Inside the mind of McCain

It was the middle of the week, and news media the world over were gushing over Sen. Obama. A sullen Sen. McCain summoned his staff to discuss what must be done.

McCain: This is unsatisfactory. He is on TV acting like he understands foreign policy. This is MY issue. He is over there stealing MY issue. I am NOT happy. Obama was supposed to go with us, so we could have images of me tutoring the youngster. How did we lose control?! Now he's speaking in Berlin for God sakes. Berlin!!! I need my Berlin. Get me my Berlin!

Sycophant staff member: Senator, you know there is a Berlin in Ohio. If you recall from the primary election, they don't like his kind in Ohio. We could go there and be "with the people."

They all chuckled at their wit.

McCain: Great idea, my friend. Where will we go in Berlin?

Sycophant staff: A German restaurant of course. You get Berlin AND Germany And you look like you understand ordinary people. It's brilliant.

McCain: You might be on to something. Then we could go to Paris, Wisconsin. We could trail his European cities with their American counterparts. That'll show him. We'll belittle Obama for speaking to 200,000 people. After all, this isn't a popularity contest.

The staff shuffled nervously. After all, this was not good TV. But the boss was happy, so they all went along.

Sycophant staff: Great idea, senator. This will make a tremendous impact. Your best idea yet! High five!

Oops!

So?

You'd think that Dick would be banned from talking to the media after his "greeted as liberators" prediction, but the administration still lets him wander into a microphone and drop these gems:

Raddatz: "Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives."

Cheney: "So?"

Raddatz: "So -- you don't care what the American people think?"

Cheney: "No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there."

Here's just something for the vice president to ponder. I'm sure at some point in his career he must have perused the Declaration of Independence:

... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So... Mr. Vice President.
So... it does matter what the American people think, since you derive your power from our consent and your resources from our paychecks.
So... it does matter if one of the 4,000 dead Americans is one of your family members. It's easy for you to be callous since you don't know the service members whole lives were lost because of your folly. But they are real people, and their families deserve more respect than a dismissive "so" and platitudes about their patriotism.
So... by every objective measurement, your policies have all failed. When you are in the dust bins of history, we will reserve our enending contempt for your incompetence.
So there!

The mute Chelsea...

Love this line from Maureen Dowd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?ex=1358830800&en=39ab771d166ef64c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Bill's transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

After Bill's success trolling the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, Hillary handed off South Carolina and flew to California and other Super Tuesday states. The Big Dog relished playing the candidate again, wearing a Technicolor orange tie and sweeping across the state with the mute Chelsea

That's too funny. I've been wondering why I see Chelsea everywhere and have never heard her voice once.

Crybaby Clinton

The buzz today was a boohoo from former front runner Hillary Clinton.

In a Boston Globe article Clinton is quoted as saying:

"It's not easy. It's not easy," she said. "This is very personal for me. It is not just political. It is not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game; think like who is up who is down. It's about our country.

"Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought it through enough," she said.

Even through her tears, she is on message.

So what do we make of it? The staff was quick to put the spin on the sob. 'It’s because she’s so passionate. This is the Hillary we know. She cares so deeply, she’s emotional.'

Right. She’s human behind closed doors. It reminds me of when President GW Bush's staff tries to convince us that he is really intelligent and articulate behind closed doors. It’s the cameras that make him sound like a doofus.

I don’t buy either one of them. They are who we see they are. They have all been too calculating and consistent through too many different situations to convince me otherwise.

For Clinton’s good fortune, she seems to be getting sympathy for her outburst of emotion. It’s a time honored tradition from every playground in the world: If the girl cries, she can usually get the boys to stop picking on her.

Huckabee — finally a Republican heating up the Iowa race

Let's face it, the top tier of Republican presidential candidates were boring. No matter how long I watched them, I couldn't seem to get excited. I've blogged about the top tier Democrats and knew I should give their counterparts some attention but just couldn't bear it.

Then from out of nowhere comes a candidate with a big R on his chest (The R stands for Reagan, not Republican, of course.) who swoops down and tackles issues with a single bound. He doesn't sound scripted, focus group tested, or calculated. To me, he seems to have what the others have been trying desperately to manufacture. Authenticity.

Mike Huckabee is now surging in the Iowa polls because, I'm guessing, more than a few Republicans are taking him in like a breath of fresh air. Even with his silly Chuck Norris endorsement commercial, he created so much buzz and free media from pundits playing it, that it seems to be a shrewd strategic move. Each time one of the punditry elite played it to guffaw and then pick it apart, the good Governor Huckabee must have been chuckling to himself.

I had been hearing his name here and there and not really following him until I stumbled on this clip on YouTube.

Crisp and authentic. Even Wolf didn't know what to do with that kind of straightforward answer.

Can you imagine getting that kind of straightforward answer from any of the other top tier candidates? Mitt Romney is so manufactured. Him and his wife look like they have come straight out of a Ken and Barbie box. They smile pretty and on cue, and then cheerfully recite responses that have been carefully constructed so as not to offend or unnerve.

Rudy Guiliani. Well Joe Biden called his number in a recent debate. The only thing that guy has to offer in any sentence is a noun, a verb, and 9-11. And what some like me are scratching our heads and wondering is what did he actually DO on 9-11? Sure he was everywhere on TV filling a void left when the president finally managed the energy to scamper out of the elementary school classroom and promptly buried his head in the ground for the rest of the day (but that's another post).

But what did Rudy do? What lasting policy changes did he offer to make New York safe from another attack. What visionary new era did he usher in with his bold striking response. What is different in New York today than Sept. 10, 2001 because of his leadership? I can't think of a single thing.

If that wasn't bad enough, he is running for the nomination while he disagrees with the majority of his voting base on the issues they care most about. That's a winning strategy? I'm just counting down to the implosion that will end this ridiculous ride.

And finally that brings us to John McCain. I must admit that I liked Sen. McCain's maverick candidacy during the 2000 election. Then he was authentic. And then, for some unexplainable reason, the senator went and sold his soul to George Bush. He might have gotten a better deal from the devil.

McCain aligned himself with the administration on the most unpopular issue at the most inopportune time, and it didn't even resonate as a principled move (as I'm sure his advisers must have convinced him). It came across as a pathetic man selling out too much too late. He sold his soul and got nothing of value in return. He should be glad there is even a Wikipedia entry under his name because the rest of history will forget him.

Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.

Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.

No debate about it, Wolf must go

If CNN wants more substantive debates, they ought to get Wolf Blitzer off the stage.

I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...

It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.

To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.

The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?

That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...

Hillary Clinton, girl of convenience

She’s sugar and spice and everything nice, especially when she needs to differentiate herself from all the other boys in the race.

She, of course, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, lone female presidential candidate and leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s convenient playing of the gender card but none struck me as more outrageous than a comment she made during her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Iowa last weekend.

Here’s the line:

Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.

Huh? Did she really say that she felt comfortable in the kitchen? That kind of blatant pandering might have palatable if it weren’t for her famous line in 1992.

When she was defending her husband during his presidential run, the good senator said this:

I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

Doesn’t sound like a kitchen dweller to me. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that, spending most of her adult life as first lady of Arkansas and the US, the only time she was in a kitchen was when the secret service was whisking her in and out of speaking engagements with her husband.

The kitchen is now convenient, as now her website portrays her as Mother & Advocate, First Lady and US Senator — in that order.

Speaking of her site, remember when she was asking for a theme song for her campaign? I know it’s late, but I’d like to formally offer one. Maybe she could come out of the kitchen long enough to hear it.

Obama: Our moment is now

I must admit that I had been becoming a bit disappointed at Barak Obama's performances lately. I remember how he started with so much energy and optimism. But lately his interviews and debate performances are showing the effects of senatorial speak -- lofty rhetorical and cumbersome explanations rather than the pointed and pithy that you need to grab headlines and generate interest. The interview and debate venues aren't his best formats.

But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.

Kucinich impeachment resolution killed but who’s the real kook?

Republicans know that Kucinich comes off as a kook, that's why, when he introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, they wanted Kucinich to be heard.

Democrats also know that Kucinich tilts on the kook factor. They'd just heard him admit in a televised debate that he believed in UFOs. And with that performance still relatively fresh on many mind's, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi wanted no parts of it.

And while we all snickered at the messenger, a message or two slipped past us. One, it was an issue worthy of debate. If anyone remembers the Washington Post's exhaustive series on the vice president, you would remember that there is fertile ground to plow on whether he stretched the boundaries of his power to circumvent the law. The series seemed to make it fairly obvious that the vice president is thumbing his nose at the constitution and doing whatever he pleases.

Second, Democrats, knowing all these facts, did nothing. That's right, in an effort to avoid the label of a do nothing congress, they sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where everyone agrees it will do — nothing.

For those of you who missed the resolution, here is a Cliff Notes version:

Vice President Cheney should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors:

Article 1: He purposely manipulated the intelligence process to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He did this to deceive the US citizens and Congress and justify using our military in a war against Iraq that has damaged our national security interests.

Article 2: He purposely manipulated intelligence to deceive America about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify his war.

Article 3: He openly threatened aggression against Iran without any real threat to the United States. He has done so while proving he has the capability to act on those threats.

Anything really kooky there? The resolution documents each of the articles of impeachment with a bibliography of references, not that we need it. A simple Google search can confirm most of the facts. But Kucinich is a kook. How can anyone take him seriously?

Meanwhile, I think Dick Cheney is having the best laugh. Who are the real kooks here?

Payoff to be an ally in the war on terror, $10 billion. Thumbing your nose at your benefactor, so you can stay in power. Priceless.

You'd think that for $10 billion you could get a guy to listen to you. Apparently not if it is the United States' $10 billion and not if that guy is Pakistan President Musharraf.

In the midst of the chaos that resulted from Pres. Musharraf declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the media is reporting that the United States has paid the country more than $10 billion to help fight the war on terror.

As the situation developed, Pres. Bush refused to speculate about whether he would send more money to Pakistan. That's right, he's not sure if he will send more money to the dictator who he can't influence.

It gets better. The Washington Post reported today that "Even as Bush said Musharraf's actions 'would undermine democracy," he also emphasized that the Pakistani president "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

Let me get this right. He has suspended the constitution, instituted martial law, jailed the politicians and lawyers who disagrees with him, and declared himself the defacto dictator and we think his actions might undermine democracy. And of course, we are depending on him to help us fight extremists and radicals.

Why such careful treatment you might ask yourself? The Bush administration believes that Musharraf is a key ally in helping the United States combat terrorism:

I now interrupt this blog post to present to you the dictionary.com definitions of Terrorism.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing.

Ok, back to the post about the ally in the war against terrorism who suspended the rule of law, jailed dissenters and used violence to enforce his authority.

Of course Pres. Musharraf was happy to stick his hands into our pockets and promised to play along in the terrorism game. Now comes time for him to give up power as he promised us he would, and he changes his mind.

Wait, a dictator who doesn't willingly want to give up power??!! Who could have seen that coming? And of course with the $10 billion military buildup and a benefactor who can't get his attention, he doesn't have to….

Hollywood writers’ strike? Who wrote that one?

Ok. In what must be the worst advice since someone told OJ to bust into a Las Vegas hotel to get his stuff back, Hollywood writers decided to strike. Hollywood on strike? Really? You think they could have written a better plot for themselves. (No more lukewarm latte's!)

Teachers strike and you wonder who will educate the children. Garbage men strike and you wonder about sanitary issues. You can even feel sympathy for an auto worker striking, as he has to navigate his shitty Ford back to his Detroit trailer park.

But a Hollywood writer? What will happen if they strike? We'll have...Gasp...no TV!! The horror! The tragedy! What's next, cigarette factory employees holding out for better health insurance?

Get a grip guys. You work in Hollywood. You're bickering over royalties. Get better agents and get over yourselves.

When ads attack

Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.

It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.

You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.

The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.

Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.

All this commotion for an ad? An ad?

This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?

Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.

Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?

Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."

Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.

Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.

His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.

He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?

GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com

Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.

In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.

On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?

In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.

Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.

So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?