other thought on Palin

She has an awesome blog.

You really need to check it out.

Seriously.

Like now.

quick thought on Sarah Palin

I can't even really process this decision. At first I was confused about the choice but now I am just angry, extremely angry. At no time in modern American history has a person been selected for office who is so under qualified. There is no need to judge the political merits of this decision. It is dangerous, cynical and disgusting.

Quick thoughts on the speech

I thought this was a great speech by Obama. It was focused and smart and thoughtful.

However, I have to say that the speech didn't do as much for me as Biden's. I know that I am in the minority on this, but I honestly choked up a couple of times when I saw it. I didn't get the same feeling from Obama's speech, although I have felt that way with other speeches.

Tomorrow's conservative news today

They are going to scream and shout the following:

"Barack Obama is ANGRY"

History Lesson

For all of this talk about conflict between Hillary and Obama, Eric Boehlert offers a refreshing history lesson. Consider this:

The Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

Good time for a rollout

I was wondering if the Democrats were going to hit McCain on his well known temper.

Looks like they have.

This is the line that needs to get burned into the minds of voters:

“He has a huge anger problem,” Boxer said. “And he never hid that. ... I have seen it happen on the Senate floor many, many times. … He has exploded at me a couple times.”

Boxer said McCain has always apologized after the dust-ups. Nonetheless, she insinuated that McCain’s temperament makes him unfit for the White House.

“It’s all well and good to apologize,” Boxer added, “but if you are in charge of that black box, I worry about that.”

Obama v. Clinton

I was listening to coverage of the convention last night, and all I really got from the commentators was that there was a huge rift between Clinton and Obama. However, whenever one of the reporters would interview a convention goer, it was the same refrain 'We are here to elect Obama'. I am kind of wondering then, just what would have to occur so that the media reporting on the convention would have to admit -"This is a united party".

Like most media narratives, I fear that they have latched onto an idea and will never give it up. Hillary and Bill Clinton will heap praise upon Obama. 99% of her supporters at the convention will support Obama. Each of the speakers will talk about how united the party is. Yet the only thing that will come of this is that this is a party in crisis. The media will find support for this narrative by finding one or two camera hungry Clintion delegates and trot them out for a zillion interviews. Thus proving that the party is irrevocably harmed.

awesome

My take on Michele Obama's speech

It was a lovely speech and went a long way to accomplish something that has gotten away from the Obama campaign- showing that they are uniquely American and normal. I laughed at the end when Barack Obama showed up and his kids said 'hi' to their dad. That was great.

I think the speech will touch a lot of people who are unfamiliar with the real story of this family and it's interesting because the pundits commenting on this speech don't get that. If Michele had driven on to the stage with in a red pickup truck, that would have signaled 'Real American' to them. Unfortunately, she sort of walked up on stage which means that, of course, she is an elitist.

Observation

Michele Obama is kind of hot. But I am told that she is angry.

Cindy McCain looks like a withered old beauty queen. But I am told that she is down to earth.

That's more like it

Awesome.

NOT fighting back

The latest LA Times poll shows that McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism and perceived celebrity status are working:

Barack Obama's public image has eroded this summer amid a daily onslaught of attacks from Republican rival John McCain, leaving the race for the White House statistically tied, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today.

Far more voters say McCain has the right experience to be president, the poll found. More than a third have questions about Obama's patriotism.

I think a lot of Obama supporters (myself included) have been worried about Obama's lack of a counter attack in this campaign. Much like Kerry and the Swift Boat attacks in 2004, Obama has been absolutely silent this August and really needs to hit back. Unfortunately, it seems that he has taken the 'please stop kicking sand in my face' approach (from earlier today):

Barack Obama is giving his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars right now. With some Dems questioning whether he's hitting back hard enough against John McCain's attacks, Obama went out of his way to directly confront McCain's claim that he would rather lose a war than lose an election.

The problem with this strategy is that it still plays into McCain's frame. It is still allowing for the discussion of whether Obama is patriotic. Instead of this feeble response, Obama needs to hit back hard. He needs to equate McCain with Bush, he needs to show the country that McCain is a pampered rich guy, he needs to openly question McCain's mental status. This is how you fight against these people.

2002 all over again?

Watching the current presidential campaign makes me feel like I have traveled back in time as I have the sinking feeling that we are headed to same type of disaster which led us to war in Iraq. However, this time we run the risk of electing John McCain. Back then, every time I watched, listened to or read the news it seemed that we could never have an honest discussion of the issues because certain rhetorical tricks were being employed by those who wanted us to march to war. Unfortunately, a lot of those same tricks are being used right now to push for McCain's candidacy. Here is what I see so far:

Back in 2002, the rationale for going to war was incredibly flimsy. If you looked at the case that was presented by the Bush administration and weighed the evidence thoughtfully, there was very little reason to support the war. There was no terrorist connection, there was no link to 9-11 and the existence of stockpiles of WMDs was doubtful. Similarly, McCain is an exceptionally weak candidate. If you look at what he offers, it becomes abundantly clear that he is simply not a good fit for this country. Many of the policies that he embraces are ill conceived (e.g. gas tax moratorium), downright destructive (e.g. harsh stance towards Russia) or unpopular (e.g. support for Bush Tax cut).

However, just like in 2002, it is nearly impossible to get at the meat of the issue. One thing that the McCain campaign does is exploit personal tragedy to avoid criticism. Case in point, when asked whether McCain was in the 'cone of silence' during the forum at Saddleback, the campaign response was:

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,”

This is not the first time that the McCain has used this tactic during the campaign (see here), and it brings to mind the tragedy of 9-11 to thwart criticism of the war. We were constantly reminded of the 3,000 deaths suffered on that day, especially when anyone would point out that the rationale for the war was not as strong as it should have been.

Another tactic is the impugning of motives for those that oppose McCain's candidacy. As noted by Josh Marshall, McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama is committing treason so that he can win an election- which is eerily similar to the tactic commonly used by war supporters in 2002. While now it has become a joke (i.e. "Why do you hate America?"), many commentators would ask why 'opponents would want to undermine the troops' or 'let the terrorists win'.

Lastly, there is the suggestion that questioning McCain's credentials means that you are unpatriotic. As we all learned from the Wes Clark dust-up, asking whether McCain's military background matters is strictly forbidden. We have also had no mainstream coverage of the Solzhenitsyn issue which, as I noted yesterday, is to be expected since asking about it would mean that you are unpatriotic. This matches perfectly with what happened to many critics of the war in 2002 (e.g. Phil Donahue, Dixie Chicks), as they were vilified for opposing the war and speaking their mind.

My hope is that this trend can be reversed, but in all likelihood, public discourse will remain unchanged. I see no evidence that the traditional media will change their ways and fight through the BS. I only hope that voters are wise enough to see the difference.

Bob Casey Sr. was apparently the American pope

This is just layers upon layers of ridiculousness:

Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party’s platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.

I mean really, I would challenge the Times to present 50 Catholics who won't vote for Obama because Bob Casey Sr. didn't speak at the Democratic convention in 1992.

Analogy

John McCain is to politics what Brett Favre is to sports.

Here is why: they are both seen as straight shooting mavericks, the press LOVES them and neither of them have done a damn thing this century.

An elaboration on the theme

In furtherance of my post below, this item from ThinkProgress perfectly illustrates what has been bothering me. Here is the text of the post:

Last Friday, police in Des Moines, Iowa arrested four people who attempted to make a citizens’ arrest of former top White House aide Karl Rove, who was in town to speak at a GOP fundraiser. A retired minister and three members of the Des Moines Catholic Workers community were cited for trespassing. However, according to a press release, the judge presiding over the case praised their efforts:

[Mona] Shaw was the first called before Polk County Fifth Judicial District Associate Judge William Price.

After entering her plea, the judge asked Shaw, “Mamn, what were you doing at the Wakonda Country Club?”

“I was attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of Karl Rove, your honor,” Shaw answered.

“Well,” the judge looked up and said, “it’s about time.”

Here is what bothers me, the American people are entirely sick of the Bush Administration and of the Republican party. They know how badly the policies and politics of this party have hurt the country. Unfortunately, we have a modern press discourse which wants to completely ignore this. They want this election to be about the petty issues or about how the completely fictitious "Real Americans" (as conceived of by David Broder and the rest of the pundit class thinks) are looking at this election. It is this power of the media, their ability to set the agenda for the election, that matters and how it might ultimately doom us all.

Feeling Despondent

I think it is time to talk me off of the ledge, as I think I am about to lose it. I have spent some time watching and reading about the latest press coverage of the 2008 election and I am losing all hope that this race will be covered with the type of care and thought that we deserve. This past couple of weeks, we have been treated to stories that defy reason. The talking heads debated whether Obama just hates the troops or REALLY hates the troops, whether he is arrogant, whether he is playing the race card and whether he is an elitist.

In general, I try to avoid all of this and am really fortunate that I live without a television. But, it is unavoidable to completely sequester myself from all of this crap. Whenever, I do see this stuff, I feel incredibly disconnected from all of it. As I view this election, I see a candidate (McCain) who cannot feasibly win and this is without considering the 'image stuff' (i.e. that he is old and awkward). He shouldn't be anywhere close to Obama when you look at the policies he is advocating and how poorly thought out they are and/or unrealistic to carry out. For instance, his expressed belief that he will balance the budget by winning the war in Iraq, his unrealistic belief that we can secure Afghanistan AND Iraq at the same time with troops that appear out of thin air, his advocating a gas tax, as well as offshore oil drilling, that will do nothing for the American consumer and his absolute refusal to consider the economic hardships that most Americans face. Furthermore, he is running with the legacy of the most incompetent presidency of all time and with a party that has shown itself to be inequipped to run the country.

Of course, I think that the Obama campaign must share a modicum of the blame here- but on the whole, I believe that it is the sheer incompetency of the 'new' press (by this I mean the press, as it has come to operate since the inception of Fox News) which shoulders the lion's share of the blame. They behave like children with undiagnosed ADHD and will focus on whatever shiny thing is laid out in front of them, they offer judgment on the issues by not offering judgment and they will debate, endlessly, any talking point which is shoved in their face.

That is all, time to get off of the ledge.

Short and sweet

Nicely done.

Always bad news for Obama

I read this Kos diary and thought "Wow. A seven point lead in the latest CNN poll is great news for Obama. He has a substantial lead over McCain".

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?

Paging Maureen Dowd

I wonder if she and the rest of the commentariat will breathlessly write about how McCain is an out of touch pretty boy since he wears $520 shoes (to put that number in context, that is more than what my wife and I spend in a month on groceries). I think we all remember how the traditional press behaved when they found out that John Edwards got a $400 haircut and even then it made sense. In a time where politics is largely driven by image- you need to look good for the cameras. McCain's shoes, however, are not often going to be seen when he gives an interview- which seems incredibly indulgent.

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.

Over and over and over and over again

On the very same day that we find out that the Bush Administration behaved criminally in their politicization of the Justice Department, we find that the Department of Homeland Security will be heightening our terror alert status over the next couple of months. As Josh Marshall writes, the reason for the change in alert status is pretty simple:

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.