She’s Palin in comparison

       Okay, that graphic is the only misogynistic element of this post, I swear.  And while bloggers and pundits have strong feelings about the woman, I won’t tear Sarah Palin (R-AK) a new one for the nasty rumor floating around that her youngest son was really birthed by her sixteen-year-old daughter.  Until it can be substantiated, it is simply a smear in the vein of Barack Obama being called a Muslim or Michelle Obama’s “whitey” accusation.  Nor am I particularly incensed by her appearance on a radio talk show in which she giggled when the hosts called the president of the Alaska State Senate a “bitch”; both McCain and Obama have also done things that have been found upsetting, but are largely forgotten now.

            Also, I won’t fault her for her television gaffe in which she did not know “what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day.”  The vice presidential duties, other than casting tie-breaking senatorial votes, are minimal and have only taken significance in recent years, as Dick Cheney, apart from being a controversial man to begin with, has frequently been attributed to decisions made by the Bush administration.  For a take-charge woman such as herself, waiting around for the president to become incapacitated may be a bit of a bore to Palin.

            Which brings me to my legitimate criticism of her candidacy: let’s get lucid—John McCain, the oldest presidential nominee in U.S. history, might not be able to finish the rest of his term, if you get my drift.  If rendered unable to serve, the duties of the presidency would fall to Palin.  I won’t say she is ”inexperienced” because that has become too much of a loaded word in this campaign.  Instead, I’ll call her “untested.”

            Republicans are touting that she has more “executive experience” than Barack Obama or Joe Biden, the bulk of which comes from her time as mayor of an Alaska town and governor of that state.  Now, Alaska has a population of 600,000….Fairfax County, Virginia has a population of 1.1 million and, from what I estimate, has a greater degree of immigration; is grappling with ways to alleviate crowded roadways and encourage smart growth; and tries to maintain one of the best public school system in the nation.  In short, I didn’t expect to see either candidate tap the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors because of his “executive experience.”

            What little time Palin has spent in government, she has been described as a maverick or an outsider because of her goal to streamline and clean up government in a corrupt state flush with oil revenue (TrooperGate notwithstanding).  She has shown toughness and spunk in The Last Frontier—symbolized by hunting caribou and fly fishing—and has managed to become one of eight female governors in the country.  That is obviously no small feat, considering that only 16 percent of state governors, U.S. senators, and U.S. representatives are women.  In two separate news articles, I have seen her referred to as not being a “traditional” politician.  That could be a reference to her lifestyle and history, but I can’t help but wonder if that is code for “does not have a penis.”

            And that brings me to my second point against her candidacy: McCain thinks he can attract disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters by putting a woman—even an ultraconservative, self-made, attractive one—first in line to the presidency.  Her speech in Dayton, OH referenced Hillary’s attempts to crack the glass ceiling, and stated that she was now poised to shatter it completely.

            There is no comparison.  Hillary Clinton, like her or not, worked hard to win those 18 million votes nationwide—traveling farther and learning the stories of more Bush-weary citizens than anyone except Barack Obama and maybe John McCain.  She shed tears in a moment of candor and was able to stage a comeback in blue-collar states.  Clinton’s candidacy was propelled by her husband’s influence at first, but then continued successfully despite Bill’s megalomania and bitterness.  Her pantsuits are iconic and she is admired by many women for holding her own in over twenty debates with an eloquent Harvard man.

            Sarah Palin was picked either because of a.) her ideology and reputation; b.) some remarkable ability to understand fully world affairs that the media have yet to pick up on; or c.) because of her gender.  If the last option held any weight in McCain’s decision (no doubt that it did), Palin did not punch through the glass ceiling at all; aloof and insulated in Alaska, she was selected by a man with somewhat of a reputation for disrespecting women to be second in command of a gigantic bureaucracy and a sinking budget unable to be padded by oil money.  Who is out-of-touch now?

            Earlier I referred to her as being untested.  If she proves in her speeches to be satisfactorily knowledgeable about current affairs and the state of the world, I will happily reconsider her token status.  Until then, her presence on the national stage is a wholly unpleasant surprise and a boon to the Democrats.

8/31

The Speech Givers: DNC Redux II

This is the second part of my reaction to the important speeches of the convention.  Hopefully I will have time to perform a similar analysis next week for the RNC.

Hillary Clinton—Next to Barack Obama and her husband, Hillary’s speech was probably the most anticipated of both conventions, and she lived up to great expectations as best she could.  In a paean to the working class, she recounted the stories along the campaign trail of wounded Iraq veterans, single mothers, and people without healthcare to illustrate her commitment to improving the lives of ordinary Americans.   The audience clearly reacted to her fiery rhetoric when she urged America to “keep going,” and when she commended the women of the past who worked to allow Clinton to run in the first place.  She flippantly remarked, “no way, no how, no McCain,” and harangued John McCain for being out of touch with the reality of the American economy and being complicit that women are paid less than men; and the conventioneers were genuinely ecstatic.  Hopefully, those Hillary supporters who were still hell bent on taking out their frustration against Obama will take example from her gracious lead and put party before candidate, and nation before party.

Operative quote: “You taught me so much.  You made me laugh and yes, you even made me cry.  You allowed me to become part of your lives and you became part of mine.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: A-  eloquence: A-

Joe Biden—A tough talker who cherishes his family and who listens to ordinary Americans on the train ride home from the Capitol every night…it’s hard to top Biden’s street cred as an “average Joe.”  His son, Beau, clearly became emotional as he introduced his father—noting the car wreck which claimed his wife and daughter’s lives and a speech impediment that he overcame in his youth.  The vice-presidential candidate himself gave a stirring recognition of his father and mother, who taught him to get back up after being knocked down.  He spoke of economic security by saying, “work is about more than a paycheck.  It’s dignity. It’s respect.”   Overall, Biden showed that not only is he a committed partisan, but he has a wholly human side—a symbolically aloof congressional veteran with a father’s wisdom.  We’ll see how his emotionality plays out in the vice-presidential debate.

Operative quote: “These are not isolated discussions [of economic distress] among families down on their luck.  These are common stories among middle class people who worked hard their whole life, played by the rules on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.  That promise is the promise of America.  It defines who we are as a people and now it’s in jeopardy.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: A-  eloquence: B

 

Barack Obama—Standing before faux Greek columns in a city one mile above the sea—a virtual acropolis, nay, Olympus from which to decree the law of the land—amongst tens of thousands of swarming fans, Barack Obama hit this speech out of the park (pun intended).  While not as unexpected as his oration about race in the twenty-first century, this speech combined all of Obama’s positive gifts: eloquence for those who adore his highfalutin optimism; declarations of his policy goals for those who say he lacks substance; acknowledgement of his own background for those who don’t know or don’t believe his American roots; and all of this carefully bracketed partisan assaults on the policies of Bush-McCain.  Apart from flowing praise of the hardy middle class and a call for families (and particularly fathers) to take a more active role in their children’s lives, Obama was able to abandon eloquence for energy, stating: it’s not that John McCain doesn’t care, just “John McCain doesn’t get it.”  And in response to attacks on his patriotism: “I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.”  The speech may ultimately be attacked as showy and too much of a spectacle to be taken seriously; but Obama was able to not only build the case for hope, but arouse confidence about his character.  Not only does he say beautiful things and have the gravitas of an experienced statesman, but he showed himself to be 100-percent American and, while recognizing that change is larger than just himself, seems ready to lead the movement for a better tomorrow.

Operative quote: “When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.  I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.  But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s been about you.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: A  eloquence: A 

The Speech Givers: DNC Redux I

Here are my impressions of the high-profile politicians who have given speeches over the course of the DNC:

John Kerry—I still am not sure how he became the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.  Honestly, he is boring as cardboard and exudes none of the heartiness that allowed George W. Bush to slink into office despite him being, by most indicators, simple-minded and hard-headed.  Kerry’s speech, however, was delightfully cerebral and reflectory of the last eight years.  In comparing John McCain’s record as a Senator with his policy reversals as a candidate, Kerry took a jab at his own failed campaign by saying, “talk about being ‘for it’ before you’re ‘against it’ ” (a reference to a flip-flop of his own on military spending).  His was basically an enhanced version of 2004 stump speeches, decrying the abuses of the Constitution, torture in Guantanamo, and Rove smear tactics, while invoking Obama’s WWII-veteran uncle and the American flag to point out that patriotism does not belong to either party.  Overall, it was a good message from a man who himself was demonized by Republican “Swift boating” during his own run for the White House.

Operative quote: “How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission question the troops.  How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself.  How desperate to tell a son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn’t put America first.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: B+  eloquence: A-

 

Mark Warner—As a co-founder of Nextel and the man who, as governor, converted a multi-billion dollar deficit into a surplus within four years by working with Republican legislators, Warner’s speech naturally took on a truly businesslike quality.  His focus was on national and economic security—emphasizing the need to be competitive in the global market, importantly by keeping our population healthy and educated.  Like a CEO addressing a boardroom, he constantly emphasized the need for American global leadership, for actionable ideas, looking to the future for solutions, investment in job training, and acknowledged the perils of outsourcing and downsizing to the working-class.  It was good stuff and he’l go far in the Senate with administrative know-how, but the fact that he barely assailed Bush-McCain and stayed away from the buzzwords of “hope” and “change” may have limited his appeal among the rabid partisans at the convention.

Operative quote: “The race for the future is on.  And it won’t be won if only some American are in the running.  And it won’t be won with yesterday’s ideas and yesterday’s divisions.  And it won’t be won with a president who is stuck in the past.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: C+   eloquence: B

 

Bill Clinton—What can I say, the guy is a dynamo.  He was obviously eager to give his speech and looked well enough to run for another term himself.   In fact, without the references to Barack Obama and the partisan jabs, it had the overall flow of a State of the Union address.  He warmly stated that he loves Joe Biden and that he unequivocally thinks Obama is ready for the job, a reference to an earlier statement when he demurred that “you can argue that nobody is ready to be president.”   Admitting that while “my candidate” wasn’t up for nomination, Obama was “far superior to the Republican alternative.”  He rattled off all of the policy points on which Obama would succeed: choosing diplomacy before military force, combating global warming and global AIDS, and renewing world alliances.  Clinfon lamented the declining American quality of life and the Bush administration’s abuses of power (“cronyism”) once Republicans came into power after 2001.  In freewheeling Clinton style, the speech ended with him dismissing the idea of rewarding the Republicans for eight years of terrible work by electing McCain: “Thanks, but no thanks.  In this case, the third time is not the charm.”

Operative quote: “Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are first strong at home.  People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

Speech rating: effectiveness: A  eloquence: A-

The Inadequacy of Hope: DNC Redux

      Never before in modern history have the essential differences between the two major American parties stood out in such striking contrast as they do today. Republican leaders not only have failed in material things, they have failed in national vision, because in disaster they have held out no hope, they have pointed out no path for the people below to climb back to places of security and of safety in our American life.

      Throughout the Nation, men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government of the last years look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth.

      On the farms, in the large metropolitan areas, in the smaller cities and in the villages, millions of our citizens cherish the hope that their old standards of living and of thought have not gone forever. Those millions cannot and shall not hope in vain.

            Those words, tone, and appeal to the working man could easily be attributed to Barack Obama.  Except the line that followed, “I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people,” gives away its true provenance: Franklin Roosevelt’s acceptance speech at the 1928 Democratic election.

            In an uncanny portent of today’s “message discipline,” Roosevelt physically encapsulated hope and change during the Depression: in an era before the stories of well-coached women, minorities, and blue collar men would take the stage to courageously recount their difficult lives, the Democrats had Roosevelt.  Crippled from polio, many Americans thought he had fully recovered the strength to walk; this was just an illusion, but it helped endear him to those who saw him as elitist.  Furthermore, Roosevelt flew in an airplane from New York to Chicago to accept the nomination at the close of the convention the day after it had been given to him—an unprecedented shirking of tradition in favor of the symbolism of getting lucid and getting down to business.

            Eighty years later, Barack Obama will accept the nomination under the auspices of his own success story; he will speak at a stadium in front of tens of thousands of people—an exercise in transparency and inclusion.  Throughout this campaign and especially the convention, we have been pressed to look toward the future for answers.  Mark Warner, the keynote speaker, thankfully chose not to constantly assail McCain and Bush for digging us into a hole, but used his credentials as a cell phone entrepreneur to reduce the issues to economic terms.  He extolled the virtues of bringing technology-based business to small towns, acknowledged the threat that China faces to the American economy, and linked affordable education and affordable healthcare to an increase in American productivity.  In fact, he referenced no less an authority on forward-thinking, technologically-driven improvement than Thomas Jefferson, himself governor of Virginia, who wrote,

      What, but education, has advanced us beyond the condition of our indigenous neighbors?  And what chains them to their present state of barbarism and wretchedness, but a bigoted veneration for the supposed superlative wisdom of their fathers, and the preposterous idea that they are to look backward for better things, and not forward, longing, as it should seem, to return to the days of eating acorns and roots, rather than indulge in the degeneracies of civilization?

            In other words, the same tune has been trumpeted for centuries: progress, hope, change…whatever you want to call it, reality trumps nostalgia.  But along the way, liberal outlook in realistically dealing with predicaments has been stigmatized by elites.  Conservatives smear notions of social progress as naïve and dangerous—dangerous because of cost and unknown consequences.  How exactly do they get away with this?  Especially once you consider that no act of government can have greater costs or unknown consequences than war, of which the current conservative administration has initiated two.

            By measure of common sense, any non-partisan observer should agree that this year ought to be one in which a Democratic candidate wins the presidency.  Not necessarily because the Democrats are that much better, but because Americans are worse off now than they were eight years ago.  Why, then, are the polls so close, and why are Republican fear tactics so effective?  Why is progress so imperative yet so frightening?

            It is somewhat baffling and shameful that liberalism—which at its core hopes to extend liberty and freedom to greater numbers of people—is regarded as something radical and unattainable.  Cynics might say that the elites who control the country would never endanger their economic interests by changing.  Sociologists might point out that the status quo as an institution is difficult to change in complex societies.  Physicists might muse that for every action there is an opposite reaction, and since America has historically operated with two parties, the liberal one must be countered by a conservative element.

            Still, if this convention has shown America anything thus far, it is that hope alone a President does not make.  The rabid supporters of Obama and Hillary will not win over the working man by cheerleading alone.  Rather than try to prove that change is good, the Dems need to make people fearful of not changing; that is to say, that the status quo will harm us as a nation.  Roosevelt did it in executing the New Deal; Jefferson did it by declaring independence from Britain.  Obama and the Democrats should vigorously make voters aware of the economic consequences of adopting an illiberal energy policy and the social chaos that would result from an unhealthy population.    Barack Obama has done well by not assassinating the character of John McCain as the Republicans have done to him; but fear as a tactic is still on the table, and conservatives have been using it effectively for years.

8/27

Phunny Fotos

…So Help Me God

       Last month the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of appeals upheld the 1999 conviction of a Texas man who was sentenced to death for breaking into a man’s home, then shooting and bludgeoning him to death upon his return.  The jury’s sentence was called into question because they brought Bibles into the deliberation room, perhaps to guide their judgment.  Some of the jurors maintained that they brought the books in order to leave for bible study class after the day’s court proceedings; others said that reading the Bible after they made a decision assuaged their consciences.  The most damning passage came from reading Numbers, were the jurors were encouraged that ”the murderer shall surely be put to death” after killing with a metal rod.  Since the defendant beat the victim with a gun barrel, the prosecutor noted that, “You could say God and Moses anticipated this exact thing if you take a literal view of it.”  The special prosecutor who handled the appeal responded that, “Several of them carried Bibles in and out like my daughter carries her Seventeen magazine.  It was just their reading material.”  While I don’t recommend that Seventeen be incorporated into the common law any more than the Bible should, occasionally the magazine will publish an issue for the 14 to 21-year-old jurisprudence fans: