Hussein or not Hussein?

OK, so Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein, but we’re not allowed to say it out loud. Is that about right?

If a political opponent uses his middle name in a speech or an article it is assumed, probably correctly, that it is an attempt to paint Barack as a Muslim, which he is not.
So the response from his supporters is that anyone who speaks or writes Barack’s middle name is a racist. Because why? The logical answer to that question is because they think the word Hussein is intrinsically negative. But doesn’t that play into the hands of those trying to make the Senator sound foreign and frightening by calling him Barack Hussein Obama in the first place? Both parties are just so stupid about stuff like this.

Republicans who shout “Hussein” sound petty and small-minded.

Democrats who denounce them sound like the PC-Gestapo.

Everyone knows his middle name by now, or will soon. The smart move would be for the Dems to start calling him Hussein whenever possible, and by May know one will care.

Of course it could be worse. As Jon Stewart said the other night, his name could have been Gaydolf Titler.

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.

More on McCain smear

Even the New Republic found it strange that the Times would even publish such a piece. The New Republic, for God's sake. You can read their take here. Thanks to AY for the tip.

New York Times smears McCain

Here is a link to the New York Times’ 3000 word smear-job on Senator McCain. I’d be angry if it weren’t so typical. Everyone should read it just to see how lame the charges are, but if you don’t feel like it, I’ll summarize for you: an unnamed number of unnamed people “affiliated” with McCain’s organization were concerned that he and a 40-year-old female lobbyist were “too close.” No facts of any kind are offered in supports of these concerns.

This takes up a pretty small portion of the overall story, which is mostly an attempt to make McCain’s effects on behalf of campaign reform and other ethical issues appear to be either self-serving or hypocritical.

The institutional character of the Times is a little like the heart of the audience it serves: very insular and out of touch with most of the country. The story will play well on the upper west side and among Bennington, Bard and Brandeis grads everywhere. This has been a pretty uplifting election so far; I was hoping the spirit of it might have infected the media, as well, but the Times must have gotten its inoculation against decency.

Now I feel better

According to today's New York Times: "The winners of Pakistan’s parliamentary elections said Tuesday that they would take a new approach to fighting Islamic militants by pursuing more dialogue than military confrontation."

Islamic militants are, of course, noted for their devotion to finding peaceful solutions to problems through dialogue.

Michelle Obama: the new Hillary

Think of an Ivy League lawyer with a corporate job that pays more than that of her Ivy League lawyer politician husband. Imagine maybe she thinks that since she’s higher paid, maybe he isn’t so much. She certainly thinks he gets a little too much love from everyone because he’s just so cool, and maybe he needs to be taken down a peg every now and then.

Mrs. Obama ’08 reminds me a lot of Mrs. Clinton ’92 and if she doesn’t reel it in a little that’s what a big hunk of America is going to think, too. Hillary upset a lot of people when she said she wasn’t about to “stay home baking cookies while she stands by her man.” How do you think those same folks are going to feel about Mrs. O’s remark that "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Not well, I’ll wager. This is going to come back to bedevil the Obama campaign for quite some time. She could do with a little dose of humility.