there’s also a block of voters who generally vote Republican but are willing to say they disagree with what Bush has done. I think these people don’t dislike Clinton any more than they dislike any other Democrat. When it comes down to it, they’re going to vote Republican, but they’re willing to tell pollsters that they would consider voting for Obama (when he’s not the frontrunner). Once he’s the nominee, though, they start saying things like “less oratory, more details.” There has to be something wrong with Obama, or else they’d have to vote for him.
Electorally, I think this results in a couple of things. There’s a slightly larger group of people who vote Democratic on a regular basis, but I think there’s a higher percentage of Republicans who would never consider voting for a Democrat. Look at what happened with McCain: you had Rush Limbaugh talking about how McCain’s nomination would destroy the Republican Party. Well, now they’re all lined up behind McCain. But you don’t have the media talking about whether or not the Republican base will turn out in November the way you have them talking about the Clinton supporters!
Beyond that, I think it’s more important that the media is stuck with the idea that “people hate the Clintons,” despite Bill being very popular as an ex-president and Hillary being a very popular senator in her state. The media as a group was so scarred by the Republican gains in the early nineties, and especially the explosive rise of conservative media (especially in talk radio, but also Fox News) that they’ve gotten the anti-Clinton meme burrowed deep into their collective psyche. They don’t hate Clinton, but they love the idea of people hating Clinton. It’s an easy narrative to convey.
I think this is why Democrats are usually labeled “the most liberal X.” The media loves the idea of “bi-partisanship,” even if that usually presents itself as “Democrats giving in to Republicans,” which results in a further solidification of the perception of Democrats as being weak. The media classes have bent over backwards to not be perceived as being biased, so much so that it's created a negative perception of Democrats. They won’t call out Republicans for not being “bi-partisan,” (i.e., giving in) because that would imply that Republicans are wrong, which is a value judgment. But when Democrats are unwilling to “reach across the aisle,” they’re being strident, too liberal and, worst of all, partisan.
Clinton as Antichrist
A comment that reader 'pw' made in this post made me consider a falsehood that's been repeated so often it's become assumed. He talked about the right's unique hated of Hillary Clinton. Though I've heard it espoused from many different people, both liberals and conservatives, I think it's worth noting what exactly this means in an electoral context.
Conservatives hate all Democratic candidates, at least enough to come out and vote against them. Though they may carry a special dislike for Hillary, I'd imagine you'd have a hard time finding anyone who was drawn to the polls by their dislike for Hillary Clinton, vs. any other Democratic candidate. My point is, I don't think she motivates the base at all, at least not more than Obama is, or Edwards and Richardson would have. Ever notice how every single Democratic national candidate is suddenly the "most liberal X" in the Senate, House, etc? That's the reaction of a movement that's not particularly interested in denoting differences, subtle or not, between Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.
Conservatives hate all Democratic candidates, at least enough to come out and vote against them. Though they may carry a special dislike for Hillary, I'd imagine you'd have a hard time finding anyone who was drawn to the polls by their dislike for Hillary Clinton, vs. any other Democratic candidate. My point is, I don't think she motivates the base at all, at least not more than Obama is, or Edwards and Richardson would have. Ever notice how every single Democratic national candidate is suddenly the "most liberal X" in the Senate, House, etc? That's the reaction of a movement that's not particularly interested in denoting differences, subtle or not, between Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.
Political Dorks of the World Unite
In case you wanted to know the schedule of speakers and activities at the DNC convention in Denver that begins tonight, look no further. For reasons that make little sense to me, they don't have listed which networks will be covering what time slots, so you'll have to do a little channel surfing. From what I can gather PBS might be your best bet, especially at non peak hours.
As I said the other day, I'll be doing as much posting as I can on the convention, and if you're really good, there might be a running diary or two in it for you later in the week, during some of the bigger speeches.
As I said the other day, I'll be doing as much posting as I can on the convention, and if you're really good, there might be a running diary or two in it for you later in the week, during some of the bigger speeches.
Basking in the Light of Glory That is TPBP
Reader 'Marna R' writes:
Post Script: I might add that Aaron and I are still eagerly anticipating our first piece of legitimate hate mail/comment, hopefully from a stranger. Dream big we say.
I very much enjoy this blog! It slices out a solid 25 minutes of every work day, so thanks for that! Keep up the good work guys!I think this could be called our first official "fan comment" (shocked it only took a month). Now, you may be asking yourselves if Marna is a close personal friend of mine and Aaron's. Well...yes, she is. But, that's not the point. The point is that TPBP has now become a device by which one kills some small part of one's day at the office, which is really all I ever wanted it to be. Perhaps someday, far into the future, someone who isn't a close, personal friend will see fit to avoid work in a similar manner, though I won't hold my breath. Until then, thanks for reading Marna! Welcome to TPBP community/cult/burrow/subdivision.
Post Script: I might add that Aaron and I are still eagerly anticipating our first piece of legitimate hate mail/comment, hopefully from a stranger. Dream big we say.
VP VP VP
Reader 'pw' writes:
Are these the reasons he didn't pick her? I think it's refreshing to see something other than electoral politics dictate campaign decisions, but I do think it's possible that the Biden selection reduces his chances in the general election visa vi a Clinton VP choice. Thoughts?
I think a large part of the dislocation is that Biden IS who Hillary wanted to portray herself to be- a guy from a working class background with a lifetime spent in politics (...senator at 29- my life has been wasted...)who should appeal to the Democratic base.Given the attributes Biden brings to the table, it's worth considering why Obama didn't pick Hillary. As was mentioned on Meet the Press yesterday:
Brokaw: And you have been spending a lot of time looking at the undecided voters, and we want to share with our viewers now just who they are. A lot of those undecided voters are women between the ages of 35 and 49, they're Catholic, they're moderate, and they're independent. They all sound like Hillary Clinton voters to me.
Chuck Todd: A lot of them were. Nearly half of them supported Clinton in the primaries. In effect, we even slice it even more. We--we're able to take a look at what our pollsters call "Hillary not Obama," and it's this group of voters that supported Clinton in the primaries, are not there yet with either Obama, supporting McCain, or sitting in undecided. And all of them look like, in this very respect, they're Democratic voters on the issues, they're picking a Democrat and generic matchups not just for president, but for Congress. So they are going to walk in that voting booth, and they're going to vote for a Democrat for Congress, they're going to vote for a Democrat for the U.S. Senate, which is why everybody knows that the House and Senate are going to pick up members. But these women are not there yet on Obama. Some of them are, are angry. Some of them--a lot of them live in rural and small-town America.Obama's people are aware of this, and they're also aware that if they lock up another 6-8% of the electorate this race is over. Biden's national security bona-fides are legitimate, whereas Clinton's were largely perceived. And, I think it's fair to say that Obama personally likes Biden more than Clinton. Bill is also a wildcard.
Are these the reasons he didn't pick her? I think it's refreshing to see something other than electoral politics dictate campaign decisions, but I do think it's possible that the Biden selection reduces his chances in the general election visa vi a Clinton VP choice. Thoughts?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
But What Does McCain Think?
John McCain, Bill Kristol, and Rudy Giuliani all agree, Obama shouldn’t have picked Biden – instead, they should have gone with Hillary Clinton. As McCain and Rudy Giuliani are both well known and long term Clinton supporters, it’s unsurprising the media would turn to him for an opinion on the race.
At least Kristol came around to his new-found support of Sen. Clinton in his own magazine. I find it strange that the Washington Post would open a 1,000 word article on reactions to Obama’s pick with a quote from a Republican. Of course McCain and Giuliani think Obama picked the wrong person. They’d hardly be likely to say, “Man, what a great pick. We might as well pull up stakes, ‘cause this one’s all over.” It would be like asking a vegetarian what they think of your Steak Roquefort. The only reason they’d offer a comment is if they thought they could cause Obama some damage – in this case, of course, trying to stir up disaffected Clinton supporters. It’s absurd that the media would give a forum to such obviously prejudiced voices.
It’s also quite interesting that they spend so much time on whether or not Clinton supporters will be upset with Obama’s decision without mentioning Clinton’s support of Biden.
At least Kristol came around to his new-found support of Sen. Clinton in his own magazine. I find it strange that the Washington Post would open a 1,000 word article on reactions to Obama’s pick with a quote from a Republican. Of course McCain and Giuliani think Obama picked the wrong person. They’d hardly be likely to say, “Man, what a great pick. We might as well pull up stakes, ‘cause this one’s all over.” It would be like asking a vegetarian what they think of your Steak Roquefort. The only reason they’d offer a comment is if they thought they could cause Obama some damage – in this case, of course, trying to stir up disaffected Clinton supporters. It’s absurd that the media would give a forum to such obviously prejudiced voices.
It’s also quite interesting that they spend so much time on whether or not Clinton supporters will be upset with Obama’s decision without mentioning Clinton’s support of Biden.
Meet the Press Review
Host: Tom Brokaw
Guests: Caroline Kennedy (segment one)
Nancy Pelosi (segment two)
Political Roundtable: Chuck Todd, Gwen Ifill, John Meacham
Recap: I'm not really sure what happened during the Kennedy segment as I dozed off after a sentence or two. I half-remember Brokaw asking her a bunch of stock questions about being Obama's "chief VP vetter" and her providing a bunch of stock answers about having performed that service. She likes Obama a lot. Brokaw, not as much.
Pelosi wasn't much better, though the energy policy questioning line was a little better. Why don't more liberals say that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is stupid (which Pelosi was heartily advocating)? I hate to anoint myself arbiter of the blatantly obvious, but it's not meant to artificially and temporarily lower the price of oil -- it's supposed to be an emergency option in the event of disruption in supply. Trust me, you'd feel pretty stupid if you released it as a campaign parlor trick and had a violet regime change in Saudi Arabia the next day, or a massive hurricane that destroyed refining capacity on U.S. coasts.
And, maybe I'm just hallucinating, but hasn't the price of gas dropped quite a bit the last month or so (certainly a far greater reduction than releasing the SPR would cause)? I've also read reports that Americans are driving moderately less too. I'll have to get an environmental expert on the line, but I have the sneaking suspicion that subsidizing the price of oil is not the answer.
Turning back to MTP...I don't even know what the utility of having Kennedy and Pelosi as guests would be. I know the DNC convention starts tomorrow, but these people had nothing to say. Do you need to waste 15 minutes on the most consequential political show in the country to have the person that helped select Joe Biden tell you that Joe Biden kicks ass? I think not. And Pelosi? Congress is in recess, and won't be doing a damned thing until next year, so unless you have something particularly poignant to ask her, (and believe me Tom Brokaw sure as hell didn't) why have her on?
The political roundtable wasn't very interesting, and that won't change until somebody besides me catches a glimpse of the giant pitchfork jutting out of Tom Brokaw's back. Chuck Todd had some interesting things to say about the demographic trends of the as-yet undecided voter. Despite making fun of him from time to time, I like the quantitative meta view he takes of politics. I'm convinced he'd make a good MTP host, and am willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Could we start a petition or campaign? I'm open to suggestions. Anything to make the Brokaw and Gregory go away.
I've said it before, but I wasn't a big fan of the late Tim Russert's over the top "gotcha" style interviews, and I always felt like he let people off the hook when one or two more obvious follow-up questions begged to be asked. Boy, do I miss him now. At the very least he was smart and not just happy to be there (though he surely was that). Brokaw and Gregory don't have any real interview style at all, and can't facilitate conversations to boot.
Until next week...
Guests: Caroline Kennedy (segment one)
Nancy Pelosi (segment two)
Political Roundtable: Chuck Todd, Gwen Ifill, John Meacham
Recap: I'm not really sure what happened during the Kennedy segment as I dozed off after a sentence or two. I half-remember Brokaw asking her a bunch of stock questions about being Obama's "chief VP vetter" and her providing a bunch of stock answers about having performed that service. She likes Obama a lot. Brokaw, not as much.
Pelosi wasn't much better, though the energy policy questioning line was a little better. Why don't more liberals say that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is stupid (which Pelosi was heartily advocating)? I hate to anoint myself arbiter of the blatantly obvious, but it's not meant to artificially and temporarily lower the price of oil -- it's supposed to be an emergency option in the event of disruption in supply. Trust me, you'd feel pretty stupid if you released it as a campaign parlor trick and had a violet regime change in Saudi Arabia the next day, or a massive hurricane that destroyed refining capacity on U.S. coasts.
And, maybe I'm just hallucinating, but hasn't the price of gas dropped quite a bit the last month or so (certainly a far greater reduction than releasing the SPR would cause)? I've also read reports that Americans are driving moderately less too. I'll have to get an environmental expert on the line, but I have the sneaking suspicion that subsidizing the price of oil is not the answer.
Turning back to MTP...I don't even know what the utility of having Kennedy and Pelosi as guests would be. I know the DNC convention starts tomorrow, but these people had nothing to say. Do you need to waste 15 minutes on the most consequential political show in the country to have the person that helped select Joe Biden tell you that Joe Biden kicks ass? I think not. And Pelosi? Congress is in recess, and won't be doing a damned thing until next year, so unless you have something particularly poignant to ask her, (and believe me Tom Brokaw sure as hell didn't) why have her on?
The political roundtable wasn't very interesting, and that won't change until somebody besides me catches a glimpse of the giant pitchfork jutting out of Tom Brokaw's back. Chuck Todd had some interesting things to say about the demographic trends of the as-yet undecided voter. Despite making fun of him from time to time, I like the quantitative meta view he takes of politics. I'm convinced he'd make a good MTP host, and am willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Could we start a petition or campaign? I'm open to suggestions. Anything to make the Brokaw and Gregory go away.
I've said it before, but I wasn't a big fan of the late Tim Russert's over the top "gotcha" style interviews, and I always felt like he let people off the hook when one or two more obvious follow-up questions begged to be asked. Boy, do I miss him now. At the very least he was smart and not just happy to be there (though he surely was that). Brokaw and Gregory don't have any real interview style at all, and can't facilitate conversations to boot.
Until next week...
Saturday, August 23, 2008
What Joe Biden Says About Barack Obama
The more I think about Joe Biden, the more I feel like this is a pretty good pick for Obama. The media class clearly loves him, he’s a got a good story, and he seems to fill in a very working class role in the whole Obama narrative. All of that is well and good. What frustrates me about the pick is that it further enforces the meta narrative about Obama, and about presidential election politics in general: Obama is an “elitist,” he’s out of touch, he needs a working class, foreign policy expert to balance him out. One of the big problem with the pick of Biden (as opposed to, say, Kathleen Sebelius) is that it plays into this narrative. Michael Kinsley has an editorial in the Washington Post today that illustrates why.
I think this reflects the fact that, for quite a while now, the media has reflected and reported on how candidates are doing, and not what they’re saying. It’s a lot easier to show a new attack ad and then discuss whether or not it’s “effective” rather than explain the underlying issues. I don’t think there’s maliciousness in this. It’s difficult to explain some subjects. A lot of policy positions can be somewhat arcane, and on an issue like tax policy, both sides tend to leave things a little bit vague (although, it should be pointed out that McCain’s policy is a whole lot vaguer). Television news, where most people get their news, only has twenty-two minutes a night.
I don’t think that Republicans are necessarily better than Democrats at presidential politics. But I do think that a substance-free, discussion-free format, such as we have with the current obsession with who “won the cycle,” benefits the Republicans. When you’re wrong on most of the issues, it’s better to talk about something else.
With so much going their way in this election, the biggest challenge the Democrats face is simple: The Republicans just play the game of presidential politics so much better. They play it with genius, courage, creativity and utter ruthlessness.I do not think this is as true as it might seem. One reason Republicans have been as successful as they have (and let us not forget, the Republicans didn’t win the 2000 election) is that the media is reporting on the race. In almost every category, people – even Republicans – prefer Democratic positions. But when they know that it’s a Democratic position, their like for it goes down a touch – and if it’s presented as a Republican position, it goes up. When people look at the issues, the Democrats do great. When they look at the brand, not so much.
I think this reflects the fact that, for quite a while now, the media has reflected and reported on how candidates are doing, and not what they’re saying. It’s a lot easier to show a new attack ad and then discuss whether or not it’s “effective” rather than explain the underlying issues. I don’t think there’s maliciousness in this. It’s difficult to explain some subjects. A lot of policy positions can be somewhat arcane, and on an issue like tax policy, both sides tend to leave things a little bit vague (although, it should be pointed out that McCain’s policy is a whole lot vaguer). Television news, where most people get their news, only has twenty-two minutes a night.
I don’t think that Republicans are necessarily better than Democrats at presidential politics. But I do think that a substance-free, discussion-free format, such as we have with the current obsession with who “won the cycle,” benefits the Republicans. When you’re wrong on most of the issues, it’s better to talk about something else.
TPBP Week in Review
Another week has concluded here at TPBP, and I'd like to thank all of you for making it part of your last week. Aaron and would like to take a moment to apologize for our relative lack of posts this last week. Despite our laziness, TPBP passed the 100 post mark several days ago.
Next week we'll be back to our slightly more informative selves. I don't know what Aaron's plans are, but I'm going to be doing nightly recaps, or perhaps even running diaries, of the bigger Denver speeches if time permits.
Onto the reader awards...
Very slim pickins this week in the comments section. Though the silver lining is that reader 'pw's stranglehold on the awards was broken, as he has apparently gone on commenting sabbatical.
Both comment of the week and commenter of the week go to Jarod K. Anderson, who had by far the best and most numerous posts this past week.
A big thanks for making Aaron and I a part of your routines. In the coming week, please check back for our analysis of all things political (and some things not).
Post Script: Dome, it's week five, and we're now over 100 posts. I think it's time to concede defeat and settle your gambling debt.
Next week we'll be back to our slightly more informative selves. I don't know what Aaron's plans are, but I'm going to be doing nightly recaps, or perhaps even running diaries, of the bigger Denver speeches if time permits.
Onto the reader awards...
Very slim pickins this week in the comments section. Though the silver lining is that reader 'pw's stranglehold on the awards was broken, as he has apparently gone on commenting sabbatical.
Both comment of the week and commenter of the week go to Jarod K. Anderson, who had by far the best and most numerous posts this past week.
A big thanks for making Aaron and I a part of your routines. In the coming week, please check back for our analysis of all things political (and some things not).
Post Script: Dome, it's week five, and we're now over 100 posts. I think it's time to concede defeat and settle your gambling debt.
Extinct Blog of the Day
Today's belly up blog is the "Bass Pundit Fantasy Bass Fishing HQ", where one could have gone for all of the latest on fantasy bass fishing. I can't even imagine really. We're all into some odd stuff, but this is pretty hard core. The sad thing is that these guys probably have all the disdain in the world for losers that play D&D, with absolutely no sense of irony.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Vice Presidents Ahoy!
I agree with DP, I don’t much care one way or another about the vice presidential picks coming out soon. My guess is that it’ll be Biden – he seems to have to most momentum behind his name at the moment. And, I see that Marc Ambinder is reporting a chartered flight from Chicago to Delaware. I think, on the whole, Biden is a good choice. Of the ones being considered right now, he may be the best – definitely better than Bayh, who I have an intense dislike for for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on. And, David Brooks wants it to be Biden, but I won’t hold that against him.
As far as McCain goes, I think it’ll be Romney. Lieberman would be an interesting pick, but I think McCain is far too concerned with keeping the base satisfied to pick a former Democrat, no matter how many times he’s attacked his former party. On the whole, I hope he does pick Lieberman, if for no other reason than I think it will hurt McCain’s chances electorally.
As far as McCain goes, I think it’ll be Romney. Lieberman would be an interesting pick, but I think McCain is far too concerned with keeping the base satisfied to pick a former Democrat, no matter how many times he’s attacked his former party. On the whole, I hope he does pick Lieberman, if for no other reason than I think it will hurt McCain’s chances electorally.
Who Needs Books Anyway?
I know I complain about the library. A lot. But, as it's functioning as my de facto office for the time being, I'd like to once again mention one of it's many, many shortcomings.
They don't have any books. Matt Yglesias' new book? Nope. The book reader 'pw' suggested, China: Fragile Superpower? Sorry. The new book The Dark Side, about the Bush/Cheney torture regime that everyone's talking about? Lost. Their only book on blogging? Lost.
My university library was connected to almost every other library in the state, and I had access to 25 million volumes. I can only remember a couple of instances (out of hundreds) where I couldn't get what I wanted, no matter how obscure, academic, or recent a publication it might have been. I would give my firstborn child to have that access again.
Not here. It's especially sad in Matt's case, as he's a DC resident. I've said it before, but if it's a public facility in DC, and it's not federally owned, it's almost certainly underfunded, understaffed, and underutilized. To all those of you that think your state's politicians are a collective bunch of incompetents -- this is what happens when you don't have anyone to advocate for you on a federal level. It's criminal that the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia don't have a single person in Congress to represent them. And why is that? Because Republicans would never allow us to have a voice, as that voice would almost certainly be one of the most consistently Democratic voting blocks in the country. 'Cause, you know, basic democratic principles should really be subservient to the political interests of one party.
They don't have any books. Matt Yglesias' new book? Nope. The book reader 'pw' suggested, China: Fragile Superpower? Sorry. The new book The Dark Side, about the Bush/Cheney torture regime that everyone's talking about? Lost. Their only book on blogging? Lost.
My university library was connected to almost every other library in the state, and I had access to 25 million volumes. I can only remember a couple of instances (out of hundreds) where I couldn't get what I wanted, no matter how obscure, academic, or recent a publication it might have been. I would give my firstborn child to have that access again.
Not here. It's especially sad in Matt's case, as he's a DC resident. I've said it before, but if it's a public facility in DC, and it's not federally owned, it's almost certainly underfunded, understaffed, and underutilized. To all those of you that think your state's politicians are a collective bunch of incompetents -- this is what happens when you don't have anyone to advocate for you on a federal level. It's criminal that the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia don't have a single person in Congress to represent them. And why is that? Because Republicans would never allow us to have a voice, as that voice would almost certainly be one of the most consistently Democratic voting blocks in the country. 'Cause, you know, basic democratic principles should really be subservient to the political interests of one party.
Nobody Knows the Person I've Picked
I haven't really commented on Obama's VP pick since making my official prediction a couple of weeks ago, and I'm not convinced it's a horribly important decision, but I think it's worth noting how amazingly and successfully secretive the Obama campaign has been about this announcement.
This morning on cable news some network had actually put cameras in front of Biden, Bayh, and Kaine's homes, waiting for some indication of who it would be. I also hear all these pseudo-reports of Obama letting the short listers know they didn't make it, and so on. These reports are selective and purposeful leaks from the Obama campaign to keep everyone to the edge of their seats.
I find it remarkable that they've been able to keep the pick so secret. One can only conclude that a very small number of people know, and that the actual VP was told that they'd get the Lucca Brasi treatment if they spilled the beans. I'll be curious to see if McCain can keep everyone guessing until the bitter end.
This morning on cable news some network had actually put cameras in front of Biden, Bayh, and Kaine's homes, waiting for some indication of who it would be. I also hear all these pseudo-reports of Obama letting the short listers know they didn't make it, and so on. These reports are selective and purposeful leaks from the Obama campaign to keep everyone to the edge of their seats.
I find it remarkable that they've been able to keep the pick so secret. One can only conclude that a very small number of people know, and that the actual VP was told that they'd get the Lucca Brasi treatment if they spilled the beans. I'll be curious to see if McCain can keep everyone guessing until the bitter end.
Get Out of Jail Free
According to Talking Points Memo, the press is starting to catch on about how much McCain dislikes talking about his POW experience. So much so that he brings it up at every opportunity.
This is a problem for McCain. His whole narrative focuses on his POW experience, and the idea that he’s a basically decent person who’s not like “regular” politicians. If he’s seen using this as a political tool, I think it really cuts against that image. Bringing up the POW experience in non-related issues has been like a get out of jail free card for McCain. It's a way to stop an argument that is not going his way. I think they've been pretty cynical about using it so far. Like the article mentions, McCain is in danger of drifting into the same territory Rudy Gulliani did which Joe Biden described as "a noun, a verb and 9-11."
This is a problem for McCain. His whole narrative focuses on his POW experience, and the idea that he’s a basically decent person who’s not like “regular” politicians. If he’s seen using this as a political tool, I think it really cuts against that image. Bringing up the POW experience in non-related issues has been like a get out of jail free card for McCain. It's a way to stop an argument that is not going his way. I think they've been pretty cynical about using it so far. Like the article mentions, McCain is in danger of drifting into the same territory Rudy Gulliani did which Joe Biden described as "a noun, a verb and 9-11."
Another Take
Quote of the Day
"Asians have different figures than people from the West, so that's what caused their suspicion. They (the media) shouldn't be suspicious."Us Westerners and our lying eyes. Perhaps it's a sad day when TPBP is so disillusioned with politics that it turns its critical eyes upon the non-sport of gymnastics, but I lived in Asia for three years, and feel pretty comfortable with Asian people's "figures". Additionally, being underemployed has allowed me to view far more of the women's gymnastics competition than I'm comfortable admitting in public. So, after seeing these girls on TV, and having taught literally 1000's of 16 year old Asian kids, I'm calling shenanigans.
-- Huang Yubin, head coach of the men's and women's Chinese gymnastics teams.
Post Script: I fully expect reader 'pw' to provide a 500 word comment (including citations of course) as to why Westerners really are somehow biologically ill-equipped to judge the relative age of everyone on the Asian continent.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Pivotal Moments
So, the blogosphere (not to mention the Obama campaign and the DNC) is atwitter with the fact that John McCain doesn't really know how many homes he has. You can read about the super gaffe here, here, and here. Of course, Obama's already working it into his stump speeches, as well as a new ad, and obviously the DNC has dispatched surrogates all over the country to do some photo-ops in front of houses. There's even talk of some in-your-face "how many houses do you have" contests with voters. Josh Marshall has seen fit to focus nearly his entire operation at TPM into "investigating" the story.
On some level I understand why reactions to his statement are such as they are. And, I know that Team McCain would ruthlessly exploit any single thing they believed would get them one more vote (or keep Obama from getting one). I also understand that this statement illustrates McCain's hypocrisy, as he's repeatedly attempted to brand Obama as an out-of-touch elitist.
Nevertheless, who gives a damn if McCain doesn't know how many houses he has? I doubt George has much idea about the cumulative housing situation of the Bush clan, but that doesn't have anything to do with him being a horrible executive. For that matter, how closely do you think Kennedy monitored the number of houses his family owned?
I've seen this described as some huge, game-changing, event. Maybe that's true. But, if it is, that's a far more scathing indictment of the politics of American culture than it is of McCain (just like when Kerry's totally explicable verbal gaffe and wind surfing were made issues in 2004). Because you know what? John McCain is a liar. He lies repeatedly and demonstrably. He also takes politically convenient stands on torture despite his personal experiences. He's extremely frightening and confrontational on foreign policy issues, at a time when we simply can't afford that kind of temperament or outlook.
If those issues can't be made salient, either by Obama, the DNC, or the media -- but this one can, then we are truly lost.
On some level I understand why reactions to his statement are such as they are. And, I know that Team McCain would ruthlessly exploit any single thing they believed would get them one more vote (or keep Obama from getting one). I also understand that this statement illustrates McCain's hypocrisy, as he's repeatedly attempted to brand Obama as an out-of-touch elitist.
Nevertheless, who gives a damn if McCain doesn't know how many houses he has? I doubt George has much idea about the cumulative housing situation of the Bush clan, but that doesn't have anything to do with him being a horrible executive. For that matter, how closely do you think Kennedy monitored the number of houses his family owned?
I've seen this described as some huge, game-changing, event. Maybe that's true. But, if it is, that's a far more scathing indictment of the politics of American culture than it is of McCain (just like when Kerry's totally explicable verbal gaffe and wind surfing were made issues in 2004). Because you know what? John McCain is a liar. He lies repeatedly and demonstrably. He also takes politically convenient stands on torture despite his personal experiences. He's extremely frightening and confrontational on foreign policy issues, at a time when we simply can't afford that kind of temperament or outlook.
If those issues can't be made salient, either by Obama, the DNC, or the media -- but this one can, then we are truly lost.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Spinning Wheel With a Triangle at the Center
If I could single out one thing for ridicule in this life it would be "leadership seminars", leadership certificates, and leadership majors and minors, which many institutions are now offering.
In my experience, they're filled with crap that constantly makes leadership look like bad writing: Roman numeral 1, followed by subheading A...oh, make sure not to forget to indent. Just google "books on leadership" and see the drivel that emerges. You'll see so many numbered-step plans you'll think you're in AA. I can just imagine the fortune-cookie sounding nonsense contained in them -- "step 2, visualize your ideal environment". Yawn.
I remember meeting a candidate for a job in upper administration at my old university. It was a chance meeting in a hallway, though he apparently thought it was an interview. When I commented on how young he was (quite young considering the position), he explained, "I'm the youngest person doing what I'm doing in the country". He then, speaking roughly 500 words a second, attributed his "success" to some ridiculous, abstract "leadership model" that included some sort of spinning wheel with a triangle at the center that allowed him to prioritize, or visualize, or whatever. Afterward, my friend (and an extremely smart person to boot) just looked at me and said, "what the fuck was he talking about"? What the fuck indeed. He didn't get the job, but I'm sure he's in charge of something important somewhere.
It would be one thing if university environments rewarded leadership in any meaningful way. As someone formerly immersed in what one could call "student leadership", it always much more closely resembled student networking than anything else, and instilled all the worst aspects of bureaucratic organizations and disproportionate power allocation: kiss ass to get ahead, go along to get along, meet the right people, say the right things. I think the term "student leader" pretty closely resembles a knighthood: you can't earn it exactly, it's just something you arbitrarily get when someone important taps you on the shoulder.
We have crap like leadership seminars and endlessly preach the value of networking over judgment and conviction, and we wonder why so few people in positions of authority have any ability to motivate or inspire others.
Don't get me wrong. Leaders exist, in student populations and everywhere else. But, we spend far too much time mislabeling leadership, or worse, stamping it out when the genuine article presents itself. And leadership seminars like this might teach you a lot of things, but how to really lead isn't one of them. It's just a smoke screen for how to get ahead.
In my experience, they're filled with crap that constantly makes leadership look like bad writing: Roman numeral 1, followed by subheading A...oh, make sure not to forget to indent. Just google "books on leadership" and see the drivel that emerges. You'll see so many numbered-step plans you'll think you're in AA. I can just imagine the fortune-cookie sounding nonsense contained in them -- "step 2, visualize your ideal environment". Yawn.
I remember meeting a candidate for a job in upper administration at my old university. It was a chance meeting in a hallway, though he apparently thought it was an interview. When I commented on how young he was (quite young considering the position), he explained, "I'm the youngest person doing what I'm doing in the country". He then, speaking roughly 500 words a second, attributed his "success" to some ridiculous, abstract "leadership model" that included some sort of spinning wheel with a triangle at the center that allowed him to prioritize, or visualize, or whatever. Afterward, my friend (and an extremely smart person to boot) just looked at me and said, "what the fuck was he talking about"? What the fuck indeed. He didn't get the job, but I'm sure he's in charge of something important somewhere.
It would be one thing if university environments rewarded leadership in any meaningful way. As someone formerly immersed in what one could call "student leadership", it always much more closely resembled student networking than anything else, and instilled all the worst aspects of bureaucratic organizations and disproportionate power allocation: kiss ass to get ahead, go along to get along, meet the right people, say the right things. I think the term "student leader" pretty closely resembles a knighthood: you can't earn it exactly, it's just something you arbitrarily get when someone important taps you on the shoulder.
We have crap like leadership seminars and endlessly preach the value of networking over judgment and conviction, and we wonder why so few people in positions of authority have any ability to motivate or inspire others.
Don't get me wrong. Leaders exist, in student populations and everywhere else. But, we spend far too much time mislabeling leadership, or worse, stamping it out when the genuine article presents itself. And leadership seminars like this might teach you a lot of things, but how to really lead isn't one of them. It's just a smoke screen for how to get ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
