It's easy to say that Senator Chris Dodd did not get equal time on today's program because he didn't. However, his argument is a lot easier to make. Barack Obama is going to be the nominee for the Democratic Party. It would have been difficult for Mr. Russert to grill him in anyway since he was on air last Tuesday essentially calling the primary race for Obama. In classic (subscribed) fashion, the numbers were presented and and there should be little discrepancy, but unlike every other discipline where the numbers (the math) don't lie, political math spawns dozens of anti-Einsteins.
This brings us to Terry McAuliffe who followed Sen. Dowd. First, it must be stated that one of the goals of this column is to maintain an objective with regard to the show and its guests. Mr. McAuliffe, as chairman of the Clinton campaign, is wound so tightly to an agenda and his own sense of reality that he, and it is now obviously the Clintons as well, have lost the sense of what the Democratic Party stands for. This column is not saying it is this way, but it does seem that the Clintons are solely concerned with grabbing the power of the Presidential Office, all else be damned. The most immediate example comes from Mr. McAuliffe on today's program who kept injecting the vote tallies of Michigan and Florida into the overall scheme when in Michigan Sen. Obama's name was not even of the ballot (for reasons we already know). It's President Bush's fuzzy math and everyone has a different number. Another example came this week from Sen. Clinton in discussing white American voters with USA Today. Her statements can only leave one dumbfounded. With these kinds of statements, there can be no room allowed for the Clintons to wonder why they are seen as divisive. It has been going on throughout the campaign, but these are the latest examples.
This column may have already stated this, but it seems that with every election cycle we learn of a new term or variable that effects the outcome of an election and not usually for the better. Remember chads? Well, this primary it's all about Superdelegates. In 2004, I don't remember discussing superdelegates, or in 2000 for that matter, but here they are capable of souring the popular vote. The Clintons are counting on these superdelegates and President Bill Clinton is calling in every favor. However, this where the endorsement by Gov. Bill Richardson again comes into play. As we've said, it is the only endorsement that matters. Gov. Richardson's (a superdelegate) endorsement of Sen. Obama sends a strong signal that those favors being called in may not be what's best for the Democratic Party and the country. Like Lech Walesa and Solidarity, Richardson could prove to be the fence jumper.
When Mr. Russert asked every individual on the panel who will get the nomination, it was unanimous for Senator Obama. One of this week's guests, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, made the observation that there is a willingness by the superdelegates to have Sen. Clinton play on in the campaign, but if he campaign goes nuclear [read: ultra-negative], then the superdelegates will end it in a big way. It is an inevitability that both of these things will happen, exacerbated further by this Tuesday's primary in West Virginia and Kentucky. Another of Mr. Cillizza's observation's was that Sen. Clinton is now seen as a flawed messenger, citing the example of the gas tax - a political band-aid for the out-of-control rise of gasoline. This column agrees with Mr. Cillizza, but would take it a step further in that this column has seen Mrs. Clinton that way all along. And speaking of the gasoline tax, Sen. Obama is correct in his assessment that lifting that tax would cripple the repair of roads and highway Infrastructure, but how about having it apply only to independent truckers - the ones who are ultimately hit the hardest?
What was Clinton fatigue in 2000, became Clinton nostaglia in 2005 and now the cycle has completed itself as we are back to fatigue. The difference now is that fatigue is most felt by Democrats. And as Mr. Russert animatedly pointed out, Sen. Obama is running against The Clintons! As John Harwood pointed out, George W. Bush has been the greatest unifier of the Democratic Party, but we are seeing it ripped apart at the seams. So much so that the notion being thrown about of an Obama/Clinton is as likely as the theory of intelligent design. The universe had been expanding for millions of years before any type of humanoid developed. It's proven through math, of which there is only one kind. Unfortunately for us, every politician has a different equation.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
4.20.08: Response, Repudiation, and... Regret?
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.
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 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.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
3.30.08: Interview with General Michael Hayden
Is it a consolation that Gen. Hayden is an improvement over the former C.I.A. Director George Tenet? There is little doubt that he is. Mr. Tenet was always politically expedient, following the pack at the top of the administration, a group thinker. Gen. Hayden is an improvement despite this column's continued concern that a military man is heading our most high profile, civilian intelligence agency. This interview should have taken the entire hour - that' what the producers should have pushed for; it is the man's first interview as C.I.A. Director and you do not take an entire hour, hopefully there is an explanation.
For lack of a better description, the entire interview left this writer uneasy. Several points contribute to this feeling. First, Mr. Russert was asking Gen. Hayden about the surge in Iraq. Again, the 'surge' is an escalation - make no mistake. However, this is traditionally not within the realm of expertise for the C.I.A. director. Is it because he is wearing the uniform? It just seemed that this line of questioning would have been better suited for Gen. Petraus and not the Director of the C.I.A.
However, when the subject turned to Basra and the Iraqi government going in into the city to route militants, Gen. Hayden said he didn't know anymore about it beforehand then Gen. Petraus did. This is a problem. Isn't the point of the C.I.A. to know things before they happen? What's called advanced intelligence. We don't seem to have much of that in Iraq, if any. Again, it leaves this writer uneasy.
And this seeming lack of advance [or you can read: current] intelligence also relates back to the National Intelligence Estimate following September 11th with regard to Iraq's WMD program. Though Gen. Hayden was not the C.I.A. Director at the time, he stated that he was in the room and blamed the lack of an honest assessment of Saddam Hussein's current WMD program on momentum. What?! He said that the momentum gained by the past intelligence trumped current information. This insight into the discussion that was happening in that meeting leaves us frightened. Nowhere in his answer can you point to one thing intelligent. Gen. Hayden said that they have learned vital lessons because of it, but the cost has been devastating to this country.
Also, this column wonders why Gen. Hayden, on today's program, could weigh in with his personal opinion with regard Iran's nuclear program (whether it is active or not) and not give his personal opinion on water boarding as torture. He defers to the Justice Department to decide whether it is torture or not. He would not give his opinion, he said it doesn't matter what he thinks, but it does. He is the Director of the C.I.A. Does this mean that he condones it? And deferring to the Justice Dept. for anything right now is a joke. The justice department under the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution. We wish this was an overstatement, but unfortunately, it is not critical enough.
Lastly, Gen. Hayden spoke about giving his operatives liability insurance so that they don't have to think about the legality or morality of their actions that they take on behalf of the U.S. Government. We understand that this is designed to relieve the external (political) pressure on the operative, but giving them liability insurance implies that they need it and that they are engaging in illegal activity. The program cut to the clip of V.P. Cheney talking about working on the dark side, in the shadows. Intelligence is all about working in the shadows - to see where the rest of us can not. But going to the dark side, that leaves us no better than the people determined to do us harm though atrocious means.
For the second half of the program, which again there shouldn't have been, the guests were David Brooks, NY Times columnist and editor-at-large Peter Beinart to discuss whether Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and what the repercussions are if she stays in.
Without the continual back and forth, here are the answers to these specific questions.
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race? No, she has the right to continue on since she has won some major primaries. She shouldn't drop out despite the mathematic improbability of her winning.
Is her campaign's current strategy hurting the Democratic Party? Yes, as long as Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates bitterly discuss race and gender, the Democratic Party will become more divided by the day. There is a real lack of leadership in the Democratic Party - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean (to just name a few) have done nothing. They are ineffective and frankly, should be removed. Who can lead this party - Senators Obama and Clinton. However, their collective discourse is becoming more and more poisonous and that poison is trickling down throughout the party collective. And as a side note, Bill Clinton should just shut up. We used to love to see him at the forefront, but now we cringe every time we see him on the television. Talk about deflating the Party. From a distance, doesn't it just seem childish?
What should be their campaign strategy? We would have to agree with David Brooks - a rarity we realize, but he suggested that Mrs. Clinton just run a dignified campaign about ideas and policy, not using baiting tactics centered around race and gender. Wow, What a novel idea!
For lack of a better description, the entire interview left this writer uneasy. Several points contribute to this feeling. First, Mr. Russert was asking Gen. Hayden about the surge in Iraq. Again, the 'surge' is an escalation - make no mistake. However, this is traditionally not within the realm of expertise for the C.I.A. director. Is it because he is wearing the uniform? It just seemed that this line of questioning would have been better suited for Gen. Petraus and not the Director of the C.I.A.
However, when the subject turned to Basra and the Iraqi government going in into the city to route militants, Gen. Hayden said he didn't know anymore about it beforehand then Gen. Petraus did. This is a problem. Isn't the point of the C.I.A. to know things before they happen? What's called advanced intelligence. We don't seem to have much of that in Iraq, if any. Again, it leaves this writer uneasy.
And this seeming lack of advance [or you can read: current] intelligence also relates back to the National Intelligence Estimate following September 11th with regard to Iraq's WMD program. Though Gen. Hayden was not the C.I.A. Director at the time, he stated that he was in the room and blamed the lack of an honest assessment of Saddam Hussein's current WMD program on momentum. What?! He said that the momentum gained by the past intelligence trumped current information. This insight into the discussion that was happening in that meeting leaves us frightened. Nowhere in his answer can you point to one thing intelligent. Gen. Hayden said that they have learned vital lessons because of it, but the cost has been devastating to this country.
Also, this column wonders why Gen. Hayden, on today's program, could weigh in with his personal opinion with regard Iran's nuclear program (whether it is active or not) and not give his personal opinion on water boarding as torture. He defers to the Justice Department to decide whether it is torture or not. He would not give his opinion, he said it doesn't matter what he thinks, but it does. He is the Director of the C.I.A. Does this mean that he condones it? And deferring to the Justice Dept. for anything right now is a joke. The justice department under the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution. We wish this was an overstatement, but unfortunately, it is not critical enough.
Lastly, Gen. Hayden spoke about giving his operatives liability insurance so that they don't have to think about the legality or morality of their actions that they take on behalf of the U.S. Government. We understand that this is designed to relieve the external (political) pressure on the operative, but giving them liability insurance implies that they need it and that they are engaging in illegal activity. The program cut to the clip of V.P. Cheney talking about working on the dark side, in the shadows. Intelligence is all about working in the shadows - to see where the rest of us can not. But going to the dark side, that leaves us no better than the people determined to do us harm though atrocious means.
For the second half of the program, which again there shouldn't have been, the guests were David Brooks, NY Times columnist and editor-at-large Peter Beinart to discuss whether Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and what the repercussions are if she stays in.
Without the continual back and forth, here are the answers to these specific questions.
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race? No, she has the right to continue on since she has won some major primaries. She shouldn't drop out despite the mathematic improbability of her winning.
Is her campaign's current strategy hurting the Democratic Party? Yes, as long as Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates bitterly discuss race and gender, the Democratic Party will become more divided by the day. There is a real lack of leadership in the Democratic Party - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean (to just name a few) have done nothing. They are ineffective and frankly, should be removed. Who can lead this party - Senators Obama and Clinton. However, their collective discourse is becoming more and more poisonous and that poison is trickling down throughout the party collective. And as a side note, Bill Clinton should just shut up. We used to love to see him at the forefront, but now we cringe every time we see him on the television. Talk about deflating the Party. From a distance, doesn't it just seem childish?
What should be their campaign strategy? We would have to agree with David Brooks - a rarity we realize, but he suggested that Mrs. Clinton just run a dignified campaign about ideas and policy, not using baiting tactics centered around race and gender. Wow, What a novel idea!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
3.23.08: Simple Physics
First, this column would like to say that it great to be back after a two-week layoff. The life of one mired in the middle class gets in the way sometimes of such minor endeavors, one of which is keeping a blog.
With that said, let's get on with it.
In the past few posts, this column has expressed concern that Meet The Press was not addressing anything else but the numbers of presidential election politics. This week faith, oddly enough on Easter Sunday, was restored. Presidential politics was discussed, but in the past week, too many significant happenings has gone, highlighted by open discussions of race, economic meltdowns, foreign policy blunders, and endorsements. Today's guests included Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett discussing the economy. In the context of MTP, this is overdue as some perspective needed to be given. Ms. Bartiromo maintains an optimism about the economy that it is cyclical and that with the Bear Sterns meltdown, we've seen the worse. However, in this particular cycle, Ms. Burnett pointed out that Alan Greenspan said it is the worst since WWII. And in this cycle, we're seeing people being wiped out. Foreclosures and stagnant wages, the former being an understated constant tragedy of the Bush Administration, make it difficult for a middle class worker to feel optimism that struggles are only cyclical.
Also, Ms. Burnett, who has been interviewing CEOs of companies that interact directly with consumers (she mentioned Little Ceasar's, Papa John's, Rainforest Cafe), see this economic downturn lasting for at least the next 18 months or more. A daunting prospect to say the least. At least exports are booming, right? Well, yes, but that props up the confidence of foreign consumers, it doesn't do much for the confidence of American consumers.
However, this column agrees with Ms. Bartiromo in that the FED chairman, Mr. Bernake is doing a good job in employing whatever tactic he can to keep the economy from running down a sink hole. If you're forced into a position in which you have to cut interest rates, you'll do it to maintain the minimum collective health of ordinary workers and consumers.
This week it has been pointed out that America is no longer focused at all on the Iraq war/occupation and that the economy dominates. What people need to remember is that Iraq is the central virus that creates all of America's ills. A projected cost of 3 trillion dollars sucked out of the U.S. economy doesn't serve any good purpose here in The States. Again, Iraq is the virus that cripples us, and in some aspects it will be permanent.
This is tied directly to the start of the discussion in the second portion of the show, which focused on the comments of Rev. Wright and Barack Obama's 'race' speech addressing it. After seeing the clip ad nauseum of Rev. Wright's comments, would we say that his tone was inflammatory? Yes. Would we question whether they were well thought out? Also, yes. Would we say that they showed a limited understanding of the real politik? Definitely. But we can also say that some of the comments were accurate in their essence. One of those points is simple physics. We put troops in Saudia Arabia and Muslim extremists found it intolerable. Any action will cause an equivalent reaction. Although assessing equivalents in politics is a matter of perspective. And Eugene Robinson was correct to point out, and it should be repeated, that this clip does not sum up the entire ministry of Rev. Wright. Do we know this first hand, you ask. No, but nor can we condemn learning of this second hand.
And it should also be pointed out that the comments didn't concern race as much as it did politics, yet it has been spun that way and Iraq is the backdrop for all of this.
With that said, Barack Obama felt that it was a necessity to give that speech in Philadelphia. Most of the media agrees, as they should, that the speech was a good first step in maturely discussing a problem that permeates throughout our 'great experiment' of an American society. This column's concern is that we, as a society, will only fixate on the speech itself and no one will pick up the ball per se. We'll have to wait and see.
All of this should not negatively affect Barack Obama's campaign, but as Jon Meacham pointed out, it does show that if Sen. Obama does walk across Lake Michigan, he might sink. (Leave it to Mr. Meacham to use the most appropriate of analogies on an Easter Sunday.)
And speaking of divisive comments, Bill Clinton is two steps away from permanently, critically damaging his legacy as President. He has been the single most divisive force in the Democratic National Primary. We will not speculate on the psychology of Mr. Clinton's thinking and whether he 'owes' it to his wife for any past embarrassments, etc. What is significant is the clear and present embarrassment he is becoming to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. This is projecting out to be classic political crash and burn - legacy damaged, lost nomination, political clout looking like the U.S.'s present moral standing in the world. How will all this affect Mrs. Clinton's determination in the Senate. Again, we have to wait and see.
One of the greatest things about America is that there is an adverse effect on society, hence action taken to remove an entity that is perceived to have too much control over something. It may seem that Americans do not act enough in this capacity, we really we do. Our first great lesson of the 21st Century is that we shouldn't have remained complacent when we witnessed the Bush Administration consolidating power. We bring this up because today's discussion touched on a perception that the Clintons control the Democratic party and wield all the influence, a 'magic voodoo' as Peggy Noonan put it. If they, in fact, did have this control, we are now seeing cut off at the knees.
If there is an endorsement that really does matter, it was Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. That was a significant chop. Not only is it a former presidential contender endorsing another, but it serves as a significant rebuke of Mrs. Clinton. Remember that Gov. Richardson served the Clinton administration in various significant capacities. And for Mrs. Clinton's part in this rebuke, it is unfortunate that well... Mrs. Clinton doesn't necessarily lie, but she exaggaerates and alters past events and statement greatly, playing the Dick Cheney game of what I'm saying now is the truth and no matter what you think I said or recorded I said or did in the past simply isn't so because I say.
Lastly, Eugene Robinson surmised that the superdelegates should aline with the elected delegates and for the sake of the Democratic Party they should. However, as Mr. Meacham pointed out, it is rare that a primary election would affect the general election, but in this political cycle, it could happen. If this is to be the case, it could very well ruin the Democratic Party.
chick todd scrubs the numbers very well...
do with the pledged delegates - the supers - according to Gene Robinson
primary battle rarely effectsa general election but it could happen here...
War and the econony...
With that said, let's get on with it.
In the past few posts, this column has expressed concern that Meet The Press was not addressing anything else but the numbers of presidential election politics. This week faith, oddly enough on Easter Sunday, was restored. Presidential politics was discussed, but in the past week, too many significant happenings has gone, highlighted by open discussions of race, economic meltdowns, foreign policy blunders, and endorsements. Today's guests included Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett discussing the economy. In the context of MTP, this is overdue as some perspective needed to be given. Ms. Bartiromo maintains an optimism about the economy that it is cyclical and that with the Bear Sterns meltdown, we've seen the worse. However, in this particular cycle, Ms. Burnett pointed out that Alan Greenspan said it is the worst since WWII. And in this cycle, we're seeing people being wiped out. Foreclosures and stagnant wages, the former being an understated constant tragedy of the Bush Administration, make it difficult for a middle class worker to feel optimism that struggles are only cyclical.
Also, Ms. Burnett, who has been interviewing CEOs of companies that interact directly with consumers (she mentioned Little Ceasar's, Papa John's, Rainforest Cafe), see this economic downturn lasting for at least the next 18 months or more. A daunting prospect to say the least. At least exports are booming, right? Well, yes, but that props up the confidence of foreign consumers, it doesn't do much for the confidence of American consumers.
However, this column agrees with Ms. Bartiromo in that the FED chairman, Mr. Bernake is doing a good job in employing whatever tactic he can to keep the economy from running down a sink hole. If you're forced into a position in which you have to cut interest rates, you'll do it to maintain the minimum collective health of ordinary workers and consumers.
This week it has been pointed out that America is no longer focused at all on the Iraq war/occupation and that the economy dominates. What people need to remember is that Iraq is the central virus that creates all of America's ills. A projected cost of 3 trillion dollars sucked out of the U.S. economy doesn't serve any good purpose here in The States. Again, Iraq is the virus that cripples us, and in some aspects it will be permanent.
This is tied directly to the start of the discussion in the second portion of the show, which focused on the comments of Rev. Wright and Barack Obama's 'race' speech addressing it. After seeing the clip ad nauseum of Rev. Wright's comments, would we say that his tone was inflammatory? Yes. Would we question whether they were well thought out? Also, yes. Would we say that they showed a limited understanding of the real politik? Definitely. But we can also say that some of the comments were accurate in their essence. One of those points is simple physics. We put troops in Saudia Arabia and Muslim extremists found it intolerable. Any action will cause an equivalent reaction. Although assessing equivalents in politics is a matter of perspective. And Eugene Robinson was correct to point out, and it should be repeated, that this clip does not sum up the entire ministry of Rev. Wright. Do we know this first hand, you ask. No, but nor can we condemn learning of this second hand.
And it should also be pointed out that the comments didn't concern race as much as it did politics, yet it has been spun that way and Iraq is the backdrop for all of this.
With that said, Barack Obama felt that it was a necessity to give that speech in Philadelphia. Most of the media agrees, as they should, that the speech was a good first step in maturely discussing a problem that permeates throughout our 'great experiment' of an American society. This column's concern is that we, as a society, will only fixate on the speech itself and no one will pick up the ball per se. We'll have to wait and see.
All of this should not negatively affect Barack Obama's campaign, but as Jon Meacham pointed out, it does show that if Sen. Obama does walk across Lake Michigan, he might sink. (Leave it to Mr. Meacham to use the most appropriate of analogies on an Easter Sunday.)
And speaking of divisive comments, Bill Clinton is two steps away from permanently, critically damaging his legacy as President. He has been the single most divisive force in the Democratic National Primary. We will not speculate on the psychology of Mr. Clinton's thinking and whether he 'owes' it to his wife for any past embarrassments, etc. What is significant is the clear and present embarrassment he is becoming to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. This is projecting out to be classic political crash and burn - legacy damaged, lost nomination, political clout looking like the U.S.'s present moral standing in the world. How will all this affect Mrs. Clinton's determination in the Senate. Again, we have to wait and see.
One of the greatest things about America is that there is an adverse effect on society, hence action taken to remove an entity that is perceived to have too much control over something. It may seem that Americans do not act enough in this capacity, we really we do. Our first great lesson of the 21st Century is that we shouldn't have remained complacent when we witnessed the Bush Administration consolidating power. We bring this up because today's discussion touched on a perception that the Clintons control the Democratic party and wield all the influence, a 'magic voodoo' as Peggy Noonan put it. If they, in fact, did have this control, we are now seeing cut off at the knees.
If there is an endorsement that really does matter, it was Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. That was a significant chop. Not only is it a former presidential contender endorsing another, but it serves as a significant rebuke of Mrs. Clinton. Remember that Gov. Richardson served the Clinton administration in various significant capacities. And for Mrs. Clinton's part in this rebuke, it is unfortunate that well... Mrs. Clinton doesn't necessarily lie, but she exaggaerates and alters past events and statement greatly, playing the Dick Cheney game of what I'm saying now is the truth and no matter what you think I said or recorded I said or did in the past simply isn't so because I say.
Lastly, Eugene Robinson surmised that the superdelegates should aline with the elected delegates and for the sake of the Democratic Party they should. However, as Mr. Meacham pointed out, it is rare that a primary election would affect the general election, but in this political cycle, it could happen. If this is to be the case, it could very well ruin the Democratic Party.
chick todd scrubs the numbers very well...
do with the pledged delegates - the supers - according to Gene Robinson
primary battle rarely effectsa general election but it could happen here...
War and the econony...
Sunday, March 02, 2008
3.2.08: More No News
It is disappointing that this week's column will be an extension of last week's column in that there isn't much good to say about this week's program. It started with Friday's e-mail alert dampening our spirits in announcing Mike Murphy, Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin, and James Carville as guests. This column prefers not to pull technicality-type reasoning, but is this Meet The Press or Meet The Analysis. These four individuals are featured on MTP more than anyone else and they’re not even the press. This group needs a name - maybe the No New News Corps. Ok, we admit, a poor attempt, but that is exactly what they provide - no news. In the future if they decide to feature this group, they should air the group's 4-Mimosa Brunch that we presume happens after the taping. Now that would be entertaining.
Our discontent stems from the lack of insight that they provide. For example, one statement (it doesn't matter from whom specifically, it's hardly worth dissecting it that far) was that if Mrs. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she could still come out behind in delegates - no news.
Bob Shrum said that if Mrs. Clinton does win those states that she could conceivably acquire the moral claim to the nomination. She could 'acquire a moral claim'? That is the type of speculation that, to say the least, makes you wonder and can only help one feel less enthusiastic about the process. This week's program has assisted in making the viewer less enthusiastic about the Democratic nominating process. Actually, and this is more no-news, the 20th Democratic debate in Austin, TX officially killed that enthusiasm. Shows like this week's program are just the pile-on.
This is not to discount everything that this particular panel says. For example, Mike Murphy is correct in saying that the Republicans would be high-fiving if the Democrats were to try and put the Barack Obama phenomenon back in the bottle. No matter what, that will not happen. As stated in last week's column, the people are always out front of the press on things like this. The other aspect that they bring to the table is that they have firsthand accounts of historical campaign precedent and one can never underestimate the importance of historical reference. History repeats itself because we overlook and underestimate historical precedent continually.
But ultimately, how insightful and analytical can these four individuals be to us? Unfortunately, not very. They are all so invested in the individuals that they have backed over the years that everything they say is funneled through that respective lenses. The second half of the program was to be devoted to the issues. They briefly touched on NAFTA and the economy, but then quickly digressed back to candidate personalities and prospective VP picks. And in speaking about those issues, we provide this one example as to why we think these guests' collective opinion is out of touch. A poll was flashed on the screen in which the vast majority of the American people feel that the economy is in fair to poor condition. Mary Matalin's answer to this was that 'if you were to ask individuals, they would mostly say that their finances are excellent and that the poll was conducted in such a way to show the opposite.' This comes from a close, longtime senior advisor to VP Richard Cheney. Talk about being out of touch. News to ONLY Ms. Matalin - it's tough out there and people are struggling economically.
Do we even have to point this out? Apparently we do, if these four individuals are going to constantly be on Meet The Press.
Our discontent stems from the lack of insight that they provide. For example, one statement (it doesn't matter from whom specifically, it's hardly worth dissecting it that far) was that if Mrs. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she could still come out behind in delegates - no news.
Bob Shrum said that if Mrs. Clinton does win those states that she could conceivably acquire the moral claim to the nomination. She could 'acquire a moral claim'? That is the type of speculation that, to say the least, makes you wonder and can only help one feel less enthusiastic about the process. This week's program has assisted in making the viewer less enthusiastic about the Democratic nominating process. Actually, and this is more no-news, the 20th Democratic debate in Austin, TX officially killed that enthusiasm. Shows like this week's program are just the pile-on.
This is not to discount everything that this particular panel says. For example, Mike Murphy is correct in saying that the Republicans would be high-fiving if the Democrats were to try and put the Barack Obama phenomenon back in the bottle. No matter what, that will not happen. As stated in last week's column, the people are always out front of the press on things like this. The other aspect that they bring to the table is that they have firsthand accounts of historical campaign precedent and one can never underestimate the importance of historical reference. History repeats itself because we overlook and underestimate historical precedent continually.
But ultimately, how insightful and analytical can these four individuals be to us? Unfortunately, not very. They are all so invested in the individuals that they have backed over the years that everything they say is funneled through that respective lenses. The second half of the program was to be devoted to the issues. They briefly touched on NAFTA and the economy, but then quickly digressed back to candidate personalities and prospective VP picks. And in speaking about those issues, we provide this one example as to why we think these guests' collective opinion is out of touch. A poll was flashed on the screen in which the vast majority of the American people feel that the economy is in fair to poor condition. Mary Matalin's answer to this was that 'if you were to ask individuals, they would mostly say that their finances are excellent and that the poll was conducted in such a way to show the opposite.' This comes from a close, longtime senior advisor to VP Richard Cheney. Talk about being out of touch. News to ONLY Ms. Matalin - it's tough out there and people are struggling economically.
Do we even have to point this out? Apparently we do, if these four individuals are going to constantly be on Meet The Press.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
2.24.08: Damn Nader, Why Do You Have to Be Right?
Ralph Nader... Ralph Nader... Ralph Nader.
Mr. Nader announced today on Meet The Press that he will indeed enter the race for the Presidency of the United States. The impact of this, is felt little by all Republicans of various stripes. As far as they are concerned, they welcome the entry, harkening back to the year 2000 where many blame Mr. Nader from keeping Mr. Gore from the White House. Republicans view Nader as an equalizer in the general election. Democrats, on the other hand, look upon a Nader candidacy with real dread. But damn it, if Mr. Nader isn't correct on so many issues... and that's the problem. His arguments make him more than a compelling figure to vote for, but it is at the peril of seeing a Republican win the office. With the circumstances of the 2000 election in mind, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Nader who he would prefer in 2008, Obama or McCain. How could he ask Mr. Nader that question when he just announced his candidacy? He also suggested that Mr. Nader was responsible for the George W. Bush Presidency, which is completely ludicrous. Mr. Nader reminded him that 250,000 Democrats voted for George Bush in Florida, an eerie reminder to say the least. If you're a Democrat, chew on that number for a while.
So Mr. Nader has once again, made a compelling argument to run and this column does not begrudge anyone who makes that decision. Mr. Nader is for the populace and is right to remind us that George W. Bush's administration has committed multiple impeachable offenses. It's offensive to not hold the administration accountable. Mr. Nader justly reminds us of this - hence he candidacy is completely justified.
However, there are two problems with the Nader candidacy. One, we only hear from Mr. Nader every four years. There is no doubt that in the time between he is working on behalf of the American people, but vocalization of this work and the injustices perpetrated against Americans by its own government as he sees them is vitally important to be effective. Overall, he is not vocal enough. A President needs to have a strong voice, lead more out front, and this is never truer than in today's times.
The other problem was illustrated on today's program - the corporate media. Mr. Nader announced his run for the presidency on today's show, and Mr. Russert never brought it up with the panel that followed. The discussion immediately went to polls concerning Obama-Clinton-McCain. Ignored by the corporate media five minutes after you announce is something that, unfortunately, can only work against a candidate. This is written off as just typical these days.
Speaking of the media, for such an exciting, history-making election, they have done an awful job in sticking with the topics that are of the most importance. All they have been trying to do, it seems, is steer the race in the directions that they want it to go. The New York Times article is a good example. If they had eliminated the circumstantial part about the affair and just focused on McCain's unusual closeness with lobbyists, then the article presents a critical issue for the race. Now, as it stands, it is viewed as weak and salacious. On most issues, as Doris Kearns Goodwin pointed out today, the people are ahead of the reporters.
The panelist discussion today really isn't worth commenting on, save for this. There are so many important topics for the press to discuss, and for this particular program to address, that this constant rehash of presidential polls every week on the program has become predicable, tiresome, and counter-productive. It dominates every panel discussion and this column demands more thoughtful discussion. There was a Presidential historian (Doris Kearns Goodwin) and there wasn't even a mention of Cuba. Ridiculous. Do we demand a higher standard from Meet The Press than the rest of the 'news' talk shows? You better believe it. Did MTP live up to that standard today? Not even close.
[Side Note 1: One of the polls that was flashed on the screen was a Diageo poll. Is Diageo a spirits conglomerate? What's up with that?]
[Side Note 2: Can everyone stop with 'you plagiarized that line' tit for tat? The William Saffire clip about his lifting lines as a speechwriter should explain it all.]
Mr. Nader announced today on Meet The Press that he will indeed enter the race for the Presidency of the United States. The impact of this, is felt little by all Republicans of various stripes. As far as they are concerned, they welcome the entry, harkening back to the year 2000 where many blame Mr. Nader from keeping Mr. Gore from the White House. Republicans view Nader as an equalizer in the general election. Democrats, on the other hand, look upon a Nader candidacy with real dread. But damn it, if Mr. Nader isn't correct on so many issues... and that's the problem. His arguments make him more than a compelling figure to vote for, but it is at the peril of seeing a Republican win the office. With the circumstances of the 2000 election in mind, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Nader who he would prefer in 2008, Obama or McCain. How could he ask Mr. Nader that question when he just announced his candidacy? He also suggested that Mr. Nader was responsible for the George W. Bush Presidency, which is completely ludicrous. Mr. Nader reminded him that 250,000 Democrats voted for George Bush in Florida, an eerie reminder to say the least. If you're a Democrat, chew on that number for a while.
So Mr. Nader has once again, made a compelling argument to run and this column does not begrudge anyone who makes that decision. Mr. Nader is for the populace and is right to remind us that George W. Bush's administration has committed multiple impeachable offenses. It's offensive to not hold the administration accountable. Mr. Nader justly reminds us of this - hence he candidacy is completely justified.
However, there are two problems with the Nader candidacy. One, we only hear from Mr. Nader every four years. There is no doubt that in the time between he is working on behalf of the American people, but vocalization of this work and the injustices perpetrated against Americans by its own government as he sees them is vitally important to be effective. Overall, he is not vocal enough. A President needs to have a strong voice, lead more out front, and this is never truer than in today's times.
The other problem was illustrated on today's program - the corporate media. Mr. Nader announced his run for the presidency on today's show, and Mr. Russert never brought it up with the panel that followed. The discussion immediately went to polls concerning Obama-Clinton-McCain. Ignored by the corporate media five minutes after you announce is something that, unfortunately, can only work against a candidate. This is written off as just typical these days.
Speaking of the media, for such an exciting, history-making election, they have done an awful job in sticking with the topics that are of the most importance. All they have been trying to do, it seems, is steer the race in the directions that they want it to go. The New York Times article is a good example. If they had eliminated the circumstantial part about the affair and just focused on McCain's unusual closeness with lobbyists, then the article presents a critical issue for the race. Now, as it stands, it is viewed as weak and salacious. On most issues, as Doris Kearns Goodwin pointed out today, the people are ahead of the reporters.
The panelist discussion today really isn't worth commenting on, save for this. There are so many important topics for the press to discuss, and for this particular program to address, that this constant rehash of presidential polls every week on the program has become predicable, tiresome, and counter-productive. It dominates every panel discussion and this column demands more thoughtful discussion. There was a Presidential historian (Doris Kearns Goodwin) and there wasn't even a mention of Cuba. Ridiculous. Do we demand a higher standard from Meet The Press than the rest of the 'news' talk shows? You better believe it. Did MTP live up to that standard today? Not even close.
[Side Note 1: One of the polls that was flashed on the screen was a Diageo poll. Is Diageo a spirits conglomerate? What's up with that?]
[Side Note 2: Can everyone stop with 'you plagiarized that line' tit for tat? The William Saffire clip about his lifting lines as a speechwriter should explain it all.]
Sunday, February 17, 2008
2.17.08: Internal Slaughter
Are we sick of hearing about superdelegates yet? Yes, we most probably already reached the tipping point about three weeks ago. Yet here we are, and the talk is only going to get more intense and superdelegates are an even bigger factor in the Democratic presidential race. If the television press keeps up with all this super-speculation about the role of superdelegates, the voters will really be put off the political process.
It is the most politically salacious story going, which brings us to this week's first two guests - Chuck Schumer (D-NY and Clinton spokesman) and Dick Durbin (D-IL and Obama spokesman). Senator Schumer keep referring to internecine battles, which would damage the party. Internecine is defined in Oxford as a general slaughtering or mutually destructive. Schumer was using the word with the latter definition in mind, but rest assured, if superdelegates play an integral part in nominating the Democratic candidate for President, then the former definition will be the operative one. It will be a general slaughtering in as much as Democratic voters will be so turned off by the process that the Democrats will lose the Presidency. Yes, they will lose it!
The debate today was silly and speculative, but here are some observations. With Obama winning right now, what do you think Senator Durbin is going to say... Let the will of the people prevail and don't let the superdelegates decide. For Senator Schumer, he said the supers should vote their conscience. What he's saying is for Washington political insiders to vote their conscience, which sounds oxymoronic at best, right?
Sen. Schumer also said that this nomination should not be decided with some back room deal. If it's close, that is exactly what's going to happen, make no mistake. He couldn't give a straight answer to Mr. Russert for the entire interview. It is a wasteful and derisive conversation at this point. Let primaries take place first because it always ends up that the American people, when it comes to politics are always the smartest ones. Washington insiders are very arrogant in this regard and assume that the people don't know best. The Supreme Court chose George W. Bush when another guy got the popular vote. Does more need to be said?
The panel discussion featured the return of the Capitol Gang - Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Mark Shields, Bob Novak, and Kate O'Beirne. The significance of these people getting together again is negligible. Going around the table, Mark Shields admitted that his own political prognosticating is less than credible, being on the losing side of the last four Presidential elections. Mr. Novak warned him chided him on being a political operative instead of an impartial journalist. Are you kidding, Novak is the worst of them all. He is not a conservative. He is a Republican political mouthpiece. His conduct during the entire affair of outing Valerie Plame was inexcusable and disqualifies any credibility that he has so by extension anything that he says, including what was said on today's program, carries no weight. If it hasn't be made perfectly clear - this column has little to no use for Robert Novak at all and would be happy to never see him appear on Meet The Press again. Those privileges should have been retracted long ago. If you want a true conservative, look to Kate O'Beirne. You may disagree with her political views, but she commands respect because she does not back away from criticizing Republicans when they contradict that conservative philosophy that she adheres to.
All the pundits had his/her own take and observations on the Democratic race, breaking it down into bullet points, which is the best reason for pundits to exist. The frustration is evident on the part of Hillary Clinton, as Ms. O'Beirne said. Of course, when she laid out her strategy, there wasn't an Obama tsunami on radar. The notion of 28 years of Bush and Clinton names dominating the presidential conversation is not something the American people want. Most people would say to give someone else a shot. Again, the people are correct in that having that idea.
The Republican contest was touched on briefly and the consensus was that Huckabee is just a monkey in the wrench and should step away. Internecine battles are what Washington is all about. Eating your own is the modus operandi on both sides and it is the exact thing the people don't want. But the general slaughter will continue with the press providing the ammunition. And as these mutually destructive internal battles continue, the rest of the country sat through a disturbing week, in which they watched Americans citizens walk into schools and universities with guns killing their own.
It is the most politically salacious story going, which brings us to this week's first two guests - Chuck Schumer (D-NY and Clinton spokesman) and Dick Durbin (D-IL and Obama spokesman). Senator Schumer keep referring to internecine battles, which would damage the party. Internecine is defined in Oxford as a general slaughtering or mutually destructive. Schumer was using the word with the latter definition in mind, but rest assured, if superdelegates play an integral part in nominating the Democratic candidate for President, then the former definition will be the operative one. It will be a general slaughtering in as much as Democratic voters will be so turned off by the process that the Democrats will lose the Presidency. Yes, they will lose it!
The debate today was silly and speculative, but here are some observations. With Obama winning right now, what do you think Senator Durbin is going to say... Let the will of the people prevail and don't let the superdelegates decide. For Senator Schumer, he said the supers should vote their conscience. What he's saying is for Washington political insiders to vote their conscience, which sounds oxymoronic at best, right?
Sen. Schumer also said that this nomination should not be decided with some back room deal. If it's close, that is exactly what's going to happen, make no mistake. He couldn't give a straight answer to Mr. Russert for the entire interview. It is a wasteful and derisive conversation at this point. Let primaries take place first because it always ends up that the American people, when it comes to politics are always the smartest ones. Washington insiders are very arrogant in this regard and assume that the people don't know best. The Supreme Court chose George W. Bush when another guy got the popular vote. Does more need to be said?
The panel discussion featured the return of the Capitol Gang - Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Mark Shields, Bob Novak, and Kate O'Beirne. The significance of these people getting together again is negligible. Going around the table, Mark Shields admitted that his own political prognosticating is less than credible, being on the losing side of the last four Presidential elections. Mr. Novak warned him chided him on being a political operative instead of an impartial journalist. Are you kidding, Novak is the worst of them all. He is not a conservative. He is a Republican political mouthpiece. His conduct during the entire affair of outing Valerie Plame was inexcusable and disqualifies any credibility that he has so by extension anything that he says, including what was said on today's program, carries no weight. If it hasn't be made perfectly clear - this column has little to no use for Robert Novak at all and would be happy to never see him appear on Meet The Press again. Those privileges should have been retracted long ago. If you want a true conservative, look to Kate O'Beirne. You may disagree with her political views, but she commands respect because she does not back away from criticizing Republicans when they contradict that conservative philosophy that she adheres to.
All the pundits had his/her own take and observations on the Democratic race, breaking it down into bullet points, which is the best reason for pundits to exist. The frustration is evident on the part of Hillary Clinton, as Ms. O'Beirne said. Of course, when she laid out her strategy, there wasn't an Obama tsunami on radar. The notion of 28 years of Bush and Clinton names dominating the presidential conversation is not something the American people want. Most people would say to give someone else a shot. Again, the people are correct in that having that idea.
The Republican contest was touched on briefly and the consensus was that Huckabee is just a monkey in the wrench and should step away. Internecine battles are what Washington is all about. Eating your own is the modus operandi on both sides and it is the exact thing the people don't want. But the general slaughter will continue with the press providing the ammunition. And as these mutually destructive internal battles continue, the rest of the country sat through a disturbing week, in which they watched Americans citizens walk into schools and universities with guns killing their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)