Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Charles Kaiser puts it very well
...in this evaluation of Obama's current stances.
Also, the angry Hilary supporters are missing the forest for the trees in a big way, here, but I give one of their organizations, PUMA, a little credit for a hilarious, if counter-productive, name:
Party Unity My Ass.
Also, the angry Hilary supporters are missing the forest for the trees in a big way, here, but I give one of their organizations, PUMA, a little credit for a hilarious, if counter-productive, name:
Party Unity My Ass.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Last Call to Hillary
"If you leave a club at 1 a.m., it was your choice not to get laid. But
if you wait till the club closes, you're ugly, and that's why you didn't
get laid."
- - CHRIS ROCK on Hilary Clinton's end game
if you wait till the club closes, you're ugly, and that's why you didn't
get laid."
- - CHRIS ROCK on Hilary Clinton's end game
Monday, May 12, 2008
From a lawyer poll observer in NC
Below is an email from a lawyer friend-of-a-friend describing what was happening when she worked the polls in North Carolina, what the main voting problems were, and the main issues to understand to improve voter participation. I have been making calls from home, and a post is coming about that, but in the meantime, here's the word from a legal mind at the polls:
folks--an update: yesterday was a marvelous day. i was a poll monitor for obama's campaign, assigned to a predominantly black precinct in high point, nc. by close of the polls, 552 folks had cast their ballots at williams memorial precinct.
folks--an update: yesterday was a marvelous day. i was a poll monitor for obama's campaign, assigned to a predominantly black precinct in high point, nc. by close of the polls, 552 folks had cast their ballots at williams memorial precinct.
my job was to make sure that folks were not innappropriately turned away from the polls and, at regular intervals throughout the day, report to the campaign the total number of voters who had cast their votes. the purpose of regular reporting was to gauge voter turnout at key precincts and, where turnout was lower than expected, my notification would enable the campaign to investigate why, make calls to voters, knock on doors and get folks to the polls before they closed.
most of the problems that i encountered involved:
1. folks being at the wrong precinct because (a) precincts were closed or consolidated and it's questionable whether voters were notified of that fact or (b) people had moved and went to the precinct that their neighbor told them to go to rather than to their old precinct where they were still on the books . . .in these scenarios, generally because inside poll workers failed to research the voter's appropriate precinct, i called an obama hotline and gave people the name of their correct precinct.
2. folks who were not on the books at what would have been their correct precinct, as an agency like the dmv or social services failed to register them . . .
and,
3. inside poll workers discouraging people from going to their correct precinct to cast a regular ballot and encouraging them to cast a provisional ballot (which may or may not be counted) . . .in these cases, myself and my buddies (folks from high point there to pass out campaign literature on behalf of a state senatorial candidate and two district court judicial candidates), encouraged people to go the extra distance and go to their correct precinct.
it's quite an image to walk into a precinct and see only white faces, mostly over 70, sitting behind the booths. between that image, the poll workers cold or lackluster approaches to helping voters (some wouldn't even get up from behind their desks), it becomes more clear why the relationship between citizens and the voting process has eroded. the deep mistrust of the electoral process lives on . . .
when i "worked the polls" in columbia, sc in january, it was rainy and cold, but nonetheless, exciting to witness the droves of people inspired by this election cycle to come out to vote this primary season. yesterday, it was sunny and warm, and joy and pride was in the air. indeed, it was a site to see the obama t-shirts, stickers, fist pumps in the air, smiles, and jumps associated with people so excited to vote. i'm sure you all felt the same way and sensed those shared sentiments when you voted in your respective primaries. people were ready to vote at 6:30 a.m. before going to work, 12:00 p.m. during their lunch brunch, at 3:00 after their work shift ended and up and through 7:30 p.m.
so lessons learned from canvassing and poll monitoring:
1. national politics are significant, and so are local. as much as we need obama as our president, we need obamas to sit on school boards, county commissions, judicial benches, and inside the polls. i can't express how differently the voting process would be if the people sitting behind the booths had warm faces, believed that every vote counts, went out of their way to ensure that every person casts their ballots by hunting down correct precincts, articularing the various forms of Ids that are legally acceptable, were pleasant . . .
2. money matters. many of the people who went to the wrong precincts had moved since they last voted and never regsitered their new address (or re-registered their new address but may not have been notified of their new precincts). it's a luxury to remain in a home for more than a year such that you always receive your mail, your voting precinct is less likely to change . . so, stability is a privilege . . .
3, one-stop registration/early voting is the way to go. w/ one stop early voting, voters can go to any precint in their home county. if this was standard practice throughout the 50 states, then folks would not be turned around and misguided about where they should vote as can be the case case on a normal primary day. 3. teaching young folks about what people have done to secure voting rights for all people is imperative so that when things don't go smoothly at voting booths, lines are long, inside poll workers look at them cross-eyed and purse their wrinkled and pale lips, voters do not give up, but instead go the distance to vote.
4. november is a long way away. everyone can play a roll in getting obama into office. non law students/lawyers can knock on doors and pass out campaign literature, as I did in Mebane, NC. It's easy and fun and a good way to learn what's on people's mind. lawyers, observing the polls on election day in november, as it was on primary days, will be eye opening. we have ways to go to make voting an equal process for all. so help in any way that you can.
toodles folks. change is a coming!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The question, then, is...
"The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. You see, I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it."
That from this Time Magazine feature by Joe Klein on our boy.
That from this Time Magazine feature by Joe Klein on our boy.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
From a friend: Can we please stop talking about Reverend Wright...NOW?
I got an email the other day from a friend. I read it and thought, this is what the blog was for. I changed up some of the paragraphing to make it easier to read online. Here's what she wrote:
Friends, please indulge me a moment on my soap box..... (apologies!)
As the country talks endlessly about Rev. Wright, what he has said and what Obama has or has not said about him, 24 public school students in his city of Chicago have been gunned down this school year. I just watched this photo gallery... real kids with real stories, not just demographic info in an article.
This is not a Hilary vs. Obama issue I am stumping, I am trying to emphasize the misplaced dialogue in this country. We need to talk about urban warfare in our country... kids taking bullets and firing bullets....
Why are mill workers in NC or unemployed manufacturing workers in PA the only people that matter in this campaign? I am not saying that they shouldn't matter, they should and they do, but who's talking about the kids in Durham, NC who are gunning each other down on the street?
I know its not what gets people votes, I hear that.... but, really, this is shameful. And the ugly truth of it is that each one of those 24 kids was black or Latino. We say that we as a country are talking about race now... that we are really open to it and people feel good if they can still support the black candidate amidst all this controversy. But we are not talking about it all.
50 bullets fired by the NYPD, killing Sean Bell and wounding two others.... and the officers walk out of the courtroom acquitted of all charges, assigned to desk duty in Gramercy Park. As a good friend said to me on Friday, its easy for one to excuse 50 bullets (and a reloading of the weapon) when one does not have to worry that someday a police officer could make an "error in judgment" and shoot 50 bullets at them. She's right.... there is little chance that that could happen to me. I just wish everyone could have the luxury of not having to worry about that.
And this culture of impunity within the justice system does nothing to help dispel the "stop snitching" message which is so antithetical to ending youth violence in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Brooklyn. It is all part of the same problem...... the Sean Bell verdict makes it even harder to encourage kids to speak up about guns, speak up about who killed a kid on the street, speak up about who fired those bullets that went through an open window and killed a nine-year-old sitting on a couch. Who wants to talk to the police? It doesn't even matter anymore if Cam'ron thinks its uncool.... it's just plain hard to justify talking to the ones who "shot that man in Queens with 50 bullets."
And so, the silence and "lack of cooperation with the police" will continue... and the killers of these 24 Chicago kids will go unpunished and continue to enact violence on the streets.... or go to prison instead for petty drug crimes for a couple of years and come out angrier and more violent than before (and perhaps have contracted HIV in prison due to a lack of prison-issued condoms).
This is what we should be talking about..... Instead we go on and on about the Reverend from Chicago--- who incidentally talks to youth about elevating themselves, making better of their lives, becoming "self reliant"--- yet we are more concerned with what he said about the government and AIDS five years ago, or what he said on 9-12-01, or what he said about Farakhan yesterday.....
Friends, please indulge me a moment on my soap box..... (apologies!)
As the country talks endlessly about Rev. Wright, what he has said and what Obama has or has not said about him, 24 public school students in his city of Chicago have been gunned down this school year. I just watched this photo gallery... real kids with real stories, not just demographic info in an article.
This is not a Hilary vs. Obama issue I am stumping, I am trying to emphasize the misplaced dialogue in this country. We need to talk about urban warfare in our country... kids taking bullets and firing bullets....
Why are mill workers in NC or unemployed manufacturing workers in PA the only people that matter in this campaign? I am not saying that they shouldn't matter, they should and they do, but who's talking about the kids in Durham, NC who are gunning each other down on the street?
I know its not what gets people votes, I hear that.... but, really, this is shameful. And the ugly truth of it is that each one of those 24 kids was black or Latino. We say that we as a country are talking about race now... that we are really open to it and people feel good if they can still support the black candidate amidst all this controversy. But we are not talking about it all.
50 bullets fired by the NYPD, killing Sean Bell and wounding two others.... and the officers walk out of the courtroom acquitted of all charges, assigned to desk duty in Gramercy Park. As a good friend said to me on Friday, its easy for one to excuse 50 bullets (and a reloading of the weapon) when one does not have to worry that someday a police officer could make an "error in judgment" and shoot 50 bullets at them. She's right.... there is little chance that that could happen to me. I just wish everyone could have the luxury of not having to worry about that.
And this culture of impunity within the justice system does nothing to help dispel the "stop snitching" message which is so antithetical to ending youth violence in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Brooklyn. It is all part of the same problem...... the Sean Bell verdict makes it even harder to encourage kids to speak up about guns, speak up about who killed a kid on the street, speak up about who fired those bullets that went through an open window and killed a nine-year-old sitting on a couch. Who wants to talk to the police? It doesn't even matter anymore if Cam'ron thinks its uncool.... it's just plain hard to justify talking to the ones who "shot that man in Queens with 50 bullets."
And so, the silence and "lack of cooperation with the police" will continue... and the killers of these 24 Chicago kids will go unpunished and continue to enact violence on the streets.... or go to prison instead for petty drug crimes for a couple of years and come out angrier and more violent than before (and perhaps have contracted HIV in prison due to a lack of prison-issued condoms).
This is what we should be talking about..... Instead we go on and on about the Reverend from Chicago--- who incidentally talks to youth about elevating themselves, making better of their lives, becoming "self reliant"--- yet we are more concerned with what he said about the government and AIDS five years ago, or what he said on 9-12-01, or what he said about Farakhan yesterday.....
Friday, April 25, 2008
MADONNA FOR OBAMA!!!!
This revelation closes the New York Magazine's interview with her Majesty. Here's the soundbite:
That’s not nice … Um …
(I'm assuming Bill is in her upcoming AIDS/Malawi documentary.)
Since Madonna for Obama has such a ring to it, I shall procrastinate writing my script for another hour by finding..... MADONNA FOR OBAMA ANAGRAMS! Highlights so far:
Manana, broad of om
A roof bandana mom
A bad man oaf moron
Abandon from a Mao
Baron and oaf ammo
and, finally,
Bandana Ram Of Moo
email me with other possibilities!
Which presidential candidate do you think will make the least huge mistakes?
I’m excited about one of the candidates.
That’s not nice … Um …
(I'm assuming Bill is in her upcoming AIDS/Malawi documentary.)
Since Madonna for Obama has such a ring to it, I shall procrastinate writing my script for another hour by finding..... MADONNA FOR OBAMA ANAGRAMS! Highlights so far:
Manana, broad of om
A roof bandana mom
A bad man oaf moron
Abandon from a Mao
Baron and oaf ammo
and, finally,
Bandana Ram Of Moo
email me with other possibilities!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Picture of McCain attempts to demonstrate his teeth are real
And this here is, uh, not exactly a "new kind of politics" (or if it is new, it's not exactly noble) but, hell, I laughed. Keep clicking on the text. Picturing this guy. Please don't let this man be our next president.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Amending the Constitution to allow Hillary to Govern
This in from a lawyer friend of mine.
A Reno, Nevada man has filed a state lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton to appear on the presidential ballot.
Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the constitution refers to "he" and "his" in describing presidential duties, a woman can't hold the office.
"The use of female gendered pronouns 'she' or 'her' are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States," Wallace wrote in the suit.
Folks are crazy.
But I do think the "he" pronoun in documents intended to refer to both genders does stop people from imagining women in traditionally male roles. I have co-written numerous manuals and text books, and I make a point to switch up the pronouns. Instead of writing "s/he" or "he or she," sometimes I'll use she, sometimes he. I do enjoy inserting "she" in places where we're more accustomed to "he."
For example, I used to write SAT manuals. So I might explain a savvy SAT technique in a sentence like this one:
"The seasoned SAT-taker does not assume that all the data in the problem is useful, or even relevant. She will focus on the question being asked, and determine for herself what information she needs to answer the question."
Anyway, Hillary is really getting on my nerves, but I stand by my original stance on her: I'm grateful for her candidacy because I think that the nationwide undertaking of imagination that can conceive of a woman President of the United States has shifted what we see as possible. As a country we hadn't gone there yet. Now we have.
A Reno, Nevada man has filed a state lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton to appear on the presidential ballot.
Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the constitution refers to "he" and "his" in describing presidential duties, a woman can't hold the office.
"The use of female gendered pronouns 'she' or 'her' are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States," Wallace wrote in the suit.
Folks are crazy.
But I do think the "he" pronoun in documents intended to refer to both genders does stop people from imagining women in traditionally male roles. I have co-written numerous manuals and text books, and I make a point to switch up the pronouns. Instead of writing "s/he" or "he or she," sometimes I'll use she, sometimes he. I do enjoy inserting "she" in places where we're more accustomed to "he."
For example, I used to write SAT manuals. So I might explain a savvy SAT technique in a sentence like this one:
"The seasoned SAT-taker does not assume that all the data in the problem is useful, or even relevant. She will focus on the question being asked, and determine for herself what information she needs to answer the question."
Anyway, Hillary is really getting on my nerves, but I stand by my original stance on her: I'm grateful for her candidacy because I think that the nationwide undertaking of imagination that can conceive of a woman President of the United States has shifted what we see as possible. As a country we hadn't gone there yet. Now we have.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I am not going to explain why Reverend Wright is a great spiritual leader
Never for a second did I believe Reverend Jeremiah Wright had to be pardoned, explained away, dissociated from, etc. by Barack or anyone. I understood without reading this kind of article both how effective he has proved himself to be as a spiritual leader and how a type of comfort he offers his congregation is to voice some "damn this place is fucked up"-type thoughts.
Because, it is. And everyone knows it. And if not everyone, a whoooole lotta people in the south side of Chicago know it, whether their preacher tells it to them or not.
Anyway, I just wanted to dedicate one post to this link: the full text of his 1990 sermon called "The Audacity to Hope."
This is the painting he's referring to, entitled "Hope" by George Frederick Watts.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
She 'Misspoke' about being FIRED AT BY A SNIPER????
WTF???
HOW TO YOU GET A STORY WRONG ABOUT BEING SHOT AT BY A SNIPER?!?!
I mean, "fired at by a sniper" doesn't have some secondary meaning I'm not aware of, right? Like after a long weekend, when you keep getting what day it is wrong, do we call that "getting fired at by a sniper?" No, right? We use those words to talk about a person with a gun, taking aim, and pulling a trigger and bullets coming out, and the bullets are near you in a bad way.
So how is Hillary gonna be like "my bad, when I said I was getting fired at by a sniper in Bosnia, I really meant...um, that I wasn't getting fired at. I misspoke." ??????????
Hey kids, next time your teachers and parents catch you lying, just explain that you misspoke.
Also, did she think she'd get away with that, both the lie and the explanation (misspeaking)??? I mean, we might be stupid but no one is that stupid. I can't hit the question mark button (control slash control slash control slash control slash) enough to satisfy how baffled I am by her attempt to pull this off.
'Cause like, you know, wouldn't we all remember the headline about a SNIPER IN BOSNIA taking a shot at the FIRST LADY AND TEENAGE DAUGHTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? That would have been a really big story, and every time someone did a subsequent story about assassination attempts, the secret service, personal security of dignitaries, blah blah, the SNIPER IN BOSNIA SHOOTING AT HILLARY would have been mentioned. This woman has lost her mind.
Whew. Okay. Calm down, Kate.
Backing up: if you're not caught up, here's the story:
As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing in Bosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.
And here's the footage of her walking across the tarmac with Chelsea.
HOW TO YOU GET A STORY WRONG ABOUT BEING SHOT AT BY A SNIPER?!?!
I mean, "fired at by a sniper" doesn't have some secondary meaning I'm not aware of, right? Like after a long weekend, when you keep getting what day it is wrong, do we call that "getting fired at by a sniper?" No, right? We use those words to talk about a person with a gun, taking aim, and pulling a trigger and bullets coming out, and the bullets are near you in a bad way.
So how is Hillary gonna be like "my bad, when I said I was getting fired at by a sniper in Bosnia, I really meant...um, that I wasn't getting fired at. I misspoke." ??????????
Hey kids, next time your teachers and parents catch you lying, just explain that you misspoke.
Also, did she think she'd get away with that, both the lie and the explanation (misspeaking)??? I mean, we might be stupid but no one is that stupid. I can't hit the question mark button (control slash control slash control slash control slash) enough to satisfy how baffled I am by her attempt to pull this off.
'Cause like, you know, wouldn't we all remember the headline about a SNIPER IN BOSNIA taking a shot at the FIRST LADY AND TEENAGE DAUGHTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? That would have been a really big story, and every time someone did a subsequent story about assassination attempts, the secret service, personal security of dignitaries, blah blah, the SNIPER IN BOSNIA SHOOTING AT HILLARY would have been mentioned. This woman has lost her mind.
Whew. Okay. Calm down, Kate.
Backing up: if you're not caught up, here's the story:
As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing in Bosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.
And here's the footage of her walking across the tarmac with Chelsea.
Two opinions on the Hillary campaign
...neither of which I can take credit for, but both of which I like.
One is here. It is David Brooks, a conservative who doesn't hate liberals, in today's Times. The most alarming bits are these:
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance....
The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping....
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. NOW MCCAIN HAS A LEAD AMONG THIS GROUP.
1) Every time she attacks Obama now she seems like a spoilsport in the eyes of a growing consensus of party leaders.
2) Her strategy now... has to be to wait for Obama to make a horrendous mistake.... If she cedes the field and lets Obama battle McCain for a few months, it’s possible that Obama will make such a mistake, proving himself unworthy to face a strong Republican opponent. If he screws up by late August, Clinton can ride to the rescue at the convention.
3) She’s got no money. Actually, that’s not quite true — she’s got a big chunk of money that she has to hold in reserve for the general election. If she suspends her campaign for now, she’ll stop losing funds.
By the way, here the Times reporting on how the Hillary campaign finance problems have her stiffing her vendors, even when she owes them as little $2,500.
One is here. It is David Brooks, a conservative who doesn't hate liberals, in today's Times. The most alarming bits are these:
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance....
The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping....
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. NOW MCCAIN HAS A LEAD AMONG THIS GROUP.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
The second Hillary campaign opinion I like is here, from some lovely blogger name Dillon at Backalleymedia.org. Dillon suggests Hillary suspend her campaign for these reasons:1) Every time she attacks Obama now she seems like a spoilsport in the eyes of a growing consensus of party leaders.
2) Her strategy now... has to be to wait for Obama to make a horrendous mistake.... If she cedes the field and lets Obama battle McCain for a few months, it’s possible that Obama will make such a mistake, proving himself unworthy to face a strong Republican opponent. If he screws up by late August, Clinton can ride to the rescue at the convention.
3) She’s got no money. Actually, that’s not quite true — she’s got a big chunk of money that she has to hold in reserve for the general election. If she suspends her campaign for now, she’ll stop losing funds.
By the way, here the Times reporting on how the Hillary campaign finance problems have her stiffing her vendors, even when she owes them as little $2,500.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Ready for a shock?
Hillary supported NAFTA from the beginning. In November, 1993, she briefed 120 government officials, no press allowed, on NAFTA.
We must be able to assume this wasn't a briefing on why not to adopt her husband's project, right? From Talking Points Memo:
Wait, am I to understand that, her claim to have brokered peace in Northern Ireland wasn't the only thing she's misrepresented about herself?
At least she's been "saying from the very beginning" "as I've said all along" that she regrets her Iraq war vote.
Ay ay ay.
P.S.
By the way, if the NAFTA debate interests you, here's economics journalist Daniel Gross in Newsweek about how NAFTA is a manufactured argument (pun not intended but I'm leaving it there) because the jobs lost in Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to China, not Mexico or Canada. My guess is factory jobs in Texas are still going just over the border, though. Anyway, from Gross's article:
Yes, U.S. imports from Mexico have risen sharply since 1993, from $48 billion to $216 billion in 2006. But U.S. exports to Mexico have tripled in the same period, from $52 billion to $156 billion.
We must be able to assume this wasn't a briefing on why not to adopt her husband's project, right? From Talking Points Memo:
Among the thousands of details of daily life for Clinton, there was a Nov. 10, 1993, entry -- a "NAFTA Briefing drop-by," in Room 450 of the executive office building next door to the White House, closed to the news media.
Approximately 120 people were expected to attend the briefing, and Clinton was to be introduced by White House aide Alexis Herman for brief remarks concluding the program.
But wait, I don't get it. She said in the February 21st Texas debate and the February 26th Ohio debate that she "opposed NAFTA from the beginning!" You mean, she misrepresented her role and position as first lady?Wait, am I to understand that, her claim to have brokered peace in Northern Ireland wasn't the only thing she's misrepresented about herself?
At least she's been "saying from the very beginning" "as I've said all along" that she regrets her Iraq war vote.
Ay ay ay.
P.S.
By the way, if the NAFTA debate interests you, here's economics journalist Daniel Gross in Newsweek about how NAFTA is a manufactured argument (pun not intended but I'm leaving it there) because the jobs lost in Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to China, not Mexico or Canada. My guess is factory jobs in Texas are still going just over the border, though. Anyway, from Gross's article:
There's something outdated and Kabuki-like about the whole NAFTA drama, which was manufactured largely for consumption in Ohio and probably won't be going on a national tour.
Nationally, China has long since displaced Mexico as the bugaboo on trade issues.Yes, U.S. imports from Mexico have risen sharply since 1993, from $48 billion to $216 billion in 2006. But U.S. exports to Mexico have tripled in the same period, from $52 billion to $156 billion.
The New Democratic Party?
The message below is from an email from the Obama campaign, who sent it out the day after the victory in Mississippi.
Since Reagan got elected, Democrats have conceded the middle and south of the country from the onset, and instead focus on those crucial swings states. This is bad for two reasons:
1) It encourages the Democrats to ignore the needs of people in non-swing states on the campaign trail, which means their issues are more likely to be ignored once a Democrat is in office (footnote: Bill Clinton); and
2) It has put the Democrats on the defensive: having already conceded such a huge part of the country, we spend all this money and time in Florida, Michigan and other "important" states, trying to show that we're tough on crime, or not offensively pro-choice, or are actually kinder to the working class, or are people you'd love to get a beer with... in other words, the red/blue/swing-state electoral map of the past eight years has made the race the Republicans to win and the Democrats to lose.
The Obama campaign's "unity" cry is not just a pretty idea--it's a lean, mean campaign strategy. They don't assume that places like Kansas and Nebraska are out of play for us. There are some states that are not "winner take all" electoral votes in the general election, but they have been 100% Republican the last few times around. There's poll data suggesting Obama counld change that.
One of the biggest problems with Democratic presidential campaigns is the assumption--or, fine, the knowledge--that some parts of the map are irrelevant to a Democratic victory. So when your campaign is deciding where to spend money, man-power, and the candidate's precious time, ignoring those places is probably a sound judgment call.
But when the people in those written off red states start to get upset that their family members are being forced to serve third and forth terms in Iraq, when they, yes, need an abortion, when they see a Will and Grace re-run and the possibility of not being a closeted gay person seizes their imagination--when conservative, christian-right-wing dogma proves insufficient--what political spectrum will be laid out before them?
A great thing about this prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination--and a great aspect of Obama's campaign organization--is that it's brought Democratic visibility to these places. When Kansas and Missouri turn on the news, or pick up the paper, there's Hillary and Barack. And therefore, the issues being batted around are not only the evils of stem cell research and whether exceptions to abortion prohibition are acceptable when a woman is raped, but also, do you have health care? How fast should we bring soldiers home?
The parameters of the debate widen enormously when Democrats come to town in a red state.
Whether he wins the nomination, Obama's campaign is moving the party forward by making Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" more of a reality. When Hillary asks us to focus on "states that matter" (her campaign's "insult-40-states" strategy) she asks us to view the Gore/Kerry campaign strategy as, not only the best strategy, but the only possible strategy.
And how'd they work out in '00 and '04?
Obama could be for Democrats what Reagan was for Republicans: the person who brings an enormous new tide of voters to the party. Voters who are therefore many times more likely to be voting Democrats for life.
Unlike the most recent injection of voters to the Republican party, Obama's first-time voters aren't the Jesus-loves-guns variety. We're people who are ready for candid discussions of race in America; we're people for whom going to war needs irrefutable justification; we're people who are proud to have read books about something other than the apocalypse; we're people who understand the crucial importance of legal, widely available abortions; we're people who respect the rule of law, civil liberties, and people who live outside America; we don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old.
In other words, we're people who really should be voting in America right now.
The new voters being drawn into the race could become the constituency that allows Democrats to stand up and be Democrats for America, not Democrats for moderate Republicans.
I found at realclearpolitics.com this quote from a Republican media consultant, Alex Castellanos. (He consulted for Bush and Romney.)
“I am not out to knee-cap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for.” -Barack Obama, October 2007
When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
...For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
Now... we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be. We have activated our volunteer networks in each of these upcoming battlegrounds. We're putting staff on the ground and building our organization everywhere. The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.
Since Reagan got elected, Democrats have conceded the middle and south of the country from the onset, and instead focus on those crucial swings states. This is bad for two reasons:
1) It encourages the Democrats to ignore the needs of people in non-swing states on the campaign trail, which means their issues are more likely to be ignored once a Democrat is in office (footnote: Bill Clinton); and
2) It has put the Democrats on the defensive: having already conceded such a huge part of the country, we spend all this money and time in Florida, Michigan and other "important" states, trying to show that we're tough on crime, or not offensively pro-choice, or are actually kinder to the working class, or are people you'd love to get a beer with... in other words, the red/blue/swing-state electoral map of the past eight years has made the race the Republicans to win and the Democrats to lose.
The Obama campaign's "unity" cry is not just a pretty idea--it's a lean, mean campaign strategy. They don't assume that places like Kansas and Nebraska are out of play for us. There are some states that are not "winner take all" electoral votes in the general election, but they have been 100% Republican the last few times around. There's poll data suggesting Obama counld change that.
One of the biggest problems with Democratic presidential campaigns is the assumption--or, fine, the knowledge--that some parts of the map are irrelevant to a Democratic victory. So when your campaign is deciding where to spend money, man-power, and the candidate's precious time, ignoring those places is probably a sound judgment call.
But when the people in those written off red states start to get upset that their family members are being forced to serve third and forth terms in Iraq, when they, yes, need an abortion, when they see a Will and Grace re-run and the possibility of not being a closeted gay person seizes their imagination--when conservative, christian-right-wing dogma proves insufficient--what political spectrum will be laid out before them?
A great thing about this prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination--and a great aspect of Obama's campaign organization--is that it's brought Democratic visibility to these places. When Kansas and Missouri turn on the news, or pick up the paper, there's Hillary and Barack. And therefore, the issues being batted around are not only the evils of stem cell research and whether exceptions to abortion prohibition are acceptable when a woman is raped, but also, do you have health care? How fast should we bring soldiers home?
The parameters of the debate widen enormously when Democrats come to town in a red state.
Whether he wins the nomination, Obama's campaign is moving the party forward by making Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" more of a reality. When Hillary asks us to focus on "states that matter" (her campaign's "insult-40-states" strategy) she asks us to view the Gore/Kerry campaign strategy as, not only the best strategy, but the only possible strategy.
And how'd they work out in '00 and '04?
Obama could be for Democrats what Reagan was for Republicans: the person who brings an enormous new tide of voters to the party. Voters who are therefore many times more likely to be voting Democrats for life.
Unlike the most recent injection of voters to the Republican party, Obama's first-time voters aren't the Jesus-loves-guns variety. We're people who are ready for candid discussions of race in America; we're people for whom going to war needs irrefutable justification; we're people who are proud to have read books about something other than the apocalypse; we're people who understand the crucial importance of legal, widely available abortions; we're people who respect the rule of law, civil liberties, and people who live outside America; we don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old.
In other words, we're people who really should be voting in America right now.
The new voters being drawn into the race could become the constituency that allows Democrats to stand up and be Democrats for America, not Democrats for moderate Republicans.
I found at realclearpolitics.com this quote from a Republican media consultant, Alex Castellanos. (He consulted for Bush and Romney.)
"Obama is the hope and future of the Democratic Party, not Hillary, and everyone knows it. He is the one bringing new energy and voters. He could be a Democratic Reagan, invigorating the party for 25 years. If the Clinton people knee-cap Obama, it would be like killing Santa Claus Christmas morning in front of the children. The children won't forget or forgive."
By contrast, I dig up this quotation from October, i.e. a lifetime ago, when Hillary had a 30 point nationwide lead and was, undoubtedly, the front runner in the race.“I am not out to knee-cap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for.” -Barack Obama, October 2007
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A good idea: move up the superdelegate vote
Tennessee Governor and policy chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association says, if we don't have a clear nominee by the end of the June primaries, we should move up the superdelegate vote, from the August convention to June. This would spare us three months of infighting, precious time much better spent building the race against McCain.
Makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Charles Kaiser on The Speech
The Lincoln quote at the end of this is perfectly appropriate. Thanks, Charlie.
This is required viewing
This speech is not the words of a man trying to win the presidency. The message is from a man with conviction and insight and candor, who, in hoping we hear this message above petty sound-bites and racial baiting, expects more from us than any politician I have encountered in my life time. It's 37 minutes.
Make sure you get to the end. He couldn't have laid out our two choices more starkly.
(Full text of the speech is here. Teachers, assign it to your students. Regardless of the Democratic nomination, this speech was history--history which we're living now. )
Make sure you get to the end. He couldn't have laid out our two choices more starkly.
(Full text of the speech is here. Teachers, assign it to your students. Regardless of the Democratic nomination, this speech was history--history which we're living now. )
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
More than a "wee bit silly"
Hillary: (to CNN last Wednesday) "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland."
The Telegraph wrote this in response to Hillary's claim that her experience includes brokering peace in Northern Ireland. (I'm a little late posting it, sorry.)
Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey: (Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province) said Hillary was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Hillary: I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions...it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
The article doesn't provide a lot of support for the following sentence, but it's too good to leave out:
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace.
Is it appropriate to launch my first LOL into the blogosphere?
So. There you go. Her experience is not in Northern Ireland but in political spinning.
The Telegraph wrote this in response to Hillary's claim that her experience includes brokering peace in Northern Ireland. (I'm a little late posting it, sorry.)
Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey: (Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province) said Hillary was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Hillary: I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions...it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night.
And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward.
Telegraph: There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995.The article doesn't provide a lot of support for the following sentence, but it's too good to leave out:
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace.
Is it appropriate to launch my first LOL into the blogosphere?
So. There you go. Her experience is not in Northern Ireland but in political spinning.
Latte, anyone?
I am not venturing an opinion on whether the "latte-drinking" characterization off Obama supporters is either a) accurate or b) actually impacting the race, but I have to say, it makes me laugh a lot.
I for one do love a good latte. Cappuccinos, too.
Remember the Republican tactic where something or someone was liberal, ergo VERY VERY BAD? Is it me, or is being a "latte-drinker" Hillary's "liberal." Did that make sense? like,
Republican: "liberal" :: Hillary:"latte drinker"
Hillary, who has come out against "hope," "being eloquent," and "insignificant states," now also opposes warm milk.
I really want Starbucks to issue a report about the flaky unAmerican-ness of latte drinking customers. I imagine the highlights being something like this:
The Starbucks Latte Drinkers Report - March 12, 2008
Of all our customers, Latte drinkers are the most likely to buy the paper, but only for the Arts and Leisure section, because they have so much leisure time and do unamerican things like go see a play.
Latte drinkers are 8% more likely to roll the "r" in "grande latte."
Latte drinkers are 26% more likely to do at least one of the following while ordering a latte:
(The coffee-vote-for-Hillary corollary: Though Starbucks has not made a formal study of the matter, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who order drip coffee black are more likely to have to be at work by 8 am, express confusion at why "tall" means "small," scratch their American balls in public, and vote for Hillary.)
I for one do love a good latte. Cappuccinos, too.
Remember the Republican tactic where something or someone was liberal, ergo VERY VERY BAD? Is it me, or is being a "latte-drinker" Hillary's "liberal." Did that make sense? like,
Republican: "liberal" :: Hillary:"latte drinker"
Hillary, who has come out against "hope," "being eloquent," and "insignificant states," now also opposes warm milk.
I really want Starbucks to issue a report about the flaky unAmerican-ness of latte drinking customers. I imagine the highlights being something like this:
The Starbucks Latte Drinkers Report - March 12, 2008
Of all our customers, Latte drinkers are the most likely to buy the paper, but only for the Arts and Leisure section, because they have so much leisure time and do unamerican things like go see a play.
Latte drinkers are 8% more likely to roll the "r" in "grande latte."
Latte drinkers are 26% more likely to do at least one of the following while ordering a latte:
- give an unsolicited hug to a Starbucks employee;
- sing along to the Joni Mitchell album playing in the cafe;
- tip the barista with more than your 13 cents in change;
- tell their child "yes you can" when, clearly, the child can't.
(The coffee-vote-for-Hillary corollary: Though Starbucks has not made a formal study of the matter, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who order drip coffee black are more likely to have to be at work by 8 am, express confusion at why "tall" means "small," scratch their American balls in public, and vote for Hillary.)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Hillary's best case scenario not good enough
Her best case scenario still doesn't add up to the nomination. Obama supporters, stay calm, keep running and supporting the incredible campaign he's led.
By the way, all this talk about how she has the popular majority (or popular votes put them "neck and neck") only works if you count Florida and Michigan.
The Clinton campaign has now switched from emphasizing delegate math to the popular mandate, claiming that she and Obama are more or less tied in the popular vote. Back Ally Media pointed me towards a story on TPM, which proclaims: “Dem Popular Vote Race A Virtual Dead Heat [Clinton actually up by ~30,000 votes!] — With FL and MI.”
By the way, all this talk about how she has the popular majority (or popular votes put them "neck and neck") only works if you count Florida and Michigan.
The Clinton campaign has now switched from emphasizing delegate math to the popular mandate, claiming that she and Obama are more or less tied in the popular vote. Back Ally Media pointed me towards a story on TPM, which proclaims: “Dem Popular Vote Race A Virtual Dead Heat [Clinton actually up by ~30,000 votes!] — With FL and MI.”
This “with FL and MI” shit again. It's invoking this indignation in me, like someone on the playground didn't play fair and the teacher wasn't looking or told me not to make a fuss. What happened to the candidates' pledge not to campaign there? What happened to the DNC decision to strip these places of all delegates?
How can she even claim to have "won" Michigan when Obama’s name wasn’t on the motherfucking ballot???
Obama asked the state to remove his name from the ballot to comply with DNC rules. Hillary left her name on. Lots of people live in Michigan. And Clinton beats Obama — 328,151 votes to zero.
This is more than a little shady. It's reminiscent of the Republican brand of anything-to-win sliminess. Aren't Democrats trying to brand themselves as the party that plays fair?Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Top Dog/Underdog: The Power of the Story
The story of the moment in Ohio and Texas is dominated by Hillary's take: an underdog makes a comeback. ("I'm just getting warmed up," she said.) Her eleven state losing streak made her underdog, and winning Texas and Ohio shows her campaign is, as the Times' headline announces, "turning around."
Things are turning around for the underdog.
The showman Top Dog is finally being exposed to the voters, and she, the little underdog that could, is going to work work work. Blah blah, story story, spin spin.
But I remind you there's another story:
HILLARY WAS NEVER THE UNDERDOG IN TEXAS AND OHIO.
For the past year, Hillary has shown a more or less 20 point-or greater lead in those states.
Yesterday, he lost Texas 48% to her 51%. He lost Ohio 44% to her 54%
So who's the fighting underdog with the more successful campagin? The candidate who in Texas, barely held onto her lead which was once so assured, or the one who closed a gap from 20 points to 3? The one who lost 10 points of her lead, or the one who closed the gap between himself and his opponent by 10 points?
Also, he is still ahead in delegates. If superdelegates are what win the Democratic nomination for her, please remember her campaign's current complaints about Texas:
Former HUD secretary and Hillary Clinton supporter Henry Cisneros excoriated Texas' arcane electoral process as "a great burden on voters" and said that losing the delegate count on Tuesday because of the state caucuses would be "exceedingly unfair."
Things are turning around for the underdog.
The showman Top Dog is finally being exposed to the voters, and she, the little underdog that could, is going to work work work. Blah blah, story story, spin spin.
“Americans don’t need more promises,” she said. “They’ve heard plenty of speeches. They deserve solutions, and they deserve them now.”
As she spoke, the crowd responded with chants of “Yes, she will!” — apparently an orchestrated response to Mr. Obama’s trademark “Yes, we can!”
Turning one of Mr. Obama’s themes against him, she said, “Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.”
This line of attack is working for her, and we can expect a lot more of it.But I remind you there's another story:
HILLARY WAS NEVER THE UNDERDOG IN TEXAS AND OHIO.
For the past year, Hillary has shown a more or less 20 point-or greater lead in those states.
Yesterday, he lost Texas 48% to her 51%. He lost Ohio 44% to her 54%
So who's the fighting underdog with the more successful campagin? The candidate who in Texas, barely held onto her lead which was once so assured, or the one who closed a gap from 20 points to 3? The one who lost 10 points of her lead, or the one who closed the gap between himself and his opponent by 10 points?
Also, he is still ahead in delegates. If superdelegates are what win the Democratic nomination for her, please remember her campaign's current complaints about Texas:
Former HUD secretary and Hillary Clinton supporter Henry Cisneros excoriated Texas' arcane electoral process as "a great burden on voters" and said that losing the delegate count on Tuesday because of the state caucuses would be "exceedingly unfair."
Ohio, Texas, and shit's about to get ugly
This really scares me (from today's Times)
The results will also embolden her campaign’s efforts to persuade the Democratic Party to factor in the delegates from Florida and Michigan, her advisers say.
My blood boils every time she mentions her victories in Michigan and Florida. Her, yesterday:
"We’ve won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee!”
Remember her ridiculous "victory party" on January 29th? Remember the mockery it (rightly) received? From Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, those distant weeks ago:
Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.
But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."
Hillary, you want to campaign for each voter yet to cast a vote, go for it. Be democracy in action. You want to get nasty? I think it's a mistake, in the long term for the party, and in the short term for us, but... whatever. But you have NO BUSINESS GOING AFTER DELEGATES WHOM THE WHOLE PARTY--INCLUDING YOU--AGREED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED.
Arrrr.
Apparently, negative campaigning could be working for her:
Also, WHY CAN'T THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIGURE OUT HOW TO RUN AN ELECTION??
Something more coherent to follow.
The results will also embolden her campaign’s efforts to persuade the Democratic Party to factor in the delegates from Florida and Michigan, her advisers say.
My blood boils every time she mentions her victories in Michigan and Florida. Her, yesterday:
"We’ve won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee!”
Remember her ridiculous "victory party" on January 29th? Remember the mockery it (rightly) received? From Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, those distant weeks ago:
Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.
But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."
Hillary, you want to campaign for each voter yet to cast a vote, go for it. Be democracy in action. You want to get nasty? I think it's a mistake, in the long term for the party, and in the short term for us, but... whatever. But you have NO BUSINESS GOING AFTER DELEGATES WHOM THE WHOLE PARTY--INCLUDING YOU--AGREED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED.
Arrrr.
Apparently, negative campaigning could be working for her:
For Democrats, and particularly for Mrs. Clinton, the contests were as consequential as any to date. To that end, Mrs. Clinton delivered some of the toughest attacks of her campaign over the weekend....There was evidence that the attacks had some effects. Mrs. Clinton did well among the 20 percent of voters in both states who said they made their decision in the last three days. She won about 60 percent of those voters in Texas and about 55 percent of those who voted in Ohio, according to exit polls conducted statewide.
Also, WHY CAN'T THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIGURE OUT HOW TO RUN AN ELECTION??
Something more coherent to follow.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Techies for Barack Obama!
Marc Andreessen endorses Obama!
This is Andreessen's thoughtful, straightforward endorsement of our boy, which he bases on an hour and a half meeting he and his wife had with Obama early in 2007.
For those behind in your techie celebrity gossip, Marc Andreessen is the silicon valley boy wonder partly responsible for the first big web browser and co-founder of Netscape (that thing you used before Mozilla Firefox came along--I always liked how the stars on the icon were shooting-falling while your page was loading). The tagline quote on his blog is "I've seen the future and it works."
Excerpts from the Andreessen's endorsement:
Obama is smart (techies like smart people)
[I]t's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart....
Obama is not radical (techies fear extremists on either end)
This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over... take a look at his policy positions on any number of issues and what strikes you is how reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful they are. And in person, that's exactly what he's like... what comes across -- in both his questions and his answers -- is calmness, reason, and judgment.
This is an endorsement I would want my Washington DC-based parents and brother to read. None of them is a Democrat but my family has a strong penchant for the tech dork view of the world, because that is what we all are...except me. Marc Andreessen and his wife also gave money to Mitt Romney, whatever that tells you. (Hint: he's not liberal.)
Also, included in this endorsement, are Obama's answers to Andreessen's reservations about Obama, which he straight up asked him.
Awesome.
This is Andreessen's thoughtful, straightforward endorsement of our boy, which he bases on an hour and a half meeting he and his wife had with Obama early in 2007.
For those behind in your techie celebrity gossip, Marc Andreessen is the silicon valley boy wonder partly responsible for the first big web browser and co-founder of Netscape (that thing you used before Mozilla Firefox came along--I always liked how the stars on the icon were shooting-falling while your page was loading). The tagline quote on his blog is "I've seen the future and it works."
Excerpts from the Andreessen's endorsement:
Obama is smart (techies like smart people)
[I]t's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart....
Obama is not radical (techies fear extremists on either end)
This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over... take a look at his policy positions on any number of issues and what strikes you is how reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful they are. And in person, that's exactly what he's like... what comes across -- in both his questions and his answers -- is calmness, reason, and judgment.
Obama's world view is not dominated by the 1960s (that irrelevant time period before the letters "e" and "i" were prefixes for "mail" and "pod," respectively)
He's a post-Boomer. Most of the Boomers I know are still fixated on the 1960's in one way or another -- generally in how they think about social change, politics, and the government. It's very clear when interacting with Senator Obama that he's totally focused on the world as it has existed since after the 1960's -- as am I, and as is practically everyone I know who's younger than 50.
This is an endorsement I would want my Washington DC-based parents and brother to read. None of them is a Democrat but my family has a strong penchant for the tech dork view of the world, because that is what we all are...except me. Marc Andreessen and his wife also gave money to Mitt Romney, whatever that tells you. (Hint: he's not liberal.)
Also, included in this endorsement, are Obama's answers to Andreessen's reservations about Obama, which he straight up asked him.
1. How concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?
He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action. [And yes we have, as I posted about here.]
It turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win... By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
This... speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.
2. We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?
He said, directly, two things.
First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Being a fan of blunt answers, I liked that one.
But then he made what I think is the really good point.
He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.
He's got my vote.Awesome.
Friday, February 29, 2008
will.i.am.milking.this.for.all.it's.worth
Credit for the title of this entry goes to Christopher Beam at Slate. (Who, yes, I kinda knocked earlier in another post.)
So, basically, there's another Obama music video from will.i.am called We Are the Ones. The constant stream of chants of "O-Ba-Ma. O-Ba-Ma..." in the background, as Beam said, "give grist to the dolts crying fascism." Beam called it "creepy," and I kinda see what he means. For me, it's more like a promising new writer's disappointing second novel, except that, while novelists should keep writing novels, is there a really a need for another star-studded Obama music video? (And I think the Obamas agree with me. I got the first one from an email from Michelle Obama herself; the campaign has not sent this one around to its email list.)
It probably is just another brain child of will.i.am, pure and simple, but I can't help but imagine a group of non-white celebrities pissed at themselves for not getting in on the first one--which, you know, officially put them behind Kate Walsh in the line of being badass--so they started circulating a petition, called something like let's-make-another-Obama-video-so-I-can-be-in-one-too. We are the ones features John Leguizamo, George Lopez, Jessica Alba talking about her unborn child (si, se peude), Kerry Washington, Forest Whittaker, Luis Guzman, Ryan Phillippe, Ben McKenzie, and (guess who?) MacymotherfuckingGray! I never stopped rooting for her. Also one of the dudes from Friday Night Lights, a show I find unwatchable, but it's set in Texas, so his appearance might bring in some Texas voters (?).
I'm glad Hollywood, like me, has found change it can believe in. (The more I have in common with George Clooney, the better.) But the tone of this last video planted a thought: that the nationwide O-love is starting to breed
O-stalkers.
There's been buzz recently about how, if Barack's elected, he's at high risk for assassination. When we hear that, we inevitably imagine some ignorant racist white man picking up one of his many legally purchased rifles, but maybe we should be more worried about an assassination in the Selena mold: a fan/member of his team whose love-obsession can only be quenched by a murder-suicide. A person who seems to be part of Obama's success and promotional efforts who is actually a time bomb.
Someone like, oh I don't know, will.i.am.
Like he wants a place in the Ocabinet, you know, in recognition of all his youtube efforts, just something small, like Secretary of Rhyming Words With Themselves... but Obama says "uh, no thanks, brother, the Ocabinet's all full."
And will.i.am like.freaks.the.fuck.out.
That is obviously retarded speculation on my part, right? But then I read things like this, which will.i.am said about getting the video's cast together:
"There's no casting ... the inspiration is the casting director."
I mean, is it me or has he wandered into the suburbs of Crazyville? (...and is that much closer to "the inspiration pulled the trigger.")
Anyway, this video isn't nearly as good as the first one, Yes We Can, which is quite moving. (And if you haven't seen it yet, it means, uh sorry, you didn't survive that accident--YOU'RE DEAD. Everyone alive was emailed the link forty times at least.)
Postscript:
An even more impressive celebrity singing-coordination effort than We Are the Ones is here. It's basically "We are the world" except the chorus is "I'm fucking Ben Affleck." It's even better than you hope it will be.
Yowza. Youtube is the baby daddy of like %70 of the endorphins in my brain.
So, basically, there's another Obama music video from will.i.am called We Are the Ones. The constant stream of chants of "O-Ba-Ma. O-Ba-Ma..." in the background, as Beam said, "give grist to the dolts crying fascism." Beam called it "creepy," and I kinda see what he means. For me, it's more like a promising new writer's disappointing second novel, except that, while novelists should keep writing novels, is there a really a need for another star-studded Obama music video? (And I think the Obamas agree with me. I got the first one from an email from Michelle Obama herself; the campaign has not sent this one around to its email list.)
It probably is just another brain child of will.i.am, pure and simple, but I can't help but imagine a group of non-white celebrities pissed at themselves for not getting in on the first one--which, you know, officially put them behind Kate Walsh in the line of being badass--so they started circulating a petition, called something like let's-make-another-Obama-video-so-I-can-be-in-one-too. We are the ones features John Leguizamo, George Lopez, Jessica Alba talking about her unborn child (si, se peude), Kerry Washington, Forest Whittaker, Luis Guzman, Ryan Phillippe, Ben McKenzie, and (guess who?) MacymotherfuckingGray! I never stopped rooting for her. Also one of the dudes from Friday Night Lights, a show I find unwatchable, but it's set in Texas, so his appearance might bring in some Texas voters (?).
I'm glad Hollywood, like me, has found change it can believe in. (The more I have in common with George Clooney, the better.) But the tone of this last video planted a thought: that the nationwide O-love is starting to breed
O-stalkers.
There's been buzz recently about how, if Barack's elected, he's at high risk for assassination. When we hear that, we inevitably imagine some ignorant racist white man picking up one of his many legally purchased rifles, but maybe we should be more worried about an assassination in the Selena mold: a fan/member of his team whose love-obsession can only be quenched by a murder-suicide. A person who seems to be part of Obama's success and promotional efforts who is actually a time bomb.
Someone like, oh I don't know, will.i.am.
Like he wants a place in the Ocabinet, you know, in recognition of all his youtube efforts, just something small, like Secretary of Rhyming Words With Themselves... but Obama says "uh, no thanks, brother, the Ocabinet's all full."
And will.i.am like.freaks.the.fuck.out.
That is obviously retarded speculation on my part, right? But then I read things like this, which will.i.am said about getting the video's cast together:
"There's no casting ... the inspiration is the casting director."
I mean, is it me or has he wandered into the suburbs of Crazyville? (...and is that much closer to "the inspiration pulled the trigger.")
Anyway, this video isn't nearly as good as the first one, Yes We Can, which is quite moving. (And if you haven't seen it yet, it means, uh sorry, you didn't survive that accident--YOU'RE DEAD. Everyone alive was emailed the link forty times at least.)
Postscript:
An even more impressive celebrity singing-coordination effort than We Are the Ones is here. It's basically "We are the world" except the chorus is "I'm fucking Ben Affleck." It's even better than you hope it will be.
Yowza. Youtube is the baby daddy of like %70 of the endorphins in my brain.
Did Tina Fey get Bill Clintoned?
The Bill Clinton effect, especially on women, is well documented. Tina Fey, you are still my hero. It doesn't matter that you came out on Saturday Night Live for Hillary--I have no problem with people who support Hillary (or rather, their support for her alone would not give me a problem with them). Especially if they're going to point out so hilariously that Bitches Get Stuff Done.
Tina was a guest anchor on Weekend Update last weekend. Here's a partial transcript:
FEY: Maybe what bothers me the most is that people say that Hillary is a bitch. Let me say something about that:
Yeah, she is.
And so am I and so is this one. (Pointing to Amy Poehler)
POEHLER: Yeah, deal with it.
FEY: Know what? Bitches get stuff done.
Like back in grammar school, they could have had priests teaching you but, no, they had those tough old nuns who slept on cots and who could hit ya and you HATED those bitches.
But at the end of the school year you KNEW the capital of Vermont!
And she ended with:
BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK!
It's okay for an Obama fan like me to admit on the world wide web that it was, in fact, great. And Hillary can use some cultural cache in her corner. (Please compare Hillary for You and Me to Yes We Can, juuuuuuuuust in case you don't know what I mean.)
But all of this is background to point out this tiny fact buried in a Time Magazine article:
Tina, did you forget to feed your baby because he make you feel like you were literally the only one in the room? We're suckers for it, I know.
(On a non election note, but sort of a Tina Fey note, the insanest object of my celebrity worship is without a doubt Mariah Carey, who just released this utterly insane video which features 30 Rock cast member Jack McBrayer.)
Tina was a guest anchor on Weekend Update last weekend. Here's a partial transcript:
FEY: Maybe what bothers me the most is that people say that Hillary is a bitch. Let me say something about that:
Yeah, she is.
And so am I and so is this one. (Pointing to Amy Poehler)
POEHLER: Yeah, deal with it.
FEY: Know what? Bitches get stuff done.
Like back in grammar school, they could have had priests teaching you but, no, they had those tough old nuns who slept on cots and who could hit ya and you HATED those bitches.
But at the end of the school year you KNEW the capital of Vermont!
And she ended with:
BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK!
It's okay for an Obama fan like me to admit on the world wide web that it was, in fact, great. And Hillary can use some cultural cache in her corner. (Please compare Hillary for You and Me to Yes We Can, juuuuuuuuust in case you don't know what I mean.)
But all of this is background to point out this tiny fact buried in a Time Magazine article:
After Saturday Night Live lampooned the media for their love affair with Obama, Bill telephoned guest host Tina Fey to thank her.
Tina, did you forget to feed your baby because he make you feel like you were literally the only one in the room? We're suckers for it, I know.
(On a non election note, but sort of a Tina Fey note, the insanest object of my celebrity worship is without a doubt Mariah Carey, who just released this utterly insane video which features 30 Rock cast member Jack McBrayer.)
He's not just charming...HE'S WORKING HIS ASS OFF
Thanks for breaking this down so explicitly, Frank Rich.
I'm a little behind, this column is from February 24th, but I was busy looking for pictures of Beyonce in African garb. They're surprisingly hard to find, given what I can only describe as her tribal flailing at the end of the "Baby Boy" video. But I digress.
The highlights from Mr. Rich's column:
In other words, Hillary: You took the nomination for granted and didn't work hard enough to make sure you had it. You had no post-Febrary 5th contingency plan. You, the supposed workhorse candidate, are getting superbly outworked by your opponent. And just because he has the charisma to make it seem easy doesn't mean that it is.
Because, Hillary, it's not easy. As you should know better than anyone. A number of people very close to me work part or full time on Obama's campaign, and they are earning every vote they get. And it's just wack that some members of the media, and you, are equating the Obama support base to a bunch of kids on some political acid.
Here's Frank again, expanding on the organizational failure of her campaign:
Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid.
This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.
Haha, that is hilarious. Go blogs!!
Anyway, given that my last post was about how fed-up I am with everyone scrutinizing Hillary's lack of charisma, lack of ability to publicly seem "consistent" and "in control of herself," and pitting that against Obama's sea of calm and cool...God if I read the word "cool"--pejorative or not--to describe Obama I'm gonna... Anyway...
Thank you Frank, for bringing us back to the nuts and bolts of what these two candidates are doing, what campaigning for president is and should be about, and how their actions are, and are not, working on us. And if you happen to read this, I'm that girl you almost hired to be your assistant whom you told to finish college instead.
I'm a little behind, this column is from February 24th, but I was busy looking for pictures of Beyonce in African garb. They're surprisingly hard to find, given what I can only describe as her tribal flailing at the end of the "Baby Boy" video. But I digress.
The highlights from Mr. Rich's column:
- "The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done."
- South Carolina: "where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots."
- Kansas: "three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3."
- Wisconsin "the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11."
- Vermont: "There were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago."
- Pennsylvania: "the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline."
- I'm going to add that she also admitted in debate at being baffled by the Texas primary system which had "grown men crying." Huh? The grown men on your campaign, Hillary? Not your best, or most competent-sounding, sound bite.
In other words, Hillary: You took the nomination for granted and didn't work hard enough to make sure you had it. You had no post-Febrary 5th contingency plan. You, the supposed workhorse candidate, are getting superbly outworked by your opponent. And just because he has the charisma to make it seem easy doesn't mean that it is.
Because, Hillary, it's not easy. As you should know better than anyone. A number of people very close to me work part or full time on Obama's campaign, and they are earning every vote they get. And it's just wack that some members of the media, and you, are equating the Obama support base to a bunch of kids on some political acid.
Here's Frank again, expanding on the organizational failure of her campaign:
Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid.
This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.
Haha, that is hilarious. Go blogs!!
Anyway, given that my last post was about how fed-up I am with everyone scrutinizing Hillary's lack of charisma, lack of ability to publicly seem "consistent" and "in control of herself," and pitting that against Obama's sea of calm and cool...God if I read the word "cool"--pejorative or not--to describe Obama I'm gonna... Anyway...
Thank you Frank, for bringing us back to the nuts and bolts of what these two candidates are doing, what campaigning for president is and should be about, and how their actions are, and are not, working on us. And if you happen to read this, I'm that girl you almost hired to be your assistant whom you told to finish college instead.
Who's more awesome? Journalists weigh in--unfortunately
The constant personality analysis, comparison, the stream of adjectives: insecure, nurturing, cocky, graceful, self-deprecating, presidential, vulnerable, feminine, masculine, bellicose, glamorous.....
Is anyone else getting tired of journalists' amateur attempts at psychoanalysis? Not just of the candidates, but us and our responses to them?
Even a huge O-fan like me is getting worried about the frequency of references to how he's making politics "cool." Google two words: "Obama" and "awesomeness." The number of results, I fear, actually lends credence to the (false) argument that he is all hype, no ability to govern. I cringe every time someone playfully writes that his rallies are like raves, girls are fainting, yada yada yada.
To put it another way, writers everywhere are getting in touch with their inner Maureen Dowd.
Let's start with her. Here. And here. Columns called "Begrudging his Bedazzling," and "Quien es less Macho?" have produced this, by now tired, brand of insight:
Another Times columnist Gail Collins can't seem to find anything to offer us except more Hillary pseudo-psychobabble. From yesterday's Hillary, Buckeye Girl:
Same with Bob Herbert: "There’s a fine line between brash and cocky. You can’t embark on a quest as audacious as Mr. Obama’s without a certain brashness. But cocky turns people off. And the senator seemed at times to stray across that line." And this: "Pride, the nuns told me in grammar school, goeth before a fall."
Christopher Beam's political blog is Slate:
I was out to dinner with a group last night, and we got into a fun conversation about the something called the enneagram, a Jungian-like outline of the main personality types. It's a way of thinking about people in terms of their personality's pitfalls and strengths. What's annoying me is that much political analysis is framing election results as the by-product of personality nuance--the candidates' and our own. We want more or less glamor, more or less femininity, more or less ease in the candidate's own skin. What all those campaign workers campaigning their Obama-supporting asses off? What about people being legitimately weirded out by a forced "mandate," i.e. uncharted policy territory in the US health care history? What about Iraq votes, not releasing records, conditions of meeting with leaders and pulling out of NAFTA? Repulsion to dirty campaigning?
Can't his ascent and her decline in popularity be about something other than our need to be nurtured by a feminine leadership style (which, these writers love pointing out, he has and she does not)?
Everyone wants to offer his or her theory about how Hillary's hardness or Barack's grace has made the poll results somehow inevitable. But if he were losing, we'd be calling his "feminine moderation" spinelessness, and claiming Americans feel insecure and want a president who seems tough.
The personality-ergo-poll-results is, of course, only ushered out when the votes are counted, which makes the analysis all the less interesting. No one's actually risking making the wrong prediction based on our reaction to her tears and his Dick Cheney-cousin jokes. It makes reading political analysis kind of like reading a kid's paper about Oedipus' or Achilles' hubris. Like one thing in your personality cemented your destiny... of which you already know the outcome.
And even when the personality assessments are positive ("Obama is just so fricking awesome), I still worry about its effect on his campaign. Shallow praise of his awesomeness from serious journalists feeds Obama doubters more doubts. If I was on the fence, I'd be like, yeah so what's he gonna do as commander in chief, unleash his awesome arsenal of awesomeness and shake it out all over the desert till people put down their guns? Yeah, right.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of this. I'm just getting sick of it is all. It's made the most exciting race of my life boring to read about.
Is anyone else getting tired of journalists' amateur attempts at psychoanalysis? Not just of the candidates, but us and our responses to them?
Even a huge O-fan like me is getting worried about the frequency of references to how he's making politics "cool." Google two words: "Obama" and "awesomeness." The number of results, I fear, actually lends credence to the (false) argument that he is all hype, no ability to govern. I cringe every time someone playfully writes that his rallies are like raves, girls are fainting, yada yada yada.
To put it another way, writers everywhere are getting in touch with their inner Maureen Dowd.
Let's start with her. Here. And here. Columns called "Begrudging his Bedazzling," and "Quien es less Macho?" have produced this, by now tired, brand of insight:
- "Voters gravitate toward the presidential candidates who seem more comfortable in their skin. The fact that Obama is exceptionally easy in his skin has made Hillary almost jump out of hers."
- "Her sunshine-colored jackets on the trail hardly disguise the fact that she’s pea-green with envy." (And my newspaper is about to be pea green with puke.)
- "Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona..." (This stuff is when the misogynist word gets rolled out, leave her hair in the White House alone, even if it is an okay metaphor for your played-out point.)
- "Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek."
- Re: Hillary's feistiness, Maureen encourages her to be more feminine, like Barack: "Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity."
- Re: Hillary's spending at Dunkin Doughnuts: "But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard."
- "By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain."
Another Times columnist Gail Collins can't seem to find anything to offer us except more Hillary pseudo-psychobabble. From yesterday's Hillary, Buckeye Girl:
- "If Hillary Clinton were a state, she’d be Ohio."
- "She has managed to become the boring candidate in this primary. This is one of the great anti-glamour stories in history."
- "If Hillary can win this one — and if she doesn’t, she is as cooked as reheated risotto — it will be because people here worry that Barack Obama is getting show-offy."
- "Back around Debate 10 — lo those many debates ago — ... she was confident and presidential"
- "Now, he’s better than she is — calm and witty at crucial junctures."
Same with Bob Herbert: "There’s a fine line between brash and cocky. You can’t embark on a quest as audacious as Mr. Obama’s without a certain brashness. But cocky turns people off. And the senator seemed at times to stray across that line." And this: "Pride, the nuns told me in grammar school, goeth before a fall."
Christopher Beam's political blog is Slate:
- "Because he’s loose on the stump, self-deprecating yet cocky, Obama gets away with appropriating the language of his own deification."
- He asked a voter why he's supporting Obama: "'Because I just saw him.' That seems to be the way it works for many young people: To see him is to be for him."
- "In other ways, Obama doesn’t act messianic—just cocky."
I was out to dinner with a group last night, and we got into a fun conversation about the something called the enneagram, a Jungian-like outline of the main personality types. It's a way of thinking about people in terms of their personality's pitfalls and strengths. What's annoying me is that much political analysis is framing election results as the by-product of personality nuance--the candidates' and our own. We want more or less glamor, more or less femininity, more or less ease in the candidate's own skin. What all those campaign workers campaigning their Obama-supporting asses off? What about people being legitimately weirded out by a forced "mandate," i.e. uncharted policy territory in the US health care history? What about Iraq votes, not releasing records, conditions of meeting with leaders and pulling out of NAFTA? Repulsion to dirty campaigning?
Can't his ascent and her decline in popularity be about something other than our need to be nurtured by a feminine leadership style (which, these writers love pointing out, he has and she does not)?
Everyone wants to offer his or her theory about how Hillary's hardness or Barack's grace has made the poll results somehow inevitable. But if he were losing, we'd be calling his "feminine moderation" spinelessness, and claiming Americans feel insecure and want a president who seems tough.
The personality-ergo-poll-results is, of course, only ushered out when the votes are counted, which makes the analysis all the less interesting. No one's actually risking making the wrong prediction based on our reaction to her tears and his Dick Cheney-cousin jokes. It makes reading political analysis kind of like reading a kid's paper about Oedipus' or Achilles' hubris. Like one thing in your personality cemented your destiny... of which you already know the outcome.
And even when the personality assessments are positive ("Obama is just so fricking awesome), I still worry about its effect on his campaign. Shallow praise of his awesomeness from serious journalists feeds Obama doubters more doubts. If I was on the fence, I'd be like, yeah so what's he gonna do as commander in chief, unleash his awesome arsenal of awesomeness and shake it out all over the desert till people put down their guns? Yeah, right.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of this. I'm just getting sick of it is all. It's made the most exciting race of my life boring to read about.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Who looks better in African Clothes: Barack or Beyonce?
Tough one. I think our boy has it on Jay-Z though, for sure. Jay-Z looks like he needed a last minute costume to a frat party.
not that there's anything wrong with that...right?
Being a guest in a foreign country... I mean, you know, being a guest and participating in a welcome ritual from your venerable hosts... in the place where your dad and his ancestors are from... the place where you are from...
Sorry, the incoherence--though typed and reread and left as incoherence--is sincere.
I am referring to the alleged Clinton campaign leak of a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder on a 1996 trip to Kenya...
According to Tuesday's Ohio debate, Hillary denied knowing about the photo or anyone on her campaign leaking it, and Barack believed her. And they moved on.
Um, that's fine, but pictures of Rudy Giuliani in drag this is not.
An article in Reuters has this quote, which at last echoed my initial reactions to this "controversy:"
The dispute has angered many in Kenya, especially ethnic Somalis from the northeast, who resent the implication that Obama did anything wrong during his visit.
The story explains that a venerable elder dresses a visitor in these clothes to honor the tribe's guest. "We give special treatment and respect to any visitor."
It came up in the debate, and both Hillary and Barack played it cool and acted above the pettiness of it. I guess when an issue is weird and stupid, that's the smart tack to take. But it was a missed opportunity to touch on what it means to be a guest in a foreign place, and to participate in someone else's guest-host culture, accepting it as the honor it is. Especially since doing that gracefully is something seen as so very un-American. Obama is all about crossing boundaries, right? And dissipating the image of America that is arrogant and unresponsive to the local scenery.
I know, I know. I mean, I get it. It's a float in the Barack-wears-a-turban parade, which was supposed to gather a crowd of people nervous that we are about to elect a terrorist to the White House.
I guess I just want to take this chance to point out that this picture represents a notion about how Americans should carry ourselves when we go abroad. In the case of a potential US president, this attitude will serve us at the negotiating table as well as at a dinner table. Our efforts to participate in the development of the rest of the world would be more successful if we were better at the kind of exchange pictured above.
Oh, but here's the next phase of this story (also from the Reuters article):
Mohamed Ibrahim, who attended one of two crisis meetings held in Wajir on Thursday by clan members who hosted Obama on his trip, said Washington must immediately make amends to them and especially to the elder pictured with him.
Apparently our dumb political tactics are being taken personally in Kenya. Phillip Kennicott in the Washington Post validated my bewilderment, which somewhat assuages my embarrassment over this American cultural moment. He writes:
By the end of the day, the only clear message from the strange episode is that whoever was spreading the image was not particularly sophisticated about the way images work in our new media world...
Sorry, the incoherence--though typed and reread and left as incoherence--is sincere.
I am referring to the alleged Clinton campaign leak of a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder on a 1996 trip to Kenya...
According to Tuesday's Ohio debate, Hillary denied knowing about the photo or anyone on her campaign leaking it, and Barack believed her. And they moved on.
Um, that's fine, but pictures of Rudy Giuliani in drag this is not.
An article in Reuters has this quote, which at last echoed my initial reactions to this "controversy:"
The dispute has angered many in Kenya, especially ethnic Somalis from the northeast, who resent the implication that Obama did anything wrong during his visit.
The story explains that a venerable elder dresses a visitor in these clothes to honor the tribe's guest. "We give special treatment and respect to any visitor."
It came up in the debate, and both Hillary and Barack played it cool and acted above the pettiness of it. I guess when an issue is weird and stupid, that's the smart tack to take. But it was a missed opportunity to touch on what it means to be a guest in a foreign place, and to participate in someone else's guest-host culture, accepting it as the honor it is. Especially since doing that gracefully is something seen as so very un-American. Obama is all about crossing boundaries, right? And dissipating the image of America that is arrogant and unresponsive to the local scenery.
I know, I know. I mean, I get it. It's a float in the Barack-wears-a-turban parade, which was supposed to gather a crowd of people nervous that we are about to elect a terrorist to the White House.
I guess I just want to take this chance to point out that this picture represents a notion about how Americans should carry ourselves when we go abroad. In the case of a potential US president, this attitude will serve us at the negotiating table as well as at a dinner table. Our efforts to participate in the development of the rest of the world would be more successful if we were better at the kind of exchange pictured above.
Oh, but here's the next phase of this story (also from the Reuters article):
Mohamed Ibrahim, who attended one of two crisis meetings held in Wajir on Thursday by clan members who hosted Obama on his trip, said Washington must immediately make amends to them and especially to the elder pictured with him.
"The U.S. government must apologise to us as a clan and the old man," Ibrahim told Reuters by telephone. "We have been offended and we cannot afford to just watch and stay silent."
He said it was essential Clinton "clear her name" too....
If there was no apology, the elders said, they would demand the expulsion of U.S. troops based near Garissa town.
Apparently our dumb political tactics are being taken personally in Kenya. Phillip Kennicott in the Washington Post validated my bewilderment, which somewhat assuages my embarrassment over this American cultural moment. He writes:
By the end of the day, the only clear message from the strange episode is that whoever was spreading the image was not particularly sophisticated about the way images work in our new media world...
An image such as this one also needs to circulate first among people inclined to believe the worst about its target. For a smear photograph to function properly, it must begin its journey into the body politic with what one might call a "Have you seen this?" phase. As it circulates under the radar, it gains a kind of credibility momentum, as people inclined to believe begin to think it is actual, documentary evidence of something that is being suppressed. The idea that it is being suppressed -- that it hasn't broken out to a larger audience -- actually helps it build credibility momentum.
If the image debuts to the larger world without that momentum, its smear message will be drowned out by a chorus of other story lines: Where did it come from? Who distributed it? Why did they do it? And that seemed to be case yesterday.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Does negative campaigning work?
Here I am posting two statements from bloggers on the excellent Back Ally Media about Hillary's tactics in Wisconsin over the last week.
The first one is basically saying, don't be mean in Wisconsin, my very kind, unironic state.
I believe Hillary made a big tactical mistake in choosing Wisconsin as the first state to go negative. If you should know anything about the denizens of Wisconsin, it’s that A) we’re big Packer fans who have an affinity for cheap beer, brats, and cheese curds and 2) we’re nice. Wisconsinites - especially progressive Democratic voters - don’t like the nasty stuff. In the last week, Hillary threw a lot of dirty stuff, hoping that something would stick: “Obama ducks debates,” “Obama is an empty suit,” “Obama is a plagiarist.” It all received a lot of coverage, but it clearly didn’t stick and very possibly backfired (though maybe it helped avert a 25-point loss).
The second statement points out that, according to the Wisconsin poll data anyway, the later you decide who to vote for, the more likely you are to support Hillary...and therefore, did the negative campaigning actually work, even if it didn't work well enough to secure Hillary's victory there?
Okay, but I'll stop being lazy--no more using dirt/mud/their aerodynamics metaphors. Because here's what really happens when she, or anyone else, starts negative campaigning over bullshit (Barack's compromised oratory integrity, or the Jesse Jackson supposed analogy, etc.): we lose track of Hillary The Candidate, the one with
and instead we're in the room with Hillary the ruthless Campaign Strategist, the one who
The first one is basically saying, don't be mean in Wisconsin, my very kind, unironic state.
I believe Hillary made a big tactical mistake in choosing Wisconsin as the first state to go negative. If you should know anything about the denizens of Wisconsin, it’s that A) we’re big Packer fans who have an affinity for cheap beer, brats, and cheese curds and 2) we’re nice. Wisconsinites - especially progressive Democratic voters - don’t like the nasty stuff. In the last week, Hillary threw a lot of dirty stuff, hoping that something would stick: “Obama ducks debates,” “Obama is an empty suit,” “Obama is a plagiarist.” It all received a lot of coverage, but it clearly didn’t stick and very possibly backfired (though maybe it helped avert a 25-point loss).
The second statement points out that, according to the Wisconsin poll data anyway, the later you decide who to vote for, the more likely you are to support Hillary...and therefore, did the negative campaigning actually work, even if it didn't work well enough to secure Hillary's victory there?
Did negative attacks work?
Probably not, but here’s something interesting. I was looking at the exit polls from Wisconsin, and it seems to me that you could make the argument that Clinton’s attacks on Obama over the last week had an effect. People who made up their minds “today” only support Obama by a 51-49 margin. People who made up their minds in the last three days are for Obama 56 to 44; people who decided ‘last week’ are 68 to 32 for Obama; and people who decided ‘last month’ are 69 to 30 for Obama. So did Clinton’s attacks sway some undecideds?
Well, your guess is as good as mine, but I'm am loving the story I (and therefore this blog) keep telling the world: That when someone comes into the ring and insists on playing clean, the business-as-usual mud-slinging from the others looks like what it is: dirty.Okay, but I'll stop being lazy--no more using dirt/mud/their aerodynamics metaphors. Because here's what really happens when she, or anyone else, starts negative campaigning over bullshit (Barack's compromised oratory integrity, or the Jesse Jackson supposed analogy, etc.): we lose track of Hillary The Candidate, the one with
- experience,
- Republican survival scars,
- a groundbreaking role as a female Democrat who figured out how to wield power, compromise, and get feisty
and instead we're in the room with Hillary the ruthless Campaign Strategist, the one who
- puts winning the election ahead of why we should vote for her,
- has strategy sessions, meetings with handlers, a bevy of consultants about when to "go negative"
- caters to and summons forces that make this election about things other than policy change, political will, and steering America towards a more just, equal, peaceful society
"Unattributed inspiration"
This from today's New York Times:
The accusation on Monday by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that Senator Barack Obama recently plagiarized a passage from a speech delivered two years ago by a friend has opened a door to charges and countercharges about borrowed phrases and unattributed inspiration in the 2008 campaign. (From an article by Sam Roberts, called In Politics, Inspiration Or Plagiarism Is a Fine Line)
I hate this plagiarism controversy--it's a sideshow crafted to distract us from the real event of political discourse--but I do love that it threw the phrase "unattributed inspiration" into the mix. Nice one, reporter Sam Roberts, whoever you are.
The phrase is not only cute. It summons what's tricky about a term like plagiarism in this business of inspiration and oratory. When do we routinely attribute inspiration? I mean, besides the thank yous on Oscar night and when we're on e. Do we diminish how inspiration actually works by demanding it be footnoted? Okay, okay, I'll be more specific.
A day has not gone by since superTuesday that I haven't overheard a compare and contrast discussion about Hillary and Barack. I have heard the same arguments with the same phrases again and again. People are summoning the same phrases, without attribution, not because they are trying to get away with something, but because the wording stuck. We muddle our way through articulations of this contest in the hope of gaining some clarity, from our own words and other people's responses.
These conversations are literally one string of unattributed inspiration after the next. Arguing at a bar is not the same as speech making, but I mention this to point out that phrases that work come into the fold and, if they are useful enough, if they are memorable enough, cannot remain copyrighted. They belong to everyone. Hillary and McCain are now added to the list of people claiming to be "fired up and ready to go." Good for them. It sounds a tad silly coming from them, but it's a good phrase, and that's why they took it. (What are they gonna say, "And as Barack Obama says, I, Hillary/McCain, am fired up and ready to go!"? I mean, attributing him would kinda step on the message, and no one's mad at them for that non-citation.)
So let's move a little further down the spectrum of official words and appropriate citations, from arguing to speechmaking. Twice Barack has used distinct wording originally used by Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, with Mr. Patrick's blessing.
Question 1: Is delivering the words of your speechwriter plagiarism? No. Clearly. In general, we don't expect a speechmaker to have authored every word that escapes his lips. In fact, we generally don't expect him or her to have authored any of it. As a society, we are familiar with the job "speechwriter" and we assume that the big dog politicians pay good money for the best ones.
Question 2: What, in effect, is the difference between a politician delivering a speechwriter's sentence and a politician delivering another politician's words? One difference is that a speechwriter is paid to put words in Obama's mouth, whereas Patrick, in essence, made a word-choice donation. Another difference is that Patrick previously delivered the words he gave Obama, and, presumably, the speechwriter did not. The big non-difference is that both original authors said to Obama: here, use this, and go win.
Plagiarism is a really serious charge. Taking something that's not yours, taking credit for work you did not do--it offends me deeply. And when we read an author's words in a book, we reasonably expect that the person whose name is on the cover came up with every single one of those printed words, unless she or he cites someone else. But when a politician delivers a speech, we never have the expectation that the politician came up with every single one of those words. Plagiarism is a crime of deceit. Our expectation here is, therefore, highly relevant.
The Times' story points out that the Clintons have invited a glass-house scenario by throwing stones at Obama. Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural address contained this beautiful passage:
Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring. A spring reborn in the world's oldest democracy that brings forth the vision and courage to reinvent America.
It turns out that this and other parts of the speech were based on a four page outline provided by Bill's friend, Father Tim Healy, former president of Georgetown University and then president of the New York Public Library. He died shortly after Clinton's election, but when his friends went to his home, they found in his typewriter a letter to Clinton, including the suggestion to talk about forcing the spring. Clinton in his autobiography said "I wanted to use it in his memory," and he did, unattributed.
Of this incident, the original voice of the plagiarism accusation, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson, said: "Tim Healy helped President Clinton write the speech by offering suggestions for it. That doesn't fit any definition of plagiarism I'm familiar with."
EXACTLY! So what is your problem, people? Enough with this sideshow, it's making ya'll look bad... as the good people of Wisconsin so clearly demonstrated last night!
The accusation on Monday by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that Senator Barack Obama recently plagiarized a passage from a speech delivered two years ago by a friend has opened a door to charges and countercharges about borrowed phrases and unattributed inspiration in the 2008 campaign. (From an article by Sam Roberts, called In Politics, Inspiration Or Plagiarism Is a Fine Line)
I hate this plagiarism controversy--it's a sideshow crafted to distract us from the real event of political discourse--but I do love that it threw the phrase "unattributed inspiration" into the mix. Nice one, reporter Sam Roberts, whoever you are.
The phrase is not only cute. It summons what's tricky about a term like plagiarism in this business of inspiration and oratory. When do we routinely attribute inspiration? I mean, besides the thank yous on Oscar night and when we're on e. Do we diminish how inspiration actually works by demanding it be footnoted? Okay, okay, I'll be more specific.
A day has not gone by since superTuesday that I haven't overheard a compare and contrast discussion about Hillary and Barack. I have heard the same arguments with the same phrases again and again. People are summoning the same phrases, without attribution, not because they are trying to get away with something, but because the wording stuck. We muddle our way through articulations of this contest in the hope of gaining some clarity, from our own words and other people's responses.
These conversations are literally one string of unattributed inspiration after the next. Arguing at a bar is not the same as speech making, but I mention this to point out that phrases that work come into the fold and, if they are useful enough, if they are memorable enough, cannot remain copyrighted. They belong to everyone. Hillary and McCain are now added to the list of people claiming to be "fired up and ready to go." Good for them. It sounds a tad silly coming from them, but it's a good phrase, and that's why they took it. (What are they gonna say, "And as Barack Obama says, I, Hillary/McCain, am fired up and ready to go!"? I mean, attributing him would kinda step on the message, and no one's mad at them for that non-citation.)
So let's move a little further down the spectrum of official words and appropriate citations, from arguing to speechmaking. Twice Barack has used distinct wording originally used by Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, with Mr. Patrick's blessing.
Question 1: Is delivering the words of your speechwriter plagiarism? No. Clearly. In general, we don't expect a speechmaker to have authored every word that escapes his lips. In fact, we generally don't expect him or her to have authored any of it. As a society, we are familiar with the job "speechwriter" and we assume that the big dog politicians pay good money for the best ones.
Question 2: What, in effect, is the difference between a politician delivering a speechwriter's sentence and a politician delivering another politician's words? One difference is that a speechwriter is paid to put words in Obama's mouth, whereas Patrick, in essence, made a word-choice donation. Another difference is that Patrick previously delivered the words he gave Obama, and, presumably, the speechwriter did not. The big non-difference is that both original authors said to Obama: here, use this, and go win.
Plagiarism is a really serious charge. Taking something that's not yours, taking credit for work you did not do--it offends me deeply. And when we read an author's words in a book, we reasonably expect that the person whose name is on the cover came up with every single one of those printed words, unless she or he cites someone else. But when a politician delivers a speech, we never have the expectation that the politician came up with every single one of those words. Plagiarism is a crime of deceit. Our expectation here is, therefore, highly relevant.
The Times' story points out that the Clintons have invited a glass-house scenario by throwing stones at Obama. Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural address contained this beautiful passage:
Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring. A spring reborn in the world's oldest democracy that brings forth the vision and courage to reinvent America.
It turns out that this and other parts of the speech were based on a four page outline provided by Bill's friend, Father Tim Healy, former president of Georgetown University and then president of the New York Public Library. He died shortly after Clinton's election, but when his friends went to his home, they found in his typewriter a letter to Clinton, including the suggestion to talk about forcing the spring. Clinton in his autobiography said "I wanted to use it in his memory," and he did, unattributed.
Of this incident, the original voice of the plagiarism accusation, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson, said: "Tim Healy helped President Clinton write the speech by offering suggestions for it. That doesn't fit any definition of plagiarism I'm familiar with."
EXACTLY! So what is your problem, people? Enough with this sideshow, it's making ya'll look bad... as the good people of Wisconsin so clearly demonstrated last night!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A failure of the feminism rallying cry
Please read my friend's post on how the various "it's a woman's turn" positions put forth by Gloria Steinem, the Women's Media Center, and others, have a ways to go in fitting non-white women into their scheme. Here's an excerpt:
Nobody talks about Hillary's power the same way nobody talks about white women's power whenever they feminist-monger us to death. This is an old (blood) sport and I find that engaging in it in this election is distracting from the point, for me at least, and very toxic. On an emotional level, the persistent inability to grant me the autonomy to say that I am not doing a "pick race over gender" thing when it comes to this election is profoundly dehumanizing.
Nobody talks about Hillary's power the same way nobody talks about white women's power whenever they feminist-monger us to death. This is an old (blood) sport and I find that engaging in it in this election is distracting from the point, for me at least, and very toxic. On an emotional level, the persistent inability to grant me the autonomy to say that I am not doing a "pick race over gender" thing when it comes to this election is profoundly dehumanizing.
Now plagiarism? I'm getting tired of her...
This latest plagiarism attack on my boy reeks of desperation. Obama, in responding to attacks that his campaign is "just words," replied:
"I have a dream - just words? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - just words? We have nothing to fear but fear itself - just words? Just speeches?"
Well, it turns out that the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick had said something virtually identical in one of his speeches in October 2006, so the chief spokesman for Hillary's campaign comes out with this statement:
"Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises, because he doesn't have a long record in public life. When the origin of his oratory is called into question, it raises questions about his overall candidacy."
I have to say that although this statement seems to focus on the authenticity of Barack's speeches, hidden in plain sight in the premise of the question is an attack on him that I keep having to reject: Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises. His promises are no more "untested" than Hillary's.
Okay, but back to the question. What did Obama say back to this?
"Deval and I trade ideas all the time. He has occasionally used lines of mine and at the dinner in Wisconsin I used some words of his. On occasion, Senator Clinton has used words of mine as well." When asked if he should have attributed the words, he said: "I am sure I should have. I am happy to give Deval credit."
As a former teacher and tutor, I have a plagiarism button that can perhaps be pushed too easily. I also have an ear for good rhetoric that I will play back, often without attribution. But so often, when I have been writing an essay or blog entry, and been emailing my friends about it for feedback or just to develop more coherence on a matter, my dear friends will say things like, "my words are yours," or "feel free to use that." Sometimes I cite them, sometimes I don't. It really depends on if the citation diminishes the punch of the message, rhetorically.
If Obama's friend says: here's a good answer to these empty rhetoric nay-sayers, use it, can't he just use it? What I wonder is if the Hillary camp called Mr. Patrick's office to get his take on how it feels to be ripped off. If they didn't, they certainly should have.
But whatever Mr. Patrick did or did not have the chance to say in Obama's defense is, I am sure, besides the point. Hillary's campaign was looking for a chance to puncture a hole in one of our boy's most unique and memorable qualities, his ability to stir a crowd. Funny how the point of the supposedly plagiarized passage was how words are more than just words. But the opportunity to cast doubt was too good to pass up.
If that's not empty rhetoric, I don't know what is.
One more thing to think about on this point: on more than a few occasions, when Hillary and her camp (Bill!) have tried to pull a cheap trick to discredit Obama, what happens? The public relations debacle falls on her, not him. (Barack: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.) Hillary's failed attempts at humiliating him are actually demonstrating a turning point in how to play public political games: unlike past campaigns, it's better to play clean. Dirt, it seems, doesn't throw as well as it used to. I just hope that today's Wisconsin voters prove me right on that.
"I have a dream - just words? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - just words? We have nothing to fear but fear itself - just words? Just speeches?"
Well, it turns out that the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick had said something virtually identical in one of his speeches in October 2006, so the chief spokesman for Hillary's campaign comes out with this statement:
"Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises, because he doesn't have a long record in public life. When the origin of his oratory is called into question, it raises questions about his overall candidacy."
I have to say that although this statement seems to focus on the authenticity of Barack's speeches, hidden in plain sight in the premise of the question is an attack on him that I keep having to reject: Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises. His promises are no more "untested" than Hillary's.
Okay, but back to the question. What did Obama say back to this?
"Deval and I trade ideas all the time. He has occasionally used lines of mine and at the dinner in Wisconsin I used some words of his. On occasion, Senator Clinton has used words of mine as well." When asked if he should have attributed the words, he said: "I am sure I should have. I am happy to give Deval credit."
As a former teacher and tutor, I have a plagiarism button that can perhaps be pushed too easily. I also have an ear for good rhetoric that I will play back, often without attribution. But so often, when I have been writing an essay or blog entry, and been emailing my friends about it for feedback or just to develop more coherence on a matter, my dear friends will say things like, "my words are yours," or "feel free to use that." Sometimes I cite them, sometimes I don't. It really depends on if the citation diminishes the punch of the message, rhetorically.
If Obama's friend says: here's a good answer to these empty rhetoric nay-sayers, use it, can't he just use it? What I wonder is if the Hillary camp called Mr. Patrick's office to get his take on how it feels to be ripped off. If they didn't, they certainly should have.
But whatever Mr. Patrick did or did not have the chance to say in Obama's defense is, I am sure, besides the point. Hillary's campaign was looking for a chance to puncture a hole in one of our boy's most unique and memorable qualities, his ability to stir a crowd. Funny how the point of the supposedly plagiarized passage was how words are more than just words. But the opportunity to cast doubt was too good to pass up.
If that's not empty rhetoric, I don't know what is.
One more thing to think about on this point: on more than a few occasions, when Hillary and her camp (Bill!) have tried to pull a cheap trick to discredit Obama, what happens? The public relations debacle falls on her, not him. (Barack: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.) Hillary's failed attempts at humiliating him are actually demonstrating a turning point in how to play public political games: unlike past campaigns, it's better to play clean. Dirt, it seems, doesn't throw as well as it used to. I just hope that today's Wisconsin voters prove me right on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
