Tuesday, July 31, 2007

John Edwards: The Angry American

Windham, NH -

The address for today's house party, the last of four campaign stops for John Edwards, was 2 Camelot Road. Fitting for a young candidate with a loving wife and a couple of cute youngsters in tow. Sitting down in one of the many folded chairs laid out in concentric circles in the backyard of our host, I saw to the left of me a well-manicured lawn befitting the country club a half mile away and to the right of me a brush pile below an oak tree and a big old red wooden barn. Welcome to Southern New Hampshire, where old New England meets New Suburbia. It was also an interesting placement for the man who has touted the occurrence of Two Americas. I'll tell you about my two Americas - the barn and woods America that Washington has long since forgotten about, and the cul-de-sac and new car American that prevails throughout. I digress.

The yard sat at the bottom of a steep, landscaped hill marked with a feeble brick path cutting through the bark dust. As per the usual campaign stop fanfare, I expected Senator Edwards to come hopping through the screen door at the back of the house. Instead he casually stepped down the path and walked directly into the center of the seating arrangement. This was the Democratic party's latest Vice Presidential candidate, but there was no booming theme song blasting through stand-up speakers. Shocking, in fact, considering the inseparable bond created between John Edwards and John Mellencamp just three short years ago. No, this time it was just a man in blue jeans (Levi's, size 34-32), a blue button up shirt, a Livestrong band and running watch on his left wrist, and brown shoes squinting into the distance while the party host read some brief biographical remarks about Edwards.

As soon as John took over the microphone he touted the four things that were most important to him as a Presidential candidate. First was to fix what's wrong with Washington. "It is rigged," he said, against the people. Populists, perk up your ears. He claimed that the insurance, drug and oil industries are embedded in the system to keep people from getting what they need in favor of the powerful and money hungry lobbies. Much like terrorists (my metaphor, not his), he went on to say, there is no negotiating with these guys. They only understand bullying, which is what they have been doing to the people for years. Meanwhile, he made the point that "we need universal health care. It is the only answer." The two points he touted from his plan were the need to give mental health as much importance as physical health, and the ability to take health care with you if you move or leave your job. In a jab against Hillary, he insisted that changing one insider for another is not going to change the way things have been done for years. Edwards, though, will fight. Edwards the everyman. Edwards the heavy hitter.

After softening up the big bullies Edwards moved on to his second priority, the climate crisis. He restated the party line that we have to dramatically cut our carbon emissions, and glossed over the workings of the cap-and-trade mechanism with which to do so. Similar to Chris Dodd, he emphasized that the proceeds from a carbon auction would go to help transform the rest of the America into a more sustainable place. He, almost reluctantly, closed with his new tagline that America needs to be patriotic about something other than war.

His third point was to touch on the economic disparity here in America. As Edwards put it, we have 2 Americas - the super wealthy who have tax breaks and offshore accounts, and then everyone else. This time his Two Americas notion seemed to try to distance himself from the role of a class warrior. He wasn't saying rich and poor, instead talking about super rich. Maybe that is what you have to do to differentiate between his $30 million and the $31 that presumably marks the boundaries between Two Americas. He said he would push for a $9.50 Federal minimum wage, and talked about bolstering the strength of unions in America that have been weakened lately, and of a Federal program to match the savings of middle class Americans to create incentive for them to earn capital and bootstrap themselves into a less anxious financial state.

That's when the going got weird. Edwards' fourth priority was to end the damage done by the Bush Presidency and do some good in the world. 1st day - close Guantanamo, putting him at direct odds with Mitt Romney. He said the same thing about stopping torture before pausing, placing his hand on his forehead and saying, "what a sad sate of affairs" we have that we "even need to talk about torture" when running for President. He spoke briefly of AIDS and Darfur genocide before telling us that the only way change will happen is if we all do it together. The civil rights movement started, he said, in communities just like this. So did the movement to end Vietnam, and to end the war in Iraq. He tried to incense the crowd to move and shake, but it was clear he had other things on his mind. Earlier, he had mentioned that he wanted to tell a story that would tie a lot of these things together, and in a lot of ways it seemed like he was just trying to get through the stump speech (which, admittedly, was relatively short) in order to call forth the anecdote.

At that point Edwards moved forcefully into his clear strength. He rhetorically asked the audience if he could tell a story about a man he met on his recent poverty tour. This fellow, he told us, was born with a cleft palate. Due to the severity of the condition and a lack of insurance to pay for an operation to fix it, the guy was unable to speak for much of his life. Edwards continued to gain more and more passion as the story went on. Although the man was unable to speak for much of his life, he was very proud of his new found ability to talk. And then, the clincher. Edwards told us that the man was 51 years old. Yet he had just gained the ability to speak one year ago, at age 50. "Outrageous!" Edwards claimed, that we can live in a country where a man can go fifty years without the ability to talk strictly due to his poverty and lack of available health care. Truly. Stories like this are so visceral, so shocking, so harmonious to the heart strings that even my callous, grizzled mug was pushed to the brink of tears.

But sympathy was not the only emotion on stage. In fact, as Edwards passionate oratory roared in scorn toward the system it became clear that anger and outrage were the stars. Bleeding heart liberal may be a derogatory term among the right, but the blood here was fiery red. Everything started to swirl in my head: the squinting, almost impatient look on the former Senator's face during introductions; the impatient stump speech; the incredulity toward the current administration. What we had here was no ordinary man. It was a man on a mission.

Here Edwards moved to the crowd for some Q&A. No doubt he counted on some questions about health care, education and immigration. What he didn't count on was the twisted vibe that had no overtaken the entire crowd. After a question about labor protection, John was asked about immigration. He more or less gave a standard answer until the final part where he demanded that illegal immigrants looking for citizenship learn English. Classic New Hampshire, the crowd roared in approval in one of the few applause-inducing lines of the night. Edwards then spoke to school choice within a public system, touting magnet and charter schools for poor cities. But to close it off, he mentioned that under performing schools should have an "education SWAT team" sent to them in order to fix it. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Without the specifics I'll keep my questions to a minimum, but the line gave me a verrrry NCLB feeling and I didn't like it.

But right as I was trying to get over the SWAT team, Edwards called on a fat Hispanic man sitting about five seats away from me wearing a makeshift Kerry/Edwards shirt. The man stood up, told of his allegiance to the 2004 ticket, his 40-year citizenship, and his desire to ask two questions at once. After about 90 seconds of rambling - first about predatory lenders and then about a Bush/Cheney 2004 conspiracy - it became abundantly clear that this guy was nuts Edwards realized this, and implored the man to get around to asking the question. It didn't work. Edwards cut in again, but to no avail. Finally, John Edwards drew forth his wrath and told the man, "why don't you sit down and listen to me!" to which the man replied, sounding an awful lot like Milton Waddams, "don't tell me what to do John." Halfway through this exchange, a few trickles of rain began to fall.

It was surreal. Everyone in the crowd wanted this guy to shut up, and simultaneously sat at the edge of our seats wondering what was going to happen next. Would this fat man rush John Edwards? Would Edwards eat this poor crazy man's lunch? Would the question ever end? After some terse words, the supporter finally ceased his babble. Edwards acknowledged (much to my surprise) his questions, stating that he wanted a full investigation into Ohio back in 2004, then approached the man and shook his hand, thanking him for his concern.

The next question came about Edwards' housing policy for the homeless and poor, to give federal housing grants that they might move to better places. But it wasn't so simple. The questioner prefaced her question with a long story about a specific homeless shelter for women in Washington, DC, continuing on and on about it's successes. Emboldened and fired up by Edwards actions, the crowd began to heckle her. "Hurry up, we all have questions, too!" one woman shouted. "Use the microphone! It's not an ice cream cone!" suggested the pro-union man standing next to her. The hyenas were unleashed!

To follow that up was a question from a woman who sounded very scared and confused, wondering if the conspiracy theories were true, that the government knew the true cause of autism. John Edwards could only politely say that he doubted such claims. Now the rain was really threatening.

Fortunately, a staffer chimed in from the back that Edwards could only take one more question. It was a softball, allowing him to toss out a few red meat Cheney jokes. At that point he asked us for our vote and thanked us for coming. As is customary a few people approached for a handshake, but what I hadn't seen before was the matinee pin-up factor. Handfuls of middle aged women rushed the stage, awkwardly clutching their digital cameras and hollering at young John Edwards for a photo with his arm around them. He consistently obliged, creating an almost circus-like scene. These women continued to ask for pictures, all the while blurting out their indiscreet romantic desires. Meanwhile, everyone started barking out questions, and Edwards acknowledged them all, often scolding them to wait their turn. Realizing the cranky mood, I merely jammed my hand into the fray, thanked him for coming with only a handshake and no words in return. His handshake was firm. The firmest, in fact, of all the candidates to date. But it was not as firm as his glare.

It was his glare that stuck in my mind, the way he looked around shooting down questions and the way he looked when he was talking about the 50 year old man without speech. It was the look of a man who had just spent four days in some of the poorest cities in America. It was the look of a man who announced his candidacy from the Eighth Ward in New Orleans. It was the look of a man who was mad as hell, and wasn't gonna take it anymore. Will America?

As my boy Toby Keith, a fellow angry American once said:
Ohhh Justice will be served /And the battle will rage / This big dog will fight / When you rattle his cage / And you'll be sorry that you messed with The U.S. of A. / 'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass / It's the American way

Sure, they're different battles, but I still think that "they" had better watch out for a focused boot one of these days. Sooner rather than later.

.....

But I must conclude with Happy 30th Anniversary wishes for John and Elizabeth. Here's to 30 more! Now, is it ironic that they dine each year at Wendy's restaurant, known to be the most conservative, environmentally unsound, anti-choice of all fast food eateries? Hell no. They make a damn good Spicy Chicken Sandwich. Mmmmm, delicious.



Please also see my initial John Edwards post, one of the first ever on 3Q.

Accountability Moment

I have no idea exactly what this guy is talking about since I don't read DailyKos and I don't listen to Bill O'Reilly, but I think it is in everyone's best interest to check out this story. Any time the loofah thing can be rehashed is a good time.

Notably, read here and here.

I will close with the following excerpt. PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT CONTENT
"During the course of Defendant Bill O'Reilly's sexual rant, it became clear that he was using a vibrator upon himself, and that he ejaculated. Plaintiff was repulsed."

Thompson Disappoints

By all accounts it seems that Fred Thompson, conservative darling and Presidential flirt, isn't as big of a draw as well all expected him to be. The latest reports show that Fred raised $3.4M in June, putting him on pace for what would have been just over $10M for the quarter and well short of the $5M the campaign was expecting. His supporters are still making excuses that he will raise money in earnest once he officially enters the race, which of course begs the question, why doesn't he just enter the damned race? Whatever, I still think he'll be exposed as a Charlatan soon after he gets his feet wet.

Corruption's Last Frontier

Give 'em the boot!

I know this has nothing to do with the 2008 Presidential election, but yesterday's news that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' home was being raided by the Feds to investigate the taking of bribes from VECO Corporation in cahoots with his son brought a little warmth to Quabbin Qountry (and how! It's like 95 today). Turns out that Alaska Congressman Don Young is the focus of a similar investigation for taking bribes from the same corporation as his colleague.

Keep in mind, this is the same state where outgoing Senator Frank Murkowski (in a seat he wrestled away from Mike Gravel on Reagan's 1980 coattails) appointed his daughter Lisa to his expiring seat when he was elected governor in 2002. He appointed his daughter!

Now Stevens, you will recollect, is the same schmuck who tried to hijack a Hurricane Katrina relief and Iraq troop appropriations bill by attaching a provision to open drilling in ANWR. The tactic was so slimy that even Joe Liebermann voted against the funding! Senator Ted also developed a fierce rivalry with Senator Maria Cantwell over ANWR, and brought his sleazy gang down to Seattle to fundraise for Mike McGavick's unsuccessful bid to unseat her. Now I'm no huge fan of Cantwell, but the chutzpah that Stevens showed in waltzing down the Gulf of Alaska into Puget Sound country was abominable. I don't think your Incredible Hulk tie will help you now, Steve-o.

Monday, July 30, 2007

I Don't Want to Go To...

After reading today's Times article about Chelsea C. I had to fiercely battle my inner demons not to write some wrathfully mocking recap. But hey, at least she kept entry-level tickets to the ballet at a very pedestrian 75 bucks a pop...Okay, I can't hold my tongue. How fitting is it that the potential First Hedge Fund Baby is about to get hitched to the son of a crook whose Congressman father tried to plead insanity via Malaria drugs to beat prison? If things don't work out, tell Chels that the Quabbin Blogger is always potentially single and, while my lovin' comes with a lot of perks, money and a HRC vote aren't two of them.

3Q on Facebook

As many of you know, we recently started a facebook group for the Quabbin Qountry Queries (check here for details). I just wanted to toss down a quick post to acknowledge a small milestone - our 100th member. Thanks to everyone who has joined, now please don't leave and embarrass me. Keep up the feedback on the comment pages, and like we always said at Morgan School, (3Q) Readers are Leaders! Tell your friends, and keep your eyes on the trail.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Dynasty

A couple days ago, WP's Channel 08 posted this youtube video on it's blog. I have publicly stated my aversion to American political dynasties ever since the 1999 primary season. Don Swayze trying to ride Patrick's coattails is one thing, but gaining office on the name recognition of your father, husband, mother or brother is another story all together.


If I may paraphrase the great Norm MacDonald in my philosophical ponderings: now who could possibly be responsible for the absurd idea of American Monarchy? You guessed it...Frank Stallone.

Monday, July 23, 2007

YouTube Debate, part 4

Richardson gets some applause for calling out GOP for suppressing minority voters.

Don't like the Biden video.

A BOEING commercial? WTF?

Kuci brings back his house in Cleveland.

The thing I like about Richardon's health care talk is that he mentions widespread issues more than anyone else, like diabetes, autism, etc.

Obama also with the personal story. Looks like the strategists are getting through. A lot of applause.

Edwards on the attack some more, closes with a bigtime story, shows his fiery passion.

HRC writes down everyone's name who asked the question, then repeats them for America. Well done.

Yes!!! Someone asks about the Bush-Clinton dynasty! Oohh, she answers it well, though, pushing it on Bush and backing Al Gore.
Thanks to Gravel for taking issue with it.

Biden - "I tell you what, if those are his babies, he needs help." Wooo!

Obama's video - also very good.

Edwards - "I don't like your jacket." Some good ol' zings!

Holy shit, Biden! Biden!!!

YouTube Debates, part 3

Bill Richardson is really getting the shaft here, and Kuci is in a big lull. I don't think I've heard them in twenty minutes.

Sure enough, here he is, reiterating the differences between him and "the Senators." After being mocked for saying "I'm a Governor" too often last time, it looks like he is just shifting the frame. Uh oh, Biden just called him a Senator.

Biden again dropping the IED stuff. "How in good conscience can you vote not to send those vehicles over there?"

Kucinich now attacking Obama, telling him that you can't say you have been against the war the whole time when you vote to pay for it. Damn, I think Biden and Kucinich would fight if they were in a room together.

I dunno about Richardon's commercial. It didn't give him enough face time. He was chuckling at it, though.

"Everyone on the stage voted for NCLB." - Anderson. Bam. Biden sounds sick to his stomach.

Maria: "Is this guy stoned, or what?" regarding the public school or private school guy.

Booo! HRC is full of shit!
Obama says it well that a Senator can get his kids into a good public or private school, but he is concerned about people who can't afford it.

Edwards talking about teaching his kids about "bad touching" is kind of an awkward moment.

The AL Gore Hicks from TN just took over from the NCLB song for the best questioners.

Cooper - "Are you fellow candidates green enough?" Kuci - "No."

Gravel makes an interesting point, talking about shifting the tax structure from an income tax to a sales tax. Everything he says is controversial. "I took the train. And the bus" Yes!

I like how Richardson tried to trick Cooper by not raising his hand because he didn't take a private jet "tonight" he took it yesterday. It was more of a joke, then a deceit. Hooray for jokes.

YouTube Debates, part 2

Wow, the Edwards campaign video just gave me chills. I'll be shocked if it can be topped.

Richardson did well to tell a story to start off his Darfur answer with a story.

Joe Biden the world policeman. "Where we can, America must." "They think we can save them, and we can."

Both of my debate party mates just said of Hillary, "I don't think I've ever seen her smile."

Richardson - "The lives of our young troops are more importantly than George Bush's legacy" "This war is a quagmire, its endless and the time has come to bring the troops home."

Gravel - "has it been fair thus far?" chirp...chirp...but then he goes on to talk about Baskin-Robbins in Hanoi and compares US wars to nothing but commerce building.

Obama bring more of the pre-Iraq pain to HRC, "the time to ask how to get out of Iraq was before we got in."

I really think Hillary is rattled. She isn't the same as she was in the past.

She did do well to finish her answer about being a woman President to the Middle East: "It would be quite appropriate to have a woman represent the United States." to those nations.

YouTube Debates

This is mostly for 3Q Superfan Jon Kraus, who can't watch from Montreal. Anyway, wanna hear what I think in real time? Read on!


HRC - Liberal means for freedom. Since has been turned on its head. "I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning."

Edwards did well to say that we have to take the power away from the powerful.
"we can't trade our insiders for their insiders." Gold.

Dodd video a little questionable. Too much of a ripoff of Richardson.

Wow, Kucinich just came out saying that he is for slavery reparations.

Obama nailed the one-liner part of the race question - how do you respond to the attacks that you aren't black enough: "when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan..."

Edwards: Anyone who won't vote for Barack because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman, I don't want your vote...he's rockin' it tonight.

I like how Dodd sneaks in some props to New Hampshire in the gay marriage question.

Richardson getting applause for taking down Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Dr. K & Dr. No

Just wanted to post this excerpt from Sunday's Times Magazine story on Ron Paul:

The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin. Paul had only two prominent backers: the tax activist Steve Forbes and the pitcher Nolan Ryan, Paul's constituent and old friend, who cut a number of ads for him. They were enough. Paul edged Laughlin in a runoff and won an equally narrow general election.

Wow, I wish youtube was around back in '96. Imagine a campaign commercial with Nolan Ryan and Teve Torbes.

Guest Blogger - MP Nettleton

An Obama Primer
by Matt Nettleton


His short time in the Senate shows Barack Obama to be a solid liberal. This website fleshes out where he stands on the issues. For the most part, he is in line with how we think. While at that site, make sure you scroll to the bottom where there is a grid plotting each politician's overall viewpoint. Obama actually has the same plot point as Kucinich, which is not quite as far left as Edwards, but way more left than Gore. Pretty interesting. I'll have to go back and see what is bogging down Kuci's leftiness.
Anyway, moving forward, like I mentioned before, Obama's youth spent organizing hints at progressive instincts. He didn't exactly grow up rich either. Per this article in yesterday's Washington Post, it appears he hasn't left these concerns behind.

Another reason I like Obama is the fact that his dad was born a Muslim and that Barack grew up partly in a Muslim country, which should help the US image with moderate Muslims. And the fact that Barack is connected to his Kenyan heritage should win us friends among common Africans, which would be great because currently China is doing a lot of sucking up on that continent (at least to those in power).
Further, I think electing a black President might even invigorate the blacks in our country who feel disenfranchised (see New Orleans, elections in Florida, etc). It would help globally too, because the Soviets published a lot of propaganda about the US keeping black folks down. No doubt these thoughts must linger in some corners of the world.
A pet issue of mine is campaign finance reform. His website doesn't have much on the subject, but I think he'd support tighter soft money laws if Congress could push them through. A quick google search shows that he did make some statements that he would use only public funding if the Republican candidate pledged to do the same in the general election. A little weak sauce, but at least talking about it. He's pushed some other non-money voting bills, though - mostly stuff on making it illegal to use deceptive ads. And I think as far as democracy goes, you have to like the extent of his grassroots fundraising. I give him a C+ on this subject, but elections devoid of big money will probably never exist in this country since the Supreme Court would overturn such a law. Sidenote: did you know that former Nebraska senator Tom Osborne - yes, the legendary Cornhusker head football coach - lost his reelection campaign in part because he refused to accept donations over $1000? His opponent, who was far behind in the polls at first, kept the big money coming in, and was able to pull off the upset, no doubt due in part to immense advertising. I guess it really is low money mo problems in politics.
Then we have the environment. His website again doesn't say much. I think the reason why is that Illinois has a ton of coal (another sidenote: for a great book that takes place in the coal towns of Illinois, try The Eighth Day by Thornton Wilder). My guess is Obama doesn't want to upset anyone in his home state (which is a little lame because I doubt he needs southern ILL to carry the state). One telling story on this, though: a few weeks ago, he drew up a bill to increase funding to research clean coal in Illinois. He got a lot of flack from the Sierra Club, and actually voted AGAINST his own bill. Overall, his enviromental voting record isn't great, but he's still on the left - at least looking at some of his votes on http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm. And with a (hopefully) Democratic Congress in 2008, I think the country will move ahead environmentally and push Obama even more in that direction.
My bottom line on Obama: like Bill Clinton, Barack doesn't want to alienate business too much. I'm not totally against him. Do we want stagnant economies like those in Europe? That said, a strong economy should help everyone, which hasn't been happening. I think based on his comments about poverty, Barack would move towards this. He's also for repealing the tax cuts and keeping the estate tax (which he cleverly terms the Paris Hilton tax), which are important steps to equalizing America. He'll end the war, give the US a fresh face abroad, and move towards better access to healthcare . And, then, like I said before, he is Hollywood's guy, which means he'll be a liberal: you never bite the hand that feeds you. In closing, he's kind of stiff and pompous, but I think he'd be a good choice for President. My big worry about him is that his inexperience will rear its head in picking a high level advisor who will do something stupid thinking he could pull the wool over Obama's eyes or picking some newby unfamiliar with arcane procedures, and bring some sort of corruption charges on the administration. That's why I think he needs an experienced guy like Biden, Dodd, or Panetta as his running mate more than a token military or southern guy (not that I'd be against such a choice).


About the Author:
Matt Nettleton is an Americorps volunteer in Alabama, focusing on preparing small businesses for natural or man-made disasters. He is currently assigned to the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Alma mater: Westech '03
Hometown: Stratford, CT
Career Highs: 25 points, 11 boards, 6 assists, 9 turnovers.

3Q Straw Poll

Get off your Duff and vote! I have a counter now, so I know that you aren't voting. Yes, you. Also, my apologies for the really long posts below this one. Stay tuned for lighter fare in the future.

Informed Consent

Informed Consent.

That is how our host and moderator, Ron Suskind, described our method of democracy. The public, informed with appropriate knowledge about the candidates, will consent to the judgment of their leaders to make the decisions that will govern our nation. Ideally, the founders hoped that the decisions to grant this consent would be made with reason. The best candidate, in possession of strong leadership qualities and in tune with our values, will head our government based upon this hope. But as Suskind notes (and as I am also finding out in Drew Westen's The Political Brain), humans often make their decisions based in emotion and anger. Suskind went on to reiterate that the role of the media is to attempt to present information to the public so that they may make a well-informed decision. This is especially true for the political media.

He then told a few stories about how easily things can be misinterpreted when presented en masse. Notably, he recounted the Dean Scream episode of Iowa, 2004. Calling it “an issue of his microphone,” Suskind talked about how that night, after losing Iowa in an upset, Vermont Governor Howard Dean was addressing supporters in a loud, crowded auditorium. The noise level and excitement live in the gym were unmistakable, yet from watching news clips one would never know. Dean was using a new type of microphone intended to cut out ambient background noise. So for those people who were fifteen rows back from the stage, the so-called “Dean Scream” was almost inaudible. But for those people tuned into the FOX News, it sounded like a crazy man screaming out loud to himself. Last I checked, there must have been tens of millions more people watching on television. As Suskind put it, because of a mostly unreported microphone issue, “from then on it was RIP for Dean…A wildly unrepresented nugget, borne of technology essentially crucified him.”

So can the media represent the true goings-on of the march to the nomination? Suskind mentioned that there are “enormous issues we face now in ‘08: al Qaeda, Iraq. Will we follow reason?” He then posed the following question to the panel:

In your role as an intermediary on informed consent, what do you most hope for? What do you most fear?

The panelists' answers all tended to address the need to portray specialized information without being too sensational, especially when it comes to giving excessive amounts of press to youtube flavors of the week. Walter Shapiro in particular brought up an interesting point about the need for journalists to, in essence, tell readers something about the person who is in line to be the next President that has predictive power about how he will behave in office. He then goes on to take some responsibility for being suckered into believing Bush’s “compassionate conservative” motto on the 863rd time he heard it. He also mentioned that he feared that, in the future, the primary “calendar will go Iowa, New Hampshire and then bedlam” followed by nine months of buyer’s remorse before the general election due to the lack of access to the candidates and little time to adjust to information post-New Hampshire.

Tumulty noted the increase in now-style journalism, creating a need for journalists to finish stories under overwhelmingly short deadlines. Instead of chewing on a story for a week and really checking facts, too often the media is forced to slam out a story in one night just to beat everyone else to the scoop. In my brief time here at 3Q, I can vouch for the difficulty of putting out something of high quality versus the strain of wanting to put it out instantly for all the laptop quick-click combatants in the blogosphere who are constantly waiting for some new chunk of news to satisfy their political dopamine requirements. Lucky for me, no one reads my blog. But I still act like they do. Dammit, I always will!

Suskind then discussed the weakened role of the press these days. Weakened as a result of one big, fat, ugly word: Message. He called the use of spin, message and marketing “the dark arts” and told a story relayed to him by fabled political reporter Walter Pincus about how, long ago, corporations didn’t distribute message until after their products were examined. Same went for politicians. Now it is fed to us as the standard before we have a clue what to think. Pincus also told him that, “back in 1974 we didn’t have a slug everyday called POTUS. Most days he didn’t do anything interesting.” This apparently changed with President Reagan (no surprise) who did something every day just to get out message about himself, whether it was to cut a ribbon at an opening or make a brief statement to the press to get his mug on the nightly news.

Suskind went on to say, half seriously, that a “journalist’s goal is to fight message. Their (the campaign staff) goal is to kill them.” He continued with the Bush example, “compassionate conservative. What a line, ingenious. In fact, a lie!” He went on to say that message intends to provoke a question. “The challenge of these people,” Suskind then said as he pointed to the panel, “is to punch through message.”

Question two asked the members to give some rules of the game to punch through message.

The panel all had interesting things to say about this question, and really how could they not? Busting through message is the true joy of reporting. People become journalists, I imagine, because they want to tell people the truth, and nothing is more gratifying about truth than when it doubles as calling people on their bullshit. David Chalian established the importance of really dissecting the message to figure out what it is, and matching it with the facts. Unfortunately, he notes due to the importance of timeliness in today’s media world, “we’ve basically outsourced our research to the campaigns.” David Mark added insightfully that a crucial way to break down message is to repeatedly ask questions about their message. Even if you can’t make them answer questions, he pointed out, you can show that they won’t answer, especially if you are specific. Tumulty and Walker continued on Chalian’s theme that “truth spotting” was key in fighting message, and again expressed worry that such an integral journalistic pillars as fact checking is slowly going the way of the buffalo.

Finally, Suskind presented the scary idea that, “the leadership of this great nation will be determined by a 3am half truth.” This is the implication that a half-asleep, overworked, message conscious politician will ultimately be derailed not by his or her policy stances, but instead by a misconstrued or exaggerated story told to a reporter late in the night on a cross-country campaign flight. Imagine Al Gore and the internet. Suskind then said how a campaign aide once told him that when it comes to negative attacks, “we look for things that are a little bit false, but hard to prove false. These things move, and we can get 3-4 days of making opponent defend himself.” Imagine Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Suskind, whose voice sounds like a calm version of Lewis Black, then stated, “I can say with almost 100% surety that there will be at least one Swift Boat type thing this time around.”

Question three: How do we avoid being manipulated? Avoid the little salacious truths?
What feeds informed consent? Will it be the little things that we bicker about, or the bigger truths? How do we guide to the bigger truths?

In this instance, the panel made a strong shift toward the John Edwards haircut flap. Was it just manipulation by rival campaigns and Republicans to show the guy as a reckless fop? Or is it a harbinger of something more serious. The journalists theorized that even in instances like this, a bigger truth may come out. Mark notes that how candidates manage their campaigns can be a sign of how they will run the oval office, and can give a sense of how careful things are scrutinized. Shapiro reiterated this notion when he said, “in further defense of Edwards on the haircut, what clearly happened was a muchkin paid for it with the wrong credit card. The bigger thing is that the people who scrutinized didn’t catch it and undo it.” Unfortunately, everyone got caught up in Haircutgate for this question, and nothing much was said outside of the discussion that a good Presidential candidate will run a good campaign, and not allow the little things to take over, ironically, their message.

At this point, the audience took over the duty of asking questions from Ron Suskind. This group of mostly older, highly in-tune voters, really only wanted to know about second tier candidates, with the exception of the seersucker man I mentioned earlier, who only wanted to excoriate Dick Cheney. This lack of faith in the media by the truly hardcore mostly made for a defensive stance by the journalists, imploring the audience to believe that they, too care to present the possibility of a 5% poller becoming better known to the electorate en route to victory, but that the frontrunners and such for a reason, and therefore need the spotlight, too. With time running out, and presumably a cocktail hour to attend, the moderator closed off debate with a closing statement that rehashed the themes of the afternoon, and ultimately asked the question: “Can truth triumph?”

I shut off my computer, hoping to save at least twenty minutes of battery in the event of an outlet-free coffee shop, and meandered up to the stage to listen in as a few stragglers asked the journalists more detailed questions about specific candidates, and they told a few more war stories and gave their insider opinion. After a while, I became too confused as I challenged myself to listen to three conversations at once. Why was the Biden supporter talking about Mike Huckabee’s chances? Or was someone telling a Joe Liebermann story from 2004, and if so why did Ron Paul’s name come up? So many stories, so much truth, so little time. Can truth triumph? I don’t know, but I think the best person to ask is a guy who lives somewhere above your legs and below your shoulders. He’s called your gut.




The quasi-transcript that is my notes from the event can be seen in the post below.

Reporting on Reporting: Ruff Cut

I should have posted this much earlier, but here are my notes from the political media forum at Dartmouth last week. If you are a poli-dork, you may find this useful, otherwise please don't read. Note: the words below are some mixture of paraphrase, summary and direct quotation. Do not take as pure fact.

---------------------------------

In your role as an intermediary on informed consent. What do you most hope for? What do you most fear? Read below for my notes on the respondents answers.

DC:

Hope: take these 17 candidates, try to show audience who they are, what makes them tick, where they want to take the country, stance on issues

Fear: youtube videos can get in the way (can add) fears the balance will shift toward

DW: illuminate what happens behind the scenes that candidates don’t want people to see, try to explain it

Fear – the trend where campaigns create ads to leak to media but not run on tv free buzz & media. Be careful and discerning about what is a legit ad.

WS – trying to bring old media values to internet. Simple goals – tell readers something about the person who is next president that has predictive power about how he will behave in office. Useful info to predict who will win. Press fails terribly in that. Takes some responsibility for not showing how conservative Bush would be in 2000. Fell for Compassionite Conservatism on the 863rd time he said it.

Fear – loves the NH primary, “fears the calendar will go Iowa, NH, and then bedlam” People will Choose a candidate with no thought, no deliberation, no time to adjust to info post-NH. Followed by 9 months of buyers remorse with little or no access to the candidates. Bad for democracy

KT – economic reality of the business. Time is half the size it was in 2000. Cites lack of bureaus both there and at the Globe. Recently wrote a story about Obama telling constituencies things they didn’t like to hear. Used to have a week for it, now needs to do it in one day sometimes.

RW – able to compile a lot of information about each candidate, all the votes, all the money, all the ads. Internet can offer those goodies as well as long form reporting.

Fear – the pack journalism and intensity to get a story can create bad judgment by writers. Cites the Hilary ’84 video, says all the energy who went into that could have been better used doing actual reporting.

Suskind – the enemy (politicians) knows that we (the press) are weakened. The giant word “message” is debilitating to the press. Back in the day, Walter Pincus said, corporate didn’t give message until after. (Now they do it before). Calls it the dark arts.

Pincus - In 1974 we didn’t have a slug everyday called POTUS. Most days he didn’t do anyting interesting.

This changed in the 80s with Reagan. Did something silly every day just to get out message like cutting a ribbon or saying something on the lawn. President off message can be criticism.

Journalists goal is to fight message. Their goal is to kill them.

Compassionate conservative. What a line, ingenious. “In fact, a lie!”

Message tries to start the seedbed of a question. I call it a discipline punishment curve. Don’t talk to reporters without permission. Stay on message.

The challenge of these people (points to panel) is to punch through message.

Rules of the game to punch through message:

DC – start with message, useful to dissect what it is. What it is they are selling. Often we buy what we shouldn’t but mostly we pick it apart. Truth spotting – taking the rhetoric and matching it up with facts. Research shops have been gutted. “We’ve basically outsourced our research to the campaigns” There used to be robust orgs for truth spotting. Truth squadron

DM – following andidates repeatedly. Putting it on record that you are asking the questions. You can’t make them answer questions, but you can show that they won’t answer. Ask what their messages mean. Be specifici in questions.

WS – you have to remember how disciplined the candidates are. I talked to someone saying how galling it is to have only one minute, staffer said one minute answers keep the answers from being a bunch of soundbytes. Will not use material from a campaign about another candidate without being able to source it.

KM –truth squatting tends to go after little truths. She was the reporter to whom Gore claimed Love Story was about him. Less than one sentence in a 9-page story. More true than not true. Said in passing in a 3.5 hour interview But still created a media frenzy and marked his character. So horrified to see what can happen. Truth squatting another way of saying “gotcha”. Easy to get, anyone can get. If there are 4-5 journalists, it is useless for her to be there.

RW – a lot of campaigns run on leaking oppo research. News doesn’t do a good enough job of citing the sources. Swift Boat examples, thefact that there was a media storm to check facts only made the ads that much more important. Be careful not to be manipulated.

Suskind – the leadership of this great nation will be determined by a 3am half truth.

Campaign aide – we look for things that are a little bit false, but hard to prove false. These things move, can get 3-4 days of making opponent defend.

I can say with almost 100% surety that there will be at least one Swift Boat type thing this time around.

Sounds like Lewis Black.

How do we avoid being manipulated. Avoid the little salacious truths.

What feeds informed consent? The little things that we bicker about. Or the bigger truths.

How do we guide to the bigger truths?

DM – how candidates manage their campaigns can be a sign of how they will run the oval office. Can give a sense of how careful things are scrutinized.

WS – in further defense of Edwards on the haircut. What clearly happened was a muchkin paid for it with the wrong credit card. The bigger thing is that the people who scrutinized didn’t catch it and undo it.

Questions from the audience:

Where is the coverage of the 2nd tier?

DC - The process is driven by polling and money. I don’t think anyone has been uncovered to the point they would be invisible.

Geffen said Bill Clinton is reckless, won’t support Hillary. Is Bill as First Man a legitimate story?

KT – whenever I talke to democrats it doesn’t take long to get from Hillary to Bill.

DM – she is making Bill the centerpiece of her campaign. The coverage isn’t what he would do as first man, but rather how he is affecting the way her campaign is being run.

Back to the first question.

KT – Kuci is the only one advocating a single payer system, wants all the troops out immediately. Wants him there even though he can’t win.

WS – ranking candidates based on polls even though voters are saying they aren’t firm. Many things can happen. 6 months is a long time. Anyone who runs once and doesn’t come close renders himself a vanity candidate when he runs a second time.

DC – web and digital products drive broadcast themes, not vice versa.

KT - 2 things that drive up voter turnout – knowing it is a close race, or knowing that the two candidates are different and the vote makes a difference.

DM – responsibility lies with voters for being too lazy. Voting is relatively easy these days.

How often have you failed to report something because you feared something was too out of mainstream?

WS – more of a problem is people thinking I am not left enough, example giving the same coverage to Liebermann as Lamont. Danger these days to write something that doesn’t fit talking points.

DM – too often people think journalists have an agenda, really they just want to put out the best product.

Suskind

Can truth triumph?

Friday, July 20, 2007

Pride and Poise

I fully realize that I bailed on that McCain article I promised about a week or so ago. I did a lot of thinking about it and I set up the links that I wanted to use, but by the time I got around to writing it, the issue was pretty well kicked. Not to mention my theory that McCain was done for and would potentially drop out of the race by July's end was all but squashed by everyone and their brother. Well, maybe not the Five Brothers. This viewpoint was just reiterated in Jonathan Martin's GOP blog on The Politico. He reports that McCain has released a 7-page memo about his latest campaign strategy - some magical combination of "living off the land" to preserve funds and adopting Al Davis' motto of "Just win, Baby!" Yes! Now that is a strategy that we can believe in here at 3Q, as long as it includes building fires with flint stones and using pine boughs as mattresses.




Entirely unrelated, but speaking of the Five Brothers, is this Craig Romney or Max Piana?
Yet more unrelated news, boy am I getting old. It was an ugly day down at Holyoke's Ashlie Reservoir.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Reporting on Reporting

Hanover, NH -

We are live blogging from Dartmouth College's Silsby Hall here in the upper Connecticut Valley on a dark, wet afternoon. Apparently they have wireless internet in college classrooms these days. I feel so old. I didn't even have a cell phone in college, and correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe wireless internet had been invented.

Today's panel discussion, Reporting on the Primaries: There Has to Be a Better Way to Pick a President, is hosted by Ron Suskind and Linda Fowler and features the following panelists: David Chalian, ABC News; David Mark, The Politico; Walter Shapiro, Salon; Karen Tumulty, Time; and Russ Walker, washingtonpost.com.

It is scheduled to start in about five minutes. Back with more as the talking heads show up to their seats.

In the meantime, a fellow in a seersucker jacket behind me is bemoaning the lack of student presence in spite of some of the greatest journalists in the country. He counted one student - me. Looking around, there are a few more, but not even ten.

Recurring Brownback Bitch Slap

In the latest NH poll*, Senator Brownback has dropped from 2% in June to below 1% in July. Biblical prophesy states: the end is nigh.

What I find the most interesting about the poll isn't that McCain and Romney have traded places at virtually the same rate since February '05, nor is it that Giuliani has practically flatlined at 20% for two straight years aside from a few high 20s debate-fear-induced blips. Rather, it is that Duncan Hunter has been at ZERO for his entire candidacy. Are you telling me that these guys aren't supporting him? But I guess that is Duncan Hunter's biggest problem. In a state like New Hampshire, much of the pro-excessive force voting bloc is too often holed up in a tax-evading compound to vote in a Federal election. And of course, Tancredo has these guys locked up.

As I've predicted all along, Romney is a force. Maybe I'll ask some of the media wizards what they think of it later today. I'll be up in Hanover to listen to a slate of "all-star political journalists" talk about the primaries. Uhhhhh...jackpot!




* The official position here at 3Q is to pay no attention to poll when determining the true legitimacy of candidates. At times, though, they are very helpful.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Out-FOXed

There is an interesting article in the HuffPost today by Thomas Edsall about the amount of money the top three Democratic candidates took from FOX executives despite refusing to debate on that channel because of it's right wing views. While hardly the world's biggest jolt of hypocrisy, it certainly provides easy hate fodder if you are looking to pile on. Then again, I guess that $30+ Mil from Q2 doesn't grow on trees!

Monday, July 16, 2007

No Dodd-ling on Climate Change

Concord, NH -

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) was in the heart of Concord vegan country today, but to listen to his words it was clear that political vegetarians need not apply. The topic was energy policy, the scene was the NH Sierra Club headquarters, in a second floor office overlooking the sleepy mill-era brick facades of downtown Concord, and on the menu was a whole lotta red meat. Served rare, and char grilled to boot.

After Dodd blogger and fellow Wes '04er Matt Browner-Hamlin finished setting up the live streaming webcam for D-TV (no, not that D TV) and all the local environmental dignitaries found their places, the room settled in to a polite silence as Senator Dodd entered from stage right. His appearance was typically patrician - a dark navy suit with anchor-emblazoned buttons topped off by his signature slicked-back fine white hair. He clipped on his webcam mic, cracked a joke about Clinton and Edwards' mic awareness, and got to work. He spoke quickly and fiercely, rarely mincing words when it came to the road blocks of serious energy policy.

The first item of business, that which he believes best sets him apart from his peers, was the issue of a corporate carbon tax. Dodd couldn't go on enough about this policy tool. No other Democratic candidates will even say the "t-word", he claimed, and it is the only stick that will get us moving toward his 80% carbon reduction ideas in a timely fashion. He spoke of cap-and-trade in addition, but reiterated that the carbon tax was A-1 in mitigating global climate change.

Dodd suggested the revenues from the carbon tax would bring in some $50B, which would then be used for a number of mitigating factors. The money would hurry along sustainable technology, subsidize and incentivize the use of efficient technology by homeowners and small businesses, and help industry make the changes necessary to achieve the 80% reduction. He shushed the idea that a $50B tax increase was too high a burden on our nation. Instead, he would challenge anyone who to the notion that we are currently paying somewhere between $60B and $300B in taxes and revenues to countries who produce foreign oil. "Am I willing to go to the deli across the street and make the same case?" he asked, "I will and I have." It was the first time I had ever been to a campaign stop held specifically for an interest group so I wonder if Dodd really is that frank and fiery about climate change mitigation on a normal basis.

General carbon reduction wasn't his only topic. Referring to the critical notion that establishing a 50mpg CAFE standard is untenable, Dodd said the idea "that we can't do it is offensive to me. It insults my intelligence." He cited his wife's old 1983 Honda CRX's 43mpg efficiency rate and continued to say that doing this "may save the automobile industry" from foreign competition. He spoke often about the need for more transit, both to give people a chance not to drive and even to relieve the soon-to-be saturated continental airline routes.

More importantly, Dodd told the crowd to demand answers. Don't let the other candidates simply re-state the goals that we all agree with, like becoming more energy independent and reducing greenhouse gases. After closing his speech with his ability to reach out to people who disagree by mentioning the many GOP co-sponsors of his bills over the years (Orrin Hatch, Kit Bond, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Arlen Specter) he mused out loud, "I gotta learn to calm down." And how! Dodd's fiery rhetoric flowed naturally within the Sierra Club gathering, but to outsiders it likely would have smacked of the lofty oratory that only comes from years in the Senate. Dodd certainly had some good ideas, not the least of which was his claim to host a Kyoto-like summit in the US within the first 100 days of his Presidency to show the world we care about climate change, but the package was a little sharp.

If America is a toy consumer, today's package was closer to Johnny Switchblade Adventure Punk than it was to a Beanie Baby. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, of course. Chris Dodd, given all the legislative good he has done over the years, is about as far from Irwin Mainway as you can get. Who knows, maybe the American Public needs a nice romp with Bag o'Glass, after all, lest we all end up with the same fate as Johnny Human Torch.

Afterward I spoke with him about a mutual friend of ours, Chris Foster. Foster is Dodd's nephew and a former teammate of mine at Wesleyan. Dodd's eyes lit up when I mentioned the connection and had nothing but good things to say about both Foster and the Wesleyan team that ushered him in as a freshman back in '03. Respect to the Senator for recognizing that young and dirty '03 team that went something like this - Kiely, Bissell, King, Greeney, Battaglino, Brady, Foster. Future NESCAC and New England champs abound in those ranks!

Again, the webcast of the Dodd visit, potentially starring the back of my head (2nd row, next to the aisle) can be viewed on DTV:
http://www.chrisdodd.com/dtv

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Gilmore, We Hardly Knew Ye

Leverett, MA -

Seriously, we hardly knew ye. Who are ye? Well it doesn't really matter anymore, and it really isn't too big of a surprise that the former Old Dominion State governor is the first man down since Evan Bayh, and the second Presidential casualty of Virginia after Mark Warner (third if you count George Allen). Not to toot my own horn, but I did seed Gilmore #12 of 12 back in my GOP bracket in January. Our next article will examine the plight of top-seeded John McCain's bid for the presidency. Looking back, the top half of the bracket is in shambles. We can discuss that later. Happy Sunday from Cushman's.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

I

Although I frown on the term "blogosphere", I hereby submit that if 3Q were to take the form of one of the many elements in the blogosphere relative to our earth's atmosphere it would be Iodine. Questions? Comments? Weigh in.

Friday, July 13, 2007

NH 2008Pic of the Week









I found this pic on http://nh2008.blogspot.com/ although they just took it down in favor of the Clintons, but what a classic shot of the healing powers of politics. Go Joe.

HRC: READY for Change. Ready to BLEED (hearts).

KEENE, NH -

While The Times opted to cover the 'Tons from 3Q's home turf of Keene, we decided to go for the later, presumably better rehearsed show in Nashua.

I woke up on Andy Comings' couch with 4 long strands of dark blood covering at least half of my left heel, the result of a minor dancing accident from the night before as the 80s vinyl spun and my flip-flops provided inadequate protection from the uncoordinated oafs surrounding me. Inherently, I knew this would be a day of metaphorical bloodshed, or at least it might shine some light on the lifeblood of my early political life. Or was the bloody Achilles heel just the metaphor of the day? Either way, I was getting ahead of myself.

I set off for the unusually long journey from Allston, where just a day earlier a local icon's life was tragically cut short, to Nashua via train and automobile, and some four hours later after the quaint drive through unknown Northern Massachusetts towns like Pepperell and Townsend I arrived in The Gate City. Aside from a brief stopover back in the summer of 2003 when I hit the outer Nashua strip to purchase a cd player for my old car (The Puget Sounder), and eat lunch at Hooters while it was installed, I had never really been to town before. I drove into the downtown area, where signs continued to point me toward a dining and shopping district that never really appeared, but I figured must have existed because the signs stopped. Then again, I guess I did see one restaurant. Hardly the proper downtown that dominates a place like Manchester, Portsmouth, or Plymouth, and fittingly I cut bait and headed out toward the airport for the rally at Daniel Webster College.

Even thirty minutes before the scheduled start, traffic was slow heading into the overflow parking lot, set up on a patch of grass next to a small pond on the edge of campus. I followed the crowd to the stage, which meant a lot of people walking nearly a quarter mile who, quite frankly, looked like they weren't used to walking nearly a quarter mile. We approached the rally in a great funneling motion, where we were more easily intercepted by clipboard-wielding activists and campaign staffers looking for our names, numbers and addresses. As an older woman would mention after I was sitting inside the ropes, "I've never signed my name so many places in my life."

Ay, but were you as identity-savvy as the survivalists out in Quabbin Qountry, you would have escaped Scot-free, having smiled and glared your way through a dozen or more refusals. The final entrance to the show was blocked off by two ten-foot folding tables, the last garrison to collect the information cards the campaign staff had been whoring all the way down the previous eighty yards of sidewalk. It was a classic rouse, leading people to believe that they weren't allowed in without some sort of "free ticket" that doubled as fodder for their mailings lists. A young kid in front of me put forth a similar fight for his right to enter without a ticket. Of course he was let in, but not without a look of pure disdain from the staffers. "Well, you can go in without a paper, but we reallllly would prefer if you had one." We were really dealing with the pros.

Not just professional field organizers, but professional campaigners. Professional politicians, really. This was an event for the inevitable candidate and her husband, the 42nd POTUS. Amateurs need not apply. Bomb sniffing dogs abound near the stage in the early moments of the rally, a 20-foot tall American flag served as the back wall of the crowd, and the backdrop for the stage, which included a full set of bleachers and a 10-foot crowd buffer, was a massive sign reading, "READY for Change" on the top line above a make-shift 3-star flag logo sitting over a line which read "Ready to LEAD". Around 3PM the campaign staff, mostly consisting of attractive girls in their early 20s, began passing out pro-Hillary signs, including fake-homemade ones. That latter really made me wonder how many of the major media photos, like the one in today's Times about Biddies for Hillary, are full of it.

Once the bleachers on stage were carefully packaged with a diverse group of old and young multi-cultural supporters (in fact, it was potentially the first time I have seen a black person in New Hampshire) all the pedestrian music played its notes and the moment we were all waiting for came to a head with the first notes of Celine Dion. Up the stairs from stage right walked a trio of dignitaries, a local state senator, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. The couple shook hands with the people on stage, smiled, and touched one another a lot. The crowd went wild.

After a red meat intro of Bill Clinton, touting the seemingly endless glory of his Presidency, the ex-President provided a full introduction for his wife. He promised to keep it short given the heat, but it was yet another campaign promise that went unfulfilled. As was probably the will of the people, Bill spoke nearly as long as the Senator, providing what he felt was the case for a Clinton Presidency, part 2.

The first words out of his mouth, after the usual blather about how good it was to be back in New Hampshire, were that he "would be here doing this even if we weren't married." Although he thanked the audience earlier for voting for the Clinton/Gore ticket twice in the 90s, he slighted Big Al by saying that Hillary was the best prepared non-incumbent candidate to become President that he could think of in all his 40 years of voting history. It is this exact reason, Clinton assured us, that it is important to elect Hillary as the Democratic nominee. He wasn't nearly as fear-mongering as Joe Biden, going on to say how it was the first time that he could remember when he would be happy with any of the Democratic candidates, going on to express his interest in reading news stories about Obama and Edwards, and to celebrate his long friendships with Biden, Dodd and Richardson. Sorry, Kucinich and Gravel, you guys must have been implied.

Bill rambled quite a bit more than I had expected, at times seeming to forget what he was supposed to say in what order, and toward the end making a noise with his mouth that sounded like he was sucking on ice. Nevertheless he highlighted her large role in his administration, having visited 82 countries in his first term as the "face of America" abroad. He implored us to "get the country back in the solutions business," as led by Hillary, touting her significant success as a New York Senator in bringing results to her constituents and winning a formidable amount of votes in rural, Republican-leaning upstate NY, where he said he most enjoyed campaigning for her, which he described as "teetling around the countryside" or something like that.

Oddly enough, Bill highlighted her early biography, much like Obama giving her credit for turning down lucrative jobs after law school in order to move down to Arkansas with him and improve the lives of children as an attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. Even more curious, he carried on about her work with prisoners, emphasizing that she truly cared for the welfare of those who had made mistakes in life, even to the point of making her seem truly soft on crime, Dukakis-style. Along the same lines, Bill made a direct appeal to our general election sensibilities, telling us not to buy the idea that Hillary is too polarizing to be elected on a nationwide basis. He told a story about her being more popular than him back in the Natural State, and theorized that the Republicans are only saying that stuff because they fear her. And fear not, because she will instantly restore America's reputation in the world once she is elected. Instantly.

I appreciated that Bill took the polarizing and unelectable themes head on, and it is undoubtedly impressive to hear someone with the gravitas of Mr. President give such a glowing endorsement. The two of them are a package deal for certain, and on the shoulders of that giant, Hillary took the stage.

She had been smiling proudly the entire time Bill was on stage, one of the many humanizing traits she expressed during the rally. They seemed like such a happy couple, and from those good feelings she bounded up to the microphone and began her speech. She quickly went over the basic Democratic platform, vowing with great applause to change the leadership in this country, improve health care, create an energy plan, get rid of No Child Left Behind and all the rest. Every theme she touched on began with the call of "Are you ready?"

Are you ready for change?
Are you ready for a better health care system?
"Are you ready for a President who will actually say the words 'global warming'?"

She even talked about bringing the troops home as soon as possible.

After the inevitability of the "are you ready?" calls, Hillary moved on to a theme of fairness and values. She mocked the Bush administration's questionable political appointees, and questioned the fairness of the tax system, most notably in terms of the current cause d'celebre, hedge funds. I don't think she mentioned that her daughter works for a hedge fund, but maybe I tuned out for a moment. This theme of fairness created a segue into the populist portion of the program. The sympathy in her voice ratcheted up a few notches as she spoke of middle class and poor America being "invisible" to the current administration, from the treatment of troops in Walter Reed to those everyday Americans with inadequate health care. On the other hand, Hillary "will be a President who sees, hears, listens to and tries to help" all people. In a HRC administration there will be no invisible Americans.

The most striking aspects to the speech lay in the tone. For starters, this was much less an intellectual policy treatise than it was an example of someone in power sympathizing with the people about the policies that are at the forefront of our government today. Every piece of the platform was accompanied with a brief and simple explanation of what they meant. Hillary wasn't trying to prove the superiority of her plans, she was simply trying to let us know that there are problems and she will fix them. She sounded very soothing and motherly in her explanation and sympathetic outpourings of her heart.

Between Hillary's soothing, womanly voice and Bill's emphasis on her bleeding heart background and her extreme suitability, the image that called out to me from this campaign rally was that the HRC08 Campaign is riding high on 2 themes going into the primary:

1) Hillary Clinton is a master of government, formidable in political skill and unmatched in readiness for the White House.
2) Hillary Clinton isn't the Hell-bent, cold, ambitious meanie that the vast right wing conspiracy has made her out to be. Quite the contrary she is a sweet, strong motherly figure worthy of your vote.

Given her unmatched name recognition, massive political network of campaign donors and Clinton family loyalists (and fond rememberists), those are two well-placed pillars on which to build a tall, tall lookout from which to peer into November, 2008. That in mind, I made the decision not to wait around in hopes of a handshake. Instead I quickly walked away from the rally as the blood crusted on my heel, making each step a painful one, and I remembered that I didn't owe Bill Clinton anything other than my civic engagement, a continued hope for a better America, and a little bit of pimp game on the streets. Instead, I just wanted to hustle out and beat the traffic jam which was, in my mind, the most inevitable thing I had seen all day.

Clinton Set List 7/13

NASHUA, NH -

I decided to spend less of my usual article detailing the musical selections of the campaign stop, and instead give it it's own section. Without further ado, here is how it went down in the Nash today:

Vertigo - U2
You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet - BTO
Beautiful Day - U2
Heroes - David Bowie
Start Me Up - The Rolling Stones
Conga - Gloria Estefan
Oye Como Va - Santana
Superstition - Stevie Wonder
Don't Do Me Like That - Tom Petty
I'm Like a Bird - Nelly Furtado
Free Ride - Edgar Winter Group
Takin' it to the Streets - The Doobie Brothers
Soak Up the Sun - Sheryl Crow
You and I - Celine Dion (official campaign song)
and
Right Here, Right Now - Jesus Jones (unofficial campaign song)

What a gamut of emotions! I was initially critical of the repeated U2 choices, then immediately uplifted by David Bowie (wow!) before being stopped in my tracks by Gloria Estefan. Although, to its credit, it made a bunch of hippie older women and all the babies dance. All in all, more variety than I would have expected, and not as bland as Obama's. At least he played Steve Winwood. (yes, I plan to evoke that moment as much as possible between now and January.)

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

DC Madam Speaker

Aha! The first moral casualty of the DC Madam is none other than Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who just happens to be Giuliani's Southern chairman. Sex and Drugs are now taken. The question remains, which Rock & Roll star will be the next campaign chairman for America's Corrupt Mayor?

Monday, July 9, 2007

Biden the Titan, Part 2

Kensington, NH -

Just a quick turn off of the small, rural Rte. 150, in the heart of the little place we call Lamprey Corners down in the Seacoast region sits a house with Nantucket shingles and a living room with big French doors opening into a view of great, hay-strewn fields and hardwood forests that had recently been put into a conservation easement. The house belonged to Jim Webber, Democratic candidate for state representative from the southeastern most district in the state. Webber was hosting the house party as part of a concurrent event to kick off his general election campaign with the help of Joe Biden and whatever media coverage and excitement that might entail.

Webber nervously began his stump speech, which he repeatedly promised would last less than three minutes, once word had arrived that the Senator was near the house, about a half hour after scheduled. I guess he was too close, or else Jim was too loquacious, or both. Halfway through the presentation, Joe Biden had arrived.

In he walked, from the far side of the room from me, decked out in seersucker pants and a navy polo shirt, with tiny brown wing tips on his feet. "Who's this Jim Webber guy, anyway?" Joe demanded to know with a big smile on his face as he walked up to the center of the room and poked the lesser candidate in the chest before disappearing into the kitchen to let Webber finish his speech. A few minutes later, he emerged sipping a can of Canada Dry ginger ale and munching on a bavarian pretzel. He swallowed, smiled, and announced, "to put it bluntly, I'm here to audition."

And audition he did, talking about the importance of the 2008 election and the need for Americans to pick the best man or woman for the job. "There is no room for error," as the Biden rallying call goes. He spoke of the loose nukes and prevalence of fissile material in the world right now, as well as the de-democratization of South America. As the next President of the United States, Delaware's senior Senator promised, he would restore America's place in the world and re-invigorate the middle class.

Biden immediately went on to talk about the necessity of a political solution in Iraq, touting his own plan as the best and only of such. He talked about the need for a weak federal and strong local way of governing Iraq, and cited the Dayton accords as the best evidence for how political solutions are the only way to solve long-term violence: "The Balkans were the most violent region in the world from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic. But, knock on wood, there has not been one death at the hands of Nato forces since then."

From there he went on to talk about his vote for funding the war, mention his son's role in the Army Reserves and his recent notification of deployment. Funding the war, he argues, is a misnomer. It really is funding the troops, and Biden sees the only legitimate way to end our role in Iraq is to convince enough GOP senators to get out from behind Bush's shadow and make the right decision. Biden estimated that fewer than twelve Republican senators truly believed that Bush was doing the right thing, and that the rest would come around sooner rather than later. In the meantime he stressed the need to fund the transformation of our military transport vehicles from flat-bottomed death traps to v-shaped IED deflectors. He dismissed the idea of impeachment, saying to loud applause that "history will impeach these guys," and for now it was most important to make the right decisions on the ground.

With the stage now set, full of stories about military brain injuries and the potential horrors of a withdrawal of troops and our responsibility to see it out correctly, Biden became gravely serious, hushing his tone and squinting his eyes. There will be NO margin for error. Our next President had better be smarter than the advisers. It was a chilling moment, from a man whose sense of drama had clearly been concocted over years and years on the stump, and decades worth of firsthand knowledge of what sorts of bad things can come from foreign policy. But chills and spills will only get a candidate so far.

I, for one, left without convincing in spite of the earnest and heartfelt plea of the Great Blue Hen Orator. Despite his recent claim to eat Rudy's lunch in a debate, which he mentioned again (and I tried to get an interrupting round of applause going when he said it but was only joined by one other woman who sat distantly in the kitchen), Joe sounded a little Rudy-esque in his fear mongering. Although I appreciated what appeared to be a real belief in the Biden way to responsibly solve the mess in Iraq, I couldn't help but feel a tad unsettled by what seemed to be his charge that if we pick the wrong person we will be fucked. I've heard it before, from the likes of George W. Bush. I didn't like it then, and I don't really like it now.

Besides, how is he so certain that he won't make an error? If there truly is no margin for error, then aren't we all screwed? No one is infallible, and certainly no Presidential candidates, what with their money-whoring and triangulating. I even have reason to believe that Biden isn't the best on foreign policy, as he likes to think is the position that has been bestowed upon him by the people. So does no margin for error mean that a slight mistake will lead to American deaths beginning in January, 2009? How many more errors can Bush make before we are damaged beyond repair? Certainly there has to be a limit, or it is all a moot point.

Getting on to the 67 votes reasoning of Joe Biden, it is quite possible that he is too caught up in the senatorial way of thinking. 34 years is a long time, and perhaps he doesn't sense the urgency of the American people to get out of Iraq. Or even the mindset of folks like Ron Paul that our continued presence in the Middle East is making it more deadly, v-shaped hummers or not. Or, does he have the true vision that only true knowledge of the system can allow? Joe Biden certainly thinks so, and he'll be on the stump in Iowa and New Hampshire for six more months telling people that they had damn well better make the right choice. The best the rest of us can do is hope that he has made a mistake in his reasoning. It might not be too far-fetched of a hope.


Back on the Sawmill, a Smuttynose and a lot of sweat. Its a hot, hot summer day.

BTB

Vive Le Democracy

Once again, I hate to beat a dead source, especially when it is the Bourgeois likes of The Times, but my continued readership this afternoon brought me to this gem from Patrick Healy, whose vacationing dispatch from France brought to light the interest of the Parisians in our own election, notably when it concerns HRC. It is an interesting read on the whole, but best characterized by this outside observation, reminiscent of the truth spoken most recently by Jean Girard:

My friend Julio underscored the questions about Mrs. Clinton this way: would she be a president who told the truth to Americans about Iraq and terrorism and other challenges? Or, he asked, “would she continue to triangulate, as she and other Democrats did on Iraq and the Patriot Act, in order to win power?”

Julio, my friend, you must have spent plenty of time down at the schoolyard. Even if Paul Simon is a Dodd supporter.