McCainspeak

I think we need a new word, McCainspeak, to describe the growing absurdity of the spin of his campaign . . . if the bill passes, it is my success at crossing party lines, if it fails then it's Obama's fault for being too partisan. I'm suspending my campaign, then not suspending my campaign, then taking credit for the bill when it looks like it's passing, then blaming others when it fails. 133 Republicans voted against the bill, but I got over 60 to support it. The absurdity would be laughable if it wasn't so desperate and didn't have such negative ramifications for the country.

The real truth is that too many Americans were against this bill and House representatives fearful it would cost them reelection on both sides of the aisle. I am fundamentally against the bailout, which essentially rewards those who have both benefitted from their risky and irresponsible behavior and now want to be saved without ramifications for that very behavior. Who is to bear the brunt of this irresponsiblity? The American people of course. The clear message is that those who benefit the most from our free market system should not have to suffer the consequences of their failure. But something more important is at stake -- the future economic status of the United States and our collective fate in a global economic world. And something has to be done before this economy falls further into disrepair.

Who is to blame for the economic collapse. A number of factors are at play. There is the deregulation that started under Reagan and accelerated under first Clinton (disassembliing the last vestiges of Glass-Steagel at a time when the economy was soaring) and then Bush, the growing economic inequality that saw too much money and profit accumulating at the top of the income ladder to the disadvantage of everyone else, the investment banks going public over the past 30 years tying their futures too closely to the whims of the market and self-fullfilling prophesies on their confidence and expectations, increasingly risky investments that separated liquidity and risk from their consequences and a general decline in Americas economic strength here and abroad. But the real culprit appears to be founded on conservative ideology regarding government and markets. Too much faith was put in unfettered markets and their ability to self-regulate and make the right choices. Instead greed and irrationality have reigned supreme for too long, with tax cuts and lax regulation and oversight allowing increasingly risky decisions to be made outside the specter of their potentially catastrophic results. The rich have been richer and hungrier and willing to engage in behavior that rivals that of the robber barrons who led us toward the great depression.

Now we are forced to rescue the titans of this failed system, even as the people awaken to the course the government and country have taken, and how it has negatively affected them for so long. Ken Phillips warned us in a book a couple of years ago that our growing debt, addiction to foreign oil and religious fundamentalism (although I would say market fundamentalism) could lead to serious economic decline. He appears to be right and now we either swallow a bailout that saves those who have brought us here, or suffer the consequences of a major economic downcycle that could last for years. McCain doesn't care about any of that -- he simply wants to find a way to make himself the hero or Obama the goat for whatever happens. This is the kind of leadership we need now? Cynicism as policy? I hope the people continue to turn away from this politics of dispair to really contemplate whether we can afford to continue ignoring the elephants in the room. A populist uprising is brewing below the surface here, and I only hope Obama can find a way to capture its spirit and ride to the presidency and then actually do something to change the country. Otherwise despair could foreshadow doom . . .

An October Surprise?

When I watched the Palin interview, one issue that I thought she had resolved was the firing of Monegan. It appears even this might have been a lie (at least according to him):

Monegan rebutted Palin's comments, saying, "She's not telling the truth when she told ABC neither she nor her husband pressured me to fire Trooper Wooten," according to an interview posted on the ABC News Web site. "And she's not telling the truth to the media about her reasons for firing me." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

The investigation is just the latest example of two candidates running on their record as renegades with character that seems to be fading under the light of the truth. At the same time, they have been unable to find anything substantive to attack Obama about except being a celebrity and wanting to gasp, tax the wealthy more than the middle class and poor. Can this lame political gambit stand up for much longer?

A new Obama ad takes on the absurdity that is McCain/Palin, after a comment Monday by McCain that the fundaments of the economy are fine as Lehman collapses, unemployment rises, economists predict millions could lose their homes, inflation is up and no clear end to the crisis is in site. I am admittedly surprised at how out-of-touch McCain has become and how people suffering through this downturn could continue to pretend he has any idea how to change anything for the better. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

Palin/Lying Fatigue

So even Karl Rove has come around to say that the negative attack ads and the lies are too much. Hard to believe really. McCain is showing a desperation that should lead people to ask -- where is that integrity and character you expect us to vote for you on.

On a related note, I happened to see a part of the Obama/O'Reilly interview yesterday. The old "class warfare" tag came out simply because Obama explained that he wanted to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and give tax cuts to 95% of tax payers. Since when is "penalizing" the top 5% of wage earners "class warfare." The charge would be funny if it didn't resonate so deeply with the conservative discourse that will have many of the 95% voting against their own tax cuts.

On a final note, is this another lie from the Palin interview (I never called for banning books?):

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

The Lies Just Keep on Coming . . .

McCain keeps the lying going strong:

WALTERS: What is she going to reform specifically, senator?
MCCAIN: Well, first of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.
WALTERS: She also took some earmarks there.
BEHAR: A lot.
MCCAIN: No, not as governor she didn't . . .

This is, of course, untrue. I was watching the end of Bill Moyer last night and he made the point that the media is just not fact-checking or asking the right questions. I feel like Charles Gibson should actually be applauded for asking tough questions of Palin and even though many who already like her will pretend he was too tough or unfair with her, the truth is the pair is attempting to win this election based largely on lies and half-truths. They just hope that they can allude very real and important questions long enough to convince enough Americans that they really will change anything in Washington.

The debates may be the one place where the two can't hide. And neither has looked very impressive without a formal script. It could provide the final push to an Obama victory.

Palin Shuffle

A few years ago, President Clinton was on the daily show. He said that all one needed to be a democrat was to think. Little has changed in that truism. I am watching the Charles Gibson interview with Palin and the words that come to mind are subterfuge, misdirection and embarrasing. Much like the McCain interviews the past few days, it consisted of not answering questions, blurring the past and present, ignoring the inconsistencies in record and message and pretending to offer change when it is clear it is more of the same.

She seems to have little knowledge of foreign affairs (including the comment that she is sending her son to redeem America for 9/11 after all the evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 has been refuted over and over again), talked about reforming Washington while it is clear she has strong relationships with lobbyists, a long record of getting money for her town and then the state of Alaska and dancing around the truth of the Bridge to Nowhere. She also appears to know little of how Washington works or where these cuts she offers will come from. She talks about tax cuts and shrinking government, while she raised sales taxes in her own town and created a huge budget deficit. She claims tax cuts for the rich are what all Americans want and continues to lie about what Obama is offering (middle class tax cuts and higher taxes for those earning over $250,000). And she is socially conservative to a radical extent.

McCain is doing equally absurd dancing around his record and turn toward lobbyists in recent years (including the top advisors to his campaign). He appears to have huge lunanas in his own foreign policy experience and real understanding of economics (supporting supply side economics and trickle down theories long disavowed even by their original advocates). I think the two are embarassing, their campaign is embarassing and a victory by them would be an embarassement to the country.

McTwoFace?

John Mitchell of Talking Point Memo today argues that the press is starting to grow weary of the sleazy, lying campaign that McCain is running. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215224.php. He argues that there has been a palpable change over the past few weeks in how respected journalists are receiving the increasingly negative, overreaching McCain tactics and wonders whether this will change the tone of coverage (which, with the exception of Palin, except around her speech, has been largely positive). I think the importance of the media in recent campaigns cannot be overstated and how the major networks and cable stations cover the last two months of the campaign my have a significant influence on the outcome. The short-lived love affair with Obama is over and the question that remains is whether they will refocus on the issues and whether their longer term enamorata finally garners their contempt.

On a side note, the 7th anniversary of 9/11 leads to a one day hiatus in the campaign, but also leads papers to call for increased details on how the two candidates plan to handle terrorism and homeland security in the future. Hopefully they will push the moderators to ask these important questions during the upcoming debates. The good news for Obama among all the recent setbacks is that he is tied or leads in most of the eighteen states the campaign have selected as battleground states. Some worry that he is not focusing heavily enough on the old battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania -- but as of the most recent polls, he already has 260 electoral votes all but locked up, compared to 183 for McCain. The last few weeks of this spectacle-ridden circus should certainly be interesting -- I just hope the people recognize what's at stake.

Obama the Muslim Terrorist?

A student of mine came into class today and handed me one of the infamous email charging Obama with numerous crimes and misdemeanors -- essentially arguing that much of his record was false and that he was, in fact, a muslim that would apparently turn the U.S. into a terrorist state. While the student said his father told him some of the information seemed sketchy; he did believe much of it was cause for "concern." I had received a similar email from a conservative friend early in the primary and had gone about replying to all with refutation of many of the points. The problem is most of these mailing lists don't have any voices to refute the main claims. The Republicans are hitting new lows with every election. In this version, there is the lying on both sides of the campaign -- using innuendo and outright lies to undermine Obama's record while lying about their own past.

The problem is this approach seems to be winning over more and more voters. Fear, as always, seems to be an effective mechanism for pushing voters toward their side of the aisle -- creating a cloud around the real issues of the campaign. And the bubble in which many Republicans live their political lives allows this absurd propaganda to go largely unchallenged. They watch Fox News, go to internet sites that simply reinforce their often false ideas, listen to talk radio that plays on fear, racism and questionable ideas about freedom and democracy and tend to isolate themselves from outside opinions that challenge their own. This is an exaggeration of the truth that overgeneralizes the right, but I feel it is a trend that defines more and more of the population on both sides of the political spectrum. Rather than sustantive debate on real issues and a diversity of opinions; many simply find sources that regurgitate the party line without real thought or critique. In my mind, the left is as guilty of this as the right; though the right certainly seems more astute at controlling major media sources and at breeding strong emotional responses to their propaganda.

Can events like the debates work to combat this myopic ideological redundancy and sectarianism? It is hard to say, as many would rather get their information spoon-fed to them than actually do the hard work of finding out the truth. And if enough independents fall for the soft racism and fear mongering of the McCain-Palin ticket, we may see a huge upset: led by the very people that hold such a low opinion of the president and policies t appears McCain will largely follow in the future. This odd logical disconnect can only be explained by the affective response to these political gambits and a general unwillingness to consider the relationship between action and its consequences. McCain has shown the kind of leadership the world just doesn't need right now -- doing anything and everything to gain power; and we can assume keep it. Does this remind you of anyone else from our past?

McCain Surges Ahead

I watched much of the Democratic and Republican conventions and thought the former was wonderful and the later uninspired (particularly McCain's speech). And yet somehow the American people see differently. McCain has forged ahead in national polls: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm. While this doesn't matter much, as the battle is in particular states, I'm confused at how this happened. McCain gave a speech absent substantial policy initiatives, failing to really separate himself from one of the least popular presidents in history and picked a women that is far right of the average citizen. And yet it was women that have turned to McCain in a huge way (he has a 12 point lead among white women in the latest poll).

Has this cynical, desperate ploy to win the presidency worked? Women have come his way and it seems largely based on Palin. His personal narrative is certainly compelling, but people knew it before. So what has changed. Only two things -- Palin and the usual suspect (tax cuts). Cynicism might just work again for Republicans, but how does it foreshadow the future of the country? I believe a McCain presidency prefaces a permanent fall in American stature at home and abroad. Without some attempt to change current policy and politics, I believe America will follow Rome into decline and ruin. It will be a slower process, but Obama seems to me to be the last chance for the people to recapture the political process from the cynical elites that will win at any cost to keep their interests unchallenged. Here's hoping the next two months change their plans and our collective future.

McCain Inspires?

McCain's speech was rather uninspiring last night, even to the crowd from what I could tell. There were moments of great energy, but overall it appeared rather subdued compared to Palin, Obama and most of the other major speakers for both parties. McCain furthered his call to make this election about integrity and personality. That may be as big a mistake as making them about the issues, if this is all the energy and excitement he can muster.

Two points before getting to the speech itself. 1) The whole convention seemed whiter than usual, with no clear token minorities to spice up the conference. I wonder if this is purposeful; since they are going to win very few black votes, why not play on the cloaked racism at the heart of Lincoln's party for so long. 2) Tom Brokaw continued to make it clear that he is a Republican, saying that Democrats now know what they are up against and showing his usual preference for the party of the elephants.

The speech did touch on a number of issues, and have others have mentioned -- there is a lot of Bush in here. Here are the main points he outlined . . .

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. . . .I will open new markets to our goods and services. . . .I will cut government spending. . . .My tax cuts will create jobs. . . .My health-care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health-care insurance. . . .We all know that keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from going overseas.Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families.Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit.Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity. . . .Education is the civil rights issue of this century.Equal access to public education has been gained, but what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice.Let's remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers and help bad teachers find another line of work.When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them.Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have the choice, and their children will have that opportunity. . . .My fellow Americans, when I'm president, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades.We're going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much, and some of that money . . .We'll attack the problem on every front. We'll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We'll drill them now.My friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants. We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. . . .


Many of these ideas are continuation of Bush's failed economic and foreign policy. 1) Let's make more enemies globally 2) Tax cuts for the rich and corporations (while we do have the highest corporate taxes, the reality is that most of our most successful companies and corporations pay $0 in taxes) 3) Let's privatize schools further 4) Cut gov't spending but have better health care and the "most ambitious national project in decades" 5) Off shore drilling and 6) Get rid of "failing programs" to "keep more money in your pockets" (right out of Bush playbook) -- at a time when these programs are more important than ever.

Can we really afford four more years of Bush? I think this question should define the election, if only the media would pose it.

Palin’s Speech

Palin gave a very clever speech last night and the media loved it. As reported by the AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_tv_palin_s_night), here are some of the comments:
It wasn't just a home run, said CNN's Wolf Blitzer; it may have been a grand slam. "A very auspicious debut," said NBC's Tom Brokaw. It was a "perfect populist pitch," said CBS' Jeff Greenfield. "Terrific," said Mort Kondracke on Fox News Channel.
"A star is born," said Chris Wallace on Fox.
"A star is born," Blitzer said.
"A star is born," said Anderson Cooper on CNN
Like most successful Republicans, she used the new form of populism – I’m like you (or at least seem like you) and that’s the reason you should elect me. This follows McCain’s campaign announcement that this election isn’t about “issues.” Why not? Because they lose on the issues. The only way they can win is on personality and a deep myopia that ignores the fact that Palin and McCain are not really like that many Americans and, when it comes to policy, don’t seem to like that many Americans.
“But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.”

Here she attacks the media that is increasingly conservative, following the path of Republicans for two decades at least. Then she aligns herself as a renegade with McCain:

“I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network. Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.”

Unfortunately, the truth appears to be much as it is with McCain – really an advocate for the elites and special interests and rarely for the people at large. She plays to the old American distrust of “big government” and “taxes,” failing to acknowledge the Great Depression and New Deal that followed; or the fact that Reagan could easily be considered a Keynesian, if you include military spending.

Between her pitch-perfect pitch to the American people and witty critiques of Obama (e.g., “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.), she laid out a plan that ignores all of the issues facing America: dramatic economic inequality, global warming, our reputation abroad and civil liberties in lieu of tired old discussion about high taxes, energy independence through Alaskan oil (against expert estimates), more tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, shrinking of government at a time that crime, poverty and inequality are rising,

It was a strong speech, but is based on the premise that John McCain is the same man that many respected in the past. That does not seem to be the case. To reaffirm the charges: he now supports making permanent the Bush tax cuts he once voted against, he voted with the president 90% of the time and stood beside him for most of the past 7 years, he has broken his own campaign finance reform bill and is surrounded by lobbyists and, after calling for a civil campaign, has run the most negative campaign in history (surpassing even the Bush clan with his relentless attack and lack of vision for the future). But the media doesn’t pay attention to the issues, and we can assume their love for McCain is now expanding outward to a comfortable threesome.

RNC Convention

I am listening to Joe Lieberman's speech right now stupefied by how this guy once ran as VP with Al Gore. How can someone so dramatically change their opinion in 8 short years. 911 and the Iraq War have certainly contributed, but something is seriously wrong here. As to his message, I think the Republicans strongest argument against Obama is that he is not ready to lead. That message resonates with older voters and the average conservative (and some liberals). But is it undermined by the reality of McCain no longer being a maverick? Is it undermined by the oldest presidential candidate in history choosing someone with 1 1/2 years experience as governor of Alaska (which Fred Thompson labeled our "biggest state," as if land mass had anything to do with leadership).

The whole convention has been rather weak so far. Thompson and Lieberman's speeches have been somewhat subdued, the crowd is as lilly white as always and their just seems to be a lack of energy. Bush didn't even show up, giving his speech from the White House, with many not sure they even wanted Bush in the same metaphoric universe as McCain -- even as the maverick has voted with him 90% of the time, and reversed course on much of that 10% since. ABC amd NBC seem to be embracing the false pageantry, with a little critique. Very uninspiring from my perspective; we'll have to see what the rest of America thinks.

Cynicism Express

As usual, the election is getting caught up in the spectacle and what is being lost is the central issue. It is unfortunate that Palin's daughter is pregnant, but I don't think this disqualifies her from being Vice President. The truth is that Republicans tend to have troubled kids. Reagan had a daughter who he didn't speak to for years (who posed in Playboy). Bush's daughters were huge partiers, though one has admittedly changed her ways. Bush himself is the son of a president and though he "won" the presidency, was a huge partier who floated through life with little success until he became president -- and maybe did more to destroy undermine America domestically and globally than any president in history. And now we have Palin.

But the real question in the country is whether we can afford more of the same. That is what McCain is offering. Obama is offering change: a new tone in Washington, a more reasonable tax system, diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, a sensible energy policy and a plan to get us out of Iraq. McCain appears ready to do the opposite: continue giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich, pretend Iraq was a good idea and that we won, do little to end our addiction to oil and show a general disregard for the average American. This is most clear to me in the decision to pick someone clearly not ready to become President, a woman he didn't seem to even vet with any seriousness. Instead he chose someone who offered the only path to his victory -- a surrogate for disaffected Clinton supporters who don't care that this woman is no advocate for women. Can't we define leadership at least partially by who someone picks as their surrogates? McCain has entrusted the very people that helped sink his campaign 8 years ago, the same people that he once excoriated for the campaign strategy he now embraces. He works with a number of lobbyists that he once sought to attack (and may have had an affair with one of them). And he picked a woman who has less experience than the opponent he attacks for his lack of the same.

An op ed in the Washington Post today makes the point that Palin is not the maverick we have been led to believe: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/ar2008090101716_pf.html. It turns out she had a lobbyist as mayor and actually tacitly supported the "bridge to nowhere" she was purported to reject. Maybe that is why McCain like her so much -- she is a hypocrit just like him; hopeful to move in no direction except backwards (to a mythical past where people only had sex to make babies, we forget about science and evolution and God becomes the mediator of all social relations).

Bush is to speak tonight and it will be interesting to see how McCain tries to dance around his verisimilitude to the man he must simultaneously embrace and reject. We will have to wait until Thursday for the dance, but we are already seeing the radical left attempt to remind Americans that they should not trust liberals. A number of anarchists have shown up and been arrested for throwing benches, breaking windows and attacking squad cars. I am for radical social change -- but why these people want to relive the 60s, throwing their angst around at the wrong enemies (the police and a city that has been a source of a number of iconoclastic politicians in the past 40 years) is beyond me. In my mind, the left should be embracing the message of change and ensuring that Obama does not move too far to the middle.

Palin Who?

Who cares, seems to be the answer. She's a women and in the increasingly cynical campaign of McCain that seems to be enough. Ms. Palin made her choice clear with this statement:

“Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all,” Ms. Palin said to huge applause."

This is simply an attempt to sweep up disaffected Hillary supporters without any concern for the fact the two women have very little in common. Palin is pro-life, anti-choice, socially conservative, doesn't believe global warming is caused by human activity, has little foreign policy or even governing experience, pro Oil companies and, maybe, ethically questionable. She supported Pat Buchanon for president in 2000; meaning anti-immigrant and pro-isolationism. She thinks creationism should be taught in schools and should embolden christian conservatives back to the fold after McCain gave them pause (for good reason: he isn't really one of them). And McCain has only met her twice.

This is political cynicism at it's worst. Pick a VP simply to try to swipe some votes, forgoing a very real concern that McCain might not last four years if elected president. To those who don't know, the last man to run for president at McCain's age would have died in office (Paul Tsongas). Obama just got a bounce from the historic democratic primary. The question is whether this rather absurd choice will cut into that lead or not. My real fear in looking at recent state-by-state polls is that the swing states are so close we may see electronic voting problems and other efforts to undermine the will of the American people. Hopefully, people will see through this lame attempt at appeasement and vote for the only candidate that can actually make their lives better.

The Speech

I thought Obama's speech was extraordinary last night. He laid his claim to be president, showed a tough side and ability to take on McCain and eloquently laid out why the country needs the sort of change he is promising. I found it interesting that some reporters complained about the negative tone, given the way McCain and his surrogates have been running the campaign. Kerry was blamed four years ago for not responding quickly enough and now some are arguing Obama shouldn't respond so vociferously. Not sure what to make of that, but the media clearly seemed to like the speech in general.

Yet it is clear that Obama was trying to appeal to those voters who will ultimately decide the election, eliminating some of his loftier language, speaking in a toned-down vernacular, adding specific policy initiatives to counteract the argument that he is short on specifics and taking on McCain directly. This is a job that the presidential candidate often gets to eschew, leaving it to the VP and others -- but as many argued; it was probably necessary to show that he is tough and can stand up to the daily onslaught of (in most cases trivial) attacks by the McCain camp.
It was clearly a historic night and many veteran reporters called it the best convention speech they had ever heard. It was certainly the most important speech at a convention in the long history of the civil rights movement and a hopeful step forward in our still failing attempt to follow through on the promise of equality and freedom for all.

McCain had a one-night ad that aired before and during the speech -- congratulating Obama for becoming the first Black candidate for president on the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech. But right after the speech we got this from the campaign:

"Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be president."

On Tuesday, Tom Brokaw had the gaul to say that McCain had won the Republican primary because he maintained his integrity, stayed consistent and held firm to what he believed -- thus being the most authentic candidate. He then said Obama has to prove that he is the same. What is he talking about? Does he read the news? Has he been hiding in a closet for the past 20 years? It is undisputable that McCain has turned far to the right and pandered to conservatives to win the primary. He has turned his back on his openness to the press, turned negative after asking Obama to run a civil campaign and certainly undermined almost all of the positions that make him the "renegade" he pretends to still be. He has cloistered himself from all of his past fights for the people, while trying to pretend that even without any of those old positions -- he is still a renegade and man of integrity we should vote for.

And on a related note, a secondary question about McCain is whether the press is going to really cover the fact that this guy has a monster temper. Will he have a Dean blow-up moment? If so, will the media cover it. Time Magazine, which has certainly turned right in the past several years, had this article, showing a rather cantakerous and less-than-straight-talking McCain:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1836909,00.html

And Senator Reid of Nevada backs up the point in talking to a Nevada reporter http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/harry-reid-on-john-mccain-i-just-think.html:

"I just think he doesn't have the temperament to be president," Reid told Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston during the taping of "Face to Face," in Denver on Wednesday. The show airs on a Las Vegas, Nev., cable channel."I've served with the man 26 years," Reid said. "Do I have the ability to speak with experience about someone who has abused everyone he's dealt with? Someone who does not have the temperament to be president, who's wrong on the war, wrong on the economy, wrong on nuclear waste. What am I supposed to do? Walk around talking about what a great guy he is? I don't believe that. .... ""There isn't a Republican serving in the Senate that's happy he's the nominee. Now, they're all supporting him, but I'll tell you they have told me. I've had Republican senators tell me they don't think they'll vote for him," Reid said.When Ralston asked if Reid thought it would be "dangerous" to let McCain be president, Reid answered: "Well, if you said it, I wouldn't correct you.""Is that right?" Ralston asked. "You really think that?""That's right," said Reid, who predicted that Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama would carry the battleground state of Nevada by 5 percentage points.

Race Tightens; Clintonites Still Spoiling?

From Today's Paper (Slate):

The new poll puts Obama at 45 percent, three points ahead of his Republican rival. Obama's biggest problem, it seems, is a hangover from the primary battle: Only half of Hillary Clinton's supporters are backing the Democratic nominee, and one in five says he or she supports McCain. The NYT also has new poll numbers, in which voters say that neither candidate has made clear what he would do as president. Respondents trusted Obama more than McCain to manage the economy, their top overall priority. For foreign policy, however, McCain came out ahead.

Only half of Clinton supporters are backing Obama? Are they really so bitter as to hand the race to a candidate that disagrees with them so fundamentally on the issues. Certainly there are the blue collar males who do not yet trust Obama; and might be swayed by the racist campaign of McCain. But what of the feminists? Are they really going to vote for a pro-life candidate who has done little in his career to help their cause? Both groups are troubling, but who is voting more against their own interests? I think it's still those blue collar workers Reagan recruited in 1981 and who have largely remained with the party of the elites.

This breakdown from the LA Times details just how little McCain plans to do for this group (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-taxplans21-2008aug21,0,4323319,full.story). McCain is unapologetically following the failed supply side economics of the Reagan era and Bush II. Keep giving more and more money to wealthy individuals and corporations. Class warfare is clearly still alive -- it's just a really one-sided battle at this point. The myopia and contempt of trickle down to the average worker appears to have little sway on those hurt the most by the growing income inequality in the country.

And even on the issue of foreign affairs, it's hard to understand why someone would trust McCain more given the fact he supported the Iraq War, doesn't seem to understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis and found no reason to even attend a hearing on Afganistan. Obama's celebrity internationally is arguably just what the U.S. needs to regain some respect on the world stage and help in dealing with a growing list of international crises. I wonder if the campaigns and debates could finally wake the country up to what four or eight years of McCain would bring.

The August Turn

As I feared, the negative strategy appears to be paying dividends. McCain has captured the lead: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc_3&printer=1;_ylt=AstxessPWFOS8TR.3cSfpTIb.3QA. What has changed? As with 2004 and 2000, the negative ad campaign of the summer has changed the tenor of the race and shifted the focus from the issues to one of character and readiness to lead. Obama has faltered under the relentless attack, changing some of his positions (flip-flop), losing momentum and failing to offer a sufficient counterattack.

People have actually come to believe that McCain would do better for the economy based solely on one issue -- off shore drilling. Unfortunately, this appears to relate to a misunderstanding of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy and the continued negative effects of dramatical inequalities in income and wealth. Just yesterday, McCain failed to vote to eliminate billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very oil companies that have earned record profits while the economy falls into recession (the bill fell one vote short of the 60 needed to pass it). And they are not alone. The CEOs whose irresponsibility led to the mortgage crises made fortunes for their ineptitude. Wall Street powerbrokers continue to make bags full of money as people lose their savings and see their investments fall. And less than 10 percent of the population (really 1 percent) reaps most of the benefits of rapidly growing corporate profits from 2003 to 2007.

McCain simply wants to get more oil from America and continue the failed economic policies of the Bush administration -- lax regulation, huge tax cuts for the rich, the elimination of the inheritance tax and low actual corporation taxation. He is also steeped in the very lobbyist system he once claimed to abhor. Obama is offering a more sensible tax policy, a long term plan for "energy indepence" and at least some attempt to address corruption in campaign financing and lobbying. Yet the American people are sucked in by the "celebrity" discourse, the failure of many democrats to overcome their bitterness over Clinton's loss and a candidate with no real policy ideas except to continue the conservative push to accumulate power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer super rich. Will cynicism win again in the end?

The Looming Convention and the Media

Republicans have long complained of the "liberal" media and its bias against their platform and candidates. But as I have been writing here, this is a largely false myth based predominantly on the very wedge social issues that elections are so often fought over. Ignored is the fact that the media has become increasingly complicit with conservative ideology by supporting the notion that all government is corrupt, that America has a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to maintain its security, that the market is implicitly superior to government intervention (with some challenge in the past few years -- but certainly supportive of the "a few bad apples" discourse that dominated the corporate corruption scandals of a few years ago), by embracing the celebrity and consumer culture and by fully supporting, and driving, the notion of politics as spectacle and all politicians as corrupt.

But the true conservative media bias goes beyond all this. Research has shown that in 2000 there were far more negative stories about Gore than Bush. The media fully embraced the notion of Gore as a "liar," even as the leading evidence turned out to be false. During the recount, they embraced the Republican discourse that we needed a quick end to the process even as most Americans were willing to wait and ensure the real winner won (particularly as half a million voted for the presumptive loser). Four years later the uncritical coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth helped sink Kerry -- who I would argue the press essentially chose as the candidate when they turned on Howard Dean. Now we see a similar trend emerging with Obama.

This article from the "liberal" New York Times shows both the cynicism of the mainstream media and the subtle forms of bias I think exist across the board (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18convention.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1219072258-9d9uRMRaN1atFtdWAxORQQ&pagewanted=print).

Here is the opening: "One of the first images prime-time viewers will see of the Democratic National Convention next week is that of Michelle Obama, who will begin the four-day introduction of her husband, and her family, on her terms.
Like everything else at the orchestrated gala, that is by design."

This has become a common trope of the media. The "orchestrated" or "constructed" nature of all political events. While this is clearly true, it is because of the media that politics has become such a tightly scripted and spectacle oriented exercise. They demand this construction of a tightly crafted image and persona that they can then describe in simple terms. And then they critique that process and themselves for the emptiness that this process has become. At the same time, there seems to be more scrutiny of this image construction among Democrats than Republicans. There are certainly a lot of negative stories about McCain, but few that actually question the construction of him as both a good conservative stalwart and a rebel without a party. This has been left to the blogosphere and leftist press. The same can be said of Bush, who bought the ranch so prominently displayed in the campaign the year before he ran, and acted like an Average Joe, even though he was a former presidents son who had spent most of his youth in elite East Coast Schools.

A few lines down the article comes the subtle bias that troubles me the most:

"The introduction of a candidate is a task facing every presidential campaign, but one that carries unique challenges for Mr. Obama because of his race and questions about his patriotism, values and faith that Republicans have already vigorously sought to raise and exploit."

By making the questions about his patriotism, values and faith precede the presumptive subject of those who are doing the questioning, one is left to assume these questions transcend the Republican party and are in fact legitimate. They become the questions of an election that would otherwise be about real issues like the war, economy and government corruption. But just as the Republican party has vigorously sought to raise and exploit these issues -- through the media -- so has the media played along with little question: even taking the celebrity issue more seriously than seemed reasonable.

Another article, in the New Republic today (http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=5607f0de-44eb-4606-af0e-99029525ebb2), complains that Obama may be too cool for most Americans, showing an aloofness that could ultimately hurt him. I think that very coolness under fire is exactly what we need after a president that has trouble putting a sentence together, that said a number of absurdly stupid things on the international stage and that has done more harm to America's reputation overseas than anyone in recent memory. Yet this trope is again out of the Republican handbook for winning an election without any superiority of platform or message -- just make Americans doubt Obama enough to choose the safe choice.

More on this as examples emerge . . .

Disillusionment and the Republican Machine

I feel like a broken record on this point, but it is becoming increasingly clear the Republicans have nothing to offer the country except lies and fear mongering. The latest book by right wing wing-nut Corsi just further exemplifies the growing desperation of a party that has run out of ideas and inspiration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403057_pf.html

Obama is a candidate that is addressing what to me is the biggest issue in American politics for 30 years now -- a post-60s cynicism that allows emotion, fear and hatred to trump sensible decision-making by the American people. There are obvious signs that many have had enough of these tactics, but it remains to be seen if McCain can sneak into the presidency with the same tired politics first effectively used by Bush Sr. Even some evangelicals are starting to question the tax cut, support the rich and corporations policy the Republicans have been shoveling since Reagan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403446_pf.html.

I look forward to the conventions, when at least the spectacle that American politics has become will not be swelled up in the lies and race baiting that has been going on for months (lest us forget by Hillary Clinton). One of the most absurd claims I've noticed while watching the Olympics and the rash of political ads I've had to endure is that Obama's economic policy will implicitly cost jobs. Are we so historically myopic that we can't remember that the last tax increase (under Clinton) led to one of the longest economic booms in years. I have problems about how the benefits of that boom were distributed across the hidden American class system, but they certainly overwhelm the increasing poverty, joblessness and threats to the middle class that a Bush presidency has been (beside increasing the income and wealth gaps, right as corporate profits rose precipitiously). What Obama does bring to the table is a more sensible economic policy together with the ability to inspire. Hopefully that will be enough to undermine the empty campaign McCain and his supporters are running.

Hillary for Spoiler!

To be fair, Hillary has been on the campaign trail working for Obama and gave a great concession speech. But the new Atlantic article that has everyone buzzing, sounds like a perfect strategy to possibly pull off an upset. The strategy is disengenous, cheap and right out of the Republican play book the Clinton's once decried. Why is this article showing up now? Who leaked it? And why?

McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time. He is pro-life, anti-gun control and wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. He supports the unpopular war in Iraq and has undermined his only status as a renegade. Why is it that all we are talking about is Obama? Maybe because that's the only way McCain can win.

Chris Wallace of Fox News actually asked campaign manager Rick Davis both why McCain was being so negative yesterday and why so much of that negativity was based on misleading information. Fox, you say? At least someone is asking the rights questions. The bigger question though is why the press has decided to play along so readily. Sure there are negative stories about the negative tone of the campaign, but they are doing little to get the conversation back to the issues themselves. They are playing along with the trope that this election is a referendum on Obama, rather than on someone who seems to want to continue the work of Bush -- one of the most unpopular (and inept) presidents in history). This seems to follow 2000 and 2004. Democrats really need to learn to influence the tone of elections to their favor rather than always playing defense. The media abets the process, but in my mind so do democrats.

August Blues

August is arguably where both Gore and Kerry gave up their leads and began the process of losing the election. With Gore, the debates were really the death knell of his candidacy; or at least gave Bush enough steam to steal the election in Florida. With Kerry, it was the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies that dramatically changed the election in August -- based primarily on the slowness of his reply and the media's unwillingness to report some of the inconsistencies and outright lies involved in the story.

Now come fears that Obama might be making the same mistake, by failing to deal with the absurdity of these incessant attack ads that he is too popular; and, um, taking a vacation (lest us forget the McCain Bush Redux relates him to a president who took more vacation time than any in recent history): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080803242_pf.html. I wonder if a year in which the American economy is sinking, environmental issues are coming to the fore (thanks to gas prices and Gore), the middle east is still a mess and there are real concerns of a decline in America's standing the world over can really come down to Obama being compared to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton. The one thing that does seem clear is McCain is much less impressive on the stump than he was eight years ago. He seems tired, often confused and less than inspiring. Of course I thought even worse of Bush eight years ago, but at least he was younger, vibrant and played a cowboy "real good."

McCain's Energy Policy

Obama delivered a powerful speech yesterday on oil dependence and a future energy policy (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5zCW). It included this substantive critique of McCain's record:

What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that - while far from perfect - represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling - a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.


McCain's response: to hand out tire gauges at the speech and then send them to media outlets: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16436.html. Glad that he is upholding his record as a man of integrity and substance!

The Race Card

From the Board, at the New York Times yesterday afternoon:

Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.
It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs up another loaded racial image.
The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga. Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”
It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/say-what-john-mccain-barack-obama-and-the-race-card/


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by how ugly this election is getting -- we certainly do not live in a "post-racial" time, as some pundits and intellectuals like to claim. And I think things are going to get much worse. The reality is that Blacks in this country make less, live shorter lives, get worse healthcare (even when they have comparable income to whites, and sometimes from the same doctors), are thrown in jail at a much higher rate (often for minor drug offenses), have much higher drop out rates and college graduation rates, lower wealth, higher unemployment, etc.

And yet we are not allowed to "play the race card." The truth is it was a racist ad and like many Republicans before him, McCain appears to be taking the low dirty road that started with Nixon and the Southern strategy and has now continued unabated for 40 years. I think it is relevent that Obama is Black; as relevant as the fact that McCain is old, mean, often aloof and uninformed and has a penchant for outbursts at anyone who disagrees with him (including other Senators). The difference is I believe Obama being Black is a good thing; the opportunity to have a president who fits into the mold of past presidents with his Ivy League degree and successful past, but may bring a perspective the office has yet to see -- one that could lend itself to profound change in Washington (though there are certainly no guarantees).

One other point to make about the ad: it juxtaposes Obama with two young, famous white girls. The subtext that has not been discussed is at the very heart of racist white male fear from the past -- that a verile slave or ex-slave would rape their women (or alternatively, that their women might choose him over them). I'm not sure if this is the intention of the makers of the ad, but it wouldn't surprise me if they recognized that this might be a secondary affective response among the very white men they are attempting to again pull to their side.

McCain Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

To make up for my two day hiatus, here is another interesting article on McCain from of all sources the Wall Street Journal; an editorial by Daniel Henninger entitled "Is John McCain Stupid?":

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."
This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.
He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.
Yesterday he was in Aurora, Colo., to wit: "On Social Security, he [Sen. Obama] wants to raise Social Security taxes. I am opposed to raising taxes on Social Security. I want to fix the system without raising taxes."

I doubt that McCain is stupid, though he does seem to have some of the aloofness to issues and general political knowledge another candidate once showed (you might remember him, he got a job as the leader of the free world). The problem is that the very subset of the American public that will probably decide this election is more likely to have a view of Brittany Spears in their head than a list of the inconsistencies in McCain's positions from one day to the next. Obama should make those inconsistencies clear to the public through a series of TV ads that highlight the real flip-flopper in this election, and the fact that while flip-flopping is not that bad if based on changing circumstances; is a character flaw when based solely on political expediency.

McCain Moves into the Surreal; TV and Kids

First the election: McCain's latest ad moves beyond the realm of understand, into the surreal -- arguing that Obama is just too popular to be president. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-tone31-2008jul31,0,3819744,print.story) Huh? While the ad seems absurd to the point of nonsensical, I wonder if it is part of the building strategy to show that "Obama isn't one of us." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/politics/31campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print) The question is does this mean he is an elitist, an out-of-touch liberal American or, huh, maybe just a Black man that many Republicans believe is a Muslim? And the comparisons to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton while funny is really a new low. The point though is it could very well work. Americans love an underdog and they also love a president they believe at some level is like them. Obama is hard-pressed to fit in that role, while McCain can continue to play on the largely positive perspective of the media and general public to congeal right into that mold. But how low will he go, appears to be the question of the hour? Of course, according to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius in his fawing op-ed today, none of this is his fault (he's just being manipulated by those around him): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073002948_pf.html. In response, one might ask if his entire theme of being more ready to serve as commander in chief isn't undermined by the fact he can't seem to come up with a reason to be president except "better of two evils" and can't seem to stand up for himself against the wishes of his advisors.

On a cultural note, two recent reports have fueled the arguments about TV and children:

1) A study by Cornell that appears to provide evidence that the skyrocketing rates of autism are related to television viewing in the early years (before age 4): http://www.slate.com/id/2151538. So those immunization shots might not be so bad after all; it's Disney, the Cartoon Network, Miley Cyrus and the rest of the made-for-young children TV that really deserve a second look (but by researchers and parents, not kids!)
2) A report by the APA that "Baby Borrowers" may cause harm to young children and adolescent's mental health. Don't worry though, NBC thinks it a good way to sell the show, and that's all that really matters, right?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/07/30/baby_borrowers/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/broadsheet

Double-Speak

Thomas Shaller of Salon's War Room makes a point today worth considering -- can the relentless attack of McCain put a permanent dent in Obama's image, leading many to question his character and thus vote against him? American politics over the past few decades has been dominated by the distance between image and reality, with the image appearing to win out much of the time. Can McCain beat the truth, the pundits and the issues right out of this campaign, as appeared to be the case in 2000 and 2004? It is certainly possible.

Lest us forget that most Americans believed Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 and that they further believed at least one Iraqi was on one of the planes (even as pictures of them plastered papers for weeks) long after both those lies had been exposed. I've gotten emails from conservative friends with the "Obama is a Muslim" line and warnings of a terrorist takeover of the country. The truth is we are a country that hates intellectual elites and loves monied elites (particularly of the celebrity type). And if McCain can make it stick that Obama is cocky, elitist (remember Hillary started that theme), a flip flopper (from the ultimate flip flopper of recent memory) and not really ready to lead; we could certainly see a shift in the favorite after the conventions. At the same time, the press (with the notable exception of Fox) has certainly started to at least question McCain for his increasingly dirty campaign. And even some in his own party are impugning his tactics:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) criticizing John McCain's latest ad on CBS' Face the Nation, "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, 'You're less patriotic than me. I'm more patriotic.'"

By the way, it turns out McCain has been to fewer Afghanistan meetings than Obama over the past two years (0), even as he is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. And he has now entered a new level of double-speak by denying his own words in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (see clip here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/election_central_sunday_roundu_25.php).

McCain Hits a New Low (Hard to Believe, Isn't It?)

Frank Rich has a great editorial in the New York Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print), considering the ways in which Obama has already had a profound influence on the political landscape in the U.S. and on the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. At the same time, the latest ad from McCain has come out . . .

"Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.He hadn't been to Iraq in years.He voted against funding our troops.And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.John McCain is always there for our troops.McCain. Country first.John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

This ad shows not only the ongoing desperation and in-civility of McCain, but really the bankruptcy of his run for president. More than any Republican candidate in history, McCain has nothing to offer the country and is thus running a campaign based completely on critique, with no real alternatives offered. Can we really afford more tax cuts and less government regulation right now? Can we really afford a president who admits relative ignorance on foreign affairs and economics? Can we really afford a president who got the war wrong, but got the surge right? If this is the best the Republicans have to offer, we might see a huge Democratic victory in November across the board.

Straight Talk Express Vears South . . .

toward Texas from what I can tell. In less than a month the calls for civility, real talk on the issues and a different kind of presidential campaign have taken a clear turn toward the Rove strategy that gave Bush two terms in the presidency, and a nation a lesson in how bad a one-minute mistake in the voting booths can affect their lives. The Washington Post sums up McCain's hypocrisy in this telling editorial today . . .

Failing in CivilityJohn McCain falls short of the standard he set by impugning Barack Obama's motives.
Saturday, July 26, 2008; A14
POLITICIANS SAY a lot of things in the heat of campaigns that they end up regretting -- or ought to regret. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, had one of those unfortunate moments the other day, when he charged that his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, "would rather lose the war to win a political campaign."
Having said this once, been criticized and had a chance to think it over, Mr. McCain chose to repeat it. "He would rather lose a war than lose a campaign," Mr. McCain told the Columbus Dispatch. "Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
Mr. McCain's disagreement with Mr. Obama is as heartfelt as it is important. We, too, have concerns about the dangerous implications of Mr. Obama's insistence on withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 16 months regardless of conditions there. We, too, fault Mr. Obama's unwillingness to acknowledge his mistake in predicting that the surge would fail. But Mr. McCain needn't impute motives to make his points. It's one thing to say Mr. Obama is wrong. It's another to accuse him of putting political self-interest over country. This is not the "politics of civility" that Mr. McCain was promising as recently as last month.
"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day," Mr. McCain wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama proposing weekly town hall meetings. With these latest comments, Mr. McCain falls short of the standards he set out.

The Lies Just Keep On Coming . . .

A War Room report in Salon today provides the latest inaccuracies propogated by the McCain: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/25/mccain_memo/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room. What recent weeks have shown is that the only way Republicans can argue for their failed policies is through false innuendo and outright lies. McCain has shown a willingness to participate in this political Realpolitik with great aplomb, though with little accuity to date. One wonders if the integrity of the candidate will ever be fully explored in a popular press that appears enamored by another politician whose words have very little to do with his actions; or even his words from a few years, or even days, ago.

McCain the Cynic

Obama emerged as a different kind of candidate, one that could transcend the politics of the past by both overcoming the battles of the 60s and by bringing a more positive face to politics. McCain and the media seem to want to make sure that doesn't happen. As an article in Slate argues today (http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2195762), McCain is attacking indiscrimately and, quite often, based on misleading or downright false information.

Cynicism has dominated American politics since Reagan (and really Nixon, with a potential Carter lacuna, depending on your perspective). Rather than attempting to address the real problems of this country, attack ads, false promises and playing on a lack of hope in the possibility of change have dominated. People are inspired by those that promise change, but they are more worried about the possibility change could actually occur.

The media seems to be more receptive to this paradox than the average citizen. When Nader started to gain a following, they ignored him or offered short stories that discounted his candidacy. When Dean garnered a massive popular following, they took him down with a decontextualized video clip that ensured a milquetoast candidate they decided to destroy anyway. Four years earlier, when Gore started talking like a populist against the big corporations and for the people; the press played up the "lying" motif and allowed the race to be close enough to be stolen. And now they appear to be doing it again. Articles about Obama always include McCain's critique, no matter how absurd -- generally without any clarification or reference back to the facts. I remember a similar theme a few years ago, in the build up to a war.

McCain's Campaign of Lies Keeps on Trucking

From the New York Times this morning:

“Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Mr. McCain replied, adding that the Hussein government had also violated human rights. He then quickly shifted to the need to persevere, saying he expected attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq “so they can erode support for the al-Maliki government” during the American election campaign.
“We will come home with honor and victory, and it will be dictated by facts on the ground,” he continued. “We have succeeded, and I am confident we will win victory, and that is all contingent on our commitment to making sure we withdraw according to conditions on the ground.”
In a speech at a fund-raising luncheon in Detroit, Mr. McCain also implicitly criticized Mr. Obama in suggesting that his trip to Iraq — the schedule for which remains undisclosed, partly for security reasons — might be at hand.
“I am sure,” Mr. McCain added, “that Senator Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would have encountered before we started the surge.”
The McCain campaign also infuriated the Obama camp with the new advertisement, which accused Mr. Obama of “voting against funding our troops” and said he was abandoning his original positions on the war “to help himself become president.”
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, described the ad as “patently misleading,” and campaign officials issued a phrase-by-phrase rebuttal.
Those salvos were preceded by an interview, published Friday in The Kansas City Star, in which Mr. McCain suggested that Mr. Obama might be a socialist. At a campaign event in Kansas City on Thursday, Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of having the “most extreme” voting record in the Senate. When The Star asked about the comment, he said Mr. Obama had taken positions “more to the left than the announced socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”
The reporter then asked Mr. McCain if he thought Mr. Obama himself was a socialist. “I don’t know,” Mr. McCain answered. “All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”


McCain's growing desperation seems to go against everything he once stood for. While the press continues to focus on whatever he or other Republicans say about Obama, they appear to be missing the big story of this election -- which is the complete disavowal of everything McCain claims to stand for on a daily basis.

As I have discussed in detail below, he has completely retrenched on campaign finance reform. He has all but eliminated any of the heterodoxy that once made him a "renegade," at least in conservative and McAuliff-style liberal camps. He claimed he wanted a civil election about the issues, and has since done nothing but offer one lie or attack after another against Obama. But this is just getting absurd. The same day Graham quits the campaign, he tells us that all respected intelligence in the world said Hussein had WMDs, when that is far from the truth, even in this country. He claims Obama is a socialist, when it is clear his positions are so far removed from that ideology it is beyond preposterous, and he demands that Obama go to Iraq and then criticizes him incessantly when he does. Let's hope the press begins to at least cover this "flip flopping" dirty politcal gambit that appears to be McCain's only hope of victory.

On a lighter note, the EPA just lowered the value of a human from slightly over $8 million to around $7.2 million. This is good news for big business and those who think corporate profitability will be hurt if we actually make decisions that benefit humanity. Thank God for that move as inflation rises and the cost of actually keeping Americans above the poverty line increases dramatically.

Liberal Media?

It seems like the "liberal" media is at it again. Jonathan Chait from The New Republic has an article today that seems to discount all of McCain's shortcomings, telling us he still likes him and at least he'd be better than Bush: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5cb3eef3-11b5-4ab2-baf4-f5f78b26a889. The New Yorker cover that is causing a major imbroglio has left the actual story uncovered. It covers his early years in Chicago politics from what can best be described as an "uppity negro" narrative, as if only a Black politican would stoop to culling his contacts carefully, making strategic decisions about his friends and enemies, taking advantage of opportunities to advance, and worst of all, being ambitious!

As with 2000 and 2004, it appears the "liberal" media is just a cover for an increasingly conservative shift that has been going on for some time now. In 1999, Pew showed this shift empirically with an extensive survey that found newsmen and women were more liberal than the public socially but more conservative economically and on foreign policy. We have seen the effects of this in the last two election cycles and it appears to be happening again. After the original love affair with Obama, it now appears the media has turned against him and is ready to assassinate his unseemly amibition by ensuring they help elect the more "likable" guy again. The problem this time is the facade that is McCain. Much like Bush, he admits he has little real knowledge of foreign affairs or the economy. He has internal fighting in his campaign between the tax cutters and the budget balancers. He is the true flip-flopper in the race, in an almost unprecedented ideological transformation that appears to have little to do with his true beliefs and more to do with electability. And on the issues most important to the country -- taxes, economic stimulus, regulation, Iraq and Iran and many social issues -- he appears to be walking hand in hand with a President who has the lowest approval rating in history.

Since McCain cannot really win on the issues, the only way to win is to return to the Rovian strategies of the past -- and he already seems to be moving with great celerity in that direction. Will the media challenge him, or allow the big lie to move this country further down the road of its internal and external decline? Obama better come up with some way to divert their attention or we might see another late season surprise.

Has the Left Lost It's Sense of Humor

The New Yorker cover has certainly caused an uproar in liberal camps in the past few days, based largely on two related trends in liberal/left camps. The first is an intractable elitism based on the premise that the right is full of dolts and bufoons who are senseless cogs in the Republican machine. While there is obviously some truth in that, I think it is exactly this elitism that has spurned a change in who the "elites" are in this country -- namely liberals. Thomas Franks has outlined this trend quite nicely in What's the Matter With Kansas? but one of the reasons the strategy is so effective is because many liberals and leftists are, in fact, elitists. If the left wants to turn this around they need to start respecting "Average" Americans, and stop assuming their ethical choices are based on some innate moral superiority, rather than what they really are -- a choice (which I support). Ethics must be fought over and require more than guilt and calls for responsibility; they require a sound and compelling argument for why those ethics are preferable and how they will benefit America and the world (including the individuals you are trying to persuade).

The second issue is covered in a Salon article today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/07/15/new_yorker_cartoon/print.html. It talks about the collapsing humor on the left, brought on by a misappropriated self-righteousness and a penchant for humorlessness in all things. Where is the left that once gave us Abby Hoffman, the Chicago 7, Woody Allen, Millionaires for Bush and the like? Liberals take themselves too seriously and fall into the trap of political correctness run amok. Someone is offended by just about any political statement, but it's time for some unity on the left to ensure that we take advantage of a great opportunity to end the near junta on conservative presidents (I largely include Clinton in this camp). I'm not sure why Hillary Clinton supporters are continuing their absurd call for the unfairness of the process. They lost the delegate race and the popular vote race (unless we count a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and a state where Obama never campaigned). Liberals have to find a way to inject some joy and excitement back into their politics and find an affirmative message to offer the public -- sort of along the lines of what Obama is doing now. The Bernie Mac incident, while his comments were certainly offensive, just shows how self-censorship dominates the left and makes it impossible to talk about anything.

Anyway, that's my thought for the day.

Hillary Haters?

Hillary Clinton has certainly been the recipient of a volume of hate and vitriol far beyond anything she ever warranted throughout her public career. And yet now one wonders if she and her many followers are not taking their resentment at the potential passing of the torch to the next generation as a call to arms to hand another election to a Republican candidate?

I recieved the press release below over the weekend, and was reminded of Nader's run 8 years ago. Nader ran to challenge a Democratic party, that under Clinton and his triangulation strategy, had moved too far to the right. He had an ideological position and a strong critique that was at the foundation of his platform. He emboldened young people across the country to engage in politics and arguably pushed Gore to the left in the Fall of that year. Yet at the end, he decided to campaign hard in the very states that very the closest (including Florida). Here many parted ways with him (including Michael Moore) and it can fairly be said that Nader was ONE reason among many for Theft 2000.

Are Clinton backers really willing to play a similar role this year? Aren't the differences between Obama and McCain rather profound at this point (e.g., taxes, abortion, Iraq, Iran, campaign finance reform, etc.)? Are the differences between Hillary and Obama really so large that it demands this effort to undermine their own candidate? Was the process really unfair? And can we honestly consider Hillary as a champion of working class America and progressive values?

I certainly hope this growing collective comes to their senses, before we hear the mantra four more years ringing in our ears as America continues its internal and external collapse.

Spokespersons – Just Say No Deal:West Coast:Robin Carlson HillaryGrassRootsCampaign.com (206) 289-0005Thuc Nguyen GoPumaParty.comEast Coast:Will Bower PUMA (202) 365-2536Cristi Adkins Clintons4McCain.comDiane Mantouvalos HireHeels.comJune 18, 2008
MEDIA ALERT Is Obama Pulling The "Head-Scarf" Over Our Eyes?

Just Say No Deal Coalition Says, "We Won't Blindly Follow!"
- Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide -JustSayNoDeal.com, reacts to the scene on Monday night in Detroit's Joe Louis Arena when two young women wearing religious headscarfs were not permitted to sit in "special seating" behind the podium stage.While the Just Say Now Deal Coalition acknowledges that the Obama Campaign has a right to orchestrate their public events as they see fit, the Coalition questions whether Senator Obama's well-publicized and branded platform of a "new kind of politics" represents bona fide change or merely a brilliantly executed marketing campaign.The events in Detroit earlier this week represent yet another reason why the Just Say No Deal Coalition rejects the Democratic Party's arrogant mandate. Its members have all declared their decision to not "fall in line" behind the presumptive nominee.In operation just over two hundred hours, the Just Say No Deal Coalition is growing exponentially, from its core group of twenty organizations to an estimated two hundred. Concerned citizens continue to break their silence to express their dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Democratic Party and its apparent short-circuiting of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal Coalition's online portal offers those voters a chance to reclaim their voices and the power to Just Say No Deal! The Coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.

Post-Ideology?

Do we really live in a post-ideological time? Is there such a thing as a post-ideological candidate? An article in the New Republic today argues over the merits of a Bloomberg VP slot for either candidate (ulitmately deciding he would be good for neither): http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=cc97b3b7-7e4a-44cf-901c-bf1e98e83e46. The first reader comment to the article is by a Bloomberg employee Jeb who disagrees with the author and argues "He is post ideological." Has Bloomberg really transcended ideology? Has McCain? Has even Obama, who does seem to offer the best hope for moving beyond the partisan warfare of the baby boomers?

I think there is a growing belief that we can escape the ideological battles of the past, simply by accepting the new world order. Nixon said "we are all Keynesians now." The post-ideological platform seems to be around accepting the new world order of neoliberalism without dissent, and simply working to tinker with a system that puts far too much faith in markets and far too little in government intervention. Neoliberalism believes in privatization, deregulation, reduced taxation and, really, the expansion of the market ethos to every aspect of governance.

Let's start with Bloomberg. Blommberg first appeared as a Democrat, then became a Republican to make it easier to win the mayorship, then became an independent as he contemplated a run for president. But does that mean he holds no political opinions? Or that they teater vicariously between the two poles of partisan difference? Bloomberg appears to be that classic American figure, fiscally conservative (with some slippage) and culturally liberal. Is this really post-ideological, or is it the middle that has been fought over for forty years now (the very triangulation of Clinton)? Bloomberg, in many ways, appears to be the sort of dictatorial liberal that just wants to form the world to his specifications. He has taken over the City schools to little positive effect. He has faltered on the World Trade Center rebuilding. His traffic proposal flopped. And he has introduced smoke-free bars and restaurants (probably good) and policed trans fats out of our lives. He has also underseen a further decline in crime and a booming economy. But at what cost? Manhattan is now a middle class city, losing a lot of its edge and any affordible housing. It is now largely populated by finance types, with the artists pushed to the outer boroughs.

The real point is that being a technocrat and financially responsible should not place one in a post-ideological position. There is no such thing in a country where corporations wield incredible influence over government, the presidency is accumulating power like never before and the income and wealth gaps continue to grow as the richest country in the world sees growing poverty and a middle-class whose quality of life is declining. Maybe we need a post-partisan president who actually escapes the hold of the DLC and Clintonism and has the political will to take on the real challenges facing the country today, outside the new paradigm of tax cuts, small government and an unwillingness to talk about race or class. Obama could be this president, but this will not make him "post" ideological. It will simply mean stepping outside the traps of the present and recognizing that the issues of the past have not been solved, but need new solutions to move forward.

Ideology is inescapable. Whether the old ideologies of conservativism and liberalism have lost their appeal in American politics at the moment (which appears untrue given the current campaign rhetoric on right and left), does not undermine the continuing battle over ideas and who the government will serve. Democratic revival is an ideological position, and one with great appeal. The last thing we need right now is someone who trascends partisan politics simply by moving toward the middle. Instead it appears to me we need someone who can transcend the battles of the past and start a national dialogue on the real problems facing America today and ways we can work collectively to address them. At the center of this battle are the age old problems of the power of the elites and the interests of the common good.

McCainonomics

A New York Times article today asks McCain to be more forthcoming on the real cost of his tax plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/business/18leonhardt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print. Two things he wants to do that could be very damaging to the country and increase the deficit substantially are to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Each of these will cost the federal government substantial amounts of revenue and again give most of the benefit to the wealthy. In a country where the income gap continues to rise and the idea of the segmented labor market (in which two labor markets exist: one for the elites and another for everyone else) will worsen.

As the U.S. economy continues to suffer from short term trouble and long-term peril, one wonders how this sort of policy irresponsibility can go on. Isn't it time to seriously question tax policy in America? The rich are getting richer and the super rich are not holding up their end of the economy. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. Under Carter it was still 70%. Today it is 35%. How can we justify this as the deficit soars and the quality of life of the average American continues to decline? The only thing keeping federal and state budgets solvent is a dramatic increase in consumption (otherwise known as regressive) taxes. In other words, the burden of taxation has moved from the upper class to the middle and working class, by increasing things like tolls, sales tax, user taxes and other taxes on consumption. This is how Republicans like it.

Will the American people (and the media) start to really cover this issue and stop assuming they will themselves one day be rich and thus support irresponsible tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy? One hopes a reasoned debate occurs on taxes and the irresponsibility of McCain in attempting to continue the policy of tax cuts for the rich, at a time when what we really need is a more fair distribution of income and wealth to keep the country economically strong and socially viable for the long run.

Clinton and the Challenges of Feminism

A few days ago, the New York Times had an interesting article on potential sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print. I've been talking about this issue with my students and, ignoring for the moment the rather sleazy campaign that she sometimes ran, I do believe there is some truth in this claim.

It appears that Democrats are more comfortable with a Black man than a woman candidate for president. This is unfortunate. And the claims by the campaign of media bias seem fair though maybe not balanced. The difficult aspect of deconstructing the negative coverage is disentangling the general dislike for the Clintons that has built over the past almost twenty years from the issue of gender. While Clinton certainly received a lot of negative press, it is unclear if this is related more to her relationship to her husband and past as first lady or a general discomfort with a female Commander in Chief.

The bigger issue, however, remains -- which seems to me to be the conundrum of running for office as a woman. On the one hand, it would seem you would get more votes being more attractive and potentially benefit from your appeal as fitting certain feminine stereotypes (that while essentializing by their nature) voters might prefer over the bellicose, masculine, white male norm. And yet there is also the expectation that you fit into the traditional white, male macho role. Clinton seemed to bring a careful balance of the two, though clearly veering closer to the masculine requirements of the job. By taking this tact, she clearly turned off many who are uncomfortable with a woman who appears too masculine/macho. The press often derided or assailed her for her clothing, her demeanor or her tough tactics (while perfectly okay for Rove, McCain and the male white club in general). So how masculine could Clinton be without suffering from the press' derision and mainstream male discomfort (to put it nicely)? How feminine could she be without losing many voters and the press to our antiquated fear of women with power? Where does the balance lie? One wonders if it yet exists as a realistic formation in American politics, where sexism does in fact appear to still be rampant. It is an issue that I believe should (and will outside the mainstream media) be studied in great detail.

Masculinity and the Right

Susan Faludi, of backlash fame, has an interesting piece in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15faludi.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. In it she argues that Republicans will again attempt to win the vote by being more manly than their opponents. With McCain, they certainly have a legitimate manly candidate, but the interesting aspect of this campaign is that Obama seems comfortable toeing the gender line and accessing his "feminine" qualities in public (with apologies to the essentializing aspect these analyses always engender).

The problem is the press will probably play along. No big surprise that Tucker Carlson, Don Imus and Scarborough are already using the tact, or that Newsweek is preening over McCain without any of the expected critique. But will the purportedly "neutral" press play along as well. Early signs are not good. The New York Times and Washington Post have already been quite critical of McCain and his many faults, inconsistencies and obvious hypocrisy on Campaign Finance Reform, but neither paper wins elections.

I'm back from a minor hiatus and hope to now contribute daily to watching the press, the campaign and hopefully the next step in moving beyond the power of the Republican machine to control the dialogue and win elections without any substantial dialogue on America and our future.

TV Experts?

An article in the New York Times today http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/us/politics/12rove.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin, talks about the blurring line between political operatives and TV pundits. It centers on Karl Rove and his new role as an analyst for Fox News. While Democrats will certainly be reticent to accept advice like Obama spending less time on the campaign trail and more in the Senate, the larger question is whether the media in general has allowed partisan interests to move into the ostensibly "objective" world of journalism.

The larger question for this campaign, now that it appears that it is Obama v. McCain, is whether the media will provide equal scrutiny to both candidates or again offer a Republican an easier ride as they clearly did for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. While I don't want to waste time here arguing about the liberal bias of media (see Alterman, Chomsky, FAIR and Pew for evidence of this myth), it appears clear that the media generally likes McCain and that this has allowed him to skate by a number of near pratfalls to date. Going forward, will the media look into the fact that he appears to have broken his own campaign finance reform bill, has a untoward and maybe illegal relationship with an organization he started that appears to work as a non-profit surrogate for his campaigns, might have had an affair with a lobbyist associated with that organization, appears to have a hard time discerning between Shites and Sunnis, admits having limited foreign policy and economic knowledge and appears to have turned his back on his "renegade" past in securing the nomination and his base.

The biggest issue that concerns me is whether the media recognizes that at present McCain appears to be positioning himself as the "Bush Redux" candidate. After eight years of falling standards of living for the average American, shrinking of the Welfare State, regulation and environmental and consumer protection, a failed war in Iraq and the general decline of the U.S. in world opinion and power, one wonders if Americans really want four more years. Do we really want to make tax cuts permanent that will cut $2 trillion out of the federal budget while giving most of the benefits to the wealthiest Americans? Do we really want to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Does his bellicose tone toward Iran really help? Do we really want a president who would rather help investment bankers than Americans losing their homes?

My fear is that the media will follow the patterns of 2000 and 2004 and be much harder on the Democratic candidate than the Republican (see Pew and FAIR for statistical evidence of this). I fear that the fact that they like McCain and are unsure about Obama will color their coverage. I fear that racism and elitism may actually work to undermine Obama's candidacy with whatever absurd attacks the Right decides to employ. Most of all, I fear that the media will make this election into a circus and horse race, forgetting very substantive issues that separate these two candidates: corporate power, economics, the war in Iraq, the future of the supreme court, etc. The blogosphere will certainly push the media, as will organizations like Media Matters and Move On, but the ultimate question is whether the major and cable channels will uphold their position as the fourth estate of government, or again fall prey to ratings wars and infotainment.

It should be exciting to watch; which is one of the major problems!