The Yankees Do it Again

It is alarming and comforting at the same time that as we continue sliding through the worst recession of our lifetime, the New York Yankees are now on the hook for spending $805 million on four, yes FOUR, salaries. Alarming because while the rest of us fear for our retirement and our jobs, the Yankees are still lavishing their overpaid players with salaries that have nothing to do with performance (remind you of anyone else in New York?) while most other baseball teams continue to lament and fume in mediocrity with no hope of ever improving. And it’s comforting that the Yankees and the Steinbrenners in particular still have not learned that money and payroll can’t always buy you a championship and a collection of great stars does not guarantee a great team. Just ask a Mets fan about that last fact. And the Yankees still have no clue why the rest of the baseball world loathes them.

Many blame Scott Boras for these signings (Teixeira, A-Rod and Johnny Damon are just three high-profile Boras clients who recently signed with New York), but Boras is just trying to get the best deal for his clients. Others will blame the Red Sox for blinking or not upping the ante, but I actually admire Boston’s steadfast rules with player contracts – namely no contract longer than four years and a reluctance to engage in a bidding war with Boras or any other agent. And while Boras did represent Daisuke Matsuzaka last year, he was only dealing with Boston and if Boras did not complete a deal Dice-K was heading back to Japan.

No, Teixeira only got this obscene contract because Boras knew the Yankees would do what they always do – offer the most money and the longest-term contract, and with a no-trade clause to boot! Ever since the Steinbrenners came aboard, this has been the Yankee M.O. – how much do you want and for how long? This worked in the 70s when free agency was in its infancy, but the Yankee free agent track record in the last decade or so has not been stellar. Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Damon, Carl Pavano, Andy Pettite’s second turn are just some of the higher profile busts. Others were a bit better – Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens (steroids notwithstanding) – but they certainly haven’t produced a championship. And as teams like Boston and Tampa Bay have recently shown, there’s still something to be said for a good farm system and solid prospects. Posada, Jeter, Rivera and Joba Chamberlain are fine examples.

But what is most disturbing is what I have ranted about long before – how baseball’s class system is contributing to the long-term decline of baseball’s relevance today. Baseball still ranks fourth in popularity of all professional sports. The luxury tax has helped a bit, but the Teixeira signing could finally be the straw that breaks the Pittsburgh and Kansas City’s fans backs. Every other sport has a salary cap to prevent these inequities, and perhaps this could finally pave the way for this to happen in baseball.

And something else is lost too. When I was a kid, my dad would often take me to games at Yankee Stadium, where we would often sit near first base. Total costs for transportation from Jersey, parking, hot dogs, tickets and souvenirs would be less than $30 for both of us. Now, as this great Sports Illustrated article illustrates, attending professional sports games is practically impossible for a middle class family.

It has also been disgraceful to see a team with the Yankees’ wealth fleece the City of New York for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given to build their new billion dollar stadium. No city, especially one with New York’s budget issues, deserves to lavish public subsidies on a team that does not pay property taxes.

Perhaps Teixeira and Sabathia are the missing pieces the Yankees need to win a championship. But even if that is the case, there is still something artificial and greedy about the whole affair. I recently read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with my kids, and I realize the Yankees have become Veruca Salt – getting whatever they want no matter what the cost is to them, to their fans who ultimately pay for it, or whatever they sacrifice in respect and class along the way.

Song of the South: Disney's Great Unknown

One of Disney World’s most popular rides is Splash Mountain, which is based on the 1946 Disney movie “Song of the South.” When my kids asked about the movie, I couldn’t tell them anything because I’ve never seen it. It has never been on video or DVD in the U.S., has only been sporadically re-released in theaters (the last time was in 1986) and Disney has no current plans to change this policy.

While the ride focuses on the animated parts of the film with Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear, Brer Fox and the rest of the Briar Patch crew, Song of the South was actually Disney’s very first foray into films that combined live action with animation, decades before Mary Poppins. Fans of Southern literature also may know the movie is based on the Uncle Remus tales of Joel Chandler Harris that were published after the Civil War. Harris based his (fictional) Uncle’s tales on stories told by freed slaves in the South at that time.

There’s a few web sites that are dedicated to the movie, most of which are petitioning Disney to finally release it. The movie’s animated sequences are told outside of the live action sections, where Uncle Remus tells Chandler’s stories to both black and white children. Allegedly Remus and other African Americans live as sharecroppers on a huge, white-owned plantation where they are extremely happy with their lives and work. And that appears to be the main reason why Disney has kept Song of the South in its vault despite growing requests to release it, most likely spurred by the ride. When released, the NAACP condemned the movie for its sugarcoated master/slave depiction and the alleged happy subservience of African Americans to their white landowners. I say “alleged” and “appears” a few times here since I haven’t seen the movie and can’t say whether this is accurate.

Perhaps when it was released in 1946, Song of the South was a product of its time and Disney did not think it was racist. And it was depicting the Reconstruction-era South, (which did not have slavery but life was not much better for African Americans then either). But the film won two Oscars – a special one for James Baskett, who plays Uncle Remus and another for best song (Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah). Baskett was the first African American man to ever win an Oscar and Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah remains one of Disney’s most popular songs. You can see and hear clips and songs from the movie on Disney compilation DVDs and CDs, and videos of the whole movie have been released overseas. But nothing in America.

Should Song of the South be released, or kept in the vault because of its (potentially) racist undertones? I have two ideas. The first would be to remake the movie. There is more than enough demand and new interest thanks to Splash Mountain for Disney to make an updated Song of the South with new animation while keeping the classic songs. At the same time, I’m quite sure Disney could do a much better and updated job with handling the racial climate of Reconstruction in the 21st century, and I bet lots of today’s big African American celebrities would jump at the chance to either be in the movie or do voice-over work.

The second idea would be to finally issue the movie on DVD, but use the occasion to properly frame the movie in its context of both 1946 and the time it represents. Disney can have plenty of material on the DVD that could address the film’s history and its reluctance to reissue it. Confronting the issue properly could start very useful dialogue with kids regarding our past.
When we have America’s first African American president about to take office, I vote that it’s time for the public to finally view Song of the South and determine either if the movie was truly racist in the first place or if it has been a lost and misunderstood classic. If that never happens, the movie will eventually enter the public domain in 2039.

More Info: Song of the South Fan Site, including info about the film, pictures and how to petition Disney to rerelease it.
Urban Legends on the Movie from Snopes
A Two Minute YouTube clip from the movie - Short, but judge for yourself

The Nepotism Factor

Before we collectively marveled in revulsion at Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich offering Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder, I seemed to be one of the few equally perturbed that Caroline Kennedy, a respectable woman with absolutely zero interest and experience in politics or public affairs until a few months ago, was being considered as a front-runner for a New York Senate seat that was also to be filled by special appointment.

I have always been allergic to nepotism in public and private practice. Maybe it’s because my parents didn’t have a business where I could start as a vice president right out of college because they told me I had to earn my career the hard way. And there certainly was no political seat they kept warm for me either. And unlike Caroline, Paris and others, the Jacobson name doesn’t open many doors or ensure you’re born on third base or home plate either. But when many deride the special interests that consume politics, they should make room for the most special interest of all – families from the Bushes to the Kennedys on down trying to form oligarchies to govern plebians like us.

I’m not from Massachusetts and I don’t buy into the Kennedy mystique. In my home state of New Jersey, voters recently denied Tom Kean Jr., son of a former governor who had amassed an unspectacular record as a state senator, a U.S. senate seat in 2006. And I don’t think they would re-elect any senator who had gone through the driving and drinking trials of Ted Kennedy either. But if you look around at the recent political families that run so much of our country, you find little to assure you that these families are winning elections because of their brains. From the slew of Kennedys here to the Landrieus of Louisiana and the Daleys of Chicago, the overall track record of these families is pretty mediocre. While that may be no better or worse than your average politician, it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton was Hillary Smith and Caroline Kennedy was Caroline Jones, do you think either of them would be considered for or elected to Congress with their track records?

And guess who may take over Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware? That’s right – Joe Biden III! In a move that Blagojevich would approve, Delaware Governor recently appointed Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff to fill his seat while Biden III prepares for a quite obvious run when he returns from Iraq. At least Biden has currently served almost 18 months as Delaware’s attorney general, giving him far more experience than Caroline Kennedy.

Nepotism is nothing new in American politics. The Adams of Massachusetts, the Roosevelts of New York and the Tafts of Ohio existed long ago and more families will arise. Name recognition is always important when running for office. But it’s a shame that so many voters and governors who must appoint members to Congress never look beyond pedigree or last name.

My Nomination to Fix Detroit

It is very, very difficult for any of us to feel sorry for the U.S. auto industry. For years we have watched these once-mighty titans get their behinds kicked by foreign automakers, who have run rings around them in innovation, fuel efficiency, worker relations and cars that are just better and more fun to drive. And while Detroit comes to Congress with its hat in hand, foreign automakers are doing just fine, insourcing thousands of jobs to America and opening new plants. Toyota is opening a new plant to meet the huge demand for Priuses down in Mississippi while GM is still scrambling to get the cost of batteries in its still-nascent Volt down to the level that Toyota already has.

Much has been made of the Big Three’s ride on corporate jets to Washington and having no concrete plan for what to do with the bailout money. Not quite as much has been made about the ridiculous contracts the UAW extracts for its workers that helps bleed these companies. It took ample PR embarrassment for the unions to finally drop the JOBS bank, which literally paid downsized workers the bulk of their wages while they did no work for years. Imagine how much better these companies would be if these executive and union perks were cut years ago.

Many are trying to place the blame on either the executives or the unions. Like the financial services industry or the Iraq war, failure this massive cannot be drilled down to a single issue but rather spread out among collective idiocy. Even if the Big Three’s compensation and benefits were in line with foreign automakers, can anyone at GM tell me the difference between Buicks and Pontiacs? Why keep both of these lines of business? And a special dummy prize must be shared among the longtime Congressmen and Senators from Michigan, many of whom fought tooth and nail against raising fuel standards, giving incentives to hybrid cars and doing anything possible to shield Detroit from the smarter foreign competition that was eating its lunch. I fully understand why they were trying to protect the businesses and constituents in their state and districts, but part of being a Congressman requires tough love and explaining to these companies why some of these mileage and environmental rules would make them more competitive. And let’s not forget all those consumers who kept giving the junkie drugs by buying SUVs and minivans they clearly didn’t need.

So should Detroit get its bailout money? I am honestly on the fence about this. Bad behavior should never be rewarded, and all of these executives, union chiefs and congressmen like John Dingell, Dale Kildee, John Conyers and Senator Carl Levin should all resign for collectively helping to destroy the auto industry. But just as the financial services industry could not be allowed to implode, the auto industry is in a similar position. Our economy is far too fragile at this stage, and if even one of the Big Three went bankrupt or disappeared the ripple effects would make the recession far worse than it already is.

There’s widespread agreement that an “auto czar” should be in charge of the industry. But who? Some have recommended Steve Jobs. I have two ideas. The first is Lee Iacocca, a man who’s been though this before and could be the right one for the job.

Now here’s my other idea: James Spears, Britney Spears’ father. Say what? Here’s where I’m going. A year ago Britney was out of control – wasted on drugs, flashing strangers in public, spending truckloads of money on crap and hanging out with undesirables who catered to her every whim. Then her father stepped in and now she’s on a tight allowance, has kept her clothes on, is only with people who can help her out and has her career back on track.

OK, maybe not. But that’s the discipline Detroit needs to end its self-destruction. If your kids wreck your car, you don’t just give them a blank check and tell them to buy whatever car they want. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t do the same.

More Info: Mitt Romney was for the auto bailout before he was against it.

The Hangover's Coming

So you thought that once George W. Bush was out of office and Barack Obama was president everything would turn into sunshine and puppies, right? Just like Disney princess wannabes who just need to find their Prince Charming so their lives can turn into a fairy tale? Or the clueless CEOs at Internet startups I used to meet who thought all they needed was one story in the Wall Street Journal and the sales phones would ring off the hook?

Hopefully you do not think that way. But I’m willing to bet many do, especially the first-time voters among young Americans and minorities who are now looking at Obama as their savior. Unfortunately reality will soon bite them back. The last time I saw this much praising a new president among the youth and the media alike was…1992. Clinton came in as the last Democratic messiah who kicked the evil GOP out of the White House, and just two years later was so unpopular he ushered in Republican majorities in Congress.

Nobody knows what will happen in two years but a few things will definitely occur. First, Obama appears to be lining the Cabinet with longtime Democratic insiders. They are eminently qualified and cannot be worse than the current White House advisors and Cabinet, but anyone who voted for Obama because he promised change and was bringing an outsider’s and Mr. Smith type idealism to Washington is probably disappointed already.

Second, anyone who voted for Obama on a single issue (for example, because he would end the war in Iraq ASAP or institute a national health plan) is going to get disappointed. Getting anything done in Washington is like turning the Titanic. Change may come, but it’s not coming fast.

Third, at some point in the next four years, Barack Obama is going to make a mistake. In fact he may make more than one mistake. We’ll see how the newcomers to politics react when he makes this mistake. It may be something completely understandable or minor to wonks or political insiders, but if it involves breaking a campaign promise he could lose much of the goodwill he achieved.

The reason so many are jaded about politics is that candidates promise so much during the campaign but once they are in office they either realize they will be unable to deliver much of what they promise, or because circumstances arise that place different priorities on the front burner. Items fall through the cracks in every job, but politicians have so much scrutiny and so many people depending on them that those errors are magnified. I’d advise everyone who voted for the first time, especially in light of the current economy, to be patient with their expectations. Change may be coming, but it’s a long time coming.

Print Journalism - Burning Out or Fading Away?

Here’s my first prediction for the reign of the next president – the print journalism industry will continue to vanish, and journalism itself will continue to flourish.

Last week was beyond bad for print journalists. Time Inc. announced 600 layoffs. Gannett cut 10% of its workforce. McGraw Hill downsized 270. The advertising industry, which heavily subsidizes print journalism, sees rough times ahead for the next few quarters. And for grisly humor, the Motley Fool has a newspaper stock death pool.

Most ominous of all, the staid NY Times publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger blames the industry’s woes on an overkill of information. But he claims people will eventually turn to “trusted” places like The New York Times to gain the right perspective on the all the clutter and noise emanating from blogs, cell phones and competing 24-hour newscycles where everything older than 15 minutes is antiquated. I must say that Pinchy’s thoughts don’t exactly sound correct to me. If anything, it is reminiscent of the superior attitude that the Times’ critics routinely deride it for. And notice which company is part of that death pool.

Regular readers of The Boston Globe, which is going through the declining ad revenue, layoffs and page shrinkage problems throughout the industry have undoubtedly noticed that the print version is starting to resemble USA Today – same four sections and same shorter stories. But if you only read the Globe online, you’d never notice the difference and you’d still get the same content. I’m not sure if Boston.com is profitable yet, but obviously the Globe (owned by The New York Times) is headed in the right direction. Long gone are the times when the news media controlled the airwaves and political parties. If anything, the Internet has liberated the public from that. The plethora of choices and the ability to interact with the audience online are the future for both independent media and the stalwarts who can correctly embrace them. This was not possible as recently as 10 years ago.

And here’s one paper that’s getting it right – remember the Christian Science Monitor? It’s going online only next year. The future of substantive media can currently be seen in the success stories of Salon and Slate, plus the bloggers who were either smart enough to get on the wagon early or who have the talent and time to make their blogs successful (I don’t fall into that category yet. Maybe one day…)

Will newspapers disappear? No. Stalwarts like The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have the brand power to stick around in some smaller form. Planes and automobiles didn’t completely kill trains either. But I do see many newspapers moving to Sunday-only print versions or evolving into some other kind of niche where they can exist. Or it can follow the Monitor’s lead and embrace the future instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

Last One in the GOP Can Turn Out the Lights

No matter what happens on November 4, there is going to be some serious soul-searching in the Republican Party. The party that just four years ago was supremely disciplined and knew exactly what it stood for has shattered.

It would have been tough for any Republican to win in this environment, but what has been most alarming are the once-loyal GOP legions who are abandoning ship in droves.
This week alone you’ve had Bill Weld, Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Charlie Fried, Ken Adelman, Nicholas Cafardi and many other standard-bearers, along with 22% of people who identify themselves as conservative, announcing they were behind Obama. It’s that 22% number that’s most impressive – the big names might be angling for new jobs, but there’s a groundswell of grassroots support that is astonishing.

So who will be turning out the lights in GOP headquarters? It seems the only ones who are sticking by McCain and Caribou Barbie are the bloviators on talk radio and Fox News. And when you see and hear some of the comments that have been made at some of their rallies, you know that many – surely not all – of these supporters have bought the smear attacks without hesitation. Many of these continue to blame their party’s woes on the usual suspects – the liberal media, academics, abortion supporters – and will continue to do so after the election. To them, the GOP can do no wrong.

But when you look at the names and figures in my second paragraph – not to mention the conservative stalwarts like George Will, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan, who lost confidence in the Republicans long ago – you realize that the people who once led the party’s ideology have deserted. In its desire to appeal to what appeared to be the new base of evangelicals, Joe Six-Packs and Joe the Plumber, the GOP turned into not only a party that ran on wedge issues, but also one that disdained intellectuals and any shades of gray. Long-held tenets like fiscal responsibility were dropped in favor of love-it-or-leave-it patriotism and partisanship. Anyone who questioned or dissented was labeled a traitor and un-American.

By acting like a bunch of adolescents who think they know everything, anyone who disagreed with the my-way-or-the-highway GOP chose the highway. The immediate GOP reaction on November 5 will probably be a mixture of sour grapes and petulance, but to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, those who felt the Republican Party left them know the truth. When you run on an anti-intellectual platform that boasts of dividing America between real Americans in small towns and lesser Americans in cities and suburbs, expect those in cities and suburbs to leave you. When you urge a new round of McCarthyism to investigate the majority of Americans who may vote for Democrats, you will lose the vote of anybody that has the slightest memory of those dark days, unless they’re someone who is drinking the same Kool-Aid you are. Is it any wonder that Republicans have lost not just the brains of their own party, but also so many college graduates, recent immigrants, doctors and white collar workers that used to be solid GOP voters? For years liberals screamed about class warfare and ridiculed anyone who disagreed with them; it got them nowhere. Now the Republicans are doing the same thing, with similar results.

I was legitimately excited this time last year when Rudy Giuliani and McCain were in the primaries. I thought we would see at least the two of them take a populist, intelligent approach to campaigning. It’s disheartening to not only see McCain unwisely drop his once well-regarded viewpoints for this vapid dogma, but also to hear Giuliani’s robocalls telling people not to vote for Obama because of his lack of support for mandatory prison sentences. If the GOP thinks people are going to base their votes on that issue in this day and age, it could act as the party’s coda. Both of these smart and capable men should be ashamed of themselves for adopting and endorsing these beliefs.

So what’s left is a party that basically shoved much of its former base out the door, abandoned the core principles of Reagan and Goldwater, has no central campaign theme that addresses the current economic situation, and – on top of everything – done a miserable job the last four years. What you reap is what you sow.

Does Negative Campaigning Work?

Sometimes.

Gossip spreads faster than good news. We still remember the warnings our parents and childhood friends told us about hot stoves and creepy people in scary houses. And the ads we remember after the dust clears are the negative ones – the Swift Boat Veterans, the Willie Hortons and the legendary Daisy ad, which only ran twice. Something about human nature means we tend to remember the salacious and the dangerous, and that is why despite the public’s abhorrence of negative ads and campaigning, the tactic can work IF it is done correctly.

With fewer people than ever watching the news or reading papers, negative ads are how most Americans learn about the candidates. I never knew about the tax consequences of McCain’s health care plan until I saw the Obama ad discussing it. And many probably knew nothing about Obama’s distant relationship with terrorist David Ayers until the McCain ad ran. With the media focusing on the horse race and little else, this is one of the few places Americans can get relevant information, albeit strictly filtered by each candidate.

But there’s a difference between a negative ad that does its job and one that voters perceive as mean-spirited and mudslinging. It often boils down to attacking the candidate vs. attacking the candidate’s policy. Most Americans dislike personal attacks on any candidate, and those tend to backfire because they’re not seen as relevant to the issues at hand. But attacking a candidate’s policies will always be fair game. And occasionally these two intertwine – what if Candidate A says taxes are too high, but then Candidate B learns that A has not paid taxes in five years? Here’s a 2004 negative Bush ad that was able to thread the needle between personal and policies.

However, if you are running a long-shot campaign against an opponent that you have almost no chance of beating then it is almost mandatory to go negative. That could be the only way you can draw enough attention to yourself to win. But you still need to walk that fine line between raising legitimate points to issues that resonate with voters, and crossing the line into personal attacks that will turn them off.

With McCain down in the polls, it’s unsurprising that he appears to have gone all negative all the time. It shows that he knows that he’s behind, but it’s how he goes negative that needs to be watched. Will he attack the policies or the candidate? If it’s the latter, it may be the final nail in what has become an increasingly erratic and undisciplined campaign.

More Info: A rare positive ad that worked, and was memorable

Ladies Choice

Today I’m going to venture into dangerous territory…assessing women in politics. It is no secret that women in politics are judged far differently and more harshly than men on their appearance and mannerisms, and much of the harshest criticism often comes from other women. I remember Katharine Harris, Florida’s secretary of state in the 2000 recount, being vilified by women for the color of her lipstick and Hillary Clinton being goofed on by women of both parties for her pantsuit schedule. If a man made any of these comments, he would be correctly vilified as sexist. Women made the bulk of these remarks and guess what? They’re still sexist.

But judging people by appearance is something we all do in our material- and youth-obsessed society, so if you’re running for public office (which has been called “show business for ugly people”) appearance and mannerisms are fair game. The college-educated women I work with remain incredulous at how Sarah Palin, after another vapid debate performance last week, remains popular and draws big crowds. There are numerous reasons for this, but the unfortunate but most realistic answer is that she is attractive – with good hair and a fine sense of style (again, according to the women I work with). There has been far more interoffice discussion on why she doesn’t wear her hair down than on her policies or verbal faux pas.

This morning I read on Andrew Sullivan how part of her appeal may be the “cocktail waitress” aspect. At the debate she winked at me a few times and used the aw-shucks, you’re-darn-tootin’ speak straight out of Fargo. Sullivan wondered if she was trying to flirt with Biden or the audience. I doubt Palin was flirting with anyone, although many women certainly flirt everywhere from work to bars to get what they may want or need. But I do not doubt that the GOP is using her to rally both the base and some wayward and not-too-bright men that see an attractive woman and lose much of their good sense and judgment. I also believe that she is somewhat symbolic of our culture – where looking good and repeating carefully screened, canned answers is more important than answering tough questions.

Maybe many educated and smart women are threatened and fascinated by Palin at the same time. Perhaps she’s as deep as a puddle, but at least she looks good doing what she does. While she comes across as more feminine than, say, Hillary Clinton, does that mean that Hillary Clinton lost because she wasn’t feminine enough? Would Hillary have done better if she ditched the pantsuit for the dresses Palin wears? I don’t know, but remember how appearance is far more important than substance today, and how fast people form opinions on all of us based on how we look.

Hillary tried playing the gender card a little bit and it backfired. The reason it did was because she always came across as an equal to the men she ran against, and that is the right way to do it. Think of all the amazing female politicians we have– from Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Boxer to pioneers like Margaret Thatcher and Ann Richards. They never cried sexism when they didn’t get their way. They never let their appearance get in the way of their accomplishments or let people judge them by their looks. And I’m sure they never winked during a debate.

How Not to Win Votes

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.

It’s even worse when you watch it!

I’ve mentioned before that I am a PR flack, and part of my job involves media training, writing “talking points” or “sound bites” for executives giving interviews and making sure people clearly communicate what they want people to hear in 100 words or less. Because of this, I am bookmarking Sarah Palin’s interview as a classic example of what not to do when you’re dealing with the media.

It was clear coming out of the Republican Convention that McCain was going to rally the troops by declaring war on the media, specifically the left-leaning New York Times. It’s a tried-and-true approach, especially for a campaign that doesn’t seem to have a central theme (a serious problem). The media is regarded by the public somewhere between child molesters and personal injury lawyers on its best days. But there’s another old saying: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

If you’re being interviewed by the media, you better have your act together. At the very least, you have to give the appearance that you have command of whatever it is you’re talking about. To drill the point home, there are a few talking points you need to hit on and make sure the interviewer and (most importantly) the viewer can chew on. And most importantly, it’s gotta look authentic and believable. People see through staged events like photo ops but remember people who wowed them (Obama six months ago) or made them cringe (see above).

So the McCain team faces a very tricky task of excoriating the media while trying to acquiesce to it at the same time by granting limited interviews where they can control the situation as much as possible. By shielding both candidates from the media, they could give the appearance of scorning an often reviled establishment. But ignoring the media won’t stop it from reporting about you, and absence can lead to speculation – particularly with an unknown commodity like Palin. “Why does she ignore us?” the media speculates. Is she not press-savvy? Does she have something to hide?

The truth now appears to be she (a) was being media trained by someone far worse than I am, or (b) is an utter nitwit. I think it could be both. First, look at how many times she repeats the buzzwords that someone told her to rattle off. Health care reform, shoring up the economy and job creation all appear twice in one paragraph. Even weirder was this sentence:

So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans.

Wow, that’s an entire platform right there! But review it to see how carefully this has to be done to be effective. Would anyone here argue that health care reform, reducing taxes, reining in spending, tax reductions (same as reducing taxes, actually) and tax relief (ditto) are bad things? Of course not. But does it make sense in the realm of that amazing answer? Does it make sense at all? No way. This is why so many people dislike politicians and don’t watch Meet the Press and similar shows. The politicians get asked questions and never answer the question. They stick to their message, although most do it much better than the moose hunter here.

When I media train anyone, we go over and over potential questions and rehearse the answers until I’m satisfied the person can authentically speak without sounding like a robot. Some people, however, are just not good at it. Some freeze under the pressure, while others have a bad habit of turning a short answer into a long story. But I’ve never had someone just randomly spout out the talking points without at least sorta answering the question, and I’m proud to say none of my students has ever come across that badly on television.

RIP Jack Falla

Part of having a blog is that you can write whatever you want. So I am taking time this week to eulogize a mentor of mine you probably don't know, unless you are a journalism or sports journalism major at Boston University’s College of Communication. This past Sunday, Jack Falla suddenly passed away of a heart attack at 62. Jack was not just a teacher but also a mentor, advisor and very good friend.

Jack was someone who also was able to devote his life to the two things he was passionate about – writing and teaching (although he would call the latter “coaching” to use one of his endless sports metaphors.) Many people write well. Jack was an incredibly gifted writer who was able to become a sports journalist, and was on staff for Hockey News and Sports Illustrated in the 1980s. He then started to freelance and teach at BU. He also loved hockey, so he decided to build a hockey rink in his backyard. After some humorous trial and error it worked, and he rebuilt it every winter.

I was one of the few who did NOT have Jack for sports journalism at 8 a.m., but rather a regular writing class at COM in 1989. I picked his class by chance and it changed my life. Not only was Jack one of the best teachers I ever had, but we became friends and kept in touch long after graduation. I had lunch with him less than two months ago and he was exactly the same – an all-around great guy. His premature death has left me extremely sad, but I truly am a better person (and writer) for having known him.

To this day, I remember much of what Jack told me. In one of my first assignments for him that was maybe 400 words, he told me to cut 20 words out. When I finished he said, “Now cut another 25 words out.” I got through it and he said, “How many of those were adjectives and adverbs?” They almost all were. I never forgot that lesson, plus his loathing of exclamation points and love of sports metaphors. There are many good writers, but not all of them have the skill to teach writing well. Jack did.

Throughout the years Jack served as a reference, mentor and drinking buddy. He never said no to anything. When I found an athlete who I thought had a great story I told Jack, fully confident he would send out the word to his minions in the sports world who would be interested in the story. Naturally he found someone, and the athlete was profiled in the Sunday Globe. When I was applying to grad school a few years ago, I put Jack on standby as a reference in case one of my former bosses couldn’t pull through. Sure enough, my old boss went AWOL and Jack delivered a reference even though he had taught me over 15 years ago. That’s the kind of man he was; always willing to help out and eager to swap stories.

After Jack’s book Home Ice, I learned much more about Jack’s rink and his family. His love and care for them was evident throughout its pages. Of course I will be reading his new book Open Ice with a heavy heart, but he told me at our last meal together how pleased he was with it and he was very proud of some of the essays inside.

It’s been said that you can tell a man’s worth by what he leaves behind after he passes away. Jack leaves a stadium full of professional and amateur sportswriters and others who all seem to have identical memories of this amazing family man, teacher and coach. I can truly say my life is better for having known him well. And for his sports journalism class, there are currently three writers in the Boston Globe sports section, one Yankee writer at the Daily News, on columnist at the Chicago Tribune, four PR directors at four different professional sports franchises and one PR director for the NHL that are alumni of Jack’s classes. And those are just the ones I know about.

If you’re looking for a good read this fall, do yourself a favor and purchase either Home Ice or Open Ice. Even if you don’t skate, the stories will make you laugh and warm your heart.

Here are additional eulogies on Jack from others at The Boston Herald, BU's Daily Free Press, The NY Daily News, the Metrowest Daily News and The Boston Globe. Almost all were written by former students like me.

Abstract Distractions

So you thought the Democrats were going to run away with this thing because they are featuring a smarter candidate who lies less than the other guys and because the current economic and international climate favors them, right? That’s just what they said in 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2004. And you thought Sarah Palin was going to knock John McCain out for good, correct? Democrats have attacked VP candidates from Richard Nixon to Dan Quayle, with absolutely zero effect. No wonder the polls are tied. This is going to be a lot closer than anybody thought.

If your political opponent is kicking your tail, the best way to change things in your favor is to distract everyone with an issue or topic that will focus more attention on you. With the media and the American public having the collective attention span of a five-year-old, McCain’s Hail Mary desperation pass of Sarah Palin has (so far) been brilliant. How can the Democrats possibly compete against an attractive 44-year-old mother of five whose oldest child is heading to Iraq, young baby has Down’s Syndrome, and whose daughter is knocked up? Now THAT’S a distraction!

Much has been written about how the women who now love Sarah Palin are totally at odds with her politics. This is completely unimportant. Most Americans are uninterested in the nuances of politics and often vote for a candidate based on likeability, appearance and whoever makes them feel better about their families and their future. Where those candidates stand on their political positions is secondary, although whichever candidate explains it in a way that resonates best with voters has the edge. This is one of those regrettable but true facts about our culture – and one the Democrats just do not get.

You can see Democrats and the media (who still want Obama to win, although Palin is a great story that they won’t drop) repeatedly trying to catch her on issues like earmarks and abortion. I hate to tell both these groups the obvious, but abortion has never been a major factor in any recent election, and most Americans have no clue what an earmark is. And attacking her experience and job history won’t work either since that will draw inevitable comparisons to Obama’s weaknesses there.

Worst of all for the Democrats, they now seem to be obsessed with Palin and try to trot her out as red meat at every opportunity. That may work with partisans who will vote for them anyway, but it comes across as mean-spirited to many women and independents that they should be attracting. And when Palin started to get in trouble, the GOP trot out the “lipstick on a pig” distraction. Of course they knew it wasn’t directed at her, but that was unimportant. It was a way to get into the Democrats’ head, again.

So how do the Democrats get out of this? That’s easy – create a distraction of their own. Obama won the nomination by being an atypical, charismatic candidate who was short on specifics but terrific on getting viewers to bond with him on a visceral, gut level (kind of like what Palin is doing now!) He’s since been transformed into running a typical, cerebral Democratic presidential campaign that always goes down in flames. He needs to go back to the emotional candidate who reminds viewers of the past eight years and stirs them into action. And one who is absolutely, completely undistracted by Sarah Palin.

Dave's 2008 NFL Forecast

Last year, I predicted the Patriots would be undefeated but would fall to my hometown favorite team, the New York Giants, in an upset for the ages.

OK, that didn’t quite happen. I think I had the Giants third. But did anyone see any of those things happening? That’s why football is so great and these predictions are so goofy and fun.

Here’s my picks for this year. As of today, I am 100% confident I’m right. In fact, I’m going to do just as well this year as last year! Teams are picked in order of finish, with two wild cards and my “dark horse” pick for either most improved team or at least the team that will get some traction going.

NFC EAST
1) Dallas: The sad thing is Adam Jones, or Pacman Jones, or whatever his name is, may be just what this team needs. Of course with Terrell Owens still aboard and Jessica Simpson nearby, the good news is Dallas may replace the Patriots as the team America loves to hate.
2) NY Giants: Wild Card Team. The entire offense is back. The defense, er, is not. Justin Tuck can fill Strahan’s shoes, but filling Osi Umenyiora’s will be tougher. Some questions also remain at linebacker, but I have confidence in defensive coordinator Steve “Spags” Spagnuolo.
3) Philadelphia: Always a threat, but Donovan McNabb goes down for a month whenever he stubs his toe. The Eagles did upgrade their secondary with Asante Samuel, but those guys aren’t supposed to win the game for you.
4) Washington: I see promise in QB Jason Campbell, but I don’t think the Skins have the receivers for the West Coast offense the new coach wants to put in. The learning curve will be too steep for Washington to advance in the NFC East.

NFC CENTRAL
1) Green Bay: Favre is gone, but overall this team is way more balanced than the Vikings, especially on D. Solid cornerbacks in Harris and Woodson, great LBs in Hawk and Garnett and Aaron Kampman is a monster. If Aaron Rodgers doesn’t make too many mistakes and the running game holds out, there should be no problems repeating.
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Lots of people are picking the Vikings as their NFC Champion. They may win this weak division but I’m not sold on QB Tavaris Jackson, who was way too weak to get a team out of the first round of the playoffs. There’s promise with Jared Allen and Adrian Peterson is the real thing.
3) Detroit: Every year I rip GM Matt Millen for being dumber than a box of rocks. Last year the Lions started 6-2 and I didn’t panic. Sure enough, they finished 7-9. So what happens? Millen fires offensive coordinator Mike Martz, whose downfield scheme was perfect for the underachieving WRs Millen specializes in drafting. He also continued his seven year trend of ignoring defensive needs. Look for 2007 to be the high point of Millen’s career.
4) Chicago: Picking Kyle Orton to start over Rex Grossman at QB is like picking Newark over Camden as the best city in New Jersey. The only thing worse could be the rest of the offense.

NFC SOUTH
1) New Orleans: Last year everyone picked the Saints to win it all. Then they started 0-4 and finished 7-9. Injuries decimated the team, but now Deuce McAllister and Mike McKenzie are healthy and the Saints made some great free agent pickups with Jonathan Vilma and Jeremy Shockey. I’m not saying they’ll be champs, but I am saying bounceback.
2) Tampa Bay: This team seems to have the same players that won the Super Bowl in 2002 – Joey Galloway, Warrick Dunn, Derrick Brooks, Ronde Barber, etc. So how old are they now? The only new guy is QB Jeff Garcia, who is older than all of them.
3) Carolina: I like coach John Fox, but too much is riding on QB Jake Delhomme. If his elbow holds out the Panthers might finish 9-7, but WR Steve Smith is unhappy and DE Julius Peppers is way past his prime.
4) Atlanta: Let’s be charitable and call this a “rebuilding” year for all involved. I predict their coach won’t quit in the middle of the season, and next year’s very high draft choice will have an impact in 2009.

NFC WEST
1) Seattle: There’s two reasons Seattle has won the West for four years running. One is that Mike Holmgren always puts together a solid, if unspectacular, team that plays hard. Second is that the rest of the division is REALLY bad.
2) Arizona: Dark Horse Team. For a while the Cardinals have reminded me of a fly stuck behind a small sheet of glass in the middle of a field. There’s freedom around it, but it keeps banging into the glass. I admit it doesn’t look good when Kurt Warner beats out Matt Leinart for the starting QB, but the Cardinals have signed long-term contracts with talent like Larry Fitzgerald, Adrian Wilson and Anquan Boldin. Edgerrin James may have lost a step, but the Cardinals should surprise some teams and have no reason for finishing under .500.
3) St. Louis: RB Steven Jackson is one of the best in football, which is good because nobody else on the team can score a thing and the Rams have ignored the defense since the Greatest Show on Turf.
4) San Francisco: The good news is Mike Martz is out of Detroit. The bad news is he’s in San Francisco, trying to make lemonade out of QB J.T. O’Sullivan and WR Isaac Bruce (he’s 35) and no offensive line.

AFC EAST
1) New England: No duh. But don’t look for 16-0 this time. The Giants and Baltimore showed how to rattle the Patriots if you have a relentless pass rush and keep Brady running. A weak AFC East keeps the Patriots on top, but every team wants to beat them this year – real bad.
2) NY Jets: Dark Horse Team. Just when you thought the Jets were cooked the cavalry rides in. So how’s the rest of the team? Mangini plays a 3-4, and new defenseman Kris Jenkins will play nose tackle. Nose Tackle! The pass rush isn’t bad either, and Favre actually has Lavernaeus Coles to throw to.
3) Buffalo: No team has gone longer without getting to the playoffs than the Bills, but you can’t blame them for lack of effort. Buffalo actually has a good D with Aaron Schobel and Marcus Stroud and Marshawn Lynch is a solid RB. But there’s too much talent elsewhere to keep the Bills from nine wins.
4) Miami: I think Miami will win five or six this year, if only because Parcells will throw the fear of God into them if they stink up the place. Chad Pennington is an upgrade, but there’s too much to still be done.

AFC NORTH
1) Cleveland: Yes! This is the year for the Brownies. I’m not sold on QB Derek Anderson but Cleveland has drafted well and the team is loaded on offense with Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards. Both offensive and defensive lines are tight. If everyone stays healthy, this team could go far.
2) Pittsburgh: Wild Card Team. And if Cleveland stumbles, the Steelers will drive ahead. Pittsburgh has settled into a solid, grind-it-out team that does everything well but nothing great. Lots of weapons on offense, but except for Troy Polamalu the defense is not as great. Pittsburgh also has a very tough schedule this year.
3) Cincinnati: On paper they’re better than Tennessee, but this is a mentally beaten team that is getting hosed by its front office. Problematic troublemakers abound. The offense is good, but defense has never improved. QB Carson Palmer and coach Marvin Lewis deserve better.
4) Baltimore: Good defense, mediocre offense. Haven’t we been saying that since this franchise began? Rookie QB Joe Flacco will learn on the job, mostly on his back or running for his life.


AFC SOUTH
1) Jacksonville: I believe this is the year the Jaguars finally make the leap from good to great and finally knock the Colts down a peg. The defense is frightening, although they let up too easy on the Patriots last year. David Garrard was the right move at QB, and the offense has Maurice Jones-Drew and the ageless Fred Taylor. If the stars are aligned right, the Jaguars are ready to rumble.
2) Indianapolis: Wild Card Team. Sure, the Colts remain a very good team, but age and injuries are beginning to creep up on them. Peyton Manning, Jeff Saturday, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney and Bob Sanders are hurting. Tony Dungy’s last year could be the last roundup.
3) Houston: The Texans are slowly becoming respectable, and may even break .500 if they were in an easier division. The defense is coming along nicely with Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans, and WR Andre Johnson is a legitimate deep threat. But QB Matt Schaub is not yet over the hump.
4) Tennessee: I like the defense, especially Albert Haynesworth and Kyle Vanden Bosch, but QB Vince Young remains a work in progress who either plays better than anyone or horrendously. And he still has nobody to throw to.

AFC WEST
1) San Diego: Coach Norv Turner is still overrated, but he finally won some playoff games last year. And just like last year, it will be hard to screw up with a team as talented as this one. Remember that in last year’s AFC championship they played without QB Philip Rivers, RB LaDanian Tomlinson and TE Antonio Gates, all among the league’s best. Keep the injuries down and there may be a new AFC champ this year.
2) Denver: Denver is not a good team, but will finish second due to the scrap heap of remaining teams here. No defense except Champ Bailey, no offense except Jay Cutler throwing to Brandon Marshall spells another 7-9 year, or worse.
3) Oakland: The Raiders are out of the cellar, but that’s due more to the Chiefs falling than their growth. JaMarcus Russell will finally show the world whether Al Davis didn’t overpay somebody for once.
4) Kansas City: Even the Chiefs are calling this a rebuilding year. That’s code for “don’t bother showing up at Arrowhead.” Herman Edwards left the Jets for this?

More Partisan Hypocrisy

Am I the only one to remember that Republicans are supposed to be the party of “family values?” It used to be they were the party that attacked unwed mothers, parents who couldn’t stop their kids from sleeping around and getting knocked up, and celebrities as poor role models – from Murphy Brown to Barack Obama.

It remains too early to see what Sarah Palin will do to the GOP, but it seems to have transformed the party overnight into an all-welcoming clan that now embraces teen pregnancy (Sarah Palin’s, but not Jamie Lynn Spears!), mothers who work full time with an infant child (Sarah Palin, but not middle class mothers!) and denounces sexism (Sarah Palin, but not Hillary Clinton!). If I was Bristol Palin’s father, I would find the guy who impregnated my daughter and lay the smack down. But now the kid, instead of being investigated for statutory rape, will be showcased by the family values party as someone who is taking responsibility. The flip flopping is the worst of political grandstanding and reeks of desperation. The question is whether the American public will buy it.

I wonder if McCain picked Palin completely on his own without having anyone on his staff or the GOP doing a simple background check on her. If you view the blogosphere, you’ll find more things the mainstream media naturally has not touched. Here’s what was on the daddy-to-be’s MySpace page. Here’s info on a Jews for Jesus preacher that speaks at Palin’s church. And here’s Palin's support for the Bridge to Nowhere, a huge earmark of pork that McCain denounced.

Maybe there’s something Machiavellian about all this. I still maintain through my post below that most people don’t regard the VP too highly when they’re casting a vote. And McCain definitely knew he had to take the attention off Obama after last week, and since this pick was announced I have heard nothing about Obama in the mainstream media. It’s a classic diversion. When you’re losing a propaganda or PR war with an opponent, your best bet is to create a distraction to get the attention off your adversary and onto you.

I always thought McCain would pick Romney for his VP slot to fire up the new GOP religious right-wing base, which basically votes on abortion, creationism, gay marriage and nothing else (to be fair, there’s plenty on the left that vote the same way). He picked Palin instead, and succeeded in firing up the base but may have alienated too many others (here’s a CNN poll showing where those three issues rank to most voters – less than 2%). But those are the folks who show up on Election Day. To date, the Democrats still cannot mobilize their base the same way, and that’s why I think the final result will be far closer than most people think.

The Veepstakes

Two things have been said about picking a vice presidential candidate, both of which I think are hogwash. One is that the presidential candidate’s first decision tells you quite a lot about their judgment. No, it doesn’t and shouldn’t. It often falls into who the best person is to provide a foil for the better half of the ticket and give some sort of counterbalance by ideology, experience or another variable the consultants deem important. The second is that the wrong pick will doom a candidacy. To that I present you J. Danforth Quayle. If he couldn’t stop the elder Bush from becoming president, no VP candidate can.

When I look at Joe Biden, all I can think of is what a capable Senator he is and the plagiarism charges that squashed his first presidential run in 1988. What made this even wilder is that he then served on the Senate Ethics Committee with Ted Kennedy when he questioned Oliver North. Since then Biden appears to have settled into a solid, if unspectacular, senator whose charisma is so bland it got him nowhere in his presidential run this year. When Hillary Clinton’s supporters talked about how important experience was in their decision, why weren’t they voting for Biden? He had more experience than any other presidential candidate this year. He is a safe and solid, if unspectacular, choice.

Today John McCain made a much riskier choice with the completely unknown Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. The photo above is the downtown area of Wasilla, the town Palin ran as mayor just two years ago. This Alaskan blog has some good stories about Wasilla and Alaskan politics, which don’t appear to be too different from anywhere else. Wasilla has about 6,000 people and appears to be in the heart of Alaska’s Bible Belt (I never even thought about such a place existing). And apparently her husband is the current champion of Alaska’s Iron Dog snowmobiling competition. Now that’s cool.

I always admire gutsy moves like this from candidates, which tend to wildly succeed or spectacularly fail. It’s a bit early to tell at this stage since I know as much about this woman as you do. But my gut feeling is it seems a bit odd. Was this a lame attempt to attract disgruntled Hillary supporters? Wait until they hear Palin’s views on abortion and creationism. Her support for ANWR drilling may also be problematic to women, but not Reagan Democrats and I don’t think you’ll find any politician from Alaska who doesn’t want to drill up there.

McCain did need to do something unique and he’s certainly done it. What will be truly interesting is how the former Wasilla, Alaska mayor will act debating a pro like Biden or when she’s questioned about the wedge issues like Iraq and stem cell research that most people in the lower 48 have very clear ideas on. And the GOP certainly can’t use the inexperience argument any more.

Politics as Usual

Were you excited when John McCain and Barack Obama – two politicians that don’t fit the typical Republican and Democratic mold – became the nominees? Did it excite you that two Senators who often go with their gut and were popular with both the public and the media have an opportunity to become the world’s most powerful person? Did you expect a fresh start and an invigorated campaign that rivaled Lincoln/Douglas or Weld/Kerry here in Massachusetts?

What has struck me so far is just how boring the campaign has been. Everything has been typical so far – negative ads, attacking the other candidate and adherence to general talking points. McCain, who had a reputation as a maverick who bucks the party platform, is now talking in sound bites and endlessly referring to his POW stint – the same way Kerry endlessly referred to his time as a Vietnam veteran. Why on earth are both men trying to convince voters to judge them through those contexts? Is that the criteria in which they’ll make their decisions?

You’d think all Obama would need to do is talk to voters directly and use the same inspirational rhetoric that worked so well for him before, especially now that more Americans are paying attention to this. Nope. He’s too busy retreating into standard candidate mode – attacking without offering alternatives, saying what he’d do without telling people who he is, and making the campaign about himself instead of the voters. This may work for a standard politician, but Obama didn’t gain his success by going the well-traveled route.

My guess is that both candidates are too busy listening to the myriad pollsters, consultants and, worst of all, the party leaders who are giving them conflicting opinions on how to win. This has resulted in a pedestrian race, and I’m unsurprised both men are tied in the polls. They need to shrug off the conventional advice and go with their gut more. They didn’t win the nomination by being ordinary, and it’s a shame that both campaigns are exceedingly vanilla so far.

Keep George Out

This is not a posting about George W. Bush. This is about another George who tried to enforce his will on the world and is unbelievably stubborn in his ways. Another George who made the colossus he ran hated by millions and was summarily punished, and yet there are some people who love this George and say he deserves the highest of honors. By now you’ve guessed it – it’s George Steinbrenner, and I’ve heard some people from Goose Gossage to Tim McCarver calling for Steinbrenner to be enshrined in Baseball’s Hall of Fame.

If this happens, it would be the equivalent of carving George W. Bush’s head on Mt. Rushmore, and baseball will continue slipping into irrelevance and mediocrity. I can’t think of anyone less qualified to represent America’s pastime than Steinbrenner. Since Steinbrenner is now elderly, ailing and appears to have lost most of his marbles, there has been a recent tendency to overlook his decades of mistakes and virulence, and focus on the Yankee dynasties in the 70s and 90s that emerged while he was the team’s de facto owner and overlord. If baseball was like the NFL (where a candidate’s character is irrelevant to on-field performance) this may be valid. But Cooperstown maintains character as a prerequisite, which is why Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds will never enter the hall and why Steinbrenner should be excluded for the rest of his life and beyond.

For baseball and Yankee fans alike with long-term memory issues, here’s a review of Steinbrenner’s “accomplishments” that may have slipped their minds that gives plenty of insight on his character:

· Steinbrenner pled guilty to obstructing justice and making illegal campaign contributions to Nixon in 1974. He was suspended by MLB for 15 months. Ronald Reagan pardoned him in 1988.
· Was banned again for life by Commissioner Fay Vincent for hiring a thug to find dirt on Dave Winfield after Steinbrenner refused to make a charitable donation to Winfield’s charity. The payment was part of a 10-year, $23 million contract Steinbrenner signed that was the highest ever in baseball at the time. When this was announced to the hometown Yankee crowd, they responded with a standing ovation because Steinbrenner was so despised.
· The Yankee dynasty of the 70s was largely due to Steinbrenner’s dexterity in the new free agent era. He became the first to sign top players to huge contracts that teams without the Yankee war chest could never match. While this is now standard practice, it has led to the current overclass and underclass that exists in baseball with the same rich teams and poor teams perennially at the top and bottom of the standings year after year. Changing baseball to an oligarchic practice is one reason it has fallen from America’s top sport to number four in popularity, revenue and TV ratings.
· Much has been written about Steinbrenner’s martinet reputation and the continual and repeated annual firings of managers and general managers if the Yankees did not win a title (and let’s see what happens to Joe Girardi in October). When Steinbrenner finally stopped this practice with Joe Torre and Brian Cashman in the mid-90s, success returned to the ballclub.

You will never find a Yankee fan that disputes the team plays better when Steinbrenner stays out of the way and stops interfering. Is baseball considering putting him in the Hall of Fame because after 20 years he finally learned how to do his job? Is he being rewarded because he is less involved and the team succeeds when he has nothing to do with it? When Steinbrenner was involved in manager selection (Dallas Green, Clyde King, Stump Merill, Bucky Dent) the choices were either disasters or - in the case of Billy Martin and Lou Piniella - Steinbrenner kicked them to the curb if they failed to win the World Series. The players Steinbrenner insisted on getting (Ken Phelps, Ed Whitson, Steve Trout, Rick Rhoden, Dale Murray, Butch Wynegar, Danny Tartabull, Kevin Maas, Steve Howe and I’m forgetting at least 50 others) were either overpaid over the hill or both. Notice a pattern here?

Steinbrenner is not totally without merit. He did make the Yankees winners again in bursts (again, mainly when he was completely UNINVOLVED with baseball) and the Yankees are now worth more than most companies, let alone baseball teams. He did install an attitude of winning in the club, albeit with the subtleness of Mussolini. But forget this ridiculousness about putting him in the same pantheon as honorable men like Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Hank Aaron. If either of them was thrown out of baseball twice and did one-third of the things Steinbrenner did, they wouldn’t be Hall of Famers. Let’s hope voters subject owners to the same character criteria they do with players. If they’re fair, it shouldn’t even be close.

Perish This Thought...

In the winter of 2007 I was discussing “Profiles in Courage” with a political science professor. We were batting around potential future candidates in case anyone writes a sequel, and I decided to swing for the fences. I asked him to suppose, just suppose, that Iraq settles down, violence subsides, and the country truly becomes a bastion of democracy in the Middle East, acting as a hedge against Iran and establishes itself as a stalwart U.S. ally. If that happened, could George W. Bush become a future “profile in courage?” A politician in the same realm as Sam Houston, Thomas Hart Benton and Edmund Ross – men who took actions that were correct but so unpopular their careers ended, and it took decades for people to finally recognize them for their dignity and valor?

The professor thought for a good minute and finally said yes. Yes, that would establish him as a potential candidate for Profiles in Courage (the sequel). But he thought the chances of it happening were the same as a meteor crashing through the roof in the next five minutes. I agreed with him on both counts.

But look at Iraq today. The peace is fragile but holding. Bush and company made far, far too many mistakes and lost too many lives to get to where they are today, but all the things he envisioned Iraq becoming now don’t seem too far fetched anymore, except for those pesky weapons of mass destruction thing.

Some would say Iraq’s progress is less about Bush and more about General Petraeus successfully executing “the surge” and they have a point. It could be that it unfortunately took four years for Bush to find the right general to execute his mission. It took Lincoln a while to find his right general as well.

When presidents leave office, they often go through a period where they are intensely unpopular for a few years, then extremely popular until a few years after their death. It takes at least 25 years after that for history to finally determine what kind of president they really were. Currently Clinton’s popularity is very low, although his recent actions are partly to blame for that. However, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush’s popularity are high, although both were far less effective as president than Clinton was.

The one candidate who would definitely qualify as a new Profile in Courage would be Harry Truman. Truman made decisions that were increasingly unpopular during his eight years in office and left as the president with a 22% approval rating – still the lowest ever. Yet today he is regarded as one of our best presidents and the unpopular decisions he made – from desegregating the armed forces to firing MacArthur and beginning the containment policy to limit the spread of communism – are now seen as prescient and acts that helped the U.S. rebound from World War II. Will George W. Bush, who currently has similar approval ratings, regain a stature similar to Truman? Check back with me in 25 years.

More Info: My earlier blog comparing the Iraq War with the Philippine War

This Bud's for the U.S.

If you’re upset about the American icon Budweiser being bought out by (gasp) - a foreign company! - you can settle down. Welcome to the global economy. Bud and Bud Light is not going anywhere, Spuds McKenzie will not suddenly reappear during football season and maybe the Belgians can get Americans to start drinking better beer.

You hear a lot about outsourcing – U.S. companies that send domestic jobs overseas. What you don’t hear about is insourcing, which is foreign companies that come here and provide good jobs in America to Americans. Some of these companies include Toyota, Michelin, ING, L’Oreal, Sony, Nestle, Philips and many others. You’ve probably got several of these companies’ products in your house, and are invested in several of them in your portfolio. In the interest of full disclosure, I work for a foreign company here in Boston, but not one of the ones just mentioned.

Is your U.S. company outsourcing or just shedding jobs like sick icon GM? Foreign companies insource over 5 million jobs in the U.S., and you can soon add InBev/Budweiser to the list. When you pursue a weak dollar policy like the Bush Administration does, you’re basically rolling out the For Sale sign on the border. And that is not necessarily a bad thing – no matter where you live, your governor probably spends much of his time abroad lobbying foreign companies to invest in your state, either by opening a satellite office, building a new plant or buying the state’s bonds. If they come, the foreign companies will create the same jobs and pay the same taxes the American companies do.

And Budweiser (legally Anheuser-Busch)? Before the unsolicited bid, its sales and stock had been basically flat for five years. InBev pulled a neat move by getting renegade family uncle Adolphus Busch in its corner before raising its offer. Missouri’s senators are whining about losing “part of America’s heritage.” They seem to have forgotten that Anheuser-Busch was started by German immigrants, and the brewers had previously announced plans to lay off over 1,100 workers. A foreign buyout is nowhere near a worst case scenario for its workers and stockholders.

Globalization and free trade agreements are frowned upon, but the end result ends up being positive for all parties. Main Street Americans will eventually accept the deal, grumbling into their Budweisers as they pull off in their Ford trucks (which were built in Mexico).

More Info: An Empirical Study on the Economic Importance of Insourcing

With Friends Like The New Yorker...

I once met someone who told me she was so liberal she “screamed at The New Yorker because its political stance infuriates me.” That person is probably screaming at The New Yorker today for a whole new reason, mainly their cover “cartoon” which may just cost Obama the presidency.

Like many, I have tried to make sense of numerous New Yorker cartoons over the years and given up. Perhaps in a snooty aren’t-we-clever-because-we-live-in-NY way, tens of people find them funny or satirical. There was even a whole Seinfeld episode devoted to the absurdity of this topic.

Editorial cartoons are supposed to make you laugh, or at least think. So let’s see – we have a man who could be president dressed like a Muslim (which 12% of Americans still think he is), with his wife dressed as a terrorist, with a photo of Osama bin Laden on his wall and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Are you laughing? Are you amazed by the satirical nature of the image? Do you get the joke?

Obama certainly doesn’t find it funny. It doesn’t matter if the accompanying article is a critique of American paranoia and how Obama fits into that. And The New Yorker’s excuse that the cover “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are,” is jaw-dropping. I consider myself relatively intelligent (although obviously too dumb to understand The New Yorker) and the “joke” is totally lost on me and anyone else I’ve spoken to.

Maybe what the New Yorker sees is a witty and satirical poke at the American mindset. That attitude alone won’t win them any new converts or readers. The mistake they made is assuming that everyone else in America would see it their way, and their churlish response means that if you don’t understand it, you’re not as smart as us.

Context is unimportant, especially with art. The most effective political communication works on emotion and gut, and an image must stand together with context to work. With this cover art, The New Yorker has just given ammunition and excuses to the bigots and ignorant who think Obama is a Muslim, dislikes America and will go soft on terrorists. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity now have free reign to make as many racist comments as they want – hey, if The New Yorker can do it and excuse it as “satire” then they can too, right?

Get ready to see this cartoon appear ad nauseam on Fox News, billboards and anti-Obama 527 rhetoric until November. It is red meat for conservative partisans who need no explanation to spin it to uninformed and undecided voters. And if you think I’m wrong, how would you feel if this was the cover of the National Review?

More Info: The New Yorker's Self-Confessed View of the World (now this is satire, I think)

Senator Obama, Say Goodbye to Hollywood

Dear Senator Obama,

Congratulations on finally winning the Democratic nomination for president. I don’t know if I’m voting for you yet, but I like what I hear so far and will be happy to provide you and your GOP counterpart with some free advice on occasion. And here is my first tip for you.

You know that Hollywood rally you attended last night? Make that your first – and absolutely last – interaction with celebrities. The sooner you disassociate from them, the better. If any actor, musician or any Paris Hilton-like demi-celebrity offers to appear with you or stump for you anywhere, it’s a trick and you should run away.

Remember you need to buff up your image and support with blue collar workers, white males and Main Street Americans in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. That’s as far from the Hollywood lifestyle as it gets, and linking yourself with celebrities who have zero in common with people who live paycheck to paycheck will not help your cause or win the election for you, despite the good intentions.

Even people who follow celebrities closely will never call them good role models. Senator, would you want your daughters to emulate the lifestyle of those they watch on TV or hear on the radio? Would it please you if they hung out with these people? It probably would not. Yet, you did just that last night.

As with politicians, there is no IQ test to become a celebrity. The vapidness of notable celebrities is well documented. Others who have at least a passing knowledge of current events too often communicate their political views in a way that alienates far more than it persuades. When celebrities stoop to either insulting an opponent or the views of anyone who thinks differently than they do, it is a huge turnoff to Main Street Americans (most of whom are polite to a fault). It also does nothing to deflate the egotistical, self-absorbed image most people have of Hollywood stars and celebrities. For a politician that often derides “special interests,” it is curious why you would associate with people whose only interests are themselves.

Moral values were cited as an issue in the last election. While I personally did not buy into this – who could say they are against moral values? – many celebrities and Hollywood in general would never be commended for morality. But with Main Street America and a growing number of even evangelical votes up for grabs this year, it would not behoove you to associate with a crowd that is not only completely out of touch with these voters, but also is (perhaps unfairly) cited as the primary reason for lowering standards in this country. One only needs to look at top grossing movies and CDs to see the messages Hollywood is sending to this country. And while most Americans can discern between entertainment and reality, celebrity actions and words prove that may not be the case in Tinseltown. Even if most of these Americans will see Sex in the City and buy 50 Cent, they expect better from their politicians.

Finally, most celebrities rushing to promote their political views or preferred candidates tend to shoot themselves in the foot far too often, and end up alienating former fans with their vitriol and hurting the politicians they support. Four years ago, John Kerry’s celebrity boosters did not help him one iota. Whoopi Goldberg insulted thousands by telling a bad dirty joke at a fundraiser, and also lost a sponsorship as a result. John Mellencamp called Bush a “cheap thug,” in one of the kinder descriptions used by Kerry’s celebrity supporters. The outcome was so bad Kerry’s team had to repeatedly issue releases saying the celebrities’ comments did not reflect the campaign’s views. We won’t even discuss Michael Moore, whose anti-GOP rhetoric is so divisive that he is kryptonite to anyone appealing to the Independents that will ultimately decide the election.

Senator Obama, celebrities are welcome to say whatever they want. But as our parents told us, you are judged by the company you keep. Associating with celebrities – with their prevalent lifestyles and attitudes – will not endear you to struggling, open-minded and undecided voters. Neither will appearing with celebrities who repeatedly call Bush supporters and Republicans idiots or worse (many of them are thinking of voting for you this year).

The sooner you ban celebrities from your commercials, appearances and fundraising events, the better your chances will be.

They Didn't Give Willie a Chance

You’re not supposed to take being laid off personally, but I cannot sit back and quietly accept the Mets firing Willie Randolph, a childhood hero that finally got a big chance to manage the New York Mets three years ago and was undeservingly kicked to the curb at 3 a.m. this morning.

Managing a major league baseball team is probably the toughest job in sports. The expectations are enormous and I can think of two managers in my life (Tommy Lasorda and Joe Torre) that got to leave on their own terms. Everyone else gets fired. But managers are not miracle workers, and they’re not responsible for the players’ mistakes on the ball field. Is it Willie’s fault that former ace closer Billy Wagner blew three straight saves? Or that Carlos Delgado is batting .242 while making $16 million a year? Or that Pedro Martinez has been on a seemingly permanent DL and has started just four games this year with only 12 strikeouts?

There are a very small number of managers whose very presence can electrify a team – Jim Leyland is one. But ask Casey Stengel if the Mets teams he managed were the same as the Yankee teams. In baseball, it is largely the General Manager who is charged with acquiring and moving the right players to create a championship. And while Willie did take the Mets to within one out of the pennant in 2006, a real sports fan cannot hold him entirely responsible for the collapse at the end of 2007 and certainly not for the dreadful underachievers like Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran this year. And the bullpen is beyond putrid.

The Mets currently have the second highest payroll in baseball at $137.4 million, but as Washington owner Daniel Snyder and the Steinbrenners have yet to learn, money does not automatically buy you a championship. When the season started, the Mets had the players but I didn’t believe they had the right team. But Willie did not assemble this bunch of slackers. GM Omar Minaya did, but Minaya is still employed because he works well with the Met owners. Remind you of anyone else?

Even if you disagree and think Willie Randolph deserved to be fired, the handling of the situation was absolutely disgraceful and unprofessional. The Mets were on the road and had won two in a row, yet the brass flew in to fire Willie and then sent out a press release in the middle of the night, as if they thought nobody would notice. As of today they have yet to offer a press conference or additional reasons for their actions.

I hope Willie perseveres. He certainly made some mistakes, but he remains a hero and a class act. Here’s hoping he manages again one day with the GM he deserves.

The Newseum is Old News

I went to an event in Washington D.C. last week and had a lunch at the brand new Newseum, right off the Mall at Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street. While I didn’t have time to see the whole thing, the building is certainly spiffy and has some cool exhibits – including one place where they’ll video you as an anchorman, a First Amendment center and a memorial to journalists killed in the line of duty.

As new as it is, the Newseum also epitomizes much of what is wrong with the mainstream media today. News and journalism is a dynamic medium where citizens now have not only a plethora of choices to get their information, but today’s technology can let everyone be at least an armchair journalist. By the time you get the news it's already happened, and if you get it from a newspaper it's really old. Mainstream media outlets and daily papers are in serious financial trouble, but you'd never know that after looking at the Newseum.

It’s also no secret that many people get information from blogs like this one, download free images from Flickr instead of paying for them at Getty Images, and more people get their everyday news from Web sites like CNN.com and Fox News online instead of their broadcast counterparts. Yet the Newseum only has a small section devoted to the Internet, and I didn’t see anything focused on blogs or other forms of citizen journalism.

Much of the Newseum is focused to yesterday’s older, static images – newspapers, magazines, TV and books. It is fitting that the Newseum has these because that is where much of this belongs – in a museum. When the Washington Post Company gets more income from its Kaplan Testing division than its newspapers, you know the tide is irreversible. I think it’s a mistake to have the bulk of the Newseum’s exhibits centered on the way we used to get the news yesterday. It is the old media’s reluctance to change that is dooming the mainstream media, along with its focus on the superficial and sensational.

Outside the Newseum are print front pages from across the country. While this is interesting, especially for visitors to Washington, it’s not enough of a draw to lure people in – especially with so many other museums around the corner. In fact, the Newseum is not part of the Smithsonian and charges $20 for adults and $13 for kids to get in. Will the family of four visiting from Kansas pay $56 to go here, or nothing to go to the Air & Space Museum three blocks away? For me, the Newseum’s charging for access is similar to the question of why anyone would pay for a daily paper when there are so many ways to get the same information for free. It’s a changing world that the media just doesn’t seem to get, even when it’s building a monument to celebrate its achievements.

More Info:
Why Journalists Hate Journalism

One of My Earlier Media Rants, And Another

Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

Ding dong, the witch is dead! But beware, the dead have been known to rise again…

Millions of trees and quadrants of cyberspace will be written over the next few months detailing how Hillary thankfully self-destructed. Many of these will be accurate. There’s no need for me to recount them all here, but here’s the best I’ve seen and here’s the second best. But none of them recount what I believe is the true reason, and one which I stated back in October – Hillary is just not a likable person.

That sounds superficial and it is. But Americans won’t vote for someone they dislike, no matter how much money they have, what their last name is or what their positions on the issues are. There is nothing harder than raising a candidate’s unfavorable ratings, and Hillary did absolutely nothing over the course of the campaign to change them.

But nobody ever dreamed that Bill Clinton would become so unlikable as well. The two of them were always attached at the hip, and by acting in such an unpresidential manner Clinton was able to drag his wife’s reputation down with him. The damage he has done to his own legacy is incalculable, and he helped drive the last nails in her coffin.

When you think of the Clintons now, what words come to mind? For me it’s ego, power-driven, unapologetic and narcissistic. If you’re a die-hard Democrat, you should be glad there is finally a nominee, but don’t count your chickens quite yet. Both of them will need to be appeased at the convention. Both of them will have to be given primetime speeches, which make me very nervous (and I’m not a die-hard Democrat). I am confident there will be a further Clinton attempt to sabotage or undermine Obama, possibly close to the election. And should Obama lose, expect them to say, “We told you so,” shortly afterward. Remind you of any psycho ex-girlfriends you know?

Nothing could be worse than Hillary on the VP ticket. This woman is toxic to the entire party and kryptonite to the Independent voters who will decide the election. Would it make sense if the New York Giants had to ask the New England Patriots for permission or advice on their championship parade and Super Bowl rings? The same logic applies to Obama having to check with Hillary on anything from this point forward.

Now, not all is rosy for Obama as well. If anything he stumbled to the finish line losing important states like Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and New Mexico. He needs to shore up support with the beer drinkers who compose most of the base of the party. Unfortunately there is a racial element here that the media will not cover. Many of these Democrats, particularly older ones, will not vote for an African-American candidate. But there’s a long, long way to go.

The Clintons - Unpresidential Communicators

As a professional communicator, one of my mantras is it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. Yes, I stole it from Frank Luntz, a man I greatly admire. But it speaks volumes about what will hopefully be the final flameout of Hillary Clinton that went down this past weekend.

First, let’s hold our noses and assume Hillary was not implying anything when she said a certain charismatic presidential candidate was assassinated in 1968. Let’s also pretend she didn’t imply anything sinister when she said Obama was not a Muslim, “as far as I know.” And let’s give her yet another pass when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

After her assassination comments (even more poorly timed given Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis), Bill Clinton joined her by shoving both his feet in his mouth. He claimed he’d “Never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running,” and that, “she will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't.”

Just who would “they” be, Bill? It’s amazing that in the last six months, Bill Clinton has gone from esteemed ex-president to professional crackpot. People used to wince whenever President Bush opened his mouth. Bill Clinton now shares that same horrendous stigma. He has permanently damaged his legacy, perhaps even more than Monica Lewinsky did.

But both Clintons have failed to understand that even if they said all these words with the best intentions, they failed miserably when it comes to convincing the public. This cuts to the quick of why a growing number of people hate the Clintons – all their communication revolves around whatever is best for them. They may think they’re telling us they are the best choice for the country. But they don’t get that we are hearing nothing except their sense of entitlement. It is a huge turnoff, and their unshameful egotism obviously comes at the expense of the Democratic Party and the majority of Democratic voters and delegates who think otherwise.

If you’re a diehard Democrat, you’re probably shaking your head at all this. But hopefully this has a silver lining and means Hillary is permanently off the list as a VP candidate. Now you only have one more serious worry left – what both of these unbalanced party “leaders” will say at the convention.

More Info:

What the Liberal Blogs Think of The Clintons Now