Categories: News and/or Media, Political Rantings, Sports Talk | 10 Comments »

Deconstructing the Democratic Stump Speech

With his recent victory in North Carolina and draw in Indiana, Barack Obama has all but sewn up the Democratic Presidential nomination, despite the fact that we seem to have agreed, as a country, to ignore that fact for the next couple of months so the mass media news networks can continue to run high-drama 24-hour coverage of the remaining primary elections and, quite possibly, the convention itself.

At any rate, Obama gave a victory speech in North Carolina the other day that many are hailing as his first speech as the presumptive nominee, rather than a Democratic primary candidate.

I found pieces of it fascinating, and wanted to deconstruct them here.
By way of disclaimer: while I’m often branded a “conservative” (sometimes correctly, sometimes not), I have not decided who I’m voting for yet. If I was forced at gunpoint to choose right now, though, I’d probably choose Obama over McCain. But that’s purely on the “inspiring leadership” metric, which is all I’ve really heard so far, and not typically near the top of my list when I actually cast my vote in November. I hope that colors the following as more of an independent analysis than a right-wing slash & burn piece. I suspect that some people will never be convinced, though. Ah well, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

On to Obama:

This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country, because we all agree that at this defining moment in our history, a moment when we are facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril, a dream that feels like it’s slipping away for too many Americans, we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term.

I’ve heard this theme from many prominent Democrats over the last couple of weeks (most recently, from Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, on The Daily Show
with John Stewart). John McCain was on The Daily Show the next night, and said very matter-of-factly that there are many issues on which he disagrees with the President (torture, the way in which the Iraqi war was waged, immigration, campaign finance reform) and others on which he agrees with the President. It strikes me as a very simple task for John McCain to define himself as different enough from George W. Bush to negate this line of attack, once we get to the general election campaign this fall. If the Democrats are counting on it, as they seem to be right now, I believe they’re in some serious trouble.

Somewhere along the line, between all the bickering and the influence-peddling and the game-playing of the last few decades, Washington and Wall Street have lost touch with these core values, these American values.

And while I honor John McCain’s service to his country . . . his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.

Yes, we know what’s coming. I’m not naive. We’ve already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along.

The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white, black, brown, young, old, rich, poor…

… this is the race we expect, no matter whether it’s myself or Senator Clinton who is the nominee. The question then is not what kind of campaign they will run; it’s what kind of campaign we will run.

This is the passage that made me fall off my chair. Just 19 days ago, I, too, complained against this kind of dirty politics. In my complaint, though, I said this:

I document this today, the day of the hard-fought Pennsylvania primary, because I know people have short memories, and once the media changes the national conversation, others will call me crazy for suggesting what is common knowledge right now. And that is this:

On April 22, 2008, Barack Obama has already been called unpatriotic, racist, unqualified, unprepared, inexperienced, beholden to lobbyists, elitist and Muslim. Hillary Clinton has been called a liar, a hypocrite, a war hawk, over-emotional, contrived, out of touch and willing to rig elections with changes to primary rules and reliance on super delegates. His health care plan has been criticized for leaving millions uninsured. Her position on NAFTA has been criticized as being inconsistent with her previous votes on the subject. He’s been accused of a willingness to mollycoddle world leaders. She’s been accused of fear mongering.

And all of it, every single bit of it, is coming from within the Democratic party. There’s no conceivable way to blame any of this on John McCain, Karl Rove, or the RNC. They have wisely stayed on the sidelines and watched the Democrats feast on each other, well on their way to throwing away an easy victory in November for the third time in a row.

I went on to predict that come September/October, the Democrats would be criticizing the Republicans for using these same tactics, despite using them so vociferously themselves in March/April. Apparently, I was wrong. It didn’t take until September/October. It’s happening right now. Barack Obama seems to believe he can convince me that all of the nasty, bogus, dirty-politics attacks he’s endured over the last couple of months have come from the John McCain’s “side.”

My friends, I’m still not sure how calling people bitter is considered elitist. But talking to me like I can’t remember more than a few weeks of history? That suggests a perceived intellectual superiority that, quite frankly, boggles the mind.

More:

The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders.

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

…and Carter did, and Clinton did. Odd how he left out the two most recent Democrats, huh? Particularly when those two engineered perhaps the two most famous handshakes in the history of the White House Lawn? Maybe it’s because Carter’s award-winning handshake led directly to the assassination of one leader, and did nothing to create peace for Israel in the subsequent 30 years? Or maybe it’s because Clinton’s ventures in personal diplomacy with hostile leaders also led to an assassination, this time of our ally’s leader, not to mention that little deal with the North Koreans, which we recently learned they began violating before the ink was dry? Or, quite possibly, because Carter is back to demonstrate additional “wisdom” by meeting with the leaders of Hamas, despite requests from the State Department to stay the hell out of the way?

Also interesting that he didn’t say “like Reagan did,” given that his well-documented personal meetings with Gorbachev led directly to the end of the cold war and the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

I sure hope this bit was about political spin because, otherwise, Obama’s in serious need of a history lesson.

Allow me to repeat the summary point of my April 22nd post:

In 2000, the Democrats were running a sitting Vice President to an extremely popular President with a few big character flaws. All Al Gore had to do was be “Bill Clinton without the oral sex,” and he would have walked into the White House practically uncontested. Instead, it was insanely close, and Gore walked into a series of White Castle’s, rather than a single, White House.

In 2004, the Democrats were running a war hero and sitting senator against a highly unpopular president who was strongly advocating for a highly unpopular war. Again, they blew it, and John Kerry took a swift boat back to Boston.

Now, we’re in 2008. 70% of Americans think the country’s on the wrong track. For the third time in a row, the Democrats are in a position to walk away with this. It’ll be interesting to see if they find a way to screw it up again…

Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »

Random Acts of Blogging – 4/27/08

OK, so I’ve been away a while, and the list of things I’ve wanted to blog about has grown steadily. So away we go:

1) If you don’t watch The Daily Show with John Stewart, you really should. It’s funny every single night. But this past week or two, Stewart has been on fire! Here he is after Barack Obama was called an elitist:

The whole thing is funny, but the best part is around 7:25 or so. Here’s the money quote:

Doesn’t elite mean good? Is that not something we’re looking for in a president anymore? You know what candidates, come with me (to a different camera:) I know elite is a bad word in politics; you want to go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you’re applying for, if you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don’t actually think you’re better than us, then what the &%*#&@ are you doing?

2) If someone from 1984, having just read Orwell’s book, time travelled to 2008 and took a New York commuter train one morning, they’d see more than half of the people with their eyes closed, in various degrees of consciousness, wearing the same white ear phones in their ears, and probably assume we were all being fed the same government-issued doublespeak. What’s funny is how wrong they’d be. Sitting on a train with 100 iPods, I wonder what the odds are that any two of them are playing the same song? I’m guessing it’s close to zero.

3) A colleague of mine pointed out to me the other day that MIT disproved time travel in 2005 by holding a time traveller’s convention, to which no one from the future showed up. Pretty convincing evidence on the face of it. If time travel is to ever be invented, you’d think someone would pop in to say hello, no? Famed scientist Tina Fey, formerly of Saturday Night Live had the perfect rebuttal:

A student at MIT is hosting a Time Traveler Party this week with the hope that people from the future will show up…too bad people from the future already know the party sucked!”

The only thing I know for sure after reading about this is that if anyone does invent time travel in my lifetime, something will almost instantly occur that will give me a killer headache.

4) SamuriFrog, the excellent blogger over at Electronic Cerebrectomy (WARNING: Link is typically not safe for work), recently posted two pictures that sum up the sad state of intelligence in our country today:

Man…there oughta be a test you need to pass before you can write protest signs…

5) Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to New York City was capped off by a mass held at Yankee Stadium. First, a quick conversation between my wife and I:

My wife:	Wow, the stadium looks beautiful. I bet the Pope is impressed.
Me:	Honey, he practically lives in St. Peter’s Basillica!
My wife:	Good point

Then, of course, there are the New York Post and the New York Daily News, who could not resist the ironic headline:

The Post:	“Communion Vendors Bring the Host to the Most.”
Daily News:	“The Sermon on the Mound.”

Gotta love New York…

6) And finally, Britain’s Office of Government Commerce, or OGC, recently unveiled it’s new logo:

Seems harmless enough, right? But then they started putting it on mousepads, pens, and the like, and people got a chance to see it rotated 90 degrees:

Wow…that’s quite the, er…um…well…what’s the word I’m looking for? Well, I guess you’d have to say it’s quite a boner, now wouldn’t you???

Categories: Political Rantings, Random Acts of Blogging, The Future is Now, The World Wide Weird | Comments Off on Random Acts of Blogging – 4/27/08

Democratic Politics Enters the Realm of Ridiculousness

(NOTE: Blogger went down again, right after I made my previous post. It’s been down one two three four five more days at this point. The following post was written on 4/22)

I document this today, the day of the hard-fought Pennsylvania primary, because I know people have short memories, and once the media changes the national conversation, others will call me crazy for suggesting what is common knowledge right now. And that is this:

On April 22, 2008, Barack Obama has already been called unpatriotic, racist, unqualified, unprepared, inexperienced, beholden to lobbyists, elitist and Muslim. Hillary Clinton has been called a liar, a hypocrite, a war hawk, over-emotional, contrived, out of touch and willing to rig elections with changes to primary rules and reliance on super delegates. His healthcare plan has been criticized for leaving millions uninsured. Her position on NAFTA has been criticized as being inconsistent with her previous votes on the subject. He’s been accused of a willingness to mollycoddle world leaders. She’s been accused of fear mongering.

And all of it, every single bit of it, is coming from within the Democratic party. There’s no conceivable way to blame any of this on John McCain, Karl Rove, or the RNC. They have wisely stayed on the sidelines and watched the Democrats feast on each other, well on their way to throwing away an easy victory in November for the third time in a row.

Come September/October, though, when the same questions are still being asked, many of the people who are responsible for the above will be in front of cameras, condemning the Republican Attack MachineTM for it’s deplorable treatment of the Democratic candidate and it’s willingness to distract Americans from the “real issues.” And what’s worse, those of us (and yes, regardless of who I vote for, I will be among them) who point out that the candidate did the very same thing to his/her opponent in the primaries will be accused of irrationally endorsing the failed policies of George W. Bush. No, I don’t know why. But mark my words, it will happen.

For the record, I think Hillary has been more guilty of this than Obama. If you read the above lists carefully, you’ll notice that his attacks on Hillary have been at least tangentially (and sometimes directly) tied to politics and policy, whereas her attacks on Obama seem to suggest that this man, who has a long history of public service, has secretly harbored racist, elitist, anti-American tendencies that are just now coming out as he’s running for President against Hillary.

It was the most recent exchange, reserved for today, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, that made me finally blog about the topic (hat tip: Power Line). Here’s the campaign ad currently running for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania:

Note the imagery of FDR, JFK, the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl harbor, Soviet aggression, gas shortages, Osama bin Laden, Hurricane Katrina and home foreclosure. In 30 seconds. From a woman who has consistently accused the Bush administration of governing by fear.

Obama’s response shows video of Bill Clinton speaking at a 2004 campaign rally:

Now, one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Now tell me John McCain isn’t on the sidelines taking notes…

Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Democratic Politics Enters the Realm of Ridiculousness

On Politics: Enough Already…

Barack Obama: His pastor is not running for president. He is. If you have some sort of evidence to suggest that Obama is a racist, let’s hear it. Otherwise, stop rewording the same question about his pastor’s beliefs to him, in hopes that he’ll trip up and make a gaffe that you’ll then use to discredit him throughout the campaign. It’s a waste of time and a distraction. Plus, when it comes to not saying the wrong thing, this guy’s good…

Elliot Spitzer has done for prostitution what Bill Clinton did for blow jobs. We now have a dialog going on about whether or not prostitution is really that bad after all. I note that of the many arguments made in the above-linked article, none of them address the morality of it. Is it so wrong for something to be illegal because we, as a society, agree that it’s not acceptable behavior? It’s not about the particular woman or the particular man, it’s about the special place that sex has in our moral code, and how prostitution runs counter to that belief.

Then again, maybe I have an old set of morals. Spitzer, a man who not only paid a prostitute for sex, but also showed an unbelievable level of hypocrisy, violated the public trust, and completely disrespected his wife and children, slinks off into the shadows, waiting for it to be safe to sign a book deal, while we discuss the relative victim-hood of Ashley Alexandra Dupre (a.k.a., “Kristin”). In the meantime, Ms. Dupre – far from being vilified – is being celebrated as an overnight celebrity. Her pictures are on the front page of all the local newspapers, her MySpace page is the most popular page on the site, her music is making her tens of thousands of dollars on the Internet, and Larry Flynt doesn’t think she’ll pose in Penthouse magazine because she’ll have too many other, more lucrative offers. If she’s really lucky, her book will come out around the same time as Spitzer’s, and they’ll both sail on to even more fame and fortune.

And speaking of coming out…

Jim and Dina Matos McGreevey: Attention starved, are we? You’re no longer public officials. You are not relevant to the Elliot Spitzer case at all. Dina did some television to give us insight into how Mrs. Spitzer was feeling while standing next to Elliot at the podium – that’s fine, I guess. But if you two want to continue embarrassing each other, please go find someone who’s interested.

Hillary Clinton: After eight years of George W. Bush, your husband’s presidency has taken on the soft sheen of an articulate President who led the nation to soaring economic heights. Thank you for reminding us about all the lawyering, maneuvering, technicality-laced rhetoric that peppered those eight years. Between you claiming the mantle of experience, pressuring super-delegates to vote against the public will, and drumming up fake controversy (“He’s not a Muslim, as far as I know”; “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”; “It’s not all about words”) in an attempt to sway the electorate, you’ve brought it all back in spades. Also, John McCain, a twenty-six year veteran of the House and Senate and author of several significant pieces of legislation, is sitting on the sidelines taking careful notes about your views on experience, in the event he has to run against you for the presidency. Oh, and his approval rating just hit 67% – its highest in eight years. You’re not helping yourself, Senator…

Iraq: It seems Iraqis are uniformly feeling better about their lives, the future of their country, and the United States’ decision to invade (49% now believe the invasion was a good thing, up from 37% last August). As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing. You’d hear more about this in the mainstream media, I’m sure, but they’re too busy covering racist pastors, hookers, ex-gubernatorial three-ways and dirty campaign tactics.

Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »

Breaking News: No Operational Relationship Between Iraq and Al Qaeda

News flash! The Pentagon will release a report on Wednesday that shows that there was no operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

Sponsored by the Pentagon, the report found no “direct operational link” between Saddam’s government in Iraq and bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terror ring before the U.S. invasion, an official told McClatchy.
The Bush administration put forth the argument that there was a connection between Saddam and bin Laden when it made the case to go to war with Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Ah ha! We’ve got ’em now! This is big news! They LIED to us! Rumsfeld himself said there was “bulletproof evidence” that Al Qaeda were in Iraq. And now, six years and 600,000 documents later, we finally find out that it’s all untrue! What shocking, shocking news!
At least it was back in July of 2004, when the 9/11 Commission Report was released.
Read the rest of this entry »

Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »

Obama’s Favorite Ice Cream?

From the Slate-hosted political blog, Trailhead, we have the winner of the “Name an Ice Cream Flavor after Barack Obama” contest: “Yes, Pecan!”

Top runners up include “Barackadamia Nut” and “Neopolitician,” which have been declared the front runners for those parts of the country where “Pecan” rhymes with “Oh, it’s on!” rather than “Yes, We Can!” Other suggestions include Peanut Butter Barackle and Obamana Split. Baracky Road and Obamaberry were disqualified because, “we’ve got to draw the line somewhere.”

So, anyone have any Clinton or McCain inspired Ice Cream flavors? I’ll start you off: For Hillary: Health Care Crunch. For McCain? How about McCaindy Coated Cookie Dough?

Go ahead, top that!

(and not with a cherry. BA DUM!)

Update #1: “Grand Ol’ Pistachio, made with real McCain sugar!” – Ted Aronson (from the Penn Band Listserv)

Categories: Political Rantings, The World Wide Weird | Comments Off on Obama’s Favorite Ice Cream?

Peace Through Music

The New York Philharmonic just performed a concert in Pyongyang, North Korea. The program consisted of the following:

Kim Jong Il did not attend, but the Vice Culture Minister did. He said this:

I can say that through the concert tonight, all the members of the New York Philharmonic opened the hearts of the Korean people. . . . The concert serves as an important occasion to open a chapter of mutual understanding between the two countries.”

When the concert ended, the audience “stood and applauded enthusiastically, waving to the musicians.”
Bravo, folks. Bravo.

(Hat tip: Kushol Gupta)

Categories: Political Rantings, Words about Music | Comments Off on Peace Through Music