The decision to initially keep Tom Brokaw away from the desk is a good idea for a few reasons. One, Mr. Brokaw is not at his best as an interviewer when in a setting that would be considered 'the traditional MTP setting,' in other words. It would just be too powerful on a reminder that Mr. Russert is no longer there. Three, Mr. Brokaw can not, in fact, hold the chair even despite his legendary resume. This week's interviews with western-state governors was a safe transition.... Interviewing western governors IN THE WEST! The glaring issue with this decision is that there isn't that urgency or spontaneity of the live interview, which was a key reason why you watched Mr. Russert and MTP in the first place.
And before we get into a look at the statements by these governors, there is one more thing that should be stated. Chuck Todd, after the November election, actually after the new year, will take over the chair of Meet The Press. Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Todd is still sometimes a little too sure of his own opinions, but but it's not overbearing. Mr. Todd is the logical choice because, one, he's a Russert disciple. Mr. Russert brought him in. Two, unlike the other prospective NBC News anchors for the permanent spot, Mr. Todd accumulated any baggage of opinion with viewers. I.E. Chris Matthews is a blowhard - some people would argue... etc. Lastly, at first, ratings won't be great with Mr. Todd, but eventually that will turn around and the commitment to him taking over the show will create stability. He's young enough to have a long run at the desk, which is exactly what has to happen.
[Last week, Brian Williams was not up to the task. Every good point that he made, he delivered in a fast rambling mumble so no, it won't be Mr. Williams. However, last week he did get a great quote (opinion) from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware about running as Vice President. If you watch the show, you know the quote - see link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314965#25314965]
Now, onto the substance....
The reorganization of western state gubernatorial leader is quite stunning - more Democratic governors in the west than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The reason for this is that the Bush Administration, from the outset, has left states to fend for themselves and financially cope on their own. Without necessarily articulating it, the American people realize this and elected Democratic governors who are more prone to consider the overall financial safety of the state and its individuals.
By most standards, all three governors interviewed today are conservative. However, Governors Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) and Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyoming) are social conservatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the otherhand, is a Republican, but is socially liberal. If there is one thing for sure, President Bush has really shaken up the playing field. Everything that seems straight, is bent. And everything that is bent is actually straight - meaning that where people should be in lock step with the President and the party's national agenda, it's just not happening. Officials are striking out with their own opinions with the White House unable to employ any persuasion.
Both Governors, who were interviewed in Wyoming, illustrated on key point respectively and that they are so solely focused on their own states, that while they can opine about the Presidential contest, the plight of the state is a grave concern, with energy being at the top of the list. Mr. Bush's sole solution of drilling more holes in the ground is simply not flying with anyone and seems transparently pathetic in the face of a one-thought agenda - more oil.
In Arnold's defense, California has been saddled with incredible debt so if in fact, he is paying down the debt, it is a great thing and will only be recognized until after he leaves office. It's the most thankless, but vital thing a Governor can do for his/her state - alleviate the debt. But of course as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger says something that makes sense, he digresses into an anecdote that makes you reconsider the wisdom of him in office. Those dinner table conversations he was recanting were.... let's just say 'worrisome.' Mr. Schwarzenegger, even if the amendment were not in place, should never be considered an option for the office of the President.
So we have begun the new age of Meet The Press and no matter what, this column will be watching.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
6.19.08: Sometimes, We're All Like One Another
This column is posting this picture to illustrate a little point that in politics is often forgotten. That no matter what side of the aisle you prefer and/or oppose, however vehemently, we all grieve as one people, as the collective America. It's the culture of this country, unfortunately, that we're so ready to kick the other side when it's down. Maybe for once we should pick each other up and fix the clear and terribly present ills that face this nation.
See you on Sunday.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
6.17.08: Eugene Robinson's Russert Column
This column considers Eugene Robinson one of the foremost common sense makers in journalism. His insights never seem forced and the continually reek of sensibility, always begging the question - why didn't I think of that.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
6.15.08: Farewell Father Tim
It is most important to include the word 'father' in the title of today's column. Literally and figuratively, Tim Russert was a great father. It seems like a statement that could only be made by someone who knew the man personally and not some anonymous writer of some blog. But from listening to the testimonials of today's guests and knowing what we already know, the man loved his son and his family, mentored and set the standard for so many journalists, represented us in the face of power, and educated everyone who knew his name. To that point, Mr. Russert was one of this individual's political fathers. He provided a young idealistic man, fresh from the Peace Corps a reason to stay engaged in what what happening in the world; that what the leaders of this country said mattered to all of us as individuals; that people from 'little' places can do the most amazing things.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
5.25.08; What's the Meaning of June?
Paraphrasing Maureen Dowd, Hilly Clinton is acting creepy. This is essentially where the conversation started and then eventually came full circle in the first half of the program. This seems to be becoming a loose trend; Senator Clinton makes a statement and then at the very least later has to explain the context. This is it was invoking the June '68 assassination of Robert Kennedy in relation to her campaign. Ms. Dowd continued that Mrs. Clinton doesn't hope for any bodily harm to Senator Obama, but she is waiting for something dreadful to befall him.
Ruth Marcus did not see it as calculated a comment as the others. She attributed it to exhaustion and self-pity, and this combination results in political gaffes. The self-pity stems from what the Clintons claim is sexism and gender-bias in the campaign. Before we leap into that, just a note on self-pity. A person may have self-pity but showing it attempts to invoke sympathy for the person. Hillary Clinton asking us for our sympathy is sad and she's not going to get it. So this column respectfully disagrees with Ms. Marcus.
The Clintons' invocations are always carefully calculated. Apologists would explain that bringing RFK was a mistake and that she could have used the Reagan-Ford primary race for example. Well, why didn't she? With regard to sexism, Ms. Dowd opined that Senator Clinton's statements, while using words like misogyny, actually do a disservice to feminism. She went on to explain that when as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton made this same argument when her health care plan failed and now that her campaign is failing, we're seeing this argument again. She called it Sharptonism - constantly wrapping oneself into side of the victim. And now that her campaign has faltered, she is doing it again. But as pointed out, it was her shortsighted strategy that was her downfall. The race didn't end on February 5th as she counted on.
[Usually when Maureen Dowd appears on the program, more times then not, the rest of the panel adopts her opinion. Mr. Russert mentioned that it was a special edition of MTP and, indeed, it was. Maureen Dowd's wit coupled with Jon Meacham's astuteness, augmented with Gwen Ifill's intuition, and put into perspective by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a two-fold success - entertaining and insightful.]
So will Senator Clinton get out of the race in June and what is she angling to get? As Jon Meacham succinctly put it, What's the meaning of June? At this point, the media and Clinton surrogates are chattering about the V.P. Office. Hasn't this column said this before - Senator Hillary Clinton will not be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party in November 2008. What does make sense is Hillary Clinton being the President of Senate. Now, this is one of the roles of the V.P., but The Clinton's in that office reeks of subversion of the Presidency. The best she is going to get is a sweet cabinet post. However, the problem with this is that Madame Albright and Madame Rice, pretty much have spoiled the Secretary of State role so what's left? Secretary of Defense? Hillary Clinton doing her best Margaret Thatcher routine could work. The irony that the Democrats, traditionally viewed as weak on defense, would put a woman in the top war post. Senator Clinton is hawkish - this is common knowledge so why not employ it to a positive result?
The other irony touched on during today's program is the discussion about how Senator Barack Obama is inaccurately portrayed, especially with regard to race and religion. It's ironic that so many cast Mr. Obama as un-American when in reality he is the ultimate American. He is the first one who is most like a mix of all of us to get this close to the office of Presidency. In this country, every child at one point or another is told that anything is possible and you can be what ever you want to be. Now, we see the fruition of generation after generation telling their kids that, happening right in front of us, we should be pinching ourselves, but instead the focus revolves around the others who harbor more insidious intentions.
This all brings us back to Mrs. Clinton's creepiness. Misconceptions about Barack Obama become difficult to completely defend by the campaign when the candidate is fighting battles on two fronts - McCain to the starboard and Clinton to port (well, pretty much starboard as well, but for the sake of the nautical analogy...). Is Mrs. Clinton hoping that on one of the fronts, the Obama defense will crack? They said on today's program that in politics you should neither invoke assassinations or The Nazis. Ok, but in WWII, there was this big military power fighting a war on two fronts and they lost. The difference is that that was a good thing.
Ruth Marcus did not see it as calculated a comment as the others. She attributed it to exhaustion and self-pity, and this combination results in political gaffes. The self-pity stems from what the Clintons claim is sexism and gender-bias in the campaign. Before we leap into that, just a note on self-pity. A person may have self-pity but showing it attempts to invoke sympathy for the person. Hillary Clinton asking us for our sympathy is sad and she's not going to get it. So this column respectfully disagrees with Ms. Marcus.
The Clintons' invocations are always carefully calculated. Apologists would explain that bringing RFK was a mistake and that she could have used the Reagan-Ford primary race for example. Well, why didn't she? With regard to sexism, Ms. Dowd opined that Senator Clinton's statements, while using words like misogyny, actually do a disservice to feminism. She went on to explain that when as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton made this same argument when her health care plan failed and now that her campaign is failing, we're seeing this argument again. She called it Sharptonism - constantly wrapping oneself into side of the victim. And now that her campaign has faltered, she is doing it again. But as pointed out, it was her shortsighted strategy that was her downfall. The race didn't end on February 5th as she counted on.
[Usually when Maureen Dowd appears on the program, more times then not, the rest of the panel adopts her opinion. Mr. Russert mentioned that it was a special edition of MTP and, indeed, it was. Maureen Dowd's wit coupled with Jon Meacham's astuteness, augmented with Gwen Ifill's intuition, and put into perspective by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a two-fold success - entertaining and insightful.]
So will Senator Clinton get out of the race in June and what is she angling to get? As Jon Meacham succinctly put it, What's the meaning of June? At this point, the media and Clinton surrogates are chattering about the V.P. Office. Hasn't this column said this before - Senator Hillary Clinton will not be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party in November 2008. What does make sense is Hillary Clinton being the President of Senate. Now, this is one of the roles of the V.P., but The Clinton's in that office reeks of subversion of the Presidency. The best she is going to get is a sweet cabinet post. However, the problem with this is that Madame Albright and Madame Rice, pretty much have spoiled the Secretary of State role so what's left? Secretary of Defense? Hillary Clinton doing her best Margaret Thatcher routine could work. The irony that the Democrats, traditionally viewed as weak on defense, would put a woman in the top war post. Senator Clinton is hawkish - this is common knowledge so why not employ it to a positive result?
The other irony touched on during today's program is the discussion about how Senator Barack Obama is inaccurately portrayed, especially with regard to race and religion. It's ironic that so many cast Mr. Obama as un-American when in reality he is the ultimate American. He is the first one who is most like a mix of all of us to get this close to the office of Presidency. In this country, every child at one point or another is told that anything is possible and you can be what ever you want to be. Now, we see the fruition of generation after generation telling their kids that, happening right in front of us, we should be pinching ourselves, but instead the focus revolves around the others who harbor more insidious intentions.
This all brings us back to Mrs. Clinton's creepiness. Misconceptions about Barack Obama become difficult to completely defend by the campaign when the candidate is fighting battles on two fronts - McCain to the starboard and Clinton to port (well, pretty much starboard as well, but for the sake of the nautical analogy...). Is Mrs. Clinton hoping that on one of the fronts, the Obama defense will crack? They said on today's program that in politics you should neither invoke assassinations or The Nazis. Ok, but in WWII, there was this big military power fighting a war on two fronts and they lost. The difference is that that was a good thing.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
5.11.08: By The Way, There Is Only One Kind of Math
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)