With regard to today’s program, we’ll tackle the second half first, which featured David Brooks, EJ Dionne and Michele Norris. They’re all reputable of course, and this column prefers certain commentators to others, no secret there. Today, it was very evident that in spite of having three insightful voices, it seems there really isn’t much more to say at this point. The conversation primarily focused on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as is the case with every with every political forum, at the moment, and we know the candidates are bruised and beaten up. Questions like “How can Hillary win the nomination at this point? Can Barack Obama overcome relentless (trivial) attacks?” On and on and on. Debates such as the one on ABC this week only add to this Democratic misery. So what can these individuals on today Meet The Press offer at this point, not much. Let’s face it. The one exception was a point made by David Brooks with regard to the Middle East, in which Hillary Clinton said that if Iran attacked another country in the region that the United States would come to that country’s defense. This is a significant policy statement and Mr. Brooks was shocked that this hasn’t warranted more discussion and his reaction is spot on. However, when a point like this comes up in the midst of silliness (i.e. the ABC debate), of course it is going to be lost in the haze. Oh, and by the way, that position that Mrs. Clinton has taken is an extremely dangerous one, especially given our untenable commitment in Iraq.
The commentary provided in the second half of the show only eluded to the point-counterpoint discussion of the first half that featured the two chief strategists for the Clinton and Obama campaigns respectively – David Axelrod representing Barack Obama and Geoff Garin for Mrs. Clinton. Both individuals spent the first five minutes stumbling over response ads and repudiations… Oh my. Mr. Garin stated that Mrs. Clinton is all about solutions and Mr. Axelrod rebutted that no Clinton would change the way in which Washington, and of course by extension the country, is run. He said, he said – surrogates for the he said, she said…. Oh my.
There seems to be a general consensus that Hillary Clinton is better than her campaign and that it is not reflective of who she really is. Pundits are saying this and it’s entirely ridiculous, a lame excuse. She is the campaign! By that rationale, George W. Bush is a much better president than his record shows or how his administration acts. The buck stops here is what Truman said. Today’s equivalent would be Mrs. Clinton saying the 50 cents (the dollar is down) stops here, but that’s not my money. Huh?
Given this, it doesn’t help that Geoff Garin would use the excuse that he has only been on the job for two weeks and that he doesn’t know the answers, doesn’t know what ads are running in Pennsylvania and his opponent is better informed about Clinton’s campaign. Are you kidding? Do your homework. This reflects poorly on Mrs. Clinton because she hired him. This is no great insight, just easy observations. And a word of advice for Mrs. Clinton, stay away from the NAFTA debate. Every time it comes up, it sounds like John Kerry on the Iraq War, “I voted against the war after I voted for it,” or whatever. It’s like shooting yourself in the leg – not enough of an injury to get you out of the service, but enough for the other troops to know you’re incompetent. With the trustworthy statistics being what they are for each Democratic candidate (30% Clinton, 53% Obama), it’s like they’re not shooting each other, but more like one shooting himself and then handing the gun to the other. Everyone keeps saying that once the primary is over that all Democrats will be united… provided that someone is left standing on both feet.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
4.13.08: Forget the Facts
Once again, we are graced with the cabal of Carville, Matalin, Murphy, & Strum on today's Meet The Press. It certainly sounds like Law Firm Interrupted, four people who can endlessly speak and hardly say anything constructive. The last time these four were on Meet The Press (see blog entry from 3.2.08), this column stated that these four are so invested in individuals that none of them can see clearly. For example, Mr. Carville said that he was so fond of Bill Clinton that his incredible misstatements about his wife's visit to Bosnia in 1996 (not 1995 as Pres. Clinton said) can be easily dismissed. "Look, I love the man, ok?" stated Carville. His wife is no better. Mary Matalin takes any and every opportunity to invoke Dick Cheney's name. "Dick Cheney revolutionized the office of the Vice President." O.K., but in the utter worst way possible. Also, when these four get together, Ms. Matalin always adopts the posture of speaking last with the attitude like 'you boys spout your trivial facts, and now let me really tell you how it really is,' when her thinking is so incredibly rigid, there is no way to step back for some broader perspective.
It is not the object of this column to rail on commentators, but these four in particular don't respect the fire, they're all just lighter fluid. Not to mention, that so much of the hour was taken up with interpretations of what Obama said about people being bitter - clinging to the culture of religion and guns. Forget about the fact that Congress couldn't get a straight answer out of Gen. Petraeus or Amb. Crocker with regard to Iraq this week - like where the hell is the occupation going?! That should be the topic of conversation, or how about the incredible economic strain this country is under? Yes, well never mind about that.. pesky facts and reality, let's get on with the discussion about the discussion.
Were the remarks made by Barack Obama elitist and out of touch with the common man? Give us a break. Here is where Bob Shrum, in fact, made a good point. Hillary Clinton hasn't been a part of the real world for the past twenty-five years. The point of all of this ridiculousness (this bickering back and forth between campaigns) is certainly having a weakening effect on the Democratic Party. The politically scientific explanation for what ails the Democrats is "They just can't seem to get their shit together." Maybe they are all drinking the same kool-aid, but it starting to become evident that it might be the kool-aid with the anti-freeze in it. The Democrats are wasting away any advantage that they hold in this election. Senator McCain does have an incredible head start to the Presidency. Right now, he's not making headlines, but he's certainly making headway. Forget about the he said, she said, you said; especially when it comes to the facts on the ground - regardless of whether that's Iraqi or American earth respectively. Just invent issues [read here: swift boating] and that will ultimately effect the outcome. By the way, does the phrase 'cling to guns and religion' sound out of touch? This begs another question. When you're sitting with a group of friends, maybe having a few drinks, and someone pipes up and says, "Hey, let's discuss guns and religion," who ever feels all warm and fuzzy after that? With respect to those sitting at the table on today's program, none of them can really comment on the 'real' world with any credibility anymore.
Penultimately, there were a few comments made during the hour that do raise some concern because the fact is that when these four people start saying something, it can very well catch on. Primarily, Mike Murphy's comment that Barack Obama channels Michael Dukakis. He repeated on today's show. I'm sure that is not the first, only, or last time that that phrase will come out of his mouth. All you have to know about Michael Dukakis is that he is a herpe on the lip of the Democratic Party when comes to Presidential candidacies. Also, the results of the quoted Marist College poll, in which if there was a McCain/Rice ticket, it would win in New York State over an Obama/Somebody or a Clinton/Somebody ticket. Some believe in polls and some don't but this came up on Meet The Press. What didn't come up was that Condoleeza Rice should be considered the worst National Security Advisor in the history of the country. And after that, she should be considered to be the worst Secretary of State in the history of the nation. But she's a winner on the ticket? Forget the facts.
Lastly, this column will admit a guilty pleasure with regard to speculation about Vice Presidential candidates. No one ever really knows who it's going to be, but everyone has a great reason why it should be the person he thinks would be the best candidate. We find the names interesting. In addition to the aforementioned Sec. Rice, Sec. Powell was thrown out there as another Republican possibility. Then, of course, there is the 'dream' ticket - Obama/Clinton, which admitted feels dreamless at the moment. Bob Shrum threw out Wes Clarke as a good mate for Sen. Obama.... it goes on and on... but this column admits that hearing the prospective names is fun. However, predicting the VP is a bad D.C. Lottery game. When you predict correctly, you get little credit and no money... someone else always gets the money.
It is not the object of this column to rail on commentators, but these four in particular don't respect the fire, they're all just lighter fluid. Not to mention, that so much of the hour was taken up with interpretations of what Obama said about people being bitter - clinging to the culture of religion and guns. Forget about the fact that Congress couldn't get a straight answer out of Gen. Petraeus or Amb. Crocker with regard to Iraq this week - like where the hell is the occupation going?! That should be the topic of conversation, or how about the incredible economic strain this country is under? Yes, well never mind about that.. pesky facts and reality, let's get on with the discussion about the discussion.
Were the remarks made by Barack Obama elitist and out of touch with the common man? Give us a break. Here is where Bob Shrum, in fact, made a good point. Hillary Clinton hasn't been a part of the real world for the past twenty-five years. The point of all of this ridiculousness (this bickering back and forth between campaigns) is certainly having a weakening effect on the Democratic Party. The politically scientific explanation for what ails the Democrats is "They just can't seem to get their shit together." Maybe they are all drinking the same kool-aid, but it starting to become evident that it might be the kool-aid with the anti-freeze in it. The Democrats are wasting away any advantage that they hold in this election. Senator McCain does have an incredible head start to the Presidency. Right now, he's not making headlines, but he's certainly making headway. Forget about the he said, she said, you said; especially when it comes to the facts on the ground - regardless of whether that's Iraqi or American earth respectively. Just invent issues [read here: swift boating] and that will ultimately effect the outcome. By the way, does the phrase 'cling to guns and religion' sound out of touch? This begs another question. When you're sitting with a group of friends, maybe having a few drinks, and someone pipes up and says, "Hey, let's discuss guns and religion," who ever feels all warm and fuzzy after that? With respect to those sitting at the table on today's program, none of them can really comment on the 'real' world with any credibility anymore.
Penultimately, there were a few comments made during the hour that do raise some concern because the fact is that when these four people start saying something, it can very well catch on. Primarily, Mike Murphy's comment that Barack Obama channels Michael Dukakis. He repeated on today's show. I'm sure that is not the first, only, or last time that that phrase will come out of his mouth. All you have to know about Michael Dukakis is that he is a herpe on the lip of the Democratic Party when comes to Presidential candidacies. Also, the results of the quoted Marist College poll, in which if there was a McCain/Rice ticket, it would win in New York State over an Obama/Somebody or a Clinton/Somebody ticket. Some believe in polls and some don't but this came up on Meet The Press. What didn't come up was that Condoleeza Rice should be considered the worst National Security Advisor in the history of the country. And after that, she should be considered to be the worst Secretary of State in the history of the nation. But she's a winner on the ticket? Forget the facts.
Lastly, this column will admit a guilty pleasure with regard to speculation about Vice Presidential candidates. No one ever really knows who it's going to be, but everyone has a great reason why it should be the person he thinks would be the best candidate. We find the names interesting. In addition to the aforementioned Sec. Rice, Sec. Powell was thrown out there as another Republican possibility. Then, of course, there is the 'dream' ticket - Obama/Clinton, which admitted feels dreamless at the moment. Bob Shrum threw out Wes Clarke as a good mate for Sen. Obama.... it goes on and on... but this column admits that hearing the prospective names is fun. However, predicting the VP is a bad D.C. Lottery game. When you predict correctly, you get little credit and no money... someone else always gets the money.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
4.6.08: The Art of Subversion
If you are a regular viewer of Meet The Press, you know very well as to which political militia Ed Rendell, Gov. of PA, and Bob Casey, Sen. of PA, respectively belong. As the Pennsylvania primary draws closer, these two surrogates are turning up the volume on their collective rhetoric. But really, today's conversation consisted of 'deja-views,' with Gov. Rendell insisting that Mrs. Clinton is the one who can win the 'big' states and should receive the nomination. This despite Sen. Casey's counter argument that Barack Obama is ahead by every measure. This particular point-counterpoint discussion seems to be at a stalemate, but it isn't really. Mrs. Clinton needed this race to be way over by now. As it has gone on, you see that she will say whatever is politically expedient to capture the nomination, specifically referring to Michigan and Florida. These two states are one black eye on the Democrats. Now, Mrs. Clinton is claiming that she won these states and that they should count, despite the fact that she signed a pledge not to campaign. And on and on and on goes this broken merry-go-round. The argument this column finds most ridiculous is that there can not be a do-over in Michigan or Florida because the cost is upward to $15 million. We refuse to believe that in a time where we are all witnessing the first billion dollar campaign that the Democratic party can not come up with this money. The answer is that it is not politically advantageous for the insider candidate.
The insider candidate relies most heavily on the superdelegates. Superdelegates is just a euphemism for Democratic Party insiders - an electoral college within the party if you will. Extending this analogy for a moment, the electoral college was set up because the decision-making of the public could not be trusted. Is that the case today? No, because there are some people who trust in the public, but do superdelegates subvert the public's wishes? That's what they're there for. This column always finds it amusing that when a political wrinkle presents itself, the public always learns anew of a process or designation. Never before in this writer's politically cognizant years have I had to consider or even know about a superdelegate. But now, I have to consider whether or not they will put the public's interest first ahead of their respective political futures and that they could override the wishes of the people. Senator Casey believes that the superdelegates will fall in line with the public and we hope, for the sake of democracy, that this isn't just naivete.
And that Gov. Rendell is constantly making statements about how the superdelegates could decide this contest at the convention is the wishful self-fulfillment of a prophecy. Which brings up another point of political fear - when you hear a politician repeat the same thing over and over again, it can only mean that it will happen. George W. Bush and the Iraq War/Occupation? Case at rest.
Another reason why Mrs. Clinton needed this race to be over with some time ago, by the way, is that the voters will start to have a better understanding of the individuals working on her behalf such as Mark Penn who is a Clinton aide but also works for a private firm who has dealings with the Government of Columbia. When he was in country, was he representing Mrs. Clinton or the firm he works for? This was Mrs. Clinton's point of controversy for the hour.
As for Mr. Obama's corresponding point for the hour? That his 'young daughter wouldn't be punished with a baby.' How easy was that to take out of context? Never mind that he was talking about the need for more comprehensive sex education in this country beyond simply teaching abstinence or the fact the one in four teenage girls have an STD. Such trivial concerns do not factor in the minds of pundits - where's the fun it that? Ahh... politics.
And speaking of things that people say that we don't like to hear, (Or should we really say that we DO like to hear them so that we can criticize what's said) Tom Brokaw, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, and Ambassador Andrew Young were on today's program to discuss the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King on the 40th anniversary of his assassination. When we remember, we revere. We revere the individual who speaks on behalf of those who can not, who speaks critically to power, who dares to tell the truth - the truth, for example, that the plight of single mothers (white and black) in America is a profound economic tradegy. But these great individuals in the present aren't revered, they are subverted against, marginalized, slandered, and slain. Jesus, as we know, was such an individual. Now, we are not comparing Dr. King to Jesus, but they were both prophets. They both spoke to power, both champions of the oppressed. Dr. King, in his harshest words toward America or the American Government specifically, never subverted the Constitution, he counted on its words.
Does Senator Obama exercise the same stout of heart? In moments, yes, but with any politician - black, white, man, women - if you get too populace in your message, and in today's realm that is speaking out against corporate distribution of wealth, the establishment will bury you - mostly figurative today but sometimes literally. Barack Obama has spoken frankly to American voters. American individuals wouldn't want it any other way, even if he/she doesn't like what he hears. For individuals, it is a time for thought and discussion, for the media it is a time to pounce.
On this anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, we should reflect on words we need to hear, not just the ones that ring pleasantly, that's what really unites us.
The insider candidate relies most heavily on the superdelegates. Superdelegates is just a euphemism for Democratic Party insiders - an electoral college within the party if you will. Extending this analogy for a moment, the electoral college was set up because the decision-making of the public could not be trusted. Is that the case today? No, because there are some people who trust in the public, but do superdelegates subvert the public's wishes? That's what they're there for. This column always finds it amusing that when a political wrinkle presents itself, the public always learns anew of a process or designation. Never before in this writer's politically cognizant years have I had to consider or even know about a superdelegate. But now, I have to consider whether or not they will put the public's interest first ahead of their respective political futures and that they could override the wishes of the people. Senator Casey believes that the superdelegates will fall in line with the public and we hope, for the sake of democracy, that this isn't just naivete.
And that Gov. Rendell is constantly making statements about how the superdelegates could decide this contest at the convention is the wishful self-fulfillment of a prophecy. Which brings up another point of political fear - when you hear a politician repeat the same thing over and over again, it can only mean that it will happen. George W. Bush and the Iraq War/Occupation? Case at rest.
Another reason why Mrs. Clinton needed this race to be over with some time ago, by the way, is that the voters will start to have a better understanding of the individuals working on her behalf such as Mark Penn who is a Clinton aide but also works for a private firm who has dealings with the Government of Columbia. When he was in country, was he representing Mrs. Clinton or the firm he works for? This was Mrs. Clinton's point of controversy for the hour.
As for Mr. Obama's corresponding point for the hour? That his 'young daughter wouldn't be punished with a baby.' How easy was that to take out of context? Never mind that he was talking about the need for more comprehensive sex education in this country beyond simply teaching abstinence or the fact the one in four teenage girls have an STD. Such trivial concerns do not factor in the minds of pundits - where's the fun it that? Ahh... politics.
And speaking of things that people say that we don't like to hear, (Or should we really say that we DO like to hear them so that we can criticize what's said) Tom Brokaw, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, and Ambassador Andrew Young were on today's program to discuss the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King on the 40th anniversary of his assassination. When we remember, we revere. We revere the individual who speaks on behalf of those who can not, who speaks critically to power, who dares to tell the truth - the truth, for example, that the plight of single mothers (white and black) in America is a profound economic tradegy. But these great individuals in the present aren't revered, they are subverted against, marginalized, slandered, and slain. Jesus, as we know, was such an individual. Now, we are not comparing Dr. King to Jesus, but they were both prophets. They both spoke to power, both champions of the oppressed. Dr. King, in his harshest words toward America or the American Government specifically, never subverted the Constitution, he counted on its words.
Does Senator Obama exercise the same stout of heart? In moments, yes, but with any politician - black, white, man, women - if you get too populace in your message, and in today's realm that is speaking out against corporate distribution of wealth, the establishment will bury you - mostly figurative today but sometimes literally. Barack Obama has spoken frankly to American voters. American individuals wouldn't want it any other way, even if he/she doesn't like what he hears. For individuals, it is a time for thought and discussion, for the media it is a time to pounce.
On this anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, we should reflect on words we need to hear, not just the ones that ring pleasantly, that's what really unites us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)