Disciplined Dems

Give them some credit – this was one of the few smart campaign tactics from the Democrats in a long time. Hillary and Obama spent the entire two hours making their points and counter-points without ever devolving to picking at one-another. They both came across as more statesmanlike and mature than any of the Republicans did last night. That was obviously a big disappointment to Wolf Blitzer, who went so far as to accuse Hillary of calling herself naïve in a cheap attempt to stir up some conflict.

Apparently one had to be either a movie star or rock musician to be in the audience tonight. This star-seeker quality that seems to envelop Democratic politicians is a real turn-off to many voters. I know Rob Reiner does not represent me and the fact that he has such access and influence makes me suspicious of those who allow it.

Debate? pass the No-doze

Can someone tell me what the facination is with debates in this country? How many are there -- like 40? I get to feeling guily because I don't watch them, so I watched the Republicans tonight. Good lord. Not one new thing was asked or answered. The questions are either uninspired, or inspired to insight petty arguments. The answers are mini-TV commercials we've all heard 100 times already. We know their lines by osmosis. There has to be a better way to take the measure of these people. Anyone have any ideas?

I'm going to give the Dems equal time tomorrow. Perhaps with only two people fighting for the spotlight a little more substance will show through.

I only vote for losers

I haven't voted for the winning Presidential candidate since 1992. Several times during my losing streak I held my nose and voted for the "lesser of two evils" and at least once I voted for a 3rd party candidate, but none of them worked out.

In '92 I voted for a young guy who didn't have a lot of experience, but he was charismatic and said all the right things about leaving the old ways of Washington behind. He was also wrapped in the mantle of JFK, and had a cool photo of himself meeting the great man in the Rose Garden when the lad was just 16. He had a strong and accomplished wife -- a successful corporate lawyer with an Ivy league pedigree to match her husband's. I found this guy very inspiring and voted for him with enthusiasm. Once.

I think this is part of why I'm having a hard time jumping on the Obama band wagon. I find these parallels a little spooky, and like a badly jilted lover, I don't want to be disappointed again by misplaced faith in an articulate do-nothing.

Family feud?

That was quit a performance this afternoon at American University, where Ted Kennedy, flanked by his Congressman son and Caroline Kennedy Schlosberg, gave a good-old-fashioned thumper of a speech throwing his endorsement and enthusiastic support behind Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

He countered every one of Hillary’s charges of inexperience, etc., one-by-one and declared the Senator from Illinois: “ready to be President from Day One!” Then he wrapped the candidate from head to toe in the Kennedy legacy until you could barely tell Barack from Jack. Barack has to be the skinniest Presidential candidate since JFK, and he favors those slim fit suites right out of the ‘60s, so the image is eerily similar on some level.

And if there was any piece of the Kennedy legacy left ungifted by Ted, Obama claimed it in his acceptance speech that followed, which was also very stirring. They had a gym full of mostly college kids whipped into a real frenzy.

I’ve been avoiding making predictions, but I think you can put a fork in Hillary now – she is done. It’s not just the Kennedys jumping on the Barack bandwagon. The pundits have turned so harshly on the Clintons, and I sense there is just a general feeling in the country that we’ve had enough of the Clintons and the Bushes, and that it is time for a change.

Then there is this very interesting subplot. By endorsing Obama, the Kennedys are helping send the Clintons packing, which lets them regain their position as the first family of the Democratic party. Perhaps Uncle Teddy just had enough of Bubba and his bride and this was his way to regain the spotlight for his brothers’ legacies and his own amusement?

d’blank stimulation plan loses out

Mike Huckabee’s characterization of the economic stimulation plan racing through Congress was spot on. We will borrow $150 billion from the Chinese and then hope most of it gets spent at Wal-Mart buying stuff made in China. I wonder if this is what people had in mind when they swept the Republicans out of Congress in 2006? Nancy Pelosi and friends didn’t put up much of a fight against GWB on this, but that seems to be their role in the current political scene: yap like little lap dogs, but then fall in line with whatever the President wants.

Meanwhile, Senator McCain was on Meet the Press this morning talking, in part, about how damaging Congressional pork barrel politics are to our economy. He claimed there were over $35 billion “bridge-to-nowhere-type” appropriations in 2007, which is equal to the annual cost of over 900,000 decent-paying jobs with good health care.

P.J. O’Rourke, the author of A Parliament of Whores, may have said it best: “The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.”

Not so sweet Caroline (or Carolina) for Hillary

This was a tough weekend for Hillary*. Not only did 70% of women voting in the South Carolina primary vote for someone other than her, but this morning, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Senator Obama in the New York Times, saying:

“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”

This must be very worrisome for Mrs. Clinton, who can’t seem to get the traction she needs with women. Not only did she fail to persuade seven in ten women overall, she took only 40% of votes from white women.


*BTW, I mean no disrespect by commonly referring to her by her first name; her campaign does the same, I think, for the same reason I do: to avoid confusion with her husband.

The New York Times says: “It’s Hillary and McCain”

It may not count that much with voters, but the endorsement of the New York Times is probably the one most coveted by the candidates, and the editorial board announced their selections for the New York primaries today: Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Mrs. Clinton was no big surprise. She is, after all, the junior Senator from New York and has had the paper’s endorsement for both her Senatorial campaigns. They also had nice things to say about Senator Obama and John Edwards.

Senator McCain’s selection and the reasoning behind it was much more entertaining. To paraphrase, the Times position is: “Custom dictates that we endorse a candidate in the Republican primary as well. We hate them all, but the least odious is John McCain – who apparently served in a war, or something.”

They had nothing good to say about any other Republican candidate, and they beat Rudy like a red-headed step child.

Meanwhile this morning the Today Show gave Sen. Clinton a very hard time, and in my opinion, unfairly so. It was both shallow and misleading. It’s hard to make Hillary a sympathetic character in my eyes, but Matt Lauer and his producer did a heck of a job of it this morning. In an 8 minute segment there was not a single question relating to issues. Why don’t they just stick to diets, tabloid murder-mysteries and travelogue?

Link to NYT Clinton endorsement
Link to NYT McCain endorsement
Link to Clinton Today Show segment

A quote of note

"For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy."

-- G. K. Chesterton

The d’blank economic stimulation plan

President Bush wants to put a $150 billion economic stimulation package into effect to ward off a recession. The money will likely be distributed in the form of small tax rebates (under $1000) to families with incomes below a certain level. The big debate is whether most of this money will get spent, which will stimulate the economy, or be saved (as was with the last such rebate) which will do little but add to the national debt.

We have our own plan, based on the following beliefs: 1) the nation’s physical infrastructure is in disrepair, and 2) every new job created will produce significant spending – well beyond the small handouts envisioned in the Bush plan.

Here is how it would work. First of all, ours is a two year plan that uses the same $150B budget. Half the money would be set aside for equipment and materials. The remaining funds, $37.5B per year for two years, would be used to create new jobs for people who would inspect and repair bridges, highways, parks, federal and state housing developments, and other public properties.

These funds would create nearly one million new jobs paying $17 per hour plus good health care benefits. That works out to about $34,000 a year – about average for an individual U.S. income and a heck of a lot better than stocking shelves at Wal-Mart.

And it’s nearly a million new jobs – that is an average of over 18,000 jobs per state. If they are prorated by population it will mean over 100,000 jobs in California, nearly 60,000 in New York, and nearly 35,000 in Ohio. An average sized state like Tennessee would get 18,500, but even smaller states like Nebraska and Mississippi would still get enough jobs (5,300 and 8,700 respectively) to make a difference. And for two years. (If you would like to see the numbers we have a spreadsheet we can send to you.)

Instead of a hand-out, people get jobs. Instead of nothing but debt, the country gets much needed improvements. Instead of a momentary, low-rent shopping spree we get a million jobs and a boost to universal healthcare.

Which plan would you prefer – or perhaps you have one of your own?

Liar of the week

I know it's only Tuesday night, but nothing is going to beat this. Oliver Stone is planning a movie on the life of George W. Bush with Josh Brolin in the lead. According to Variety, Stone wants to render a "fair, true portrait" of the President. He's off to a good start as the central question, according to Stone, is “How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?” We must assume it was a CIA plot.

Life after people

Life After People was on the History channel last night. It imagined the way our cities and their infrastructures would fare if there were suddenly no people on earth. They would respond in complex ways, but basically, entropy takes over and everything turns to dust.

I was struck most by how all the things around us, the symbols of modern life that we tend to think of as serving us, in fact, require our constant care. Without it, our buildings, bridges, dams, highways and homes would be beyond repair in 20 years, beyond recognition in 100 years, forgotten for all time in 500 years.

The scenes filmed in Pripyat, the town near Chernobyl abandoned only 20 years ago, were especially haunting.

It turns out that the clay tablets and stone carvings of ancient Egyptians and Romans, which have lasted thousands of years, may allow their histories to live thousands more, while the paper, film and plastic upon which we have recorded modern times will be lucky to last 100 years after we stop safeguarding them.

The program reminded me of an old George Carlin bit in which he rails at the arrogance of environmentalist who want to “protect the earth.” “The earth will do just fine,” Carlin assures us. “The earth has been around billions of years. Man can only do long-term damage to himself – not the earth.”

The program is on again Wednesday at 8:00 EST.

The worst candidate

Hankster suggests that a look at the worst qualities comprising a composite candidate might also help us work through the options, so here’s a stab at it: For experience, Obama, for fiscal policy Kucinich, for commitment to secular government, Huckabee, for generosity of spirit Rudy, for genuineness it is a tie between Hillary and Mitt.

Music: For any old Sun Records fans out there I recommend Rockabilly Riot, Vol. 1, A Tribute to Sun Records by Brian Setzer. It’s got 23 cuts, all under three minute long, of great Sun cuts done in a slick, but still rockin’ Setzer style, that keeps the energy of the originals and adds some modern production values.

My ideal candidate

There is no single candidate that speaks to me in a way that makes me think, “Yeah, he/she is the one.” I wish I had an option that combined:

• The sheer competence of Hillary Clinton. No one would approach the task of running the government with more care and attention to detail. We have millions of people spending hundreds of billions of dollars in our government, and it’s time that someone paid a little attention to this complex beast.
• The clarity of vision Ron Paul exhibits when talking about the terrible macroeconomic hole the country has dug itself into through excessive government spending and borrowing.
• The real business experience and success of Mitt Romney. He’s a hard guy to like, but it’s even harder to argue with the business success and creativity on his resume. We’re in a geopolitical, life and death struggle for economic supremacy and I don’t want my children to be living in the U.S. economic version of post-WWII England.
• The inspirational and visionary qualities of Barack Obama. It is time to move on from the confrontational, old-school, ideological, nature of our political discourse. I think Obama can lead the country towards a more rational, 21st Century-style of problem-solving; plus he clearly has appeal to younger voters, who must be brought into the battle to save their futures.
• The integrity, resolve and experience of John McCain. No other politician has the courage to take difficult positions when he believes they are in the country’s best interest, regardless of the political consequences, and the depth of international relationships and perspective to know what is truly important. And few other living Americans in any profession have made a greater commitment to public service, nor paid a higher price, than has Senator McCain. The word hero is over used these days, but is aptly applied in his case.
  

Well, unfortunately, this fantasy candidate doesn’t exist, but as mentioned earlier, I lean towards the moral leadership of McCain over the others.

Liar of the week

Rudy Giuliani told the New York Times last summer that his partial ownership of Sky Watch LLC would not give it an advantage in securing a Federal contract should he become President. Sky Watch provides high tech electronic surveillance equipment that could be used along the fence between Mexico and the U.S. This high-tech fence is one of the cornerstones of Giuliani’s immigration platform, and something he frequently advocates in his speeches.

Giuliani no longer has his ownership stake, but the Sky Watch founders and spouses have given his campaign more than $20,000. Giuliani declined further comment for a Times article on the investment that appeared in today’s paper.

I guess that actually makes him the liar of last summer, but I just read about it today.

Amazing fact of the day

According to the Federal Reserve Board, approximately 649,000 U.S. households have a net worth of at least $10 million.

There are approximately 2.5 people in each household, which makes this the rough equivalent of every person in Phoenix, Arizona (the country’s fifth largest city -- itself an amazing fact) living in one of these super-rich households.

That would be the place to be the exclusive distributor for Botox, Callaway or Lexus.

Magazines: The cover story in the current issue of FORTUNE provides a very interesting profile of Melinda Gates, the $100 billion woman. She is, of course, Bill’s wife, but despite this very public role I’ve never read anything with any depth about her before. The article offered real insight into someone who now influences the lives of millions of people.

Why open primaries matter

I’m an independent voter, and because of that, I’ve never voted in a primary election in New York, where I live. I would have broken that string this year because I feel it is so important that we have a good choice of candidates this November.

Well, not for the first time in my life, sloth got in the way of good intentions. I went online to get the registration procedure this morning only to discover that, although I’m already registered to vote in general elections, I would have had to have registered for the primaries no later than January 11th..

This is just undemocratic. First, why 25 days before the election? It’s totally arbitrary -- a tool for the established parties to maintain power. Second, the election may be only 20 days away but it is still a real horse race in both parties, therefore, I’m not sure in which primary I’d have liked to have voted.

I want my vote to be valuable, so if on February 5, for example, Mrs. Clinton had a solid lead in the Democratic race while the Republican contest was close, I’d have preferred to have voted in the latter, to make a difference.

Another, perhaps fanciful, example might have been if McCain had a clear lead in the Republican field while Obama and Kucinich were running neck-and-neck. Even though I’m much more likely to vote for McCain in November, I would have voted for Obama in the primary because I believe that would have been better for the country.

I should have the right to decide on February 5 which way to vote. Instead, I’ll sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.

The U.S. of A.: almost a democracy

Beginning today in Michigan, through February 5, there will be 29 state primaries and caucuses. However, in 17 of them, in order to vote for one of the national candidates, one must be a registered member of either the Republican or Democratic parties; these are the so-called "closed primaries."

This is one of the more effective tools our established political parties have employed to entrench themselves at the controls of our government. It's undemocratic and a major obstacle to any progressive candidate, from either party, who wishes to appeal to independents and moderate members of the opposition party.

Closed contests are held in some of our biggest states including California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida and New Jersey.

We'll all be crying soon

Crying worked so well for Sen. Clinton that one of the few people in America who is hated by more people, Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys, became very emotional and cried in front of the cameras after the 'Pokes lost to the Giants in yesterday's NFL playoff game.

I never hated T.O., although he is a hard guy to actually like; but I must say seeing him cry made him a more sympathetic character to me. Before yesterday I'd always thought it was all about T.O. for T.O., but maybe the team does come first. What's next? A weepy Bin Laden?

Meanwhile, a better reason to cry is the latest escalation between Clinton and Obama. It actually looked like race wasn't going to be an important factor in their competition for the nomination, but over the weekend, both sides threw all that out the window. It was kind of nice believing, at least for a while, that we could rise above racial politics in this country, but if Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their supporters are incapable of it, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to leave it behind?

American Idle scores big ratings

American Idle (not Idol). Get it? It’s the talent contest for the non-working class, our political leaders.

OK, it isn’t much of a joke, but I try. Anyway, it is certainly a more exciting contest than usual, and the American electorate is into it. About 8 million viewers watched coverage of the New Hampshire primaries, about double the coverage for that contest in 2004. The ratings for Iowa Caucus coverage were up a third from 2004 levels to 6 million viewers. Ratings among younger viewers (18-34) were up significantly.

Will a more engaged electorate make better choices? I hope so. I think so.

Music: I stopped in the Ace of Clubs last night and caught a couple sets by the Prowlers, New York’s best bar band. They do almost all covers, and while it’s not the same old stuff, you could wail along and dance to just about everything. Great time.

The McCain Conundrum

I was going to critique the John McCain web site, but looking at the candidate sites makes my brain hurt. Besides, one is much like another, although McCain’s online store is pretty good (4 yard signs for 10 bucks). Also, I prefer the title of this post, which kind of sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel. (Does anyone know if RL wrote more books before, or after, he died?)

Here’s the conundrum: I read McCain’s positions on the major issues of the day and I strongly disagree with many of them. So why is it that if the election were held tomorrow, he’d get my vote?

The question is not simple, but the answer is: character. I believe John McCain is the most genuine and principled candidate in the field. He has had the courage to take some very unpopular positions (the surge in Iraq, immigration, campaign reform) and stick with them. Of whom else can that be said?

But here’s where it gets weird. I also think he’s less than candid about some of his positions. For example, he says on his site that he supports reversing Roe v. Wade. I completely disagree with that position, but I’m not bothered by it much because if he is elected I don’t think he’d do a single thing to affect that change.

A President isn’t really in the position to do much about Roe in the first place; I believe McCain is a pragmatic man who will work to find areas where Republicans and Democrats can agree, so he can accomplish something. He would not jump into a vicious fight he can’t win. Being pragmatic he says things he believes, and knows will appeal to the most conservative voters, because he needs their support, even though he is unlikely to fight those battles.

So -- I like the guy primarily for his honesty, despite recognizing that he is occasionally misleading, which I view as smart politics. Is it any wonder the pollsters can’t always figure out what people are really thinking?

A bad career decision

In the latest evolution of the nanny society, Maria Bartiromo's recorded voice over the Grand Central Terminal PA system, warns us every few minutes to "mind the gap" and "keep an eye" on our children. Apparently the thinking is that only the Money Honey can bring credibility to the concept of personal and familial safety.

I found these scolds annoying from jump street, but after listening to her 10-15 times a week for the past couple of months, I'll do almost anything to avoid the sound of her voice, including boycotting the otherwise irresistible CNBC programming. [note sarcasm]

Hillary Cries! The Truth Can Now Be Told!

In case you didn't actually see Hillary crying, well, that's what YouTube is for. Personally, I have to agree with Jon Stewart's analysis of the event. What passes for news sometimes amazes me.

News from New Hampshire

Ed Muskie cried in New Hampshire and was driven out of the race over it. Hillary cries and gets elected. Go figure.

It is so much fun when the unexpected happens. I get such joy from seeing the pollsters and pundits proven wrong. I may be forced to root for Huckabee in Michigan and Kucinich in South Carolina just for the potential jollies if it came to be.

International news: Mexican drug lords are importing gangsters, who are U.S. citizens, because they can so easily move across the border. Yesterday in downtown Rio Bravo there was a half hour-long running gun battle with automatic weapons between Mexican Federales and gangsters, three of whom were killed, another three (all Americans) were arrested. Ten Federales were wounded. How long before this is a movie?

Benizir Butto’s son, Bilawal, yesterday condemned the U.S. for it’s support of Pakistan dictators. In a highly-democratic move, Bilawal, who is 19, was appointed Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party shortly after his mother’s death last month.

Obama’s web site

Since he looks like a real contender now I wanted to see what Obama has to say on the issues, so I visited BarakObama.com to find out.

The first thing I discovered was you have to register to get past the landing page, but that was pretty easily defeated with false entries. Next came an in-your-face request for a donation.
At that point it felt like the web site of a pretty conventional politician, but it didn’t take much effort to find the meat. There is an “Issues” tab with a pull-down menu listing 19 topics, and those I read had reasonably specific outlines of what Obama would do if elected.

I found his ideas to be pretty mainstream for moderate to liberal-leaning people. There was nothing I found overtly objectionable, but nearly every action he proposes will cost something. That’s where the problem with Obama comes in for me. There seems to be a program for every interest group, but none of his ideas suggests the price tag, nor is there any hint of how we’re going to pay for all of them.

Obama claims to take nothing from “special interest groups” like drug or oil companies, but there are all types of special interests in this country, and some of them clearly have Obama’s ear.

I have to confess that digging into this policy stuff isn’t something I enjoy all that much, but now that I’ve started I guess I’ll take a look at the sites for the candidates who win in New Hampshire today.

Movies: Of all the big name movies I saw this year, The Kite Runner was easily the best. It’s so hard to make a movie that lives up to a book you really like, but this one did. The scenery (the movie was shot in China) was spectacular, it had two of the best kid actors ever, and it made me cry.

Media mystery

I must have read or heard a half dozen reports in the media of how bold, or bizarre, it was for Mike Huckabee to leave Iowa the night before the caucuses to travel to California to appear on the Tonight Show on the first night the show was back on the air after the writer's strike.

Why was this so strange? Didn't it occur to anyone in the media that Iowans watch TV too, and that Mike probably reached more of them sitting next to Jay Leno than he would have at another shopping mall rally in Keokuk?

OK, I was wrong

I was going to write some pedantic BS in a follow-up to why nobody should care about the Iowa caucus, but several things got in the way.

1. I realized that if I'd written what I'd planned to, it would have been some pedantic BS
2. it would have required (yikes!) actual research
3. the pundits, especially David Brooks, changed my mind over the weekend

Brooks' column Friday, and appearance on Charlie Rose Friday night, convinced my that something important had happened in Iowa. Obama brought out thousands of young people to the caucuses, and overall, participation more than doubled from traditional levels. And of course, Hillary and Mitt both lost despite having spent more money and having had more professional organizations and establishment support. (So, for the first time since starting my blog I blew the analysis. All it took was one post.)

I don't know how I feel about Obama. He is certainly smooth, and who wouldn't find his story appealing? And he is obviously smart and accomplished -- Harvard Law Review president and all that. Finally, I like his basic message of "no red and blue states -- just one America," and the man can speak. But I can't figure out what all that means when contemplating an Obama Presidency.

Listening to his speeches (as I heard some TV talking-head say) is like eating cotton candy; fluffy, pretty and sweet -- they put a smile on your face. But what does he actually say? Not very much of anything specific that I've heard.

His health care plan has gotten some coverage, but there must be more out there. It looks like I better go looking for it. Apparently Barak is going to be around for a while.

Music: I can't stop playing Steve Earle's new CD, Washington Square Serenade. It's less political than some of his recent work, although "City of Immigrants" has that old populist fire to it. It rocks a little less, but "Jericho Road" will get you moving. It's a really good mix of styles.

Iowa. Who cares? (Part I)

There are several reasons why I don’t care about who won in Iowa. Not that I discount Iowan’s opinions in any way. I’m a Midwesterner myself, and unlike many of my New York neighbors, I know that average IQs do not drop a point every 50 miles one travels west of the Hudson. And Iowans have spent a lot of time with the candidates, so their opinions mean something to me.

The main reason I don’t care is because it was not an election they held there last night – it was the first episode of a reality TV program that won’t end for another ten months. Media loves this stuff. Sending a few reporters to Iowa for a few weeks, putting them up in Comfort Inns, renting some Impalas from Thrifty and buying dinners at Applebee’s is about as cheap as programming gets. You’ll notice NBC wasn’t bothering with any “Where in the World is Matt Lauer” stuff the past month – they’ll save all that for the lull between some other primaries.

The networks get to share one big production set paid for by the candidates themselves. It’s an irresistible financial model; low cost and strong advertiser demand. The actual relevance and importance of the Iowa caucuses to the American public was not a factor.

Now we move on to New Hampshire and Round II of “American Idol: The Presidency.” Some of the obvious losers have been eliminated (Biden and Dodd) but the auditions for the other parts in this show will continue. Think of the media as casting directors. They don’t get the final say in who achieves ultimate stardom, but they certainly shape the consideration process by putting forth various characters for the principle parts of leading man, court jester, evil villain, poor boy made good and class valedictorian. More losers will emerge soon (Kucinich? Paul? Richards?), and other parts may become open.

But the play is the thing. Policies, programs and ideas don’t make good TV. Personalities, good and evil, marching bands and pep rallies do. They’re more fun to watch and easier to explain.

Of course, these are just my opinions; but there are also more objective reasons not to care too much about the Iowa caucuses. More on that later.