highbrow/lowbrow

Even Sasha is Way Excited

2008-09-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

There's too much to say to sit on the sidelines.

Shorter and more streamlined... I hope.

Visit me now at:

joejusticedaily.blogspot.com

See you there.

Buckle up.

Prepare Yourselves

2008-02-08T16:59:00.000-08:00

Joe Justice will return this Spring.

Monday Quick Hits

2007-06-25T10:22:00.001-07:00

Over the weekend in San Francisco, Elizabeth Edwards revealed that she is "comfortable" with gay marriage. The San Francisco Chronicle reported this position was "markedly" different than her husband's position, which is in support of civil unions, but not marriage. Question: how does such a distinction qualify as "marked"? (Which means "strikingly noticeable".)

Answer: It doesn't. The media has no clue how to objectively report on the legal realities underlying civil unions and gay marriage, without relying on hyper-emotional rhetoric and superficial differences. There are real legal distinctions between the two positions, but to label them "markedly" different is dishonest within the context of the 2008 campaign. GOP candidates like Romney, Huckabee, or most definitely Fred Thompson, who support no legal rights for gay couples at all, are holding positions markedly different from all Democrats. There's the "marked."

Meet the Press had lovely Gwen Ifill this weekend, who had me at "Hello" and then lost me the minute she said, "I bow to David Broder and his assessment." Yikes. Broder has become the Larry King of political journalism; he had just finished chastising the panel and Tim Russert for being "much too dismissive" of public sentiment and that in the current environment an independent could "absolutely" get elected President. The majority of the American public cannot even get our current President to listen to Congress, or get our Branchless Vice President to follow the rule of law. The high level of public discomfort with the political parties does not lead to the conclusion that an independent run would be automatically viable. We were all told in 2004 that the public wouldn't elect Kerry because we were afraid to switch leaders during the War on Terror but now we're to believe we'll switch to, say, Bloomberg? I would hope Ifill would reconsider her Broder love. Soon. The guy has been so wrong for so long, he should be running the Justice Department.

Fortune Magazine has Hillary on the cover and an article that includes a mind-boggling quote from the wife of Merrill Lynch CEO John Mack, "You have these preconceived ideas about people you see in the public eye. But we were extremely impressed with her ability to connect with every single person. She was an amazing listener, with tremendous warmth."

Aren't the "preconceived ideas" most of us hold purely based upon Hillary's actual public performance for the past 14 or so years? Do the Democrats really want to nominate another "personable and warm behind closed doors" candidate? Because voters never see that hidden side, then, well, doesn't that persona become irrelevant for election purposes?

Angelina Jolie's A Mighty Heart tanked at the box office this weekend. After all her preachy political condescension and way-too-public husband-stealing and baby-buying, this seems to be a reasonable public response. I hope she takes A Mighty Break from the movies.

It's All Coming Back to Me Now

2007-06-19T11:12:00.000-07:00

I have election fatigue! Help me.

This Clinton clip, using the Sopranos finale as inspiration, is honest-to-goodness clever. I am still reluctant to look her in the eye, though.

In any event one must admit, the cultural and social awareness on the Democratic side is solid this cycle (especially in contrast with Fred Thompson's throwback trip to visit Margaret Thatcher this week... or, um, with John McCain himself).

But, Hillary... a Celine Dion song? Really?

To Greg's chagrin I love the Canadian songbird, but man, I don't get the Clinton campaign's choice here... I still think Beyonce's "Irreplaceable" should have won. "To the left, to the left..."

More on the Fred Thompson sideshow shortly. Your patience is appreciated.

Grand Old Video Party

2007-06-08T10:11:00.000-07:00

Oh please, please nominate this guy.

Or even one of these... that's fine with me.

America's Monger Ames Lower

2007-06-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

Rudy! is skipping the Iowa GOP Straw Poll this August due to the poll being a "sideshow" from his effort to win the White House. I attended this event in August 1999 and there's no doubt these types of fundraising polls are admittedly a pony show and truly unscientific (the year I went Steve Forbes bused in so many voters from out-of-state his orange shirts seemed like the official uniform of the event--and still, flat tax or no, he lost the poll). Yet one has to ask, if this event is "a fundraiser" for the Iowa GOP and "a lot of fun" and "an exciting event" according to Giuliani campaign surrogate (and failed candidate for Governor) Jim Nussle, what's the harm in making an effort?

Rudy's folks say they want to keep their money to spend on the caucus, but even the state GOP head Craig Robinson doesn't buy it, telling reporters, “Obviously, he feels like he can’t compete at the straw poll, so he’s going to skip it... His staff is pretty green, and they’re not from Iowa and not ready for it. If he’s not doing any better, they might skip the caucus.”

Thus, the Giuliani campaign's explanation of their decision not-to-show at the "fun" Straw Poll seems so artless and tired, it's hard not to be amused at the fearmonger's fear of a place that's so "life changing" and was once called A Place to Grow.

With the two national Party "front-runners" Hillary and Rudy fairing so badly in little old Iowa (Hillary announced an Iowa campaign shake-up today), it is truly looking like America may find itself in Iowa's debt on caucus night.

That might just make up for the whole John Kerry thing.

Update: McCain is out of the poll now, as well. A "fun" event just got a lot less so. Ironically, this only hurts the Iowa Republican Party. Oh well! Enjoy your Straw Poll, Mitt!

Cut and Paste: What I'm Reading

2007-06-06T10:08:00.000-07:00

Fareed Zakaria in the June 11 Newsweek:

More troubling than any of Bush's rhetoric is that of the Republicans who wish to succeed him. "They hate you!" says Rudy Giuliani in his new role as fearmonger in chief, relentlessly reminding audiences of all the nasty people out there. "They don't want you to be in this college!" he recently warned an audience at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. "Or you, or you, or you," he said, reportedly jabbing his finger at students. In the first Republican debate he warned, "We are facing an enemy that is planning all over this world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us." On the campaign trail, Giuliani plays a man exasperated by the inability of Americans to see the danger staring them in the face. "This is reality, ma'am," he told a startled woman at Oglethorpe. "You've got to clear your head."

The notion that the United States today is in grave danger of sitting back and going on the defensive is bizarre. In the last five and a half years, with bipartisan support, Washington has invaded two countries and sent troops around the world from Somalia to the Philippines to fight Islamic militants. It has ramped up defense spending by $187 billion—more than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, India and Britain. It has created a Department of Homeland Security that now spends more than $40 billion a year. It has set up secret prisons in Europe and a legal black hole in Guantánamo, to hold, interrogate and—by some definitions—torture prisoners. How would Giuliani really go on the offensive? Invade a couple of more countries?

The presidential campaign could have provided the opportunity for a national discussion of the new world we live in. So far, on the Republican side, it has turned into an exercise in chest-thumping. Whipping up hysteria requires magnifying the foe. The enemy is vast, global and relentless. Giuliani casually lumps together Iran and Al Qaeda. Mitt Romney goes further, banding together all the supposed bad guys. "This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hizbullah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood," he recently declared.

But Iran is a Shiite power and actually helped the United States topple the Qaeda-backed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Qaeda-affiliated radical Sunnis are currently slaughtering Shiites in Iraq, and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are responding by executing and displacing Iraq's Sunnis. We are repeating one of the central errors of the early cold war—putting together all our potential adversaries rather than dividing them. Mao and Stalin were both nasty. But they were nasties who disliked one another, a fact that could be exploited to the great benefit of the free world. To miss this is not strength. It's stupidity.

Joe Justice: Isn't that Bush's legacy to the GOP? "It's the stupidity, stupid."

Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr. in New York Times Magazine article, "Hillary's War":

Late in the afternoon of June 14, 2006, a group of Democratic senators and their aides headed to Room 224, a small sitting room in the Capitol belonging to the Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid. The room had held a series of private conferences over the previous days at which a small group of Democrats discussed Iraq policy. The secluded location meant that the senators could plot the party’s strategy and discuss their differences away from their Republican colleagues and the press.

That day, the usual attendees were surprised to discover a newcomer in attendance: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was one of the first to arrive and took a place on a love seat, one of the two couches in the room. Sitting next to her was Carl Levin. As the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Levin was the de facto leader of the session, since the meeting involved amendments to the pending defense authorization bill. Clinton draped one arm around the back of the couch and chewed gum, a participant recalled.

Reid began by recalling Senator John Kerry’s recent proposal to withdraw American troops by the end of the year. After making some dismissive remarks about Kerry’s amendment, Clinton largely remained quiet over the course of the next 20 to 30 minutes. Senator Reid, the meeting’s host, then turned to Clinton and asked to hear her thoughts. There was a long pause.

“It was odd to give her the stage on this,” said another participant in the meeting, noting that Clinton had not attended any of the previous strategy sessions. However, the participant added, Clinton was the “big enchilada,” so “all eyes turned to her to hear what she thinks.”

Clinton spoke for five or six minutes.

“I don’t support a fixed date for getting out, and I don’t support an open-ended commitment,” Clinton told her colleagues. Then she picked up on ideas put forth in an alternative amendment then being proposed by Senators Levin and Jack Reed. Their amendment, which had no force of law, called for the president to “begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq” before the end of the year.

Clinton caustically reminded her colleagues why she was supporting a less confrontational posture toward the White House than the Kerry measure.

“In case you haven’t noticed,” she said, “we don’t control anything.” Clinton went on to lecture her colleagues about the political acumen of administration officials. “Karl Rove and George Bush are no fools,” she warned.

Joe Justice: Are Democratic primary voters?

Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker, "Party Unfaithful":

When I asked Rove if the persistence of bad news, along with criticism from conservatives, has made the White House a moody place, he let loose an apparently authentic laugh. “This is a great place to work,” he said. “It’s inspiring to work here. It’s neat, particularly when you’ve got a boss whose attitude is ‘What can we do today to advance our goals? What are the big things we could be doing?’ ” Such statements fail to acknowledge that the President has been spending much of his time fighting congressional attempts to limit his mobility in Iraq and to force the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. For Rove, the future is still Republican. “I don’t think by any means it’s a sure thing, but I do think there are these big societal changes driving us, and I think that the conservative movement and the Party through which it operates are going to benefit,” he said. “That’s not to say that it’s going to be an ever-upward line. And it also doesn’t mean that smart Democrats can’t do something about it.”

Rove thinks that more voters now are being influenced by technology and religion. “There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” he said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.” He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.” As for spirituality, Rove said, “As baby boomers age and as they’re succeeded by the post-baby-boom generation, within both of those generations there’s something going on spiritually—people saying it’s not all about materialism, it’s not all about the pursuit of material things. If you look at the traditional mainstream denominations, they’re flat, but what’s growing inside those denominations, and what’s growing outside those denominations, is churches that are filling this spiritual need, that are replacing sterility with something vibrant, something that speaks to the heart of the individual, that gives a sense of purpose.” Rove believes what he has always believed: that the Christian right and, to a lesser extent, tax- and regulation-averse businessmen will continue to assure Republican victories.

Early G.O.P. Presidential polls, though, don’t seem to confirm this analysis. Rudolph Giuliani stands more firmly than any of his rivals for abortion rights and civil unions for gays, and at this point appears to be in the lead. Bush, polls suggest, has also lost the support of some self-described conservatives. (Thirty-three per cent of voters in 2004 identified themselves that way.) But Rove cautioned against reading too much into polls, or the results of the 2006 midterm elections. “It’s important to keep in perspective how close the election actually was,” he said. “Three thousand five hundred and sixty-two votes and we would have had a Republican Senate. That’s the gap in the Montana Senate race. And eighty-five thousand votes are the difference in the fifteen closest House races. There’s no doubt we’ve taken a short-term hit in the face of a very contentious war, but to have the Republicans suffer an average defeat for the midterm says something about the underlying strength of conservative attitudes in the country.” Rove’s arithmetic was correct, but he sounded like John Kerry, who, shortly after his defeat in the 2004 election, told me, “I received the second-highest number of votes in American history.”

Joe Justice: Enter, the vibrant, substance-free Fred Thompson.

Food for Thought

2007-06-06T09:37:00.000-07:00

This morning on NPR, there was a report about a local California legislator going on food stamps. He was semi-complaining about only being able to eat soup and cereal. I have heard about several state and local legislators doing this as of late, and I find this completely ridiculous (Q: does this make a Republican?).

The legislators purportedly do this to prove to the general public how hard it is to feed yourself and a family using food stamps... but unlike John Edwards paying for his own super-expensive haircut while championing poverty policy (which we all know I don't consider dissonant), these food stamp folks seem awfully cynical. They try it for a week, complain, and then go back to their fancy restaurants with $30 entrees.

Wouldn't the best way to assist those in need of assistance be found through enacting actual legislation; minimum wage, job creation, etc.?

I expect in a few months we will have Congresspeople injecting themselves with illnesses to prove how bad the health care system is, or Assemblymen sending their children to inner-city schools for a week to demonstrate how bad the educational system has become... all that these stunts prove is that U.S. politicians like to waste time with symbolism, rather than action.

Ron to You

2007-06-05T15:54:00.000-07:00

The CNN crew talking-up the debate and not-there Fred Thompson seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not just a conservative, but was an individual who tirelessly dedicated himself to a rigid set of "conservative" beliefs for many years--his entire governing philosophy was built upon a foundation of work, both for the advancement of his ideas and for his Party; public speeches and writings and actual executive decision-making as Governor of California fueled his drive for the White House. They (and many in the media) seem to think because Fred Thompson is an conservative actor, that he fits the Reagan bill. Forget that Fred's accidental candidacy is being fueled by GOP desperation (I'm talking to you Mary Matalin!) over a disgustingly cruddy field of candidates.

The Thompson reporting is so blatantly trite and, yes, stupid, that it should be immediately discounted, but it's being sold on channels all over America.

Welcome to 2008.

Talk to Her

2007-06-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

In light of her recent debate performance (which Jon Stewart sharply lampooned as sending a message of "Everybody for President! Yay!") the National Journal has written that Hillary Clinton is "doing Kerry better than Kerry" as of late, and wonders aloud whether she could have beaten Bush in 2004. This is an interesting question, and I would suspect she almost definitely would have... but the issue now is whether 2008 offers such a changed landscape that a woman who claims to want to be anything but a conventional politician--but behaves exactly like one--can win the Democratic nomination.

Did you watch the debate? I watched what might be termed the Standing Hour but skipped the Sitting Hour (anytime any group sits down to debate, I lose interest since sitting down to debate makes people zombies, i.e. Edwards vs. Cheney in 2004). Overall, I was pretty impressed with the minor-step toward actual debating that occurred (and this ignores all "raise your hand" questions...).

The word "debate," according Merriam-Webster, is defined as, "a contention by words or arguments" which of course leads us to "contention," which is defined as "an act or instance of contending ," which exhaustingly leads us to "contending" which is defined as "to strive or vie in contest or rivalry."

Ideally, the contention-slash-contending would exist between the actual rivals themselves and not, say, grown men named after animals (or anchors from networks named after animals).

Obama got a good shot at Edwards, Edwards got some shots at Obama and Hillary, and Biden got some good shouting shots off into the air (some pundit said voters don't like politicians who shout, and I guess you have to agree with that one). Otherwise, the remaining candidates were dull and the topics were uneven and nothing new--the focus on all-things-Gay seemed odd and unnecessary (honestly... please leave us alone for an election cycle) and the ignoring of issues like education or spending seemed a glaring oversight.

It would be a great thing if the future debates kept moving towards letting the candidates interact more--being a President (under the Constitution, which W. obviously isn't) doesn't seem to be a unilateral undertaking, thus, shouldn't candidates for President in 2008 be required and prepared to confront opposing views and defend their own in the stress of real-time? Replace all those Gore sighs from 2000 with Gore directly questioning Bush and maybe the electoral college could have caught up to the popular vote.

Lockbox.

Obama seemed stronger than before, everyone appears to agree on this, but I still feel like he's more into the sound of his words than the force of his argument. There is a smooth sound but no biting finish.

Edwards needs to ignore Obama and go after Hillary. Obama's supporters, who I respect and understand, won't switch to John. But many of Hillary's would, I suspect, and it's time for Edwards to confront Hillary on her machinations. As a figure, Hillary may not be on trial, but her maneuvering is, and Edwards needs to make his case and contrast Hillary's wildly enthusiastic efforts to appear strong with her inability to just stand up and, well, be strong (maybe he can get some talking points by reading "Hillary's War" in the recent New York Times Magazine).

When it comes to Hillary, her face was fresh, her voice was harsh and her sentences were short. But I am thoroughly unconvinced, both as a primary and general election voter, as to why she should be elected President. Telling us we are more safe now than before 9/11, in light of, say, a little place called Iraq, seems lunatic-based. Trying to tell us that she lost the 1994 health care battle due to a lack of "political will" seems odd--if Hillary couldn't lead then, why now? Hasn't our national discourse on policy only coarsened since that time? My only thought watching her (besides wincing at that voice) was that perhaps Mrs. Clinton should quit trying so hard to win over aspects of the Right and work harder to win over the ideologically right.

Republicans are up next, tonight.

High Noonan

2007-06-01T11:57:00.000-07:00

Peggy Noonan writes this painfully ironic and deluded line today in the Wall Street Journal about the Bush Administration's treatment of conservatives who oppose the President's immigration plan: "Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?"

Welcome to the world, baby girl!

Hat tip to Ginny.

A Bird in the Hand is Worth Poo on the Bush

2007-06-01T10:34:00.000-07:00

How much can a poor nation take?

Apparently, a lot.

Out of all of the amazingly awful government activities that have occurred since my last post (Ms. Goodling? Frodo? Democratic Iraq War Funding Back Down?) the most definite worst is the quiet announcement, via a smiling Tony Snow, that President Bush considers South Korea as a model for future American troop presence in Iraq.

If you needed further evidence that the President doesn't get "it" when it comes to battling international terrorism this revelation is your murder weapon. Like wild-eyed Phil Spector walking up to his Driver saying, "I think I just killed someone," President Bush seems comfortable facing the nation saying, "I think I just created more terrorists."

Remember my post about Ron Paul and how he dared to speak the plain truth--that American actions in the Middle East help to irritate latent terrorist sensitivities? Well, this South Korea talk is sort of like turning up the radio after a neighbor complains.

I'm not suggesting that fundamentalist terrorists should ultimately dictate our actions, or that their sick desire for American deaths equals a complaint, but what I would like to suggest is that our President's inability to admit that our behaviors in the Middle East region directly influence terrorist intensity--and motivation--deeply harms our national defense. Bring it on, indeed.

If the purpose of our going into Iraq was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people--what Frank Rich calls our "last-ditch rationalization"--then how can a long-term American military presence in Iraq foster anything but paternalism and lazy liberty?

The American military must leave Iraq and see what happens. Hasn't "Let's see what happens" been our military mantra for 4 years? To surge the numbers of our young men and women into Iraq under a "fight them there, not here" slogan is to allow Americans to die simply to prevent a different version of the chaos that is now in Iraq. That isn't national defense, it's nationally offensive. President Bush should put down his Teddy Roosevelt books and read some more recent history (and not Reagan bunk). Like Richard Nixon and his pathetic refusal to admit Vietnamization was a failure, the height of tragic superpower ignorance has been watching Bush deny that a civil war is the main source of violence meeting our troops each day. If the American "global war on terrorism" policy is as firm and tough as the Bush Administration claims, the terrorists would not follow us here because they would not be able to: we are supposedly on the offense around the globe.

But Bush doesn't care much about "the globe" and he never has--his war on terror is based in Iraq because Bush applies outdated foreign policy to the 9/11 world--fight within a messy nation, not a messy network of terror cells. He explicitly lives in the New World Order of his father's time, and not the one he has helped create. When it comes to foreign policy, W. is all pomp and no circumstances, and his isolationist approach to world diplomacy for the past 7 years has seriously eroded our nation's moral and practical powers. The assault has been on not only reason, but history.

Oh... but what of the Iraqi people? We liberated them into a civil war? Do we owe them anything?

Not according to our President, who has slowly begun to blame Iraq for being unable to heal a wound the U.S. quickly inflicted. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how you would feel if America took over your country in order to fight terrorism somewhere expendable. We're fighting them "there," without regard to how the choice of the "there" creates more hatred of our existence. If you build those South-Korea-lite bases, Mr. President, you will have truly helped manufacture a permanent terrorist factory. What a shitty legacy.

Also: Check out Fred Kaplan at Slate for his more serious take on how ridiculous the Korea-Iraq analogy is in historical terms.

So Sue Me?

2007-05-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

Many apologies for the extended break from posting... regular posts should return shortly.

In other news, Joe Justice now has one more thing in common with Star Jones--I'm a lawyer.

I won't start charging for my posts though (JoeJusticeSelect?). Promise.

In the meantime read this Vanity Fair article about Crazy Rudy Giuliani and shake your head.

St. Paul the Apostate

2007-05-16T10:55:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul doesn't dare to play by the Culture of Countermand rules, and man it irritates Bush-mold Republicans.

Here are two of the aggressive questions Paul was asked in the last GOP debate, brought to you by two different anchors of the ever-balanced Fox News:

(1) Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq... Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?

(2) Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

Where to begin?

Most of the GOP debate analysis has revolved around the deeply misguided display of 9/11 rage from "America's Masquerader" Rudy Giuliani in response to Paul's answer to question (2) above. Paul essentially said American interventionist policies in the Middle East, going back tens of years (and probably more) helped to create deep resentment in that region against the U.S., a grudge of pure hatred, that undeniably led to 9/11. Rudy basically replied, "How dare you! 9/11 was not our fault! I was there! Take that back!" Ron Paul bravely and correctly wouldn't take it back (and he subsequently pointed to portions of the 9/11 Commission Report that completely supported his debate statements). Now some GOP folks want Paul out of the debates entirely.

The Republicans, as Paul Krugman writes so succinctly in his column for Friday, are all living in the "Bush bubble," and the party's negative reaction to Ron Paul's factual realism (and even the media's general negative reaction to Paul) reflects this horrible isolationism from reality (have you noticed that in the mainstream media Democratic nutcase Mike Gravel is just a sweet old guy bringing hard truths to his party, but Ron Paul is deemed out-of-hand crazy and not a real Republican?).

Listening to Paul in the GOP debate, and watching his treatment at the hands of Fox and the GOP (a team which Jon Stewart correctly called "redundant") it's easy to be convinced that it's definitely mourning in America. A recent Vanity Fair article claimed that the United States is quickly headed the way of Rome, thanks to our broad, thoughtless privatization that mirrors rigid quid pro quo governing of the ancient times, but it also seems that the unverified factual spin of Rome has bled into our modern discourse as well. Why have media at all if it allows the fight over Paul's mention of "blowback" and Rudy's subsequent attack to overcome any talk of the truth in Paul's words? It's not about blame, it is about accepting the consequences of history, and fighting enemies with hard truths on your side.

Paul Krugman writes today:

What we need to realize is that the infamous "Bush bubble," the administration's no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there's a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job -- and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias. And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar.

This is why I haven't written much on the blog this week--between NPR's sickening Iraq reporting during my morning commute every day, the Robert Dallek "Nixon and Kissinger" book I read at night, and the general state of how the 2008 campaign is being reported--all image and cash, my friends--it's hard to imagine hope is on the way.

We've been here before. How did we get here again?

Snappy Warriors

2007-05-14T09:59:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, the Meet the Press page at the re-designed MSNBC website now allows for a free stream of the most recent Sunday program, and also allows you to view past programs or transcripts featuring the 2008 presidential candidates. It's nice to know that if I'm away from TIVO, I can still catch Tim Russert & Company in a few lies on the fly.

This week's guest was Senator John McCain, who poured on the instant grump with irritable vigor, even before the questioning began.

Russert: Our issues this Sunday: Our Meet the Candidates 2008 series continues, an exclusive interview with Republican John McCain. He represented Arizona in the U.S. House for four years, for the past twenty years in the U.S. Senate where he now serves as the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. He ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president in 2000. This morning John McCain joins us for the full hour on Meet the Press. Senator McCain, welcome back to Meet the Press.

McCain: You didn't have to say unsuccessful; everybody knows that.

That's right—Russert should definitely know that with the Bush Republican Party every failure is a Mission Accomplished, and every setback a sign of progress. McCain's curt comment was followed by a wan semi-grin, but phony smirks can't hide the shear exhausted nature of McCain's campaign this time around. His eerie smile was nearly identical to the one the Senator deployed after this statement about Osama Bin Laden in the recent Simi Valley debate, " We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell."

…Cheese!

While McCain's testy demeanor is what instantly sets him apart from all the other candidates running, his confusion between conviction and demagoguery is what really makes him stand out. The Senator enjoys implying that his one-track support for the Iraq War makes him courageous, not an oppressor. The exchange that follows is long, but it explicitly reveals what has happened to political leadership under the arrogant reign of Bush-Cheney & Co., an arrogance that McCain has now adopted in order to lead a nation he no longer understands (highlights mine):

Russert: But, senator, the Iraqi parliament, a majority of the Iraqi parliament, has signed a petition asking for a date certain for withdrawal of American troops. If the Iraqi parliament wants it, a majority in the Congress want it...

Senator McCain: Mm-hmm.

Russert: ...then why do you stand there and say, "No, you can't have it"?

Senator McCain: Because it's my job to give my best estimate to the American people, no matter what the political calculations may be, as to what's the best in our nation's national security interest. Young men and women are risking their lives as we speak in, in, in Iraq. And I know that they will be in greater harm's way if we withdraw from Iraq, as we keep debating over and over and over again. And I know what's best, in my mind, in my experience, in my knowledge, in my inspiration, as to what's best for this country. So political calculations such as polls, I understand that if the American people don't continue to support this effort that we will be forced to withdraw. But it's also my obligation to tell the American people and my constituents in Arizona that I represent, what the consequences of failure will be; and I believe they will be catastrophic.

Russert: But the duly elected people's bodies, the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi parliament, say they want a troop withdrawal. That's more than a poll. Isn't that the voice of the people?

Senator McCain: Well, the--as far as the Iraqi parliament is concerned, the Iraqi government obviously doesn't feel that way, their--the representatives in their government. Second of all, there is some, a certain amount of domestic political calculations involved there in what the Iraqi, quote, "parliament" said. The Iraqi parliament has their ability to, to voice their views, and I respect them. And I, as I say, I--I'll repeat again, I understand how democracies work. I saw it in Vietnam. I saw it in Vietnam. And I saw it in Vietnam, the predictions, that everything would be a worker's paradise in, in Vietnam if we left. And thousands were executed and millions went to re-education camps. So I, I believe that, that the consequences of failure, and particularly sitting on the large reserves of oil they have, particularly considering the influence of al-Qaeda is concerned, you will see enormous destabilization in the region, and that's my duty. That's my obligation. It's not my privilege. And political calculations should not enter into any information or position that I take on, on a, on an issue of national security.

Since 2000, Americans have increasingly been told, on issues big and small, that elected officials (or appointed cronies) know best, and no matter what subsequent elections or polls portend, these individuals are not required to utilize the people's desires when making policy or spending decisions. Terrorism is the worst enabler for a governing group that thinks it knows best, because this governing group controls a majority of the facts that the people need to make rational decisions, thus the governors can exercise random impositions of generalities or fear in order to achieve their we-know-best ends. What McCain misses in his democratic calculation above is that while it may be his obligation to advise the people as to what is best, in his mind, when the people take this advice and continue to voice an opposing conclusion, that conclusion should almost definitely be heeded. The obligation is to advise, not to command. Once that advice is processed by the entire population and responded to, then a democratic leader must adopt that response and temper his or her decision-making with that reality.

The Iraq War has given the GOP another empirical opportunity to demonstrate their 21st Century philosophy, what could be termed a Culture of Countermand. From conception to death, the Republican Party primarily concerns itself with over-ruling the decisions, both personal and communal, of others, all under the guise of "we know what's best" or worse, of those illusory "values." Unfortunately, that is not government in the sense of administration, which I suspect the Constitution envisions, but government-by-domination. Government-by-domination leads to significant mismanagement, because pronouncements do not produce results. Americans can be told repeatedly that progress is being made in Iraq, that our homeland is protected, that No Child Left Behind works, that the economy is booming, or that our values are under attack from the Left--but these declarations are as useless as they are dangerous when it comes to government. A government of the people should not constantly inform the people that all is well, but rather constantly ask the people if everything is functioning as it should.

Apparently Senator McCain wants to take the Bush-Cheney philosophy one step further, adding indignance to the imposition. Bothered with having to explain himself he believes that if he smiles at the end of his annoyed declarations, then what preceded the smile will thus be beyond reproach.

He's wrong, and has attached himself to a failed approach to modern governing that is suffocating our democracy.

Everybody knows that.

American Legion

2007-05-11T11:43:00.000-07:00

A new job, a slow news week and a general ebb in my political frustration level has left me with so little to say on here, it's appalling (to me).

But I found one tiny thing! Courtesy of Time magazine, please note the photo to the left--it appears Mitt Romney will win the Iowa Caucuses based purely on the ground-force his own family can provide. (Superficial note to Romney campaign: is allowing a picture like this to circulate the best way to alleviate voter's concerns about Mormanism?).

Seriously, though, their family Christmas must be awful for Mitt's wallet, no? But great for the national economy? Strikes me funny, is all.

More to come...

Life Gets In the Way

2007-05-09T18:32:00.000-07:00

To my few, dearly devoted... a fresh, long-ish post should appear sometime Thursday morning, PST.

Update: Friday... with apologies.

Until then, enjoy our President with the Queen.

Tea and cracker, indeed.

81 degrees by 9AM

2007-05-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

It's getting hot out here... must be the residual heat left over from that blazing Republican debate in Simi Valley.

Or maybe it's just climate change.

This mini-heat wave is nothing compared to the hot seat John Edwards was placed in yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Senator Edwards was asked about everything from Iraq to No Child Left Behind to off-shore tax havens. I briefly noticed some of the folks over at Daily Kos thought one of two things: 1) George Stephanopolous is a hack who attacked Edwards' relentlessly, and 2) the questions were fair and Edwards did a good job. I'd vote for camp 2.

The show got me thinking about presidential candidates who have personal histories filled with genuine professional risk, and the perils of having a president who never encountered a sustained period of life where complicated professional judgments needed to be made, judgments that implicated his or her bottom line and thus personal or familial security. Pundits from Politico.com and other Right-based outlets like to harp about Edwards' wealth, especially the fact that it was made from his being a trial lawyer. They lament how his wealth either makes him unable to relate to lower or middle class voters, or even worse how his wealth in and of itself somehow taints his character. I am always frustrated that neither Edwards nor his supporters make a forceful counter-argument using the facts available to them.

From my experience as an assistant in a small plaintiff's firm in Washington, D.C., I have seen that being a trial lawyer is a risky and extremely stressful career. Such an attorney makes daily decisions to dedicate hours and hours of work to a cause or case knowing the financial reward is not guaranteed and, if any, is always delayed. To be successful at this, listening to clients and determining who is a valuable risk, demands a sustained patience and assuredness. To be successful at this and to be on the side of a low-income, aggrieved plaintiff battling a large, cash-rich corporation involves insane optimism and self-confidence. That Senator Edwards has never, to my mind, made the case for what his career taught him, and what his success required of him, is a sad oversight.

In a similar vein, I would love to hear more from Barack Obama about his community organizing days and how it fuels his current ambition (not just in the pages of his books), or from Hillary Clinton about her years as an attorney. Presidential candidates point to their public offices as proof of their worthiness and experience, and I am never sure that the existence of these electoral victories reveal much about their leadership or motivation to enact certain policies. In "real" life, when a candidate is interviewed for a job, he or she is asked repeatedly to illuminate past positions and decisions even more than why they want the current job. It would be remarkable if the United States could move past questions like "Raise your hand if you've ever owned a gun" when choosing a president, and worry a little more about whether the candidates have ever owned their own circumstance.

The Audacity of Water Polo

2007-05-04T11:32:00.000-07:00

Sitting behind an SUV at a red light today, I noticed the US Water Polo sticker and for a moment was confused...

Grand Old Pity

2007-05-04T09:26:00.000-07:00

Republican "revolution" poobah Newt Gingrich was on Fox News last evening quietly weeping over the way America picks a President. "I think that it is so absurd to have this much attention paid to an office that doesn't get filled until January of 2009, that I really think this is exactly the wrong model for this country," Newt complained. (Wait-- is he talking about America's Next Top Model? I was so pleased Britney got booted this week, what a whiner!). Newt also said this, "If anything would convince me to lean away from running, it was watching all of those guys with too little time, with too many Mickey Mouse questions from the reporters. It's exactly the wrong way to pick a president, and I think it doesn't help the country much."

Sort of like the 1994 GOP Revolution helped America?

The sad, listless state of the Republican Party is evidenced by the fact that men like Gingrich or Fred Thompson actually believe they can step in and save the day. Where Gingrich is all ambition, Thompson has none. While Gingrich desperately wants to be perceived as the policy wonk, Thompson is undeniably comfortable being viewed as a superficial hunk. If these two are the potential Party saviors, the elephant in the room is more than just an elephant.

Watching the GOP debate last evening, with the Reagan-hugging, Iran sword-rattling, the 3 who disbelieve evolution and Tommy Thompson's endorsement of firing someone solely for being gay, it was hard not to love Ron Paul:

MODERATOR: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?

PAUL: That's a very good question. And you might ask the question, why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there, and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year? So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came into stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop them in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world.That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American -- it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.

Take that, Senator McCain.

Newt Gingrich is half right--this is no way to pick a President. But not because we're having debates this far out from a vote. The real reason is that the Republican Party refuses to stand for anything but low taxes and War now-a-days. The media love to label the Democrats as issue-less, but that 2008 debate last week was filled with talk of health care, education, energy independence and removing the troops from Iraq. The GOP meandered around Ronald Reagan, abortion, morality, immigration, Iraq and Iran. One part optimism, the rest parts painfully aggressive absolutes. These candidates seem to forget there's an America inbetween the bedroom and the border that needs help.

Way back when, as Ron Paul reminded us, conservatives actually demanded a smaller government that stepped back from bedrooms, boardrooms and doctor's offices and let America function based on principles of privacy and true freedom. There was a lot to disagree with back then, don't get me wrong, but the old GOP wasn't spinning around a centrifuge of danger and fear. Last evening it was obvious the current crop of candidates share the core value of pandering to the Right, above all else (and no matter how silly-sounding--take it away, Mitt!). A party where Rudy Giuliani leads the pack (his abortion answer was intellectually insane and his 9/11 drum-beating louder than ever) is in trouble.

A refreshing moment came when Sam Brownback was asked if he would support a Party nominee who was pro-choice and the Senator said "Yes." This might have been a kiss-up to Rudy--funny how all these tough white guys are so afraid of Giuliani and Schwarzenegger--but the mere fact that one of the actors on stage revealed a side of modern-day realism made for a precious moment. The fact that Brownback is allegedly the most Christian Conservative of the bunch made it even more telling.

Perhaps Brownback can teach the rest how to proceed: nation-building starts at home.

Spelling is for Defeatocrats

2007-05-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Apples and Orange Alerts

2007-05-01T22:35:00.000-07:00

How about some revisionist history for your Wednesday break... check out this exchange from Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Bill Maher on the GOP: The only thing the Republicans can run on now is the opposite--fear. It's the only card they have in their deck, it's a false card, but that's the only card they can play. They can't run on their record... they can't run on them being fiscally responsible people... they can't even really run on fighting terrorism anymore because the public doesn't think they're good at that now either. But they can run on the idea that there's a wolf at the door, and that we're the only people who know how to kill it, even though that's wrong.

Chris Matthews: The sad thing is, Bill, is you've got a lot of truth to that, but that's what Gore ran on against Bush--fear. Fear of what he would do to the economy, fear of everything that would go wrong, the lockbox and all that... and it didn't work. Didn't sell, did it?

Maher: Well... fear of the economy is one thing, fear of your life is a little something different.

My Second Veto

2007-05-01T11:20:00.000-07:00

by George W. Bush

America, today I, the Decider, decided, and this decider said "No."

I simply cannot spread democracy throughout the world if I am constrained by democratic principles. The best way to spread the democracies is with the singular vision of an autocracy. There's no strategery here, just plain good thinkin'.

Some people say that we should retreat and sell off our children and our lands to the Canadians and possibly to Brazil. I strongly disagree. This veto will prevent the troops from having the funds they need to fight terra and thus terra-ism. The best offense is a good defense, and I always defend America.

The other day Laura said to me that I am like Russell Crowe in the "Gladiator" movie, standing up to the Democrat Congress and their horrible demands that I enter the coliseum of honest debate. Well, I ask you: are you entertained, America? Speaker Pelosi may force my veto, but she can never take our freedom.

This is my second veto, ever. My first was for the tiny stem cell babies, who deserve freedom in the same way innocent Iraqi stem cell babies do. But this veto means so much more than babies, it's about adults.

Adults that love freedom.

Four years ago I announced that America had accomplished the mission in Iraq. Thousands of dead Americans later, I think you can all see my conclusion was not only correct, but was true. The Iraqi government has made progress towards forming democratic institutions that Prime Minister al-Malaki can then ignore, just like I do here in this great nation.

One thing my opponents in the Congress say is that I am going against the will of America. But in the 2006 elections, the Americans resoundingly spoke and they said that it was time for America to win. And win we will. Victory is in the eye of the holder, and hold that victory we will. Our eyes are opened, and holding.

With my pen I veto this spending bill, full of pork and conditions and artificial timelines. Dates won't solve Iraq. We cannot tell the enemy we are leaving because they will only follow the troops home. And as you saw with Katrina, we are not ready to defend the homeland here. We defend it there so we can be offensive here, forever.

God Bless you America, and God Bless the troops I have now refused to fund.

Truly,

The President

May Day Cracker Watch

2007-05-01T09:35:00.000-07:00

April Showers bring May flowers...

White lilies, that is!

As viewed on the FoxNews.com homepage at 945am PST, Tuesday, May 1:

White Guys: 16

White Ladies: 6

African-American Lady: 1 (next to a link "Politics of Race")

Courtney Love: 1

Tiny Tim Tiptoes Through the Truth

2007-04-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

On Bill Moyers' PBS special report "Buying the War" last week, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert was among many "journalists" placed under Moyers' microscope of skepticism when it came to their reporting just after September 11, 2001, and leading up to the Iraq war. Russert displayed a casually devastating deludedness concerning his role as enabler in the matter, especially in light of Moyers' tight revealing of Russert's failure to truly research dubious claims by Bush administration officials on his show, "Meet the Press." Even when it came to objective issues regarding weapons of mass destruction, or the non-existent Al Qaeda/Saddam connection, Russert was all too ready to accept the answers of his guests, especially Vice President Cheney, as cold fact.

BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that [a New York Times story reporting Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction] appeared?

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The New York Times is a better judge of that than I am.

BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

BILL MOYERS: The-- the Cheney-- office didn't make any-- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't-- I don't have the-- this is, you know, on Meet the Press, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in the New York Times.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the New York Times. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the New York Times. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

As "Buying the War" proves, any reporter had access to them. Throughout the piece, Moyers' questions are concise and enable substantive answers from the interviewee. His follow-up questions actually take into account the response from the subject being interviewed, something Tim Russert has a horribly difficult time doing. This has always been one of my greatest problems with Meet the Press--Russert's MO is to play quote or word "gotcha," otherwise he simply plays stenographer, allowing the guests to bloviate punctuated with "whys."

Later in the Moyers' special, Russert tossed out a populist line in an attempt to align himself as an ordinary guy with no motive but the truth when it comes to the political discussions that occur on Meet the Press. Russert said, "I-- look, I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo. I know who my sources are. I work 'em very hard."

That is, if he has access to them.

Unlike John Edwards, who explicitly acknowledges his life situation has drastically changed since his days as a mill-worker's son, Russert does not use his roots to illuminate his ability to sustain a unique perspective on the impact of public policy. Rather, Russert seeks to exploit his distant roots in order to deflect attention from his current reality: old Timmy is a big elite tree now, and his blue-collar days are over. What concerns viewing Americans now is not how Tim can use his beginnings to relate to the masses, but whether Tim can use his present status (and alleged intellect) to force the truth from so-called political leaders, in service to the masses that employ the leaders. Clearly Russert cannot.

It seems that Tim Russert does work his sources hard, but only for facts that will help him create questions that focus purely on semantics, the greatest foundation for political theatre. Such superficial "gotcha" work was on full display this Sunday when an impressive and surprisingly clear Senator Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press. The following exchange blew me away, in that it supports the notion that Russert carries a singular focus into each show, and sadly it is not the truth. It is Tim's outline for the show (i.e., his gotcha-agenda) built around the guest's past appearances on Meet the Press, or past quotes made elsewhere. In no way is his focus to aggressively finesse the actual positions of his guests.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Senator Feingold, the senator from Wisconsin, have joined together and introduced a bill, and here’s the operative language: “No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq after March” 31st, “2008.” Do you support that?

SEN. BIDEN: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

SEN. BIDEN: For the reasons I just stated. I think it’s—may—we may end—look, Tim, here’s where we may end up. This president may so—make it so difficult to reach the objective, the only reasonable one I think’s available, which is to leave Iraq, leaving behind a country secure within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors, that is a loosely federated republic. It may get so bad that we do not have that option, and all of the option we have available to us is to withdraw and try to contain the civil war inside Iraq. We are not there yet. And until we reach that point, I am not prepared to say there are no circumstances under which, after a date certain, we would not have a single troop inside of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not vote to cut off funding for the war, period.

SEN. BIDEN: No, that’s not what I said. I just got finished telling you what I said, which was if, in fact, this president changes the circumstances again, where there lose all prospect of being able to achieve the goal that I’ve just set out, which I think could be achieved if we decentralize power in Iraq, if we have a limited federal government in Iraq, where we train the army, where they have control of the borders and their currency, where we give control over the fabric of the daily lives of the various warring factions—including their local police forces—their laws relating to marriage, divorce, the things they’re killing each other over, if we get to the point where that is no longer an option and the place has totally disintegrated—which it may—that’s a different circumstance. You can’t—I don’t know anyone who can say—I speak for myself. I cannot say for—with absolute certainty what I will do on every potential contingency because I have no control over this president’s foreign policy and the direction he’s taking us in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: But as of today, you would not vote to cut off...

It is not difficult to see what kind of brush Russert is painting with when it comes to the troop-hating Democrats.

The larger point is that members of the elite media do not report or reveal anymore, they only relay. Keeping their reputations and power-connections intact have become more vital than shedding light on the political successes and failures of those who are elected to produce results. What the Moyers' report exhibits is a Washington press corps willing to accept whatever they are told from the Bush Administration as gospel, and to doubt anyone else as shrouded with ulterior motives.

Nothing is set to change when it comes to the 2008 presidential contest, where the horserace and image race are all in vogue, but discussing policy is not. With all of the threads of our society weighed thin with the strain of Bush's war and cronies and failures, we're in serious trouble if the some portion of the press cannot step up and behave like adults.

But don't look to me-- I'm just a blue-collar guy from Buffalo.

The entire Bill Moyers' PBS Special, "Buying the War," can be viewed here.

Oafs of Office

2007-04-27T08:46:00.000-07:00

NBC News anchor Brian Williams did everything in his power to make the Democratic 8 look like children last evening in South Carolina, throwing out blunt gotcha-type questions (haircuts, hedge funds and hypothetical terror attacks) and minimalist policy ones (raise your hand if you've ever owned a gun). After some of the candidates resisted and attempted substantive answers to airhead questions, Williams lamented, "You can't get a one-sentence answer out of this group."

Well of course you can't-- they're running for President of the United States, not Student Council at Rydell High. When one of the candidates commented, "this isn't American Idol," I couldn't help but thinking, "Oh, but it is." And Mike Gravel is Sanjaya.

Last night's debate made little news as each candidate filled their stereotypical shoes with ease. My rankings of the candidates:

Hillary: This is hard for me to admit, in light of my past rants, but the Senator from New York was tough and practiced. So much so that I was able to get past her shrill voice (for the first time ever). While her answer to healthcare was lame (she wants a "second try") her answers on terrorism and the Virginia Tech shootings were Bubba-lite (in a good way). I sure as heck don't want to debate her.
Edwards: He handled the haircut question well (waved it away), provided substantive answers for energy policy and healthcare questions, and no matter what the pundits might say refused to bait Hillary on the say-sorry-for-your-Iraq-vote question. It seems to me that Edwards is a tiny bit tired of talking about how sorry he is about that Iraq War vote, with good reason. When asked about his wealth, he relayed a story from his childhood when his father couldn't afford the prices on the menu at a restaurant in South Carolina and the family had to leave, and the personal moment had General Election written all over it. If "some say" he lacked energy, that's fair, but we're a long way out.
Obama: Barry looked like John Edwards in 2000-- exciting, youthful and super nervous. As I watched, I couldn't help but wish that Obama had run against a more challenging opponent besides Alan Keyes in his Illinois senate race, because his general approach seemed unsure. However, he unarguably warmed up as the debate went along, and he hit back hard when Kucinich tried to make him look confused on terrorism, which bodes well for the future.
Biden: I liked when he kissed up to Hillary. It was adorable. And I personally think his Iraq answers are the best from the group, hands down.
Richardson: Like a first date, I was totally interested in him for the first few minutes, but then he got on my nerves. Bill gets points for being visably annoyed with the silly questions Williams asked (and for saying his favorite Supreme Court Justice was Wizzer White, that's actually interesting!) but if Richardson is already annoyed with the debates during the first debate, um, maybe he shouldn't be there. Actually, he can stay (so long as he pays for dinner).
Dodd: So, uh, how can you talk so simply and honestly about why gays should be allowed to marry and then say you're against gay marriage? It reminded me of the movie "Mean Girls" when Tina Fay's teacher character says to Lindsay Lohan's student character, "You know, what's so weird about your exam is that all the work is correct, it's only the answer that is wrong." Yup. Weird.
The Crazy Remains: Mike Gravel was like Ross Perot without a brain--snippy, insulting and annoying. Pundits may like him for his reality-show flavor but this is an election, not sideshow entertainment (or is it?). As for Kucinich... ah, nevermind. If you love him, good luck.

Overall, a mild affair, and I suspect things will stay that way for some time. Why would any of them try too hard at this point-- showing up is enough. Not even political nutcases like me take these first debates too seriously. They are like a read through after a play is cast. Each line is said aloud just so every actor can get a feeling for where it's all headed.

One thing's for sure though: I can't wait to see some McCain, Romney and Giuliani give it a spin.

Raise your hand if you've been married more than once.

Grumpy Old Man

2007-04-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

Look for a post about this evening's Democratic debate in South Carolina on Friday.

Until then, enjoy two clips. There will be a quiz Monday.

Moe's Badder Blues

2007-04-24T20:14:00.000-07:00

Having sadly skewered another Democratic presidential candidate for being too "effete" and superficially loose with his campaign funds, Maureen Dowd sets her April 25th column's sights on Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. You will recall that Dowd rendered a gloomy, negative take on Obama's announcement tour in February, when most pundits and opinion-makers were able to squeeze at least some sunshine from the history-making moment.

In that February 21st column, Dowd wrote that Obama was "'too emotionally detached and cerebral" and "'self-consciously pristine." Obama as the detached "dreamboy" is Moe’s new, thin theme for the Senator from Illinois. And now, more than two months since that February column, Dowd's red hair has become more bloody than ruddy when it comes to Barry. She writes, "the coolly detached candidate, striving to seem substantive, is good at turning down the heat himself. He manages to tamp down crowds dying to be electrified. He resists surfing his own wave of excitement."

So Barack is an adult among the weary? Really? It's too antiquated to comprehend or take seriously (so last century) and thus Maureen won't even try to. Instead, Dowd confusingly (and “some people” might say dishonestly) describes the candidate in opposing tones. On one hand we are to believe Obama is the cerebral loner, too self-aware to believe his own hype. But on the other hand Dowd tells us that Obama has no substance and is the superficial "dreamboy" to Hillary's "Queen" (to use Dowd's unimaginative Oscar reference).

Dowd desperately needs to describe Obama as detached because her typing fingers simply won't do inspiration and hope. Her opinion-making skill exists only where there is a bad man (or woman) operating boldly and with objectively evil aims. Where the GOP offers her "deceptive" and "bumbling" characters from Bush to Cheney to Wolfowitz, the Democrats only offer the potential for satiated emotions and, well, solutions. In a March 3rd column on Obama, Dowd interviewed the Senator in his office and her impression included this pretty sounding but pointless conclusion: "I'm just not certain, having watched the fresh-faced senator shy away from fighting with the feral Hillary over her Hollywood turf, that he understands that a campaign is inherently a conflict." (Note that Dowd’s lazy narrative would like to spin Barry as the Noxzema Girl to compliment Adam Nagourney’s John Edwards as Breck Girl theme).

I would suspect that what Obama actually doesn't understand (nor does John Edwards, it seems) is that folks like Maureen Dowd need either some candidate-created blood in the water or candidate-generated lies to spin their own stories. Both John and Barry probably don’t care either, since both of their campaigns are about progress and not pandering. I'm not sure that Maureen Dowd understands that Americans are fed up with the Republicans’ self-inflicted conflicts that yield no result beyond deeper division and wilder debt. So many months out before the race truly begins, Dowd has already tired of the lady-boys in the Democratic field because they don’t provide enough red-state-hate meat for her hungry liking.

In her recent breezy article about John Edwards’ locks, Dowd declared that "effete is never effective," a startlingly soothing sentence that means nothing, especially in light of the ineffective macho chest-pumping we have witnessed for the past 7 years. All Barry and John offer Dowd is a chance to recycle her sad masculine-feminine theories that you can buy for 49 cents at Amazon.com. Of course Moe has the blues. Her one-note act is all about alliteration in the name of sarcastic reveals. But it’s tough to keep finding ways to call someone fresh or removed (or subconsciously feminine, i.e. gay). Obama and Edwards have their stinking happy marriages, happy children and even happier supporters. All Maureen is left with are over-priced haircuts, teasing wives and big, adoring crowds. Boring.

As for this new April 25th article, Maureen pens that she watched Obama’s wife Michelle give a speech recently, a speech wherein the candidate’s wife poked fun at Barack’s dual life, one as political god and another as a regular, bumbling man. You would think Dowd would eat this up and surround it with “Are Men Necessary?”-type bromides. But no. Rather she writes, “Many people I talked to afterward found Michelle wondrous. But others worried that her chiding was emasculating, casting her husband — under fire for lacking experience — as an undisciplined child.” Ah those “others” rise up again.

For Dowd this entire election will be all about who is the tough Daddy and who is the emotional Mommy, regardless of whether Hillary is the Democratic nominee (or especially if she is not). Dowd enjoys the sexist and vaguely bigoted gender world she has designed in her mind and she will not be moved. I would suspect her waning TimesSelect talent in 2008 will be focused upon throwing antidotes into that gender world and making them stick, logic be damned.

Asked to be the “war czar” for Iraq and Afghanistan by the Bush Administration, Retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan told reporters he turned down White House offer because, "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going."

Neither does Maureen Dowd.

I Wish I Wrote That, Pt. 1

2007-04-22T09:35:00.000-07:00

"Its dense web of deceit is the deliberate product of its amoral culture, not a haphazard potpourri of individual blunders...Like the C.I.A. leak case, each new scandal is filling in a different piece of the elaborate White House scheme to cover up the lies that took us into Iraq and the failures that keep us mired there. As the cover-up unravels and Congress steps up its confrontation over the war’s endgame, our desperate president is reverting to his old fear-mongering habit of invoking 9/11 incessantly in every speech. The more we learn, the more it’s clear that he’s the one with reason to be afraid." -- Frank Rich, New York Times, Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Hair Up There

2007-04-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

Did you hear? Presidential candidate John Edwards got two $400 haircuts in Beverly Hills. His campaign paid for the haircuts. Edwards announced he was reimbursing the campaign for the amount, which should not have been paid out of campaign funds. Reporter Adam Nagourney of the New York Times (or, perhaps, the word hack is more applicable) writes a news-less piece today (hey, he's good at it!) about this haircut scandal, getting an excuse to use words like "coiffure" and "stylist." Nagourney also got to use his trademark lazy-kitty purr, writing:

John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover what his aides said was the cost of two haircuts — yes, you read that correctly — by a Beverly Hills barber, though, perhaps, the word stylist is more applicable.

Oh... snap! You go, girl! Perhaps, indeed!

Well I have one vital and profound question for all of you out there (and for Mr. Nagourney): have you ever tried to get a decent haircut in the greater Los Angeles area? Have you?

I have, my friends. I have. And it is not easy, nor is it pretty.

When I moved to Los Angeles in 2004, my first haircut attempts were in Silverlake, most likely at a joint named, um, let's call it "Judy's," where the "stylists" had bad attitudes and the conversation was minimal. You could buy over-priced magazines, shirts or even shoes while you waited. You could not help but enjoy the polished concrete and the high ceilings. However, every time I left, my hair always looked, well, violated. But the place was cheap-- around 20 bucks-- and you do get what you pay for, no?

My next ventures were in the Beverly Hills area, at a "salon" a friend chose for me because of a friendship he had with the "stylist" there (long story) and here the trim results were grim. The haircut was, with tip, around $90 and I was so fearful of offending the "stylist" (and by implication, our mutual friend) that I never complained. Here, the conversation was plentiful and the water purified. But the hair cutting was troubling. It seemed you did not get what you paid for (plus parking was a nightmare).

As of late I have been trying out spots in Venice, light and airy places where they offer you a beer or wine and everyone is too cool to be in a hurry. But again, the result up above has been dismal. My bangs never look right, my line in the back is never quite straight, and my sides, well, let's not go there.

The point is this: when you find a good "stylist" in Los Angeles, pay them anything they want. I am running on three years in this locale and no haircut can match my former Iowa stylings (those folks can cut hair). And heck, I am not even running for President, nor am I monied like John, but I tell you, no price is too high. While pundits can question whether Edwards is a true man of the people because his hair is too perfect, I am left to sigh at one more thing John Edwards and I have in common--we'd both give anything for a good haircut.

Update: Check out a very un-clever missive from Maureen Dowd on the subject (oh, she uses the term "blowout"! Dowd is as clever as Nagourney!). If people truly believe this haircut incident is reflective of something about Edwards' character, then by all means vote for someone else. The state of our political discourse has become so lame and tired that well-kept journalists, made-up with expensive hairdos and outfits, feel the freedom to raise up some false outrage and find this sideline activity offensive (check out Dowd's photo next to the article--um, speaking of blowouts...). Forget any facts or issues, and definitely forget any sense of humor--this proves Edwards is a faggot, right? Isn't that what all of these stories really want to say? Democrats are fags? From nappy-headed to too well-coiffed. What a hairy month in America.

The entire storyline is a distraction from any progress on any significant issue. Wake up. I want to see Hillary's salon bill, pronto. Or Mitt Romney's. Actually, no I don't--I don't care about their hair. I care about their vision and their voice. Silly me.

One More Time, With Feeling

2007-04-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

Disappointed with its one-note President and his darkside understudy, the Republican Party appears to be inching closer towards all-out clamoring for a presidential run by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. It seems that since W. and his star-spangled backdrops have failed to get the job done, this time around the conservatives want a professional actor to soothe their aesthetic aches. But perhaps the title of a 1990 film Thompson starred in could provide the GOP with a subtle warning even the Bush Twins could read into--"Die Hard 2: Die Harder."

Oh, yes, my GOP friends, the state of your party could get much worse. With your trail of 2008 candidates reading like a reality show cast list for "The Bad Girl's Club," risking it all on an untested and uninspiring short-term Senator simply because he makes you feel good seems so...well...Democrat-like. You probably believe that there's no where to go but up, right? With John McCain fading into a chaotic soft focus twilight, Mitt Romney proving his Massachusetts mettle with flip-flops and missteps, and Rudy Giuliani hanging around like eccentric Auntie Mame, it's hard out there for a conservative. George W. Bush has weaved the politics of 9-11 into a suffocating Afghan that has squeezed old-time Republican principle of any fresh oxygen and left the Party in a bind where the puffed-up Daddy rhetoric leads to kiddie results.

Is Fred Thompson the answer? Yesterday after a visit to Capitol Hill, several Republican lawmakers hinted at Fred's ability to bring the nation together, citing no evidence of his past leadership skills, but only the funny feeling they had inside. It is as if Bush's persistent ripping at our national seams for 7 years had nothing to do with their Party. The new GOP mantra seems to be, "We made you awfully sick, but now we'll make you feel much better."

We have all read the various "Where's the Beef?" articles about Barack Obama, articles that dismiss Obama's genuine attempt to create a unifying movement of Americans in the last few months and complain at his lack of policy papers. That's fine and good, but be on the lookout for the same articles about Fred Thompson, should he run, because in Fred's instance they are well-deserved. Spinning one's wheels on a soundstage is not remotely comparable to the collective grassroots efforts each Democratic candidate have made on the national stage as of late. And while it doesn't seem likely that any Republicans are asking this Beef question of Thompson right now, before their proverbial chickens hatch, this is to be expected. When the false hope of a Hollywood storyline is all you've got, you have to make it work.

It will be more than interesting to see the Republicans rally out of an emotion other than fear, after they have cynically used their past three presidencies to teach Americans that a common enemy is the only way we'll get along. Just be warned, GOP, that without a true prescription (beyond image) for any of our country's ills-- your Party may die harder than before.

Senseless

2007-04-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

With all of the talk of the remarkable college women of the Rutgers basketball team, who were casually injured days ago by the ignorant words of the I-man, America now has a too-long roster of remarkable college students from Virgina Tech who suffered the ultimate injury by losing their lives at the cowardly hand of a fellow student.

Media talk will inevitably turn to asking "How did this happen?", as if we really do not know the not-so-mysterious causes of gun violence. Our dumb wonder quickly rises in these moments, and I fear that like the not-so-mysterious causes of incompetence, or distrust, or bigotry, no one truly wants an answer.

Like modern American tragedies, blame will need to be passed somewhere, never to ourselves, but to some aspect of the system, in this tragedy's case to the police and administrators in Blacksburg, Virgina. We are so good at placing anger and frustration upon individuals and groups that failed only because we failed to ask serious questions or demand thorough preparation.

I hope that as we grieve for the lost young men and women of Virgina Tech we can admit this event is one more recent example of how our notions of public safety are false. Rhetoric from our leaders may soothe our feelings, or provide us with common enemies, but our vulnerabilities as communities remain unguarded and unaddressed.

We don't exclusively need to fight evil-doers over in Iraq to prevent them from coming here. We have plenty of other evils at home already. The greatest one might be our relentless focus on our feelings, and never on results.

Too Sunny

2007-04-13T09:12:00.000-07:00

Forgetting Don Imus, I will enjoy the SoCal sun today...

You'll note Meet the Press has General Zinni this Sunday, and also a conservative-dreamy panel, including David "Crybaby" Brooks, John Harwood, Gwen Ifill, and Eugene Robinson (ok, so Eugene and Gwen aren't so bad)... so we all have that to look forward to.

In the meantime, check out "Children of Men" on DVD this weekend and try to pretend it doesn't seem plausible. And I can't believe I'd ever write this... but check out this worthwhile column today, "Our Prejudices, Ourselves" by Harvey Fierstein in the New York Times.

Easy Being Green

2007-04-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

Go to the library or supermarket checkout and read, "The Rise of Big Water," by Charles Mann, found inside of Vanity Fair's 2nd Annual Green Issue for May. It is full-on devastating (and not available online-- that clever, clever Graydon).

Another great article in this issue, detailing Rush Limbaugh's pathetic and persistent contribution to anti-Environmentalism, "Rush to Judgment" by James Wolcott, is available online, found here. A superb teaser paragraph for you from the Limbaugh article:

From Teddy Roosevelt, who made wilderness protection a priority and created national parks, bird sanctuaries, big-game refuges, and national forests, to Richard Nixon, under whose bad-moon presidency the Environmental Protection Agency was formed and the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed, the Republican Party carried a tradition of conservation that crumbled under Ronald Reagan, for whom nature was mostly a scenic backdrop whose resources could be exploited out of camera frame. Reagan's selections of James Watt for the Department of the Interior and Anne Gorsuch for the E.P.A. put bureaucratic vandals in positions of stewardship, and in 1987 he vetoed re-authorization of the Clean Water Act, a veto that fortunately was overridden. It is a measure of how awful the George W. Bush administration has been on the environment that some activists miss the old, upfront hostility of the Reagan era, when at least the political and corporate machinations took place in open daylight. "Unfortunately, now," lamented Daniel Weiss, an environmental activist (quoted by Amanda Griscom in her article for online's Grist), "our leaders are much more savvy—and far more insidious. They undo laws in the dead of night." Under Bush II, environmentalists no longer need to be engaged, because they've been so stridently marginalized and stigmatized as a pantheistic kook cult practicing socialism under the guise of Gaia worship. This was largely Limbaugh's doing, and now every right-wing pundit from Cal Thomas to Michael Savage croaks the same tune.

Kudos to Vanity Fair for two solid issues in a row--last month's issue featuring an article on The Sopranos creator David Chase was near-perfect and 100% readable, cover-to-cover.

And speaking of Easy Being Green, in case you missed it, here's the permalink to my column on Al Gore and his "An Inconvenient Truth."

The Lowbrow Fire List

2007-04-11T13:51:00.000-07:00

In light of Imus-related happenings, please welcome a new permanent feature on the site, a "lowbrow fire list," a naming of those American media and political personalities that are hellbent on coarsening our culture and ruining any shot at political balance, however imperfect, across the nation. All of us know that Don Imus is not the worst or first offender, and thus, it's time to call the rest out of the hypocritical closet. I'll be writing colmuns about those on the list from time-to-time, keeping tabs on their efforts to dumb down our discourse. I welcome your suggestions at browbeating@gmail.com

the lowbrow fire list (so far):

Don Imus: Rutgers' women's basketball team are "nappy-headed hos"
Ann Coulter: John Edwards is a"faggot"
Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton is a "stereotypical bitch"
Rush Limbaugh: Obama is a "Halfrican American"
Newt Gingrich: Spanish is "the language of living in the ghetto"

Bush League, Part 2

2007-04-11T11:14:00.000-07:00

From Political Wire's Political Insider:

Last Tuesday, a reporter asked President Bush during his press conference whether he knew what the price of a gallon of gas was. His response -- "About $2.60-plus" -- was remarkably close to the correct price, $2.69. Afterwards, with his aides, Bush expressed his relief, saying he was lucky he had been asked for the price of gas since he wouldn't have been able to tell the reporter what the price of a gallon of milk was.

This is probably because Bush drinks oil and not milk, right? If only Iraq had milk reserves... (oh, and by-the-way, the cheapest I can find gas around Santa Monica is $3.24)...

Bush League

2007-04-10T23:17:00.000-07:00

Grocery List: Giuliani doesn't know the price of bread and milk, which I would aim a ton of wealthy (or not wealthy) white men don't know...I'd rather hear whether Giuliani knows the dismal salaries of teachers and other professions in comparison to CEOs and other upper management...Red Don: Romney, McCain and Giuliani were quick to support Imus...Too quick?...The New Black?: Fred Thompson has lymphoma...If he runs get Katie Couric ready for her close-up...Daddy Party Knows Best: From today's New York Times, in his upcoming speech on Iraq, John McCain "will warn against making policy about the war based on 'the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll' and assert that the administration’s strategy for securing Baghdad is the right one." How can a Democracy's foreign policy not take into account what the majority of Americans want? Opinion polls have resoundingly turned against the war in Iraq for more than a year, hardly 'temporary favor'...I guess McCain wants to be another Bushian Dictator...Thank goodness these guys know better than the nation does...Who to Hate: From the same Times article detailing general Republican frustration around the nation with the 2008 GOP field, two great quotes that have a lot in common:

And Katon Dawson, the party chairman in South Carolina, expressed confidence that the party would recover from any internal damage it suffered as its candidates took shots at each other.

“We don’t do well until we have a common enemy,” Mr. Dawson said.

Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said the party’s presidential candidates were being whipsawed as they tried to appeal to conservative voters who have a history of strong views on issues like abortion and gay rights. “These tests are destroying the Republican Party,” Mr. Simpson said.

Republicans don't do well until they have a common enemy--true. The common enemies they select (women, gays, immigrants, etc.) are destroying the party because they alienate folks who tire of hating others--true...ah, fun time to be a Republican!...Lost Mo-mentum: Speaking of Daddy Party Knows Best, Maureen Dowd is off her vacation, and pens another "GOP-is-the-daddy-party" column so all-over-the-map I would suggest she take another week off...

Words Over Actions

2007-04-10T11:36:00.000-07:00

Question: Why Don Imus and not Limbaugh or Coulter or Beck or Savage or Sharpton or Bush or Cheney or Gonzales or Novak or Maher or Malkin or Carlson or Matthews or Couric or Williams or Franken or Hannity or O'Reilly or Olbermann or Kerry or Pelosi or Inhofe or Coburn or McCain or Robertson or Falwell or Dobson or Wonkette or Daily Kos or the Post or the Times (pick one) or the Journal or Time or Newsweek or US Weekly or InTouch or TMZ?

To quote Jeffrey Wells, "It's a shitstorm out there."

Why Don Imus? What does this say about us? I'll tell you--it says we're a bunch of selfish... unfocused...brats.

Eyebrow Raisers

2007-04-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

Sharper than Sharpton: Gwen Ifill pens a fantastic column entitled, "Trash Talk Radio," which paints a coat of common sense all over the Imus situation...I suppose "no tolerance"makes sense but if Imus was fired, would the Rutgers girls feel better? Would America become less racially divided? Maybe Sharpton should make fewer soundbites and more progress?... Nagourney Fluff: Man, I wish I could get paid to write a long online column about 2008 polls that pretty much provides no news and little color...Good Morning Times readers, today I will teach you about amazing numbers called polls... 19 months to go... Can't Get No Respect: John Edwards takes a risk to show some concrete leadership, says he will skip the Congressional Black Caucus Debate hosted by Fox News, Hillary and Obama follow, and the Huffington Post puts up a picture of only Obama and Hillary with the title, "Key Dems Say No to Fox Debate"... Drudge did the exact same thing, posting Edwards decision alone first, as if it was an act of defiance, and then posting only Hillary and Obama's decisions in a joint headline, as if the two of them were the story... Riot Hiatt: Glenn Greenwald at Salon notes how the Washington Post's tone on the US Attorney scandal may be shifting...I guess Russert's declaration there was no "wrongdoing" at all is not exactly quoting from the Beltway Bible... Free Parking: I love when Slate does these back-and-forth columns and this one will be all about the final season of "The Sopranos"... I loved the first episode if only for the unbelievable acting during the Monopoly game...

Hunting Rabbits

2007-04-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

Some readers have fairly complained I am rambling as of late, and so I hope that a more coherent post should appear later today.

In the meantime, should you need mini-breaks from the Monday rush, check out the following articles on the internets (proving anyone can write a Mini-Note!):

Newsweek: Things are worse for McCain than I thought...Jonathan Alter, "McCain's Meltdown" and things are more awkward for Clinton than I expected...Richard Wolffe, "Clinton Fund-Raising Strategy Backfires"

New York Times: Proving that in life, all roads lead to Iowa, at some point...Week in Review, "About that Political Traffic Jam in Iowa"

Daily Kos: This weekend's Meet the Press was a weird GOP love fest in the form of pastel-shorn Kate O'Beirne..."Russert's Idea of Balance"

60 Minutes: Visual proof the straight-talk has hit more than a rough patch... "John McCain"

Fox News Cracker Watch (Don Imus Edition)

2007-04-07T17:59:00.000-07:00

In honor of Don Imus' picture appearing on the FoxNews.com homepage with the headline, "Imus Messed Up," it's time for another Cracker Watch.

At 6pm PST on Saturday, April 7, 2007:

White Women: 10

White Men: 17

Don Imus: 1

Anyone non-white: 0

Fair, balanced, and lily white!

Happy Easter weekend!

Don of the Dead

2007-04-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

Don Imus has caused a recent controversy by saying this about the Rutgers University women's basketball team: "That's some nappy-headed ho’s there, I’m going to tell you that.”

An article in the Saturday edition of the New York Times writes about the fallout and Imus' on-air apology, but the article seems more annoyed with what it terms "modern media drama" surrounding the comments than the remarks themselves. Something is horribly wrong when the media laments the treatment of bigots rather than their nasty remarks.

In addition to a history of blatantly racist comments, Imus has a long history of fag-baiting on his radio show, and at one point in time the website TomPaine.com gathered these comments in an "Imus Watch" of sorts.

I just went to write this, "Imus isn't some proven nut job no one listens to, like Glen Beck--this is a guy that has politically and culturally important guests on his program. That's why this matters." But read that again... what's wrong with me? Why does this only matter if a "mainstream" media figure spews it?

Personalities all over the Right have been saying worse and more about women, homosexuals and immigrants for years and no one in the traditional media makes a stink. But these figures don't go away, and as Ann Coulter proves, they get braver with their invective, both in object and subject.

All bigoted comments, no matter who says them, enter our political and social discourse and they swirl into a foundation of poison that enables a figure like Don Imus to feel the freedom--and even necessity--to speak that way.

It reminds me of a new song written by Mary Chapin Carpenter about the ordeal endured by the Dixie Chicks. Carpenter writes in "On With the Song":

This isn't for the ones with their radio signal/Calling for bonfires and boycotts they rave/Exhorting their listeners to spit on the sinners/While counting the bucks of advertising they'll save

These media types are like the barking dog in the neighborhood--all the neighbors can't stand the damn barking but no one does anything to stop it.

An Easter Weekend Question for myself and for you:

What are we doing to stop these dogs?

An Inconvenient Possibility

2007-04-05T10:08:00.000-07:00

Tied to the couch with a head cold yesterday, I finally forced myself to watch Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." I must admit I was pleasantly surprised.

Almost exactly eight years ago, I traveled to Princeton, New Jersey to spend the Easter holiday with a college friend and his family. Because my friend's mother was a member of the Princeton University faculty, they lived on campus in a stately white home hugged with trees and well-groomed grasses. I was assigned a guest room in the back of the home, on the second floor. The weather was moody, moving from sun to gloom with ease, as only spring knows how. Looking upon the city with Midwestern eyes, everything seemed aggressively colonial and overly clean. The entire trip made for great memories.

But oddly, one of my greater memories of the trip was the book I was reading. Every morning, I would rise earlier than my friend, throw on a sweatshirt, sneak down to grab a cup of coffee from the kitchen's Cusinart, and then quickly creak back up to my room for some reading time. The book I brought with me was a biography entitled, "Inventing Al Gore," written by journalist Bill Turque.

In 1999, I was going through a sort of personal transformation (for another time), but part of this transformation included a realization that my political conservatism was a shield of sorts, and not the result of my actual beliefs. This shifting framework influenced how I approached the book. I started the book thinking Al Gore was the largest dolt ever elected to public office. I finished the book thinking Al Gore was the most sympathetic and smart dolt ever elected to public office.

Watching "An Inconvenient Truth" yesterday I felt the same sympathy and envy at Gore's intellect. There are scenes in the documentary where Gore narrates softly and shares aspects of his deeper personal trials: the car accident that nearly killed his son, the death of his sister to lung cancer, the 2000 election. It was as if the viewers had been given a key to Gore's "lockbox" and shown solid proof that the man was tough and real.

What startled me the most was the emotional similarity between Gore's near-loss of his son and his sister's cancer death and John Edwards' loss of his son, Wade, and now Elizabeth's bout with cancer. Even more importantly, though is the comparison of how these events influenced smart, dogged men into becoming crusaders for something larger than themselves.

Gore took the emotional toll from his son's near death and re-affirmed his commitment to the health of the environment, to larger purposes focused on the future. Gore also used the death of his sister from lung cancer to force a confrontation with his family's tobacco-supporting history and became one of the first elected officials from the South to take on big tobacco and demand more clarity in notifying the public of the undeniable danger of cigarettes.

Edwards used his son's death as motivation to run for public office. Having never served in any capacity, Edwards took on a North Carolina legend and won himself a seat in the United States Senate. In a hurry, Edwards ran for President after only one Senate term, and became the vice-presidential nominee almost purely based on his life story and his passionate displeasure with the "two Americas" forming in the United States. Despite learning of Elizabeth's breast cancer just before election day in 2004, Edwards went on to work on issues of poverty and labor representation up until he announced his second try at the presidency. Now that Elizabeth's cancer has returned, John continues to try to turn these experiences into emotion-fueled results for the greater community.

George W. Bush took an alcohol addiction and turned it into a messianic certainty in his own wisdom, tearing apart a nation and alienating it from the world. He uses fabricated emotions to prey upon the fears and insecurities of Americans, insecurity that he has ironically and cruelly created through his own incompetence. This man gets to be President. Al Gore's private drive to improve the environment backdrop we all share is mocked as political. His weight is discussed, but not the weight of his message. This man gets an Oscar. John Edwards seeks to use his personal struggles to illuminate the humanity we all share, a humanity that can surely compel the country to take on issues like health care, poverty, and education. This man gets mocked for his "insatiable ambition," no matter that the ambition genuinely seeks to benefit 100% of the polity, not just a deluded 30%.

If Al Gore should decide to run for President again, he should select John Edwards as his running mate. These two men share a vision of a unified, smart America. They have endured unique struggles and turned their common troubles into possibilities. They do not impose their convictions, but only offer the conviction that all of us should be involved in creating and protecting our own future.

After 8 years of Bush's superficial and insulting leadership, the country could use some pragmatic thinkers with true Southern charm.

In the introduction to the book version of the documentary, Al Gore writes:

The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise.

Wouldn't it be nice.

Quote of the Day

2007-04-05T09:28:00.000-07:00

From today's Washington Post a great kicker quote from Elizabeth Edwards:

"Most of the stories about me end up [saying], 'She's just like a regular person,' " Elizabeth Edwards said. "So my job, to be a regular person, that's really not that tough. If I had some higher standard to meet, I'd be worried about it."

Did she look frail or brittle or somehow scared of all that lay in front of her? No. Dressed unremarkably (a black cardigan sweater, black pants, unheeled shoes), at no point did she look frazzled or even bored. After walking into the terribly hot incubator room during a tour of the Stonyfield yogurt plant, she told the company's president and CEO, Gary Hirshberg, "You'll have to do better than this if you want to make us uncomfortable."

If not uncomfortable, the three-city jaunt proved exhausting--for those following her. It began in the late morning and drew to a close on the UNH campus close to 9 p.m. I was ready to return to a hotel room for "Law & Order" and room service. Sitting behind the makeshift stage in the UNH student union, as a way of asking "How do you plan to do it?," I told Elizabeth Edwards how the day had drained me, a 31-year-old with a head cold.

"You don't have children, right?" she said with little sympathy. "I have a 6-year-old boy who gets up really early, at 7. I have a 25-year-old, and she comes in at 2. I just adjust my life to accommodate both those things and my energy level is such that I can make it through that time."

After a brief pause, she added: "And you're a wimp, I gotta say. Sorry."

I think she was joking.

Someone Tell...

2007-04-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

Rudy Giuliani that Jim Nussle, his big Iowa campaign deputy, lost the Iowa race for Governor.

Matt Drudge that Obama raising $25 million is probably more newsworthy than John McCain's forehead.

Mitt Romney that the last time America elected a President disinterested-slash-clueless about foreign policy, it didn't work out so well.

Hillary Clinton to put away the drapery books, for now.

Dick Cheney that no one listens to him anymore (he's behind the bushes).

President Bush that as his employer, we all want proof he's actually taking a "working trip."

Eyebrow Raisers

2007-04-04T00:05:00.000-07:00

Get some coffee and enjoy your Wednesday morning.

In response to the troubling first quarter numbers, John McCain is re-tooling his fundraising and campaign approach. From our favorite snippy "reporter" Adam Nagourney in today's New York Times, McCain's folks are saying the Straight Talk Maverick will "adopt the kind of big-donor fund-raising program pioneered by President Bush and give a speech explaining his support for the administration’s troop buildup in Iraq." That ought to do it, Senator! Great ideas. Throw in reclaiming your conscience and speaking without fear of the Religious Right and you'll be...well...we may all need to agree old McCain is toast.

Not that what follows in this paragraph will force the media to substantively pay attention to this candidate, but...interesting poll news from New Hampshire showing that John Edwards has jumped ahead of Barack Obama to become the second choice of primary voters behind Hillary. [Exact CNN/MUR Numbers: Clinton = 27%, Edwards = 21%, Obama = 20%]. Small but significant and a trend to keep an eye on. Further, a University of Iowa poll (go Hawks) shows Edwards maintaining his lead in the caucus state. There is no denying Edwards' organization there is committed and practiced (albeit missing a passionate precinct captain from Westgate Street).[Exact UIowa Numbers: Edwards = 34%, Clinton, 28%, Obama = 19%]. Other American Research numbers for both parties in early voting states are here. In the Washington Post Chris Cillizza gives a fair take on the money race, so far (Cillizza writes pretty well and with balance and here he is on last evening's Countdown, which you must watch or Tivo daily).

Dude, did Obama beat Hillary with money? You may already know by the time you read this...

Do any of you visit Daily Kos? I have such mixed feelings about the site... I have posted comments and some actual posts, but I am always surprised at the very, let's say, aggressive comments sections. There's a growing spitball fight between the Edwards and Obama folks and this post gets the needed scolding just right.

Is the American Idol Sanjaya phenomenon speaking to the way 2008 may pan out? Worthwhile and airy Idol spewing from the New York Times. This sentence surely made me think about the '08 candidates: "As 'Idol' grows more stately and respectable, it’s only natural for viewers to chip away at its veneer." How we all love to shock the system and tear down our top dogs. Too bad we cannot focus that communal energy on politics and voting for people that matter.

Quick Hits

2007-04-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

Slate.com's Gonzo-meter Death Watch for the Attorney General makes a great point in advance of Alberto's April 16th testimony:

His testimony later this month—even if it jibes with his most recent interviews—can at best amount to an admission that he is one of the worst and most clueless managers in the history of government. Short of capturing and trying Osama Bin Laden on April 16, there isn't much Gonzales could do in the coming weeks to restore his reputation.

From The Caucus at the New York Times, McCain's low fundraising number proves that trying to change your stripes, no matter how much the clever Maverick you think you are, is never wise.

A Salon.com article looks at how Fox News' main sin may not be the outright Republican bias but the weak "Democratic" talking-heads it places on the air, using "scary Democrats" like Al Sharpton or "losers" like Susan Estrich as pathetic foils for the ultra-conservative hosts. "Other Democrats who are chosen to counter Fox's conservative guests and hosts often appear as enablers. They're on-screen to prove to viewers that even Democrats agree that a radical left wing dominates the Democratic Party, not to mention the media," the article smartly notes. This has been one of my biggest problems with Fox, and with many MSNBC shows (other than Countdown) in general. Is this the networks fault, or the Democrats fault for not pushing smarter, more representative spokespeople?

Matt Drudge's good friends at Politico.com come to radical conclusions when looking at fundraising numbers: McCain is not doing so well, Hillary is not inevitable, and the Democrats are more pumped with their field. Um, did we need first quarter numbers to tell us this?

The article does make two important observations to keep in mind though, 1) "The Clinton camp highlighted the $4 million she raised on the Internet, but that number seemed less impressive when Edwards reported that of the $14 million he has raised, more than $3 million of it came in online," and 2) "The Obama camp said it couldn't yet release its figures for the first quarter, which ended Saturday, because the finance team is still counting cash raised at 5,000 house parties on the last day."

Exactly. To be continued.

Very Seriously

2007-04-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

Today President Bush said he takes climate change "very seriously." Here's a Mini-Hall of Fame of other important issues the President has taken "very seriously" in the past:

1. Iraq Study Group Report: Bush said the report "will be taken very seriously by this administration." Result? Report recommendations totally ignored.

2. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Bush said, "it's very important for us to take his words very seriously." Result? Nuclear advancement!

3. New Democratic Congress: Bush told the new Congressional leaders in December 2006, "I take your ideas very seriously." Result? Bush rejects any Democratic involvement in Iraq policy. For example, at today's press conference Bush accused the Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Oh, really?

4. Bush's Decision to Invade Iraq: Bush told Brit Hume he left the Situation Room for a solo walk where he "thought very seriously, a serious reflection about what I had just done, and said a prayer or two." Result? 3,257 dead American soldiers and counting. No funeral attendance. Walter Reed scandal. The Surge. Etc.

Bonus: It runs in the family! Jeb Bush to Florida on Hurricane Ernesto in August 2006: "Take this storm very seriously." To be fair, most likely Jeb actually meant it.

Richie Romney

2007-04-03T08:26:00.000-07:00

Forget the fundraising for a moment--after all of those GOP-fueled stories in 2004 about upper-crust John Kerry and his wife's moolah (those out-of-touch limousine liberals), why won't the media ask and answer the simple question: How rich is Willard Romney ?

The New York Times today notes, "Mr. Romney has never disclosed his net worth, but analysts who study compensation at private equity firms say his earnings as the founder of Bain Capital are likely to amount to several hundred million dollars."

John Edwards' new 6 million-dollar home puzzlingly got front page treatment at the Washington Post weeks ago. Why not discover Mitt's vast net worth? Or, am I wrong to believe it is relevant to the campaign? Is the settled media equation: Republican Rich = inspiring and a hard-worker, Democrat Rich = opportunistic and anti-worker? (Update: It's very relevant if this report is true. Do we want a self-funded President?)

Someone Who Sparkles

2007-04-02T11:34:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to comment specifically on the money race until Obama reports his actual #s (I suspect it's closer to $26 million than we think). So...

Chris Matthews keeps calling Fred Thompson the future hero and "Daddy" of the GOP, basing this assessment entirely on how Thompson looks and talks (and, ironically, how he makes GOP-ers "feel"). No mastery of any issues, no recent history of fighting for anything significant, no participation in the political debate for the past few years... just some Law & Orders and an 8-year undistinguished senate career. If we were using our brains as well as our eyes, wouldn't John McCain be the "Daddy" in the GOP? Is Matthews setting this up so he can label Hillary "Mommy"? Does anyone besides Lamar Alexander honestly believe Fred Thompson is as charismatic and smart as Chris Matthews does? Oh, right Robert Novak does-- his column in the Washington Post today is titled, "Thompson is For Real" (unlike, say, fantastical, magical John McCain or the tooth fairy).

The GOP is ideologically unhappy with its 8+ candidates (all of which run the conservative gamut) and somehow this makes Fred Thompson a conservative savior. Sickening.

Update: Man, I needed a laugh about the whole Thompson thing and this Politico article delivered supremely, with a super quote from a "political scientist" named Neal: "The party is in need of someone with glamour, someone who sparkles."

Elton John-John McCain, anyone? Mitt-Cher? Huckabee-Liberace? Love it.

Random Grumpy Old Men

2007-04-01T23:54:00.000-07:00

On Meet the Press, Tim Russert and Orrin Hatch demand a "shred of evidence" from Senator Leahy that the US Attorney purge was improper, ignoring reality, and say, Senator Domenici's phone records. Rumor is that Hatch wants to be the new AG, bringing a deeper level of denial to the DOJ (now with music!).

What was worse about the show was that the hapless Leahy failed to respond to any of Russert's loaded "questions" with all the hard facts at his disposal. The best part of the show was in the first few minutes when both Leahy and Hatch had major throat-clearing problems. Incompetence is phlegmy.

Wow--the Bushies have even soiled the proud tradition of the Smithsonian.

Have you read much about the newly-found Gospel of Judas?

The GOP's General was told to make it happen by August. Will Petraeus betray us by selling false victories in order to meet his charge? The mess could get messier--we all know Bush doesn't read memos in August.

Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times pens a "Democrats Beware" column, using poll numbers to buy into and validate Bushian national security hype. But what about these kinds of poll numbers?

A Thompson joins the race (not Fred...yet). This was the guy that helped Big Pharma write Bush's costly Medicare drug plan. High-cost Zoloft for everyone.

Roll In, Roll Out

2007-03-30T21:31:00.000-07:00

Well played, Hillary.

BUT a big way-to-go to both Obama and Edwards.

This puppy ain't over yet.

In the interim check out Frank Rich from Sunday, and look for a new post early Monday afternoon.

Who's On First?

2007-03-30T19:40:00.000-07:00

This was the visual at HillaryClinton.com a few days ago.

Does this bother anyone except me?

Will the same 2 families rule this nation for years to come?

Update: Ok, I mean, I get it. But I don't get it.

The Audacity of Flip-Flops

2007-03-29T09:15:00.000-07:00

With John Kerry out of the '08 race (remember those giant sandals?) the flips and flops are all happening on the GOP side this round. A short opinion article in today's Indianapolis Star provides a mini-summary (but I don't think my Governor is a flip-flopper, just an actor). The GOP cannot decide whether they want to be "principled" and go with, say, a proud reality-hater like Sam Brownback, or go with a new conservative convert like, say, the rest of the field (even Huckabee breaks the far-Right mold with his hippie love of art and music).

Anyway, here are some of the front-runner highlights so far...

Executive Flip-Flopper: Over the weekend there was an excellent Los Angeles Times article evaluating the formation of flip-flopping Willard Romney has danced in the past several months. Abortion, gays, trees and air--old Mitt is ready to change his mind. But for all the "Right" reasons, of course.

Straight Talk Flipper: McCain is the real pro this season, and this video on YouTube shows how it's done.

Mayoral Flipping: Now, Rudy! Giuliani feels left out and employs a turnaround on the flat tax issue (which worked very well for Steve Forbes).

Bonus Media Flopping: This isn't exactly a flip-flop but it is definitely intellectual flailing, and it has been driving me crazy this week-- Chris Matthews seems to believe there's a big metaphorical monster waiting to take down Hillary (with nothing but his own flip-from-Democrat-to-Republican past as a framework to guide him).

I've heard Matthews push this weirdo monster idea on Hardball and Imus (he most likely just enjoys saying "horny"). Here's how he puts down the concept:

Is there out in the country, or out in the Atlantic Ocean, some gigantic monster, big, green, horny-headed—all kinds of horns coming out, big aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn‘t shown itself; it‘s based upon gender, the fact that she is a liberal, that she is Bill—and that hasn‘t shown itself, because people are being so nice in the polling, they are saying all the correct things? Is there an anti-Hillary monster waiting out there that could deliver this nomination, or this election, to someone else? [Chris Matthews on Hardball, 3/26/07]

Matthews also keeps pushing the line that America is not ready to elect a woman, or at least Hillary. His circumstantial proof is that because no one in the media wants to discuss that Hillary actually is a woman, then the nation is not ready. The last time I checked, Matthews had 2 of his own shows on the TV. Maybe he should stop complaining about the dearth of talk about Hillary's gender and step up to the plate to discuss the topic on those shows. Or even more importantly, why the Atlantic Ocean? The Pacific Ocean has better monsters.

Time Past, Time Past

2007-03-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

Former Senator Bill Bradley was on Meet the Press this past Sunday pushing his new book, "The New American Story" (yes, I still watch the show, despite my rants). To be honest, throughout the entire mini-interview I was puzzled as to what Bradley was talking about or what exactly Bradley is bringing to the political debate these days.

Bradley mentioned the "ethic of connectedness" which demands individual and collective action to solve problems (um, ok, we can give him credit for that radical idea). But he also whined and hawed about the Democratic Party, hanging onto that runaway bus of stereotypes that calls Dems tax and spenders, anti-defense hippies, and haters of wealth. This kills me when another Democrat pulls out the cloak of the past and swings it onto his shoulders to complain about the current state of the party. Clearly, Bradley is not substantively listening to the 2008 Democratic candidates at all.

Two of Bradley's "democratic curses" he discussed were my favorites:

(1) Russert: You talk about closed-minded devotion to the secular. Do you think the Democrats have been reluctant to talk about faith? Bradley: I think that the Democrats—some people in the Democratic Party have been reluctant to talk about faith, and not so much just in a religious sense, but in terms of how it informs our public life.

"Some people," my friends! Add Bradley to the picture board!

This "liberals don't like church" line is a very dull Fox News kind of talking point that the media loves. Pastor Russert in particular loves to talk about this despite any empirical reality backing him up (look here, and here, and wow, especially here).

I am befuddled as to how Senator Bradley can seriously fail to acknowledge that Obama, Edwards, or even Clinton have begun to turn the page on this alleged "curse." Look here, and here, and even here as evidence that Bradley is stuck in his 2000 race for the nomination and that 2008 is doing just fine in that regard, thank you.

The other favorite of mine was this one:

(2) Bradley claims the Democrats are "hypnotized by charisma," and that "the party has, has tended to look for a knight on a shining—on a white horse to solve all our problems."

Does this explain nominee John Kerry in 2004? No way. Al Gore? Um... lockbox? I would suggest that Bradley is taking a pre-emptive shot at the Obama candidacy. When he was asked about Obama, Bradley made a fair point that Obama needs to be more specific about his goals for the nation, but also admitted it was early in the race. But while Bradley said he was impressed with Obama's crowds he noted: "I’m impressed with 20,000 people at a speech, I’d be more impressed with 5,000 meet-ups with 100 people at a meet-up." I'd be more impressed if Bradley would acknowledge Obama's singular contribution to the party in terms of energy and idealism. 5000 meet-ups does not a president make. Ask Howard Dean.

Senator Bradley's book might be marvelous. I have read all of his other books. But something tells me that Bradley has been muscled out of his own party by others with even bolder ideas, sharper idealism, and genuine charisma and he knows it.

Super Quick Hits

2007-03-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Attorney scandal is exhausting my outrage for so many reasons, but at least Keith Olbermann has been reporting on it with clarity and helping it all make sense.

Another "Go Hillary Go" article in the New York Times, now about her effort to master all things military. Is this in response to Bill Clinton's whining or is it evidence his prior complaint was bogus? Either way, a wet front-page kiss for the lady.

An original, solid article from Salon's Walter Shapiro about the reality that White House occupants actually do have personal lives, and that health or family issues are just additional burdens for a President, among many.

Light side from Olbermann: I don't know why, but this makes me laugh every time I watch it.

Couples Counseling

2007-03-26T13:42:00.000-07:00

Seems reporters like to go hard after the Democratic marrieds these days (or maybe this tradition goes back to the early 1990s? Look, left).

Exhibit A is Katie Couric Sunday night on 60 Minutes throwing flippy-cold and oddly aggressive questions at John and Elizabeth Edwards about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and the campaign (watch it here and be sure to check out a great Nora Ephron response from Huffington Post).

Regardless of your comfort level with Couric's approach, the Edwardses seemed poised and ready to talk. I don't hear them complaining about their treatment, but I am sure they would agree using strawmen communities (By gosh, it does take a village! I am totally on to something here...) as justifications for questions is an intellectually lazy endeavor. Maybe if Elizabeth had colon cancer Couric would have been more empathetic.

Update: I didn't take the time to listen to Couric's solo audio of the questions today, but thanks to Mickey Kaus at Slate pointing it out, I clicked and listened. Couric's repetitive rancor was as cowardly as it was pointless. What, exactly, was she after? When I wrote days ago that a "cynical march of snide doubt and division" would commence, I had far-right bloggers and say, Rush Limbaugh in mind as the drum majors. "Journalism" has fallen further than I thought.

Exhibit B is Chris Matthews today, going straight for the throats of Tom and Christie Vilsack on Hardball. Matthews skipped the "Some people say" approach Couric lathered up with and instead exposed the strategery behind the Vilsack endorsement with pointed, even impolite questions. It seemed to me that Matthews made the Vilsacks look unprepared and amateurish, but you watch and decide.

In contrast, Exhibit C is the transcript of not-so-tough questions from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos aimed at Willard and Ann Romney a few weeks ago. My favorite question was the first: "Okay, Mitt Romney, management consultant. Give us the PowerPoint presentation for your candidacy." Oh, those softballs are hard to swing at, I'm sure. Even for a guy nicknamed Mitt.

What I really want to see is Rudy and Judy Giuliani on 60 Minutes with Couric. Perhaps she can ask them if they are "in denial" thinking that their marriage will work (considering their respective track records). "Some people say," Couric might begin, "that you're both bad at keeping commitments. How can we trust you won't leave America halfway during your term?"

Maybe if President Bush started doing interviews with Laura we could get to the bottom of this whole Iraq War everyone's talking about...oh nevermind, he's in that Republic Party.

Weekend Eggs and Links

2007-03-23T16:35:00.000-07:00

President Bush has a lovely, well-propped press conference in response to the House passing an Iraq spending bill, remembers he can veto bills.

Federalism stinks, doesn't it Mr. President?

Vilsack expected to endorse Hillary Clinton on Monday. So expected it hurts. Too bad all Vilsack's voters have already wandered to the Edwards camp. But classy timing, Tom, if anything.

Rudy re-designs his webpage. Clean look and new logo, but seems under construction. So does the forming biography of his present wife. I think Rudy should use an exclamation point after his name--it just seems to be a Republican thing to do.

Congressman Tancredo hints he will join the field for the GOP nomination. So many awful choices, so little time. Come on Hagel, run!

For presidential campaign junkies, this site provides some great reminders of when the candidate fields were plentiful, like 2008 will be (especially 1988 and 1992).

Howard Fineman of Newsweek had a good take on the Edwards press conference. Saturday's New York Times will have a balanced, thoughtful look at possible voter emotions surrounding the Edwardses decision to carry on.

As of Friday afternoon, Obama had a classy front and center link to his message of best wishes for Elizabeth Edwards (including photo) on his homepage. Well done, Senator. Update: The link was gone as of 530pm PST Friday.

Final question on the Elizabeth Edwards announcement--do you think that if Edwards was the clear frontrunner, like Hillary, he would be second guessed for continuing the campaign?

Stay the Course

2007-03-22T17:06:00.000-07:00

Modern presidential politics is overly personal, and has been for some time. This modern politics tends to focus on the actions of a candidate and how they can be manipulated to match superficial stereotypes that have been affixed to that image by the media.

Watching John and Elizabeth Edwards this morning, a new kind of personalization was introduced to the campaign. As a couple, the candidate and his wife spoke in a plain, grassy space with the sun at their backs and they told America of an intimate development in their personal lives. Elizabeth's cancer has returned, and is not curable. The moment was too real, in some respects, because it made every viewer a witness to the vulnerability of those who seek political power. I am not sure what Americans truly expect from their political leaders anymore, but the kind of vulnerability John and Elizabeth exhibited is rare and awkward and human.

Pundits and bloggers have already begun their cynical march of snide doubt and division on the matter, and this reaction can be expected, for it seems it is how one survives in America these days. But I couldn't help but wish, as I watched the Edwardses speak, that America would embrace the idea they were offering us: that honest public service is about sacrifice and hope in the name of ideas, in the name of some form of a cause that includes each and all. It is called public service because you are supposed to be a servant to the community, not just to your convictions or ambitions, but to a vision of building a community that includes every citizen, functioning in a system of order that balances both practical and impossible goals.

We are all so cynical, and so afraid to believe what leaders tell us anymore. The vision of community that has persisted from our political leaders for the past several years does not include everyone, it is a vision founded on group victory, on a selfish, singular faith without reason, and on delusions of success without planning that are always mightily crafted on the backs of others.

I have met John and Elizabeth and have worked for their past campaigns, and so my response to their press conference this morning was an instant, familial type of empathy. I am fully aware some will not respond that way. Some individuals will treat this situation as an opportunistic moment, a nasty reflex born out of the trail of deceits that liter our national landscape: the WMDs, the Mission Accomplisheds, the Patriot Acts, the Katrinas, the Walter Reeds.

We have been systematically trained to disbelieve all sentiment. We have been aggressively trained to view compassion as weakness. I don't know how to make that stop for everyone else, but I can make it stop with me.

The media has never questioned the substance of the family values of that stubborn 30% of America that adores George W. Bush and his divisive messianic visions. I am sure, however, that they will question the substance of the Edwardses family values in their decision to go forward with the campaign. Only Republicans are allowed to be resolute and principled, it seems. The significant difference is that George W. Bush is resolute in believing in his cronies and his God, but John Edwards is resolute in believing in a different America where all are included and lifted.

The shared faith of John and Elizabeth was evident today, and as they constantly "look for the silver lining" within the months to come that faith will sustain them. It was a living, implied faith and not sold as a slogan. How remarkable.

Senator Edwards likes to say that "It's time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war," and I agree. Today the Senator and his wife asked all of us to be patriotic about that vision of an American community where public servants and the polity trade sacrifices with confident faith in one another's honest efforts to make the nation work as one.

It's time to put our faith in something other than a President's certainty. I'll put my faith in John Edwards' humanity.

Grace Personified

2007-03-21T23:26:00.000-07:00

Various news outlets are reporting that Senator Edwards will make some kind of announcement with his wife at noon on Thursday.

I personally met with Elizabeth two times during the campaign in 2004 (one time was a joyful, thoughtful breakfast at the Hamburg Inn in Iowa City). Elizabeth is an amazingly intelligent, humble and graceful woman.

My thoughts and prayers are with John and Elizabeth Edwards and their children. I hope yours are, too.

It Sure Takes a Village

2007-03-20T15:35:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush has forcefully stuffed seven years of non-existent straw men down our throats, namely variations of the "Some people say..." rhetorical device (when no people say), and now Hillary Clinton (ever the ambitious one) has gone and done the President one better.

Hillary has begun to create an entire community of straw folk that will make the hard (or even simple) choices while Hillary focuses instead on focus group results.

Here's Hillary on whether the pro-Obama "1984" ad rushing through the internet tubes should be pulled: "You know, that’s for somebody else to decide."

Sound familiar?

Lee Iacocca would be proud--this Senator is "getting out of the way."

I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see how often Clinton employs this new village of deciders throughout the campaign.

Straight Xenophobia-Talk Express

2007-03-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

John McCain desperately wants to be popular.

While in Iowa this weekend, McCain said that “Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I’ve been.”

However, he actually meant to say, "Republicans in Iowa are more willing to publicly immigrant-bash than anyplace I've been."

Or maybe he meant to say, "Because I really want to win the Iowa caucuses, I'm going to pretend that angry white people saying things like 'They're stealing from us' or 'We need to build a fencce' moves my soul and prompts me to consider a total flip-flop on my immigration stance."

In related news, McCain visited New Hampshire Monday and noted, "Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I’ve been."

Not Without My Daughter, Not Without My Wives

2007-03-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

If this is for real, I may consider moving abroad... or at the very least to Alaska. Oh, that's right. Hillary actually has to win the nomination first. Breathe.

Catch the pro-Obama "1984" ad while it lasts. Man, it is effective, no matter who made it.

Over at re-designed TIME, Joe Klein writes another blog that gets two notions so wrong they hurt: 1) Klein tries to make Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback look like lovable "grace" Christians with only the best intentions. Huckabee, we are told, is a "destroyer of stereotypes," and impliedly so is Brownback, apparently because they love music and health care, respectively...my what rogues they are. Klein posits each could win the GOP nomination only by becoming wing-nuts that preach fire and brimstone, like say they hate gays and oppose a woman's right to choose. The odd reality, though, is that both guys already do hate gays and reproductive choice! (What Klein calls "requisite" GOP positions, which begs the question: besides obfuscatory rhetoric, how are these guys truly different from the others again?) Huckabee may be a softer side evangelical, but embrace diversity he does not.

Where's the grace in judgment and hatred?

2) Klein goes on to write that Rudy Giuliani and Willard Romney are "moderate candidates that live like liberals," a dazzlingly airhead-esque statement that ignores the objective fact that the serious players in the Democratic field have less total divorces as a group [low-tier hopeful Chris Dodd (1)] than Rudy does on his own. Man, those liberals and their silly commitments for life. Hippie values!

And finally, on the 4th anniversary of the commencement of the Iraq War, President Bush hurriedly reads a script we've all heard before, this time with less conviction. Even a used car salesman can have an off day (very naughty word alert).

Far from the Madding Crowd

2007-03-19T09:22:00.000-07:00

Recently, Greg and I attended an event for John Edwards at the UCLA campus. Both of us noted the complete lack of security for the event. Several hundred college students and members of the public filled and surrounded a courtyard as Edwards spoke. Sure, you may say, it's John Edwards--who'd want to harm him, besides Ann Coulter? And in fairness, I never witnessed any security at an Iowa caucus event for Edwards or his wife or for any of the other candidates in 2004. But something tells me 2008 is different. The intensity at any public gathering seems greater than ever, and the thin line of American politeness appears to have thinned.

Today's Washington Post ruminates on the potential of earlier security for presidential candidates as the selection process is underway. I suppose if we are seriously in a war against terrorism and if we value our democracy (the last element there is the catch) you would think that protecting the process itself warrants value, regardless of party. According to the editorial, the budget is there to start protecting the candidates--do we have the will?

Update:U.S. News & World Report impliedly offers evidentiary support that Homeland Security should start protecting all the candidates soon--with the potentially sped-up schedule for choosing the nominee of each party this cycle, money will be left over... why not protect all of them them now?

Lifestyles of the Maverick

2007-03-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

Senator McCain had what some might call a Black Friday (or a Not Good Friday).

First, when responding to a questioner at an Iowa forum, McCain said he did not want to get involved with judging the merits of court decisions as President (admirable) because such an area was a "tar baby" for a politician (yikes). I don't believe I know or have heard anyone throughout my entire life use the term "tar baby." (Admittedly, I do not know many 70-year-olds, but surprisingly I do know several 80-year-olds. So figure that one out.)

The point is that McCain apologized for using the term. This apology is OK, if we have to accept it (and we do) but again, why do certain politicians speak in tongues completely separate from modern reality? Who uses this term anymore? Anyone?

Second, when asked a question by a reporter in Iowa (Is this why you skipped the state in 2000, Senator?) McCain traveled down an odd path that left everyone with what might be described as a not-so-fresh feeling. Courtesy of the New York Times, here's the exchange with some color commentary:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Reporter: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Reporter: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Reporter: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Reporter: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Let's be clear--there's nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question. After almost 7 years of Bush, any attempt to actually answer the question that is posed to you is refreshing. It's also not that incredibly horrible that McCain cannot instantly recall his votes on specific proposals, or that he reflexively told the reporter a sensible position that was one he has actually never held. What seems so troubling is the ease with which McCain was knocked off guard by a logical question involving a topic that has been in the public consciousness for over 25 years now. Even with the reporter's leading follow-ups, McCain was "stumped." I'm afraid one doesn't have to be an employee of the Centers for Disease Control to know that condoms definitely reduce the risk of STDs and also reduce the risk of transmission of HIV.

This sort of dissonance between our political leaders' reality-the highbrow-and the meek underclass' reality-that lowbrow-is one of the main reasons the United States continues to have ill-performing schools, outmoded healthcare bureaucracies, and an intractable four-year War. The lifelong politicians seem to want to solve problems that have evolved into different animals.

It is simple to blame this awkward moment on McCain's age, but obviously it is much more thematic and systemic than that.

The other problematic issue here is that McCain trusts Tom Coburn to provide him with helpful advice on these aspects of healthcare issues. Senator Coburn is a self-aggrandizing "values" wielder, a former Baptist deacon and obstetrician who desires the death penalty for abortionists and blames homosexuals for abortion rates. Coburn was among those who loudly complained when NBC wanted to air an unedited version of the oscar-winning Schindler's List during primetime in 1997, due to nudity (at a holocaust camp) and violence (a War). Coburn must not know about MTV.

What's worse and directly on point is that during the same year, Coburn "proposed a bill that would have ended anonymous testing for HIV/AIDS and required reporting the names of those who tested positive to public health authorities." This is who McCain looks to on healthcare issues?

When Senator McCain says he has "never gotten into these issues before" it isn't too hard to believe. Tom Coburn's healthcare realism is more like straight talk for 1907 and not 2007. I wouldn't be surprised if the HIV policy papers he supplies McCain even fail to mention lambskin.

It's 2008, and we need leaders who have a general awareness of what the present offers citizens on-the-ground, and who offer solutions fit for our times. Preaching abstinence is important, but in the face of America's sexual-activity in 2008, preaching abstinence alone is comparable to sending soldiers to battle without proper armor.

Here's a proposal for McCain's position on contraception: have one.

Meet the Snooze Bar

2007-03-16T16:41:00.000-07:00

Tim Russert has an exciting, fast-paced show planned this Sunday, one filled with vivid political narrative and straightforward debate.

Fiction or fact? I report, I decide. Fiction.

This Sunday, Russert is "moderating" a show dedicated to the four year anniversary of the Iraq War (I think the proper gift is Paper). Here's the guest list: Chuck Schumer, Tom Andrews, Tom DeLay, Richard Perle, Joe Sestak. If that were the guest list for a dinner party I was attending, I would be sure to bring my flask.

Since it's only Russert's Sunday show, I'll just hit snooze.

Question for the group: What has happened to Meet the Press lately? The show used to be an excellent way to begin a Sunday, providing informative and up-close views of leaders and opinion-makers. With all of the significant issues facing the nation, one would think there would be plenty of grist for Russert's mill. Sadly, the shows have been a bore.

Thank goodness for Frank Rich, at least. Enjoy the weekend.

A Little Less Conversation

2007-03-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

This is rich (not Marc). Former President Clinton is apparently complaining about the New York Times' recent treatment of his wife, in comparison to the way it is treating Senator Barack Obama. Did Bill miss this oddly substance-free front page article the Times ran on Obama's past investments earlier this month (the one with the negative tone that allowed other news outlets to spread innuendo like this)? Or perhaps the awful Maureen Dowd column shortly after Obama's presidential announcement where, among other things, Dowd described Obama as "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted"? I'm sure Bubba caught this objectively kind Times article about the Mrs. from the 15th of March framing Hillary's flailing statements on Iraq as "nuance." (If you click on the link, doesn't that picture look like a halo? Are you scared yet?)

Thus, far, Hillary's campaign and it's "conversation" with America has offered a lot of whining and hesitation and not many policy proposals or steps toward transformational change. What gives?

I like it better when the Dems go after Fox News.

Methinks Bill should save his energy for enemies that, well, actually exist.

Quick Hits

2007-03-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

According to ABC News, Karl Rove is more directly tied to the Bush Administration's plan to fire all of the US Attorneys for purely political reasons, er, I mean in the fight against Terror. Yet the national media ignores the story. Too bad Anna Nicole wasn't a US Attorney. Or for that matter David Geffen. This clip of Josh Marshall's appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann explains the significance of the attempted and actual firings perfectly.

Adam Nagourney--a reporter who does not handle Democrats with much fairness or maturity (especially John Edwards)--writes a front-page article about John McCain's 2008 troubles for today's New York Times. Overall it's a bland affair, but this mini-paragraph is great:

“This is the way I campaign best: Get on the bus, get off the bus,” Mr. McCain said as the Straight Talk drove circles through downtown Des Moines to permit three networks to get five minutes with him. “I love it.”

Ironic imagery anyone? As Wonkette summarized recently, "John McCain tries to get his campaign to only suck at the level it sucked in 2000."

Could California's earlier primary be a bad thing for the far right? Here's hoping. But wait, if California helps select a more moderate GOP candidate, will that be bad for the Dems? Nevermind: the California GOP are fighting to keep the primary closed to independents. Bad news for Giuliani, good news for, say, Brownback? Regardless, I think Washington state has the best idea of all.

As for the impact of California's primary on Iowa, Tim Russert noted, "no doubt about it, Iowa will become more important now." So much can change in two months, right Mickey Kaus? I'll send you a Vilsack for President bumper sticker. There's a pile of them under my Harkin for President ones.

Finally, another great Wonkette snark you may have missed (bad word alert).

Profiles in Caution

2007-03-14T22:19:00.000-07:00

I'm not a fan of litmus tests, or of having single issues rule your decision-making process when it comes to political figures. But sometimes there are topics that speak to a broader capacity for both leadership and sensibility.

Recently, Democratic presidential candidates have been asked to refute or accept comments made by General Peter Pace regarding whether homosexuality is immoral (Pace personally thinks it is, and said that homosexuality was comparable to adultery, suggesting homosexuals should be prosecuted under military law the same way those who commit adultery are).

When pressed to confront Pace's assertions, Hillary Clinton said that she was "going to leave that to others to conclude." Sadly, Senator Barack Obama punted on the topic as well, first providing a too-clever-by-half answer--"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."--and then with a Bushian muddled one--"I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done." Senator John Edwards is the only candidate, thus far, who has been willing to dismiss the notion flat-out. When Tim Russert asked Edwards in February whether homosexuality was a sin, Edwards replied, "No."

After Hillary's and Obama's initial avoidance of the issue, they then issued statements via spokespeople stating that both of them do not, in fact, consider homosexuality immoral.

What worries me about this tiny episode is not the fire in General Pace's pants over the matter--honestly, to compare homosexuality to adultery is a horribly incoherent way to prove your moral mettle--but how the opportunity it provided politicians like Hillary to display some courage was ignored.

Perhaps the adultery concept hit too close to home for Hillary, and she was in no mood to point out that a broken promise made during marriage is simply not morally comparable to one's sexual orientation.

Regardless of whether General Pace was referring to homosexual acts or homosexuality in general, his notion itself is immoral. It's not Christian by any stretch of the imagination. The religious right likes to fashion itself as a moral savior, hiding behind an unethical, lying President and Republican Party, while calling out groups it deems "immoral." It is safe to say General Pace has at one point or another violated some teaching in the Bible (working on Sunday, perhaps) but that is not of our concern. We live in an age where those who use "morals" to attack consider themselves victims of those they assail. These folks never offer proof beyond a bible passage of any harm done to them, aside from their interrupted peace of mind.

What makes Hillary Clinton's response so troubling is that she aggressively seeks money, time and support from gay voters. If she believes those gay supporters of hers are immoral, she should say so and return their money. That is her prerogative. But Hilary's spokesman now says she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. If true, then for her to sit still and allow individuals like Pace to offensively attack a group of citizens in the name of "values" is shameful and immoral. It's almost like having a pregnant, gay daughter and refusing to defend her rights while simultaneously using her to show your unique brand of "tolerance."

Hillary spoke these words in Selma, Alabama on March 4th, using a drawl only the most manipulative of maneuverers could muster: "You know, Dr. King told us -- Dr. King told us our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

I would say defending the rights of a homosexual couple who adopts a child and provides a loving home of character for that child, matters. I would say standing up to words that create an atmosphere where slander and violence against a homosexual teenager is acceptable and warranted by God, matters. Or, I would say simply stating that divisive hatred and outmoded "moral judgment" are not a proper basis for government or military policy, matters.

But I guess that's for others to conclude.

Update: Clinton tries again. I wonder why Senator Warner was able to be so clear, so quickly? Or Senator Edwards?

Update 2: Clinton had this to say on Bloomberg Television

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

It's always like this with triangulating pols like the Clintons, they save their eloquence and passion after it's too late and only after being cornered. This kind of reactionary politics is a core reason why the Democrats lost in 2004. I sure hope we're smart enough to avoid it in 2008.

The Body Electric

2007-03-02T09:31:00.000-08:00

Oh the thoughts I've had these past few weeks (and no, they didn't all involve how awful Hillary is as a candidate...)

Let's start small.

I spent most of this past week living in a hotel in Ontario, CA while taking the bar examination there. The conservative foothill of the Inland Empire offered me clear views of the snowy San Bernardino Mountains and the chill of constant winds. It also had a prominent spot for FOXNEWS on the cable dial. And I must say, every time I passed the channel, Sean Hannity or some other "balanced" figure was rattling on about Al Gore's electric bill, always ending their thought with a screeching of the word, "Hypocrite."

Apparently Ozone Man isn't supposed to turn on the lights.

Does anyone think it's a tiny bit more hypocritical to send thousands of sons and daughters into a war you claim is the battle of our generation but then not force your own daughters to contribute to the cause in any substantive way?

Or how about the hypocrisy of supporting a ban on gay marriage and a general anti-homosexual agenda while trotting out your own pregnant lesbian daughter as implied proof of your decency?

Or, even, how about calling yourself "fair and balanced" and then spending a whole week on Al Gore's electric bill?

Love it.

A New Year, An Old Score

2007-01-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

As the new year begins, highbrow/lowbrow will suddenly descend from sporadic blogging to even more sporadic blogging (oh, yes, it's possible) as I commence studying for the bar exam. I hope to post some thoughts every now and then, but consistent posting (hmmm, you wonder...has it ever been consistent?) won't emerge until March. As always, thanks for reading. Feel free to email me anytime at browbeating@gmail.com if you notice injustices that must be corrected (or if, say, Hillary decides not to run). Peace.

Et tu, Snow White?

2006-12-28T12:06:00.000-08:00

Check out this fantastically honest and charming article written by Peggy Orenstein in this past weekend's New York Times Magazine concerning the rise of the Princess nation (amongst the littlest ladies in the USA). Worth a read, on many levels. Look out, Chris!

Edwards and Upwards

2006-12-28T11:17:00.000-08:00

Welcome, John Edwards. My admiration and support for the Senator is no secret. It's safe to say that he has come a long way in a short time in both the clarity and depth departments, from the first time I watched him wow the crowd from the center of the VFW Hall on a cold winter's night in Solon, Iowa, to his recent appearance on Hardball.

Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson turns out a great summary of Edwards' path from 2004 to his announcement today.

Unlike, say, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney (who e-mailed a defensive, Inside-the-Beltway reply to me after I complained to him about his 12-19 article) as the 2008 contest solidifies, my partiality will be out in the open. May the best candidate get the Dem nod. Obviously, this excludes Hillary (she's not a foregone conclusion, folks!).

Gerald Ford, rest in peace.

2006-12-28T10:53:00.000-08:00

Back to the Future

2006-12-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

In the "Person of the Year" Issue of Time (it's me...and you!) tiny Joe Klein hands in a short, obvious slice of journalistic homework handicapping the 2008 situation on the ground for Democrats in Iowa. Klein (with the help of the Davids Yepsen and Broder) posits that people in Iowa really like Edwards, no one really wants to actually vote for Hillary, and Obama was catching a wave of support even prior to his recent multi-media blitz (his Monday Night Football introduction was risky genius--if you missed it, here). Yepsen acknowledges that Iowans don't yet view Vilsack in a "presidential frame" (I bet it's a pretty frame...I wonder if its gilded?). Klein then insolubly suggests if Iowans deem out-of-towners too slick Vilsack could benefit (but I thought Iowans already liked Edwards?). Ah, well, who needs logic when you occupy such a small part of the magazine? Limited copy, limited deduction.

So after some "mainstream media" respect for Edwards' numbers in the first caucus state, we get this junk from Adam Nagourney in today's Times. Noting that Edwards' will most likely announce his candidacy next week in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Nagourney writes:

Democrats said his campaign was gambling that the television networks and cable news programs would find New Orleans a compelling setting in a week when they were desperate for news and when many Americans would be in front of their television sets, albeit looking for football more than politics.

Unconventional announcements are conventional for Mr. Edwards. In 2004, he made his announcement on Jan. 2. That, of course, didn’t work out so well for him.

Snarkiness aside, this last line is objectively untrue. Only in America, when a one-term Senator with a working class-to-riches life story runs for President, places a surprise second in the Iowa caucuses, becomes the Vice Presidential nominee of a major political party and then finds himself well-positioned for another run at the White House in 2008, could a "reporter" label this not "work[ing] out so well."

It's going to be a long race. Happy shopping.

Baby, Don't Get Hooked on Me

2006-12-18T14:12:00.000-08:00

With a terse David and Goliath metaphor as his guide, Senator Evan Bayh bowed out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination this weekend. Now, weeks ago when Governor Mark Warner gave a pass to the race this was easy to rationalize, but Evan Bayh had both the resume and cash to hit the ground running. What's with these guys? Suddenly the thick political oxygen of celebrity and donorship is thinning for white men, and they're fading into the wilderness faster than you can say, "Obama".

Most analysts suppose Bayh's Bye-Bye is good news for John Edwards, and I would agree. Hotline on Call suggests Edwards will become the only "crusader" in the field, although it seems pretty ridiculous to call a populist-tinged candidate a "crusader" while allowing religion-and-values-heavy candidates like W. in 2000 or Romney in 2008 the mantle of "reformer." Methinks the labels should be switched, and that Edwards' eventual mantra, should he run, will be much more in line with reform and realism than the stark moral "crusading" of men like Romney or Huckabee.

It's all in the labels.

It seems Hillary is making the TV talk-show rounds this week for the re-release of her book "It Takes a Village," now sporting a full-color photo of the Senator surronded by happy children. Does anyone else notice the irony in Hillary repackaging an old work rather than writing something fresh for public consumption? It takes a cynic.

Update: Political bravery delayed is good policy denied. She makes me sick.

In case you missed it like I did, here's a week-old Washington Post column from David Broder regarding Tom Vilsack, titled, "An Iowan You Should Know."

Out of Africa

2006-12-15T16:14:00.000-08:00

If you have a spare moment amidst the holiday shopping this weekend, the article "Somalia’s Islamists and Ethiopia Gird for a War" in Thursday's Times is a riveting read. A whole world beyond the Middle East exists and needs our attention, respect and diplomatic nuance. Hopefully our next President will recognize the significance of this region.

I'm Humble, Just Ask Me

2006-12-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

Arizona Senator and presumptive GOP Presidential candidate John McCain completed a trip to Iraq this week, and the New York Times aptly revealed what's really going on inside the Senator's head. A clue: all strategery, no genuine thoughtfulness. Tastes great, but truly less filling. Per the Times:

...Mr. McCain said personal ambition would not guide his Iraq policy.

“I take the position I’m taking with the full knowledge that only 15 to 18 percent of the American people agree with my position that we need more troops,” he said. Still, he said he supported the troop increase to stabilize the situation in Baghdad and other turbulent areas and give Iraqi leaders time to work out compromises to bring the Sunni insurgency and Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence under control.

The visit by Mr. McCain came at a time of disarray in Washington and across the United States over how to proceed in Iraq. Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is effectively doubling down his bet on the war, figuring that embracing a strong resolution in Iraq will give him an effective campaign cudgel. If the administration sends more troops, Mr. McCain can hope for a speedy resolution in Iraq that allows him to claim partial victory; if President Bush pulls back and chaos persists, he could contend that his advice was ignored.

Without a troop increase, Mr. McCain said at the news conference, “the results are going to be inevitable, in my view” — a defeat for America and for its Iraqi allies that would create a terrorist haven that could be used as a base for attacks in the United States.

He contrasted the situation with the Vietnam War, saying, “when we came home, the war was over.” But now, he said, Iraq’s Islamic militants “will follow us home” if the American effort fails.

Even Mr. McCain, a decorated Vietnam hero, acknowledged the perils of his approach. He described a troop increase as “the least bad option” and said it could cost him his shot at the presidency. “I happen to feel that I have to do what my many years of life involved in the military dictate to me,” he said. As if to emphasize his military credentials, he and other members of the delegation left Baghdad by helicopter after the news conference to fly to an embattled Marine base at Ramadi, 85 miles west of the capital, which is considered one of Iraq’s deadliest places.

Least bad option. Could cost him his shot. Must do what his many years involved in the military dictate. What a brave man! McCain is recommending an option that is completely at odds with the weary nation, next-to-impossible from a personnel standpoint, and short-sighted by failing to recognize the failures of the past 5 years--and he wants all of us to be grateful at his courage to be self-consciously disingenuous? Perfect.

This guy is so brazenly transparent, his power grabs make Hillary look like a principled leader.

Over the Hillary

2006-12-15T09:25:00.000-08:00

Great, early news on the ground in Iowa for John Edwards, who continues to consolidate his support among caucus-goers. Most of the media has chosen to focus on Edwards' front-runner status, but the more interesting aspects of this poll are Obama's hard number (13%) and Hillary's decline since the last poll (from 26% to 16%). To focus on the Hillary issue, it seems that this new poll displays not only how weak her support is when it comes to actual voters, but also that after all this time in front of the nation, Iowans at least aren't buying what she will most likely be selling. As for Vilsack, the single digit showings don't help much.

This Alfonse D'Amato quote from a Friday New York Times article seems misdirected and more applicable to Senator Barack Obama and not D'Amato's object of affection, Ms. Clinton: "“My Republican colleagues would do well to take notice of a very focused, energetic, organized, articulate, bright senator who, if she does run for president, should be taken as a very, very serious candidate.” Change the "she" to a "he" and you've got a truism (again, someone all about that Clinton "energy"...please, stop, please). Also note that D'Amato actually believes Giuliani would run as McCain's VP on the GOP ticket. Evidence of delusions? Perhaps D'Amato has seen a submissive side to Rudy no one else has...

An obvious link from the Huffington Post, but a significant glimpse into the fact that the Obama's actually live in the real world (unlike, that "energetic" Hillary!). A quote from Obama:“Being shot, obviously, that is the least-attractive option... Now I will tell you, this is something, this is one of the least-attractive — not the part about being shot, obviously, that is the least-attractive option. But even just having a security apparatus around you; one of the things that I have been very proud over the last several years, is, for all the hoopla, I am not an entourage guy. . . I have been accessible, and Michelle and I have gone out of our way not to change our habits. Even if I am not to run for president, the crush of attention has created a different set of problems.”

Hopefully polls like this from the Wall Street Journal are reflecting America's true collective wisdom. The poll notes that "eight in 10 Americans would be 'comfortable' or 'enthusiastic' about an African-American or woman running for president," and also notes that if you want to be elected President in 2008, it's worse to be connected to the Bush Administration than to be gay.

An excellent quote from Chris Matthews this week, an aside the host made to his live Hardball audience during a break from taping a show with Senator John Edwards: "This is not hardball, this is batting practice. This guy is killing me. He couldn't do this four years ago."

Sounds like 2004 taught at least one Democratic nominee how to better communicate his message. I'm looking forward to seeing more of Edwards on the scene.

"But does he know how to sing it?"

2006-12-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

At least UN AmbASSador John Bolton is consistent in his inability to be a diplomat. After attending a farewell dinner held at the White House for outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Bolton snidely joked that, "nobody sang 'Kumbaya.'" While a "joke," Bolton's comment is a clear window into why our nation's foreign policy is a disaster. President Bush has a knack for finding white guys with the distinct capacity for heaping scoops of hubris on top of ignorant indecency. Annan's laughing comment after being told Bolton's joke is a window into exactly how to handle these W. acolytes, and also the man's character: "But does he know how to sing it?"

Slate's John Dickerson trailed Obama in New Hampshire this weekend and filed a concise, interesting take on the visit and the choice facing the junior Senator from Illinois. In an age when our greatest sports stars enhance their performance with chemicals, when pop musicians are explicitly manufactured, and scripted television shows actually get called reality, it might be time to acknowledge charisma and clear-headed eloquence have been undervalued in American politics for too long, and that "experience" is too often a double-edged sword.

On the opposite end of this spectrum, the man with the most impressive and painfully excessive experience in American politics has not ruled out a run in 2008. I won't be the first to say this is an inconvenient truth for for Hillary and Barack, however far-fetched.

Ah, Dennis Kucinich returns to tag along. On one hand, why not, and on the other, kind of pathetic.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, 1926-2006

2006-12-08T15:09:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite professors my senior year at Georgetown was former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who taught a course on styles of political leadership throughout history. Ambassador Kirkpatrick was often late, but once she arrived and took her chair at the front of the classroom, the lectures began in her low, throaty voice with phrases like, "One time I was talking with King Hussein of Jordan, and he said..." I also remember she sometimes wore a bright pink raincoat, a choice that seemed so out-of-character it was a delight. Jeane was an intelligent, classy, respectful and serious woman and will be missed.

Sunday Morning Pick: Read a Book

2006-12-08T14:28:00.000-08:00

Meet the Press: Like everyone but Stephanopoulous, Russert is stuck with James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a duo who's passive recommendations will help Iraq probably about as much as Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's aggressive recommendations assisted the nation's fight against terrorism. Word is that Lee Hamilton will soon publish his book, "Ignored Commission Recommendations Greatest Hits" sometime next year. A group of old white guys will also stop by to discuss the Study Group findings. Next.

This Week with George Stephanopoulus: A little better, but not much. Senator Joe Biden and Senator Gordon Smith (I know...who?) will stop by to give their two cents on the Study Group recommendations. This is followed by a roundtable with the regulars, including George Will and Cokie Roberts who will both, I'm sure, find a way to say something politically tone-deaf and insulting about someone in the Democratic Party.

Face the Nation: Baker & Hamilton regurgitate further thoughts to the echo chamber. Senators Carl Levin and Trent Lott also stop by to discuss how Michigan and Mississippi do not have the same abbreviation. Or do they?

Fox News Sunday: Third tier all the way. More from Baker & Hamilton. Senators Christopher Dodd and Sam Brownback bask in the faint 2008 glow while they still can.

Enjoy this old picture of former First Lady Nancy Reagan.

Selling Out, in the Good Sense

2006-12-07T15:51:00.000-08:00

Go, Obama, go.

Go, Richardson, go.

Anyone but Hillary.

Red Corner

2006-12-07T09:05:00.000-08:00

In a stern editorial discussing the Iraq Study Group's "Report" today, The New York Times aptly notes that, "The world has watched as Mr. Bush painted himself into a corner and then insisted it was a strategic decision." Not only does this apply to Iraq, but it also describes the base-pandering Republican Party as molded by Karl Rove. Evidence of this Rovian Red Corner-painting is found in today's interesting column from Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post who writes:

Following the gospel according to Rove (fear not swing voters but pander to and mobilize thy base), George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, together or separately, had already blocked stem cell research, disparaged nonmilitary statecraft, exalted executive wartime power over constitutional niceties, campaigned repeatedly against gay rights, thrown public money at conservative churches and investigated the tax status of liberal ones. In the process, they alienated not just moderates but Western-state libertarians.

Since sneaking into the White House in 2000, the Republicans took a gamble that moderates weren't needed to win or perhaps didn't even exist--recall that recently Bill O'Reilly told an Oprah audience that "there is no center" in American politics--but the reality is that most Americans are comfortable with centrist policies, not only because compromise is the lifeblood of democracy and helps move policy forward, but because we all have to live together every day. Extremism complicates and interferes with our daily lives, not thoughtful compromise.

Have you noticed how blithely revisionist some folks are when it comes to the independent bid for the Presidency made by Ross Perot in 1992? After all that hype and free press surrounding the Texas billionaire, Perot only garnered 19% of the popular vote, respectable for certain, but hardly within the realm of victory. If anything, Perot nudged Bill Clinton closer to the White House. New York magazine sure thinks Michael Bloomberg is the cat's meow. Discontent might be high in 2008, but I don't think that a 3rd party led by Bloomberg is the answer to our nation's problems.

I have always contended that McCain is no maverick. All recent evidence suggests he'd sell his soul to be Commander-in-Chief, and now he has the perfect guy lined-up to run his campaign: Terry Nelson, the man behind those race-baiting anti-Harold Ford ads in the Tennessee Senate race.

Free Time: Party Twins, Rudy's Dictatorship Tendencies & Obama

2006-12-05T14:49:00.000-08:00

Michael Kinsley writes an excellent and original main page article for Slate about the Bush twins and their failure to weigh in on the war created by their father. Kinsley writes:

Living your life according to your own values is a challenge for everyone, and must be a special challenge if you happen to be the president. No one thinks that the president should have to give up a child to prove that his family is as serious about freedom as these other families he praises. But it would be reassuring to see a little struggle here—some sign that the Bush family truly believes that American soldiers are dying for our freedom, and it's worth it. Who knows? Maybe they have had huge arguments about this. Maybe George and Laura wanted the girls to join the Red Cross, or the Peace Corps, or do something that would at least take them off the party circuit for a couple of years. And perhaps the girls said no. But I doubt this scenario, don't you?

Cintra Wilson of Salon offers up a true and important aspect of Rudy Giuliani often overlooked--that while Mayor of New York City he was an excessively authoritarian, egotistical leader. She notes:

On 9/11, all Americans were frightened children, and in a moment of mythic personal heroism, Mayor Giuliani filled the gaping leadership void. The president looked like a petrified chimp; Cheney was spirited to an underground bunker. Only Giuliani could pull himself together sufficiently to get on TV in the midst of the wreckage and show America that a grown-up was still breathing. On that terrible day our reptile brains looked at Rudy Giuliani and said, "We're OK now. Daddy's home."

And we forgot, some for a moment, some permanently, that Daddy was psycho.

Markos at the Daily Kos writes a provocative piece all-but endorsing Barack Obama for President. The piece pretty much proves why restraint is often best in political journalism, because Markos plays his hand a little too much and comes across as a lazy amateur in the process, i.e. assuming Vilsack will win Iowa which is plainly ridiculous. Kos writes:

Again, we don't know what the final field will look like, so things can dramatically change. But an entrance into the race would make Obama the prohibitive favorite. If politics is about seizing opportunities, it would seem a no-brainer for him to enter the race now.

What's more, Obama would then be tough to beat in the general. He would very well be the favorite in that race, even against a McCain, and would probably be a net positive for Democrats running down the ballot. So it wouldn't be a terrible thing by any means.

I agree it wouldn't be a bad thing, but Kos' piece proves pundits are feeling the pressure to stake out territory with their predictions and fast. The bottom line is that a lot can happen tomorrow, let alone one year from tomorrow. We don't even know who's running yet. Stay tuned.

Choices

2006-12-05T09:59:00.000-08:00

A tasty morsel of hope in today's New York Times: Barack Obama is acting more and more like a candidate, giving well-attended speeches and meeting with possible donors. Some key graphs:

One of the donors who met with Mr. Obama, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to offend Mrs. Clinton, said that he and several others had supported Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns but were not committed to her as a presidential candidate.

“I like Hillary a lot, but I’m also impressed with Obama — his message, the way he connects to people,” said the donor, a prominent New York business person. “It’s a little too early for Democrats to be certain that Hillary is the strongest bet for 2008. There are a lot of good people interested in running.”

Agreed. But this passage takes the cake:

John Catsimatidis, a loyal Clinton donor, said he had recently received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton asking to have dinner before the holidays. He believes she wants to run for president and is moving to ramp up her Senate fund-raising operation for a White House campaign.

“I think they have a phenomenal political machine set up that’s far superior to any of the other candidates, or theoretical candidates,” Mr. Catsimatidis said. “Now they’re getting ready to put that machine to use.”

Oh yeah, nice machine! Too bad it's a machine with no voters involved! I don't know anyone who supports Clinton. When I ask folks out here in California about her, all I get is variations of a grimace.

Speaking of variations of a grimace, it looks like the response to Senator Kerry's "botched joke" (which I sincerely believe was a simple mistake) has knocked Kerry off course when it comes to an '08 run. His previous plan to decide early in 2007 has been pushed to Spring. Even Nixon had to wait two cycles before his White House comeback. But I suspect Kerry's chance at a comeback will never come back.

Even more hope on the 2008 front: Senator John Edwards appeared on CBS Sunday Morning over the weekend, showing off his new home in North Carolina, discussing his new book, and generally reminding me why he should not be counted out this time around. His genuine focus and confidence were evident; Elizabeth looked great and back to full form as well. Here's a link from the CBS website detailing the appearance that includes some clips from the show. Within the last few days, Edwards also snatched up former Michigan Congressman David Bonior as a senior advisor--a solid move in step with Edward's consistently populist behavior since his 2004 loss.

What's In a Name

2006-12-04T14:50:00.000-08:00

In late 1999, First Lady Hillary Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and I was in the audience. The topic of the speech is anyone's guess. I forgot the substance of the talk the moment my person exited Gaston Hall and returned to the sidewalks of campus. My memory of the speech consists of one blunt and simple concept: through-the-motions.

Almost seven years later, now that the First Lady is a twice-elected junior Senator from New York and is slowly assembling the framework for a run at the White House, I am revisiting that concept and hereby making it the foundation for my vigorous opposition to her candidacy for the Presidency.

Where the heck has Hillary Clinton been for the past seven years?

No, really. I'm dead serious. Where has Hillary been? I'll tell you where: going through-the-motions. Sure, sure, everyone in Hillary's inner circle will leap up to tell us what a diligent and thoughtful legislator she is, how dogged and detailed her approach to policy is, how careful and responsible she maps out her myriad positions. My response to this is: so what? Where has she been?

In the past seven years our nation has entered an incomprehensible and endless war that Hillary Clinton supported and only grew stern against once it was too late and even then only when the cameras were rolling. In the past seven years, our federal government policy has completely reversed any middle class economic gains initiated by Hillary's husband and even worse has compounded the gains for those in the tree-top upper class, those who know of wealth but little of work. In the past seven years, evangelicals and Christian conservatives have hijacked the social atmosphere of the nation, pushing their way into our bedrooms and classrooms and pocket books. As soldiers died in the name of energy dependence, as our elderly got ensnared in a Big Pharma giveaway prescription drug plan for Medicare, and as American children have remained stuck in underfunded and over-tested classrooms, these moral crusaders have used a puppet Congress to target and attack and turn the nation againt groups ranging from homosexuals to women to immigrants. And in the past seven years our President has insulted our intelligence, lied to our faces, and refused to be held accountable or hold any of his comrades accountable for deep and latent mistakes.

So where was Hillary?

I don't care about her well-written policy speeches on the Senate floor or her grandstanding questioning of Don Rumsfeld or her chidingly mild and useless words on the President's bold grabs at power. What I care about is hearing a counterbalancing force in American politics. An angry voice. A blunt voice. A non-triangulating, non-focus-group-tested, non-cynical voice.

We've heard Hillary, because yes, she's been talking. But she has said nothing to defend us, not when it counts, and not with a loud, clear shout.

This country deserves a woman President, and soon. But not Hillary. She has not stood up for any of us. She has only stood up for herself.

Sunday Talk Re-Cap: Who's on First

2006-12-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

Due to odd L.A. programming for CBS Sunday morning, I was unable to follow my own advice, and only caught This Week (as well as the great Frank Rich column). This was the first glimpse of Evan Bayh that I've had, and I suppose two things struck me: he's calm and smart, and his voice is kind of radio-announcer-y. We'll see what happens with him. Vilsack also seemed calm and smart but his makeup was weird (red lips?) and it distracted me overall. The lame-o panel afterwards quickly wrote Vilsack off due to his lack of "passion" but I'm not sure what they expect; I doubt modern political passion requires full-throated zaniness, a la Howard Dean or Al Gore 2.0. Besides, when John McCain speaks he has the enthusiasm of a rural banker opening a savings account and no one seems to question his passion (or question him, period). And I don't think Hillary Clinton has any real passion beyond her trademark snark. Whatever though, right--at this early stage the pundits are at their weakest zenith in terms of power-- what matters most is signing up talent and raising the funds.

Here's an interesting devil's advocate take on why Vilsack's road to D.C. is a bumpy one.

One evening as a Congressional page I was leaving the Hart Senate office building and I stood in line at the ATM behind a staffer for Senator Brownback. The Senator stood waiting nearby, holding some dry-cleaning. He casually struck up a conversation with me asking where I was from, etc. He was friendly and very sincere. It's too bad his brand of theocratic conservatism has no place in American democratic governing, now matter how genuinely held his values are. However, I suspect Brownback will be able to participate in the primaries for a while, occupying the true Far Right corner once warmed by the tired persona of George Allen.

Sunday Show Pick: Face the Nation

2006-12-01T20:33:00.000-08:00

Meet the Press: Big yawn, here. I'm definitely sleeping in. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Sens. John Warner and Carl Levin, and former President Jimmy Carter. I wonder which one will wear the most colorful tie. That'll be the extent of the excitement on this one. Oh, and as an aside, I thought Tim Russert's interview last week with my Governor, Arnold the Tan, was ridiculous. As a double aside, I did not comment on Russert's interviews with Senators-elect Jon Tester and Jim Webb two weekends ago because the whole show was insulting. I don't even think Tim prepares for interviews with Democrats. His follow-ups are so passive aggressive it's sad. If I have to hear him ask one more Democrat what "redeployment" means... Anyway...

This Week with George Stephanopoulos: OK, double bookings are just lame. Surprise! George hosts Stephen Hadley. BUT George also has taped segments with Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Tom Vilsack. Maybe I'll TIVO this one. I wish the Bayh interview was live, but oh well. At least this show will try to be newsworthy.

Face the Nation: OK, triple bookings are just useless. Why even have these shows? Lord. Is everyone interesting busy? So you know the drill-- Captain Camera-Hog Stephen Hadley appears with Host Bob to spout the Party line about how Iraqis will stand up, we'll stand down, and how W. is God. Then we have much more interesting guest Senator Chuck Hagel, who may drop some hints about his 2008 plans. But, just to remind us that too much pleasure is a bad thing, we get to listen to oh-so-self-obsessed Joe Lieberman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party talk about how pretty he is. Oy vey.

Pick: Face the Nation, with the Lieberman segment on mute.

FoxNews.com Cracker Watch: 24

2006-12-01T14:30:00.000-08:00

December 1, 2006, 232pm PST:

Crackers: 24
African-Americans: 2 (!)
Actress Eva Mendes: 1
Yellow Blow-up Seal: 1

Outside Sources

2006-12-01T09:15:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post's White House Briefing from Dan Froomkin is a tad heavy-handed, but a good summary of just why the evolution of our nation's Iraq policy no longer involves the President of the United States. The best quote comes from James Fallows, who contends that when it comes to where we go from here, "the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse."

That's kind of how I felt about the 2004 election.

Slate's Fred Kaplan provides even more reasons why the Iraq Study Group is a bad idea in theory. He begins his piece noting:

Judging from the advance leaks and previews, the Baker-Hamilton commission's upcoming report on Iraq will do exactly what these blue-ribbon salvage jobs are meant to do: a) Stake out a position halfway between the president and his critics without fully satisfying either; b) provide "bipartisan" cover for both sides to shuffle toward middle ground; and yet c) sidestep the central question, which is too unsettling for anyone to face and which can still be kicked down the road for a bit, to everyone's relief.

I think that Kaplan's (c) is 100% correct. Bad students love to procrastinate! What did Ellen DeGeneres once say? "Procrastination is the answer to all of our problems. Procrastinate now. Don't put it off."

ABC's Note provided fair coverage to Iowa Governor Vilsack's presidential announcement today. The Note does point out why Vilsack's climb is steeper than ever, citing that, "Coverage of Vilsack's announcement by the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood seems to say more about Sen. Obama than it does about Gov. Vilsack. 'The person with the greatest chance of altering the race appears to be Sen. Barack Obama . . . whose message of hope and optimism has created a political sensation.'

Nothing like a level playing field...

The Sectarian Violence Ate My Homework

2006-11-29T20:54:00.000-08:00

Even in law school, where they are all the rage, I never cared for study groups. Generally, individuals in any group are incentivized to practice restraint, be it with their wisdom, questions, or time. In study groups this restraint is amplified by blunt competition, and I don't care how nice or genial everyone is, there is a point where the group disperses and every man and woman is left to fend for themselves on exam day. Period.

Admittedly, the high level commission appointed by the President to "study" its way to a magical, feasible path towards fixing what W. and Dick have broken in Iraq (or what the White House website euphemistically terms "renewal") surely has none of this competitive "I-need-the-best-grade" bunk that normal study groups contend with. But the subtle political posturing required to be welcomed into such a prestigious "study group" or "commission" is pretty much a competition of sorts. And once inside the group, individuals retain their ulterior motives. Sure, Lee Hamilton and James Baker and whoever else is in the group (Sandra Day O'Connor? Can you believe that?) seek a similar field of result, that ever elusive "victory," but to quote Maureen Dowd's column from Wednesday:

In Latvia, President Bush vowed [Tuesday] that "I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." But his words about Iraq long ago lost their meaning. Especially the words "mission" and "complete."

How can this "study group" be expected to divine a solution to a problem not of its making, especially when the group is operating within a realm of Presidential semantics that make any realistic solution impossible? I look upon this commission like I would an internet term paper service college students use when they don't want to read the book--what will be delivered is result by proxy, or in this particular instance, leadership by proxy. W. is the failing student too desperate to study on his own and too incurious to dig in and earn the A+ like a person of character. The President has plenty of time to do what he loves (attend campaign parties across the nation, clear brush) but has no time to do what must be done to stop American soldiers from dying every day (create policy). Adding insult to injury, Jim Baker's commission is severely limited because the chief architects of the Iraq mess are still lurking over the process to clean it up, like lazy bullies demanding the nerd complete the assignment on time.

Perhaps this is a great example of why inherited governance never succeeds. Throughout history, individuals handed governing leadership roles on the sole basis of filial affiliation often falter repeatedly, and even more often fail entirely. Being an executive requires a whole list of sacrifices, including doing many tasks that are tough by any standard. Being a political leader in modern America requires even heavier burdens. One has to want it, and badly. But W. is the President who never really wanted to be President; so much of his Presidency is wrapped up in his father's legacy, there is no room left for naive ambition or optimism or even truth. Rove & Company have ensured cynical, selfish "strategery" from day one. It has led to disaster. Even W. admits he's waiting to graduate so the next class can fix it all.

I have little, true insight into what Baker and his "study group" will turn in to their intellectual purchaser, George W. Bush, on exam day. But reading quotes from W. like the one above, I can see it's already too late. Hopefully the inevitable end is that we bring the soldiers home as soon as possible. The best thing the rest of us can do is ensure that our next President knows what he or she wants for America, beyond victory and then winning re-election. Let's pick someone who will write their own term paper, or better yet, care about what grade the People give it.

2008: Hawkeye State

2006-11-29T07:31:00.000-08:00

Looks like Senator Edwards will be in Des Moines tonight at the Barnes & Noble signing copies of his new book, Home. If you're in the area, it might be worth stopping by (even just to see the size of the turnout...).

Also this evening in Mount Pleasant, Governor Vilsack holds a potluck to pull the trigger on his announcement tour for the White House. I don't think Christie Vilsack's dish sounds appealing, but I guess what Tom is serving up is more important... grab a fork.

I haven't been reading much about McCain's Iowa operation...I'm looking for any evidence he will take Iowa seriously this go-round and I'm not hearing much. Maybe he's too busy taking fancy photos for that website of his.

Update: Political Wire notes rumblings that Hillary Clinton is not setting up necessary staff elements in Iowa, suggesting that she is watching Obama's moves before deciding to run herself or is skipping the caucuses entirely. If Obama runs and Hillary doesn't, I think the word "miracle" would be an appropriate response.

I noticed that CNN is re-running clips of Vilsack's presidential announcement, but I also noticed how the announcer cited both Vilsack's support for gay unions and his single digit showing in the Democratic preference polls. On one hand, it's good they're even giving Vilsack coverage, but on the other hand, must the press highlight this kind of stuff even before a candidate leaves the gate? It's going to be a long election cycle....

Post-Its: Pelosi, Hagel, and Obama-mania

2006-11-28T22:49:00.000-08:00

Like I suspected, those ridiculous obituaries penned for Nancy Pelosi's power after her support of losing Majority Leader candidate Jack Murtha went nowhere were not only disingenuous but just plain lazy (Maureen Dowd cattily complained Pelosi's first move was to "throw like a girl." That MoDo leaves no cliche unturned...). Not so fast-- it's looking like the woman has what I believed Madeline Albright called "cajones." Pelosi will not select Jane Harman or Alcee Hastings for the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee... Well, done, Madame Speaker. Looks like no one will be forcing Pelosi's hands just yet (at least for now)... but you and I know the press won't see this as a gesture of strength from the Speaker-elect (which it is).

Weeks ago I doubted Senator Chuck Hagel's interest in the White House and a reader aptly pointed out Hagel was by no means out of the picture... here is some further evidence in a solid David Ignatius column... Hagel's conserative pragmatism and lack of superficial rhetoric would certainly have appeal to Iowans, I would suspect...

The other day I was waiting for the elevator inside the office building I am currently working at in Hollywood, and the lobby's flatscreen television monitor was tuned to CNN. Senator Barack Obama was on the screen giving an interview and I couldn't help but notice how everyone around the television lingered, watching the screen until the last moment when they stepped into the elevator car. There's no doubt the man turns heads... I hope his upcoming trip to New Hampshire goes well...

Speaking of 2008 hopefuls, has anyone checked out John Edward's book? Any reviews?

Finally, I really would have expected more from Brian Fellows, but alas, life goes on. For those of you who don't know, you're not missing much. But for those who do-- that goat has devil eyes.

Who Amongst Us Doesn't Like Kerry?

2006-11-28T07:13:00.000-08:00

The Huffington Post is oddly concerned with something pretty useless today (are we surprised?). Namely, that a new poll shows John Kerry is the least liked Democrat and possibly least liked political figure (excluding W., naturally). Also, this new poll shockingly showed Americans like puppies more than little kids. Great stuff. Distractions are fun... focus, Arianna!

A noteworthy article yesterday from the Times about the dying breed of moderate GOP-ers. This ties in with my previous musings on Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee, but sadly the article treats the moderate GOP flareout as one of cyclical, political realities and not one born of Bush and Rove tactics that put power above honor. Maine voters in particular voted for Sheldon Whitehouse because Bush and his 50% "mandate" in 2004 just became too painful to sit through. It seems that when a President and his cohorts start to decry partisanship while simultaneously calling the opposition party weak, unpatriotic and pretty much terrorist appeasers that these kinds of moderates fade. The article makes no mention of just who placed our country into these desperate times, and who forced voters' hands into taking desperate measures... but worth a read nonetheless.

Soldiers of Fortune

2006-11-27T20:54:00.000-08:00

Back on track! Thanks for your patience (presuming you're out there...)

Behind the TimesSelect walls, Bob Herbert traveled the road most-definitely taken before in his New York Times column Monday, lamenting the reality that most of America's Malls are bustling with holiday spending while Iraq burns and American soldiers continue to die. While I'm game to go along with this semi-legitimate whining something about it is so absurd and misplaced it's just gross:

There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it.

Personal responsibility, huh... while Herbert quotes some college students who bluntly acknowledge they feel no connection to W.'s moral crusade, he's left with college kids and materialistic mommies as the bad guys and no one else . This is all fine and nice, but when there is so much to be outraged about in this world (hello, poverty, genocide and disease) and when there are so many that are personally responsible for these things (uh, like the Bushes and Cheneys and such) shooting the student and shoppers is just weird. "Gleeful Americans with Fistfuls of dollars," Bob? Really? Come on. We have to question just what exactly people like Herbert mean when they say, "there is no sense of collective sacrifice in this war, no shared burden of responsibility."

I don't know about you, but I have heard this "where's the shared sacrifice?" talk from commentators towing the line on both sides of the political spectrum, and have always wanted them to elaborate. What would they like us to do? Who's responsibility is it to rally Americans to such a collective cause? And even if the President awoke from his fraternity-style detachment, what sacrifice could he offer us to lay down, beyond a token gesture of superficiality? Herbert mentions Representative Charlie Rangel's proposal to bring back the draft--but is mandated all-male army-making the kind of burden this nation needs? I have no answers here, but this brand of weepy "why aren't we all paying attention" column-making doesn't seem to achieve much.

Rampant consumerism is arguably a modern malady but I don't see how a woman buying towels at Restoration Hardware for her Christmas guests is a bad American or has not given any thought to the chaos in Iraq. Americans have given up on this war. The direct cause of this is George W. Bush.

Much better is Nick Kristof's Tuesday column, The Cowards Turned Out to Be Right, which quietly defends the journalists that have steadily turned out factual, balanced reporting from beyond the Green Zone in Iraq. Kristof ends his piece asking this: "how about if the administration devotes itself less to managing the news and more to trying to manage Iraq?"

Wouldn't it be nice?

Gratitude

2006-11-22T16:06:00.000-08:00

Something happened to me on November 8th, 2006. I woke up and everything seemed a little easier. Traffic to work was nominal, the faces of my colleagues at work seemed genial, and all of my favorite websites pulsed with positivity. During my routine lunch-break walk the air spun a sweet scent and radiated a weak heat that California calls Fall. As the stumpy palm trees and fire-friendly grasses swayed with the wind, I was reminded of a passage in an essay written by the incandescently true Anne Lamott titled, Ham of God. In the essay, Lamott wrote:

Everyone I know has been devastated by Bush's presidency and, in particular, our country's heroic military activities overseas. I can usually manage crabby hope that there is meaning in mess and pain, that more will be revealed, and that truth and beauty will somehow win out in the end. But I'd been struggling...so much had been stolen from us by Bush, from the very beginning of his reign, and especially since he went to war in Iraq. I wake up some mornings pinned to the bed by centrifugal sadness and frustration. A friend called to wish me Happy Birthday, and I remembered something she'd said many years ago, while reading a Vanity Fair article about Hitler's affair with his niece. "I have had it with Hitler," Peggy said vehemently, throwing the magazine to the floor. And I'd had it with Bush.

Up until November 7, 2006 I too had had it with Bush. The dishonest politics, dismembered reasoning and disabled leadership all swirled into a quiet daily misery that clung to my leg like a playful child. There was no doubt about it: I had given up. I had learned to ignore this perpetual, nagging injury my daily life sustained, the result of the direct and aggressive insulting of my intelligence. Since 2000, I had more than lost my bearings, I had lost my national history. The past six years for me are a period of life marred by political disillusion and dispair. I have not recognized the sleepwalking country that is my own. Decency and hopefulness disappeared. When I was a sophomore in college, I headed to Washington, D.C., to attend Georgetown University, and no matter my politics (I was a safely closeted Republican) the knowledge imparted to me in my government courses was imbued with an overall tone clearly enunciated, a tone that mimicked what I had been taught growing up in Iowa: respect, collegiality and forward-looking perspective were the framework of my people and its government, and ideology was mere color on the canvas. If latent, petty hatreds existed, they were managed in the name of a greater purpose: getting along.

I distinctly recall the early morning George W. Bush was announced by cable commentators as the next President of the United States. My blunt and endearing grandfather Earl had just passed away, and my bags were packed for a return trip to Iowa to be with my family. The telephone in my dark, basement apartment on 31st street rang, and my mother said, "Can you believe this?" At first, I wasn't sure if she was referring to the grief we all felt over my grandfather's passing, or the prolonged, troubled election results. I immediately knew she had chosen the distraction, as would be natural, and meant the election results. In my family, politics was serious and significant. In fact, I recall asking my mother that evening if my now-deceased grandfather had voted. But you see, prior to that moment in 2000, American politics and family politics were very similar. They involved power and pressure and guilt and results, but all squeezed with a strong embrace of belonging and love. We were all in it together.

One of my clearest memories in life is returning from that very funeral. I was sitting in a window seat on a small Northwest Airlines plane, pulling away from a Kentucky airport gate. I was watching Katherine Harris' heavy, made-up mug certifying the votes that would make George W. Bush the next leader of the free world. My anticipation was salient, however misguided (I had voted for Bush). For me, looking back, that moment combines with the grief I felt for my mother's loss of her second parent. Knowing what I know today, that grief would shift its primary rationale and focus but would not leave me for six years. Not until this November 8th.

As a creature of routine, for once on November 8th, 2006, I welcomed with intensity the notion that everything must change, that absolute truth gets tested and unquestioningly yields to the arc of new orders. On the morning of November 8th, I felt as if the entire nation had thrown the proverbial magazine down, disgusted with being so viciously discounted for so long. W's "thumpin'" was my reason to believe. It should be a reason to believe for all of us.

Of course, I do not expect that the nation's political tonal trajectory will improve immediately. I am not stupid, but I am no longer put upon with the burden of lies being believed, no longer weighed down with the Rovian rhetoric of divide and scare.

In the late 80s, when I was nearing 11 years old, my grandmother Zita and I would conduct play-acted political interviews and tape them on an old black analog recorder. I played the role of Dan Quayle, the then current vice-president, and my grandmother played the cynical interviewer. My role consisted of playing dumb, and my grandmothers, of the inquisitive journalist. After recording these sessions, we would replay them and would laugh and laugh. I don't think I have experienced such pure laughter too often since those interviews. But together, our humor was as deeply joyful as it was harmless. At that time, making fun of political leaders was different, Despite our laughter and mockery, the powers that be governed, and our homes and churches and bedrooms were wonderfully quiet and absent of these leaders' judgment. These places sustained a spirituality and intimacy that was special and shared with only a few. The laughter about our leaders then contained no trace of nervousness. We feared our God, but never our Government.

9/11 did not shift this paradigm. Karl Rove did. And on November 8th, 2006, as I tossed my magazine down and loudly proclaimed, "I have had it with George W. Bush," something shifted again. Something righted itself.

I am reminded of two years earlier, on that clear, hot day of November 8th, 2004. I stood on the steaming concrete tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport waiting for my transit shuttle to move. I had just touched down from a month-long work project in Ahmedabad, India, and I was filled with stories of a foreign land and utterly exhausted. My tiny cell phone found its signal, and I excitedly dialed my brother in Chicago. The results. Who won? This time, I had voted for John Kerry.

"It's over, buddy," my brother said, with a sadness unmistakable between kin.

This November 8th, I thought of that moment yet again.

"It's over, buddy."

Well, yes, it almost is. And for this, for this, I am truly thankful.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Lost Highway

2006-11-21T11:59:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I began working on a legal project that requires my complete attention for 8 hours a day. Thankfully, it is located at a Hollywood office with lovely views of the hills. Regrettably, there is very limited internet access. While I am working to remedy this for the days to come, regular posting will not resume until tomorrow, Wednesday the 22nd.

Thanks for your patience and please check back soon.

Read Frank Rich from Sunday. Fully original and marvelous.

Friday's Last Gasp

2006-11-17T15:04:00.000-08:00

I had no idea Dick Cheney was that old.

Giuliani seems more serious than I suspected. Does he hurt or help McCain? Speaking of, I've been Exploring McCain, and it seems that like Stephen Colbert, the Senator doesn't see color. (More black and white than Bush, Chris?)

Newsweek's 2008 bench seems a tad narrow. Hagel? Is he even interested? Good for Vilsack, though... One man not on this roster is Senator Chris Dodd. He's the guy trying to restore habeus corpus, but the media doesn't seem to care much about stuff like that and would much prefer to highlight more unexamined topics, like, say, Joe Lieberman.

The Biggest and the Littlest Lady in the World

2006-11-17T11:42:00.000-08:00

Let's just be honest, this is crap and we all know it. Not only did the woman make history, but she broke through a marble-reinforced ceiling that has persisted for years, even after most other nations have seen the light and moved on. Nancy Pelosi is now 3rd in the line of succession for the Presidency. But what kind of political discourse does this event generate? Nothing positive or hopeful, that's for sure. Maybe the bums that need to be kicked out are all of the reporters in this country. The fourth estate needs an Extreme Makeover, pronto.

Should we really apply male-created power rules and traditions to this situation? Objectively, women will and do make management decisions differently than men. Not much hay was made of Dennis Hastert blatantly covering-up the sexual aggressions of Mark Foley--what kind of a power decision was that? Were we supposed to applaud Hastert's turned cheek since he enabled Republicans to amass further power? Nancy Pelosi was guilty of taking sides in a minor (and healthy) power struggle. Rather than focusing on Pelosi's loyalty to Jack Murtha, her gestures of support were labeled as ones of weakness. Reports even indicated that no one in the Democratic caucus left the Majority Leader fight phased or disheartened. And yet the response in the MSM to Pelosi's choice is derision and a shake of the head. Howard Fineman and others like him have clutched their pearls in shock at the politics of it all, but their false shock is about as geniune as Bush's new bipartisanship. It seems the perfect person to address this matter is Maureen Dowd. I'll be on the lookout for her Saturday column tomorrow to see if she decides to rail against the press for furtively making Pelosi the bad Mommy.