2-1/2 speeches

I watched 2-1/2 political speeches last night. Hillary was Hillary. She’s gotten better from the podium, but what she had to say couldn’t have made anyone happy except a minority of the people who voted for her. And Barack was Barack. He had 20,000 people under a big dome in Minneapolis, and he knows how to fire them up. He didn’t start until around 10:30, and listening was a little like eating a big snack of empty calories late at night. When it’s all over and you ask yourself what he said, the answer isn’t really very substantive.

But it was John McCain speech that disappointed the most. The substance and specifics were there, and he certainly made it clear that he was no fan of George Bush’s policies on the war, disaster relief, fiscal policy, energy policy, international relations, and several other fronts.

But it was a badly delivered speech, poorly staged and poorly conceived. It used to be that whatever else was true, the Republicans could stage a hell of an event, with no detail too small to obsess over. But this was held in a small town near New Orleans in what looked like a high school gym. When the crowd of maybe a couple hundred cheered or booed the echoes were reminiscent of a homecoming pep rally.

Worse, the rhetorical theme he kept returning to was sighting something Obama said or did, that he would never do or say, and punctuating the point with the line, “that’s not change we can believe in,” a counter to Obama’s “change we can believe in” slogan. McCain is also now using the slogan, “A Leader We Can Believe In.”

Questionable grammar aside, it makes no sense to run a campaign that plays off your opponents themes, especially when your opponent is likely to outspend you more than 2 to 1. There’s a long way to go, but the national McCain organization has around 90 employees and Obama has over 700. McCain has raised $96.7 mm and Obama has raised $265.4 mm. These things matter. Republicans have usually had the most professional marketing organization behind them, but this seems very amateurish so far.

In case you’re thinking he can make up the difference with so-called free media, the reason I called this post “2-1/2 speeches” is that CNN broke in half way into the McCain speech last night for a “major, major projection” that Obama was going to get the nomination. Wow. There’s some breaking news for you.

Which is more important?

I just Googled "Scott McClelland's book" and got 621,000 references. Then I Googled "candidates unified on Darfur," which produced just 94,300. Even then, a quick look at the Darfur sightings shows that most do not actually refer to the recent agreement among Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama to unite in support of the people of Darfur.

Let's compare these two stories:

The former has no real news value at all. It’s a small story about a minor, slightly dim, political functionary coming out publically against his bosses. If it weren’t for the fact that 70% of the country hates his bosses it would be no story at all.

On the other hand, the candidate’s Darfur agreement relates to a daily struggle of life and death by some of the most pathetically abused people on God’s earth, who are being hunted down and murdered like dogs by Arab mercenaries on horseback. That alone should make it a better story.
But on top of that, we have the three remaining candidates for the White House publically agreeing on something, (can anyone remember anything similar happening -- ever?), and their agreement takes the form of a moral commitment. How often do politicians do that?

And yet the Darfur story came and went in a day, while Matt Lauer and Keith Olbermann and the rest of them will be bloviating about the McClelland book and interviewing C-list politicos for their “analysis” for weeks to come.

Sometimes I think television intentionally focuses on the least important issues available to them at any given time.

Here’s a short video about the joint agreement from a very effective organization. They make it very easy to get your voice heard in case you want to participate.

Killery

Both Bob Schieffer and Tim Russert hosted Obama love fests this morning (I’m beginning to think the SNL parody was underplayed) and spent a lot of time bashing Hillary for her comment this week mentioning that Bobby Kennedy was murdered in June. If you saw the whole clip (CBS showed it – NBC did not) she was making the point that lots of primaries have dragged on longer than this one, but this was too juicy for the chattering class to leave without assigning to it a subliminal meaning.

However, the subliminal meaning they hope we will glean is so venal they can’t actually say it without contributing to its efficacy, but it’s there. They want people to believe that Senator Clinton was trying to plant the idea in someone’s head that it isn’t too late to kill Senator Obama – such is the depravity and all-consuming nature of her personal ambition. When I started this blog the very last thing I thought I’d spend time doing was defending Hillary Clinton, but I am just amazed at the unified and unrelentingly hostile nature of the media and political establishments aligned against her. She’s won the majority of the popular vote, she has a reasonable (if non-PC) rationale for why she’ll be the stronger candidate in the fall, and she’s played a key role in bringing out more registered Democrats than have ever been seen before. I don’t even like her but I just don’t understand the forces at work here.

Great movie: On a happier note, do yourself a favor and rent Across the Universe. I wish I’d seen it on a big screen with a great sound system (The Zeigfield Theater comes to mind) but it was great on DVD too. It’s a musical set to Beatles music, set mostly in New York with side trips to Liverpool, Princeton, Washington, Viet Nam and Ohio (really). The time is 1967-68 and the story is the story of the times – sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, politics, assassinations, war, protests and love. T-Bone Burnett adapted the music and even if you were on the other side of the Stones v. Beatles argument, as I was, nothing evokes the times like the boys from Liverpool. The movie uses innovative cinematography mixed with animation to create a mixture of the real and surreal. The choreography was fantastic and there are some great performances in small parts by the likes of Bono, Joe Cocker, and my favorite, Eddie Izzard. Don’t miss this one.

Things Younger than McCain...and other fun stuff

We can probably get the jist of what the Dem's messaging will be in a McCain v. Obama campaign by visiting a new web site, Things Younger than McCain. In case you don't have time to go look, these things include: Israel, FM radio, nylon stockings, Social Security, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Cobb salad.

Also, Barry Obama does def comedy.

And for you Hitlery fans, this is a must: in the bunker.

Why should she quit?

I am powerfully sick of hearing people say Hillary should quit the race. Their reasoning make no sense, and there are plentiful reasons she should stick it out.

Some say she should quit for the “unity of the party.” Since when are the Democrats united on anything? “I belong to no organized political party,” Will Rogers famously said seventy years ago, “I’m a Democrat.” This is the party of George Wallace and George McGovern, and you’re telling me it can’t take a little debate between two people who stand about a quarter-inch apart on most issues?

Some say Hillary’s candidacy is hurting Senator Obama’s standing with middle and working class white people. These are the same people who want to lower the graduation requirements for inner city youth rather than push them to meet higher standards. This logic assumes the kids (and Barack) don’t have it in them to compete and win. It’s the worst kind of racism.

• (If you want a reason for her to drop out, how about this one? She and her husband are now financing her campaign with money he got for giving speeches to foreign and domestic robber barons who will probably want special access to the next President Clinton.)
  But that last point is just my biased opinion. Here are a few reasons why Senator Clinton should fight on as long as she wants:
  This is America. If she wants to run, who the hell is anyone to tell her she can’t? And why shouldn’t the citizens of upcoming primaries have the right to cast their votes in the matter?
• The Democrats are drawing huge numbers of new voters into their primaries. Some go to him and some go to her, but I see no reason not to take her at her word that if Obama gets the nomination, she will fight at his side in the general election; and no matter what the polls say now, most of those people are going to stick with the Dems in the general.
• Finally, you have spring training to get into shape for the regular season. Does anyone think that the Republicans are going to go easy on Barack if he is the nominee? He’s lucky to have someone throwing fastballs to him in the preseason because he’s going to see a lot of high heat come Labor Day. As Gail Collins said in the New York Times yesterday, “Barack looks so tired that he seems ready to topple, but if you want to be the most powerful elected official on the planet, you ought to be able to outlast a 60-year-old woman."

While not personally afflicted, I realize that Hillary Hatred is a powerful and pervasive disease. Those afflicted should focus on electing their man cause she ain’t quittin’.

The idea of Obama

I like the idea of Barack Obama. The country really needs new leadership and energy. It needs someone who can transcend race and the BS of baby boomer politics. It needs someone who can articulate the new American dream, who can appeal to diverse cultures, who can restore American stature abroad.

I’m just not sure that this Barack Obama is that guy. It never meant much to me that his pastor was a loose cannon with some wacky political views, but I’m very concerned by the fact that, even though he has a 20-year relationship with the man, he has been unable to bring him under some measure of control. If he can’t bring his own pastor into the big, new, political tent he envisions for America, then how will he bring in the people in small towns who cling to their guns and religion, or blue collar union guys, or white men in general?

And if he can’t do that, he is left with nothing much more than college students and the wine and cheese set under his tent. Come November he’ll be George McGovern with a better jump shot.

I’m also bothered by his passivity relative to Senator Clinton. I think a President has to be a little tougher, but even if you disagree on that point, surely you’ll agree that the Republicans are going to come after him much harder than the Clintons come Labor Day, and if he can’t counter-punch (or better yet – throw a few straight rights of his own), they are going to crush him.

A really bad idea

We import too much oil.

We have to borrow billions every year to keep the government running.

So why not put in a new policy that rewards consumers for buying more gasoline that will be subsidized by the government through additional borrowing?

It sounds crazy, but that’s the idea that Senators McCain and Clinton are promoting. They want to eliminate the federal gasoline tax for the summer. It will save consumers 18 cents a gallon but will cost the Treasury billions. This will encourage everyone to load the kids into the SUV and drive to the shore this summer. Of course the kids will have the extra billions added to their future tax burden, or subtracted from their Social Security benefits down the road.

This is a very disappointing proposal from my man John and just the kind of short-term political expediency I expect from Mrs. Clinton. Senator Obama is against it, but he has his hands full trying to deal with his former pastor, so issues of substance may have to wait.

Is Obama a wimp?

Are any of you Obama fans out there starting to feel like Hillary is just having her way with your man? Toughness may not be the most important characteristic to look for in a President, but it is surely something most Americans want to see to some degree, and I’m starting to wonder if Obama is tough enough. Hillary just keeps beating on him day-in and day-out, and he doesn’t seem to be willing to fight back.

The Lord knows that Mrs. Clinton has some baggage in which he could surely find some ammunition, but he seems too cool to fight. He’s making it too easy for those who won’t vote for an elitist, and Hillary has him pinned him into his passive-aggressive corner where she doesn’t even have to take aim – all she has to do is fire away.

She's baaaaack!!!

Today is my birthday, and what better present could a guy ask for than to have his own U.S, Senator back in the race for the White House?

Note to Woody and Wilton: It is time to build the North Carolina fire break.

Those zany Dems

First, let me just admit that I’m writing this post solely to justify publishing the photo of Hillary pounding a shot of something, someplace in Pennsylvania last week.

It takes a hell of a guy to make Hillary, she of the $109 million income fame, seem like a woman of the people, but Barack has done it with his general yuppie persona and penchant for making remarks guaranteed to insult the hoi polloi.

He may have regained some of the ground he lost by suggesting small town people were bitter and clingy, (who could have possibly guessed that someone in a San Francisco fund-raiser would have a recording device of them?) when he referred to Hill as “Annie Oakley” after she positioned herself as a huntress since childhood. Now she’s drinking boilermakers. What’s next Hillary? A big low-back tattoo and a sudden fondness for Newports?

I'll be traveling the next few days. TTYL.

Bullshit

George Carlin says we shouldn't worry about the decline of the auto and steel industries because they were never America’s leading industries anyway. He says what America has always led to world in, and where we still excel, is the manufacturing and selling of bullshit -- A#1, Grade A, bullshit.

If there was ever any doubt, it disappeared with the revelation that, since leaving the White House, the Clinton's have made more than $109 million manufacturing and selling bullshit. I don't mean this pejoratively. We all have our personal bullshit. I've made a living for almost 30 years selling my own brand. But what else can you call it when people are paying you vast sums to listen to you talk or to read your written bullshit?

And the $109 million is only the tip of the iceberg. The Clinton’s raised another $500 million to fund the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library where their bullshit will be on display long past the end of their mortal selves. This is multi generational, multimedia, manufacturing and selling of bullshit on a scale rarely seen outside of Hollywood or network television.

I once got to see it up close and personal. WJC attended a Fortune magazine conference in 1988 while he was the Governor of Arkansas, and I sat at his table at dinner one evening. I was in awe, and still am today, of his interpersonal skills and ability to appear to really care about whomever he is talking to. Hillary has the same willingness to sling it, but lacks the skills to sell it like Bill – however, sometimes it is less about ability than it is about connections.

Liar of the week

I think we all know why.

Let us now talk about John

The Democratic race has been so much more exciting I feel we’ve been a little like the media in general in that John McCain has gotten too little attention. Since he is my horse in this race, let me try to make the case for him and I’ll be interested, as always, in your responses.

I won’t dwell overly on his personal story, but it is worth stating in the beginning that few people who have ever run for President have given as much to their country, or shown a degree of personal courage that even approaches Senator McCain’s. I do not fault Senators Clinton or Obama for having given less – each of us lives our own lives – nor does this difference make them unqualified for this office. But we will have a choice and McCain’s character is clearly the most tested, and proven worthy, of those choices.

What problems loom most ominously ahead of us? In my view the greatest is the international political turmoil of terrorism and the shift in power to countries like China and an oil-rich Russia. Here again, McCain’s military and international experience dwarfs Clinton and Obama’s, and he is the only one of the three unwilling to promise the fairy tale ending of immediate and total withdrawal to the Iraq mess, which could only lead to a horror show for the Iraqi people and complete chaos in the middle east.

Second, we have America’s looming status as a second-rate economic power, as our Congress (and current President) continues to spend money we don’t have by borrowing it from China and middle eastern potentates who will use the debt as political leverage against us for decades to come. McCain may have questionable credentials as a social conservative, but no one doubts his status as a fiscal conservative. McCain is a vocal and determined foe of pork barrel earmarking, in which our elected representatives appropriate our money under the cover of darkness to advance their own pet political projects.

Social Security begins to go upside down in 2017; by 2030 it will run a half trillion dollar annual deficit unless something is done, and done soon. Who of the three still in the race is most likely to tackle this problem, I ask rhetorically?

Sen. Obama has made a great case for abandoning the old partisan politics, and perhaps he will, but who has actually done so? McCain had a real bipartisan success with campaign reform; he worked closely with Ted Kennedy on education reforms, and was an ally and mentor to Mrs. Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

You may remember that there was even serious consideration given by Sen. Kerry to making McCain his Vice Presidential running mate in 2004. Maybe he should have done it. Neither Obama nor Clinton have any real crossover appeal in the world of political governance. One might even call them polarizing.

And since the Democrats seem to be a lock to control both houses for at least another two years, I would feel a lot less need to hold on to my wallet if John McCain was in a position to veto Congress’ natural proclivity to hock our futures and spend our money without regard for the consequences.

Finally, while he is a politician, and all politicians say and do things for the sake of expediency at least occasionally, there have been few politicians of stature in our lifetimes willing to say the hard truths – to tell unemployed auto workers in Michigan that their jobs may never come back, to say it is impossible to deport 12 million illegal aliens, to call Donald Rumsfeld the worst defense secretary ever – and more. A little more truth is what we need.

So there it is, my case for John McCain. Another old white man, I know. But are you going to buy the packaging or the substance this time?

Miscellaneous

Money: In February, Obama raised about $55 million, Clinton about $38 million, and McCain about $11 million. Controversy pays. The Dems will spend over half a billion dollars to nominate a candidate. I don't know the GOP number, but it's real money. There is something just a little crazy about this process.

Muslim extremists: This seems like too nice a term. Four American and one Austrian contractor were kidnapped in Iraq more than a year ago. This week their captors sent five severed fingers to U.S. authorities as "proof of life." DNA analysis confirms they are from the captives. It would be a really bad thing if these people win.

Gov. Richardson's endorsement of Obama must really hurt. He's known the Clinton's forever. They gave him his first big job. Bill went to NM to watch the Superbowl with him, and yet he went with the enemy, no doubt taking a few Hispanic votes with him. What does he know that we'd like to know?

Why I’m rooting for Obama

It’s taken me a while to get to this point, and I still have my reservations, but I’m hoping Sen. Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Here’s why:

• I’m definitely tired of the Clintons. I don’t think he did anything for the country, I don’t think she has any new ideas, and they are a divisive force in general; plus, it’s simply impossible to separate them into individuals. Elect her and you get him. I’d rather he was out making speeches.
• Obama’s desire for a new kind of political dialog is very appealing to me. Fighting the same old ideological issues we’ve been arguing over since I was 10-years old is getting us nowhere; we aren’t solving problems, we’re blathering into the great void.
• The Rev. Wright issue doesn’t bother me at all. We are not responsible for the words of others and we all have friends or family who say things – sometimes horrible things – that we wish they hadn’t said (like Obama’s white grandma). But we don’t disown them, we judge them as whole persons and on their actions more than their words.
• Don’t get me wrong, I have no use for the rhetoric of the Rev. Wright, but if Obama got the nomination that would do more to silence the voices decrying America as an unrepentant racist state than anything else I can imagine. More importantly, it would give hope to all black people and evidence that not all white people are hopelessly blind to the value black people bring to America. I think it would do a lot of good for the collective white, American soul as well.
• It would be a very positive thing to have something both white and black Americans could root for (or against) other than their favorite team.

Conversely, there is a scenario that scares me. Let’s say the electorate can’t get over Obama’s association with the Rev. Wright, and he staggers to the finish line during these last primaries -- still leading in delegates and popular vote, but with a clear loss of momentum.

The Clinton machine will be working the super delegates like stock brokers at a lottery winner’s convention from now until the summer, with the message that Obama can’t win. The super d’s buy it, and give the nomination to Hillary.

This will make a lot of people, black and white, very angry, but it will be a particularly hard pill to swallow in the black community, and will be like pouring gasoline on the fire for people like Rev. Wright. Racial hostilities will escalate further, and America will slip further behind its promise of being “the last best hope of earth.”

What they’re saying at the deli

The village deli is the Westchester equivalent of the country general store. Sit there for a while and a dozen or so people who have know one another all their lives come in for coffee, breakfast or a sandwich. And while they’re there they gossip about the events of the day.

I was in my local twice this weekend, and what everyone was talking about was Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and they were not happy. They were completely offended and angry at the things he said about 9/11 and about America in general. And as angry as they were, they were equally incredulous that Obama could have been a regular member of Wright’s congregation for 20 years but unaware of the nature of the Reverend’s more inflammatory comments.

If there is one thing I’m sure about, it’s that you can’t reliably tell someone’s politics by looking at them, but this appeared to be a pretty random sample of white people, and they live in a very reliably democratic county. I don’t think this issue is going away soon, and you know the Clinton’s will be doing everything within their considerable powers to make sure it doesn’t.

Hillary’s tin ear

Senator Clinton should have taken some of the millions she paid political consultants and spent them on acting classes. She just doesn’t seem to understand how to project her real personality, if you are to believe her closest friends. You never read an interview with one of them that fails to note how funny and what a good story teller she is in real life. But man, on the stage, under the spotlight, she is just plain tone deaf.

It’s downright painful when she tries to make a joke, like last night’s reference to the “Saturday Night Live” skit. (At least I think that was what she was trying to do.) And she can never tell when to just let a point go. Sen. Obama’s best moment, in my view, was when he responded to her harping on Louis Farrahkan’s endorsement of him by saying, "I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There is no formal offer of help to reject. I'm happy to concede the point. I'm happy to reject and denounce." He seemed much the bigger person for it.

I have some sympathy for her. SNL wasn’t far off the mark; the media does seem to fawn over Barack. Part of that feeling comes from the fact that Clinton has lived so much more of her life in the public eye, and blow-hards like Tim Russert can pick over and play gottcha with thousands of things she’s said or done over the last 16 years, while Obama’s limited experience gives the press less to chew on.


Finally, I’m glad this was the last “debate.” This format is so tired. What does anyone really learn? We had 15 minutes on health care reform and I didn’t hear a single new thing from either of them, and I’ve still never heard either of them put a price tag on it or explain how it’s to be paid for.

I love Ralph

Ralph Nader announced his latest campaign for President today on “Meet the Press.” You can say what you want about him, but he’s the only person speaking out about the real foundation of most of our problems – money. Big corporations, interest groups, and rich people set the agenda for everything. They buy and sell Congress, and therefore control legislation and regulation. No one can run for public office without their support. And everyone is afraid to speak out in any way against the system that gives them this power.

Hillary has spent $100 million and it wasn’t enough. Obama is raising $40-50 million a month now! McCain may already be hopelessly behind in the money race.

Ralph pulls no punches, and nobody scares him. He’s a better debater than anyone else running; Tim Russert tried to nail him on costing Gore the 2000 election and Nader crushed the argument.

I don’t understand why more American’s aren’t angry about the buying and selling of our government. I though John Edwards would be a more effective salesman of Nader’s idea – and he was to a point – but we’re not mad enough yet.

Alert the media: I'm wrong again!

I was a little premature writing off Hillary, I guess. That was a pretty impressive performance Tuesday, winning California, New York, New Jersey and others -- and by such big margins. I clearly overestimated the Kennedy effect since she even won Massachusetts by 15 points.

This might be a good time to restate that I started this blog not because I have any real political insights, but to blow off some steam, and it has been good for that.

I hope everyone reads the comments; there are always good ones. Birdman's observation about how current McCain fans (including me) might rethink their position if Rev. Huckabee were his running mate has me thinking a lot about how little the issues are actually a factor for so many people. The Rev. Huck is a very charming guy with a great personal story. He is an American archetype; a very easy guy to like on a personal level, but it's a little scary to think of him picking Supreme Court justices.

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.