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
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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
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
Monday, July 14, 2008
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?
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)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 06, 2008
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
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
Thursday, June 05, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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
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
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Blue Dogs -- Ready to Bite
We don’t know who will be president next year, but it’s safe to say that Congress will remain Democratic. In fact, conventional wisdom states the Democrats will probably add to their majorities in both Houses. What that wisdom is not stating is what kind of Democratic Party will control Congress.
Take a look at the newest Democratic Senators – potential VP nominee Jim Webb, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Nobody will mistake these freshmen for being your stereotypical liberal, big city Democrats. The House members are even more notable for the number of freshmen and women who have joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group that now numbers 48 and can wield some clout if they stick together.
Much has been written about the three recent special elections where the GOP lost, including the most recent one in Mississippi that had been held by Republicans since 1995 (and was previously held by old school Southern Democratic segregationist Jamie Whitten). But the demographics in this district have not changed – the Democratic candidate has. For example, the new Mississippi Congressman Travis Childers is a successful businessman, is pro-life and anti-gun conrol, but also believes the Iraqi war was a mistake and thinks the middle class deserves better education and lower taxes in their paycheck. Think the Blue Dogs will soon break the 50 number?
I’m starting to see a subtle shift in the Democratic makeup of Congress. Maybe Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is paying off, as is voter backlash against an unpopular president and a lifeless GOP strategy and communication effort. But the Democratic Leadership Committee may not be leading the liberal, tax-and-spend policy the media and John McCain wants you to believe. The new blood tells me very different and interesting changes are approaching.
Take a look at the newest Democratic Senators – potential VP nominee Jim Webb, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Nobody will mistake these freshmen for being your stereotypical liberal, big city Democrats. The House members are even more notable for the number of freshmen and women who have joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group that now numbers 48 and can wield some clout if they stick together.
Much has been written about the three recent special elections where the GOP lost, including the most recent one in Mississippi that had been held by Republicans since 1995 (and was previously held by old school Southern Democratic segregationist Jamie Whitten). But the demographics in this district have not changed – the Democratic candidate has. For example, the new Mississippi Congressman Travis Childers is a successful businessman, is pro-life and anti-gun conrol, but also believes the Iraqi war was a mistake and thinks the middle class deserves better education and lower taxes in their paycheck. Think the Blue Dogs will soon break the 50 number?
I’m starting to see a subtle shift in the Democratic makeup of Congress. Maybe Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is paying off, as is voter backlash against an unpopular president and a lifeless GOP strategy and communication effort. But the Democratic Leadership Committee may not be leading the liberal, tax-and-spend policy the media and John McCain wants you to believe. The new blood tells me very different and interesting changes are approaching.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Enablers
Some dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the despots in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are fortunate to have national resources at their disposal to at least give their oppressed citizens some standard of living. But most dictators like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Cuba’s Castro brothers and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il not only murder and subjugate their own citizens, but also lead the world’s poorest countries due to widespread corruption, sanctions and numerous other reasons. How do these tyrants stay in power so long?
Because in many cases there are one or two countries that enable these companies through foreign aid, trade or support to prop up these dictatorships and keep them running. A lone gunman in a town can be brought down if everyone hunts him down, but if he comes with a gang and has safe houses to hide it will be close to impossible to bring him to justice. Enron and MCI were made possible not by one rogue VP or CEO, but by a glut of greedy executives who didn’t care about their employees, shareholders or customers as long as they got rich at everyone else’s expense. They enabled those meltdowns to happen.
And like those executives, the world’s worst dictators crave power and control more than anything. We are compassionate and naturally expect all politicians to care about their citizens in times of natural disasters, and are shocked when it doesn’t happen (like New Orleans). So many are correctly outraged when the military dictators who rule Burma – who I’ve blogged about before – reject and stymie foreign assistance. They did not warn their citizens about the impending cyclone, or even evacuate them to higher ground. We are baffled why they would refuse visas to foreigners who want to help, or keep foreign food supplies and rescue vehicles out of the country. Why would they be indifferent to the fact that their actions will kill more of their people than the cyclone?
The answers are straightforward: Dictators on the right and left don’t care about public opinion, their citizens’ freedoms, lives or deaths, or raising the country’s standard of living. They only care about themselves. But the main reason these countries don’t collapse economically or through revolution is because there is always one or two countries enabling them. We can pass plenty of sanctions against Burma, but if an enabler like China keeps trading with them it will do little good except make the Burmese people suffer more. Ditto for Zimbabwe – as long as South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to enable Mugabe’s reign of terror it doesn’t matter. As long as China and South Africa keep cutting checks for economic aid and stand by the dictators, nothing will change. Of course, the U.S. is not alone in this – our assistance kept a dictator like the Shah of Iran and the Philippine’s Fernando Marcos in power for years. It was only after we pulled support that those governments fell, and they fell rather quickly.
Last week, China – Burma’s enabler – refused to let the UN Security Council hear a humanitarian chief detail how the Burmese junta refuses to help its people. China claims it didn’t want to politicize the issue. Russia said the same thing. Both countries make big money selling arms to the Burmese military government. If both countries dropped their support or at least twisted some arms in Burma, there might be progress. Don’t expect it to happen. Dictators don’t care what others think, except for their enablers.
Because in many cases there are one or two countries that enable these companies through foreign aid, trade or support to prop up these dictatorships and keep them running. A lone gunman in a town can be brought down if everyone hunts him down, but if he comes with a gang and has safe houses to hide it will be close to impossible to bring him to justice. Enron and MCI were made possible not by one rogue VP or CEO, but by a glut of greedy executives who didn’t care about their employees, shareholders or customers as long as they got rich at everyone else’s expense. They enabled those meltdowns to happen.
And like those executives, the world’s worst dictators crave power and control more than anything. We are compassionate and naturally expect all politicians to care about their citizens in times of natural disasters, and are shocked when it doesn’t happen (like New Orleans). So many are correctly outraged when the military dictators who rule Burma – who I’ve blogged about before – reject and stymie foreign assistance. They did not warn their citizens about the impending cyclone, or even evacuate them to higher ground. We are baffled why they would refuse visas to foreigners who want to help, or keep foreign food supplies and rescue vehicles out of the country. Why would they be indifferent to the fact that their actions will kill more of their people than the cyclone?
The answers are straightforward: Dictators on the right and left don’t care about public opinion, their citizens’ freedoms, lives or deaths, or raising the country’s standard of living. They only care about themselves. But the main reason these countries don’t collapse economically or through revolution is because there is always one or two countries enabling them. We can pass plenty of sanctions against Burma, but if an enabler like China keeps trading with them it will do little good except make the Burmese people suffer more. Ditto for Zimbabwe – as long as South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to enable Mugabe’s reign of terror it doesn’t matter. As long as China and South Africa keep cutting checks for economic aid and stand by the dictators, nothing will change. Of course, the U.S. is not alone in this – our assistance kept a dictator like the Shah of Iran and the Philippine’s Fernando Marcos in power for years. It was only after we pulled support that those governments fell, and they fell rather quickly.
Last week, China – Burma’s enabler – refused to let the UN Security Council hear a humanitarian chief detail how the Burmese junta refuses to help its people. China claims it didn’t want to politicize the issue. Russia said the same thing. Both countries make big money selling arms to the Burmese military government. If both countries dropped their support or at least twisted some arms in Burma, there might be progress. Don’t expect it to happen. Dictators don’t care what others think, except for their enablers.
More Info: A blogger on the ground in Burma.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Appealing to Main Street
I’ve spent so much time excoriating Hillary Clinton that I need to step back and remind myself who she is appealing to. In fact, the slash-and-burn technique she is currently using is part desperation, part a preview look at what her presidency would be like and part a reminder that Main Street America rarely elects a candidate on issues.
Most Americans do not have a college education, live paycheck to paycheck, want a better life for themselves and their children, and do not follow the nuances of politics closely. In fact, the limited political knowledge they do have is clouded by cynicism and memories of broken promises. I am absolutely not demeaning or belittling average, Main Street Americans – they work hard and deserve thanks and respect.
But Main Street Americans are not policy wonks like me, and probably you. In this economic climate, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s ridiculous proposal to lower the gas tax will score points with them. Few of them will have the time to learn it will save an average family about $28, or the money will come out of funds to repair our highways and bridges, or the oil companies will never sit back and allow the government to rapidly raise taxes on their revenues. While most Americans should know this, they have lives to lead and are more concerned with the price of gas right now. It’s not necessarily their fault they don’t know this.
But when Hillary and McCain slam Obama for not supporting gas tax relief, it’s actually smart campaigning to do so. They know Obama’s explanation, as correct as it is, will unfortunately sail over many people’s heads. All his opponents have to say is, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to save you money at the gas pump. He’d rather it go into the pockets of big oil.”
Another X factor was correctly summed up in The New York Times this week: patriotism. Main Street Americans love America and many, unlike their city counterparts and the so-called “elite,” have actually fought for America. They do not look kindly on people who associate with preachers who scream, “Goddamn America.” Whether your next president wears a flag pin or not matters to many people. Some still believe Obama is Muslim, and Hillary has helped fuel the fire.
The Times article stated that only 29 percent of Americans believe Obama is “very patriotic.” The Republicans don’t have much going for them this year. Do you think they’ll make that a wedge issue? Of course they will. In fact, Hillary already has. This is not correct or fair, but it’s the way it is.
All is fair in love, war and campaigning. Now that Hillary has found her niche among Main Street Americans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, she will ride the issues that matter to them as long as she can. Or at least until the polls say otherwise.
Most Americans do not have a college education, live paycheck to paycheck, want a better life for themselves and their children, and do not follow the nuances of politics closely. In fact, the limited political knowledge they do have is clouded by cynicism and memories of broken promises. I am absolutely not demeaning or belittling average, Main Street Americans – they work hard and deserve thanks and respect.
But Main Street Americans are not policy wonks like me, and probably you. In this economic climate, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s ridiculous proposal to lower the gas tax will score points with them. Few of them will have the time to learn it will save an average family about $28, or the money will come out of funds to repair our highways and bridges, or the oil companies will never sit back and allow the government to rapidly raise taxes on their revenues. While most Americans should know this, they have lives to lead and are more concerned with the price of gas right now. It’s not necessarily their fault they don’t know this.
But when Hillary and McCain slam Obama for not supporting gas tax relief, it’s actually smart campaigning to do so. They know Obama’s explanation, as correct as it is, will unfortunately sail over many people’s heads. All his opponents have to say is, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to save you money at the gas pump. He’d rather it go into the pockets of big oil.”
Another X factor was correctly summed up in The New York Times this week: patriotism. Main Street Americans love America and many, unlike their city counterparts and the so-called “elite,” have actually fought for America. They do not look kindly on people who associate with preachers who scream, “Goddamn America.” Whether your next president wears a flag pin or not matters to many people. Some still believe Obama is Muslim, and Hillary has helped fuel the fire.
The Times article stated that only 29 percent of Americans believe Obama is “very patriotic.” The Republicans don’t have much going for them this year. Do you think they’ll make that a wedge issue? Of course they will. In fact, Hillary already has. This is not correct or fair, but it’s the way it is.
All is fair in love, war and campaigning. Now that Hillary has found her niche among Main Street Americans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, she will ride the issues that matter to them as long as she can. Or at least until the polls say otherwise.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Clinton's March
It was fascinating to watch the Pennsylvania primaries last week. James Carville called the state, “Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other side and Alabama in the middle.” Keeping that in mind, it is becoming increasingly clear how the Democrats are falling apart and how Karl Rove was right once again.
Rove mentioned how there were more beer drinkers than wine sippers in the Democratic Party and Hillary was the choice of the beer drinkers. Stepping further into the Yuengling stereotypes, it’s also clear this is a battle royale that has put the younger, better educated, upper middle class Chardonnay sippers on one side for Obama, and the older, high-school educated, lower middle class Iron City chuggers on the other. And you thought the Democrats had united and abandoned their coalition mentality! Well, at least now we know where everyone stands.
Much has been written about the racial element re-emerging in this campaign. Unfortunately I think that racial element never went away. Recall that Pennsylvania had a closed primary – only registered Democrats could vote. If Obama hangs on and becomes the nominee, that ugliness among less educated and older voters will re-emerge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Rove mentioned how there were more beer drinkers than wine sippers in the Democratic Party and Hillary was the choice of the beer drinkers. Stepping further into the Yuengling stereotypes, it’s also clear this is a battle royale that has put the younger, better educated, upper middle class Chardonnay sippers on one side for Obama, and the older, high-school educated, lower middle class Iron City chuggers on the other. And you thought the Democrats had united and abandoned their coalition mentality! Well, at least now we know where everyone stands.
Much has been written about the racial element re-emerging in this campaign. Unfortunately I think that racial element never went away. Recall that Pennsylvania had a closed primary – only registered Democrats could vote. If Obama hangs on and becomes the nominee, that ugliness among less educated and older voters will re-emerge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
And Hillary? If anything, my opinion of her continues to circle the drain. Her recent gas tax pander is the latest bad idea driven by polls and quick fixes. Branding Obama as an elitist given her background and social status is disgraceful. Someone asked if she remineded me of Gene McCarthy in 1968. I replied her increasingly desperate campaign reminded me more of Sherman’s March in the Civil War. Sherman’s scored earth policy mirrors what she and her husband have done to the Democratic Party – that is, if she can’t win the nomination she’ll do everything possible to make sure Obama won’t win it either. And if she does win, the Party will be so divided and damaged that all of the excitement, money and new supporters Obama gift wrapped for the party will die away. But as long as she wins, that’s unimportant.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Great for Democracy, Doom for the Democrats
Are you sick of the Democratic primary? Does your formerly high opinion of Bill Clinton keep sinking? Don’t worry you’re not alone. While the media focuses on flag lapels and the horse race, the key factors that are better indicators of popular support – fundraising and likeability – tell the better story.
Here’s the latest tabulation from the Washington Post. Head down to question four, and notice the whopping unfavorable numbers for Hillary AND Bill Clinton. Hillary’s are unsurprising, as her unfavorable rating has never been below 40%. Bill Clinton, a president I used to hold in high regard, has now hit 51% unfavorable. Both Clintons are faring worse the longer the campaign drags on.
This long primary is good for our overall democracy. It is horrible for the Democratic Party. There are two possibilities left. The first is Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and Democrats will once again have nominated a terrible candidate that is disliked by most of the country, and all the new voters and energy Obama has brought to the Party completely dissipates. Americans obviously will not vote for someone they don’t like. You can call the race over right there.
The other possibility is Hillary refuses to fall on her sword and fights and scratches all the way to the convention. The gulf between the candidates and their supporters grow wider. Some delegates refuse to support Obama if he becomes the candidate, and many supporters refuse to unite and help their Party’s candidate win. Superdelegates meet behind closed doors to determine the final outcome. It could get worse before the smoke clears out of that room.
In some twisted sense, I admire Hillary’s determination and refusal to quit. But she’s not running for sixth grade president here. The damage she’s done to both herself and her husband’s legacy is enormous. Her campaign has been horribly managed from Day One. She’s never met an unverified rumor or public opinion poll finding she didn’t try to co-opt or plagiarize. And worst of all if you’re a Democrat, she is very capable of pulling a Carrie White and destroying the whole party if she doesn’t get what she thinks she deserves.
Here’s the latest tabulation from the Washington Post. Head down to question four, and notice the whopping unfavorable numbers for Hillary AND Bill Clinton. Hillary’s are unsurprising, as her unfavorable rating has never been below 40%. Bill Clinton, a president I used to hold in high regard, has now hit 51% unfavorable. Both Clintons are faring worse the longer the campaign drags on.
This long primary is good for our overall democracy. It is horrible for the Democratic Party. There are two possibilities left. The first is Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and Democrats will once again have nominated a terrible candidate that is disliked by most of the country, and all the new voters and energy Obama has brought to the Party completely dissipates. Americans obviously will not vote for someone they don’t like. You can call the race over right there.
The other possibility is Hillary refuses to fall on her sword and fights and scratches all the way to the convention. The gulf between the candidates and their supporters grow wider. Some delegates refuse to support Obama if he becomes the candidate, and many supporters refuse to unite and help their Party’s candidate win. Superdelegates meet behind closed doors to determine the final outcome. It could get worse before the smoke clears out of that room.
In some twisted sense, I admire Hillary’s determination and refusal to quit. But she’s not running for sixth grade president here. The damage she’s done to both herself and her husband’s legacy is enormous. Her campaign has been horribly managed from Day One. She’s never met an unverified rumor or public opinion poll finding she didn’t try to co-opt or plagiarize. And worst of all if you’re a Democrat, she is very capable of pulling a Carrie White and destroying the whole party if she doesn’t get what she thinks she deserves.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Debate Disgust
Last night I did something I hadn’t done so far this year – watch a Democratic debate. I expected someone (I won’t say who, but you can guess who she is) to completely disgust me, insult the American people’s intelligence and leave us all with a feeling of upcoming doom. That happened, except it goes to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for asking the most vapid and worst questions possible. Most people would want to know what these candidates would do about the economy, Iraq, health care, the environment, terrorism, inflation and a host of other issues.
Here are the questions these two formerly esteemed “journalists” asked:
· Why wouldn’t one of them be the other’s VP choice
· Addressing Obama’s recent “bitterness” comment on rural voters
· Asking Clinton if Obama could beat McCain and if he could win at all
· Two questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Gibson
· Two more questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Stephanopoulos
· Asking Clinton about the Bosnia trip where she falsely claimed to be under enemy fire
· Asking Obama if Clinton was being truthful about her past
· Asking Obama why he doesn’t wear a flag lapel
· Asking Obama about William Ayers of the Weather Underground
· Asking both candidates about potential withdrawal from Iraq (we are now at about the 50 minute mark)
· Asking about how they would respond to an Iranian attack on Israel
· Asking about raising taxes on the middle class
· Asking about the capital gains tax
· Asking about the payroll tax
· A couple of questions about gun control
· Asking Obama about affirmative action
· Asking about gas prices
· Asking about energy independence
· Asking about how George W. Bush could help them
· Asking how they would talk to the superdelegates
No substantive questions until 50 minutes in. One question about Iraq. Cursory questions about the environment and the economy. Repeated questions about gun control and affirmative action, which don’t even come up in the polls. And nothing on health care. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about history, and I don’t have the slightest idea who William Ayers is (how many regular people watching do?) But of course the flag pin issue was brought up. Thank God Gibson was booed at the end.
I’ve ranted before about the ineptitude of the mainstream media, and also how the media is aiding the overall superficiality of our culture. But this was not a reality show or entertainment update. One of those two people onstage last night could be our next president. To serve them a bunch of softballs while so many Americans are looking for leadership in a time of war and economic downturn was insulting. Nobody who watched last night ended up with anything of substance, we did not learn more about the candidates and I don’t think it helped make up anyone’s mind in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately, George and Charlie will have trouble sitting today thanks to the new ones everyone has ripped them. Here’s Tom Shales, and the comments on ABC News. As of now there are 16,683 comments and skimming around I saw one positive one. Some people say Stephanopoulos was fed comments by FOX News. I think FOX would have done a better job, because it may have had the nerve to actually ask candidates some hardballs on the issues. They certainly would not have been worse.
Here are the questions these two formerly esteemed “journalists” asked:
· Why wouldn’t one of them be the other’s VP choice
· Addressing Obama’s recent “bitterness” comment on rural voters
· Asking Clinton if Obama could beat McCain and if he could win at all
· Two questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Gibson
· Two more questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Stephanopoulos
· Asking Clinton about the Bosnia trip where she falsely claimed to be under enemy fire
· Asking Obama if Clinton was being truthful about her past
· Asking Obama why he doesn’t wear a flag lapel
· Asking Obama about William Ayers of the Weather Underground
· Asking both candidates about potential withdrawal from Iraq (we are now at about the 50 minute mark)
· Asking about how they would respond to an Iranian attack on Israel
· Asking about raising taxes on the middle class
· Asking about the capital gains tax
· Asking about the payroll tax
· A couple of questions about gun control
· Asking Obama about affirmative action
· Asking about gas prices
· Asking about energy independence
· Asking about how George W. Bush could help them
· Asking how they would talk to the superdelegates
No substantive questions until 50 minutes in. One question about Iraq. Cursory questions about the environment and the economy. Repeated questions about gun control and affirmative action, which don’t even come up in the polls. And nothing on health care. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about history, and I don’t have the slightest idea who William Ayers is (how many regular people watching do?) But of course the flag pin issue was brought up. Thank God Gibson was booed at the end.
I’ve ranted before about the ineptitude of the mainstream media, and also how the media is aiding the overall superficiality of our culture. But this was not a reality show or entertainment update. One of those two people onstage last night could be our next president. To serve them a bunch of softballs while so many Americans are looking for leadership in a time of war and economic downturn was insulting. Nobody who watched last night ended up with anything of substance, we did not learn more about the candidates and I don’t think it helped make up anyone’s mind in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately, George and Charlie will have trouble sitting today thanks to the new ones everyone has ripped them. Here’s Tom Shales, and the comments on ABC News. As of now there are 16,683 comments and skimming around I saw one positive one. Some people say Stephanopoulos was fed comments by FOX News. I think FOX would have done a better job, because it may have had the nerve to actually ask candidates some hardballs on the issues. They certainly would not have been worse.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
What Goes Around Comes Around
Eliot Spitzer doesn’t seem to be a particularly big or threatening fellow, but bullies come in all shapes and sizes. Some are the physical bullies of grade school who take your lunch money under the flagpole. Others are the more cowardly, big-mouthed verbal ones like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter that hide behind desks while spewing vitriol. All are thin-skinned cowards who are addicted to power, eschewing negotiation and using confrontation to get what they want.
Bullies are good for things like loan sharking (which is where most of the schoolyard ones will end up) or for the partisan bloviating that passes for political debate on mainstream media outlets since they’re good on TV. But they do not make good politicians, where compromise and relationships are only accomplished by meeting your adversaries halfway. This, along with his idiotic turn as Client 9, made Eliot Spitzer's downfall the fitting end to a hubristic governor that, in the end, alienated and tried to bully everyone.
I don’t follow New York state politics that closely, but last year I spoke at a conference where a speaker on my panel detailed Spitzer’s difficult first year in office. I was legitimately surprised by Spitzer’s actions, especially his vendetta against Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno – a man he would need to work with to get anything accomplished for the citizens of New York. What on earth would possess a governor to do such an inadvisable thing? The speaker believed that Spitzer was still acting as a prosecutor who saw anyone who disagreed with him as an enemy that needed to be squashed like a bug. These actions correctly led the majority of New Yorkers who voted for Spitzer to abandon him. His actions this week caused his die-hard supporters to do the same.
Of course, Spitzer made his name prosecuting white collar, Wall Street types in the anti-Enron atmosphere of five to six years ago. Sure, many of these executives were making too much money while their stock tanked and ordinary workers were downsized. But how many of the executives Spitzer accused were actually indicted or convicted? Very, very few. Most settled for fines and minor changes in their operations to quickly make the charges disappear, but by accepting these pleas Spitzer never really was able to prove these charges in court, which left a bitter taste in many business leaders mouths, and undisputed schadenfreude at his end. Even former NYSE Dick Grasso, the king of executive compensation excess, remains uncharged and still counting his hundreds of millions.
The media loved Attorney GeneralSpitzer, since even perceived and unproven executive malfeasance makes good copy. But this story from a Wall Street Journal editorialist who said Spitzer was going too far speaks volumes about this bully when Spitzer called him and said the following:
Just like any tragedy, it’s easy to look back and see the warning signs – Spitzer’s unreported loan to his 1994 campaign, his inability even charge executives after publicly naming them, the disastrous idea to find dirt on politicians who did not share his views. Even Spitzer’s use of the Martin Act, an incredibly obscure law passed in 1921 before entities like the FDIC and SEC were established to protect consumers, should have set off alarm bells for civil libertarians. The Act, which gives “broad power to prosecute any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of any false pretense, representation, or promise,” meant Spitzer did not even have to build a case before charging others with crimes.
In the end, Spitzer got what was coming to him. Bullies always do. I earlier asked why politicians are held to a higher moral standard, when celebrities today are celebrated for their lack of morals. Part of the answer is that way more is expected of them. We should expect attorneys to honor and uphold the law, and governors to do what is best for the citizens of their states. Spitzer did neither. He was just another bully.
Bullies are good for things like loan sharking (which is where most of the schoolyard ones will end up) or for the partisan bloviating that passes for political debate on mainstream media outlets since they’re good on TV. But they do not make good politicians, where compromise and relationships are only accomplished by meeting your adversaries halfway. This, along with his idiotic turn as Client 9, made Eliot Spitzer's downfall the fitting end to a hubristic governor that, in the end, alienated and tried to bully everyone.
I don’t follow New York state politics that closely, but last year I spoke at a conference where a speaker on my panel detailed Spitzer’s difficult first year in office. I was legitimately surprised by Spitzer’s actions, especially his vendetta against Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno – a man he would need to work with to get anything accomplished for the citizens of New York. What on earth would possess a governor to do such an inadvisable thing? The speaker believed that Spitzer was still acting as a prosecutor who saw anyone who disagreed with him as an enemy that needed to be squashed like a bug. These actions correctly led the majority of New Yorkers who voted for Spitzer to abandon him. His actions this week caused his die-hard supporters to do the same.
Of course, Spitzer made his name prosecuting white collar, Wall Street types in the anti-Enron atmosphere of five to six years ago. Sure, many of these executives were making too much money while their stock tanked and ordinary workers were downsized. But how many of the executives Spitzer accused were actually indicted or convicted? Very, very few. Most settled for fines and minor changes in their operations to quickly make the charges disappear, but by accepting these pleas Spitzer never really was able to prove these charges in court, which left a bitter taste in many business leaders mouths, and undisputed schadenfreude at his end. Even former NYSE Dick Grasso, the king of executive compensation excess, remains uncharged and still counting his hundreds of millions.
The media loved Attorney GeneralSpitzer, since even perceived and unproven executive malfeasance makes good copy. But this story from a Wall Street Journal editorialist who said Spitzer was going too far speaks volumes about this bully when Spitzer called him and said the following:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I
will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and
you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written
that letter."
Just like any tragedy, it’s easy to look back and see the warning signs – Spitzer’s unreported loan to his 1994 campaign, his inability even charge executives after publicly naming them, the disastrous idea to find dirt on politicians who did not share his views. Even Spitzer’s use of the Martin Act, an incredibly obscure law passed in 1921 before entities like the FDIC and SEC were established to protect consumers, should have set off alarm bells for civil libertarians. The Act, which gives “broad power to prosecute any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of any false pretense, representation, or promise,” meant Spitzer did not even have to build a case before charging others with crimes.
In the end, Spitzer got what was coming to him. Bullies always do. I earlier asked why politicians are held to a higher moral standard, when celebrities today are celebrated for their lack of morals. Part of the answer is that way more is expected of them. We should expect attorneys to honor and uphold the law, and governors to do what is best for the citizens of their states. Spitzer did neither. He was just another bully.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Smearing John McCain
The New York Times certainly is doing its best to help John McCain’s credentials and fundraising among hard-line conservatives with its second bogus attack against the senator in less than a week. We would expect this yellow journalism from a third-rate newspaper or partisan blog or web site that circulates propaganda and smear tactics instead of facts or bona fide news. But seeing The New York Times wallow in the mud with these anti-stories is making it increasingly difficult to defend.
Today’s smear questions whether John McCain can run for president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (and you thought smearing Barack Obama for living in Indonesia for a year was low). According to the Constitution, anyone running for president must be 35 and a “natural-born” citizen. The latter point is generally accepted as someone who was born in the 50 states and was not born outside the country, although this is not officially declared in any laws or bylines.
When McCain was born in 1936, the United States still owned the Panama Canal and the entire Panama Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory. That alone should squash any left-wing claims to the contrary, although we’ll doubtless see reports trying to determine whether the hospital where McCain was born was in the zone or not.
The Times also lists several other candidates who were born abroad who ran for president without controversy, although none were successful. These include Mitt Romney’s father (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and Barry Goldwater (born in the Arizona territory before it became a state). Interestingly, if you want to take the constitution’s language literally, then none of our first seven presidents would qualify to run for office because they were all born before July 4, 1776, meaning they were born in the British colonies and not in the true United States of America. Martin Van Buren would then be the first “natural born” president since he was born in 1782. This also may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran for president, as he was born on the island of Nevis – while other founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson were born on what was to be U.S. soil.
Personally, I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president. I believe that new U.S. citizens are much more appreciative and understanding of the freedoms that too many of us “natural born” folks take for granted. In studying for their citizenship tests, they probably learn more about our history than most of the masses. I’ll bet they’re also more likely to vote, start a business, speak freely and work hard because many of them come from countries where none of those things were possible. They try to accomplish the American Dream so their children will have a better life, just as my great-grandparents did when they immigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia over a century ago.
Besides naturalized individuals, the Times tempest in a drop of tea also brings up other questions. What about people born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam? Can they run for president? It’s bad enough that people who live in Washington, D.C. still have taxation without representation.
Nobody would ever question McCain’s patriotism, service to his country or ability to serve as president and commander-in-chief. It’s disgraceful that The New York Times is resorting to foul methods to discredit him. Just as Michael Moore helped Bush get re-elected, the NY Times could accomplish the same feat for McCain if it keeps this up.
Today’s smear questions whether John McCain can run for president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (and you thought smearing Barack Obama for living in Indonesia for a year was low). According to the Constitution, anyone running for president must be 35 and a “natural-born” citizen. The latter point is generally accepted as someone who was born in the 50 states and was not born outside the country, although this is not officially declared in any laws or bylines.
When McCain was born in 1936, the United States still owned the Panama Canal and the entire Panama Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory. That alone should squash any left-wing claims to the contrary, although we’ll doubtless see reports trying to determine whether the hospital where McCain was born was in the zone or not.
The Times also lists several other candidates who were born abroad who ran for president without controversy, although none were successful. These include Mitt Romney’s father (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and Barry Goldwater (born in the Arizona territory before it became a state). Interestingly, if you want to take the constitution’s language literally, then none of our first seven presidents would qualify to run for office because they were all born before July 4, 1776, meaning they were born in the British colonies and not in the true United States of America. Martin Van Buren would then be the first “natural born” president since he was born in 1782. This also may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran for president, as he was born on the island of Nevis – while other founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson were born on what was to be U.S. soil.
Personally, I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president. I believe that new U.S. citizens are much more appreciative and understanding of the freedoms that too many of us “natural born” folks take for granted. In studying for their citizenship tests, they probably learn more about our history than most of the masses. I’ll bet they’re also more likely to vote, start a business, speak freely and work hard because many of them come from countries where none of those things were possible. They try to accomplish the American Dream so their children will have a better life, just as my great-grandparents did when they immigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia over a century ago.
Besides naturalized individuals, the Times tempest in a drop of tea also brings up other questions. What about people born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam? Can they run for president? It’s bad enough that people who live in Washington, D.C. still have taxation without representation.
Nobody would ever question McCain’s patriotism, service to his country or ability to serve as president and commander-in-chief. It’s disgraceful that The New York Times is resorting to foul methods to discredit him. Just as Michael Moore helped Bush get re-elected, the NY Times could accomplish the same feat for McCain if it keeps this up.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Leave Ralph Nader Alone
Ralph Nader has every right to waste his time on another quixotic presidential campaign. What’s getting tiring is Democrats and liberals whining about him being a spoiler and siphoning votes away from their candidates.
For the last time: Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. If he had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, he would have generated enough support and excitement to win his home state of Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states where third party votes made a difference.
We should all be thankful for Nader’s battles for consumers earlier in his lifetime. Without him there would be no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts and airbags. Nader can also be considered a grandfather of the entire PIRG movement, which led at least indirectly to the creation of the EPA, OSHA and scores of non-governmental organizations that have improved the voice of the average citizen in Washington. He also made the government more transparent and accountable through laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
As for Nader’s political views, they speak for themselves. His current vision of slashing the defense budget by double digits would require hundreds of thousands of layoffs and gut the military-industrial complex that has driven technology and employment in America for over 50 years. It would also show our enemies we are not serious about defending ourselves and would tremendously jeopardize our homeland security. He clearly has no chance of winning.
But please let Ralph run his campaign. Don’t call him a spoiler or blame him for other candidates’ mistakes. What’s great about America is that anyone can run for public office, and in local races independent and third party candidates have a legitimate shot of winning if they can raise enough money and have a good grassroots organization. Ralph Nader’s 2000 vote tally showed he was on to something, and it was Gore’s fault he did not anticipate Nader’s popularity at the time and take him more seriously. And as for Nader’s 2000 proclamation that it wouldn’t matter if Gore or Bush was elected because they were practically the same candidate – well, you can decide if he was right on that one as well.
For the last time: Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. If he had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, he would have generated enough support and excitement to win his home state of Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states where third party votes made a difference.
We should all be thankful for Nader’s battles for consumers earlier in his lifetime. Without him there would be no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts and airbags. Nader can also be considered a grandfather of the entire PIRG movement, which led at least indirectly to the creation of the EPA, OSHA and scores of non-governmental organizations that have improved the voice of the average citizen in Washington. He also made the government more transparent and accountable through laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
As for Nader’s political views, they speak for themselves. His current vision of slashing the defense budget by double digits would require hundreds of thousands of layoffs and gut the military-industrial complex that has driven technology and employment in America for over 50 years. It would also show our enemies we are not serious about defending ourselves and would tremendously jeopardize our homeland security. He clearly has no chance of winning.
But please let Ralph run his campaign. Don’t call him a spoiler or blame him for other candidates’ mistakes. What’s great about America is that anyone can run for public office, and in local races independent and third party candidates have a legitimate shot of winning if they can raise enough money and have a good grassroots organization. Ralph Nader’s 2000 vote tally showed he was on to something, and it was Gore’s fault he did not anticipate Nader’s popularity at the time and take him more seriously. And as for Nader’s 2000 proclamation that it wouldn’t matter if Gore or Bush was elected because they were practically the same candidate – well, you can decide if he was right on that one as well.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Much Ado About Nothing
There were three big developments this week, which I will rank in order of patheticness.
1) The Plagiarism Non-Issue: As Hillary’s campaign began its hopeful final downward spiral, she comes out with the charge that Obama has plagiarized speeches and sayings from our own Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. The similarities between the two candidates are unmistakable. Since Patrick doesn’t care, it’s a dead issue. And it’s tough for Clinton to make this claim when she co-opted the change mantra and the “Yes we Can!” cry from Obama, not to mention the race card from Karl Rove.
I’ll delve into the parallels between Obama and Patrick if Hillary finally goes down, because there are similarities. Patrick’s motto was “Together We Can.” In the best anti-sign defacing I’ve ever seen, I saw one of his signs read, “Together We Can…What?” Man cannot run by hope alone.
2) McCain vs. NY Times: A paper that had finally started to return to respectability gets knocked down yet again with prominent notion to a complete non-story. It’s hardly a news flash that most lobbyists provide invaluable knowledge, support and, yes, donations to politicians to advance their agendas. Private citizens do the same thing. Campaign donations do not buy votes. That would be bribery, and you can count the number of federal politicians convicted of bribery during the last eight years on one hand with fingers to spare. The money buys access, which is certainly not the way it should be but unfortunately is the way it is. But this is all perfectly legal. For all of McCain’s talk against “special interests,” he uses special interests as much as any other state or federal politicians, especially with his work on the Armed Services, Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.
I truly have no idea what the Times was trying to accomplish with this story, and I can’t believe an editor like Bill Keller let it run unless he let his personal feelings trump his journalistic integrity. Were they trying to embarrass McCain, who had no reason to be embarrassed for anything? Were they trying to catch him in a sexual scandal, when there was zero evidence of one? It has done one thing – united more conservatives behind him who used the Times story as a rallying cry. Donations to McCain’s campaign exploded after it ran. And here's a huge overview of what the blogosphere said.
3) Hillary Goes Wild!: Watching Hillary pretend to be angry because her opponent had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to criticize her health care strategy was humorous and horrific at the same time. It was like watching a professional wrestler trying to intimidate a fake opponent before they go into a ring for a beating everyone knows is coming to them. When this sad spectacle is hopefully over soon, Hillary will go down as a warning to any future candidate that thinks they can easily win by flip flopping to poll results, and sycophantic consultants who refuse to tell the empress she has no clothes. Her clumsy lurches from nice to nasty and back again do not leave a good impression with undecided voters, and her new reliance on crying when she doesn’t get her way reminds me of my three-year-old. You can sense the panic setting in that she may not get what she wants, and if she can’t maturely handle rejection on the campaign trail, let alone successfully manage a campaign for the long haul, she has no business being in the White House.
1) The Plagiarism Non-Issue: As Hillary’s campaign began its hopeful final downward spiral, she comes out with the charge that Obama has plagiarized speeches and sayings from our own Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. The similarities between the two candidates are unmistakable. Since Patrick doesn’t care, it’s a dead issue. And it’s tough for Clinton to make this claim when she co-opted the change mantra and the “Yes we Can!” cry from Obama, not to mention the race card from Karl Rove.
I’ll delve into the parallels between Obama and Patrick if Hillary finally goes down, because there are similarities. Patrick’s motto was “Together We Can.” In the best anti-sign defacing I’ve ever seen, I saw one of his signs read, “Together We Can…What?” Man cannot run by hope alone.
2) McCain vs. NY Times: A paper that had finally started to return to respectability gets knocked down yet again with prominent notion to a complete non-story. It’s hardly a news flash that most lobbyists provide invaluable knowledge, support and, yes, donations to politicians to advance their agendas. Private citizens do the same thing. Campaign donations do not buy votes. That would be bribery, and you can count the number of federal politicians convicted of bribery during the last eight years on one hand with fingers to spare. The money buys access, which is certainly not the way it should be but unfortunately is the way it is. But this is all perfectly legal. For all of McCain’s talk against “special interests,” he uses special interests as much as any other state or federal politicians, especially with his work on the Armed Services, Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.
I truly have no idea what the Times was trying to accomplish with this story, and I can’t believe an editor like Bill Keller let it run unless he let his personal feelings trump his journalistic integrity. Were they trying to embarrass McCain, who had no reason to be embarrassed for anything? Were they trying to catch him in a sexual scandal, when there was zero evidence of one? It has done one thing – united more conservatives behind him who used the Times story as a rallying cry. Donations to McCain’s campaign exploded after it ran. And here's a huge overview of what the blogosphere said.
3) Hillary Goes Wild!: Watching Hillary pretend to be angry because her opponent had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to criticize her health care strategy was humorous and horrific at the same time. It was like watching a professional wrestler trying to intimidate a fake opponent before they go into a ring for a beating everyone knows is coming to them. When this sad spectacle is hopefully over soon, Hillary will go down as a warning to any future candidate that thinks they can easily win by flip flopping to poll results, and sycophantic consultants who refuse to tell the empress she has no clothes. Her clumsy lurches from nice to nasty and back again do not leave a good impression with undecided voters, and her new reliance on crying when she doesn’t get her way reminds me of my three-year-old. You can sense the panic setting in that she may not get what she wants, and if she can’t maturely handle rejection on the campaign trail, let alone successfully manage a campaign for the long haul, she has no business being in the White House.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Superdelegates and the Democratic Elite
Quick – when was the last time a political party entered its nominating convention without an official nominee? It was 1968, when the Democrats entered their very ill-fated convention in Chicago. What people remember were the huge fights and protests with the Chicago police and on the convention floor. What people have forgotten were the huge fights and protests within the Democratic party, when closed-door backroom deals gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, a decision that satisfied nobody except the party’s elite, led to howls of dissension among Democratic voters and a terrible candidate who lost to Nixon.
In response to Humphrey’s shellacking inside and outside the party, the McGovern-Fraser commission was established to make the process more transparent. Naturally George McGovern, who was probably planning to run for president at the time, took advantage of this to become the Democratic nominee in 1972, which became the worst Democratic loss in modern history. However, the commission’s recommendations did move the selection process from the convention (where the nominee was often decided in secret by the elite) to the primaries (where voters decide the nominee and everything is in the open). Republicans largely adopted this practice shortly afterward.
But after another huge loss in 1980, the Democrats decided to fix what wasn’t broken and initiated the superdelegate concept. The “superdelegates” is a throwback to the British House of Lords and has the possibility of usurping popular sovereignty, and causing protests in the Democratic Party that will make 1968 look like a tea party.
Superdelegates, which compose about 20% of all Democratic delegates, are basically elected party leaders that compose the establishment and the elite in local and state politics. Here in Massachusetts, superdelegates include Governor Patrick, both senators, most or all congressmen and various Democratic leaders. It’s basically a nanny system made up of the leaders to make sure the kids (the voters and regular plebian delegates) don’t go crazy making rash decisions, such as making sure the person who gets the most votes is the nominee. Superdelegates made their mark in 1984 when Gary Hart won more primaries than Walter Mondale, but Mondale had lined up all the superdelegates beforehand and was easily nominated, leading to the second worst Democratic loss in modern history. Yep, those party elites sure understand the voters.
With Obama’s February sweep, he is now leading in popular votes and delegate count, but he’s still behind in superdelegates. Since superdelegates can flip flop their votes and support, Clinton’s count here is not ironclad but she still has the party elite behind her. If neither candidate hits the 2,025 mark before the convention there will be a major fight at the convention. And it is very, very possible that the 700 or so superdelegates will then meet in secret and decide that since most of them are Clinton backers, they will make her the nominee, completely subjugating the will of the people and their own party.
Could it happen? Yes it could. I believe the Clintons will do any fair or foul trick possible to keep the party in their grip, and you may see a throwback to the smoke-filled rooms of machine- and boss-dominated politics that used to determine party candidates no matter what the people wanted. Should Obama continue his surge but Clinton maintains her role as champion of the superdelegates, there could be a true old-school convention showdown this summer.
In response to Humphrey’s shellacking inside and outside the party, the McGovern-Fraser commission was established to make the process more transparent. Naturally George McGovern, who was probably planning to run for president at the time, took advantage of this to become the Democratic nominee in 1972, which became the worst Democratic loss in modern history. However, the commission’s recommendations did move the selection process from the convention (where the nominee was often decided in secret by the elite) to the primaries (where voters decide the nominee and everything is in the open). Republicans largely adopted this practice shortly afterward.
But after another huge loss in 1980, the Democrats decided to fix what wasn’t broken and initiated the superdelegate concept. The “superdelegates” is a throwback to the British House of Lords and has the possibility of usurping popular sovereignty, and causing protests in the Democratic Party that will make 1968 look like a tea party.
Superdelegates, which compose about 20% of all Democratic delegates, are basically elected party leaders that compose the establishment and the elite in local and state politics. Here in Massachusetts, superdelegates include Governor Patrick, both senators, most or all congressmen and various Democratic leaders. It’s basically a nanny system made up of the leaders to make sure the kids (the voters and regular plebian delegates) don’t go crazy making rash decisions, such as making sure the person who gets the most votes is the nominee. Superdelegates made their mark in 1984 when Gary Hart won more primaries than Walter Mondale, but Mondale had lined up all the superdelegates beforehand and was easily nominated, leading to the second worst Democratic loss in modern history. Yep, those party elites sure understand the voters.
With Obama’s February sweep, he is now leading in popular votes and delegate count, but he’s still behind in superdelegates. Since superdelegates can flip flop their votes and support, Clinton’s count here is not ironclad but she still has the party elite behind her. If neither candidate hits the 2,025 mark before the convention there will be a major fight at the convention. And it is very, very possible that the 700 or so superdelegates will then meet in secret and decide that since most of them are Clinton backers, they will make her the nominee, completely subjugating the will of the people and their own party.
Could it happen? Yes it could. I believe the Clintons will do any fair or foul trick possible to keep the party in their grip, and you may see a throwback to the smoke-filled rooms of machine- and boss-dominated politics that used to determine party candidates no matter what the people wanted. Should Obama continue his surge but Clinton maintains her role as champion of the superdelegates, there could be a true old-school convention showdown this summer.
More Info:
You know the Democratic Party could have trouble when The Nation criticizes the superdelegate process.
A good overview in Commentary. Includes quotes from some leading Democrats on what they'll do if the superdelegates decide the nominee.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Democratic Reality Check
With all the hype and excitement surrounding Obama, the time is overdue for a Democratic reality check.
Even the most partisan, die-hard Democrat can admit in hindsight the party has a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Already I can see overconfident Democrats and the media buzzing with the excitement of election inevitability, no matter who is nominated. Sorry, but it IS the candidate, stupid. With most Americans either independent, unenrolled or apathetic, the candidate with the most appeal to the masses (buttressed by the proper language and image) and charisma tends to win. It’s like running for student body president – popularity and messaging trumps issues. The smartest person doesn’t deserve to win, nor the richest (although money helps). "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.
So with that in mind, let’s review the two Democrats left standing. Obama had a huge fundraising month in January with $32 million raised, while Clinton raised $16 million and just lent herself $5 million to keep up. Fundraising is a terrific gauge and measure of popular support. Obama originated and continues to run on a message of change and hope, while Hillary also began using the “hope” message when the polls said it was what voters wanted. Hillary also brought the ugly factors of race and gender into the campaign (she alternates between using her gender as an excuse to vote for her and a liability when she’s being attacked), using her aides, allies and husband as attack dogs. Bill Clinton – remember how admired he used to be? – has made snide comments deriding Obama’s grade-school desire to be president, comparing his South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson and lied about his own comments on Iraq. He has brought irreparable damage to his reputation and his wife’s campaign in the process, and is now back on the sidelines.
Obama, meanwhile, has dominated the recent rounds of debates. He has huge crowds in Idaho -- Idaho! He is the darling of the media, which skew leftward and help frame so much of the debate. His favorable ratings eclipse Hillary’s by a longshot, especially among the undecideds in places like Ohio and Florida that decide the election. He has become a hero among Generation Y and those old enough to vote in their first election (although whether they end up voting is an open question). In short, he is certainly the person best qualified to represent the party if the Democrats want to win the White House.
Now look at Super Tuesday’s results. Obama won more states by larger majorities that tend to be red – Kansas, Colorado, Georgia and Alaska. Clinton won the states that are largely blue, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It’s still a close race. But when you look at the delegate and superdelegate count Clinton is winning, especially among the Democratic base (who Rove calls the “beer drinkers” and who the media ignores). And these are the people who vote in primaries. There is still an excellent chance she will be the nominee, and have zero shot against McCain because he won the same states as Obama and polls well with the same people who would vote for Obama.
Does Obama deserve to win? It doesn’t matter; “deserve” has nothing to do with it. This is the Democratic Party. This is the party that still had no identity until Obama supplied it with one. This is the party that has nominated vapid candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. This is the party that lost to George W. Bush – twice. This is the party that may nominate someone who 40% of the population said they will never, ever vote for.
Have the Democrats forgotten that both Clintons have too much scandal and dirty laundry surrounding them? Have they realized that much of the country has neither forgotten nor will ever forgive the Clintons for some of their actions in the White House? Do they see that the GOP is on its knees and they have the new JFK and RFK fighting the party’s own base, establishment and former president for the nomination? Will they notice that despite the candidate’s unabashed liberalism, he has huge appeal to Republicans and Independents alike, almost all of whom will never vote for Hillary?
If Obama doesn’t win the nomination – especially with the huge fundraising and favorability advantages he has – because the Democratic base and establishment don’t want him, they deserve more than to lose in November. They deserve to lose all the new converts to the party. They deserve to lose the excitement and passion that Obama has gift-wrapped for them. They deserve another four years of wandering in the wilderness. I don’t know if it will happen. But based on the Democrats’ history and their recent candidates, I can’t say I’ll be surprised if it does.
UPDATE: It's always nice when someone as smart as Nicholas Kristof backs you up.
Even the most partisan, die-hard Democrat can admit in hindsight the party has a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Already I can see overconfident Democrats and the media buzzing with the excitement of election inevitability, no matter who is nominated. Sorry, but it IS the candidate, stupid. With most Americans either independent, unenrolled or apathetic, the candidate with the most appeal to the masses (buttressed by the proper language and image) and charisma tends to win. It’s like running for student body president – popularity and messaging trumps issues. The smartest person doesn’t deserve to win, nor the richest (although money helps). "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.
So with that in mind, let’s review the two Democrats left standing. Obama had a huge fundraising month in January with $32 million raised, while Clinton raised $16 million and just lent herself $5 million to keep up. Fundraising is a terrific gauge and measure of popular support. Obama originated and continues to run on a message of change and hope, while Hillary also began using the “hope” message when the polls said it was what voters wanted. Hillary also brought the ugly factors of race and gender into the campaign (she alternates between using her gender as an excuse to vote for her and a liability when she’s being attacked), using her aides, allies and husband as attack dogs. Bill Clinton – remember how admired he used to be? – has made snide comments deriding Obama’s grade-school desire to be president, comparing his South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson and lied about his own comments on Iraq. He has brought irreparable damage to his reputation and his wife’s campaign in the process, and is now back on the sidelines.
Obama, meanwhile, has dominated the recent rounds of debates. He has huge crowds in Idaho -- Idaho! He is the darling of the media, which skew leftward and help frame so much of the debate. His favorable ratings eclipse Hillary’s by a longshot, especially among the undecideds in places like Ohio and Florida that decide the election. He has become a hero among Generation Y and those old enough to vote in their first election (although whether they end up voting is an open question). In short, he is certainly the person best qualified to represent the party if the Democrats want to win the White House.
Now look at Super Tuesday’s results. Obama won more states by larger majorities that tend to be red – Kansas, Colorado, Georgia and Alaska. Clinton won the states that are largely blue, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It’s still a close race. But when you look at the delegate and superdelegate count Clinton is winning, especially among the Democratic base (who Rove calls the “beer drinkers” and who the media ignores). And these are the people who vote in primaries. There is still an excellent chance she will be the nominee, and have zero shot against McCain because he won the same states as Obama and polls well with the same people who would vote for Obama.
Does Obama deserve to win? It doesn’t matter; “deserve” has nothing to do with it. This is the Democratic Party. This is the party that still had no identity until Obama supplied it with one. This is the party that has nominated vapid candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. This is the party that lost to George W. Bush – twice. This is the party that may nominate someone who 40% of the population said they will never, ever vote for.
Have the Democrats forgotten that both Clintons have too much scandal and dirty laundry surrounding them? Have they realized that much of the country has neither forgotten nor will ever forgive the Clintons for some of their actions in the White House? Do they see that the GOP is on its knees and they have the new JFK and RFK fighting the party’s own base, establishment and former president for the nomination? Will they notice that despite the candidate’s unabashed liberalism, he has huge appeal to Republicans and Independents alike, almost all of whom will never vote for Hillary?
If Obama doesn’t win the nomination – especially with the huge fundraising and favorability advantages he has – because the Democratic base and establishment don’t want him, they deserve more than to lose in November. They deserve to lose all the new converts to the party. They deserve to lose the excitement and passion that Obama has gift-wrapped for them. They deserve another four years of wandering in the wilderness. I don’t know if it will happen. But based on the Democrats’ history and their recent candidates, I can’t say I’ll be surprised if it does.
UPDATE: It's always nice when someone as smart as Nicholas Kristof backs you up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)