Nobody likes me!

Just caught this video of Bush at the G20 photo-op last week. Speaks volumes about his popularity (or lack thereof) with other world leaders, and his lame duck status.

Almost feel sorry for him ...

Nader loses it

There was a time when I (and most Americans, I think) admired Ralph Nader for the righteous battles he fought on behalf of consumers, and his single-minded focus and plain speaking style.

I didn't begrudge his Presidential run in 2000, although his continued insistence that Gore and Dubya were no different from each other, and that the country would have been no better off under Gore just made him seem like a stubborn old goat.

I began to tire of him when it seemed like he would show up every four years to run for President without having taken the time in between to build a grassroots campaign, invest in a party organization, or support any candidates for local and state office.

This Nader interview on Fox News today has finally convinced me that Nader should fade away before he forever tarnishes his image and becomes the butt of jokes nationwide.

Piling on Palin

I hate to pile on to Sarah (wink wink), but it's hard to forgive her for some of the nasty innuendo and divisive rhetoric during the campaign.

So even as I was relishing the huge margin of Obama's victory last night, I was amused to see this Newsweek report that the Palin family clothes-shopping spree was even more expensive than has been reported!

I especially enjoyed the following lines:

One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus

and

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Isn't this fun? Palin 2012!

First Colin Powell, now ...

Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan, declared that he had voted for Obama today.

Fried was on several McCain campaign related committees, and had "expressed his enthusiastic support in January" for McCain. He cited the selection of Sarah Palin as a major reason for his decision.

First Colin Powell, then Mass. Governor William Weld, now this. Is the dam about to break among moderate Republicans?

Investment Returns - Democratic vs Republican

I'm sure there are many problems with this analysis, including the fact that it factors in only the executive and not control of the legislative branch, but at first glance the difference was quite stunning.

"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."

If you look more closely though, you'll see that with the exception of Nixon and Dubya, Republican Presidents have done better than Democratic Presidents. Returns under Democratic presidents have been comparatively anemic, with Clinton being the standout on the Democratic side (no doubt fueled by those years of "irrational exuberance").

How to lose a debate to a comatose opponent

John McCain showed how today, at least based on all the polls I'm seeing!

I thought Obama showed no energy at all in this debate! He perked up in the middle particularly while talking about healthcare, but it absolutely frustrated me that he didn't show any emotion when McCain repeatedly mischaracterized his positions. He also passed on numerous opportunities to go after McCain.

So was he playing it safe today? And if so, is that a sign of how Obama would govern? Cause it sure looks like he will be the next POTUS!

What was Obama thinking!?!

I'm no big fan of Charles Krauthammer, but I have to admit he scores some points here. 

For someone who presents himself as a unifier and a different kind of politician, Obama has hung out with some divisive radicals. I don't believe he shares any of their beliefs, but he was clearly using them. 

Krauthammer writes:

"Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers' unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success."

Colbert takes apart Republican talking head

Another must-watch if you missed it, is the way Stephen Colbert took apart Joe Scarborough last night like only he can.

Colbert starts out by reminding people of Scarborough's connection with Jack Abramoff when he was a congressman! He ridicules Scarborough's logic for talking about Bill Ayers on his show. Then he reminds Joe of how he sucked up to the Bush administration for 6 years. Brutal!

An absolute must watch - Robert Gibbs on Hannity

Youtube video of Robert Gibbs giving Hannity a taste of his own medicine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c

Here is Rachel Maddow and Olbermann explaining the anatomy of Gibb's approach:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27092924

Off The Kool Aid

I don't know if you folks have been following Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist who has a column in today's NY Times titled Call Off The Pit Bull.

Her evolution on the Palin issue has been most interesting to watch. She started out like a loyal foot soldier with effusive praise for John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, and for her convention speech.

Then the Katie Couric interview came along, and she acknowledged what most of the other right wing columnists were unwilling to say in a column titled Palin Problem: She's Out Of Her League. Needless to say it created a storm.

A few days after that was published, she wrote about the backlash and the vicious and threatening responses she got from the Faithful.

In today's column she writes about Palin's fluency in the coded language that Republicans use, and the dangerous path that McCain and Palin are going down in this campaign.

It's always interesting to watch when one of these true believers escapes The Matrix!

Angry man and the Sarah pal'in' around

McCain's Rage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAyK-enrF1g

Olbermann on Sarah's associations with secessionists and domestic terrorists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnSXGTFQ0Ak

McCain tames pit bull, Palin shoots terrorist

Inspired by Putin's bare-chested martial arts video and tiger tranquilizing exploits, the McCain campaign brain trust has come up with a last-ditch effort to save the campaign.

McCain will tame a rabid pit bull (without lipstick) in mid-maul, and Palin will personally shoot a terrorist on camera before the next debate.

Experts believe that this will completely scramble Barack Obama's closing arguments on the campaign trail, as his consultants desperately search for an act that's more macho than just draining a three-point shot :-) :-) :-)

Glimpses of pedal to the metal

Seems promising that there are some elements in Obama's camp that have the requisite aggressive marketing bone. Check out this article from International Herald Tribune http://preview.tinyurl.com/4s9um8 - timely and to the point. It is time to capitalize on the inflection point in poll numbers.

Don't know if any of you watched the post debate interview session on CNN yesterday night. One of the "undecided" voters that was leaning toward Obama actually said that she was looking for Obama to take of his gloves.

That said, Obama came across more statesman like. As always, the line between any two extremes is always thinner than one thinks (in this case that between being statesman like and being aggressive).

Second Debate Thoughts

That was an interesting debate, and the "town hall" format didn't seem to favor McCain at all, despite what the pundits kept saying. I thought McCain looked small and old every time he walked around and got close to the audience.

One interesting thing though was that it almost felt like the tables have turned since early in the campaign, and even since 3-4 weeks ago. I thought McCain had to work extra hard to appear like the calm and steady hand, and as a result he was constrained by going out on a limb and being too hawkish or attacking Obama.

I don't think this was because of any special jujitsu performed by the Obama camp, but was a direct result of the erratic decision making and stunts that McCain has tried to pull throughout this campaign. It's good to see that the chickens are coming home to roost - I guess there are some advantages to having a loooong campaign season after all!

The Choice

Here's an excellent comment on the Presidential candidates by the New Yorker.

Ed: Hope you don't mind that I edited it - the URL wasn't showing as a link

What Maverick?

I've read a lot about John McCain's real story over the last few months and knew there were significant differences from the war hero maverick fiction that he's peddled so effectively through his political career.

However I was surprised by some of the details in this Rolling Stone article headlined Make-Believe Maverick - A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty. I thought a lot of the detail about his Navy career and the numerous times he used his family connections to pull strings was particularly interesting. There are some uncanny parallels with Dubya and the charmed life he led as a young man of privilege.

Privileges of being white

It took me sometime to muster up the energy to post. I found the post republican convention Mccain/Palin upswing too difficult to comprehend. The recent events have put me in a better frame of mind, I sincerely hope the democrats can stick to the "its the economy stupid" message till at least November 4th.

During the VP debate, in the last question from Ms. Ifill there was a question around what each candidate would change if given a chance- Mr Biden of course jumped in with a profound answer around the judicial system and the choice of judges. Luckily (I think) the right wing did not pick it up because Sarah was folksy in her reply.

Meanwhile, I had read the following post on the net and was thinking that it seemed to capture some of my thinking around the Ms. Palin issue ....

http://www.alternet.org/story/98915/

Here is hoping that as the gloves come off and the speedboaters return for one final assault the democrats can stick to their message.

Dan Quayle + Dick Cheney

More I see and hear Sarah Palin, more I get this viscereal, eerie apprehension.

She has the depth and awareness of this wide-world, comparable to the great Dan Quayle. At the same time she also seems to possess the unique megalomaniacal traits that Dick Cheney had perfected.

Quayle ain't evil, just stupid. Cheney ain't stupid, just evil. You combine the two and you will get Palin - rightwing's dream come true!

Post Turtle

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President ..

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.

'Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle.

'The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.'

Narrative

I had one thought in advance of the much anticipated VP debate tomorrow night.

Rightly or wrongly, public figures often end up being defined by an idea or narrative, and the meme gets so deeply embedded in popular consciousness that it's hard to shake regardless of what the person does from that point on. More often than not the meme becomes the subject of a joke that's told repeatedly, in many different forms by many different people.

In some cases the narrative is a distortion (Al Gore - serial exaggerator who claimed to have invented the Internet), in other cases it's self inflicted (Dan Quayle's intelligence and "potatoe").

I think Sarah Palin's moment is the "I know foreign policy because I can see Russia from Alaska" claim. I've now seen this joke told in different ways by so many people, that it may become the defining moment regardless of how she does in the debate or the campaign trail going forward!

Poor Sarah. Must have sounded like a good idea when some smart operative in the campaign came up with it ...

Incidentally, I thought this column about Palin by Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek, who writes extremely perceptively about foreign affairs, was unusually blunt and on point.

Wanda Rants

I came across this political rant by Wanda Sykes on Jay Leno yesterday. Check it out :-)

Will on McCain

I don't agree with George Will too often, but his column in the Washington Post today begins with:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Even the Wall Street Journal referred to McCain's reaction as "untethered" and "unpresidential"!

I must say it's been astonishing to see McCain flailing and all over the map on this. I had read about his impetuousness, but his lack of seriousness and the absence of a governing philosophy has been in evidence most clearly over the last week. I wonder if this will have an impact on the electorate - or do people not pay any attention to the content and only register that he sounds decisive and authoritative?

Meltdown

I can't claim to be an expert on what's going on in the financial industry right now (can anyone?), but this Salon article about the parallels between the current bailout proposal in Congress and the full court press to pass the US eavesdropping program was interesting.

I will grant that some of the parallels are a little bit of a stretch, but there are murmurs from some Democrats in Congress about the lack of information, and the lack of safeguards or assurances tied to the money the Treasury Dept is asking for. Is this another piece of the Bush's "legacy" that someone else is going to have to unravel?

From a purely political standpoint I'm taking perverse pleasure in the whiplash that poor Sen.McCain is going through as he adjusts his regulatory world-view :-). Is the libertarian ideal of letting the markets work and getting out of the way still operative?

Bollywood, meet Hollywood!

The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that Steven Spielberg and his partners have engineered a deal for Reliance Industries to invest $1.2B in Dreamworks, so they can break free of Viacom.

So how much longer before we see Abhishek Bachchan and Angelina Jolie in Indian Jones and the Temple of Dhoom?

The Second Coming of George W

According to an AP story today, the Alaska Attorney General has said that he will instruct state employees not to respond to subpoenas issued by the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee that's investigating the firing of the state public safety commissioner by Gov.Sarah Palin.

Where have we heard this one before?

Also worth reading is this column by a conservative talk show host in the Alaska Daily News.

Falafel Man

I don't know if you folks are watching the Bill O'Reilly-Obama interview. I must admit I was baffled when Obama agreed to go on O'Reilly's show, and was apprehensive about how it would turn out, knowing Bill-O's rude and bullying style.

I just watched the latest segment on taxes and the economy, and I must say I'm absolutely impressed. Bill-O constantly interrupts and bloviates as always, but Obama handles himself extremely well. He shows mastery of the subject matter, and keeps his cool and his sense of humor.

If there's one small nit, it's that I would love to see Obama show some irritation with being interrupted repeatedly. Still, it seems to me that getting on Bill-O's show was a great way to reach that audience and show them that he's a reasonable person who will protect their interests. I thought he made Bill-O come off as a rich elitist. Check it out ...

Not so fast ...

I went through some of the AK issues and votes, and Palin is fine.
This USA Today piece today captures her style of governing nicely.
She's smart and a tough cookie - forget the issues you bring up, this is politics after all - lies, exaggerations, false outrage etc. are all part of the game. The kitchen gets hot during elections ...
Both Palin & McCain (order intentional :-) represent the right brand of republicanism - frontier, more libertarian than doctrinaire. Obama seems to have lost a step (or several), but there is no real worry for him/Dems - the election is going to turn on 10-50 congressional districts in just a few mid-western states, and he's doing quite OK in the polls.

Bush Doctrine

Many commentators have correctly pointed out that Sarah Palin obviously didn't know what Charlie Gibson was referring to when he asked her about the "Bush Doctrine". Most people associate it with Bush's idea that the US can wage preventive war against anyone we feel threatened by, and it really is appalling that a person who could be president a year from now is unaware of this.

However Dan Froomklin in this Washington Post column points out that Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy", actually identified six different Bush Doctrines:

• Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01)


• Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02)


• Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03)


• Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05)


• Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06)


• Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all"

I guess arrogance and shallow political sloganeering do not constitute a "doctrine"!

Twitch

I'm not sure how many of you watched the Sarah Palin interview by Charles Gibson. More the content (or the lack thereof) I found the twitch and glint in her left eye every so often, terrifying! I believe there is a strong correlation between twitching eyes and lying.

Also-Rans

After the many hours of media coverage about cosmetics and swine that passes for political dialog these days, I thought a change of pace would be interesting.

For one thing, I didn't realize that Ralph Nader was running again! I used to admire Ralph for his tough and single-minded advocacy on behalf of consumers, but I'm one of those who will never forgive him for the damage he did in 2000, and his continued stubborn insistence that it wouldn't have made a difference whether Bush or Gore had won that election!

In any case I was reminded of him because he apparently appeared with Ron Paul on CNN today. I missed the interview, but according to this posting Ron Paul admitted that he would campaign for Nader because "it will take the votes away from Obama". I wonder what St.Ralph had to say about that ...

Hide the Palin

The strategy the McCain team has taken of shielding Sarah Palin from one-on-one interviews (at least so far) is an interesting one, and I wonder how long they can keep it up?

After all, there's been a steady drip-drip of questions and information being uncovered that call into question the "reformer" mantle that she has claimed. These include:

• "Thanks but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere


• Pork-barrel politics and earmarks


• Husband's membership in a secessionist group


• Charging the state for children's "official" travel, per diem, etc.


• Trooper-gate and the firing of state employees


• Views of her church, her pastor, ...

Can the strategy of ignoring the press really work, and will all of these stories just go away if Palin refuses to address them, or will the drip turn into a flood that cannot go unrefuted at some point?

One interesting viewpoint from Newsweek about the impact that the blogs are having on this:

That said, the most interesting thing about today's give-and-take is not that Palin and McCain are misleading the public. In politics, that happens all the time. It's that the Internet--and, through the Internet, the Obama campaign--is forcing major media outlets to repeatedly reject the Bridge to Nowhere deception. In the past, Time and NEWSWEEK and the Times and the Post would've run a thorough factcheck the first time the falsehood surfaced. But then they would've ignored subsequent repetitions. .... But now sites like TPM are (in their own words) forcing "the same news orgs that debunked the original Bridge to Nowhere falsehood" to "aggressively stay on McCain and hold him accountable every time he and his campaign repeat it." That's a certain kind of progress.

CSPAN: AK governor debate 2006

I watched the 2006 Alaska governor debate on C-SPAN last night - SP is a quick & smart debater. The veep debate is bad news for JB, he's likely to go on & on, and she'll deliver a memorable line or two.
There's not much here - the issues mainly pertain to AK, and the 3
candidates agreed on most things. No controversial topics covered.

Here's the link:
http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=alaska%20debate
(uses rtsp), else check out: http://cspanjunkie.org/?p=407

Continuing the resentment politics theme, MSNBC makes election coverage changes

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/08/msnbc/

Pity - KO and FOX provide the most fun - analysis, opinions, bias, shouting etc. :-)

Greetings. Thought I'd kick off my first post with some cheap & ridiculous humor ...

Obama v McCain: who has the bigger imaginary penis? AMERICA DECIDES

http://theridiculant.metro.co.uk/2008/09/obama-v-mccain.html

Resentment Politics

Watching the Republican convention immediately after the Democratic convention highlighted one distinct difference for me.

While Democrats are afraid of offending their own shadow, and live in mortal fear of turning off any possible demographic, ethnic group or lifestyle, the Republicans seem to relish ridiculing and demonizing large swaths of the populace (trial lawyers, community organizers, public school teachers, unions, mainstream media, urban people, Eastern elites, Hollywood, New York, San Francisco, liberals, etc. etc.).

Paul Krugman refers to this in the New York Times as the 'Politics of Resentment'.

As the article points out, this is a strategy that the GOP has successfully employed since Nixon. You would think the Democrats would have learned to play that game by now! After all, the numbers are on their side if they want to play the populist game. However whenever a Democrat takes a populist tone and the right predictably bleats about "class warfare", the Democrats run for cover.

So what do you think? Has this strategy run its course or is Obama going to be yet another victim of the GOP's resentment playbook?

A Coup d'état attempt - pure and simpe

Let's take a step back. If Sarah Palin, sans gender, ran in the Republican primaries, where would she have finished? Put another way, which of the also-ran Republicans, mirror her views? Sam Brownback? Duncan Hunter? Fred Thompson? Tommy Thompson? Tom Tancredo? Mike Huckabee? Where did they finish? Except for Huckabee, the rest dropped out quickly in the race. So, fundamentally, the only way a Sarah Palin can make it into power is through the back door.

Must see

In case you missed it last night, Jon Stewart did a brilliant take on the contortions the McCain apologists are going through on the Palin pick. Uses their own words against them as only the Daily Show can. Why don't other news and opinion shows do this - he makes calling out the bullshit look so easy!

McCain Gamble May be Shrewd

Despite most initial reactions which could be summarized as a hair’s breadth from laughter at the bimbo from a state that does not count, McCain and his cohorts might be working Game Theory with a sinister twist. The following article from Financial Times is well worth reading http://tinyurl.com/5acxzh.

This line of thinking is further substantiated by the abundance of "worry" relating to why Palin in the Politico article http://tinyurl.com/68gwxw.

On a lighter note, this pick reminds me of I think Reagan times when one of the Secretary of State picks was supposed to be a handicapped Jewish women to appeal to a variety of special interests. If that were the case, Condi would have been a better pick - but then it would substantiate the claim of Bush III instead of McCain I. Don't know whether any of you read the latest Economist - Kucinich was censored from saying something tantamount to "Republicans were asking for 4 more years, in a just world they should be getting between 10 and 20!"

The experience equation

There is a significant difference in the Palin vs. BO experience equation.

BO's experience is sufficient in the view of millions of Democratic primary voters.

Palin's experience is sufficient in the opinion of one man!

On the Republican VP

I simply can't believe that Palin was the first choice.

More likely, the front-runners Pawlenty, Romney and Lieberman declined. You may wonder why?

McCain had to give in to the "base". Sounds like the work of the great mathematician.

Speeches and more

That was quite a speech by Obama tonight. Nice balance between soaring rhetoric and kitchen table stuff, and I like how he managed to appear post-partisan while attacking Bush and McCain at the same time!

That said however, it was Bill Clinton's speech last night that reminded me once again why he's probably the most talented politician of the last 25 years.

By the way, in case you missed this New York Times story about Obama's meteoric rise, a couple of tidbits stood out for me:

• 8 years ago Obama wasn't invited to the Democratic convention, paid his own way there, and almost couldn't rent a car because of bad credit.


• 4 years ago the speech he gave at the convention was the first time he had used a teleprompter.

Amazing!

Something huge happened tonight

Asked to respond to BO' s speech - Karl "New Math" Rove divided the speech into three sections.

WRT section two - paraphrasing the great mathematician - there are a number of items here that can be taken apart in a debate. Two problems with that: 1) On policy, Republicans don't have much to offer and 2) McCain isn't a policy wonk.

Charles Krauthammer: Not great- but brilliant....

A WSJ reader poll where BO generally get hammered: A - 66%, B - 12%, C - 10% D - 5%, F - 6%. Total votes 2227.

Something huge happened tonight....

Obama's Ground Game (Try again)

From: Charles A. Lewis

Subject: Obamagram: My First Convention

August 27, 2008

Obamagram: My First Convention

 

Hello everyone,

 

I am attending my first, and probably only, political convention. I'm here because of my once-every-forty-years enthusiasm for a candidate (remember, Bobby was the last one). I also bring an amateur anthropologist's curiosity to this most curious of clan gatherings.  

 

This will be brief as I am pecking it out on my beloved BlackBerry. 

 

Last night, sitting on the convention floor among the Illinois delegation, I was impressed by the manic atmosphere. One of the many roving reporters (I was actually interviewed and photographed by the Christian Science Monitor) who was a veteran convention-goer told me that the high level of enthusiasm at this convention was distinctly different from what she had previously experienced. 

 

So far, I have found the delegates to be surprisingly ordinary people thrust into a frenzied, exhausting situation surrounded by security of Olympian proportions. Each night I have wondered how the fire marshal has allowed so many people to be packed in to what is a now-common modern basketball arena. Thank God for the ability to escape to a skybox as a member of the National Finance Committee.

 

Yesterday morning, I attended one of the endless panels offering opinions about the proceedings. This one turned out to be refreshingly useful. The panelists actually said more than once that they "didn't know" the answer to a question. Amazing.  

 

They offered a couple of particularly useful insights. Despite what the mass reporting will lead us to expect, there will be no way to discern a polling "bounce", or lack thereof, from this convention because the Republican convention begins, contrary to custom, immediately on its heels. It won't be until the dust settles in mid-September that the national polls (which are pretty useless anyway) are affected by what happened here. 

 

They also made another great point: the mass media are so anxiously, and self-interestedly, anticipating a Clinton car crash here that they are missing the real, but much more boring, story – the one about the ground game that the Obama campaign is quietly putting in place.  That ground game is greatly, and positively, impacted by two factors -- supporter enthusiasm and cash. I expect that we will continue to have both in abundance. I also expect that Barack's ground operations in an historically-large number of states – possibly nearly double the number that Kerry was in – will be a decisive factor in the general election -- much like they were in the primary, much to the surprise of the mass media.

 

The media coverage of this causes me to return to the baseball analogy I used throughout the primary.  We almost never see singles in game highlights on TV – only homeruns or hit batters rushing the pitcher’s mound.  But, most games are won by manufacturing runs one boring hit at a time.  The ground game.  

 

The panel also asked the question -- who is more divided, the Democrats or the Republicans?  Very good question.  Also, whatever happened to all of the talk about Sen. Clinton being a controversial candidate with unusually high negatives?

 

As I was leaving that briefing, I ran in to David Brooks, who I last met with at his 25th reunion at the University of Chicago a few weeks ago. Coincidentally, he had made some customarily perceptive observations in his column yesterday morning (see attachment). He reminded us that about a year ago Barack was stagnant in the polls (I think he was actually trailing badly) and he got all sorts of unsolicited advice from his nervous supporters and assorted experts. I remember writing in an Obamagram to cool it; that he would be fine. David offers the same advice: to ignore the anxious advice of the "experts" in his party and be himself. I am, once again, confident in Barack's judgment, that he will be as smart in the general as he was in the primary.  I expect a very good outcome in this election. 

 

From just one observer's point of view, I think the highlights of this convention so far have been -- in sequential order -- the Kennedys, Michelle Obama, Gov. Schweitzer, and Sen. Clinton. 

 

Michelle was flawless and tremendously appealing in vouching for Barack as a family man with all-American values. 

 

Schweitzer, who I had never heard of, was the real keynote speaker, not Gov. Warner, in my opinion. He gave the most rousing speech so far. Just fabulous. 

 

The most memorable characterizations of Sen. McCain from last night:

 

 -- "The Minnesota Twins: Bush and McCain" (my slightly-revised version, alluding to the site of the Republican convention next week.) 

 

 -- Sen. McCain is a "Sidekick, not a Maverick" given that he has voted with Bush 95% of the time. 

 

 -- "McCain's more of the same" or, better yet, “McCain’s the Same.”

 

Well, my thumbs are tired, so that's enough from Denver for now. My wife, Penny, arrives today for the final two nights. This should continue to be fun, and instructive, watching the natives in their habitat. 

 

 As always, please "pass it along". 

 

Chuck

Obama's Ground Game

I wanted to share this Obamagram sent out by Chuck Lewis who is a good friend of one of my partners and is on Obama's Finance Committee.

Feminists and Clintonistas

That uber-feminist Susan Faludi has an article provocatively titled "Second-Place Citizens" in today's New York Times about the women who are upset about Hillary Clinton's loss in the primaries. She quotes a number of them using words like "travesty", "cheated" and "betrayal", and states that about 25% of the women plan to vote for McCain as a "protest".

I'm afraid I just don't get it. What betrayal are they talking about? By whom? And what are they protesting? Wasn't this a democratic process and didn't their candidate lose? Was that Obama's fault and should he simply have stepped aside?

I also wonder how these feminists reconcile the fact that most of Hillary's so-called experience in government was from being the wife of an ex-president. (Disclaimer: I was actually for Hillary during the California primary, primarily because I thought she was tough and would take the fight to the Republicans).

I particularly don't understand the "protest" vote for John McCain. So will it make these women feel better to have two more Scalias or Thomases on the Supreme Court? Do they believe the Republican Party will be fairer towards women and will give them greater opportunities? Can anyone explain the logic here (if there is any)?

The POW card

Swaroop asked earlier if McCain was playing the POW card too often. I think it's becoming more obvious with each passing day that he's going to milk this for all it's worth. How much impact it has is anybody's guess, but so far it seems to have worked, at least with the press!

I wish the Democrats would take on this "being a POW excuses anything" argument more forcefully, and really examine McCain's service. After all, remember how the Repubs went after John Kerry, accusing him of self-inflicted woulds, faking injury and even making fun of his Purple Heart?

However my guess is that the Democrats won't have the guts to do this, since they're wimps and are scared to death of being labeled anti-military. In fact when Wesley Clark made the perfectly logical statement that being a POW doesn't prepare you for being President, there was nary a Democrat willing to back him up, and even Obama repudiated the statement and uninvited him from the convention!

Incidentally, I think this article titled "Why I Will Not Vote For John McCain" is required reading. It's from another pilot who was a POW with John McCain, and it provides valuable context and background info about POWs in Vietnam. Although it was a trying time for McCain, it's clear that the 600 other POWs there suffered similarly, some were captives for a longer time, and many were more decorated than McCain. This was not the singular act of heroism it's being projected to be.

Rather Violent Move to the Center?

Most Presidential nominee's start at the left or right and then veer to the center as the election nears and they appeal to the undecided / independent. However, some of Obama's moves in this regard are worrisome - specifically, his stance on guns, pro-choice, and, capital punishment. A good article summarizing these can be found at http://iht.com/articles/2008/08/25/america/obama.php?page=1

Elvis of Cricket?

I happened to catch this wonderful BBC tribute to Don Bradman on NPR today. Yesterday was apparently the hundredth anniversary of his birth.

I hadn't realized that Bradman's 99.94 test average would have been over 100 if he had scored just 4 runs in his final inning (he was out for a duck). After watching Olympic records fall over the last couple of weeks, I wonder if there's any other sport in which someone holds a record that's so dominant and unreachable.

Saturday Nite Off Topic

This article is interesting:

Phelps now has company as the Games' poster guy

And, this quote is hilarious:

"Still, Bolt will leave China with only three gold medals, not eight. And eight gold medals is nothing to sneeze at, unless the air here is affecting your sinuses. But there is an unfair medal imbalance between track and swimming.

To make a Bolt-Phelps comparison fair, you'd have to allow Bolt to compete in the 200-meter backward run, the 100-meter skip, and the 200 IM - backward running, skipping, frog-hopping and freestyle running."

Freedom of speech

So now that we're done with the big announcement and as we head into the convention, I wonder what y'all thought about the choice of Biden? (Based on RamRam's Google search traffic analysis of course, he's old news - so 2007 :-)

I must confess I've always liked Biden as a person. He livens up discussions, is blunt and outspoken, always quotable, and obviously cares passionately about foreign affairs and government. I was not aware of his personal biography, and have renewed respect for the man.

However we do know how Biden loves to exercise his freedom of speech. For an Obama campaign that has shown great message discipline, how often is Biden going to trample on the message of the day? And are all of his myriad quotes from his past going to provide the McCain campaign with a cudgel to use against the ticket?

Random thoughts

My son recently told me that he was put off by the attitude of those volunteering on campus for BO. This from someone who should be a Democrat by DNA was interesting. Probing a bit further, the gist of his gripe - An overdose of "You are a schmuck if you aren't completely on-board". Go figure....

Observing BO's speeches lately? - One word - stiff. Very stiff. His eyes with no expression wander between teleprompters on either side. Defensive? Perhaps. I would like to see him flick attacks off his shoulder, withe a smile, as he did during the primary.

On Taxes

A common concern from folks who should otherwise support Obama - He's going to raise taxes. This graphic explains that. We can't keep borrowing on the backs of the next generations.

Bouncer's after the convention, and VP Prediction

Rather interesting article and analyses on the bounce in poll numbers after each convention. The significance of the bounce should be compared to the historical – see excellent article by Larry Sabato, Director Univ of Virginia, Center for Politics (http://tinyurl.com/6y8vma)
And, you heard it here first. If numbers and trends are accurate per Google’s Zeit Geist, then my prediction is that Tim Kaine is going to the be VP candidate for Obama.









For a fuller picture see –http://tinyurl.com/56jgs4
Any comments on how that will affect the general bounce that Obama desperately needs and whether it will neutralize the cats from Hilary’s den?

Democracy in Pakistan

I loved this cartoon - I think you'll enjoy it too :-)

(click here to view)

Rob Rogers Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Aug 21, 2008 EditorialCartoonists.com

Grand New Party

I recently read the book "Grand New Party" written by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, two young conservatives. It is a recipe for how the GOP can win back the working class of America. Although intended for Republicans, I believe the Democratic Party can gain more from the recommendations of the authors. They essentially recommend an interesting combination of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism (that's not a typo). It chronicles working class America from the "New Deal" 1930s to the present.

The book received a lot of praise from David Brooks of the NY Times.  Rush Limbaugh ripped the book on his show, but that is always good reason to read the book, in my opinion.

kittu..

Has the alarm rung loud enough for Obama?

Good news, bad news.

Bad news - looks like everyone and their brother has recognized that the Obama campaign has got to get a dose of reality and stop basking in the glory of their primary victory.

Good news - most certainly wake up calls have rung from several quarters' and will hopefully wake up Obama and the Democrats. Today's SFGate article titled "Bad news should wake up Obama, experts say" @ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/MN5M12E16U.DTL&type=politics
is proof enough.

Maybe it is time to call for a new ball.

Keep Hope Alive?

Right on cue, the New Your Times reports "Obama’s Ads in Key States Go on Attack".

Let's hope this one's for real. I thought this section at the end was interesting:

Mr. Obama’s approach to the confrontational advertising is decidedly different from that of Mr. McCain. When Mr. McCain released his spot linking the popularity of Mr. Obama to the celebrity of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears last month, Mr. McCain’s aides held a conference call with reporters.

In several cases Mr. Obama’s campaign has either not announced its new spots or done so only after they were noticed by news organizations.

I wonder about the merits of this strategy. After all, McCain seems to get a lot of free air time for his ads as they get played ad nauseum while the talking heads "report" on them.

The effect is in the affect

Thanks to sisyphus for setting this up - we are indeed at the cusp of some interesting times. I concur with his view that Obama and his machinery are not generating the torque they need to, and it feels as though the engine is sputtering, wheezing and coughing.

Those of you who have not read "Rhetorical Questions" by James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly should definitely do so (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/fallows-debates) - James Fallows is a thorough journalist (btw, he was one of the speech writers for Carter) leaves us with the conclusion that if Obama were to be our next President he would indeed be a "thinking President."

But, therein lies the worry as well - just as most successful startups are made by star salesmen who can cease the opportunity and fire before necessarily aiming; we need some fire power from Obama's camp to lead the way and not be led into responding to the Swift Boat spin room.

It is indeed time for the Democrats to keep the people they got into the tent, as the edges are flapping violently. From backward square leg it looks as though the ball did hit both the bat and the pad ;-). Time for some aggressive batting despite the chucking!

Oh No, Not Again!

I was having lunch with an old friend (let's call him RS), and was sharing my fear that Obama and the Democrats seem to be on their way to losing another election that they should be running away with!

They're facing a very imperfect candidate who has been on both sides of every issue, has made one gaffe after another, and has hitched his wagon to the policies of the most unpopular president in history. They should be ahead by a mile!

I feel the huge enthusiasm I had for Obama at the end of the Democratic primary race ebbing. I was fired up, ready to contribute dollars, and go out and work to get him elected. I heard Obama's message about wanting to be a different kind of politician who doesn't want to play the usual games. However I also heard about the sharp elbows he had displayed in Chicago politics, and how he was going to take the offense and hit back hard. I thought the Democrats had finally found a candidate who understood the Republican bitch-slap style of politics, and that gave me hope.

Over the last two months though, I've seen McCain and his surrogates make one outrageous charge after another, and I've seen Obama constantly on the defensive while the media dutifully "reports" both sides. Meanwhile Obama seems to have barely laid a glove on McCain.

Obama needs to do much more to convince this Democratic voter - he needs to show some passion, and he needs to really go after McCain. I don't know if I want to fight for a candidate who isn't willing to fight for himself! And I don't want to see 4 more years of Republican misrule because of one more Democratic candidate who thought he was too good to do what it takes to win!

It's not cricket!

This blog is nothing about cricket, but I couldn't resist starting with the poster I had in my room way back in college:

Cricket

You have two sides one out in the field and one in.

Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.

When both sides have been in and out including the not outs, that's the end of the game.

HOWZAT!