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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Another Take

John Cole, over at Ballon Juice disagrees with my take from yesterday, though my commentary was about the American electorate and not the Obama campaign.

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."
-- Huang Yubin, head coach of the men's and women's Chinese gymnastics teams.

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.

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.

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.

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.