Oh god I'm sick of that hockey mom Sarah Palin, and sicker still of writing about her, but I can't get over my outrage that John McCain would treat this election as if it is just a game. He isn't serious about anything - not about helping people falling on hard times or caring for military families or providing care for wounded soldiers or education for returning veterans. He doesn't give a crap about the environment or the economy or the security of this country.
His campaign is a joke, replete with ads about Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears, and lies about Barack Obama. He accuses Obama of being not ready to lead, but having suffered several bouts with a deadly form of cancer, he chooses a former beauty queen and airhead as his vice president. Well, she is a brunette, younger version of Cindy so I guess he felt comfortable with her. And if he dies while in office, and turns things over to this woman, what does he care? He'll be gone.
He treats this campaign as if it is a poker game, or worse, a joke, but he is playing with all of our lives and he'd better be rejected by a lanslide of disgusted Americans in November or we are in deep deep trouble.
His pick of Sarah Palin is a disaster, perhaps not for his campaign if he can use her to woo enough uneducated moronic voters to think he's a real maverick and a feminist, but for the country. His wife actually said this morning, echoing the party's talking points, that the hockey mom is a foreign policy expert because Alaska is next to Russia. Are they serious? Of course not. They're playing with us, and playing us, and if we fall for it we are as insane as McCain is.
Now back to the former beauty queen. There are lots of stories floating around on the internet accusing Palin of not being the mother of the four month old baby she claims, and hiding the truth that it is really her daughter's child. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that this may be true, but it may also be one of those ugly internet rumors like the one about Barack Obama being Muslim, and since I am disgusted by that rumor and the damage it has done, I certainly wouldn't want to participate in one that could be just as damaging - especially to Palin's daughter. On the other hand, if this really is a story, then the media will investigate it sooner or later.
The real story, the one that mothers everywhere ought to look at, is why the mother of a four month old Down syndrome baby, and four older children, would take on this responsibility. First, there will be two months of intensive campaigning in the lower forty eight when her family lives in Alaska. Will she bring them everywhere with her or will she send them back to Alaska in the care of someone else so they can start school? If she sends them back, she will not be there for much of two months. If she hauls them around with her, how good is that for them? How healthy is that for this poor infant? The older children will have to be home (hotel) schooled and since she won't have time, they must find a tutor.
Then if, god forbid, she is elected, their relationship with their mother will change profoundly. Unless she reverts to the kind of vice president who only inquires daily about the health of the president, she will be at meetings all day, going to Congress, having daily briefings, traveling to foreign countries, and as McCainites have asserted, "learning at the feet of the master." How does that give her any time to be a mom? This isn't your typical working mom situation. This isn't the job of governor of a sparsely populated state. This is the second most powerful job in the United States.
I thought fundamentalist Christians believed women should raise their own children. I thought they believed in family values. So she decides to give birth to her disabled child, for which she must be praised, but then abandons him and his siblings for the next four to eight years. That isn't practicing family values. That's being selfish and irresponsible.
As for the timing of this child's birth, Palin went back to work three days after he was born. And now, four months later, are we to believe she has no postpartum effects, no hormones a little off kilter, no maternal instincts that make her want to stay with her child and protect him. What about bonding, attachment, the importance of the early years? (This, in addition to the fact that she never "showed," and flew from Texas to Alaska after her water broke so she could give birth in a small rural hospital, is part of the reason the rumors of her not really being the baby's mother got started.)
Now, I have heard some television female commentators (including the idiotic Cokie Roberts) say women will be mad if people criticize the Princess of the Tundra for wanting to be vice president when she has a four month old child, because no one would say that about a man. Jeez what a crock!
First, a woman is not a man, no matter what some fake feminists say. Real feminists know that men and women are not the same biologically. Second, men don't give birth. They don't breast feed and while they bond, they bond differently. It is still the mother who has the biological attachment to the young infant. Third, feminists have called for paid or unpaid maternal leave for decades and they generally would like to see it extend to six months. Feminists know the demands of mothering. They aren't just all about being a high powered career person.
I am the mother of four and I would never have been ready to take on such a monumental job when one of my children was four months old, nor would my maternal instincts have allowed me to. I couldn't live with myself for what I would consider neglect of my child. And I am a long time feminist, so my feelings in this regard do not come from some religious nonsense or some medieval view of womanhood. They come from a sense of responsibility to my children, and a concern for their best interests.
Feminists have always wanted full equality and many interpreted that to mean women wanted to be men. But that is silly. Feminists realize they must make choices. They can have children and careers, but sometimes not all at once, and sometimes not the exact career path they want, or as many children as they would like, unless they are able to provide full time nanny care for their children, which most can't. Having five children, four of them under the age of 18, and one only four months old, does not work well with also trying to be vice president of the United States. Both of the jobs are likely to be done poorly.
Frankly, with my three college degrees, my library of thousands of history and political science and current affairs books, all of which I have read, and my lifelong curiosity about and interest in politics and foreign affairs, I think I would make a much better vice presidential candidate than Ms. Moose Burger, but I would never take the job unless I had first spent some time in Washington. This woman seems completely uninterested in foreign policy in a time of war and knows nothing about the economy other than how to recite a few conservative talking points. What kind of dunce is she to think she can do this?
And how much contempt must Insane McCain have for the American people that he would choose someone, charming though she may be, this ignorant and unqualified? John McCain said in one of this books that he didn't run for president because he wanted to promote specific policies, but that rather he simply had the amibition to be president. And now, at the age of 72, in less than stellar health, he chooses someone who knows nothing about the job he has offered her. They're a couple of know-nothings. Furthermore, I believe this shows that John McCain is not a patriot. He may have been at one time, but with this reckless and cynical choice, he has shown total disregard, if not hatred, for this country and its people.
He says Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election? McCain would rather destroy the country than lose an election.
And apparently Sarah Palin would farm out her children to win an election and feed her inflated ego. That isn't my image of a feminist, a good mother, or a responsible Vice President of the United States.
And finally, if she can't be trusted to put the needs of her own children first, how can we expect her to be concerned about our children?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Insane McCain Part III
Steve Benen and Andrew Sullivan all wonder if McCain has lost his mind, if perhaps there might be something wrong with him, and indeed I think this is a question that must be asked.
When this campaign began and McCain took his trip to Iraq and Israel and had to be corrected over and over again by Joe Lieberman, people began to wonder about his grasp of the facts or his memory.
Throughout the campaign he has had memory problems and said strange things. And now he has chosen the most unqualified person ever to be his running mate, just because she has a uterus and ovaries like Hillary Clinton.
After continually attacking Obama for his supposed lack of experience (though Obama has twelve more years of legislative experience - eight in a large state and four in the U.S. Senate - than Palin) and using the slogan "country first," and after insisting the most important quality he would look for in a veep would be the ability to be president from day one, McCain has gone completely off the rails and chosen someone with much less experience than Obama, much less understanding of the issues of the day, and an absolute lack of qualification to be ready on day one, two or five hundred.
Republicans say she is as qualified as Obama which is of course, absurd. She has a journalism degree (if she actually finished college) from a podunk college in Idaho while Obama has a law degree from Harvard, and worked as a community organizer and a college professor. He has written two highly acclaimed books and run the most successful primary season ever against the Clinton machine. He has traveled and lived around the world and understands the issues in far more complexity than Ms. Palin. It is pure nonsense to put her in the same league with Obama.
It defies explanation and could indeed be evidence that McCain is losing his marbles.
Dementia does not come on all at once. My dad is showing signs of dementia as part of a neurodegenerative disease that is slowly killing him. And we all remember the unususal behavior and memory problems of Ronald Reagan in his final years in office. In diseases that cause dementia, the brain doesn't die all at once. These diseases are progressive. My dad was diagnosed about three years ago, at the age of 79, but when I look back I remember oddities long before that - strange things he said, times I wasn't sure what he meant, unusual things he did.
McCain could be in the early stages of dementia associated with any number of diseases, and we have no idea the toll his years in a POW camp might have had on him.
Now that he has chosen a totally unqualified person to be his running mate, for purely political reasons, and she shows no evidence of realizing how much trouble she is in, McCain's age is more important than ever.
Somebody needs to take a serious look at this before we take the chance that this man and his trophy veep get their hands on the nuclear button.
When this campaign began and McCain took his trip to Iraq and Israel and had to be corrected over and over again by Joe Lieberman, people began to wonder about his grasp of the facts or his memory.
Throughout the campaign he has had memory problems and said strange things. And now he has chosen the most unqualified person ever to be his running mate, just because she has a uterus and ovaries like Hillary Clinton.
After continually attacking Obama for his supposed lack of experience (though Obama has twelve more years of legislative experience - eight in a large state and four in the U.S. Senate - than Palin) and using the slogan "country first," and after insisting the most important quality he would look for in a veep would be the ability to be president from day one, McCain has gone completely off the rails and chosen someone with much less experience than Obama, much less understanding of the issues of the day, and an absolute lack of qualification to be ready on day one, two or five hundred.
Republicans say she is as qualified as Obama which is of course, absurd. She has a journalism degree (if she actually finished college) from a podunk college in Idaho while Obama has a law degree from Harvard, and worked as a community organizer and a college professor. He has written two highly acclaimed books and run the most successful primary season ever against the Clinton machine. He has traveled and lived around the world and understands the issues in far more complexity than Ms. Palin. It is pure nonsense to put her in the same league with Obama.
It defies explanation and could indeed be evidence that McCain is losing his marbles.
Dementia does not come on all at once. My dad is showing signs of dementia as part of a neurodegenerative disease that is slowly killing him. And we all remember the unususal behavior and memory problems of Ronald Reagan in his final years in office. In diseases that cause dementia, the brain doesn't die all at once. These diseases are progressive. My dad was diagnosed about three years ago, at the age of 79, but when I look back I remember oddities long before that - strange things he said, times I wasn't sure what he meant, unusual things he did.
McCain could be in the early stages of dementia associated with any number of diseases, and we have no idea the toll his years in a POW camp might have had on him.
Now that he has chosen a totally unqualified person to be his running mate, for purely political reasons, and she shows no evidence of realizing how much trouble she is in, McCain's age is more important than ever.
Somebody needs to take a serious look at this before we take the chance that this man and his trophy veep get their hands on the nuclear button.
Sarah Palin is bad news for women
Okay, two more things and then I'm going to stop blogging about Sarah Palin and get back to having a life.
First, any suggestion that Joe Biden has to go easy on her in the debates because she is a woman is simply absurd. If she wants to play with the boys, she'd better learn to be tough. She hunts moose and totes guns, apparently, and fires people who won't fire her hated brother in law, so she's tough enough. No one went easy on Hillary and she didn't expect it, so no one should go easy on Palin, unless of course the Republicans have some rule about going easy on former beauty queeens. And the media should stop saying this. It's sexist.
Second, if this woman actually makes it into the vice presidency, and McCain croaks, and she becomes president, whereupon she will fail miserably, every woman in this country better say good-bye to ever putting a woman in the White House again. The frame will be that women can't handle it. The Republicans, by putting this woman on the ticket, are trying to achieve two things: win this election, and eliminate the possibility of a qualified woman ever being president.
You have to pay attention to these guys. On the one hand they say they believe in family values and women taking care of their children, and on the other hand they say we'd better not criticize Palin for wanting to be president when she isn't even five months post-partum.
On the one hand they called Hillary Clinton, a highly respected and qualified Senator, every name in the book (McCain laughed when one of his supporters called her a bitch) and on the other they insist we respect this completely unqualified woman who they say has foreign policy cred because she was the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia.
They're messing with our heads like they always do.
John McCain has to be defeated because, contrary to his pitch to women that he believes it is time a woman became vice president, putting Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency would push back the cause of women a hundred years.
First, any suggestion that Joe Biden has to go easy on her in the debates because she is a woman is simply absurd. If she wants to play with the boys, she'd better learn to be tough. She hunts moose and totes guns, apparently, and fires people who won't fire her hated brother in law, so she's tough enough. No one went easy on Hillary and she didn't expect it, so no one should go easy on Palin, unless of course the Republicans have some rule about going easy on former beauty queeens. And the media should stop saying this. It's sexist.
Second, if this woman actually makes it into the vice presidency, and McCain croaks, and she becomes president, whereupon she will fail miserably, every woman in this country better say good-bye to ever putting a woman in the White House again. The frame will be that women can't handle it. The Republicans, by putting this woman on the ticket, are trying to achieve two things: win this election, and eliminate the possibility of a qualified woman ever being president.
You have to pay attention to these guys. On the one hand they say they believe in family values and women taking care of their children, and on the other hand they say we'd better not criticize Palin for wanting to be president when she isn't even five months post-partum.
On the one hand they called Hillary Clinton, a highly respected and qualified Senator, every name in the book (McCain laughed when one of his supporters called her a bitch) and on the other they insist we respect this completely unqualified woman who they say has foreign policy cred because she was the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia.
They're messing with our heads like they always do.
John McCain has to be defeated because, contrary to his pitch to women that he believes it is time a woman became vice president, putting Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency would push back the cause of women a hundred years.
Meet the new celebrity
So I see People magazine has scored an interview with Sarah Palin and family.
That was fast!
It wouldn't be because Sarah Palin wants to be a CELEBRITY, would it?
That was fast!
It wouldn't be because Sarah Palin wants to be a CELEBRITY, would it?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Risking the country to win an election
John McCain said Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election - which of course isn't true because Obama has never talked about losing a war, only bringing the troops home from a war that has already been won.
But now, by choosing the most unqualified women he could find to be his running mate - in a cynical pander to disgruntled Hillary supporters - we can say that John McCain would rather lose the country, sacrificing its well being and security, than lose an election.
Or as Andrew Sullivan said: "Putting. Country. Last."
But now, by choosing the most unqualified women he could find to be his running mate - in a cynical pander to disgruntled Hillary supporters - we can say that John McCain would rather lose the country, sacrificing its well being and security, than lose an election.
Or as Andrew Sullivan said: "Putting. Country. Last."
Two kinds of "feminists"
A few days ago, as the stage was being constructed at Mile High Stadium in anticipation of Obama's acceptance speech, the Republican talking point of the day was that Obama's team was constructing the "Temple of Obama," and this was just more evidence of his arrogance and celebrity.
I argued that this was simply one more stupid attack that carried no substance. "Since they got nothing," I said to my daughter, "they yak away about everything. And most of it is simply stupid."
If you really had anything decent to run on, would you run ads comparing Barack Obama to Brittany Spears? Would you try to tie him to William Ayers, a man who was notorious when Barack was eight years old? Would you continue to send out viral emails that Obama is a Muslim, when you know you are lying? Would you complain about the roman columns in Mile High Stadium when four years ago roman columns graced the stage where Bush gave his acceptance speech?
Nothing could have confirmed my view that "they got nothing" more than McCain's absurd pick for vice president. Sarah Palin has absolutely no experience of any consequence on the national stage. Like McCain, she probably doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. She's probably taking a crash course from Joe Liebermann as we speak.
I don't think this will win over many Hillary supporters, unless they are fake Hillary supporters who were just trying to defeat Obama in the primary so McCain had a less formidable (or so they thought) candidate to run against.
The real Hillary supporters will be offended by this. The real Hillary supporters didn't just want to see any woman become president. They clearly stated how long they had waited for just the right woman - and it was Hillary. There is no way they can see Sarah Palin as the right woman to become the first President of the United States should grandpa McCain keel over.
This is insulting to women, whom McCain must really see as stupid, a cynical ploy which disrespects the American people and plays fast and loose with our national security and the good of the nation.
I have learned to distinguish between two types of women who claim to be feminists. There is the progressive, liberal feminist who believes in equality and reproductive choice, who demands equal pay for equal work, who can stand toe to toe with any man, any place, any time, as long as she is equally qualified for the job. She is assertive and strong, and politically she doesn't do things to hurt other women or children. While she always looks presentable, she would not be caught dead entering a beauty contest, because she believes beauty is inside, not outside. Her vision of equality is that she is judged not on her looks but on her intelligence and her skills.
Then there is the conservative woman who pretends to be a feminist. She espouses all the tired old anti-woman values and policies that Republicans favor, she vetoes legislation that helps people, but she plays the part of the feminist by getting a job when the kids get older. However, she is likely to be extremely concerned about her appearance, and spends an inordinate amount of time on makeup, hair, photo shoots for Vogue magazine, and generally looking as feminine and hot as she can. She would be comfortable entering a beauty contest, as Sarah Palin did. (Interesting that just a few weeks ago, John McCain suggested his wife Cindy should enter a rather pornographic beauty contest.) In other words, she acts the part, but does not live the part of a feminist.
In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has chosen an attractive and relatively unknown and inexperienced neophyte, someone who will get along fine with his trophy wife Cindy, and who probably won't threaten him.
We women should not only be insulted. We should be terrified that a candidate like McCain would risk our security as a nation by passing over so many qualified women within the Republican Party and picking this trophy candidate.
Hillary's supporters warned Obama not to pick any woman other than Hillary as his vice president. Since Obama felt he couldn't pick Hillary (for a variety of valid reasons including problems with her husband) he chose the most qualified man he could. No Hillary supporter could feel the choice of Biden was an insult to Hillary.
But McCain has picked the most unqualified woman he could find. Is this really going to please Hillary supporters? I don't think so. I don't think for one minute that true Hillary supporters could possibly get behind a pro-gun, anti-choice, pro-oil, pro-Bush, ultra conservative like Sarah Palin.
McCain's first decision as a presidential nominee was a terrible one, and will cost him the election.
I argued that this was simply one more stupid attack that carried no substance. "Since they got nothing," I said to my daughter, "they yak away about everything. And most of it is simply stupid."
If you really had anything decent to run on, would you run ads comparing Barack Obama to Brittany Spears? Would you try to tie him to William Ayers, a man who was notorious when Barack was eight years old? Would you continue to send out viral emails that Obama is a Muslim, when you know you are lying? Would you complain about the roman columns in Mile High Stadium when four years ago roman columns graced the stage where Bush gave his acceptance speech?
Nothing could have confirmed my view that "they got nothing" more than McCain's absurd pick for vice president. Sarah Palin has absolutely no experience of any consequence on the national stage. Like McCain, she probably doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. She's probably taking a crash course from Joe Liebermann as we speak.
I don't think this will win over many Hillary supporters, unless they are fake Hillary supporters who were just trying to defeat Obama in the primary so McCain had a less formidable (or so they thought) candidate to run against.
The real Hillary supporters will be offended by this. The real Hillary supporters didn't just want to see any woman become president. They clearly stated how long they had waited for just the right woman - and it was Hillary. There is no way they can see Sarah Palin as the right woman to become the first President of the United States should grandpa McCain keel over.
This is insulting to women, whom McCain must really see as stupid, a cynical ploy which disrespects the American people and plays fast and loose with our national security and the good of the nation.
I have learned to distinguish between two types of women who claim to be feminists. There is the progressive, liberal feminist who believes in equality and reproductive choice, who demands equal pay for equal work, who can stand toe to toe with any man, any place, any time, as long as she is equally qualified for the job. She is assertive and strong, and politically she doesn't do things to hurt other women or children. While she always looks presentable, she would not be caught dead entering a beauty contest, because she believes beauty is inside, not outside. Her vision of equality is that she is judged not on her looks but on her intelligence and her skills.
Then there is the conservative woman who pretends to be a feminist. She espouses all the tired old anti-woman values and policies that Republicans favor, she vetoes legislation that helps people, but she plays the part of the feminist by getting a job when the kids get older. However, she is likely to be extremely concerned about her appearance, and spends an inordinate amount of time on makeup, hair, photo shoots for Vogue magazine, and generally looking as feminine and hot as she can. She would be comfortable entering a beauty contest, as Sarah Palin did. (Interesting that just a few weeks ago, John McCain suggested his wife Cindy should enter a rather pornographic beauty contest.) In other words, she acts the part, but does not live the part of a feminist.
In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has chosen an attractive and relatively unknown and inexperienced neophyte, someone who will get along fine with his trophy wife Cindy, and who probably won't threaten him.
We women should not only be insulted. We should be terrified that a candidate like McCain would risk our security as a nation by passing over so many qualified women within the Republican Party and picking this trophy candidate.
Hillary's supporters warned Obama not to pick any woman other than Hillary as his vice president. Since Obama felt he couldn't pick Hillary (for a variety of valid reasons including problems with her husband) he chose the most qualified man he could. No Hillary supporter could feel the choice of Biden was an insult to Hillary.
But McCain has picked the most unqualified woman he could find. Is this really going to please Hillary supporters? I don't think so. I don't think for one minute that true Hillary supporters could possibly get behind a pro-gun, anti-choice, pro-oil, pro-Bush, ultra conservative like Sarah Palin.
McCain's first decision as a presidential nominee was a terrible one, and will cost him the election.
Insane McCain Part II
Really?
Is he serious?
John McCain thinks all he has to do to get Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for him is to pick someone with a uterus and ovaries as his running mate and they will all come streaming over to him?
John McCain is so out of touch it is comical. He knows nothing about computers and he also apparently knows nothing about women.
Does he really think that all those women who believed in Hillary Clinton, someone who has worked for thirty years for the causes of women and children, for reproductive choice, for health care for all, for equal pay for women, and who would promote gay rights, will just jump to support an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-universal health care, anti-health care for children candidate?
Is he completely and totally certifiable?
Yes.
He has decided to court the evangelical right wing, to play by the Karl Rove play book, and to go for conservative ideology in a year when Democrats and progressives have increased in numbers and are fired up to support Barack Obama.
He has decided to pick a governor of the most back woods state in the nation, a governor who has no foreign policy experience, an unknown.
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters will throw all their respect for her overboard just so they can support a woman who is against everything Hillary Clinton is for?
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters have given up on her becoming president someday, and does he really think they will abandon Hillary because all they care about is having any woman be president - even Sarah Palin who has no experience at all - a female Dan Quayle? Hillary Clinton's supporters are not stupid and they are not suicidal. They supported Hillary because she was experienced and because she was for the things they were for. Sarah Palin is neither experienced nor in favor of any of the things Hillary Clinton supports.
This is not only stupid on McCain's part, it is insulting to women. It is a reflection of his belief that females are so stupid they will simply follow any woman.
Reporters are saying this is a gamble. It is more than that. It is insulting to the intelligence of the women of America. And it will not help him.
Is he serious?
John McCain thinks all he has to do to get Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for him is to pick someone with a uterus and ovaries as his running mate and they will all come streaming over to him?
John McCain is so out of touch it is comical. He knows nothing about computers and he also apparently knows nothing about women.
Does he really think that all those women who believed in Hillary Clinton, someone who has worked for thirty years for the causes of women and children, for reproductive choice, for health care for all, for equal pay for women, and who would promote gay rights, will just jump to support an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-universal health care, anti-health care for children candidate?
Is he completely and totally certifiable?
Yes.
He has decided to court the evangelical right wing, to play by the Karl Rove play book, and to go for conservative ideology in a year when Democrats and progressives have increased in numbers and are fired up to support Barack Obama.
He has decided to pick a governor of the most back woods state in the nation, a governor who has no foreign policy experience, an unknown.
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters will throw all their respect for her overboard just so they can support a woman who is against everything Hillary Clinton is for?
Does he really think Hillary Clinton's female supporters have given up on her becoming president someday, and does he really think they will abandon Hillary because all they care about is having any woman be president - even Sarah Palin who has no experience at all - a female Dan Quayle? Hillary Clinton's supporters are not stupid and they are not suicidal. They supported Hillary because she was experienced and because she was for the things they were for. Sarah Palin is neither experienced nor in favor of any of the things Hillary Clinton supports.
This is not only stupid on McCain's part, it is insulting to women. It is a reflection of his belief that females are so stupid they will simply follow any woman.
Reporters are saying this is a gamble. It is more than that. It is insulting to the intelligence of the women of America. And it will not help him.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The wrath of God
I can't write anything brilliant about Obama's speech this late because words can't possibly sum up or add to what we have all witnessed. Maybe tomorrow I'll have something to say, but for now I am just amused that karma is apparently descending on those bastard Republicans.
Remember how that idiot psychologist turned holier than thou moralist James Dobson got one of his flunkies to get everyone to pray that God would send down rain on Mile High Stadium during Obama's speech? Well not only did God not oblige, he made sure there was not a cloud in the sky.
And just for good measure, he has apparently decided to mess with the Republican convention with a little precipitation. Seems the Grumpy Old Poops might have to change their convention plans or even delay their convention because Hurricane something or other is bearing down on the U.S. in what tragically could be a repeat of Katrina and remind everyone of how well the Republicans handled that emergency and how McCain and Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while residents of New Orleans drowned. Plus it might pre-empt coverage of their pathetic convention.
Now I sincerely hope this hurricane threat never pans out. I don't want anyone hurt or any homes destroyed just because the Republicans prayed for rain and forgot to give God the GPS coordinates. But perhaps Dobson might remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish (or pray) for. Moron!
Remember how that idiot psychologist turned holier than thou moralist James Dobson got one of his flunkies to get everyone to pray that God would send down rain on Mile High Stadium during Obama's speech? Well not only did God not oblige, he made sure there was not a cloud in the sky.
And just for good measure, he has apparently decided to mess with the Republican convention with a little precipitation. Seems the Grumpy Old Poops might have to change their convention plans or even delay their convention because Hurricane something or other is bearing down on the U.S. in what tragically could be a repeat of Katrina and remind everyone of how well the Republicans handled that emergency and how McCain and Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while residents of New Orleans drowned. Plus it might pre-empt coverage of their pathetic convention.
Now I sincerely hope this hurricane threat never pans out. I don't want anyone hurt or any homes destroyed just because the Republicans prayed for rain and forgot to give God the GPS coordinates. But perhaps Dobson might remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish (or pray) for. Moron!
The irrelevant media
The traditional media has become irrelevant. Only the non-traditional C-SPAN showed the convention speeches (all of them) in their entirely, without commentary by bloviators.
On cable, (CNN and MSNBC in particular - FOX is banned in my home) the blowhard commentators thought we would rather hear them than the speeches. And they had to dissect and prognosticate and hand-wring and criticize. And they have been wrong about everything.
On MSNBC, which is the station I watch the most, they are truly missing the guiding maternal presence of Tim Russert, who was the one to soothe wounded egos and keep everybody happy. I have seen at least three examples of major or minor confrontations betweeen anchors and commentators on MSNBC over the past few days. Joe Scarborough felt dissed by Keith Olbermann one night, and he reacted visibly, and then got even the next morning by disagreeing with every comment KO made the night before about the speeches. Then he lit into David Schuster over the Iraq War and when he ran out of arguments on his side, he attacked Schuster for missing three appearances on Morning Jo(k)e because he "overslept." While JS lit into Schuster, Stepford Wife Mika and two guests looked at the floor, too terrified to intervene. After that, Mika got fully into Stepford Wife mode. Later that day, Chris Matthews took offense and acted snippy over some way KO moved his hand. They looked like a bunch of schoolyard bullies in a pissing contest. It was the most juvenile thing I've seen on television since Zel Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel four years ago.
But the most amusing thing about Morning Jo(k)e is how wrong they have been on absolutely everything, not only at this convention, but throughout the whole primary.
They were sure Jeremiah Wright would destroy Obama, even as they did all they could to play and replay the tapes and smear him. They were certain Hillary would overcome Obama's lead and become the nominee, even though she actually was mathematically defeated since about February. At the convention, they did everything they could to create controversy for Obama. They predicted Hillary's speech would be all about her, and then when it was mostly about her support for Obama, they criticized it for not going far enough to attack McCain. They predicted Bill wouldn't be able to get his ego out of the way and would obsess about his own time as president. When he didn't, they said he didn't go far enough to attack McCain. "Not enough red meat" is the mantra they repeated. Joe Biden's speech, they said, wasn't quite up to par. And they praised John Kerry for giving one of the most "red meat" speeches, and when they realized that they had not played it in real time, they blamed the Obama campaign for not having the speeches lined up one after another to "force them" to cover it.
These guys are total and complete clowns who don't even see the absurdity of their comments.
They are doing nothing but following Republican talking points. Had the convention been all "red meat" as Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough said it should have been, they would have talked about the danger of the perception of Obama as the scary angry black man. Had Clinton and Clinton spent all their time trashing McCain, they would have said they didn't focus on Obama enough, or how dare they diss a POW - they're getting into dangerous territory of being unpatriotic.
Now they're making fun of the Roman columns at Mile High Stadium where Obama will speak tonight, although they were shown pictures of the Roman columns at Bush's 2000 convention and had to back off a bit. But they are still saying going there is a mistake because the Clintons "owned the convention hall" and Obama should speak there to take it back. They also say he will play right into the "celebrity" ads McCain has run, and he should change his plans at the last minute.
Tomorrow, when they are proven wrong again, they will find something else to criticize.
They are flailing. They know television news stations are dying because other media sources, most notably the internet, are doing a better job of disseminating information than they are. So they have to create controversy and say outrageous things in the hope that someone, anyone, will tune in to their network instead of C-SPAN.
They gave away this desperation over the past few days on Morning Jo(k)e when they continued the blogger bashing they have been doing for months. JS, who like John McCain, may not even know where the computer "on" button is, insists all bloggers "eat cheetos, worship Star Wars, and live in their mother's basement."
When they sent their little pet Willie Geist out to talk to bloggers he got some funny answers like "my mother doesn't have a basement" and "I've never watched Star Wars" and "I don't eat anything while I blog as I don't want crumbs in my keyboard." It was an amusing segment, but it proved my point. These media personalities are irrelevant and will soon be relegated to the past because they fail to see the new media that is replacing them and the seriousness and intelligence of those who have embraced the new mode of communication.
One glaring piece of evidence that this is true is that two of the main personalities on the morning show, Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough, neither of whom understands the power of the internet, have condemned Democrats every day for not ripping the guts out of the Republicans for the tragedies of the past eight years. What they fail to understand is that Democrats don't have to be reminded of this disastrous administration because that is old news. We have been documenting this and discussing it for eight years. Even independents and republicans don't have to be reminded as the Bush administration's negatives are around 80%.
It isn't necessary to rip the guts out of this administration - Obama and Biden will hit these points plenty on the campaign trail and in advertisements - but the convention needed to be about the man that these television jokers insist the country doesn't really know, and it needed to be about his vision for the country, which has needed lifting up for years. (If the convention had been a red meat convention, the bloviators would have said it should have been more about Obama introducing himself to the nation.)
Good-bye traditional media. Your days are numbered. You are foolish, silly people and you have nothing of value to offer us.
On cable, (CNN and MSNBC in particular - FOX is banned in my home) the blowhard commentators thought we would rather hear them than the speeches. And they had to dissect and prognosticate and hand-wring and criticize. And they have been wrong about everything.
On MSNBC, which is the station I watch the most, they are truly missing the guiding maternal presence of Tim Russert, who was the one to soothe wounded egos and keep everybody happy. I have seen at least three examples of major or minor confrontations betweeen anchors and commentators on MSNBC over the past few days. Joe Scarborough felt dissed by Keith Olbermann one night, and he reacted visibly, and then got even the next morning by disagreeing with every comment KO made the night before about the speeches. Then he lit into David Schuster over the Iraq War and when he ran out of arguments on his side, he attacked Schuster for missing three appearances on Morning Jo(k)e because he "overslept." While JS lit into Schuster, Stepford Wife Mika and two guests looked at the floor, too terrified to intervene. After that, Mika got fully into Stepford Wife mode. Later that day, Chris Matthews took offense and acted snippy over some way KO moved his hand. They looked like a bunch of schoolyard bullies in a pissing contest. It was the most juvenile thing I've seen on television since Zel Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel four years ago.
But the most amusing thing about Morning Jo(k)e is how wrong they have been on absolutely everything, not only at this convention, but throughout the whole primary.
They were sure Jeremiah Wright would destroy Obama, even as they did all they could to play and replay the tapes and smear him. They were certain Hillary would overcome Obama's lead and become the nominee, even though she actually was mathematically defeated since about February. At the convention, they did everything they could to create controversy for Obama. They predicted Hillary's speech would be all about her, and then when it was mostly about her support for Obama, they criticized it for not going far enough to attack McCain. They predicted Bill wouldn't be able to get his ego out of the way and would obsess about his own time as president. When he didn't, they said he didn't go far enough to attack McCain. "Not enough red meat" is the mantra they repeated. Joe Biden's speech, they said, wasn't quite up to par. And they praised John Kerry for giving one of the most "red meat" speeches, and when they realized that they had not played it in real time, they blamed the Obama campaign for not having the speeches lined up one after another to "force them" to cover it.
These guys are total and complete clowns who don't even see the absurdity of their comments.
They are doing nothing but following Republican talking points. Had the convention been all "red meat" as Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough said it should have been, they would have talked about the danger of the perception of Obama as the scary angry black man. Had Clinton and Clinton spent all their time trashing McCain, they would have said they didn't focus on Obama enough, or how dare they diss a POW - they're getting into dangerous territory of being unpatriotic.
Now they're making fun of the Roman columns at Mile High Stadium where Obama will speak tonight, although they were shown pictures of the Roman columns at Bush's 2000 convention and had to back off a bit. But they are still saying going there is a mistake because the Clintons "owned the convention hall" and Obama should speak there to take it back. They also say he will play right into the "celebrity" ads McCain has run, and he should change his plans at the last minute.
Tomorrow, when they are proven wrong again, they will find something else to criticize.
They are flailing. They know television news stations are dying because other media sources, most notably the internet, are doing a better job of disseminating information than they are. So they have to create controversy and say outrageous things in the hope that someone, anyone, will tune in to their network instead of C-SPAN.
They gave away this desperation over the past few days on Morning Jo(k)e when they continued the blogger bashing they have been doing for months. JS, who like John McCain, may not even know where the computer "on" button is, insists all bloggers "eat cheetos, worship Star Wars, and live in their mother's basement."
When they sent their little pet Willie Geist out to talk to bloggers he got some funny answers like "my mother doesn't have a basement" and "I've never watched Star Wars" and "I don't eat anything while I blog as I don't want crumbs in my keyboard." It was an amusing segment, but it proved my point. These media personalities are irrelevant and will soon be relegated to the past because they fail to see the new media that is replacing them and the seriousness and intelligence of those who have embraced the new mode of communication.
One glaring piece of evidence that this is true is that two of the main personalities on the morning show, Pat Buchanan and Jo(k)e Scarborough, neither of whom understands the power of the internet, have condemned Democrats every day for not ripping the guts out of the Republicans for the tragedies of the past eight years. What they fail to understand is that Democrats don't have to be reminded of this disastrous administration because that is old news. We have been documenting this and discussing it for eight years. Even independents and republicans don't have to be reminded as the Bush administration's negatives are around 80%.
It isn't necessary to rip the guts out of this administration - Obama and Biden will hit these points plenty on the campaign trail and in advertisements - but the convention needed to be about the man that these television jokers insist the country doesn't really know, and it needed to be about his vision for the country, which has needed lifting up for years. (If the convention had been a red meat convention, the bloviators would have said it should have been more about Obama introducing himself to the nation.)
Good-bye traditional media. Your days are numbered. You are foolish, silly people and you have nothing of value to offer us.
History
If I didn't despise the Republican Party so much, if I didn't think they should be forever painted as the Party that allowed 9/11 to happen, lied us into a war, created more poverty, given away jobs, destroyed the middle class, ignored the health of the people, de-stablilized the world, decimated the military, enriched the already rich, tortured and imprisoned people unjustly, and trashed the Constitution, I would almost feel sorry for them.
Why?
Because they have never had and will never have moments like we Democrats had last night and will have tonight. They will never be the party that nominated the first African American for president, and they will never hear an acceptance speech by that nominee.
In nominating an African American for president, the Democrats did something last night that may someday be viewed as an incredibly significant turning point in the cultural history of this country.
As we all know, long before the Revolutionary War was fought, before our Constitution was written and our first president sworn in, the economy of a good portion of the country was dependent on slave labor. White men went to the coast of Africa and purchased African human beings, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned by slavers, and tore them away from their families to be brought to this country in chains. For hundreds of years this practice continued, even after the nation was formed, and ultimately a war was fought to free those human beings.
The losing side in that war, however, refused to accept that those Africans-Americans were equal to them. They refused to see their humanity. So for another hundred years Jim Crow laws in the South made segregation the norm and prevented African-Americans from voting and thus being equal participants in democracy. The North was not innocent either. Segregation existed in the northern states as well, and racism infected the entire nation.
As recently as two years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an African American could be the nominee of a major political party. Yet here we are. Last night, Barack Obama, an African American candidate, was nominated to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Even as her supporters were profoundly disappointed that she did not become the first female nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton was the one who moved to have Barack Obama nominated by acclamation. Even she understood the historic significance of the moment and she wanted to be part of it. Then, in a moment of triumph for Obama, the party, and the nation, the cameras moved around the room and caught images of people weeping - whites and blacks together. Though they had hoped and prayed for this moment, the actual nomination was overwhelming - a dream most thought would not happen in their lifetimes.
All the years of kidnapping, chains, slavery, discrimination, segregation, lynchings, beatings, rapes, racism, fire hoses and assassinations led to this moment, and the people in the crowd could hardly believe it. The people of the Democratic Party this year had the courage to nominate a man who may not win in November, partly because of the subtle and silent racism that still exists in this country, and partly because the Republicans are pulling and will continue to pull every nasty and ugly campaign trick in the book, and will appeal to that racism with their dog whistle politics.
The Republicans have depended on the entrenched racism in the South for their victories ever since 1968, and especially in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. In those years, they used coded signals that chastised the Democratic Party for giving too many rights and privileges to black Americans. They used words like "states rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action" to criticize their opponents and appeal to white resentment of the black citizens they once imprisoned and enslaved. Ronald Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place notorious for murders of civil rights workers and lynchings of black Americans, with a speech about states rights. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton ads to smear his rival. And George W. Bush got rid of his main GOP rival in 2000 by accusing him of having a "black baby."
The Republicans will do it again this year, only this time they can use their racist tactics directly against an African American candidate. They will feign innocence when they are accused of dog whistle tactics, as they already have, but that doesn't make their coded racism any less obvious and any less disgusting - and any less evil.
They may very well succeed, however. In a year where the incumbent party has an 80% unpopularity rating, a year that should be the year for a Democratic victory, the Republicans have nominated a former POW and insist that immunizes him from all criticism, while they slam the Democrats and demand they never talk about race. They are playing their POW card daily, and also playing a subtle, dog-whistle race card, while accusing the Democrats of playing the race card and demanding they stop. Incredible! These people have no shame, and no soul.
We will have to see what happens. I believe Barack Obama, with his new brand of politics, with his incredible brilliance, with his soft and steady temperament, with his money and tightly organized campaign, and with his registration of millions of new voters, may actually win. It will not be easy, but it might happen. I don't underestimate the despicable tactics of a despicable party, but I still believe good can occasionally overcome evil, and I believe Obama can win. If he doesn't, it will be because not enough old racists have died yet. If he wins, on the other hand, it will not only be the beginning of a new era, it will be the end of an era.
Once we have elected an African American president, racism will be unacceptable in a way that the election of John F. Kennedy made anti-Catholicism unacceptable. Sure anti-Catholicism still exists in places, but it simply has no power anymore. If you doubt that, count how many Catholics sit on the Supreme Court today. I believe it is a majority.
This week was historic and grand. Should Obama actually be elected in November, his presidency and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln will be forever linked as bookends on the fight to end this nation's original sin of slavery, followed by over a hundred years of racially motivated crimes and discrimination in a nation supposedly dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
We live in a truly historic moment. This is our time. I hope we don't blow it. And I hope we don't let the Republicans destroy it.
Why?
Because they have never had and will never have moments like we Democrats had last night and will have tonight. They will never be the party that nominated the first African American for president, and they will never hear an acceptance speech by that nominee.
In nominating an African American for president, the Democrats did something last night that may someday be viewed as an incredibly significant turning point in the cultural history of this country.
As we all know, long before the Revolutionary War was fought, before our Constitution was written and our first president sworn in, the economy of a good portion of the country was dependent on slave labor. White men went to the coast of Africa and purchased African human beings, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned by slavers, and tore them away from their families to be brought to this country in chains. For hundreds of years this practice continued, even after the nation was formed, and ultimately a war was fought to free those human beings.
The losing side in that war, however, refused to accept that those Africans-Americans were equal to them. They refused to see their humanity. So for another hundred years Jim Crow laws in the South made segregation the norm and prevented African-Americans from voting and thus being equal participants in democracy. The North was not innocent either. Segregation existed in the northern states as well, and racism infected the entire nation.
As recently as two years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an African American could be the nominee of a major political party. Yet here we are. Last night, Barack Obama, an African American candidate, was nominated to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Even as her supporters were profoundly disappointed that she did not become the first female nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton was the one who moved to have Barack Obama nominated by acclamation. Even she understood the historic significance of the moment and she wanted to be part of it. Then, in a moment of triumph for Obama, the party, and the nation, the cameras moved around the room and caught images of people weeping - whites and blacks together. Though they had hoped and prayed for this moment, the actual nomination was overwhelming - a dream most thought would not happen in their lifetimes.
All the years of kidnapping, chains, slavery, discrimination, segregation, lynchings, beatings, rapes, racism, fire hoses and assassinations led to this moment, and the people in the crowd could hardly believe it. The people of the Democratic Party this year had the courage to nominate a man who may not win in November, partly because of the subtle and silent racism that still exists in this country, and partly because the Republicans are pulling and will continue to pull every nasty and ugly campaign trick in the book, and will appeal to that racism with their dog whistle politics.
The Republicans have depended on the entrenched racism in the South for their victories ever since 1968, and especially in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. In those years, they used coded signals that chastised the Democratic Party for giving too many rights and privileges to black Americans. They used words like "states rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action" to criticize their opponents and appeal to white resentment of the black citizens they once imprisoned and enslaved. Ronald Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place notorious for murders of civil rights workers and lynchings of black Americans, with a speech about states rights. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton ads to smear his rival. And George W. Bush got rid of his main GOP rival in 2000 by accusing him of having a "black baby."
The Republicans will do it again this year, only this time they can use their racist tactics directly against an African American candidate. They will feign innocence when they are accused of dog whistle tactics, as they already have, but that doesn't make their coded racism any less obvious and any less disgusting - and any less evil.
They may very well succeed, however. In a year where the incumbent party has an 80% unpopularity rating, a year that should be the year for a Democratic victory, the Republicans have nominated a former POW and insist that immunizes him from all criticism, while they slam the Democrats and demand they never talk about race. They are playing their POW card daily, and also playing a subtle, dog-whistle race card, while accusing the Democrats of playing the race card and demanding they stop. Incredible! These people have no shame, and no soul.
We will have to see what happens. I believe Barack Obama, with his new brand of politics, with his incredible brilliance, with his soft and steady temperament, with his money and tightly organized campaign, and with his registration of millions of new voters, may actually win. It will not be easy, but it might happen. I don't underestimate the despicable tactics of a despicable party, but I still believe good can occasionally overcome evil, and I believe Obama can win. If he doesn't, it will be because not enough old racists have died yet. If he wins, on the other hand, it will not only be the beginning of a new era, it will be the end of an era.
Once we have elected an African American president, racism will be unacceptable in a way that the election of John F. Kennedy made anti-Catholicism unacceptable. Sure anti-Catholicism still exists in places, but it simply has no power anymore. If you doubt that, count how many Catholics sit on the Supreme Court today. I believe it is a majority.
This week was historic and grand. Should Obama actually be elected in November, his presidency and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln will be forever linked as bookends on the fight to end this nation's original sin of slavery, followed by over a hundred years of racially motivated crimes and discrimination in a nation supposedly dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
We live in a truly historic moment. This is our time. I hope we don't blow it. And I hope we don't let the Republicans destroy it.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Democratic angst vs. Republican aggression
If there is one thing that seems predictable election after election it is that Republicans will attack and act confident, even when they are behind in the polls, and Democrats will hand-wring and express fear of losing, even when they are ahead.
Hasn't anyone ever heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy?" It's a term from psychology that basically says if a person believes they might fail, they will begin to act in ways that ensure failure. And Democrats are masters at it.
The Republicans, who have the worst policies and values ever, who are greedy, hypocritical, lying bastards who cannot be trusted with the governance of this country, as they have proven over the past eight years, will never, ever give up. They will exude confidence and attempt to destroy the Democratic convention. Rudy and Mitt are there, crapping all over Obama's party, and laughing every minute, predicting they will destroy him in November. These are the two biggest egos McCain beat in the primaries and they are going to battle for him, because they want their party to win.
In the meantime, Hillary says "support Obama" and many of her people are pouting because princess pantsuit didn't win and saying they will vote for McCain, and everyone else is biting their nails and listening to the stupid windbags on television tear apart Hillary's speech and running around like Henny Penney waiting for disaster.
Republican evangelicals may say they are praying for the arrival of the end times, but Democrats are sure the end times are coming for their candidate. It is sick and stupid and self-defeating.
Republicans fight until the end, and in the case of the election of 2000, even after the end. And that kind of fighting brings them victory. Sure, they sometimes lose, but they don't mourn until they absolutely have to, while the Democrats are already preparing for the wake.
Democrats have to stop this now.
I don't know if Hillary really meant what she said last night or not, and I no longer care. I don't care what Bill does or does not say tonight. I think most ordinary viewers thought Hillary did a fine job and aren't agonizing over what she didn't say. Who cares if she is trying to run for president in 2012? It doesn't matter. It isn't about her unless we let it be about her. And she won't be able to run in 2012 if we fight hard enough for an Obama victory now. And it certainly isn't about Bill. He's old news and Obama knows it. Now if only the rest of us believed it.
Obama can win this thing if Democrats start acting like Republicans - no we don't have to use smear and fear, but we have to have confidence and hold onto the belief that we can and we will put Barack Obama in the White House.
Yes, we can, but only if we believe we can and only if we stop the hand wringing and paying attention to the main stream media nutjobs who want to cause trouble and who are doing the bidding of their corporate masters who support McCain.
Courage, optimism, hope, belief, determination, aggressiveness, and a fighting spirit are the tools we need. Now let's go out and use them.
Hasn't anyone ever heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy?" It's a term from psychology that basically says if a person believes they might fail, they will begin to act in ways that ensure failure. And Democrats are masters at it.
The Republicans, who have the worst policies and values ever, who are greedy, hypocritical, lying bastards who cannot be trusted with the governance of this country, as they have proven over the past eight years, will never, ever give up. They will exude confidence and attempt to destroy the Democratic convention. Rudy and Mitt are there, crapping all over Obama's party, and laughing every minute, predicting they will destroy him in November. These are the two biggest egos McCain beat in the primaries and they are going to battle for him, because they want their party to win.
In the meantime, Hillary says "support Obama" and many of her people are pouting because princess pantsuit didn't win and saying they will vote for McCain, and everyone else is biting their nails and listening to the stupid windbags on television tear apart Hillary's speech and running around like Henny Penney waiting for disaster.
Republican evangelicals may say they are praying for the arrival of the end times, but Democrats are sure the end times are coming for their candidate. It is sick and stupid and self-defeating.
Republicans fight until the end, and in the case of the election of 2000, even after the end. And that kind of fighting brings them victory. Sure, they sometimes lose, but they don't mourn until they absolutely have to, while the Democrats are already preparing for the wake.
Democrats have to stop this now.
I don't know if Hillary really meant what she said last night or not, and I no longer care. I don't care what Bill does or does not say tonight. I think most ordinary viewers thought Hillary did a fine job and aren't agonizing over what she didn't say. Who cares if she is trying to run for president in 2012? It doesn't matter. It isn't about her unless we let it be about her. And she won't be able to run in 2012 if we fight hard enough for an Obama victory now. And it certainly isn't about Bill. He's old news and Obama knows it. Now if only the rest of us believed it.
Obama can win this thing if Democrats start acting like Republicans - no we don't have to use smear and fear, but we have to have confidence and hold onto the belief that we can and we will put Barack Obama in the White House.
Yes, we can, but only if we believe we can and only if we stop the hand wringing and paying attention to the main stream media nutjobs who want to cause trouble and who are doing the bidding of their corporate masters who support McCain.
Courage, optimism, hope, belief, determination, aggressiveness, and a fighting spirit are the tools we need. Now let's go out and use them.
More convention reaction
Mark Warner's speech was dull and selfish. It was all about his Senate race. It didn't fire anyone up, said nothing about Obama, and spoke only to his Virginia voters. If Obama chose him to give the keynote, it was a poor choice. A lot of speakers would have been better: Kucinich, Schweitzer, and if it had to be someone from Virginia - how about Webb?
Some notable take away lines:
From Bob Casey: "That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
From Hillary: "No way, no how, no McCain."
But I keep hearing the words of Ted Kennedy whose speech Monday night was remarkable, not just for the courage it showed, but for the metaphor it presented, a metaphor that shows me Kennedy really gets who Barack Obama is.
After a beautiful video tribute to Kennedy, with praises by colleagues interspersed with scenes of Kennedy on his sailboat, we heard the great Senator say "There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination."
That's the metaphor for Obama. He is one who has set his compass true. He has the destination in his sights, and he isn't letting a few squalls or even major storms detour him. He sees the shore, he is aware of the rocks, and he is not giving up.
The McCain campaign and a few disgruntled Hillary supporters are putting obstacles in his path, and extinguishing the light in the lighthouse. The media is creating storms and focusing on every squall, but Obama has set his compass true. That's what his eyes are on, and that's what our eyes must be on.
Some notable take away lines:
From Bob Casey: "That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
From Hillary: "No way, no how, no McCain."
But I keep hearing the words of Ted Kennedy whose speech Monday night was remarkable, not just for the courage it showed, but for the metaphor it presented, a metaphor that shows me Kennedy really gets who Barack Obama is.
After a beautiful video tribute to Kennedy, with praises by colleagues interspersed with scenes of Kennedy on his sailboat, we heard the great Senator say "There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination."
That's the metaphor for Obama. He is one who has set his compass true. He has the destination in his sights, and he isn't letting a few squalls or even major storms detour him. He sees the shore, he is aware of the rocks, and he is not giving up.
The McCain campaign and a few disgruntled Hillary supporters are putting obstacles in his path, and extinguishing the light in the lighthouse. The media is creating storms and focusing on every squall, but Obama has set his compass true. That's what his eyes are on, and that's what our eyes must be on.
The bigotry is showing
Up early again - watching Morning Jo(k)e and at first I thought it was just them, but then I checked around and sure enough there are a lot of mainstream media types, Republican commentators, and now even some regular bloggers who are second-guessing Hillary's speech last night.
They seem to be coming from two directions.
One group doesn't like Obama and will do anything to defeat him. This group includes PUMA types, Republicans and commentators like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, who have had nothing positive to say about anything at the convention, and they are attacking Obama as reponsible for everything that they find lacking. You hear them say the speakers are weak. The convention is too easy on McCain. Michelle Obama wasn't soft enough or Hillary should have been the nominee. The Democrats are having "buyer's remorse."
The other group includes Hillary haters and those who don't trust the Clintons. All week they've been saying Hillary is planning her run in 2012. She'll do what she has to do, but no more. She has a secret agenda and behind the scenes she is signaling her supporters to keep her dream alive and reject Obama.
Increasingly, I see in all of this a subtle racism. There are just too many people in this country and in this party who do not want to let a black man become president. Why do I say this? Because there have been two white men who became president in my lifetime who were younger than Barack, who did a good job as president, who were no more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama, and yet they were accepted and embraced by their party. There was no palace intrigue to destroy them before they even finished their convention - not by an opponent and not by the media.
Barack has so much to overcome that no white candidate would ever have to overcome - and the reality is that the Clintons have participated in setting that higher bar. They have allowed rumors to float around for months that they despise Barack and want him defeated. They have not stopped the PUMA nonsense and they have not yet condemned McCain for using Hillary in his ads. Maybe they will over the next few days and weeks. Or maybe Hillary is playing it smart and externally supporting Barack, but sending covert signals to her supporters not to support him. Or maybe most of her supporters will come along and the media is simply creating a big story. How can anyone know? No one can be trusted anymore - not the Clintons, not the media, not the pundits, and certainly not the Republicans.
I honestly don't think there would be this much effort to condemn Obama if he were white. Let's remember. The media has always hated the Clintons, especially Hillary. And now they're praising her? Could it be, perhaps, that they are all bigots, their fear of a black president trumping their hatred of the woman in the pantsuit who has such contempt for them?
More and more it looks like that to me. Barack is facing obstacles no white candidate would ever face, and if he can overcome them and win anyway, it will be a victory like no other victory I have seen in my lifetime.
I think he can do it, but it is looking like he will have to both wage a political campaign and conduct a new civil rights battle all at the same time. That may be asking too much, even for someone as talented as Obama.
They seem to be coming from two directions.
One group doesn't like Obama and will do anything to defeat him. This group includes PUMA types, Republicans and commentators like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, who have had nothing positive to say about anything at the convention, and they are attacking Obama as reponsible for everything that they find lacking. You hear them say the speakers are weak. The convention is too easy on McCain. Michelle Obama wasn't soft enough or Hillary should have been the nominee. The Democrats are having "buyer's remorse."
The other group includes Hillary haters and those who don't trust the Clintons. All week they've been saying Hillary is planning her run in 2012. She'll do what she has to do, but no more. She has a secret agenda and behind the scenes she is signaling her supporters to keep her dream alive and reject Obama.
Increasingly, I see in all of this a subtle racism. There are just too many people in this country and in this party who do not want to let a black man become president. Why do I say this? Because there have been two white men who became president in my lifetime who were younger than Barack, who did a good job as president, who were no more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama, and yet they were accepted and embraced by their party. There was no palace intrigue to destroy them before they even finished their convention - not by an opponent and not by the media.
Barack has so much to overcome that no white candidate would ever have to overcome - and the reality is that the Clintons have participated in setting that higher bar. They have allowed rumors to float around for months that they despise Barack and want him defeated. They have not stopped the PUMA nonsense and they have not yet condemned McCain for using Hillary in his ads. Maybe they will over the next few days and weeks. Or maybe Hillary is playing it smart and externally supporting Barack, but sending covert signals to her supporters not to support him. Or maybe most of her supporters will come along and the media is simply creating a big story. How can anyone know? No one can be trusted anymore - not the Clintons, not the media, not the pundits, and certainly not the Republicans.
I honestly don't think there would be this much effort to condemn Obama if he were white. Let's remember. The media has always hated the Clintons, especially Hillary. And now they're praising her? Could it be, perhaps, that they are all bigots, their fear of a black president trumping their hatred of the woman in the pantsuit who has such contempt for them?
More and more it looks like that to me. Barack is facing obstacles no white candidate would ever face, and if he can overcome them and win anyway, it will be a victory like no other victory I have seen in my lifetime.
I think he can do it, but it is looking like he will have to both wage a political campaign and conduct a new civil rights battle all at the same time. That may be asking too much, even for someone as talented as Obama.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary is a true Democrat
Hillary gave a beautiful and gracious speech.
One wonders if she was always planning it this way or if she only got there in the past few days.
If this was always the type of speech she planned to give, then the media pundits and bloviators are liars, trying to generate ratings from a manufactured controversy.
At any rate, I enjoyed her speech and think it may be the best she has ever given.
She helped the Obama campaign enormously, but she also helped rescue the reputation she was in danger of carrying around for the rest of her career: poor loser. And she set a good example for her husband.
While Hillary may have inadvertantly given McCain a lot of ammunition to use against Obama, she has now started to bring back those supporters who, out of bitterness, turned away from the Democratic Party when Hillary lost the nomination battle.
One wonders if she was always planning it this way or if she only got there in the past few days.
If this was always the type of speech she planned to give, then the media pundits and bloviators are liars, trying to generate ratings from a manufactured controversy.
At any rate, I enjoyed her speech and think it may be the best she has ever given.
She helped the Obama campaign enormously, but she also helped rescue the reputation she was in danger of carrying around for the rest of her career: poor loser. And she set a good example for her husband.
While Hillary may have inadvertantly given McCain a lot of ammunition to use against Obama, she has now started to bring back those supporters who, out of bitterness, turned away from the Democratic Party when Hillary lost the nomination battle.
Bill and Barack
It's really amusing to me - considering how hard it has been until now for Bill Clinton to fully support Obama - that the 2008 candidate Barack Obama is almost identical to the 1992 candidate Bill Clinton.
They are close to the same age - mid forties - both moderate to liberal, both Washington outsiders, both lawyers, both college instructors, both smeared as radicals (remember how the Republicans tried to say Clinton visited Russia and opposed the Vietnam War, therefore he was a traitor?) and both with accomplished wives who are also attorneys.
Remember how the media and the Republicans went after Hillary? Remember how they threw the kitchen sink at Bill? Just as McCain is saying Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he wants to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home, Clinton was accused of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" because as a student he opposed the Vietnam War.
I would think Bill would remember what he went through and not contribute to similar attacks on the current nominee of his own party. Obama, after all, is really an updated version of Clinton - without the Bimbo eruptions and the history of infidelity. Perhaps that's the problem. This isn't so much about Barack defeating Hillary in the primary as it is about Barack replacing Bill as top dog in the party and Barack being a newer, better, and yes - blacker - version of the "first black president."
Hopefully, this is all being overblown in the media and Bill is really on board and will give a killer speech on Wednesday. In that case all the media hype will simply get more people to tune in and see a full throated condemnation of John McCain and the Republicans. I'm still hoping that's what will happen. But if it doesn't, if Bill doesn't do what he would have expected all his primary rivals of 1992 to do, if he is only lukewarm, then we will know that his narcissism is pathological and he needs serious psychological help.
They are close to the same age - mid forties - both moderate to liberal, both Washington outsiders, both lawyers, both college instructors, both smeared as radicals (remember how the Republicans tried to say Clinton visited Russia and opposed the Vietnam War, therefore he was a traitor?) and both with accomplished wives who are also attorneys.
Remember how the media and the Republicans went after Hillary? Remember how they threw the kitchen sink at Bill? Just as McCain is saying Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he wants to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home, Clinton was accused of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" because as a student he opposed the Vietnam War.
I would think Bill would remember what he went through and not contribute to similar attacks on the current nominee of his own party. Obama, after all, is really an updated version of Clinton - without the Bimbo eruptions and the history of infidelity. Perhaps that's the problem. This isn't so much about Barack defeating Hillary in the primary as it is about Barack replacing Bill as top dog in the party and Barack being a newer, better, and yes - blacker - version of the "first black president."
Hopefully, this is all being overblown in the media and Bill is really on board and will give a killer speech on Wednesday. In that case all the media hype will simply get more people to tune in and see a full throated condemnation of John McCain and the Republicans. I'm still hoping that's what will happen. But if it doesn't, if Bill doesn't do what he would have expected all his primary rivals of 1992 to do, if he is only lukewarm, then we will know that his narcissism is pathological and he needs serious psychological help.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Bitter
Just saw some real insanity on the Chris Matthews Show. Three PUMAs were holding a sign saying they supported Hillary and wouldn't support Obama because he went to a "Muslim Madrasa school."
Matthews pretty much skewered them and made them look like idiots.
Now I know who the "bitter" people really are.
This is insulting to Barack and all he stands for. It is insulting to Hillary. And it is insulting to women.
And I suspect, what it really is, is racism.
Matthews pretty much skewered them and made them look like idiots.
Now I know who the "bitter" people really are.
This is insulting to Barack and all he stands for. It is insulting to Hillary. And it is insulting to women.
And I suspect, what it really is, is racism.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton will you please go now?
Cable is really trying to ramp up its coverage of the Democratic convention, having panels sit around with fake poll numbers and insist Barack is in trouble because he didn't pick Hillary as his veep. Everyone is speculating that Bill still has his nose out of joint because Obama defeated his wife (the one he cheated on) - and that he is liable to make a big stinko at the convention.
Barack Obama, who defeated the holy trinity (Hill-Bill and Chelsea) who campaigned non-stop against him, is about to be the first African American ever nominated for president in this nearly 300 year old country, and all the media can talk about is Hillary and Bill. You'd think this historic event would generate enough interest without having to create fake conflict.
The media seem determined to make this convention all about Hillary and Bill as if they are the king and queen of America. They are not; they are ambitious and ruthless politicians who spent eight years in the White House and are furious that they don't get eight more. They are narcissists, pure and simple, and if they ever want to see Hillary make it back to that big white house they better tame their egos and make sure Barack is elected this fall.
If they are responsible for his defeat, by only half-heartedly supporting him, they are both beneath contempt. They lost. They got defeated. They play in the big leagues and they know the rules. It is time they got over themselves and acted like grown-ups. And it is time the media stopped pushing the new Republican strategy of praising Hillary and saying she should have been the veep, in order to divide the Democrats. What's amusing about the Republicans saying Biden was the wrong pick because he doesn't represent change, is that had Hillary been picked the Republicans would have shouted the same thing. When is the media going to finally reject their talking points as nothing more than propaganda? Maybe when the myth of the liberal media really becomes a reality.
If Hillary and Bill think they can give a wink and a nod to Hillary's PUMAs, giving them permission to vote against Barack and cause his defeat, they should remember that two sides can play that game. There will be hell to pay with Barack's supporters and 2012 won't look any better for Hillary than 2008.
It's time Democrats remembered they are Democrats and voted for their rightfully elected candidate. It's time they realized how high the stakes are and how big a disaster electing John McCain would be.
One thing seems pretty clear to me now with this never ending Clinton melodrama. There's a good reason Barack didn't choose Hillary as his running mate. With all the trouble she and her husband and her supporters have caused leading up to the convention, she would have caused even more trouble in the four years she served as vice president. When his supporters call him "no drama Obama" they mean it. The melodrama surrounding the Clintons is what doomed her chances to be his running mate. And that is no one's fault but theirs.
Barack Obama, who defeated the holy trinity (Hill-Bill and Chelsea) who campaigned non-stop against him, is about to be the first African American ever nominated for president in this nearly 300 year old country, and all the media can talk about is Hillary and Bill. You'd think this historic event would generate enough interest without having to create fake conflict.
The media seem determined to make this convention all about Hillary and Bill as if they are the king and queen of America. They are not; they are ambitious and ruthless politicians who spent eight years in the White House and are furious that they don't get eight more. They are narcissists, pure and simple, and if they ever want to see Hillary make it back to that big white house they better tame their egos and make sure Barack is elected this fall.
If they are responsible for his defeat, by only half-heartedly supporting him, they are both beneath contempt. They lost. They got defeated. They play in the big leagues and they know the rules. It is time they got over themselves and acted like grown-ups. And it is time the media stopped pushing the new Republican strategy of praising Hillary and saying she should have been the veep, in order to divide the Democrats. What's amusing about the Republicans saying Biden was the wrong pick because he doesn't represent change, is that had Hillary been picked the Republicans would have shouted the same thing. When is the media going to finally reject their talking points as nothing more than propaganda? Maybe when the myth of the liberal media really becomes a reality.
If Hillary and Bill think they can give a wink and a nod to Hillary's PUMAs, giving them permission to vote against Barack and cause his defeat, they should remember that two sides can play that game. There will be hell to pay with Barack's supporters and 2012 won't look any better for Hillary than 2008.
It's time Democrats remembered they are Democrats and voted for their rightfully elected candidate. It's time they realized how high the stakes are and how big a disaster electing John McCain would be.
One thing seems pretty clear to me now with this never ending Clinton melodrama. There's a good reason Barack didn't choose Hillary as his running mate. With all the trouble she and her husband and her supporters have caused leading up to the convention, she would have caused even more trouble in the four years she served as vice president. When his supporters call him "no drama Obama" they mean it. The melodrama surrounding the Clintons is what doomed her chances to be his running mate. And that is no one's fault but theirs.
Sick of the POW card - enough already!
Okay, I'll say it. I don't give a crap that John MCain was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. It was a lousy, rotten war we should have never fought. He was a military brat who got into Annapolis (all fees paid by Uncle Sam) because daddy was an admiral. He volunteered to drop bombs and kill people. He wasn't a victim.
Sure he showed courage in enduring six years of imprisonment. I imagine his family suffered greatly as well. But every pilot in wartime knows this can happen. It isn't simply misfortune. It is part of the job - and John McCain wasn't drafted, he volunteered.
There are millions of people who have suffered as much or more than John McCain, and their suffering didn't happen because they volunteered to bomb other people, or because they engaged in risky behavior.
My brother was one of those people. Two years before John McCain was shot down, in 1965, my only brother and only sibling was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease at the age of 16. He endured radiation and chemotherapy, lost his hair and was constantly nauseous. He had two surgeries on his bladder as the chemotherapy had ripped up the lining of his bladder and caused uncontrollable bleeding. He spent more time in the hospital than in the classroom during his last two years of high school.
About the time John McCain was shot down, my brother began to have trouble walking. A tumor had grown on his spine and was damaging the nerves in his spinal cord. He had surgery to prevent permanent paralysis, and then spent a year learning to walk again, though he never regained full recovery of his abilities. Finally, it seemed he was well enough to go to college in the Fall of 1969. A few weeks into the semester he came home because he was having problems walking again. The tumor had grown back. Though the doctors felt he had been through the maximum amount of radiation, he insisted on trying a bit more, and surgery was out of the question. They began a course of radiation to try to reduce the tumor, and two weeks later he died.
My brother didn't volunteer to get this terrible disease. Nor was he even able to complete one year of college. His high school days were spent in misery, and he never even had a chance to grow into adulthood.
I don't feel sorry for John McCain. He experienced the consequences of decisions he made as an adult. My brother had no choice. John McCain lived, and my brother, whose pain was every bit as horrendous as that of John McCain, did not.
However, had my brother lived, his pain and torment would not have qualified him to be president any more than John McCain's pain and torment qualifies him to be president.
John McCain, without the POW defense he throws up whenever anyone attacks him, would be a pathetic old man who is mean, has a temper, has no connection to ordinary people, and is willing to start another Cold War, if not WW III.
John McCain would make a terrible president, and his having been a POW is simply not relevant, except to the extent that it may have left him with some lasting psychological damage.
And that makes him an even more risky choice for president.
Sure he showed courage in enduring six years of imprisonment. I imagine his family suffered greatly as well. But every pilot in wartime knows this can happen. It isn't simply misfortune. It is part of the job - and John McCain wasn't drafted, he volunteered.
There are millions of people who have suffered as much or more than John McCain, and their suffering didn't happen because they volunteered to bomb other people, or because they engaged in risky behavior.
My brother was one of those people. Two years before John McCain was shot down, in 1965, my only brother and only sibling was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease at the age of 16. He endured radiation and chemotherapy, lost his hair and was constantly nauseous. He had two surgeries on his bladder as the chemotherapy had ripped up the lining of his bladder and caused uncontrollable bleeding. He spent more time in the hospital than in the classroom during his last two years of high school.
About the time John McCain was shot down, my brother began to have trouble walking. A tumor had grown on his spine and was damaging the nerves in his spinal cord. He had surgery to prevent permanent paralysis, and then spent a year learning to walk again, though he never regained full recovery of his abilities. Finally, it seemed he was well enough to go to college in the Fall of 1969. A few weeks into the semester he came home because he was having problems walking again. The tumor had grown back. Though the doctors felt he had been through the maximum amount of radiation, he insisted on trying a bit more, and surgery was out of the question. They began a course of radiation to try to reduce the tumor, and two weeks later he died.
My brother didn't volunteer to get this terrible disease. Nor was he even able to complete one year of college. His high school days were spent in misery, and he never even had a chance to grow into adulthood.
I don't feel sorry for John McCain. He experienced the consequences of decisions he made as an adult. My brother had no choice. John McCain lived, and my brother, whose pain was every bit as horrendous as that of John McCain, did not.
However, had my brother lived, his pain and torment would not have qualified him to be president any more than John McCain's pain and torment qualifies him to be president.
John McCain, without the POW defense he throws up whenever anyone attacks him, would be a pathetic old man who is mean, has a temper, has no connection to ordinary people, and is willing to start another Cold War, if not WW III.
John McCain would make a terrible president, and his having been a POW is simply not relevant, except to the extent that it may have left him with some lasting psychological damage.
And that makes him an even more risky choice for president.
Obama - Biden
How much does it help Barack Obama to have picked Joe Biden for his running mate?
Those who are praising the pick say he will fill in Obama's foreign policy gap and be the working class attack dog against the wealthy and probable McCain – Romney ticket. But he won't make people who distrust Obama because he is black or "foreign" hop on board. I doubt very much that he will win over Hillary's whiney baby PUMAs and pouters, of whom the number one pouter is her husband.
Those who are criticizing the pick say Biden is gaffe prone and has said negative things about Obama druing the primary. Well, picking Hillary would have given the Grumpy Old Poops even more fodder in terms of sound bites attacking Barack. Bayh and Biden would have put everyone to sleep, and who else was there?
Biden is an okay pick and will help more than he hurts, but ultimately it will be up to Obama and his campaign to pull off a November victory.
Some pundits (god I hate them – they are mostly idiots who talk amongst themselves and try to find the downside to almost anything positive that Obama does) are pointing to a poll that has Obama up by "only" three over McCain, but has Hillary up by "a whopping" six in a hypothetical matchup against McCain. Oh my gosh, they say, Hillary could have beaten McCain more easily than Obama can. Those self-defeating dems are going to lose again.
Are these people so brain dead that they don't even realize that Hillary is up by six (which Obama was up by a month ago) precisely because she isn't the nominee and hasn't had a month's worth of disgusting and dishonest negative campaign ads directed at her? Had Hillary been the nominee you can bet the Republicans would have been vicious – and they have so much to use against her, she would probably be ten points behind at this point.
So good for Obama. He made a wise, though not perfect pick. I feel happy for Biden because he is a genuinely good and decent man who has had his share of tragedy in his life – far more than John McCain has had, in spite of having spent six years in a POW camp.
Let's keep two things in mind about McCain's POW experience. First, he volunteered to be a pilot during wartime. He got into Annapolis as a legacy – his scholastic ability certainly didn't qualify him. But being the son and grandson of admirals did. And he wanted to be a pilot, even knowing the risk it entailed. He was a willing participant in his own misfortune. And secondly, he came home alive and got to see his family again.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, didn't volunteer for his tragic experience. His wife and children were in a car when a drunk driver hit them, killing his wife and daughter and seriously wounding his sons. His wife and his daughter were separated from him forever, not just for six years. He never got to see them again.
Joe Biden is a hard working legislator and decent human being who deserves his moment in the sun. And he has earned the right to be the next vice president.
The only question is, are we going to be lucky enough to see him sworn into the office and carry out its duties?
Those who are praising the pick say he will fill in Obama's foreign policy gap and be the working class attack dog against the wealthy and probable McCain – Romney ticket. But he won't make people who distrust Obama because he is black or "foreign" hop on board. I doubt very much that he will win over Hillary's whiney baby PUMAs and pouters, of whom the number one pouter is her husband.
Those who are criticizing the pick say Biden is gaffe prone and has said negative things about Obama druing the primary. Well, picking Hillary would have given the Grumpy Old Poops even more fodder in terms of sound bites attacking Barack. Bayh and Biden would have put everyone to sleep, and who else was there?
Biden is an okay pick and will help more than he hurts, but ultimately it will be up to Obama and his campaign to pull off a November victory.
Some pundits (god I hate them – they are mostly idiots who talk amongst themselves and try to find the downside to almost anything positive that Obama does) are pointing to a poll that has Obama up by "only" three over McCain, but has Hillary up by "a whopping" six in a hypothetical matchup against McCain. Oh my gosh, they say, Hillary could have beaten McCain more easily than Obama can. Those self-defeating dems are going to lose again.
Are these people so brain dead that they don't even realize that Hillary is up by six (which Obama was up by a month ago) precisely because she isn't the nominee and hasn't had a month's worth of disgusting and dishonest negative campaign ads directed at her? Had Hillary been the nominee you can bet the Republicans would have been vicious – and they have so much to use against her, she would probably be ten points behind at this point.
So good for Obama. He made a wise, though not perfect pick. I feel happy for Biden because he is a genuinely good and decent man who has had his share of tragedy in his life – far more than John McCain has had, in spite of having spent six years in a POW camp.
Let's keep two things in mind about McCain's POW experience. First, he volunteered to be a pilot during wartime. He got into Annapolis as a legacy – his scholastic ability certainly didn't qualify him. But being the son and grandson of admirals did. And he wanted to be a pilot, even knowing the risk it entailed. He was a willing participant in his own misfortune. And secondly, he came home alive and got to see his family again.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, didn't volunteer for his tragic experience. His wife and children were in a car when a drunk driver hit them, killing his wife and daughter and seriously wounding his sons. His wife and his daughter were separated from him forever, not just for six years. He never got to see them again.
Joe Biden is a hard working legislator and decent human being who deserves his moment in the sun. And he has earned the right to be the next vice president.
The only question is, are we going to be lucky enough to see him sworn into the office and carry out its duties?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Experience as a POW does not qualify you to be president
People are starting to tire of the McCain campaign's constant reminders of his former POW status. Even the media is starting to speak up about how this is getting old.
To some extent, it makes sense to refer to McCain's service and sacrifice. We are, after all, a nation that has always loved war, and in some of our churches we have even changed our vision of Jesus from that of peacemaker to that of warrior. So a former POW is a powerful symbol of patriotism.
But if you look beyond the patriotic aspect of being a POW, and examine what it means and what it doesn't mean, you understand why it is beginning to lose its value in the campaign.
First of all, being a POW involves suffering, but nearly everyone in the world has either suffered or knows someone who has suffered greatly in one way or another. Cancer patients, people who have been in terrible accidents, victims of urban violence, people struggling to find enough to eat, victims of ethnic cleansing, innocent prisoners held and tortured by the United States, and certainly the innocent victims of war, have all suffered, some as much or more than John McCain. That isn't to belittle his suffering, but it is simply to say John McCain is not the only person in the world to have suffered horribly at some point in life. In fact, although he suffered greatly, he was only one of 600 prisoners held by the North Vietnamese.
Second, since his release, John McCain has led a more charmed life than most Americans will ever lead. He ditched his first wife and married a 25 year old heiress who has provided him with somewhere between seven and ten homes, a private Jet, and the money to live a comfortable and prestigious life as a United States Senator. He never has to worry one moment about money or the comforts of life.
It has been 35 years since John McCain was released by the North Vietnamese. Yes, he will always be honored and respected for his service. But there were 600 other POWs who suffered with him, many no longer alive. The thirty five years since his release have given John McCain everything a man could want. But the one thing his POW experience does not and should not do is give him a pass on everything he does and everything he says that might make anyone who had not been a POW a poor choice to be president.
Having been a POW is simply not enough to qualify you for the highest office in this land and finally voters are realizing that.
To some extent, it makes sense to refer to McCain's service and sacrifice. We are, after all, a nation that has always loved war, and in some of our churches we have even changed our vision of Jesus from that of peacemaker to that of warrior. So a former POW is a powerful symbol of patriotism.
But if you look beyond the patriotic aspect of being a POW, and examine what it means and what it doesn't mean, you understand why it is beginning to lose its value in the campaign.
First of all, being a POW involves suffering, but nearly everyone in the world has either suffered or knows someone who has suffered greatly in one way or another. Cancer patients, people who have been in terrible accidents, victims of urban violence, people struggling to find enough to eat, victims of ethnic cleansing, innocent prisoners held and tortured by the United States, and certainly the innocent victims of war, have all suffered, some as much or more than John McCain. That isn't to belittle his suffering, but it is simply to say John McCain is not the only person in the world to have suffered horribly at some point in life. In fact, although he suffered greatly, he was only one of 600 prisoners held by the North Vietnamese.
Second, since his release, John McCain has led a more charmed life than most Americans will ever lead. He ditched his first wife and married a 25 year old heiress who has provided him with somewhere between seven and ten homes, a private Jet, and the money to live a comfortable and prestigious life as a United States Senator. He never has to worry one moment about money or the comforts of life.
It has been 35 years since John McCain was released by the North Vietnamese. Yes, he will always be honored and respected for his service. But there were 600 other POWs who suffered with him, many no longer alive. The thirty five years since his release have given John McCain everything a man could want. But the one thing his POW experience does not and should not do is give him a pass on everything he does and everything he says that might make anyone who had not been a POW a poor choice to be president.
Having been a POW is simply not enough to qualify you for the highest office in this land and finally voters are realizing that.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Who's the Hawaiin elitist?
From John Cole:
Just so we are clear- visiting your grandmother while vacationing in Hawaii, the state where you were you were born- elitist.
Meeting the millionaire heiress daughter (who you will soon begin an affair with and divorce your first wife and then go on and buy a ton of houses) in Hawaii and then going on and honeymooning in Hawaii – not elitist.
The GOP rules for this shit can be really damned confusing, so I will try to keep you up to date.
Insane McCain's Mansions
Yesterday Senator McCain could not remember how many homes he and wife Cindy owned.
So Obama put out an ad using this as evidence Insane McCain is out of touch (and perhaps has memory problems?)
First, the McCain campaign responded by saying it wasn't relevant because McCain had been a POW. (Huh?)
Now McCain is saying they aren't his houses; they belong to Cindy.
I see another attack line here. Insane McCain is a gigolo, a "kept man." John McCain can't even purchase his own homes? Not even one? His wife supports him? This is the man who is qualified to run our entire economy?
So Obama put out an ad using this as evidence Insane McCain is out of touch (and perhaps has memory problems?)
First, the McCain campaign responded by saying it wasn't relevant because McCain had been a POW. (Huh?)
Now McCain is saying they aren't his houses; they belong to Cindy.
I see another attack line here. Insane McCain is a gigolo, a "kept man." John McCain can't even purchase his own homes? Not even one? His wife supports him? This is the man who is qualified to run our entire economy?
Courage, fearlessness and the dangers of a John McCain presidency
The American people want a president who demonstrates courage. The Republicans have proven time and again that if they can convince the voters that the Democratic candidate is a wimp, their guy wins. All the talk about haircuts (Edwards, Bill Clinton) and make-overs (Gore) is code for prissy, effeminate and ultimately – wimp. The 2004 Swift boating was an attempt to make Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, into a liar who didn't deserve his medals. All those purple heart band-aids worn in mockery of Kerry at the Republican convention might as well have had "wimp" printed on them.
This year is no different. Once again the Republicans are going after the Dem nominee as someone who is elitist (sissy), and not tough enough on terrorism (wimp) and too inexperienced (courage unproven). But this year, the Republicans have doubled down by nominating a gen-u-ine war hero, a former POW, and McCain plays his tough guy qualifications to the hilt.(He had good training for his at the Naval Academy and flight school.) He will defeat evil, follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," (though not apparently to the Afghanistan Pakistan border), kick Russia's butt, etc.
However, the American people would be wise to know the difference between courage and fearlessness and what the two different qualities mean in a president.
Courage is the ability to do things, even when you feel fear. Obama's appearance at the Rick Warren forum, in front of an audience that obviously did not favor him, and talking about being pro-choice, showed courage. Runnning for president shows courage. Opposing the Iraq War showed courage. Being a black man in America takes courage. Taking on the Clintons showed courage. Obama has plenty of courage.
Fearlessness is different. It is not the same thing as courage (which is acting in spite of one's fears) nd it can, in fact, be pathological. Fear, after all, is a normal part of being human. Fear signals danger, keeps us alive, prompting us to fight when we need to fight and run when we need to run. Without fear, people do not survive easily, that is unless they are lucky, or they are protected in some way by others.
There are two types of fearlessness: situational and global. For instance, if my grandson is afraid to ride a bike, but he practices over and over in spite of his fear, he will overcome it and eventually ride his bike fearlessly.
Some people who have faced death or terribly dangerous circumstances and have survived, may develop a global fearlessness. Many criminals, for instance, seem immune to fear, partially because they have broken the law over and over again and either escaped detection, or survived brutal time in prison.
George W. Bush often acts in a way that seems fearless. Having seen all of his businesses fail, but then having been rescued from the economic consequences by daddy's friends, he has no fear of being poor or of causing economic ruin to the nation. Having escaped Vietnam, with daddy's help, and not felt any consequences of being AWOL, he appears to have no fear of the consequences of any of his actions, from drunk driving to making dangerous presidential decisions. Having never felt the consequences of failure or loss, Bush has no empathy either. He cannot relate to soldiers who die, or to their loved ones, or ordinary families who lose their homes. And so sending the military into Iraq was no big deal, nor was allowing the de-regulated mortgage industries and banks to create mischief which resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes.
John McCain is another politician who is fearless. What could be worse than being shot down and captured and held prisoner for six years? A few things, perhaps, but not many. And McCain found a way to survive and come back to a good life, complete with a new marriage to an extremely wealthy and very young woman. What could he possibly be afraid of after six years in a brutal POW camp? What could he possibly be afraid of now in bad economic times when he is financially set for life?
And that is precisely the problem. While a president should be courageous, in my opinion he or she should not be fearless. Just because a person has learned not to feel fear, doesn't mean there is nothing dangerous out there. In fact, a healthy dose of fear, coupled with courage, is what we really want in a president.
We need someone who can think things through, who can use diplomacy effectively, who takes time before he commits the nation to war, who knows there are solutions to world problems that don't involve the military. We need someone who has the courage to take the nation to war, but not the hair trigger reaction of someone who lacks fear.
What we absolutely don't want is someone who is reckless because he is fearless. We can't afford to elect someone who, like Bush, seems to have no checks on his impulsivity, his temper, and his willingness to use military force anywhere and everywhere.
McCain would be a very dangerous president.
This year is no different. Once again the Republicans are going after the Dem nominee as someone who is elitist (sissy), and not tough enough on terrorism (wimp) and too inexperienced (courage unproven). But this year, the Republicans have doubled down by nominating a gen-u-ine war hero, a former POW, and McCain plays his tough guy qualifications to the hilt.(He had good training for his at the Naval Academy and flight school.) He will defeat evil, follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," (though not apparently to the Afghanistan Pakistan border), kick Russia's butt, etc.
However, the American people would be wise to know the difference between courage and fearlessness and what the two different qualities mean in a president.
Courage is the ability to do things, even when you feel fear. Obama's appearance at the Rick Warren forum, in front of an audience that obviously did not favor him, and talking about being pro-choice, showed courage. Runnning for president shows courage. Opposing the Iraq War showed courage. Being a black man in America takes courage. Taking on the Clintons showed courage. Obama has plenty of courage.
Fearlessness is different. It is not the same thing as courage (which is acting in spite of one's fears) nd it can, in fact, be pathological. Fear, after all, is a normal part of being human. Fear signals danger, keeps us alive, prompting us to fight when we need to fight and run when we need to run. Without fear, people do not survive easily, that is unless they are lucky, or they are protected in some way by others.
There are two types of fearlessness: situational and global. For instance, if my grandson is afraid to ride a bike, but he practices over and over in spite of his fear, he will overcome it and eventually ride his bike fearlessly.
Some people who have faced death or terribly dangerous circumstances and have survived, may develop a global fearlessness. Many criminals, for instance, seem immune to fear, partially because they have broken the law over and over again and either escaped detection, or survived brutal time in prison.
George W. Bush often acts in a way that seems fearless. Having seen all of his businesses fail, but then having been rescued from the economic consequences by daddy's friends, he has no fear of being poor or of causing economic ruin to the nation. Having escaped Vietnam, with daddy's help, and not felt any consequences of being AWOL, he appears to have no fear of the consequences of any of his actions, from drunk driving to making dangerous presidential decisions. Having never felt the consequences of failure or loss, Bush has no empathy either. He cannot relate to soldiers who die, or to their loved ones, or ordinary families who lose their homes. And so sending the military into Iraq was no big deal, nor was allowing the de-regulated mortgage industries and banks to create mischief which resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes.
John McCain is another politician who is fearless. What could be worse than being shot down and captured and held prisoner for six years? A few things, perhaps, but not many. And McCain found a way to survive and come back to a good life, complete with a new marriage to an extremely wealthy and very young woman. What could he possibly be afraid of after six years in a brutal POW camp? What could he possibly be afraid of now in bad economic times when he is financially set for life?
And that is precisely the problem. While a president should be courageous, in my opinion he or she should not be fearless. Just because a person has learned not to feel fear, doesn't mean there is nothing dangerous out there. In fact, a healthy dose of fear, coupled with courage, is what we really want in a president.
We need someone who can think things through, who can use diplomacy effectively, who takes time before he commits the nation to war, who knows there are solutions to world problems that don't involve the military. We need someone who has the courage to take the nation to war, but not the hair trigger reaction of someone who lacks fear.
What we absolutely don't want is someone who is reckless because he is fearless. We can't afford to elect someone who, like Bush, seems to have no checks on his impulsivity, his temper, and his willingness to use military force anywhere and everywhere.
McCain would be a very dangerous president.
It's about time!
Obama's new talking points.
John McCain:
Out of touch at home.
Reckless and trigger happy abroad.
John McCain:
Out of touch at home.
Reckless and trigger happy abroad.
Veep spec
Though Hillary and Bill disgusted me during the primary campaign, I have lately come around to the idea that Obama choosing her as her running mate might be brilliant. All the speculation about why Bill won't come around and why Hillary isn't doing more would turn out to have been more of what some are calling Obama's rope-a-dope strategy. Maybe he decided early on the pick her and he let this suspense build and the reports of bad feelings and even the PUMA BS so that when he did pick her the excitement, the surprise and the "boldness" would be the story for a long time. If he did choose her, the two downsides of course would be the lurking presence of Bill and the satisfaction of the PUMA crowd in believing it was their hissy fit that brought this about.
However, last night I saw a poll on CNN, I believe, that showed while 43% of respondents would like to see Hillary Clinton become president some day, 49% never want her to become president. That's a huge negative, one that would be hard to overcome. If Obama's internal polling shows anything similar, he will not choose her and he has good reason not to, no matter how long her rabid supporters continue their juvenile tantrum.
On the other side, the talk of Lieberman being on the ticket is something I would find hard to believe. However, since he is tied or even ahead of Obama in the polls now, thanks to the resurrection of "McCain, the Myth, the Maverick," he may think he can get away with it.
I can hardly wait: McCain-Loserman: Bush III, with a twist, a pro-choice, sour grapes former Democrat. It would get him as much press as an Obama-Clinton pairing, but I would guess there might even be more people who hate Lieberman than hate Clinton.
Ever since Lieberman refused to honor the results of the primary when Ned Lamont defeated him, and decided to become an independent and appeal to Republicans to win in the general election, he has shown his true colors. He is really a Rove Republican who doesn't play fair, believes in huge power to the executive branch and doesn't have much respect for the Constitution. He'd be a perfect vice presidential pick for McCain.
However, last night I saw a poll on CNN, I believe, that showed while 43% of respondents would like to see Hillary Clinton become president some day, 49% never want her to become president. That's a huge negative, one that would be hard to overcome. If Obama's internal polling shows anything similar, he will not choose her and he has good reason not to, no matter how long her rabid supporters continue their juvenile tantrum.
On the other side, the talk of Lieberman being on the ticket is something I would find hard to believe. However, since he is tied or even ahead of Obama in the polls now, thanks to the resurrection of "McCain, the Myth, the Maverick," he may think he can get away with it.
I can hardly wait: McCain-Loserman: Bush III, with a twist, a pro-choice, sour grapes former Democrat. It would get him as much press as an Obama-Clinton pairing, but I would guess there might even be more people who hate Lieberman than hate Clinton.
Ever since Lieberman refused to honor the results of the primary when Ned Lamont defeated him, and decided to become an independent and appeal to Republicans to win in the general election, he has shown his true colors. He is really a Rove Republican who doesn't play fair, believes in huge power to the executive branch and doesn't have much respect for the Constitution. He'd be a perfect vice presidential pick for McCain.
We could show the picture of McCain hugging Bush right next to the picture of Bush kissing Lieberman.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The campaigns: Generation Kill vs. Civilian World
For the past six weeks, my husband and I have been watching Generation Kill on HBO. This mini-series chronicles the slow march of the Marine Corps 1st Recon Battalion to Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. Not your father's John Wayne war story, this series is tough to watch. It is gritty, violent, raw and honest.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Cone of silence
I'll be in a cone of silence until Wednesday morning. Actually I'm taking my seven year old grandson to the Getty tomorrow and I want to get away from politics for a day.
Back on Wednesday, waiting for that Veep notification from the Obama campaign. He says we won't be surprised, but I really hope we are. I hope his choice is such a shocker that the media buzzes about it all the way up to the first day of the convention.
And I hope he starts calling out McCain on all his nonsense. For instance, if McCain can accuse Obama of playing the "race card" just because he warned his followers that the Republicans will try to scare Americans by pointing out that Obama doesn't look like all those presidents on our currency, couldn't the Obama campaign call out McCain for playing the POW card when he goes ballistic because someone suggested he wasn't in a cone of silence before his love fest with the evangelicals on Saturday and it is outrageous to suggest that because McCain was a POW a million years ago? If McCain can keep reminding everyone he was a POW, why can't Obama remind people he is black?
In the meantime, read my irreverent article: War and Jesus, Jesus and War.
Back on Wednesday, waiting for that Veep notification from the Obama campaign. He says we won't be surprised, but I really hope we are. I hope his choice is such a shocker that the media buzzes about it all the way up to the first day of the convention.
And I hope he starts calling out McCain on all his nonsense. For instance, if McCain can accuse Obama of playing the "race card" just because he warned his followers that the Republicans will try to scare Americans by pointing out that Obama doesn't look like all those presidents on our currency, couldn't the Obama campaign call out McCain for playing the POW card when he goes ballistic because someone suggested he wasn't in a cone of silence before his love fest with the evangelicals on Saturday and it is outrageous to suggest that because McCain was a POW a million years ago? If McCain can keep reminding everyone he was a POW, why can't Obama remind people he is black?
In the meantime, read my irreverent article: War and Jesus, Jesus and War.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Not my friend
I have had it with McCain continually addressing Americans as "my friends."
Do you send your friends or the children of your friends to die in a war that was unnecessary and based on lies? Because McCain was ready to go to Iraq almost before the clown in the White House was.
Do you lie to your friends about the effect drilling off the coast will have on the price of gasoline? Because McCain says it will lower the cost when every expert says it will take ten or more years to even begin to impact the cost.
Do you threaten your senior citizen friends with the loss of their Social Security? Because that will be the outcome if you become president and succeed in privatization.
Do you attack the man your friends have decided to support for president with ugly, vicious lies and mockery? Because you do that every day.
We are not your friends, Senator McCain. And you most definitely are not ours.
Do you send your friends or the children of your friends to die in a war that was unnecessary and based on lies? Because McCain was ready to go to Iraq almost before the clown in the White House was.
Do you lie to your friends about the effect drilling off the coast will have on the price of gasoline? Because McCain says it will lower the cost when every expert says it will take ten or more years to even begin to impact the cost.
Do you threaten your senior citizen friends with the loss of their Social Security? Because that will be the outcome if you become president and succeed in privatization.
Do you attack the man your friends have decided to support for president with ugly, vicious lies and mockery? Because you do that every day.
We are not your friends, Senator McCain. And you most definitely are not ours.
McCain says when life begins and when it ends
Just read a comment over at "The Field" that made me laugh and feel despair all at the same time.
According to the comment, McCain believes "life begins at conception and ends when you're eligible for the draft."
Of course, we could do many variations of McCain's view on the beginning and end of life, like:
Life begins at conception but ends when your mother's welfare payments run out, or
Life begins at conception but ends when I send you to Iraq, or the next neocon war, or
Life begins at conception but ends when you get sick and have no health insurance (too bad!), or
Life begins at conception but ends when I decide to start World War III, or
Life begins at conception but ends when carbon emissions (which I will increase by drilling and finding more oil to continue our love affair with the internal combustion engine) finally bake the planet and you all die.
We should have a contest for the best slogan.
According to the comment, McCain believes "life begins at conception and ends when you're eligible for the draft."
Of course, we could do many variations of McCain's view on the beginning and end of life, like:
Life begins at conception but ends when your mother's welfare payments run out, or
Life begins at conception but ends when I send you to Iraq, or the next neocon war, or
Life begins at conception but ends when you get sick and have no health insurance (too bad!), or
Life begins at conception but ends when I decide to start World War III, or
Life begins at conception but ends when carbon emissions (which I will increase by drilling and finding more oil to continue our love affair with the internal combustion engine) finally bake the planet and you all die.
We should have a contest for the best slogan.
Faith forum post mortem
I don't have a life.
I watched that silly "Faith Forum" with Orange County, California mega-millionaire pastor-in-the-Hawaiian-shirt Rick Warren having a "conversation" first with Barack Obama (the order the result of a coin flip) and then with John McCain (who was supposedly in isolation so he couldn't cheat by hearing Obama's responses.)
I got so angry seeing the McCain "performance" I stopped watching for a while and went online. The comments on the left wing blogs were coming fast and furious: McCain must have been given the questions ahead of time; He seemed to be giving answers to questions that hadn't been asked (once he even said "can we get back to the Supreme Court question" when Warren hadn't yet asked it); McCain did better than anyone expected him to; Obama was professorial and humble and ohmigod he's doomed because he got polite applause, while the audience gave one continuous ovation to McCain.
Then I got disgusted, watched an episode of Battlestar Gallactica to get my mind on something else, went to bed and had a dream (excuse me – nightmare) that McCain won the election.
Now with the sun up, my thoughts are a little clearer about what actually happened last night, and for those who have a life and were doing something much more enjoyable, here is what happened along with my analysis.
What Happened: Obama
Obama was humble and thoughtful. He gave honest and somewhat detailed answers to the questions. He spoke eloquently of his faith and what it meant, explained why he was for civil unions but against gay marriage, why he was pro-choice, on whom he would raise taxes, how he felt about the Iraq War and energy and poverty and why he would call on Americans to sacrifice in order to solve the energy crisis. He made no gaffes, gave the McCain camp no sound bites to use against him.
What happened: McCain
McCain seemed to be on amphetamines, answering with great animation and seemingly anticipating the questions before they were asked. No matter what questions Warren asked (which were supposed to be the same for both candidates, but actually were a bit different) McCain was determined to give his stump speech, complete with the usual sound bites: My friends, I was a POW, drill here, drill now, I was a POW, my friends, no taxes, pro-life administration, I was a POW, get rid of all liberal judges, war, war, war, my friends, freedom, freedom, freedom, Georgia the first Christian nation, I was a POW, country first!
Analysis: There are four ways of looking at what happened last night. First, there is the effect of the setting, including the moderator and the audience. Next, there is the drama. Third, there is the content or message. And fourth, there is the potential effect on the race.
The way I see it, the moderator and audience were tailor made for McCain and Republicans. Since nearly three fourths of all evangelicals are Republicans and planning to vote for McCain anyway, they were always going to be far more receptive to him and his message. This was a church in a wealthy part of Orange County, which is a Republican stronghold. Unlike most debates, where members of the audience are generally divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, this audience was largely made up of Republicans. Rick Warren claimed to be impartial, but it was obvious he wasn't going to insist McCain answer the same questions Obama did. He let McCain basically take over and decide which questions he would answer and which he would simply bypass to go off on a right wing rant. Obama stuck to the format – a conversation – while McCain turned it into his preferred town hall format. (This is why pastors do not make good moderators for political events.) The fact that McCain got much more applause than Obama does not really say anything about the quality of each candidate. It says much more about the format, the moderator and the audience, although McCain is obviously a good performer who really feeds on the applause and adulation of the audience. Had Rick Warren instructed his audience to hold their applause until the end, it would have been interesting to see how the candidates' performances held up, and how they were viewed by pundits and the television audience.
Which brings us to the second aspect of the forum: the performance or drama. Obama stuck to his usual cool and calm "no drama Obama" demeanor. He was thoughtful, his responses carefully delivered. He actually participated in a "conversation" with a friend, allowing the audience to eavesdrop on that conversation. He was comfortable talking about his faith and personal aspects of his life, and did not use the conversation as a chance to campaign vigorously on issues, but merely to explain his thinking. McCain, on the other hand, came prepared to make the evening another town hall meeting. He answered some uncomfortable questions ("What is your biggest moral failing?") with brief incomplete sentences ("the failure of my first marriage") and moved quickly to more friendly territory. He was not comfortable talking about faith and the only aspect of his personal life he was willing to discuss ad nauseam was his time as a POW. He addressed the audience directly and treated Warren not as a conversation partner but simply as a moderator of a large town hall meeting. The cable pundits liked this about McCain and largely on this aspect of the debate, scored the evening a win for McCain.
However, the messages of the evening will be dissected over the next few days and the messages were very different. Obama did outline his preferred progressive approach but also indicated he would listen to all viewpoints before making decisions. McCain, on the other hand, presented the typical Republican black and white perspective and did not indicate there would be any room for compromise in his administration. One telling difference: when asked if they believed evil existed and what should be done about it, both said yes it did exist but McCain said it must be defeated (a la Bush) while Obama said it must be confronted, but that only God could defeat evil. McCain's "evil" was clearly limited to terrorism and Russia, while Obama included genocide in Darfur, racism, sexism and many other evils. In addition to the question about evil, in which McCain showed a very narrow view, there were many other sound bites McCain offered up for future Obama commercials. One that really stuck out was the statement that he considered the beginning of the wealthy class to be around $5 million a year. McCain may have gotten more applause and seemed more tough and determined, but he said many things that will come back to haunt him, not with the evangelicals in the room, but with independents and moderates who may not have known he is adamantly pro-life, or thinks many teachers should be fired, or is ready to take us into another war of his choosing. Rest assured, Obama's camp will be fact checking many of his blatantly false statements and you will be seeing responses on the air.
Finally, what effect will all of this have on the race? Hard to say. We still have the conventions and the debates and millions of commercials to endure. I think McCain probably shored up the evangelical base and Obama did what he needed to do: convince the country he is a dedicated Christian and not the Muslim viral emails try to make him. Most important, though, is that he and his campaign just got a sneak peak at what McCain will do at the debates. First, McCain's campaign will lower expectations, saying he won't do as well as Obama. It will be important for the Obama campaign to take the appraisal of this faith forum and use it to lower expectations for him. Then, McCain will take the format and make it into a town hall, rolling over the moderator and trying to take over. Only with a good moderator, who doesn't let him get away with this, will the debate be fair. Third, he will do a lot of "my friends" and speak directly to the audience. Obama needs to learn to do more of this. Fourth, McCain will try to get away with lies and distortions which Obama must call him on. Obama must really do his homework and know McCain's flip flops and lies inside and out. He also needs to present more concise answers and sound bites that the audience can easily repeat.
As for the accusation that McCain must have had the questions ahead of time, or that he was allowed to watch Obama's segment, I believe the answer is yes to both. So the other thing Obama will have to do is take into account the possibility that McCain, like Bush, will cheat if he can. With the networks running the debates, though, instead of a private institution favorable to Republicans, and with both candidates on stage at the same time, it is likely this will be more difficult. Come to think of it, why didn't Warren have them both on stage at the same time? Was it a set up to have Obama go first and let McCain watch?
One thing we know about Obama. He is quick learner. Even if you consider this forum to be a loss for Obama (which I don't think it was) he will learn from it, and the next encounter the two candidates have will be very different.
I watched that silly "Faith Forum" with Orange County, California mega-millionaire pastor-in-the-Hawaiian-shirt Rick Warren having a "conversation" first with Barack Obama (the order the result of a coin flip) and then with John McCain (who was supposedly in isolation so he couldn't cheat by hearing Obama's responses.)
I got so angry seeing the McCain "performance" I stopped watching for a while and went online. The comments on the left wing blogs were coming fast and furious: McCain must have been given the questions ahead of time; He seemed to be giving answers to questions that hadn't been asked (once he even said "can we get back to the Supreme Court question" when Warren hadn't yet asked it); McCain did better than anyone expected him to; Obama was professorial and humble and ohmigod he's doomed because he got polite applause, while the audience gave one continuous ovation to McCain.
Then I got disgusted, watched an episode of Battlestar Gallactica to get my mind on something else, went to bed and had a dream (excuse me – nightmare) that McCain won the election.
Now with the sun up, my thoughts are a little clearer about what actually happened last night, and for those who have a life and were doing something much more enjoyable, here is what happened along with my analysis.
What Happened: Obama
Obama was humble and thoughtful. He gave honest and somewhat detailed answers to the questions. He spoke eloquently of his faith and what it meant, explained why he was for civil unions but against gay marriage, why he was pro-choice, on whom he would raise taxes, how he felt about the Iraq War and energy and poverty and why he would call on Americans to sacrifice in order to solve the energy crisis. He made no gaffes, gave the McCain camp no sound bites to use against him.
What happened: McCain
McCain seemed to be on amphetamines, answering with great animation and seemingly anticipating the questions before they were asked. No matter what questions Warren asked (which were supposed to be the same for both candidates, but actually were a bit different) McCain was determined to give his stump speech, complete with the usual sound bites: My friends, I was a POW, drill here, drill now, I was a POW, my friends, no taxes, pro-life administration, I was a POW, get rid of all liberal judges, war, war, war, my friends, freedom, freedom, freedom, Georgia the first Christian nation, I was a POW, country first!
Analysis: There are four ways of looking at what happened last night. First, there is the effect of the setting, including the moderator and the audience. Next, there is the drama. Third, there is the content or message. And fourth, there is the potential effect on the race.
The way I see it, the moderator and audience were tailor made for McCain and Republicans. Since nearly three fourths of all evangelicals are Republicans and planning to vote for McCain anyway, they were always going to be far more receptive to him and his message. This was a church in a wealthy part of Orange County, which is a Republican stronghold. Unlike most debates, where members of the audience are generally divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, this audience was largely made up of Republicans. Rick Warren claimed to be impartial, but it was obvious he wasn't going to insist McCain answer the same questions Obama did. He let McCain basically take over and decide which questions he would answer and which he would simply bypass to go off on a right wing rant. Obama stuck to the format – a conversation – while McCain turned it into his preferred town hall format. (This is why pastors do not make good moderators for political events.) The fact that McCain got much more applause than Obama does not really say anything about the quality of each candidate. It says much more about the format, the moderator and the audience, although McCain is obviously a good performer who really feeds on the applause and adulation of the audience. Had Rick Warren instructed his audience to hold their applause until the end, it would have been interesting to see how the candidates' performances held up, and how they were viewed by pundits and the television audience.
Which brings us to the second aspect of the forum: the performance or drama. Obama stuck to his usual cool and calm "no drama Obama" demeanor. He was thoughtful, his responses carefully delivered. He actually participated in a "conversation" with a friend, allowing the audience to eavesdrop on that conversation. He was comfortable talking about his faith and personal aspects of his life, and did not use the conversation as a chance to campaign vigorously on issues, but merely to explain his thinking. McCain, on the other hand, came prepared to make the evening another town hall meeting. He answered some uncomfortable questions ("What is your biggest moral failing?") with brief incomplete sentences ("the failure of my first marriage") and moved quickly to more friendly territory. He was not comfortable talking about faith and the only aspect of his personal life he was willing to discuss ad nauseam was his time as a POW. He addressed the audience directly and treated Warren not as a conversation partner but simply as a moderator of a large town hall meeting. The cable pundits liked this about McCain and largely on this aspect of the debate, scored the evening a win for McCain.
However, the messages of the evening will be dissected over the next few days and the messages were very different. Obama did outline his preferred progressive approach but also indicated he would listen to all viewpoints before making decisions. McCain, on the other hand, presented the typical Republican black and white perspective and did not indicate there would be any room for compromise in his administration. One telling difference: when asked if they believed evil existed and what should be done about it, both said yes it did exist but McCain said it must be defeated (a la Bush) while Obama said it must be confronted, but that only God could defeat evil. McCain's "evil" was clearly limited to terrorism and Russia, while Obama included genocide in Darfur, racism, sexism and many other evils. In addition to the question about evil, in which McCain showed a very narrow view, there were many other sound bites McCain offered up for future Obama commercials. One that really stuck out was the statement that he considered the beginning of the wealthy class to be around $5 million a year. McCain may have gotten more applause and seemed more tough and determined, but he said many things that will come back to haunt him, not with the evangelicals in the room, but with independents and moderates who may not have known he is adamantly pro-life, or thinks many teachers should be fired, or is ready to take us into another war of his choosing. Rest assured, Obama's camp will be fact checking many of his blatantly false statements and you will be seeing responses on the air.
Finally, what effect will all of this have on the race? Hard to say. We still have the conventions and the debates and millions of commercials to endure. I think McCain probably shored up the evangelical base and Obama did what he needed to do: convince the country he is a dedicated Christian and not the Muslim viral emails try to make him. Most important, though, is that he and his campaign just got a sneak peak at what McCain will do at the debates. First, McCain's campaign will lower expectations, saying he won't do as well as Obama. It will be important for the Obama campaign to take the appraisal of this faith forum and use it to lower expectations for him. Then, McCain will take the format and make it into a town hall, rolling over the moderator and trying to take over. Only with a good moderator, who doesn't let him get away with this, will the debate be fair. Third, he will do a lot of "my friends" and speak directly to the audience. Obama needs to learn to do more of this. Fourth, McCain will try to get away with lies and distortions which Obama must call him on. Obama must really do his homework and know McCain's flip flops and lies inside and out. He also needs to present more concise answers and sound bites that the audience can easily repeat.
As for the accusation that McCain must have had the questions ahead of time, or that he was allowed to watch Obama's segment, I believe the answer is yes to both. So the other thing Obama will have to do is take into account the possibility that McCain, like Bush, will cheat if he can. With the networks running the debates, though, instead of a private institution favorable to Republicans, and with both candidates on stage at the same time, it is likely this will be more difficult. Come to think of it, why didn't Warren have them both on stage at the same time? Was it a set up to have Obama go first and let McCain watch?
One thing we know about Obama. He is quick learner. Even if you consider this forum to be a loss for Obama (which I don't think it was) he will learn from it, and the next encounter the two candidates have will be very different.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
$51 million!
Yesterday the McCain camp bragged it had raised $27 million in July.
Today the Obama campaign reported its July haul: $51 million, with 65,000 new donors. All told, Obama has 2 million donors.
I know the McCain camp wants to say Obama is just a celebrity, and they are putting out all kinds of ads with dishonest information saying he would be bad for America.
But if the ads are working, and if Obama is bad for America, why do so many people want to give money to his campaign? Do they all hate America?
And since when do Americans give direct donations to celebrities?
Today the Obama campaign reported its July haul: $51 million, with 65,000 new donors. All told, Obama has 2 million donors.
I know the McCain camp wants to say Obama is just a celebrity, and they are putting out all kinds of ads with dishonest information saying he would be bad for America.
But if the ads are working, and if Obama is bad for America, why do so many people want to give money to his campaign? Do they all hate America?
And since when do Americans give direct donations to celebrities?
Friday, August 15, 2008
What's up with this?
Bush at the Olympics, needing help from his entire Secret Service detail.
Seriously, this could explain a lot. More here.
Insane McCain
I've been trying to think of a good name for McCain other than just plain McCain (hey, that's a good one). Some people, noting his similarity to Bush on all the issues, call him McBush, others McSame.
I have, with others, called him Grandpa McCain, but that's an insult to grandfathers.
I have occasionally called McCain and his wife Mr. and Mrs. McCreepy, because she is as creepy as he is, but with this latest statement, it is clear.
John McCain is simply nuts.
To call the Russia-Georgia conflict the most important international crisis since the end of the Cold War is absurd. Has he really forgotten that he once said the war on Islamic terrorists was the most important and defining issue of our time, something that a few might even consider an international crisis? Has he forgotten 9/11, and the Iraq War, which was supposed to be a response to a vicious and horrible dictator who had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use against us? Has he forgotten Rwanda and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which prompted the first Gulf War? Has he forgotten Bosnia and Kosovo?
Couple this statement with all the other mistatements or downright falsehoods he has uttered over the past few months, and the right name pops out.
Let's just call him "Insane McCain."
I have, with others, called him Grandpa McCain, but that's an insult to grandfathers.
I have occasionally called McCain and his wife Mr. and Mrs. McCreepy, because she is as creepy as he is, but with this latest statement, it is clear.
John McCain is simply nuts.
To call the Russia-Georgia conflict the most important international crisis since the end of the Cold War is absurd. Has he really forgotten that he once said the war on Islamic terrorists was the most important and defining issue of our time, something that a few might even consider an international crisis? Has he forgotten 9/11, and the Iraq War, which was supposed to be a response to a vicious and horrible dictator who had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use against us? Has he forgotten Rwanda and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which prompted the first Gulf War? Has he forgotten Bosnia and Kosovo?
Couple this statement with all the other mistatements or downright falsehoods he has uttered over the past few months, and the right name pops out.
Let's just call him "Insane McCain."
Creating Obama Drama
I guess – according to professional presidential horse-race watchers (i.e. cable media) – most people this time of year are either on vacation or watching the Olympics.
I am doing neither. I am watching the media. And it is quite amusing.
They want so badly for there to be some big drama for them to cover in the presidential race that they are trying to create controversy just to get people to pay attention. Every time a new poll comes out, for instance, they give it their own spin. A move of one or two points up for McCain means he is "closing the gap." If he moves one point ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 3 or 4, he has "taken the lead." Once Obama's lead opens up again to five or six points, they go silent or interpret it falsely as "within the margin of error." They desperately want this race to be close. A huge lead for Obama this early would give them nothing to agonize about.
Right now, they are mad at Barack Obama for going on vacation. How dare he! Doesn't he know he's supposed to be running for president here in the real United States, not resting in that "exotic" group of islands out in the Pacific? They are trying mightily to get us to believe this will hurt him – especially since he isn't acting like McCain and playing pretend commander in chief during this "crisis," which they have also hyped, in Georgia.
They also think Obama should be here to get all upset about the new smear book that has just been published about him. Once again, as they did all through the primary when they agonized over Clinton's attacks on Obama, the media is looking for a way to criticize him, this time for not reacting quickly enough to the packs of lies the right wing throws at the Dem candidate every four years. Day after dreary day they remind us of how the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry doomed his candidacy, especially because he didn't respond quickly enough.
Funny – I seem to remember how much of a part the media played in the dissemination of those Swift Boat ads, which only had a limited run as paid commercials. If it hadn't been for the media serving as the handmaiden of the right wing smear merchants, most people would not have seen those ads. Today, as they interview Jerome Corsi, they are looking back and saying the attacks against Kerry were false. But they didn't say that four years ago.
One wonders why they are even giving this hack air time. They say it is because his book will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. In psychology we call this rationalization – finding a dishonest excuse to do something you really want to do anyway. They know the only reason this book is at #1 is because of all the bulk orders from the right wing think tanks and political organizations to make it seem as if people are interested in this pap. But they want to stir up trouble and controversy so people will watch, and so the general election will be closer than they fear it might be, and one way to do that is to give some lying attack dog air time.
Speaking of books, the pundits created a mini-drama this week over a rumor that Jeremiah Wright is coming out with a book in October. They almost couldn’t speak from the salivation over such a possibility. This would be a godsend for the professional talkers. They could agonize for weeks over whether such a book would doom Obama's chances. Washington restaurants would be bereft of patrons who were all booked on the cable stations to offer their punditry on the subject. Alas, it seems Wright is in Ghana doing missionary work, his daughter telling the media there is no book.
The latest "controversy" the media is hyping is one they have babbled about for months – the Clinton-Obama drama. In the primaries they speculated over why Obama couldn't "seal the deal" and why Hillary wasn't withdrawing from the race. Could Obama be a flawed candidate, not "one of us"? Were white working class men not willing to vote for a black? Did Hillary have some trick up her sleeve? Would she ever concede? Was she taking it "all the way to the convention?" Was she going to steal Obama's delegates over the summer?
Now, as the Clinton and Obama camps quietly work on convention logistics, the media is at it again. The Clintons will overshadow Obama at the convention. It will be a "Clinton convention." This is the beginning of Hillary's 2012 campaign. Will Bill actually say nice things about Obama or will he sabotage everything? Will Hillary's supporters make trouble? Might a roll call vote end up in Clinton stealing the nomination?
One cable show yesterday had a ten minute segment interviewing two supposed Hillary supporters, part of a group known as "PUMA" (originally "Party Unity My Ass," now changed to "People United Means Action") who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. One of the guests admitted they have only raised $50,000 and have a small membership, yet the media wants controversy, so they give them a full ten minutes.
So with the news yesterday that the Clinton and Obama camps have worked out the role Hillary will play at the convention, the pundits are stumped. If there's no drama to report on, how can they get people to watch the convention? If PUMA is just a group of disgruntled and sour grapes die-hards (or more likely Republicans trying to make trouble) what else can they do to gin up controversy?
Well, they can always go back to the right wing smear merchants. Maybe another "book" will come out. Or maybe another little war will break out and McCain can act all commander in chiefy and imply Obama is a girly-man. Heaven knows, without a war to light up his eyes, McCain is simply too dull and too old to provide anything exciting for the media.
Thank god, they must be thinking, Obama is flying back from vacation today and will probably announce his veep next week. Then the media can spend the week before the convention tearing him or her apart.
For people that are supposed to have inside information and offer great insight, these people are acting like gossip mongers and morons. I guess that's what happens when the role of the press is no longer to inform, but simply make money for their corporate masters.
I am doing neither. I am watching the media. And it is quite amusing.
They want so badly for there to be some big drama for them to cover in the presidential race that they are trying to create controversy just to get people to pay attention. Every time a new poll comes out, for instance, they give it their own spin. A move of one or two points up for McCain means he is "closing the gap." If he moves one point ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 3 or 4, he has "taken the lead." Once Obama's lead opens up again to five or six points, they go silent or interpret it falsely as "within the margin of error." They desperately want this race to be close. A huge lead for Obama this early would give them nothing to agonize about.
Right now, they are mad at Barack Obama for going on vacation. How dare he! Doesn't he know he's supposed to be running for president here in the real United States, not resting in that "exotic" group of islands out in the Pacific? They are trying mightily to get us to believe this will hurt him – especially since he isn't acting like McCain and playing pretend commander in chief during this "crisis," which they have also hyped, in Georgia.
They also think Obama should be here to get all upset about the new smear book that has just been published about him. Once again, as they did all through the primary when they agonized over Clinton's attacks on Obama, the media is looking for a way to criticize him, this time for not reacting quickly enough to the packs of lies the right wing throws at the Dem candidate every four years. Day after dreary day they remind us of how the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry doomed his candidacy, especially because he didn't respond quickly enough.
Funny – I seem to remember how much of a part the media played in the dissemination of those Swift Boat ads, which only had a limited run as paid commercials. If it hadn't been for the media serving as the handmaiden of the right wing smear merchants, most people would not have seen those ads. Today, as they interview Jerome Corsi, they are looking back and saying the attacks against Kerry were false. But they didn't say that four years ago.
One wonders why they are even giving this hack air time. They say it is because his book will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. In psychology we call this rationalization – finding a dishonest excuse to do something you really want to do anyway. They know the only reason this book is at #1 is because of all the bulk orders from the right wing think tanks and political organizations to make it seem as if people are interested in this pap. But they want to stir up trouble and controversy so people will watch, and so the general election will be closer than they fear it might be, and one way to do that is to give some lying attack dog air time.
Speaking of books, the pundits created a mini-drama this week over a rumor that Jeremiah Wright is coming out with a book in October. They almost couldn’t speak from the salivation over such a possibility. This would be a godsend for the professional talkers. They could agonize for weeks over whether such a book would doom Obama's chances. Washington restaurants would be bereft of patrons who were all booked on the cable stations to offer their punditry on the subject. Alas, it seems Wright is in Ghana doing missionary work, his daughter telling the media there is no book.
The latest "controversy" the media is hyping is one they have babbled about for months – the Clinton-Obama drama. In the primaries they speculated over why Obama couldn't "seal the deal" and why Hillary wasn't withdrawing from the race. Could Obama be a flawed candidate, not "one of us"? Were white working class men not willing to vote for a black? Did Hillary have some trick up her sleeve? Would she ever concede? Was she taking it "all the way to the convention?" Was she going to steal Obama's delegates over the summer?
Now, as the Clinton and Obama camps quietly work on convention logistics, the media is at it again. The Clintons will overshadow Obama at the convention. It will be a "Clinton convention." This is the beginning of Hillary's 2012 campaign. Will Bill actually say nice things about Obama or will he sabotage everything? Will Hillary's supporters make trouble? Might a roll call vote end up in Clinton stealing the nomination?
One cable show yesterday had a ten minute segment interviewing two supposed Hillary supporters, part of a group known as "PUMA" (originally "Party Unity My Ass," now changed to "People United Means Action") who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. One of the guests admitted they have only raised $50,000 and have a small membership, yet the media wants controversy, so they give them a full ten minutes.
So with the news yesterday that the Clinton and Obama camps have worked out the role Hillary will play at the convention, the pundits are stumped. If there's no drama to report on, how can they get people to watch the convention? If PUMA is just a group of disgruntled and sour grapes die-hards (or more likely Republicans trying to make trouble) what else can they do to gin up controversy?
Well, they can always go back to the right wing smear merchants. Maybe another "book" will come out. Or maybe another little war will break out and McCain can act all commander in chiefy and imply Obama is a girly-man. Heaven knows, without a war to light up his eyes, McCain is simply too dull and too old to provide anything exciting for the media.
Thank god, they must be thinking, Obama is flying back from vacation today and will probably announce his veep next week. Then the media can spend the week before the convention tearing him or her apart.
For people that are supposed to have inside information and offer great insight, these people are acting like gossip mongers and morons. I guess that's what happens when the role of the press is no longer to inform, but simply make money for their corporate masters.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
No more flyboys!
McCain to reporters on his plane today:
We have learned from several reputable sources (Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward among them) that Bush intended from the moment he took office to find a way to get into a war with Iraq. We see what misery that has brought us, and how it has affected our standing in the world.
Now McCain is threatening a hostile attitude towards Russia, even before the election. Can we really afford to go down this road again, or are we ready for something different, something perhaps a little more reasonable, a little more diplomatic, a little more peaceful?
Republicans want you to believe it is risky to elect Obama. I say it is far riskier to stay with a warmonger, a man itching for a return to the 1970s, a man who seems to come alive when thumping his chest and threatening other nations.
McCain and Bush are like peas in a pod - both former flyboys, both militant, both allergic to diplomacy with one's adversaries.
McCain, speaking with U.S. News en route from Birmingham, Mich., to Eagle, Colo., said there would not be a return to the Cold War but there would be a "dramatically different relationship" between the United States and Russia unless Moscow's behavior changes. "It is not acceptable behavior in the 21st century," McCain argued.
We have learned from several reputable sources (Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward among them) that Bush intended from the moment he took office to find a way to get into a war with Iraq. We see what misery that has brought us, and how it has affected our standing in the world.
Now McCain is threatening a hostile attitude towards Russia, even before the election. Can we really afford to go down this road again, or are we ready for something different, something perhaps a little more reasonable, a little more diplomatic, a little more peaceful?
Republicans want you to believe it is risky to elect Obama. I say it is far riskier to stay with a warmonger, a man itching for a return to the 1970s, a man who seems to come alive when thumping his chest and threatening other nations.
McCain and Bush are like peas in a pod - both former flyboys, both militant, both allergic to diplomacy with one's adversaries.
Militant nationalism: the mindset of McCain
Over at Obsidian Wings, publius has a fascinating post about how neocon (and McCain) nationalism parallels Russian nationalism.
...let's imagine if Bill Kristol could be magically transformed into a Russian. And let’s say that the Russian Kristol saw the following happen over the years: (1) the Soviet Union collapsed; (2) NATO and the West began militarily encircling a country whose foreign policy has been obsessed for 60 years with avoiding another WW2-style invasion; (3) NATO humiliated an impotent Russia by bombing the holy crap out of Serbia and then supporting independence for Kosovo; (4) a hated uber-nationalist neighbor (Georgia) wanted to join this military alliance (NATO!); (5) said hated neighbor launched an attack essentially rubbing Russia’s nose in it.
What exactly do you think Kristolovich would recommend? Respect for territorial sovereignty? No, he’d recommend pretty much what he’s recommending now, just with the countries reversed. That’s what militant nationalists do. They convince themselves of their own unambiguous superiority. Once that point is established, everything else flows logically. Because we’re so good, we can use force whenever and wherever we want. We won’t be excessive of course, because we’re constitutionally incapable of being wrong.
These militant nationalists also share a paranoid sense of decline. The great nation is always in danger of being overrun or embarrassed. There’s always some threat among us. Thus, there’s always some need to re-establish our strength and greatness – preferably through force. Because we’re so good.
My point is that the problem with the Russia response is, at bottom, the same problem with the response to the response. That problem is nationalism. Russia is doing exactly what the neocons want America and Israel to do.
Generally speaking, though, nationalism is almost always the problem. Looking abroad, we usually find ourselves at odds with various countries' nationalist wings. That is, the nationalists are the ones we don’t like (though sometimes we like them, but shouldn't – e.g., Israel, Georgia). In Iran, we prefer the reformers to the religious nationalists. In Palestine, same. In China, same (minus religion). In Russia, same. In Venezuela, same. In all these countries, the nationalists are the most contemptuous of world opinion. They’re the most enamored of starting wars. And so on....
....Looking ahead, we’re never going to make real progress until we get past this paranoid, angry worldview. Democrats might win an election or two and put off the day of reckoning. But as long as militant nationalism remains as potent as it seems to be, we’re simply pushing off wars to future dates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)