HeadlineUpdate

The Washington Post Picks Obama's Cabinet (even if they don't know it)

I predict a fascinating story in today's Washington Post foreshadows Barack Obama's choice as Secretary of State.  Coming on the same day the paper endorsed Obama, this bit of hagiography contains a description of how Obama deferred to Richard Nixon's Favorite Mayor (look it up) on his first foreign trip that should make the penny drop on who Mr. Post Partisan will pick. I just have a hunch.  Credit me if it happens.

Who else is on Obama's secret short list?  Watch this space...

Medical Advance Enables McCain to Talk Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

Also posted on The Huffington Post

John McCain's campaign announced today that doctors at the University of Arizona successfully performed surgery on Senator McCain that will allow him to simultaneously say contradictory things, instead of having to wait months or years to reverse himself, as is current practice.

While researchers have long been studying the link between brain chemistry and politics, this procedure is being hailed as a potential game changer in modern elections and a boon to the GOP, which has in recent years depended on people voting against their own self-interest.

The operation stimulates the brain's motor cortex and creates a new section between the two language control areas known as "Wernicke's area and Broca's area.  This newly mapped part of the brain is being called Rove's region, in honor of the GOP strategist who, as Jon Stewart has observed, is able to make definitive pronouncements on one day and take the completely opposite position a week or two later.

"In this era of rapid response politics and accelerated news cycles," McCain strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters, "campaigns unfortunately sometimes have to choose which side to take without the benefit of polling, focus groups, staff shake-ups or bitter internal divisions.  Now, we don't have to pick one or the other.  We can choose both."

McCain tried out his new ability on the campaign trail this week, when he called for regulation to reign in the "greed" of Wall Street while repeating his long-standing assertion that regulation is bad and the economy is sound.  Campaign officials say in coming weeks the candidate will similarly support unfettered oil drilling and a switch to alternative energy sources; a speedy end to the Iraq war and further commitment of U.S. troops; tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the rich; and the necessity that a president comes to the job with years of experience <em>and</em> support for Sarah Palin.

In a related development, the International Ventriloquists' Association said it would study this development carefully.  "On the one hand, it could be a tremendous boon to voice throwers everywhere," spokesman Jerry Mahoney said.  "On the other hand, it could put us out of business."

Barack's Bucks--Or Lack Thereof

A line buried deep within this New York Times story about Barack Obama's apparent fundraising slowdown jolts the attentive, politically savvy reader with this admission:

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said the majority of the Obama campaign’s donors during the primary had yet to write checks for the general election. When they do, he said, it will be the equivalent of the large injection of cash the McCain campaign is receiving from the government — about $70 million or $80 million.

“We’re confident that we will meet our financial goals, but it’s hard work,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We have a long way to go in the next six weeks.”

Others are in fact writing about this but I haven't seen much in what fellow HuffingtonPost bloggers call the "Mainstream Media" about the implications of the fact the "majority" of Obama primary donors haven't given again yet.  The much-discussed decision to reject public funding is predicated on the campaign maintaining the super-charged participation of new, and newly energized, voters.  If all of a sudden Obama has to raise money like every other candidate has done, relying on the usual Democrats and high dollar donors, he's in trouble.  It's like

David Plouffe must be congratulating himself for getting to put out this alarming factoid in the middle of a postive-spin quote to the New York Times.  It's always a good idea when trying to avoid unpleasant subjects with the press to let the bad news slip with a positive gloss in a personal quote.  What's that formula for handling problems that could, say, lead to impeachment? 

"Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself."  Well, David, two out of three aint bad.  You told it yourself, however obliquely, and you told it early, before a big filing date later this month.  But did you tell it all?

How many people exactly are in that "majority" you don't have?  55 percent?  65?  80? 

Play TV Talking Heads Rope-A-Dope Poker

You can also read this entry on The Huffington Post (and if you like it, consider becoming a "fan!")

The networks' convention coverage can be so mind-numbingly tedious that viewers are concocting their own strategies for staying awake.  Some keep bowls of ping-pong balls by their TV chairs, ready to pelt the screen whenever noxious presences like Joe Lieberman, Mitt Romney or Laura Ingraham appear.  Others play drinking games, downing a shot whenever the name "Bill Clinton" is uttered, with an extra shot taken if it's followed by the words "tension" or "bitter."

But to my mind, nothing beats tracking the clichés, empty-headed commentary and self-aggrandizing posturing of the news readers Linda Ellerbee long ago dubbed "twinkies," whose jobs depend more on their hairstyles and loud voices then their intelligence, perception or insight.

To help viewers at home get started with this sport, I've prepared a few basic rules.  Feel free to add your own, and compare results with your family and friends at the end of the night.  But to quote David Letterman, this is only an exhibition.  This is not a competition.  So please, no wagering.

"Look at Me!  I'm Smart! I'm Smart!"

Many network correspondents realize that they don't have much expertise in their subjects and owe their employment (if they don't have great teeth and hair) to their ability to talk loudly and endlessly about very little in such a way that keeps viewers from switching to the Food Network.  One favorite technique is to dress up the bleeding obvious with phrases that imply the presence of serious investigative journalism.  NBC's David Gregory, (whose "Race for the White House" show has a decibel level that is 30% higher than OSHA safe standards), is fond of using the words "my reporting" at least once every sentence, as in "my reporting tells me that Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance speech on Thursday night," or "my reporting is that the sun will come up in the morning and set in the evening." 

Score 5 points for every undeserved pat on the back.

It's Not 'Entertainment Tonight', But We Can Still Pretend"

When they're not being forced to cover politics, most cable "news" networks devote as much airtime as possible to the antics of Hollywood celebrities, in agreement with stars' view that their lives are far more important and interesting than anyone in Washington.  (If Harry Reid and Brad Pitt were both drowning, and she only had one life preserver, whom do you think Campbell Brown would save?)

Once a celebrity's name gets associated with a politician, be it Paris Hilton, Oprah Winfrey, Kanye West or Ernest Borgnine (well, maybe not Ernest Borgnine), the networks take every opportunity they can to make them part of their political coverage. One network correspondent furrowed her brow the other day and announced that she had figured out why so many stars came out for the conventions.  "Either they are really interested in politics," she said, "or they have something to sell."  Well, duh.

Score three points for every mention of a celebrity not currently serving as Governor of California.  Award five bonus points for celebrity interviews in which the star fails to mention the name of any candidate for president.

"Can You Believe I'm Sitting Next To This Moron?"

A special category, invented for Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who have so much airtime to fill and so little regard for one another that they often can't hide their mutual contempt. 

Score five points for every Mathews/Oberman comment met with stony, or stupefied, silence.

"I'm Having More Fun Than You!"

Following the "happy talk" model of local news anchors, many network stars spend more time giggling and making personal remarks than interviewing guests or analyzing the news.  Convinced that viewers find their lives more interesting than the future of the Republic, they prattle on about what they had for dinner, what Brad Pitt had for dinner (see above) and how much <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwIGZLjugKA">Kid Rock's song</a> sounds like "Werewolves of London."  (Well, actually, that's worth mentioning, at least to Warren Zevon fans).

Score four points every time Mika Brzezinski falls out of her chair laughing and Campbell Brown fusses with her hair.

"Never Mind Who's President--How Are Our Ratings?"

As I've previously written in this space, hype frequently outweighs news delivery, as CNN and CNBC feverishly compete to attract more viewers to the dying dinosaur known as network news.  Election coverage centers on gimmicks and self-promotion, with a little bit of reporting thrown in give the handful of actually knowledgeable analysts like Chuck Todd and Jeff Greenfield something to do. 

Score five points every time CNN's John King plays with his electronic map.  Six points for every mention on CNBC that the network is "the place for politics," and two points (because it happens so often) whenever Wolf Blitzer boasts about "the best political team on television."

Years ago, I created a similar Media Bias Detector for the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) that quoted Gore Vidal, who said "Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on.  But for many there is no time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but a series of flashing fictions intended, like the avowed commercials, to keep docile huddled masses, and keep avid for products addled consumers."

Now you have a way to fight back.  Happy watching!

       

When Bad PR Happens to Good People, or, Jeffrey Birnbaum’s Revenge

                                Read a version of this post on the Huffington Post

Washington Post columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum has his panties in a twist again about the practice of public policy advocates employing professional writers to help them draft newspaper op-eds.  As a writer who specializes in just this niche I have an objection to his objection, and you should too.

Just ask yourself—do you really want to read op-eds whose every word is written by lawyers, scientists and Henry Kissinger?  Is Senator McConnell as good a writer as Salman Rushdie?  When you see a politician’s or celebrity’s byline on a newspaper page, do you believe they wrote it all by themselves?

Of course not.  But the Washington Post apparently believes something different.

A few months ago, Jeffrey Birnbaum wrote a pair of articles that “outed” a PR campaign which included a “white paper” circulating on Capitol Hill making the case for Congressional earmarks, and also an op-ed in the Washington Post “written” by three big-city mayors.  He must have imagined a scene out of the Dick Van Dyke show, where the mayors stood around a computer, chomping on cigars and arguing over participles, but then was disappointed to find the hidden hand of a PR firm.

“Soon after my column on the paper ran last week,” Birnbaum wrote last May, “the company's president, W. Roger Gwinn, phoned to admit that his firm's seven-person budget and appropriations policy team wrote it -- initially to explain to clients why they tended to get more money from congressional earmarks than from federal agencies left to their own devices. It was later distributed to lobbyists and congressional staffers.

That's when it became famous as a bold defense for the much-maligned earmarking process.

The document's facts were used in an op-ed piece praising earmarks that appeared under the names of mayors of three cities represented by the Ferguson Group. The firm had a hand in placing that op-ed in the Washington Post, though it initially denied any involvement.”

Now, Birnbaum is at it again.  In a recent column headlined, “The Man Behind the Byline Isn't Behind the Article. So, Who Is?”  Jeffrey Birnbaum revisits the shocking practice of ghostwriting.  Reading between the lines, you can see how the machinery of government, journalism and public relations really works.

Backbiting! Backstabbing! Skullduggery! Sniping!

Fun and Games in the McCain Campaign

As I've previously written, it's not the cost of campaigns that's out of control, it's the mark-up. The greed and egotism of political consultants can be a drag on democracy, and a distraction from the business of winning elections. There's something wrong when a campaign's consultants and strategists get their names in the paper as often as the candidate.

Consider what's been happening in the last few days in the McCain campaign. The news has been dominated with "process" stories--inside baseball about how inept McCain is as a candidate (see: teleprompters), how off-message the campaign has been (see: foreign trip) and how many slogans and re-launches the campaign has burned through. Now, a year after the last staff shake-up to end all staff shake-ups, the knives are out again.

First, Karl Rove's disciple Steve Schmidt was brought in to stop the campaign's internal bleeding and make the trains run on time--but the candidate couldn't quite bring himself to say he'd demoted his current campaign manager.

Then, a trial balloon the size of the Moon was floated suggesting that McCain's longtime advisor Mike Murphy would be brought in as top dog, but in the few hours since Bill Kristol gave this suggestion national prominence in his New York Times column, Murphy's enemies succeeded in shooting it down. A campaign staff already known for temper tantrums must have boiled over again in the last few days, leading Murphy to tell the Times today,

"I'm not expecting to join the campaign. I'm trying to kill and end all this stuff."
"I think this staff speculation is not helpful to the campaign," he said. "I don't want to be controversial and I don't want to be distracting from the senator's message."

Of course, this is what's known in the trade as a "non-denial denial," paving the way for a future reversal. There's a big gulf between a firm "no" and a vague "I'm not expecting to," and no one would be surprised to see Murphy in and Rick Davis out, perhaps by the time you read this. McCain clearly trusts Murphy and wants him on board, but since he can't bring himself to fire people he may have to settle for Murphy playing the role Dick Morris had in Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign--the shadowy unofficial campaign guru who gives back-channel advice to the candidate and drives the staff crazy. Watch for more disarray and feuding and a growing chorus among Republicans of "can't anyone here play this game?"

News Update: Obama to Accept Nomination on the Moon

HeadlineUpdate Update:  Read this on the Huffington Post (but come back to this site for more jocularity)

Barack Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination on the Moon, and not as previously reported Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat stadium home to the Denver Broncos, the Democratic National Committee announced Monday.

"We thought about the stadium thing," a spokesman for the Obama campaign said.  "But the Rolling Stones weren't available as a warm-up and besides, we've done stadiums already.  Barack Obama sees the Moon as a chance to talk not just to everybody in Denver, but everybody in the world."

The Obama campaign, in cooperation with NASA, will launch dozens of satellites in the next few weeks that harness what scientists call "the IMAX Maximus" effect, which creates a field of particles that can receive projected images from fifty thousand miles away.  The Obama speech is expected to reach 85% of the world's population.

Talking to reporters on his campaign plane on Monday, Senator Obama said,
"When I was going door to door on the streets of  Chicago talking to poor folks about hope, people said I was promising them the moon.  I wasn't then, but I am now."

A spokesman for NASA, when asked whether the agency was under any political pressure from the Bush Administration to refuse cooperation to the presumed Democratic nominee, said, "Sure we were.  But "f--k" 'em.  They won't be around much longer, and we'd love to keep our jobs."

When asked how much the broadcast would cost, an Obama spokesman declined to provide a specific amount, but said it was in the "low hundreds of millions."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's bold move is being eyed with interest on Madison Avenue. Coca-Cola, long known to be interested in buying naming rights to the Moon, sees the satellite technology as a satisfying first step.

"We always said that we'd like to give the world a Coke," the company said.

Breaking News from CNN: The Election’s Over!

Breaking News:  Read this post on The Huffington Post!

When former FCC Commissioner Newton Minow famously observed that television was a “vast wasteland,” cable news hadn’t even been invented yet.  With hundreds of channels in today’s media marketplace Minow’s wasteland has grown even vaster—but narrower as well.  The bandwith occupied by CNN, for example, is a black hole that lays to waste intelligent thought, responsible journalism and viewer sanity.

Take Wolf Blitzer (please!).  How many times an hour does he refer to “the best political team on television?”  Enough to make you wonder just how secure the network really is with that assertion?   And when he soberly announces “you’re in the situation room” am I the only one who wants to say, “no I’m not, I’m in my living room!”

Still, I’ve refrained from throwing ping pong balls at the screen when Blitzer is on because I care about the subject he’s talking about. That’s why I was so offended when Blitzer announced the “breaking news” that the electoral map had changed and four states that had previously been listed as “toss ups” were now being given to Obama.  “Obama now has 231 of the 270 electoral votes he needs to win,” Blitzer announced, “while John McCain has 194.” 

Excuse me? Have we had the election yet?  Or are the networks so addicted to the excitement of election night coverage that they are turning their ratings-boosting primary coverage into a nightly drama, instead of having to wait until November to do it again?  The networks’ addiction to exit polls, tracking polls, spin and conflict make elections seem like just another reality TV show, only with cheaper prizes.  “Who wants to be president” isn’t as compelling a question as “who wants to be a millionaire” or “who wants to be America’s top model or new idol.”   Maybe if CNN gave the runner-up in the presidential campaign a record contract they’d do better in the ratings.  (Although as much as I like Hillary Clinton, I’m not sure I want to hear her sing).

It’s alarming when the media tries to remove voter participation from the political process, when they shift from reporting the news to making it themselves.  I’m reminded of the old Groucho Marx line about the fellow “who stuffed spaghetti with bicarbonate of soda, thus causing and curing indigestion at the same time.”  And during the 2004 campaign, in an article about an experiment to measure whether Republican and Democratic advertising lit up different parts of the brain, I cited an old science fiction story about a future where elections were determined by a single voter hooked up to a computer.  The lesson in both these examples is that technology can go too far in the pursuit of democracy. 

Besides offering employment to women from the Planet of Big Hair and men with shiny teeth, I’ve often wondered what purpose CNN serves in today’s media marketplace.  PR people know that in its ravenous appetite for material, the network will take just about any bait offered them and won’t dilute their press releases with much original reporting.

After the networks started to broadcast exit polls, they were pressured to hold back on releasing them until voting had ended. Now, it seems we need a new rule to keep CNN’s premature electulation in check.  Tell them to hold off on awarding electoral votes until we actually start voting.  Ratings are fine, but give democracy a chance.

P.S.  My point about Tim Russert's stewardship of Meet the Press was echoed by the New York Times today:

Tom Brokaw, the temporary host, did not try to duplicate Tim Russert’s trademark custom of digging up old videotape to catch politicians flip-flopping and contradicting themselves...

...it makes sense to recast the job and return to the early days when guests really did meet the press, answering to a panel of inquisitors who together did what Mr. Russert did alone.

This Week's Other Important Political Obituary

Two deaths this week illuminate some essential truths about the media.  First, to paraphrase William Goldman’s classic line about Hollywood, “nobody knows anything—except for the few people who do.” (I added that last part).

And second, really, nobody knows anything.

Continue reading here--or check it out on the Huffington Post--and "buzz me" or "become a fan" please!

Eloquent Hillary, Bobblehead McCain and Where We Go From Here

Will people still be talking about Tuesday after Hillary Clinton's speech on Saturday?

It is a lot to ask of a losing presidential candidate to give up their right to a controlled exit, appropriately stage-managed, spun and cosseted to spare the candidate's feelings.  The other night a roomful of Obama supporters raked me over the coals for suggesting that their rage would subside and Hillary would say all the right things on Saturday.  Maybe she could have hit a single on Tuesday, but by Saturday, she could knock it out of the park.  As Jon Stewart found out during the recent strike, you gotta have writers.  I'm glad she took the time to get it right. 

I particularly appreciated the speech writer's trope of repeating the line "and that's why we must help elect Barack Obama our President" four paragraphs in a row. One of the first lessons I learned in politics was "repetition, repetition, repetition.  (And repetition.) 

And one of the basic rules about being on television is to look at the camera.  I would have thought someone had told John McCain that, but it was apparent Tuesday night that didn't sink in.  Someone apparently did tell him it's important to make eye contact with everyone in the room, resulting in his   robotic three-angle head spin. Every six seconds, Bobblehead McCain turned to the right, left and back again.  It was so transfixing that I couldn't focus on what he was saying. This guy will be easier to beat than Bob Dole. 

I hope. 

As inept as McCain seems today, I don't underestimate the impact of a scare campaign against the man they're already calling a "liberal flip-flopper."  Haven't we heard this one before?  If the Republicans succeed in defining Obama with negative stereotypes before he fully introduces himself to the American people, Obama may have just made his last piece of history.

John "Bobblehead" McCain

While we wait for Hillary and Barack to speak, may I ask the question no doubt on the lips of anyone who's been watching McCain:  who told you to move every six seconds and look in a different direction?   

A Hillary Lover Speaks (v.2)

Once again, I'm referencing the great Billy Bragg, whose  "Levi Stubbs' Tears" just might be the greatest song ever recorded.  And I'm fessing up to how in the tank I"ve been for Mrs. Clinton. But as I've previously written, I'm saying "uncle" and hoping for the best.

When the Robert Kennedy fracas broke I couldn't help but think of my favorite quote, the lines Bobby Kennedy spoke in apartheid South Africa about "acts of courage and belief."

Lately I've been asking myself, is it a that a description of Hillary Clinton's exit from the presidential campaign? I'm sure it feels that way. Adlai Stevenson conceded his race with Abraham Lincoln's line about "a little boy who had stubbed his toe in the dark. He said that he was too old to cry, but it hurt too much to laugh."  Hillary probably feels something similar.

Still, I think she'll pull up her socks, as the namesake of my college used to say, and work harder for the Democratic ticket than any losing candidate ever has.  Of course, that will be even easier if she's Vice-President but I wouldn't bet on that happening.  (Although as I've often noted, I'm usually wrong).

I just don't see why Barack Obama would want a running mate who got just as much press as he did, and whose husband would always be called "Mr. President" too. 

It's much more likely that David Axelrod and a bunch of expensive focus groups are testing all the usual suspects, from Ted Strickland to Oprah Winfrey. Obama may believe in the "politics of hope," but he wouldn't say so unless it tested well.

Something else I'm sure came from a focus group is Obama's new "out of touch" line about McCain--it no doubt beat "wrong on Iraq" and "old and creepy."  Maybe Hillary could lend Barack her "strength and experience" line...or she could follow the advice of this important op-ed in today's New York Times and become a 21st century Eleanor Roosevelt or Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  As they say in Mary Poppins, "Well done, Sister Suffragette!"

   

Hillary's Bobby Kennedy Remarks--There's no there there!

    It's what Gertrude Stein  said about Oakland (and according to the link you just clicked on, not necessarily in the context we've all thought she meant) and it describes the kerfuffle over what Hillary Clinton said about Robert Kennedy.  There's no center, no substance to the indignation now overflowing on cable news.

    Her actual words were:

   

"We all remember Bobby  Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

     Quote unquote.  C'est tout.  No big deal, right? 

    The comment was made after she repeated her frequently cited rationale that her husband didn't beat back his challenge from Jerry Brown until June. (And according to Time, she's even mentioned the RFK assassination before too.)  But I don't believe she was saying, as Tony Blankely said vacantly tonight, that her opponent might be dead before the convention.  Do you? 

    I think, to quote Barack Obama (and Tom DeLay) she was "inartful" as she emphasized that in election seasons past, stuff happens in June.  I am a huge Bobby Kennedy fan, and have written about how Hillary Clinton compares to RFK, and I think she's made of better stuff.  (But I'm one of the 6% of New York Jews who voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary, so what do I know?)  Let's drop this Hillary business and go back to finding stupid things preachers say.

    Finally,what's up with McCain's V.P. audition at his ranch this weekend?  Now it's up to 6 potential running mates coming for barbecue.  I suspect the guests will just be picking at their food.

    Maybe he's told them they'll all be part of his Cabinet if he doesn't end up picking them for the ticket.  Or maybe he's already ruled them out, and is doing this to help them save face. Hope someone records it for youtube. 

   

How It Feels To Be Wrong About Everything

I know I've said this before, but really, now I give up.  I said with such authority that it was certain that Hillary Clinton would be our next President.  I thought everyone missed Bill and that people who didn't like her were probably Republicans anyway.  (I did predict, unpredictably correctly, that the two of them would bring lots of excitement to the race (duh!).  But enough about me.

What about Hillary?  Chuck Todd thinks she wants to be V.P., but I tend to doubt it.  And it will take a horde of raging rhinos to get Obama to ask her.  He doesn't want a Vice President capable of getting more attention than he does, and she doesn't want to have the job Gore and Dan Quayle had.

Will she stay or will she go?  Elizabeth Kolbert has a nice perspective in the New Yorker, (and she quotes my favorite "celestial choir" line) but I tend to think she'll fold the tent soon.  Why did she choose to meet superdelegates at the DNC headquarters today, and then duck the question of whether she met with Howard Dean?  Is this the beginning of the end?  The popular wisdom is that she'll go the distance and quit after the rules committee meets and the primaries end--and as usual, I agree with the popular wisdom.  Although I always knew McCain would be the nominee.  America wasn't going to go for Rudy or Mr. Mormon Underwear.  Who, as I'll still predict, looks even more than the aforementioned Dan Quayle like someone who was born to be Vice President.

"It's How the Loser Loses"

    Rahm Emanuel said that.  Frank Rich says it today too. Howard Dean said it on Meet the Press.   I've been saying it since January 2007.
    The only way Democrats can lose in November is if whoever doesn't get nominated fails to immediately and enthusiastically endorse the winner.  The question to pose now to Hillary and Obama is, "if you lose, will you campaign just as hard as you would if you had won?"
    If the Democrats decide to nominate Hillary, only Obama can keep his most enthusiastic supporters from staying home or (less likely) voting for McCain.  If Barack is the nominee, both Clintons will be needed to turn out their base.
    A diffident endorsement like, say, Eugene McCarthy's when he lost to Hubert Humphrey, will set back the Democratic Party from the march back to political dominance it began in 2006.  It's going to take swallowing a lot of pride and eating a lot of crow--but it's the only recipe for success.   

Exactly! (Or Why Obama is Wrong)

As I opined in the Christian Science Monitor back in January,  I think partisanship and what Barack Obama calls "textbook" politics happens to be the way to beat devious, big spending Republicans. 

Politico's Ben Smith blogs today in praise of Obama's critique of last night's debate, quoting him thusly:

She was taking every opportunity to, you know, get a dig in there.... That’s all right, that’s her right, that’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit....

Look, I understand though, because that’s the textbook Washington campaign, because that’s the politics that’s been taught to be played, that’s the lesson that she had heard when the Republicans were doing the same things to her back in the 1990s.

Does Barack (or more importantly, David Axelrod) really believe that the Republicans won't do the same thing to him in 2008?  Or to any Democrat in '12, '16 and beyond?  That is what Republicans do. Will Obama be able to just swat away their lies and distortions the way he's dismissing Hillary's jabs? (Warning--previous link is to a memo by Mark Penn!)  Will the politics of hope trump the politics of Rove?  I'm not so sure...

Oh Boy! Another Story About Greedy Consultants!

So Mark Penn is out and Howard Wolfson is in.  If this had been a plot line on The West Wing we'd have dismissed it as old-school.  Losing candidates have fired strategists when the going gets tough for eons. Can anyone say John Sears?  Joe Trippi? 

But what makes this story so much more is the special role Mark Penn had in the Clintons'  lives.  This poor family, which had been taken to the altar of blind belief in their consultants by a loudmouth and foot fetishist, were sure they'd gotten it right this time.

As I've previously written, I think Mark Penn is right about a lot of things.  I've even been to his house (for a book party, he didn't even know I was there--nice place, though)  But as architect of the "experience and strength" strategy, Penn has a lot to answer for. Me, I would have surrounded Hillary with children and talked more about being a woman and a mother. And I would have made damn sure to win Iowa. Penn no doubt thought this tactic wouldn't work with white men, but as we're learning this year, white men aren't always predictable.

It looked at first as if the Penn wasn't going to get in big trouble by meeting with Columbian officials to support trade agreements he's advised candidate Clinton to oppose, but after what I'm sure has been a weekend of back-biting, hot tempers and crisis, Penn was thrown under a train and the man in charge of Clinton's message is the one whose calm demeanor and soft-spoken reserve have been on display in these  conference calls.

Watch for a  bold, out-of-the-box move from Hillary any day now.  Again, to return to the administration of most people's favorite Democrat, Jed Bartlet, in this episode Toby and Josh fight and Josh wins...say, that Wolfson guy does look like Bradley Whitford...but then Leo steps in and works it all out...no such luck here.

McCain's "American President" Ad

The Washington Post among others, prints the wrong-headed speculation today that John McCain's first national campaign ad, calling him "The American President America Has Been Waiting For" is somehow a dig against Barack You-Know-Who Obama. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Let me tell you a little secret we political propagandists know.  The use of unifying national symbols appeals to voters, and words like "America" or "American" are (nearly) always a worthwhile component of effective slogans. 

McCain's ad vindicates another early opinion I had of him, when I first saw the old newsreel footage of the young POW McCain. It's powerful stuff, and I knew we'd be seeing more of it in McCain's commercials.  That is, when he's not comparing himself to Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt...

See the new ad for yourself.

And I'll ask again, where are the attack commercials reminding voters of the Keating Five?

And now for something completely different...

You Heard It Here First (And Not From Me)

PoliticalWire has this tantalizing story today.  Can a deal really be in the works?  Will Howard Dean finally show some backbone? 

Reprinted here in full:

The Las Vegas Review Journal runs a brief Q&A with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about settling on a Democratic nominee for president.

Q: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

Don't you just love it?  "Things are being done."  Ooooo, scary.

Obama's Speech -- Visionary or Dumb?

First thing every morning, and often thereafter during the day, I check out Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, and recently I saw these opinions of Barack Obama's speech on race.  I'm inclined to agree with Marc Ambinder, who I used to find really really annoying when he wrote The Note in that over-caffeinated, smart alecky style still maintained by his successors.   But here Ambinder reads like Walter Whitman next to the always effete Andrew Sullivan when he writes:

If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains.

I know what he means.

"Methinks he doth protest too much" thought I as I heard Obama mention Minister Wright about 27 times. It was Obama's "Sister Souljah" moment--and he cut a duet with her.  Old school is repudiating the person your opponents will use against you, in that highly effective way they have of scaring voters about Democrats, New School is not caring and speaking truth to power.  You know, a lot of my crazy left wing clients in the 1980s used to say that about how they were fighting Ronald Reagan...

On the other hand...maybe I should do what Obama askes and look beyond that aspect of his speech and listen, really listen, to what he says about race.  OK, he's eloquent and persuasive and totally right, but does that make him qualified to be president?  I remain torn, and reminded of what a politically highly influential friend of mine said in the winter of 1992:  "Either Bill Clinton will be the best Democratic president of the United States, or the last one."

HeadlineUpdateUpdateHeadline

The day after I wrote the above, Dan Balz nailed what I was trying to say in this column.  Good job, Washington Post.   

Gov Fingered In Hooker Probe

I owe my friend Paul B. that title, which he entered in the New York Post's "Write Your Own Headline."  There's been a lot of interesting comment about Eliot Spitzer, from Ruth Marcus in the Post to Maureen Dowd in the Times and lots of places in between.  My reaction:  Andrew Cuomo must be wetting his pants.  Any dream of defeating a weakened governor in a primary is gone.  Andrew has to go on being the "real Elliot Spitzer," a crusader for justice. with a happy marriage and proven respect for women.  Oh, right...

Other than that, I won't pile on to poor Eliot, but if you want to indulge go to the Smoking Gun and let's all get ready for the person I call dibs on calling the "real Barack Obama:" David Patterson.

Post Primary Partum Blues

Now that the dust has settled from "Super Tuesday II" a couple of points seem evident.  First, as Taegan Goddard, the proprietor of the indispensable Political Wire writes in his new Political Insider blog, Howard Dean has proved once again how useless he's been as leader of the Democratic party.  A lot of Democrats had serious doubts about his selection as party chair back in 2005 and in the years since Dean has done little to prove them wrong.  Like his campaign for president, his party leadership resembles a balloon that pops into nothingness after a big buildup.  Dean's initial stubbornness and current dithering concerning Michigan and Florida are damaging the party and alienating voters in two key states.  Let's have a do-over in June, and I'm not just saying that because I know it will help Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of Hillary, don't you just love the now out-in-the-open feud among her consultants?  As readers of my earlier newspaper articles and posts on this subject now, I believe that my fellow consultants are harming democracy with their egotism and greed.  Mark Penn, that means you.  The Washington Post story linked above (and to be sure you don't miss it, again here) contains this lovely exchange between Penn and Harold Ickes:

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted.

"[Expletive] you!" Penn replied.

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted again.

Priceless.

Some Wise Words About Hillary

Thank you, Gail Collins, for today's New York Times column about Hillary Clinton. It's spot on about Clinton's troubles and I agree, as another famously unsuccessful presidential candidate once said, "One thousand percent." 

Collins shares the view I've previously expressed that Hillary Clinton is a lot sharper than her consultants. 

If things don’t go well for Hillary over the next few weeks, some of her consultants may need retraining for a promising new career in, say, motel management, but here’s what I hope she understands. She’s done fine. And she’d probably have won the nomination walking away if Barack hadn’t picked this moment to mutate into BARACK!

You do your best, and if things don’t work out, it just wasn’t your time. Life isn’t always fair.

Hillary's Celestial Choirs

Considering what I wrote in the Christian Science Monitor last month, I consider myself quoted by Hillary Clinton as she wonders about the realities of the "politics of hope."  I still think, as the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party said to Chris Matthews yesterday, that a strong, partisan Democrat in the White House and a stronger Democratic majority with skilled leaders like my old college classmate Rahm Emanuel is a stronger formula for success, but hey, I read the papers and watch TV too and am prepared to rock with Barack just like every other Hillary voter I know.

You Can Read It In The Sunday Papers

Once again, I'm pushing nostalgia for Joe Jackson as well as a recommendation that we all spent a little more time reading good newspapers on Sunday morning (sorry, Cincinnati, you can read the Times and the Post online) as well as good political blogs like PoliticalWire and The Huffington Post.    Here's what's caught my eye today, starting with this story about one of the many politicians I've wrongly thought were winners, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.  I agree with her remarkably candid remarks about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign, although ultimately, I think (and I called this wrong, too) Mark Penn was a bigger negative than Bill Clinton.

A welcome diversion from the political news in the New York Times is this lovely piece of writing about what many believe to be, as Jim Jarmusch calls it, "the greatest radio station on the planet," WFMU. The great Vin Scelsa helped create the station when it was Upsala College, just a few miles from my home in Weird New Jersey.  And speaking of the Garden State, Yo La Tengo does an annual fundraiser there, my friend Jed Distler has been on their air, and when he and I were in junior high Jed and I volunteered to help at their phone-a-thon and real live hippies were all around us talking about scary drugs. 

I was going to close with another wry observation about the campaign but I've just started to listen to Bob Edwards' interview with Pete Seeger.  The documentary about him is about to be aired on PBS (and presumably, then offered for sale on DVD) and I recently had the privilege of spending a morning with Seeger interviewing him for a different documentary project. I asked him if he had gotten cynical or disillusioned and he said no, it's the little things that people do every day that give him hope.  Forget what I said above.  Put away the papers and listen to this interview, watch the documentary and remember what it means to be a truly great artist.
 

Hillary Clinton's Shocking Confession!

Never mind what she said in last night's debate, the real news is what's in her campaign spending report, as enumerated in today's New York Times.  The shocking, shocking news is that she spent a lot of money on consultants and the trappings of a White House level travel operation (you'd think she'd have learned that lesson!), which, as the quote below keenly observes, wouldn't be mattering now if she'd had won Iowa.

It’s easy to be critical, but had she won Iowa, none of this would have mattered. It wouldn’t have mattered what she spent because money would have come pouring in,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant and a veteran of Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election bid. “But the fact that she did not has made everyone focus on where the dollars went — and where they think the money should’ve gone.”

McCain and the Lobbyist(s)

    The most interesting part of what so far, no one is calling "McCaingate," was this nugget from the much anticipated New York Times story today:'

At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading “McCain voted against my bill.” Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called “cowardly.”

    I've been saying for weeks that I hope someone at a 527 is reading a batch of "Keating Five" commercials and this just cinches that strategy.  McCain is vulnerable on the issue of big money and special favors.  And when he pretends to think otherwise, he doesn't even have guts to go to his own fundraiser? 

    When he comes after Obama (see?  My towel with the HRC initials is still thrown in) on experience, we'll need to come back at him with corruption.  Enough about Iraq, already. Follow the money!

McCain-Romney?

Have I just seen the Republican ticket?  Watching Mitt Romney stand behind John McCain was like watching Dan Quayle--a man born to be Vice President. Oh, they'll say that McCain and Romney won't be able to get along, and that the ultra-conservatives won't be satisfied with Mitt's pedigree, but sod the Right, McCain might say, Romney's conservative enough and he might kick in another twenty or thirty mil if the race gets tough...

You Say Obama, I Say Uncle

As regular readers of this space know--all 12.82 of you--I've been a confident, enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton for years.  I admit it, I want Bill back, but also I want my daughter to know that a woman can be president. And I think that in many ways Clinton would be a more effective leader than Barack Obama.   

In a contest against John McCain, I felt that she would run a stronger race.  I bought her "strength and experience" argument and still think that against McCain, Obama will look like a freshman Senator without much of a legislative record.

But...every time I see Barack on TV I like what he says and the way he says it.  He makes me feel good about myself in a way that Hillary doesn't (but Bill did). And as a graduate of a "women's" college (Sarah Lawrence) I found myself alone among my classmates in supporting the woman running for president. Plus some leading feminists I know who have supported Hillary all along are ready to make the switch.  They say, and I agree, that Clinton ran on the wrong message, took the "inevitability" factor too seriously, relied too much on her husband's poll ratings, and failed to retool her campaign in Iowa in time to make a difference (which would have changed everything).

I still think she's thought through policy solutions more completely than he has and that she would be ,as she somewhat inelegantly puts it, "ready from Day One" to confront the nation's problems. But I've decided I'd be just as excited as my friends are to see Obama in the White House.  So while I voted for Hillary yesterday, I can do the math that Chuck Todd was doing on MSNBC last night too, and I don't see how she can win this thing. 

However...the always lively and intelligent Maureen Dowd makes a good case today about how women have rallied behind Hillary before when she's been on the ropes, despite whatever ambivalence they have about her husband.  And if she wins big in Ohio and Texas, she'll be another comeback kid.

Finally, I Was Right!

As I'm not shy about admitting, I'm often wrong about my political predictions.  (Kerry/Cleland?  Mayor Mark Green?  Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend?) but I've been saying for months that John McCain would be the Republican nominee.  I never took Rudy Guiliani's candidacy seriously and apparently, neither did he.  Mitt Romney was undermined by all the people who googled "Mormon underwear."  John McCain was always the only Republican who stood for something. I was not surprised when his campaign's reckless spending was revealed, as I I often note how consultants (like me) are harming democracy.  It's not the cost of campaigns that's out of control, it's the mark-up. According to this article in the Washington Post, Romney was set back by that familiar political phenomenon, squabbling consultants. 

Once McCain found a way to scrape by without expensive consultants, he basically moved to New Hampshire and reminded voters why liked him in the first place. I've always felt that McCain would be toughest to beat, because Democrats find him tolerable and Independents  think he's cool.  This longtime Hillary fan admits to speculating if Obama's appeal to Independents would trump McCain's clear advantage on "experience." And would Hillary be true to her word and run a very respectful campaign against her "friend" John McCain?  If that happens, look to the 527s to do McCain's dirty work against the Democrat, which should begin any minute. Memo to liberal 527's:  start working on those "Keating 5" spots now, please.