John McCain has had a worse day than last Friday, but it was the beginning of a long presence in Hanoi. If Senator McCain's performance in the debate was not a deal-breaker for undecided voters, then Sarah Palin will be the bullet that ends the pulse of the Republucan campaign in 2008.
It is not appropriate to blame McCain. The handlers from his party have managed to take the likeable, engaging maverick operating on a shoestring, and managed to convert him into a cookie-cutter Republican candidate, scarcely distinguished from former Georgia Representative Pat Swindall, who left office in disgrace in the late eighties.
The Republican handlers are under the illusion that voters actually care about their social conservative wedge issues when the car is out of gas, the pumps are dry (as they are in the southeast), the house is getting foreclosed on, and the 401(k) is more like a 179(B). One suspects that an unemployed individual on the edge of returning to the land of the renter would be happy to host the most flamboyant Gay wedding in history on his lawn, if it means he has a job and gets to keep his lawn.
McCain, the ever-aware pilot, is much too savvy a politician to allow himself to come off as the acrimonious, infirm elderly man we saw on Friday night. The rambling rants were characteristic of the misanthropic message of a party which is willing to sacrifice a war hero who did not always hew closely to a party line which makes no allowances for living up to Christian doctrine which it finds inconvenient.
The Republican party wants to sell the voter upon experience. They want the voter to know that Barack Obama is naive and doesn't get it.
Experienced military leaders lost 4000+ American servicepeople, while the inexperienced Barack Obama was of the opinion that they should not have been committed. The best we can hope for is a draw, and now Saddam isn't there to occupy the Iranians. Oh yeah, by the way, WHERE THE HELL IS BIN LADEN?
McCain, and Republicans "got it," that lax oversight in the housing and financial sectors would be great for the economy because we can trust bankers and lawyers to police themselves. Highly motivated financial people can be counted upon to behave diligently and ethically, right?
And there was nothing AT ALL naive about tax breaks that allowed manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas at a rate that very nearly replicates the giant sucking sound that H. Ross Perot counseled the American public about in 1992-but he never imagined that the slurping would come from the People's Republic of China instead of Mexico...and the Chinese would be holding a trillion dollars of American debt as a result.
Very well, then, maybe experienced, non-naive people who "get it" aren't all that they are advertised to be. So the Republicans are going to bring out their own inexperienced, naive person who doesn't get it. Governor Sarah Palin makes Dan Quayle look like Shakespeare.
One hopes that the awkward interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were a tactic to lower expectations for the debate with Joe Biden. Regrettably, one suspects that Governor Palin is as dumb as a bag of hammers. However, she is much easier on the eyes.
Those who had a complaint about Senator Clinton were less motivated by her genitalia than they were by a perception that the Senator from New York is a bit too tempestuous to be effective in the presidency. Governor Palin does exhibit a level of tempestuousness, but her targets are satirists and those who question her qualifications.
One would guess that "Saturday Night Live" is not shown in Alaska at all, but a quick perusal of the website for Palin's former employer, KTUU in Anchorage, indicated that it is an NBC affiliate. Did she expect her loud arrival on the national stage to pass unnoticed by parodists in New York? Making fun of public figures has been part of the program's description since 1975, and the producers and network know their audience is more likely to give Obama a pass.
A cagey tweener could have seen that coming. Why didn't the 44-year-old? Oh, she talks about having gotten into politics by moving from the PTA, but my math indicates that her oldest child must have started kindergarten at 18 months old.
Getting back to the experience issue, (and away from a rant fueled by lust for Tina Fey), if her experience running a city of any size were characterized by some spectacular accomplishment or demonstration of competence one may be inclined to listen. Giuliani's miracle in New York comes immediately to mind.
However, we are presented with a small town which shares many of the same difficulties of towns its size nationwide. Adding the state into the mix, one wishes for a record which reflects the kind of forward-thinking leadership that puts a state in good stead for future prosperity. Zell Miller's helmsmanship in Georgia is a perfectly fine example of a man who did an outstanding job of running a state that cannot simply dig a hole and have it puke up oil.
Regrets to Governor Palin, but without the North Slope, Alaska would be likened to the Mississippi of the Arctic. That is not entirely fair. Mississippi would be justified in being insulted by the comparison.
So the Republican Party now expects us to put on the Emperor's New Clothes, and accept that this is the best ticket that they can offer. No. Mike Huckabee has spoken eloquently about the Republican lack of political prowess this year.
And he is the next Republican who has a chance of ever being elected president.
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
29 September 2008
16 September 2008
How Obama Gets His Groove Back
Apparently, Your Wandering Gentile is a Black, Muslim, Socialist, Anarchist, Miscegenist, Anti-American Pawn of the New World Order, harboring closeted homosexual tendencies, immediately disposed to the murder of infants and the elderly, and perverting kindergarteners with free access to pornography.
Wow, I got all of this for one small donation to the Obama campaign!
To those who share their viewpoint with the lead paragraph, I would also like to say that I dislike puppies, SUVs, and the idea of persons wearing uniforms being granted the authority to review my papers on a whim. While we're at it, the idea of a fence as a barrier between my nation and the rest of the world suggests an infrastructure to convert the nation I love into a prison, an idea which is spectacularly offensive.
Okay, I don't really dislike puppies, but I am allergic to them.
I live in the middle of America, the suburbs of a major city, with an income, age, and educational attainment that sit exactly in the middle. I am John Doe. I am the guy who John McCain got in 2000, and the man he lost in 2008.
That being said, the Obama campaign has a couple of issues that need to be fixed...yesterday.
The campaign must address the fact that issues that face black America are fundamentally the same issues that face white, latino, asian and native Americans. Economic issues in particular have a disproportionately negative effect on black Americans, as do questions of selective enforcement and overt bigotry. To Obama's credit, all of the issues which are not receiving the attention appropriate to their importance were addressed in The Audacity of Hope.
The focus has to be moved on two fronts.
The first front is to demonstrate credibly that the interests of Americans of every identity are more alike than they are different. That in and of itself is a whole hell of a lot easier to say than do. The Republicans have been spectacularly effective in communicating that Obama and his supporters are different and strange, in such a fashion as to make a monolithic body which is questioned for its ability to be considered as a part of America.
This is the overwhelming theme of Conservative opinon, particularly talk radio which has a twenty year head start on Liberal talk radio. The best idea is not by attempting to discredit or disprove allegations, but by moving the conversation to where the audience overlaps in opinion with Obama.
As Chris Rock pointed out in Head of State, the worst thing that Bugs Bunny could do to Elmer Fudd was not blowing him up, but kissing him. An Obama presence with The Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie would be a better opportunity to reach middle America than a billion dollars worth of TV ads. All he would have to do is show up for an hour, take a couple of phone calls which are likely to come from hostile people, and hope the presenter would blow his stack, or in the unlikely event of a civil discussion, he connects with an audience which was not likely to seek his message.
Whether or not Democrats like it, Limbaugh and Hannity are big power brokers in the middle of America. A great big chunk of their audience is rural, white, and blue collar, a few of whom are highly susceptible to rumors and innuendo. The idea is not to mine those who are absolutely opposed to Obama under any circumstances, but appeal to the large component of middle class listeners to these programs who are fair minded and willing to review their decisions based upon a fair hearing of the facts.
There is no question of "legitimizing" Right-wing talk radio. It is not an issue of legitimization or de-legitimization. Right-wing talk radio simply is and no definition of the word is necessary. There is nothing to fear except abandoning an audience which lives in Obama's weakest demographic. One counts upon the junior Senator from Illinois bringing his charisma and charm to the microphone, swinging a few opinions to his side. This idea is a winner.
The other front is deemphasizing the "Change" brand. Senator Obama's resources have him in a position to upgrade his brand from "Change" to "Hope." One supposes that the Gentle Reader is considering that The Wandering Gentile is in deep need of a drug screening after suggesting that Obama show up on Rush Limbaugh and alter his branding.
Change tells the voter that the candidate would do things differently from the current administration, but it does not delineate how or how much. The idea of casting a candidate from the incumbent party as the incumbent is proving to be a non-starter. Hope is what persuaded voters to Clinton in '92, Reagan in '80, Roosevelt in '32. While McCain's policies are deeply similar to Bush's, he remains a different man, thusly falling under a generic idea of change.
It's not persuasive, nor was it ever. The Obama campaign requires the message of Hope to propel the conversation in its direction. Change without hope? Hell, I can get that with McCain. Non-Traditional on the ticket? Sarah Palin is not a traditional person on the ticket. Change is coming regardless.
No, change kind of sucks as a message. Obama would be well served to dance with the one what brung him, and that one is Hope. This is the point where the Clinton assets should come to the table. The Clinton brand was built on hope in the nineties, a particularly potent message in the atmosphere of the Bush 41 recession and the Keating Five. Considering the atmosphere where financial institutions are dropping like cell phone calls in the boonies, and all of the other crud the economy is going through now, hope combined with a clearly articulated agenda has a lot of potential.
The idea is not for either candidate to change their positions, but for both candidates positions to appear clearly and comprehensibly to the electorate. This absurd pattern where both parties' wedge issues are taking center stage needs to end now. While the candidates engage in volleys of juvenile name calling and finger pointing, the issues affecting the quotidian lives of real Americans are not being addressed.
A gifted orator and communicator like Obama can survive the slings and arrows of the partisan opposition if his campaign sticks to the qualities that make him compelling combined with a principled and concrete discussion of his positions. Playing a game invented by his opponents suggests that Obama's presence at the inauguration would be at the discretion of President-elect John McCain, not the American people who have worked so hard to support him.
One asks- does Senator Obama feel that the campaign lives up to the expectations of his supporters?
Wow, I got all of this for one small donation to the Obama campaign!
To those who share their viewpoint with the lead paragraph, I would also like to say that I dislike puppies, SUVs, and the idea of persons wearing uniforms being granted the authority to review my papers on a whim. While we're at it, the idea of a fence as a barrier between my nation and the rest of the world suggests an infrastructure to convert the nation I love into a prison, an idea which is spectacularly offensive.
Okay, I don't really dislike puppies, but I am allergic to them.
I live in the middle of America, the suburbs of a major city, with an income, age, and educational attainment that sit exactly in the middle. I am John Doe. I am the guy who John McCain got in 2000, and the man he lost in 2008.
That being said, the Obama campaign has a couple of issues that need to be fixed...yesterday.
The campaign must address the fact that issues that face black America are fundamentally the same issues that face white, latino, asian and native Americans. Economic issues in particular have a disproportionately negative effect on black Americans, as do questions of selective enforcement and overt bigotry. To Obama's credit, all of the issues which are not receiving the attention appropriate to their importance were addressed in The Audacity of Hope.
The focus has to be moved on two fronts.
The first front is to demonstrate credibly that the interests of Americans of every identity are more alike than they are different. That in and of itself is a whole hell of a lot easier to say than do. The Republicans have been spectacularly effective in communicating that Obama and his supporters are different and strange, in such a fashion as to make a monolithic body which is questioned for its ability to be considered as a part of America.
This is the overwhelming theme of Conservative opinon, particularly talk radio which has a twenty year head start on Liberal talk radio. The best idea is not by attempting to discredit or disprove allegations, but by moving the conversation to where the audience overlaps in opinion with Obama.
As Chris Rock pointed out in Head of State, the worst thing that Bugs Bunny could do to Elmer Fudd was not blowing him up, but kissing him. An Obama presence with The Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie would be a better opportunity to reach middle America than a billion dollars worth of TV ads. All he would have to do is show up for an hour, take a couple of phone calls which are likely to come from hostile people, and hope the presenter would blow his stack, or in the unlikely event of a civil discussion, he connects with an audience which was not likely to seek his message.
Whether or not Democrats like it, Limbaugh and Hannity are big power brokers in the middle of America. A great big chunk of their audience is rural, white, and blue collar, a few of whom are highly susceptible to rumors and innuendo. The idea is not to mine those who are absolutely opposed to Obama under any circumstances, but appeal to the large component of middle class listeners to these programs who are fair minded and willing to review their decisions based upon a fair hearing of the facts.
There is no question of "legitimizing" Right-wing talk radio. It is not an issue of legitimization or de-legitimization. Right-wing talk radio simply is and no definition of the word is necessary. There is nothing to fear except abandoning an audience which lives in Obama's weakest demographic. One counts upon the junior Senator from Illinois bringing his charisma and charm to the microphone, swinging a few opinions to his side. This idea is a winner.
The other front is deemphasizing the "Change" brand. Senator Obama's resources have him in a position to upgrade his brand from "Change" to "Hope." One supposes that the Gentle Reader is considering that The Wandering Gentile is in deep need of a drug screening after suggesting that Obama show up on Rush Limbaugh and alter his branding.
Change tells the voter that the candidate would do things differently from the current administration, but it does not delineate how or how much. The idea of casting a candidate from the incumbent party as the incumbent is proving to be a non-starter. Hope is what persuaded voters to Clinton in '92, Reagan in '80, Roosevelt in '32. While McCain's policies are deeply similar to Bush's, he remains a different man, thusly falling under a generic idea of change.
It's not persuasive, nor was it ever. The Obama campaign requires the message of Hope to propel the conversation in its direction. Change without hope? Hell, I can get that with McCain. Non-Traditional on the ticket? Sarah Palin is not a traditional person on the ticket. Change is coming regardless.
No, change kind of sucks as a message. Obama would be well served to dance with the one what brung him, and that one is Hope. This is the point where the Clinton assets should come to the table. The Clinton brand was built on hope in the nineties, a particularly potent message in the atmosphere of the Bush 41 recession and the Keating Five. Considering the atmosphere where financial institutions are dropping like cell phone calls in the boonies, and all of the other crud the economy is going through now, hope combined with a clearly articulated agenda has a lot of potential.
The idea is not for either candidate to change their positions, but for both candidates positions to appear clearly and comprehensibly to the electorate. This absurd pattern where both parties' wedge issues are taking center stage needs to end now. While the candidates engage in volleys of juvenile name calling and finger pointing, the issues affecting the quotidian lives of real Americans are not being addressed.
A gifted orator and communicator like Obama can survive the slings and arrows of the partisan opposition if his campaign sticks to the qualities that make him compelling combined with a principled and concrete discussion of his positions. Playing a game invented by his opponents suggests that Obama's presence at the inauguration would be at the discretion of President-elect John McCain, not the American people who have worked so hard to support him.
One asks- does Senator Obama feel that the campaign lives up to the expectations of his supporters?
25 May 2008
Hillary Goes Winehouse
Note to Hillary Clinton: Do NOT mention past assassinations EVER. Doing so makes a candidate appear desperate, and fundamentally unelectable.
Welcome to the ash heap of history.
It is not enough to apologize or repent the statement. The fact that it was made is indicative of contemplation, a musing of the unthinkable. The idea of an assassination has been the elephant in the room during this campaign cycle. Every candidate has a situation which could make him or her vulnerable to the perversity of political murder.
Is the voter supposed to accept that Senator Clinton's expulsion of the Robert Kennedy reference was a gaffe, or a reaction to the news about Edward Kennedy's brain tumor? If one wishes to reference naivete, by all which is holy, even my Fruit of the Looms, accepting that premise is the acme and the zenith of naivete.
The voter is aware of the unlikelihood of Clinton's nomination, and one must take as given that Senator Clinton is aware that her chances are past waning, and sitting on gone. Her body language and phrasing indicate the desperation of a human being so invested in a goal that the possibility of non-attainment has only recently become present in her awareness. Senator Clinton is at the point of an individual who has fallen from a high point, and states that so far she's okay...but she hasn't hit the bottom just yet.
It is the denial and self-delusion of the teenager who has applied to universities beyond the scope of his abilities as defined by College Board scores and grade point average. Aiming for the stratos is not enough if one is using a paper airplane to achieve orbit.
Until Friday, one felt regret for the Clinton campaign on some levels. She had the organization and the talent to overcome all but the greatest candidate of a generation. She found a voice that connected with a portion of the electorate which was historically underrepresented. And then Senator Clinton found herself in the position of being the Rolling Stones to Obama's Beatles.
The problem was that Hillary Clinton had been under the illusion that she was the Beatles, and Obama was the Rolling Stones. Senator Clinton is now on the path of becoming the Dave Clark Five. They were the first band to score a number one hit after the Beatles' first wave of success on American shores, now lost to most people under fifty.
Kids may be able to find the Dave Clark Five on vinyl at the flea market, although a turntable may prove troublesome to locate.
And now this abomination of referring to the Robert Kennedy assassination. It remains in your Wandering Gentile's memory, despite being a day short of 18 months when it happened, so vivid was the reaction in a modest home in suburban Tampa. In a decade marred by violence, the stilling of Robert Kennedy's voice was the irreconcilable break between progressive politics and optimism for two generations.
When the racial undertone of comments such as "...white working people," and appeals to Appalachian America are considered, one is forgiven for inferring a reference to the assassination of the last political figure to successfully marry optimism and liberalism as meaning "...take this (epithet of the reader's choice) out, and keep the White in the White House!"
One sincerely hopes that the Senator from New York was not making a case to base bigotries in a society where people of color are challenged by the reactionary tendencies of those who define their existence and self-worth by a measure beyond their control. Regrettably, Mrs. Clinton is not in a position of making a case for her innocence now. She did not choose to disavow the explicit urgings of Limbaugh and Coulter. Her tacit acceptance of such taint her credibility beyond suitability for the electorate.
Is Senator Clinton's pursuit of high office so single minded, so fundamentally needy, that her life cannot proceed if denied the position she desperately wants? The voter hopes for someone who serves in office, as opposed to wielding the position as leverage against real and perceived disputes past and present. The last twenty years are characterized by the perception that the holder of the presidency is wielding the office for personal gain, from one party or the other.
There are 300 million people in this country who function pretty well without holding a position of prestige and authority. They may have obstacles along the way, but the Clinton campaign has taken a big step away from that connection with the many not empowered by a famous name and powerful connections. If Hillary Clinton is an example of what happens with such leverage at the individual's disposal, one suspects that he is better off doing without.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, has achieved his fortunes without the patronage of a well-connected spouse, or a reputation etched in granite by eight years in the public forum in a position of no actual authority. He has persuaded thousands of American voters by virtue of his oratory and idealism, and is capable of more still.
That is, Senator Obama will achieve more success, and will not have to rely upon the misfortune of others to afford him opportunities that he can make on his own.
At some point in the future, a confident, assured, and very able woman will become President.
Unfortunately, Senator Clinton does not fulfill all of the preceding criteria.
Welcome to the ash heap of history.
It is not enough to apologize or repent the statement. The fact that it was made is indicative of contemplation, a musing of the unthinkable. The idea of an assassination has been the elephant in the room during this campaign cycle. Every candidate has a situation which could make him or her vulnerable to the perversity of political murder.
Is the voter supposed to accept that Senator Clinton's expulsion of the Robert Kennedy reference was a gaffe, or a reaction to the news about Edward Kennedy's brain tumor? If one wishes to reference naivete, by all which is holy, even my Fruit of the Looms, accepting that premise is the acme and the zenith of naivete.
The voter is aware of the unlikelihood of Clinton's nomination, and one must take as given that Senator Clinton is aware that her chances are past waning, and sitting on gone. Her body language and phrasing indicate the desperation of a human being so invested in a goal that the possibility of non-attainment has only recently become present in her awareness. Senator Clinton is at the point of an individual who has fallen from a high point, and states that so far she's okay...but she hasn't hit the bottom just yet.
It is the denial and self-delusion of the teenager who has applied to universities beyond the scope of his abilities as defined by College Board scores and grade point average. Aiming for the stratos is not enough if one is using a paper airplane to achieve orbit.
Until Friday, one felt regret for the Clinton campaign on some levels. She had the organization and the talent to overcome all but the greatest candidate of a generation. She found a voice that connected with a portion of the electorate which was historically underrepresented. And then Senator Clinton found herself in the position of being the Rolling Stones to Obama's Beatles.
The problem was that Hillary Clinton had been under the illusion that she was the Beatles, and Obama was the Rolling Stones. Senator Clinton is now on the path of becoming the Dave Clark Five. They were the first band to score a number one hit after the Beatles' first wave of success on American shores, now lost to most people under fifty.
Kids may be able to find the Dave Clark Five on vinyl at the flea market, although a turntable may prove troublesome to locate.
And now this abomination of referring to the Robert Kennedy assassination. It remains in your Wandering Gentile's memory, despite being a day short of 18 months when it happened, so vivid was the reaction in a modest home in suburban Tampa. In a decade marred by violence, the stilling of Robert Kennedy's voice was the irreconcilable break between progressive politics and optimism for two generations.
When the racial undertone of comments such as "...white working people," and appeals to Appalachian America are considered, one is forgiven for inferring a reference to the assassination of the last political figure to successfully marry optimism and liberalism as meaning "...take this (epithet of the reader's choice) out, and keep the White in the White House!"
One sincerely hopes that the Senator from New York was not making a case to base bigotries in a society where people of color are challenged by the reactionary tendencies of those who define their existence and self-worth by a measure beyond their control. Regrettably, Mrs. Clinton is not in a position of making a case for her innocence now. She did not choose to disavow the explicit urgings of Limbaugh and Coulter. Her tacit acceptance of such taint her credibility beyond suitability for the electorate.
Is Senator Clinton's pursuit of high office so single minded, so fundamentally needy, that her life cannot proceed if denied the position she desperately wants? The voter hopes for someone who serves in office, as opposed to wielding the position as leverage against real and perceived disputes past and present. The last twenty years are characterized by the perception that the holder of the presidency is wielding the office for personal gain, from one party or the other.
There are 300 million people in this country who function pretty well without holding a position of prestige and authority. They may have obstacles along the way, but the Clinton campaign has taken a big step away from that connection with the many not empowered by a famous name and powerful connections. If Hillary Clinton is an example of what happens with such leverage at the individual's disposal, one suspects that he is better off doing without.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, has achieved his fortunes without the patronage of a well-connected spouse, or a reputation etched in granite by eight years in the public forum in a position of no actual authority. He has persuaded thousands of American voters by virtue of his oratory and idealism, and is capable of more still.
That is, Senator Obama will achieve more success, and will not have to rely upon the misfortune of others to afford him opportunities that he can make on his own.
At some point in the future, a confident, assured, and very able woman will become President.
Unfortunately, Senator Clinton does not fulfill all of the preceding criteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
