Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Then I went to the CNN story and it seems like Obama is losing because his lead is only 7 points.
Will someone please help me understand how the press thinks?
Yet, as we have seen time and time again- the narrative for McCain has already been created. He is a man of the people. It doesn't matter if he owns nine homes, travels in a private jet or has credit card debt which is more than triple the value of my home. He knows what it is like for the common man. Obama, on the other hand, shops at Whole Foods- which is a clear indicator that he is out of touch.
As ThinkProgress highlights, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Right hand of God), is up in arms over the Chinese government's plan to, in his words, spy on foreign visitors when they come to see the Olympics:
BROWNBACK: This is the public security bureau in China requiring the installation of hardware that they can listen to anybody and everybody’s and their communications and their recordings that are sent over the internet in a real-time purpose or over long-term. That’s spying, John. […] Your internet communications can all be monitored in a real time basis by the public security bureau of the Chinese government. I think they’re clearly intent upon spying. they’re going to be spying.
Seems to me, that as a silly graduate student, this is pretty damn close to what our government is already doing.
Furthermore, if I was a big time TV journalist, I would ask Senator Brownback how the Chinese plan is any different from our current plan. But once again, I am just a silly graduate student.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
If the elite press thinks that Joe Blow is going to make his voting decision based upon McCain's relationship with the senior senator from Alaska- because they have a long-simmering feud; then they need to stop eating so much paste and maybe think about spending some more time at a petting zoo instead of writing. Idiots.
Unfortunately, I think the point of this exercise is to continue with the campaign narrative that Obama is an elitist; as he continuously spurns the advances of other faculty at Chicago to join them or their causes. Furthermore, the article also mentions that he was a favorite among the students and had many followers.
You can see then, why this is such a difficult narrative to maintain- Obama avoids the famous faculty in order to hob-nob with the lowly students. Obama doesn't join the other elites, instead he tries to keep himself in the real world- which oddly means that he is out of touch.
Monday, July 28, 2008
US to be place on "heightened terror alert" in response to Republican efforts to maintain hold on presidency.
Perhaps others will see this as a bit cynical, but as noted by others- this wouldn't be the first time that the terror alert has been raised when it seemed politically expedient for the Bush Administration:
I know that these are both left-leaning commentators, but I think in light of today's findings regarding the conduct of the DOJ under Bush- the traditional press has good reason to ask- not accuse, but simply ASK- whether this is politically motivated at all. Unfortunately, it looks like the press is going to buy this hook, line and sinker (from the ABC article above):
The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.
This is exactly why McCain made the ad:
It looks as if the new McCain ad falsely attacking Obama over his canceled troop visit may not really have a lot of money behind it, suggesting that its real purpose isn't getting it before voters directly.
Rather, the real target audience may be the media -- meaning that the McCain camp's goal is largely to get the ad debated in the press and to drive the conversation that way.
To review- the US attorney scandal only became a scandal when a sucky blogger got to the bottom of the story. Even then, there has been almost nothing written about the ways the Bush administration politicized EVERYTHING. Nor has there been anything close to official condemnation from the punditocracy.
It is this particular aspect of the whole scandal which is so anger to-the-point-of-blind-rage inducing, we will hear nothing about how the Bush administration put millions of Americans at risk because someone's wife was a Democrat- there will be no public hand-wringing, no sternly worded editorial from the Washington Post, no call for criminal prosecution, NOTHING.
Furthermore, the focus for this story is not going to be on how McCain is behaving dishonorably, but on Obama. In the 'he said/he said' way that the press reports on the campaign- the debate will be framed as "McCain says that Obama hates the troops, but Obama says that isn't true". With this framing, I think it is easy to see just how it benefits McCain. Case in point.
Ultimately, however, what makes this so frustrating is that the Democrats don't fight on these terms- there are plenty of issues that Obama could connect McCain to and in a way that generates endless debate which paints McCain in an unfavorable light. I think a great line of attack on McCain would be to say that he is in league with oil companies to maximize their profits. Why? Well, you have his recent reversal on coastal oil drilling, his support for the gas-tax holiday (which would be framed as a give away to the oil companies), the public perception that Republicans put corporations first, the fact that Americans are increasingly angry with the oil companies and the added bonus of linking McCain to an industry that Bush and Cheney were heavily involved in.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
I know this is a trifling thing, but if you are following the campaign- one of the strategies that the Obama campaign has used has been to compare President Bush to McCain. You would think that the editors at MSNBC would be sensitive to the fact that such a headline would be read as favorable to McCain. Perhaps a more accurate headline would be "McCain's foreign policy more hawkish than President Bush's", but really- what do I know.
I mean seriously folks, if you want to make those kind of distinctions- you are going to need some more data than a 1,000 person random sample with selected cross-tabs. They should really throw every political reporter into at least two graduate level stat's class- this is just embarassing.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
As many others have observed, it's an odd thing about political journalists that they hate much about the subject they cover, specifically the messy business of politicians actually doing things to attract supporters and voters. While one can certainly hate certain structural aspects of politics as institutionalized in this country and wish them to change, the part about politicians trying to do things to get voters to vote for them is pretty much a constant in a democracy.This is why they love the inanity that is Jib-Jab, as they both share a deep contempt for the political process. They all want some magical land where all politicians can be like Martin Sheen, Michael Douglas or Kevin Kline, presidents who say exactly what they mean and not have to worry about what the voters will think. Now, how does this president get elected? I have no idea.
To be a good critic you actually have to have the capacity to love what you cover, otherwise you're just a cynical curmudgeon.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak was cited by police after he hit a pedestrian with his black Corvette in downtown Washington, D.C., on Wednesday morning.
A few thoughts came to mind when I read this-
- Hitting a pedestrian is only a citation? Note to self- NEVER JAYWALK IN DC.
- How do you not know that you hit someone? I guess when all you get is a citation, you can be pretty cavalier about the whole thing.
- Robert Novak drives a BLACK CORVETTE. Is there a more perfect car for him to drive? I can totally see him hitting on Georgetown undergrads at some swanky bar and thinking "wait til they see the 'vette, it's an A.P.R.S, (Automatic Panty Removal System)". What do you think he has in the tape deck? Boston? Aerosmith?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I hesitate, however, to completely demonize the fathers that take part in these events. Outside of a wedding, there aren't many father/daughter sanctioned rituals in our society. Yet, with fathers and sons- there are seemingly infinite opportunities for both of them to bond. So in that regard, and as a newly minted father to a wonderful little girl, I can see why these fathers are trying to ritualize certain elements of the father-daughter relationship.
However, that doesn't mean that this way of celebrating the relationship isn't off the charts f-ing creepy. Here are some pictures of a recent event:
Um...yeah- that ain't right
Monday, July 21, 2008
What I think is the funniest part about all of this is that over the years, the press has made Lieberman the official Jew of Washington and the man that represents all American Jewish thought in this country. Half the reason why Obama was assumed to have a 'Jewish problem' was not because Jewish voters didn't like him- rather, it was assumed he had a 'Jewish problem' because Joe Lieberman didn't like him.
And that's the sort of thing that makes the conservative movement hard to take seriously -- it's an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds but basically can't be moved to act unless some lobbyists pay them too.
In their survey, they found that with cellphone users included in the general sample Obama leads by 48% to 40% vs. 46% to 41% in the sample w/o cellphones. So, there is a 3% swing of support once we include voters who do not have landlines.
Yet in reading some of the commentary on this subject (e.g. here), it seems that people don't see cellphones as having a big effect. Now, I will admit that the number is not very large- but in terms of assessing its effect, I would say that it is considerable. This type of effect comes up repeatedly in studying the mass media (for example- media violence), where small effect sizes are ignored because they are numerically small but not substantively small. A shift of 3% in the general voting public (if we foolishly assume that cell phone voters are evenly distributed) would mean that Obama wins by almost a landslide- as Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Montana and Virginia would all move into his column from the narrow McCain column. At the very least, I would venture to guess that this almost guarantees that Obama will win at least two of these states- which would mean a very comfortable win.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What is at issue? At our 40 week prenatal visit with our midwife (on April 21st), she scheduled an ultrasound and fetal stress test- IF we did not have the baby by the 27th. Amelia had other ideas and arrived on the 24th. The insurance company has insisted that we actually attended our appointment on the 27th for these procedures.
Now, to be clear- I am not a doctor. I have not studied medicine, nor have I even stepped foot in a medical school- so I advise you to take my words at face value. But I am pretty goddamn sure that the ultrasound and the FETAL stress test would have been considered moot three days after our daughter was born.
Unfortunately for JGT, the ratings from the game are in and judging from the numbers, the prospect for changing the format does not look good as the percent share increased during the extra-innings from 16% for innings 1 to 9 to 18% for innings 10 to 15.
I think fans of the show, however, like the show because it actually treats its audience like adults. Case in point- yesterday's show covered the discrepancy between President Bush's press conference and Ben Bernacke's testimony to Congress. Furthermore, Jon Stewart pointed out that the White House seemingly timed their press conference in order to blunt the news coming from the Capitol (see the first two minutes).
Now, I am what you would call a voracious news consumer. Yet, in my search through the news yesterday, I didn't find any mention of this audacious attempt at White House spin. I think it might have been nice of them to cover this.
So, here we have an instance where the McCain's reveal their ridiculously favorable financial status and their complete ignorance of how most of us live- but there is nary a mention in the elite press. Now if Barack or Michelle Obama had said this, you can be pretty damn sure that the media would have hopped all over it.
There is a simple, but tragic, reason for this discrepancy- reporting on the McCains' elite status would go against the already decided upon narrative for them. As ThinkProgress detailed, much of the media has determined that McCain and his wife are 'regular people'. As such, we can easily sketch out the rules for how the McCain narrative is to be handled-
Rule 1: McCain is a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is just as regular as you and I.
Rule 2: If any story reveals that he is not a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is not as regular as you and I- then refer to rule 1.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”
U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine American soldiers this week and insurgents briefly overran the area, officials said Wednesday, underlining the difficulties faced by forces in the border region.
Furthermore, if I was a certain candidate running for president- I would make it absolutely clear to the American people that the trouble in Afghanistan has its roots in the failed policy advocated by McCain. But what do I know, I am just a caveman graduate student.
Monday, July 14, 2008
I believe that Joe Lieberman was also a poor choice. Even back in 2000, a lot of liberals (myself included) strongly disliked him, so putting him on the ticket likely depressed enthusiasm among the base, and may even have driven enough lefties into the arms of Ralph Nader to throw the election.As someone who got caught up in the Nader fiasco in 2000, Gore could have done himself a huge favor if he had picked a genuine progressive as his running mate. Gore was running as somewhat of a centrist, and his selection of Lieberman only reaffirmed that image. If Gore had chosen someone who had a lot of credibility in the progressive community, much of that Nader zeitgeist would have been squashed. The Republicans, on the other hand, seemed to understand that appealing to the base had merit and weren't afraid to have a rock-ribbed conservative as the VP.
I don't think Obama has the same problem with the base that Gore does, nevertheless I think it would be a poor decision to go with someone that the progressive community has issues with.
Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”
I think the idea behind this is decent, but for the AP to take this on is really troubling. The AP exists as the one entity in the current media environment which offers 'straight' news (or as close to straight news as possible). If news organizations want to use their stories, it is up to the editorial staff to add commentary or opinion. By opening themselves to editorializing, the AP is making a potentially horrible mistake.
I certainly don't think that the New Yorker cover is the biggest deal in the world, but the basic reason I find it problematic is that I look at it and I think, "Yes, well, that's what the Right says about the Obamas pretty much daily." It channels what they say, but they forgot to add the funny. Hamas loves Obama, he hates the flag and America, he's a Muslim, Michelle Obama is a black militant, etc. It isn't funny to me because I read this crap every day all day. This crap isn't just on obscure wingnut blogs, it's everywhere. G. Gordon Liddy is thrilled.
If in 2000 they'd ran a cover which expressed in various ways things like "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet," "Al Gore claims he discovered Love Canal," "Al Gore grew up in a fancy DC hotel," "Al Gore is such pandering politician that he's wearing 3 button suits and EARTH TONES" (no I've never understood this one either), it wouldn't have been a parody, it would have been channeling the media zeitgeist. The Obama thing? Not so different.
Here's the thing, it is an absolute embarrassment that people believe these things, and I know from personal experience that there is a sizable group of people who do. The New Yorker would have been better served if they mocked these people directly. Unfortunately, what is going to happen now is that conservative commentators (like Gordon Liddy) will point to this cover as clear evidence that Obama is un-American.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Okay, so I suppose an explanation is in order...
I think The Name of the Rose is one of the greatest novels ever written. I also believe that this is one of the greatest songs written. To combine the two? That just blows my mind.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.But wait...it gets better. As Josh Marshall notes:
But here's the thing. McCain doesn't have any numbers. None. Not vague numbers of fuzzy math. He just says he's going to do it. Any other candidate would get laughed off the stage with that kind of nonsense or more likely reporters just wouldn't agree to give them a write up. But this is all over the place.He then gets the McCain campaign to answer some questions about how they would do this, and this is their explanation:
It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.Well, duh.
I mean, I have the same kind of plan for making $5 billion dollars. You see, I am going to cure all forms of cancer. How am I going to accomplish this masterful plan? Well...when I cure cancer, lots of people are going to be interested in cure. They will then pay me for it. The plan is really quite genius.
What is it with these people? How do they get from what Obama said on Iraq, which has been incredibly consistent, to 'he is adopting McCain and Bush's strategy'? It boggles the mind.
If Obama said that his plan for Iraq was to give everyone a gumdrop pony we wouldn't have to scrutinize his plan, but since he has addressed this topic with serious thought, he must be pulling a fast one on us.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
I would classify the conservative view of patriotism as 'childlike' and liberal patriotism as 'adult' in that a traditional conservative's love of country matches the love a child feels for its parent and the liberal's love of country matches the love an adult feels for his or her parent. As a child, my parents existed as infallible beings and my love for them was unquestioning. Conservatives view love for country in the same way- the entire 'Love it or Leave it' serves as a testament to this world view.
For liberals however, love of country is complicated -just like the love I feel for my parent's is complicated. As I have gotten older, I see my parents as human and capable of making mistakes. Yet, it is their humanity which makes them all the more lovable (and sometimes maddening).
This quote is really just covered in irony. John Kerry, who will forever be known as a serial flip-flopper, brings up the fact that McCain has repeatedly changed positions on a number of issues, and the response from Schieffer is that bringing up such issues is an attack on his integrity. Wow.
Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, responding to John Kerry stating that McCain has completely changed his position on a large number of issues:
“Are you attacking John McCain’s integrity?”
The way the guardians of the discourse see it, just noting that McCain has changed his mind is beyond the pale and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why that is. I don't know of another figure in American politics who is consistently painted in such a favorable light by the media and is afforded as much room for error.
The only other person that even comes close is Colin Powell, so it may be a military thing. Yet, if it was, people like John Kerry, Wes Clark, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Hagel or Max Cleland would also be afforded the same privileges by the media- but they aren't. It could be that McCain's history as a POW has set him apart from others, so that he is viewed as having integrity than any of the others. But should his experience be valued more than triple-amputee Cleland or Medal of Honor winner Kerrey?
Could it be his support for Campaign Finance Reform? Probably not. If it was, a bevy of liberals would get the same favorable treatment from the press.
At the end of the day, I think the simple reason for this deference to McCain is part of a vicious circular logic. The press loves McCain because he is a maverick. Why is he a maverick? Because the press says that he is.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Perhaps most damaging was Thursday's statement in North Dakota, where he said he would reassess his stand on the Iraq war after he visits the front later this summer for briefings from American military commanders. Republicans tried to play that as an expedient political flip flop — a signal Obama was moving away from his vow to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of taking office, a defining issue of his campaign.Note to the AP, this is only damaging if you carry water for the republicans. As Josh Marshall notes, this is just really embarrassing for the AP on so many levels.
Obama quickly said that wasn't the case but the Republicans rushed in with a critical broadside.
I think part of what bothers me is that it hits pretty close to home. I grew up in a working class family with parents that never saw schooling past high school. I was the third person on my mother's side, and the fourth person on my father's side to go to college. My wife, has a similar background.
Yet, because both of us are soon to be graduates of ivy league schools we would fall into the supposed category of elitist.
Forgive me if I am wrong but, I used to think that we were pulling ourselves up from our bootstraps. I mean, if all that conservative crap is to be believed- we are the embodiment of the American dream.
But in this new social calculus, Obama and I are the ones that are out of touch with real America. If you want to know what real Americans are like, you need to talk to a guy that was born into the aristocracy, married an heiress and owns a million homes.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
To these people I say this- shut your cake hole- this is about building a movement. This is about changing the way politics works at the generational level. Obama is not going to be the perfect candidate, he might not even be a very good candidate (although I happen to think he is). But at the end of the day, we are that much closer to seeing universal health care, respect in the world community and the return of the middle class.
Just look at religious conservatives, the Republican party had them eating a bunch of shit sandwiches in the beginning- but they went on to become the most important constituency to the Bush administration. If we whine and throw tantrums like so many have in the past, we are going to be knee deep in McCain shit for the next 4 to 8 years.
Quite simply, what Obama was saying was that he was working on a more perfectly articulated plan of getting out of Iraq. I am not shoehorning here. That is what he literally said. Yet, the media went crazy saying that he flip-flopped, and when Obama came back to say 'you are all idiots' (he actually didn't say that), they say that he had to clear up some inarticulate phrasing.
I mean really, this is what they have to do to show that he is a flip-flopper? Really? Meanwhile, McCain is changing his policies mid-sentence and he is still a straight-talkin' maverick.
I think as we get closer to the election, I am going to be drinking my own weight in whiskey.
This is why the news out of Montana is so great. If Obama can win in this 'conceptually' deep red state then many of the pundit claims that he is out-of-touch with regular Americans is, potentially, mortally wounded.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Hmm...I wonder if there is any straight talk on that express? But wait, the media fawning gets worse- a hell of a lot worse...
Straight Talk Express Gets an Upgrade
By Juliet Eilperin
ABOARD THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS -- The Straight Talk Express has gone airborne.
McCain senior aide Mark Salter quipped this morning that "only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," he said.You wonder if the press will ever realize how their mancrush on McCain impacts the lives of everyday people and our standing in the world. Once again, we have an election that will be decided, not by policies or ideas, but on which candidate is cooler to hang out with.