You might have been noticing in the Twitter updates, each week I've been setting for myself a big picture goal. So far, I've been getting a lot out of it. Last week's, "one step after the other" was a big success and thinking about these macro-sized things and making them into weekly mantra's can be helpful when you get stressed.
This week's mantra is born out of two things; the first, being the death of Tim Russert, who was one of my heroes. I talk about Russert's influence on me as a journalist over at Flaming Politics, but he's a hero to me because of the way he conducted his life. He was aggressive, tough and successful, but remained true to his roots, cared deeply about passing on his knowledge as much as he was excited about absorbing others and brought passion to all the arenas of his life. I believe, and try to live out, that success should never change who you are, because who you are is what makes you successful. Tim clearly embodied that axiom. Here's a guy who worked relentlessly, put his family first and still showed a generosity of spirit to everyone he met, no matter who they were or where they came from.
The second reason I'm keeping "Let There Be Love" in my head this week is that I'm making real headway on the screenplay and it's reminding me why I love writing stories: They surprise you. I keep referring to the movies as "Close Encounters", because I want to do a big, fantastical commercial film that's grounded in an everyday reality. But the surprise over the weekend is that I'm realizing that what I'm writing is an anti-apocalyptic movie. The usual summer blockbuster is about the world put in peril by a killer storm/alien/large rock of kryptonite and someone comes along and beats up someone else and somehow the world is saved. I think I'm writing a film that inverts that formula a bit. The end of the world always seems just around the corner, be it by the hand of war or science or religion and sometimes it does come, whether its in Darfur, on the beaches of Normandy or on the 82nd Floor of Tower One, but we keep living. In the face of apocalypse, humanity doesn't run screaming into the night; we endure. We don't have the luxury of Superman, so we survive through love.
Now, I just need to, you know- make it sell to the 14-28 year old males. Good thing I put in explosions and hot chicks.
Uh-Oh. Video of Michelle Obama Ranting About "Whitey" Leaked
We've heard the rumors, and it seems that someone in the RNC (or maybe a disaffected Hillary supporter?) has released what everyone up 'til now thought was a fairy tale: A video of Michelle Obama at a Louis Farrakhan audience talking about a dude named "Whitey" and saying some rather uncharitable things about him. I guess Larry Johnson was right after all. Bob Beckel called it! G.O.P. strategist Roger Stone was on the money when he said "What other reason would [Hillary] have for staying in the race than this video?"
Once you see the video (link below-- it's too gut-wrenching to embed on this page) I think you'll see what a big mistake America has made in nominating Barack Obama. No matter how affirming of the ideals of America, how much the world embraces his vision of America, no matter how adept at foreign policy, no matter how many stadia he fills with people seeking genuine transformative change in this country, nothing makes up for this. I thought this was just a lie being perpetuated by rabid partisan Clintonista's (like HillBuzz) desperate to give their failed candidate another nanosecond of spotlight. I was convinced that their gambit was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at Rovian innuendo, a sad embarrassing graceless note to the funeral dirge that is the Clinton hold on the Democratic Party.
But I was wrong. I apologize. Clinton people, you were right all along.
Asked for a reason he actually opposes gay marriage, anti-gay marriage lawyer Dan Schweitzer flounders before Bill O'Reilly, comparing gay and straight relationships as being as different as winter and summer. Bill-O, after trying to give the guy as many opportunities to come up with a reason as possible concedes that all the justifications are lame and bigoted. I know this has been up for a bit, but if you haven't seen it, you should.
Check out the latest installment of Flaming Politics at After Elton. This week on Flaming Politics, I put Hillary-talk to rest (at least in my own mind) as I conduct a post-mortem on what worked and what didn't work in her campaign, no character assassination needed. Also, gay victims of the Nazi Holocaust are honored, a Birmingham, AL Mayor puts the kebosh on a pride parade and what you can do to start getting involved in the fight for equal marriage.
Japhy eschews the usual cavalcade of sing-alongs, cartoons, and game show parodies to give you a firsthand, heartfelt, on-the-ground account of the historic marriage decision in his adopted home state of California. You know he's serious, because he's wearing a suit; though it's possible he's just trying to nab wedding invites.
Does this decision really matter? Will we ever achieve true equality? Don't expect the answers here, but it's a good place to start the conversation.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."-- From the California Supreme Court which invalidated a gay marriage ban, thereby making marriage a legal option for me and all gay Californians.
HIL-arious. Sunset Blvd. is, like most marginally employed screenwriters without a car in L.A., one of my favorite movies ever. And who better to play Norma, than -- oh, just watch it. I mean, it's really really mean, but oh-so-awesome.
Taking the AP Headline "Artist Robert Rauschenberg Dead at 82" and prefacing it with the word "Gay", Advocate* paid tribute to the influential pre-pop visionary by unceremoniously -- and inaccurately-- outing him.
The problem? Throughout his life Rauschenberg actively avoided being called "gay" or "homosexual", preferring, when pressed to describe himself as "pansexual". When Rauschenberg's "Combines" show came to L.A. in 2007, I ran a story by art historian Bill Picture called "Why Won't Robert Rauschenberg Come Out?" that covered the issue.
In the article, Picture wrote "according to [Harvey Milk Institute founder Jonathan] Katz, Rauschenberg doesn't identify as a gay man. "He considers himself pansexual," Katz explains. "You have to remember, though, that while we think of the term 'gay' today as a political identity as well as a sexual one, during the 1950s [when the Combines series was created] homosexuality was a pathology." Regarding the standing decision of curators and art historians to skirt the gay issue, Katz believes it has to do with more than just appeasing conservative museum-goers. "I think they're [also] opposed to the idea that there can be any kind of code that will unlock these works".
None of this was in the Advocate piece, which was printed verbatim from the wires except for the addition of the word "Gay" to the headline. What's the big deal, right? Even if Rauschenberg isn't totally gay, he's pretty gay. Obviously, I think a story about Rauschenberg in a gay publication is appropriate, but to tack on the label "gay" to someone on their death, when in life that person had a much more nuanced view of their sexuality is shoddy journalism.
That Advocate makes the claim without bothering to elaborate is just frustrating in its mindless reductionism. Would they print "Eleanor Roosevelt, Gay First Lady, Dead" or "Leonard Bernstein, Gay Composer, Dead"? It would seem so. While both figures are certainly worth talking about in a gay historical context, calling them gay and leaving it at that would be irresponsible. Same goes for Rauschenberg. If you're going to eulogize someone who's sexuality is not cut and dry, you at least owe it to your readers to report on it. The utter laziness in throwing "Gay" onto an AP headline and leaving it at that is infuriating. That it's coming from a gay publication is mind-boggling.
*Full disclosure: I write for Advocate from time to time.
By accident, of course. One image shown in the spot has the caption, "Clinton aides admit it won't do much for you, but would help her politically". Via Dan Savage @ Slog.
Here's some of what I've been working on this week:
An interview with Arthur Dong, director of Hollywood Chinese, a fantastic documentary about the Chinese-American experience in Tinseltown. I could have talked to Arthur for hours-- a really funny, fascinating and thoughtful guy. (The Advocate)
A QnA with photographer Paul Mpagi Sepuya. Sort of got me thinking about how the media's job is to define and label things (this is a trend, it is about these kinds of people, it fits into this category) and fine artists are all about introducing ambiguity and challenging the nature of the boxes we stuff things into. Not that any of that shows up in the piece. (Popnography)
The 400 pound gorilla this week is my big feature story on "The Boys of Buzznet", Jeffree Star, Clint Catalyst and Matthew Lush. I'll probably write another blog soley about the backstory to this piece. For the moment, I'll just say I'm pretty proud of it and really thankful for my editor, Shana. (Out.com)
Obama Responds to "Bittergate"- 'Yeah, People ARE Bitter"
You know, this was the big lesson I walked away with when I did my religious roadside attractions documentary-- people in Middle America aren't hateful. The reason they jump on all these conservative bandwagon issues (extreme pro-life, anti-gay, creationism) has more to do with their own anger and frustration at the poverty, lack of access to education and lack of economic opportunity they find themselves in. It's not a talking point-- if you want to combat the worst of social conservatism the way you do it is by providing these areas with good jobs, education and the opportunity to develop their own communities.
Because if it's Wednesday, it's Flaming Politics. This week, I ask if Elton John is the proverbial fat lady singing to let Hillary know her time has come to an end.
Storefront for Art & Architecture and the Control Group have an open competition to design a new White House (for kicks). Winners get flown to New York in July for a gallery show. You can keep the original structure ala Renzo Piano, or if you want, knock the whole thing down and put in a Neutra.
The meaning of democracy and we must think of that very seriously. There are new problems. They must be met in new ways....It is a foolish thing to say that you pledge yourself to live up to the traditions of the New Deal and the Fair Deal--of course, you are proud of those traditions; of course you are proud to have the advice of the elders in our party, but our party is young and vigorous. Our party may be the oldest democratic party, but our party must live as a young party, and it must have young leadership. It must have young people, and they must be allowed to lead. They must not lean on their tradition. They must be proud of it. They must take into account the advice of the elders, but they must have the courage to look ahead, to face new problems with new solutions. --Eleanor Roosevelt
As this season hits its nastiest and most cynical, I think it's important to remember what the Democratic Party could be, what it ought to be, what it must be. It is the party that raised America out of the Depression, fought WWII and gave teeth to the idea that "all men are created equal". In my lifetime, I've seen a Democratic party which though the way to win was to be like your opponent, not realizing that Americans don't care who wins at the game of politics, they care about who will lead the people, who will reinvent the American promise for the next chapter of our history.
"Now you see me now you don't, I come and go": Under heavy sniper fire in Pennsylvania today, Hillary Clinton took time away from bringing peace to Ireland to answer some reporters questions and remind them that they can probably get another news cycle out of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You'll notice she answers the totally random question from notes which she reads from the podium. Immediately after the event, she joined Sinbad in taking down Kim Jong Il with her bare hands.
You say "misspoke", I say, "lied". While this clip is very funny, Hillary's unbelievable exaggerations about her "experience" are finally coming to light. There's nothing wrong with being a First Lady and she seemed to have been a good one, but we've already had a President who exaggerates danger to play on our fears. Can we really stomach another?
I love supporter-generated videos. This one, "It's Raining John McCain", will make your eyes bleed. However, since misguided sympathy for tone-deaf women seems to drive out voters, maybe this'll give him a bump.
He tells The Daily Swarm, "What the fuck?! That ain't no fuckin' name, yo. That ain't that nigga's name. You can't be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here." Read it all here.
Economics journalists are often accused of being Cassandra's; prophesying doom left and right. Take this quote from last year for example:
June 13, 2007:
"It is impossible to predict when the magic moment will be reached and everyone finally realizes that the prices being paid for these companies, and the debt taken on to support the acquisitions, are unsustainable. When that happens, it won't be pretty. Across the board, stock prices and company valuations will fall. Banks will announce painful write-offs, some hedge funds will close their doors, and private-equity funds will report disappointing returns. Some companies will be forced into bankruptcy or restructuring...Falling stock prices will cause companies to reduce their hiring and capital spending while governments will be forced to raise taxes or reduce services, as revenue from capital gains taxes declines. And the combination of reduced wealth and higher interest rates will finally cause consumers to pull back on their debt-financed consumption." --Steven Pearlstein, The Washington Post
In this week's Washington Post, Pearlstein says that the current crisis "is turning into the most serious financial market crisis since the Great Depression". Bet you want to hear what he has to say about our economic future now:
"It's anyone's guess how long this credit crunch will last, but the chances are that we'll have several more market meltdowns and Fed rescues before it's over, probably in the fall. Until then, the dollar will continue to get hammered and stocks will continue their fitful decline. And if the last two financially induced recessions are any guide, it will be well into 2009 before the economy hits bottom, followed a couple of years of slow growth and "jobless" recovery."
The NYTimes asks "Why Do Their Wives Stand There, Beside Their Man?" today, looking at Silda Wall Spitzer, Lee Hart, Suzanne Craig, Dina Matos McGreevey and of course, Hillary Clinton. It's an interesting question: Are these ladies dupes being used as political pawns or are they protecting their family? There's no question all of them were duped to begin with, but by supporting their philandering husbands publicly, are they reframing the debate as a personal one, as opposed to a public one?
My two cents is that if the people deign you worthy of public office, with all its enormous power and privilege, the least you can do is keep a lid on the whoring while you're in office, be it with a whore, a page, an intern, you name it. If you really get all hot and bothered and can't control yourself anymore, you can always go fuck your wife.
If the Dems lose to this guy it will be entirely their own fault. I don't get it. Does he think he's the nominee because he's the most partisan Republican around? It's like a pod person took over his brain.
I'm a little more sanguine now that I've had a few hours to digest what happened last night in the Texas and Ohio Democratic primaries. Hillary succeeded in changing the goalposts and as I had expected, she won Ohio and won the popular vote in Texas. At this early in the morning it looks like she might get a net gain of 4 whole delegates out of this.
You're going to hear a lot about how it's increasingly improbable that Hillary can win the nomination. The reality is, Obama cut her 20 point leads down to nearly nothing and at this point, the goalposts that really matter-- that is, the delegates are not just in Obama's favor; there's pretty much nothing Clinton can do to win the pledged delegates.
Here's why I'm happy. Had Obama won tonight, he would be the nominee and McCain and the Republican's would begin an all out assault. Right now, they don't have to because they have Hillary to do it for them. Somebody would be going after Obama and I'd rather it be Hillary. She can continue to throw the "kitchen sink" at him, if she's lucky pick up a delegate or two here and there and at the end of the primaries, still be behind.
But what about all the damage she's doing? Bollocks. She's not saying or doing anything McCain wouldn't be doing or saying. In fact, the tow of them look more like a team every day. The upshot of this is that all indications are Hillary & Co. will do anything to win and as her tactics become more aggressive and dubiously ethical, her critiques of Obama will seem more and more repugnant, weakening their effectiveness by McCain in the general. This lady is going to burn the house down with herself and still, there's just no way for her to win.
For all intents and purposes, Obama will be the nominee. Hillary's continued presence in the race manages to keep Republicans at bay while also, let's be honest, help draw a distinction between Obama and the liberals of the past. McCain will have a far harder time drawing Obama as the classic liberal after Hillary's self-immolation. Obama's continued to conduct himself with grace and dignity. Even after Hillary refused to acknowledge Obama's wins in the 11 primaries after Super Tuesday, Obama congratulated Hillary on her wins, as one example. And for someone who wants to win the general election in November, his focus on going after McCain now is the right move. I'd be standing by him even if he wasn't winning, but he's actually already won. Let Hillary destroy her house finding plumbing to throw at Obama. At the end of the day, he'll still be the nominee and she'll have a real fixer-upper.
Ways in Which Hillary Clinton can become the Democratic Nominee:
Score higher than 20 point margin wins on every contest from here out, including make-up primaries in Florida and Michigan.
Somehow convince the super delegates that they should vote for her even though mathematically it is highly improbable she will wind up winning the pledged delegates or the popular vote.
That's it folks and I'm open for taking bets that either of those things will happen. At least on this planet. It's no longer an opinion that there's no quantifiable way that Hillary Clinton can win. I'm sort of shocked by the myopia of the Democratic base. Do they just enjoy losing elections? Hillary Clinton can not become the nominee through anything resembling a democratic process. And where the hell are her tax returns?
"I was assigned to Precinct 316 (Lovett Elementary School). I arrived, attempted to introduce myself to the Chief Judge Ella Tyler who responded "get out".
I tried to explain that I was an attorney with Voter Protection and she said "get out". She then grabbed my arm and told me to "get out". I was escorted from the building.
We sent in another attorney Monica, a local attorney, who Ms. Tyler threatened with arrest, and Ms. Tyler has rejected her credentials were rejected now three times.
Ms. Tyler is a known Clinton supporter. In my opinion, Ms. Tyler has violated the Texas staututes [sic] and federal lawn. But she's inside and we are outside. I guess we are worried about the election in Texas today!"
Drug addict and talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners in Texas and Ohio to vote for Hillary Clinton tomorrow, saying:
"The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!"
Rush may not be right about much, but here he's dead on. Hillary's continued presence in the race only damages the chances of a Democrat taking the White House next year and does very little in the way of helping her catch up in delegates. While she can't win this nomination or beat Obama's delegate lead, she can prevent him from winning. We'll see what she says tomorrow and if she'll accept the reality that failure to win Texas and Ohio means there's no way she can win the nomination or if she'll sabotage the election to satisfy her own ego-- and you know, help out Rush Limbaugh.
Though I'm not a Hillary supporter, I think she's probably overqualified for the job she seems to be angling for in her latest "Save your babies! Boowgawooga" ad.
The New York Times Answers My Question About William F. Buckley
I asked Sam Tanenhaus, editor of The Times Book Review and Week in Review, who is writing a biography on William F. Buckley:
"Who in your -- or perhaps Buckley's estimation should you know it -- carries on his legacy of intellectual conservatism? If you had to nominate someone to ascend to the lectern of Buckley, who would it be?"
Clinton hack Rep. Hillary Tubbs Jones says of the photo of Barack Obama wearing a traditional Kenyan outfit, "There's nothing wrong with him wearing the clothes of his native country." By which she obviously means the outfit was manufactured in the U.S. I guess bitch really is the new black.
"How does he do it?" we're all asking ourselves. Sure, Barack Obama is a talented and gifted politician, but that doesn't explain "the movement": The cheering crowds, the inspired-by videos, the accusations that his followers are "delusional". What is the magic spell he holds over his supporters? If we could only figure out where he gets his 'mo' from, we could stop him, or copy him or at least wake up from this fantasy. What's the key to Barack Obama's rise? Just what is the "something" that he claims is happening in America?
Not to steal from Obama's thunder, but the truth is that every sweeping change a nation undergoes, whether for good or ill, is the result of some deep seated national anxiety; be it about taxation, abolition, financial insecurity or something else.
When I was in high school I always wondered why it wasn't until mid-May that my American History teacher got around to teaching about the 20th Century. It seemed that all the most important things; The Great Depression, WWII, Communism, The 60s, all happened then. As I got older, I realized that the consideration was political. While discussing the demise of the Whig Party is no big deal, no teacher wanted to have a parent chew them out for giving Nixon an apology or for judging Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis. But for us living in 2008, we have a clear line between past and present: Our world began on 9/11. Everything before that date is history.
The narrative vision of our country since then has been nightmarish. We're afraid. In fact, we're so afraid, we've declared war on fear itself and those who attack through fear. I won't repeat all the highlights of the last seven and a half years, be it anthrax or Abu Ghraib, the FREEDOM Act or Katrina, but if you're an average American, you feel under attack.
In the first days after September 11th, I wandered around the city imagining how someone could blow up whatever I happened to be standing near, on or under. I think the visceral closeness to the tragedy of that day inoculated me to the later bogeymen. I worked at ABC when the anthrax scares happened and my feeling towards terrorism now, while decidedly unpatriotic, is that it happens. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prevented and fought, but if some wacko really wants to blow himself up, there's really only so much we, the people, can do about it. If living in a world free of terrorism means sacrificing our democracy, I'm not sure it's worth the trade off.
But, I'm in the minority on this. Survival trumps all other concerns and as George W. Bush has said on more occasion, the conflict we're in is "existential", which might be what sparked his interest in Camus' The Stranger. I've just never been convinced that America was as fragile as all that and our long history has shown that our greatest dangers have never come from external sources, but from within ourselves.
Now, on that many would agree with me-- and point to the red sate blue state divide in this country. On one side, people like me are painted as fetus-killers who will take the surviving children and teach them to be radical homosexuals who will wage a covert war against anyone who isn't an atheist. On the other, any second an angry mob of fundamentalist Christians (oh fine, Baptists) will come bursting through my door to burn all my books and force me to marry one of their thirteen wives. That there are separate news channels catering to each of these groups signals just how institutionalized our contempt for each other has become.
I changed the slogan of The Modern Romantic yesterday. It's now "Poetry, politics and popcorn." It's Tony Kushner's recipe for what every good play needs and in college, I used to write scenes for my screenwriting class in a notebook I'd covered in gaffer's tape with those three words printed on the front. I only met Tony once, and he struck me as a nebbish, nervous man. His words though, have always excited me.
Before I came out to my Mom in high school, I remember seeing a local production of Angels in America with our gay youth support group. It was my first gay anything and unrepentant Roy Kohn, fabulous and flinty Belize, poor confused Joe and Louis and starry-eyed cursed Prior were the first proper homosexual role models I ever knew; for which I'm forever grateful. For a long time, I wanted to write a novel called "Hello, Supernova", a line from a speech he made in 2004 at Cooper Union. I have an opinion about The Dybbuk and think having a scene in which Laura Bush reads to dead Iraqi children is an act of patriotism. His plays are weird, angry things that shake you and make you think. That he manges to fill the seats is a testament not only to his genius, but to the fact that American political discourse isn't dead just yet.
In 2004, Caroline, Or Change, Tony's first musical, premiered on Broadway. The eponymous heroine is a black Southern maid working for a middle-class Jewish family living in early Civil Rights era Louisiana and the plot revolves around the loose change cup by the dryer. It lasted three months. Caroline's big number in the show is called "Lot's Wife". In it she sings how "some folks march for civil rights, but I can't, I ain't got the heart" and then begs God to "make me forget so I stop bleeding/ scour my skin still I stop feeling/ take Caroline away, because I can't be her/ can't afford her, tear up my heart/ strangle my soul/ turn me to salt/a pillar of salt". She asks God, "Don't let my sorrow make evil of me."
The song randomly came up on my iPod today and it's what inspired this post. Hearing it, I immediately thought of Barack and what it will be like to hear this song again once he becomes President, how a long chapter in America's story of social injustice would be finished. Not that the book would be done, by any means.
Then, I thought about Caroline and how all art that aims to tell history winds up revealing more about the time it was composed in. She's such a reflection of ourselves. I can't tell you how many people have told me, "I don't think Barack can win in a general election because he's black and people are racist", to which I mutter under my breath, "even you, it seems." Michael Chabon talked about how we've become a phobocracy, a country of fear and that "the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul." We look at the world around us and it's changing too fast. We look at our own society trembling at the new contours that erupt from every corner.
From the revolutionaries to the abolitionists to the civil rights marchers, when you look at the history of America, whenever we've been given the choice of choosing to follow a dream and perhaps fail at it and fail spectacularly or to live in cynicism we chose the former over the latter. Everything that's ever been good about this country has come from taking the risk in believing in something. That's what it means to make a choice in life.
A Gen X'er pal of mine told me he could never support any President, because they all have failings. We don't trust politicians or the government and deservedly so, but we're just as culpable for why they suck. We're not involved, we refuse to make choices. We believe it's better to reject them all than support one and find out that they aren't infallible god-kings. This is a dangerously anti-democratic attitude. Of course politicians are susceptible to corruption and of course they will make poor decisions. That's why they need our support; without it, they're left to the wolves and lobbyists.
We can choose to support a leader who will do their imperfect best to lead all Americans instead of rewarding a war of partisan attrition where gossip take precedence over governing. We can choose to not allow the heinous deaths of those who fell on 9/11 be hijacked as a justification to start needless wars, throw away human rights and strip the Constitution. We can either stay where we are now or we can choose to live in fear, either of the world abroad or of our neighbors. This is what is meant by "change" in our country.
And when the day comes in January that we inaugurate President Barack Obama, we will look around at each other and at ourselves and we will have changed. We will awake and see that we as a country have changed; that we aren't the thing that we thought we were for so long. And it won't won't have happened by magic, but by the choice to declare we won't let fear make evil of us.
Hey folks. It's make or break time for Sen. Hillary Clinton as she faces off Sen. Barack Obama in Austin tonight. If there's gonna be fireworks, they're going to be here. I'll be live blogging throughout the debate and welcome your comments. My friend Nick, who is a Clinton supporter, will be adding his 'Hillary Perspective" as well. Since I'm you know, biased.
6:45pm: Clinton says that she's truly honored to be in this campaign with Obama and hell, I buy it! With that, she gets a standing ovation. Try reading what that means, pundits! We're done! 6:42pm: What was the moment that tested you the most in a moment of crisis? Obama: The trajectory of my life-- rocky youth, learning to take responsibility for myself and learning how to bring together people to make a difference. Clinton: Everybody here knows I've lived through some crises. (huge cheers!) People ask me, How do you do it?-- and she says its nothing compared to my problems. And your problems. We're heroes! And she was blessed with the calling to make our lives better, so we can be more like her.
6:38pm: Superdelegates! Clinton says "These are the rules that are followed, we'll have a unified Democratic party"... and she's going to totally sidestep the issue. 6:35pm: "We borrowed money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudi's. That's not a winning strategy for America." Good line for Clinton, sort of alludes to the good times of the 90s.
6:32pm: Executive power comes up. Obama is asked why he hasn't disclosed the earmarks he's put into bills ands he responds that he has and will happily provide a list and that he's behind a "Google for government" that allows Americans to see earmarks.
6:30pm: How long is this debate going on for? My TV Guide says it should be Anderson Cooper 360 time.
6:27pm: Obama's really making veterans and issue, bringing up PTSD.
6:24pm: Great question about the surge and whether the surge is working. Clinton makes the point that yes, the U.S. military can stop fighting, but the goal of the surge is to get the Irqi's to step up and that hasn't happened. It's a good point, but Iraq can never be her issue and Obama snatches it from her, saying he makes a stronger contrast to McCain.
6:21pm: Clinton hits on her national security experience and talks about the issues going on in the world. Obama pivots it, saying his number one job as President is to keep America safe and then pivots again to Iraq and how the military was mismanaged, how it was a bad decision to go to war and how much you want to bet Hillary regrets that vote authorize the war now?
6:16pm: Clinton hits back on Obama's healthcare attack. "It is personal for me", she says. It goes back and forth for five minutes. The question was about whether Clinton felt Obama was ready to serve the country or not, btw.
6:12pm: Got an email from the Clinton campaign just now about "super delegates". A snippet: "1) A candidate needs 2208 delegate votes to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included."
6:10pm: Nick has to run because he's a regular working stiff, not because Hillary just you know, totally bombed. Big thanks to him for joining in.
6:07pm: "We can have great plans but if we don't change the way we play politics we'll be sitting here again in four years talking about how to get universal healthcare." Closest I've ever seen Obama come to taking that issue from Hil.
6:06pm: Obama isn't going anywhere by reaching back to 1993 to criticize how Hillary handled health care back then. How would he know? - Nick
6:05pm: Obama's finger is pressed against his notepad so paper doesn't fly up and distract 75% of his supporters. You know, shiny things, moving objects, etc.-Nick
6:04pm: "I'm tired of health insurance companies deciding who will live and die in America." Best line of the night. Hillary's strong point, always. - Nick
6:04pm: Obama: "We both want universal health care," except Obama doesn't. He just said his plan isn't very good? That's weird. WHY IS OBAMA'S PAPER FLAPPING UP AND DOWN?- Nick
6:04pm: Obama will debate the issues and ignores Clinton's attacks. You know, this is the reason he's winning. Clinton winds up looking petty by attacking Obama. He ignores her attacks and goes on to look at the specific policy differences. This is stacking up to be a bad night for Clinton.
6:03pm: Good, she mentioned George Bush again, so at least she can get some applause. This was brutal for her -- which is unfair, since she's absolutely in the right. - Nick
6:02pm: It's on! Hil uses that "Obama's campaign is about words" tack and then goes after his healthcare plan, home foreclosures and oh, I'll let Nick take this. I don't buy the premise of her argument.
6:00pm: Oh. "Change you can Xerox" didn't go over as well as she hoped.- Nick
5:59pm: HA! "A $4,000 tuition credit for every child, every year... [whisper] in exchange for national service..." Obama's saying he'll give tuition credit to kids who go off to Iraq, but mumbled that last part.
5:58pm: On the Deval Patrick flap, Obama says "This is where we get into silly season in politics." Then he goes off on the specifics of hope. Clinton is getting her ass handed to her right here.
5:57pm: Ooooooh, the plagiarism issue. He's doing the "10,000 monkeys at a typewriter" excuse -- I've given so many speeches, it's inevitable to duplicate a couple lines Deval used! So it's not plagiarising if the guy you plagiarised from works for you?-Nick
5:56pm: Obama goes after Hil's argument that it's time to "get real", rejecting the "delusional" Obamaniac argument. He actually says what I've thought for months-- it's not about the issues in this race, it's about how you plan on achieving change. Nick would call this a "home run".
5:54pm: As Obama claims he's engaged not just in talk but action, Hillary has got the weirdest expression ever on her face. Now she's taking notes. But at least Obama recognizes that his staunchest supporters are delusional. FINALLY. -Nick
5:53pm: The old "actions speak louder than words" line gets a lot of applause. Texans: easy to amuse.-Nick
5:53pm: Hillary makes the ludicrous claim that her attacks are part of a civil discussion of "comparisons and contrasts" and then references the Texas State Senator who couldn't name and Obama achievement and obliquely references the Patrick Deval claim. Obama uses the opportunity to point out what he's done-- healthcare reform, ethics reform, takes credit for improving conditions at Walter Reade Hospital. 5:51pm: And CNN isn't gonna let that happen. There's ratings to be had. First question: Hillary, is Obama all hat and no cattle? She uses it to go after Bush.
5:49pm: It's halftime and I can't believe we wasted five minutes on the question of foriegn language education. Obama's been good at rattling off specific policies. He still talks in a semi-halting way at times, which does contrast with Hillary's constant shout-out's to how awful George Bush is, but I don't think we're seeing any real winner. Instead, we're getting a good, substantive debate.
5:45pm: Obama takes it one step further: every student should be learning a second language. I choose Burmese. -Nick
5:46pm: Obama: Standardized tests bad! Foreign language good! This must be like porn for NPR listeners. - Nick
5:43pm: At least Hillary acknowledges that it's a little hypocritical for whitey to call for immigrants to learn English when whitey just knows one language herself. She encourages people to become bilingual (whitey, too?) but wants us to rally around English. - Nick
5:44pm: On the question of forcing people to speak English, both candidates believe that a common language is great, but also that we all should learn a second language. They've just lost the stupid-xenophobe vote.
5:42pm: The "Dream Act" gets a lot of applause. I am picturing Jennifer Hudson.-Nick
5:42pm: Obama's strategy is to point out "Hey Hillary and I are the same on issues, but I have less baggage." Nick, what is Clinton's strategy?
5:41pm: Yes, Obama, the key is to consult with local communities, especially when that same exact line got Hillary so much applause.- Nick
5:38pm: I spent the last few minutes figuring out how to do dual live blogging, so missed the first half of the immigration debate. Clinton goes again after the Bush adminsitration. I'm gonna wager we are not going to see these two go after each other. Clinton can do well by not going negative, because that was the expectation. Hillary is once again arguing that her votes shouldn't be used against her because the things she signed into law were poorly executed by Bush.
5:37pm: Hillary, did you think your vote on the border fence was wrong? "But you know John..." What's smart fencing? Is this like where the Mexican immigrants get their nuts zapped when they try to cross the border? Ouch.
5:34pm: Obama and Hillary basically agree on immigration, although (I think) Hillary is playing a bit better to the crowd. I think Obama is trying to get applause from his Texas audience when he says he doesn't want people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against, but it just sort of sounds off-point.-Nick
5:32pm: A question from distinguished actor Ricardo Montalban.-Nick 5:31pm: Say "the innovation nation" five times fast.-Nick
5:31pm: Hillary keeps slamming Bush. It gets an applause!
5:29pm: Say "clean green jobs" five times fast.-Nick
5: 28pm: Shit, she wants to freeze interest rates for 5 years? That's bold.-Nick
5:26pm: The economy: Obama gets it first and throws off a half-dozen or so proposals from getting rid of the Bush tax cuts, enforcing labor standards, building a green economy. Then argues that he and Hil are the same on issues, but that he can get these things done because he can "overcome the dominance of special interests".
The Hillary Perspective: "The wealthy and well-connected have had a president for the last 7 years." Good line. Shit, she wants to freeze interest rates for 5 years? That's bold. 5:18pm: Will you meet with the a new Cuban government? Hil: Yeah, if they move towards democracy. Obama: I would meet with them. "I think it's important for the U.S. to not just talk with its friends, but also its enemies." He would lift the ban preventing Cuban families in the U.S. from visiting Cuba. He would move towards normalizing relations if they moved towards democracy. For a second there seems to be a distinction, but then Hil speaks and says, "I'm for normalizing, but we need to prepare" and then Obama says "We have to prepare, but the President has to take a more active role."
The Hillary Perspective: On Cuba, Hillary just hit one out of the ballpark. Although, to be fair, calling out the Bush Administration's arrogance to a group of Texas Democrats is an instant standing ovation, but still. 5:13pm: Obama's opening statements: "A nation at war and a failing economy" face our country. Anecdotes of Texans and Ohioans who have seen economic downturns, mentions NAFTA. Mentions mistreated veterans and parents of dead soldiers he's met. "Lobbyists have a stranglehold on the process". "The central premise of this campaign is that we can push against interests, be straight to Americans and enlist them." Well, there's a contrast for ya.
The Hillary Perspective: Obama says it's absolutely critical that we engage in trade. We should also engage in breathing, living, sleeping. 5:08pm: Hil's opening statement: I'm a Texas girl! Started working here, we share the same values! Nice shout out to Barbara Jordon and Ann Richards. Politics is about making "real differences". Right out of the bat- healthcare. It's her strongest issue. "Lifetime of experience, proven results"...and asks the people of Texas to join her. 5:02pm: In the war of "Who gets the biggest applause entering?" it's a - holy crap, this is one hopped up audience. 5:00pm: Lou Dobbs plugs the NAFTA Superhighway as an issue. Wanna bet it's gonna be a question? And we're off! 4:53pm: As far as a specific Texas weakness, the panel sees immigration being an issue that Obama can use against Clinton.
4:50pm: Where the CNN pundits think Clinton will attack: Obama's appropriateing Deval Patrick's words and his waffling on accepting public financing.
4:45pm: Lou Dobbs hopes the race stays close so we get the excitement of watching a fight over superdelegates. That kidder!
4 a.m. EST - Castro Resigns, Miami Herald Asleep at the Wheel
From Nick: "You want to see the mark of a truly horrendous newspaper, go to MiamiHerald.com ASAP. Then go to any other news source. I took a screen shot of the Miami Herald page in case they cared to, by the time you read this, note that Fidel Castro stepped down. This is the news story Miami has been waiting for for decades and their excuse for a newspaper can't even be bothered to update their page."
Also: Holy Fucking Shit on Tacos! Castro's resigned!
Forget the War of Words: Hillary Clinton's Proven She Can't Lead
We all know Hillary Clinton's not the world's greatest speaker and her campaign wants you to believe that while she's the duller candidate, she's the more substantial, the better to "lead on day one". She wants you to think the difference between her and Barack is a rhetorical one and her attacks; the latest one accusing him of stealing someone else's words (an odd claim for a lady who uses the phrases "Fired Up, Ready to Go" and "Yes, We Can" in her stump speeches) are all designed to give this claim credence.
But the difference between Clinton and Obama is not a speech thing, it's management and organization. She didn't finance the campaign well. She had no plan past Feb. 5. Her inner circle is determined by loyalty over competence, ie: Patti Sollis Doyle. This has nothing to do with her inability to inspire, but rather her inability to lead. Considering that for both candidates, this campaign is the biggest executive experience they've ever had, I think its fair to judge them by the sort of campaign they've run. How do they react to challenges?
Accusing Obama of being a plagiarist during a conference call the day before a primary isn't just an act of desperation, it really goes to how the Clinton's act under fire. There's this really arrogant attitude the Clinton's have that only they can save the country and so doing underhanded things to get the presidency is justified. It's ironic that Obama supporters are called cultish when it's weeping Hillary who has the savior complex.
Furthermore, the attack follows a pattern. In primaries the Clinton's like to stage some wild loose attack the day before the contest. In New Hampshire it was Bill calling Obama "the biggest fairy tale" he's ever seen. In South Carolina it was Bill yelling at a reporter and yesterday it was the plagiarism attack. These attacks are always followed the day of the primary for an appeal to move on and not get caught up in bickering by the Clinton people. The point isn't to actually bring up an argument, since none of these attacks ever stick; it's to dominate the news cycle the day before, to put the Obama team on the defensive and maybe if their lucky rattle off a few wavering undecideds. Some people call this smart political strategy, but what voters are saying this year is that they view it for what it is; lying and doing anything to win.
For a brief moment before Super Tuesday, I think Hillary was her genuine self. She spoke on the issues and how this campaign represented a historic moment for this country. Then she started losing momentum and rather than sticking to her convictions, she shook up her staff, took their advice to playing dirty and now, I believe, is going to see that effort blow up in her face. Do you want a President who, in times of crisis, cedes her authority and principals to spinmeisters and political operatives? Haven't we had 8 years of that already? Do we want another leader who rewards loyalty over competence?
I would find it very hard to vote for Hillary were she the nominee. She's too beholden to experts, policy advisers and political strategists. This is why we get a new Hillary every week. There's nothing wrong with taking advice, or even borrowing a good line from a fellow candidate now and then, but I don't trust someone who can't manage their own campaign to manage the country.
Fortunately, we have a great candidate; a once in a generation one, really-- who more Americans have cast their vote for this year than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, who has run with the same theme and message he had when the polls were stacked against him, who has conducted himself with honor and integrity, whose campaign is funded by millions of small contributions and who doesn't just talk about change, but is making it happen; right before our eyes.
You can accuse me of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, but it sure beats swallowing the bile the Clinton's are trying to shove down our throats.
What with Hillary Clinton winning the gay vote 2 to 1, you'd think by now somebody with design sense or taste or style would get this woman a decent inspiring music video*. At least she has a lock on the Up With People vote. *special thanks to Eric for this one.
Worried that my blog had become all-Obama, all-the-time, a friend and Hillary supporter sent me this video today, saying "Sure, Obama supporters have big name endorsements, but Hillary has Sophie B. Hawkins' unfettered support." As I picked my jaw up off the floor , he (yes, he's one of those young, white males who like Hillary!) added, "There is a certain charm to this video, actually. I mean, that Sophie B. Hawkins still exists and isn't doing heroin somewhere in the San Joaquin Valley is charming in and of itself.But clearly, she asked her lesbian girlfriend to film an impromptu music video on a shitty winter day in Venice-- probably for the best that she scrapped the line about 'coming inside her jungle book'.
Discussion Questions:
What is the significance of the graffiti tiger?
Who are the people in that apartment?
Who still carries around a boombox?
Why all the timecode?
Was the ASPCA monitoring the dogs used in this video?
Is that 'A Woman's Place is in the White House' bumper sticker especially made for this video?
She takes some heat for agreeing to it, but in exchange she puts Obama in a lose-lose situation: If he accepts, he'll risk angering the young, progressive flank of his supporters, if he refuses, he offends the right-leaning moderate flank who actually tune into Fox News now and then, as well as offending potential Republican voters. It's a smart political game, if not exactly the actions of someone looking to unite her party. It's a preview of what I expect will be Clinton's strategy over the next few weeks: To create wedge issues to try to fragment Barack's coalition of supporters.
It's a strategy, but also a risk; if Obama continues to play the role party uniter, voters may reject her for all the calculation. Her real challenge is too find a way to bring "hope" and "change" over to her column without looking like she's trying to kill both to get elected.
Howard Dean is About to Be the Lonliest Man in the Universe
Let's pause a moment and pay our respects to a dead man walking. Beneath that chipmunk-toothed smile, I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Howard Dean is choking down a scream louder than the one that cost him the nomination back in 2004. As Chairman of the DNC, Dean's future post-Super-Duper-Tuesday doesn't look very bright. I'm a big champion of Dean. His 50-state strategy was pooh-poohed by establishment Democrats until it started winning them districts and I think he's been a powerful and credible force for building the party beyond its usual (read: losing) comfort zone. Unfortunately, Dean's never gonna get a break-- and in 2008, he's in the hot seat again.
The problem is simple. It's now clear McCain is going to get the Republican nomination. Meanwhile Clinton and Obama continue to duke it out. In this sense, Super Duper Tuesday is a win for the Republicans. Presuming they can rally around McCain (which I think they will), Republicans have given themselves an edge over the Dems. While Obama and Clinton have at each other, McCain can have at them both. This plays into the worst stereotypes of the Democratic party-- that they are talkers and not doers, that they're the squabbling children to McCain's wizened maturity. It's unlikely either Barack or Hillary will concede and the reality is we are now seeing a Democratic nomination that will go on into the late Spring.
Add on top of this the specter of the "superdelegate". I can't think of a better way to suck the wind out of the excited Democratic base than for voters to find out all their energy and enthusiasm don't matter; that a bunch of Washington politicians will decide the nominee.
Somehow, Dean has to find a way to prevent these issues from sinking the eventual nominee, while not short circuiting the nomination process that will determine said nominee. My personal suggestion: Dean needs to have a "come to Jesus" moment with both candidates. It doesn't matter if they talk about their favorite Ben & Jerry's flavor; a closed door meeting with both of the candidates would show that the DNC is still in charge (even if it's not) and that there is a plan (even if there isn't). As fond as Hillary is of "letting the conversation continue", voters have a ceiling. I expect to see a strong desire among average folks to see a Democratic nominee sooner rather than later and unless the next week or two show sizable and decisive wins on one candidates side or another, that's just not going to happen.
I am speculating, and this is not something I favor at all, but if Obama and Clinton keep staying as evenly matched as they are, somebody will have to go to them and negotiate some sort of deal. I think an Obama /Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is highly unlikely, but this is a highly unlikely election year. Neither candidate will do it themselves and Dean's the one who will be expected to try.
Dr. Dean may find that the adage "Patient, heal thyself" won't work on these two.
Live Blogging Super Duper Tuesday with Cherries on Top
*I'm gonna be live blogging the primary throughout the night. Feel free to follow along and leave your comments. Click "refresh" to stay updated.
9:39pm: I'm signing off for the night. I'll be very interested to see how the California delegate pie slices up tomorrow. The fight for the headlines now begins for all the campaigns. Obama certainly proved his viability for the night, but neither Dem had a slam dunk. Remember, Obama's got the momentum. Tonight won't stop it and wherever Obama's run, he's continued to grow his supporters, while Hillary's base doesn't really move. Personally, I think Obama will now win the nomination. The movement is on his side and the inevitability of Clinton has been shattered.
9:32pm: CNN's Larry King says, "If someone's a loser tonight, It's Mitt Romeny." They're forgetting Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't have the pull he thinks he has. They're speculating about Huckabee as the Veep choice, which I think would be suicide for McCain.
9:28pm: If you're keeping score of state wins (which by now you shouldn't-- it's no longer a talking point that this is really a race for the delegates):
Clinton: New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Arizona, California
Obama: Delaware, Illinois, Georgia, Connecticut, Kansas, Alabama, North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Colorado and maybe Missouri.
9:20pm: The L.A. Times has a great map of Cali returns here. Interestingly, Edwards is getting 10% of the vote. You can see why MSNBC called it. The only county where Obama is leading is Marin County. On the other hand, in the ultimate swing state- Missouri, Obama's taken the lead. This is gonna go on and on.
9:15pm: McCain wins Missouri according to MSNBC--- using the term "apparent winner".
9:14pm: McCain wins CA. Dude's the Republican nominee.
9:13pm: Clinton wins CA.
9:12pm: Clinton wants a debate a week to which Obermann sighs, "Oh God. I think we've all moderated a debate at this point, even the people watching this at home." I think a debate a week is a terrible idea, personally. No matter how exciting this election is, voter fatigue is gonna set in.
9:06pm: Obama's just finished speaking. He's really my guy through and through. There's a real difference between him and Clinton-- it's not in issues, but in an approach to government. Meanwhile, there's only a 3,000 vote difference between Clinton and Obama in Missouri. Chris Matthews: "It is the Show Me State-- and it's waiting to be shown." WhhhAhh!?
8:42pm: McCain's talking. He salutes Huckabee and Romney, but says he's the frontrunner. But what's got my attention is his wife's 'do: It's Jackie O's pillbox hat in hair form. Can't. Look. Away. Obama is at the podium! He's gonna knock McCain off the airwaves!
8:29pm: The L.A. Times has an article up on the large number of election irregularities in CA. All day long, the Obama boards have been buzzing with trouble with "decline to state" independent voters, including an unverified report of flyers being handed out telling DTS voters they can't vote.
8:26pm: Keith asks Russert: "With Obama winning 10 of the 17 called states, how can this be momentum for Hillary?" Russert's answer: Expectations-- then ads that the DelMarVa primaries are a week away.
8:12pm: Some California info. CNN exit polls have Obama winning the white and black vote. Clinton is getting Latinos and Asians by a wide margin. A note on Cali-- based on the way the rest of the country has been breaking, it's very unlikely we'll have the answer to who wins California anytime soon. My gut says that Clinton will take it by a very small margin. This is great news for Obama.
8:12pm: Mitt should have held off on his speech. He's racked up Minnesota. Jeffrey Toobin of CNN doesn't care. He thinks it's impossible for anyone but McCain to take the nomination "mathematically".
8:10pm: Lou Dobbs: "In the Republican race it's now a three-way race"..."Senator Clinton and Barrack Obama are in a dogfight." 8:07pm: Why hasn't MO been called? CNN's SuperWall explains it- Clinton's wining everywhere, but Obama's winning St. Louis, where most of the population is and there's only 19% of the vote in there.
8:03pm: Hillary's speech is strong on health care (her best issue) and audio feedback. She also congratulates Obama and "looks forward to more debates". Expect her to make an issue of it if Obama refuses to debate with her on Fox. Meanwhile, Obama takes Idaho. Keith Obermann, "The results of the night do not mirror her optimism." Romney takes North Dakota. CA polls close.
7:45pm: By 2% Huck is ahead in MO. If Huckleberry Finn (Eric wants me to make a connection-- see, Mark Twain is from MO) wins the Show Me State, um, anything is possible.
7:41pm: Romney's speech is all about hating Washington. Read Washington as "McCain". Also, his supporters all have signs that read "Change." Every time this guy talks, my ears bleed.
7:31pm: Obama takes Minnesota. He's racking up the purple states. The Audioanimatronic that is Mitt Romney is talking, some bad jokes, some jealousy that his brother is better looking than him and "the one thing is clear is this campaign is going on!"
7:30pm: CNN calls Alabama for Huck. He's done really well tonight.
7:27pm: Mike Huckabee to Soledad O'Brian: "We won West Virginia and you'll just have to deal with it."
7:25pm: CNN calls CT for Obama. Again, this is great, but the reality is the delegates will split pretty evenly. Good for him to show in the Northeast, though.
7:18pm: One thing's clear: this is a terrible night for the Republican party. Brokaw just said, "they've developed multiple personalities." Huck's strong showing (he's won as many states as Romney at this point) means he's not going away any time soon. I don't have a clue how that's going to work. On the plus side, keeping the Republican nominating process going is good for Dems. The party that takes the longest to pick a nominee historically lose.
7:18pm: MSNBC calls Kansas for Obama with a big margin: 72 to 27.
7:10pm: Huck-o-mania! Huck's on--"The widows might has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world!" What the hell is Huck's plan? I know he's part of the 'I Hate Mitt' camp, but he's talking like he's planning on continuing, but as what?
7:06pm: Barack take North Dakota. Expect to hear the Obama people make the case that while Clinton wins in places where Democrats always win, Obama pulls in voters in the places Republicans have dominated.
7:00pm: Romney wins Utah! Fighting urge to make polygamy jokes. A lot of states that have been closed for a while have yet to be called for the Republicans. Tight races all around.
6:56pm: Eating a meatball sub. Getting a lot of comments about Clinton "taking" states. Remember these primaries are proportional. The pundits are right for once based on what we've seen so far-- tonight looks to be a muddle, which is good for Obama, but bad for Clinton. Obama's momentum will continue and the DelMarVa primaries next week are likely to go his way. We're really seeing that crazy "what if" scenario where the nomination goes to the convention. Of course, until we hear about CA, all bets are off.
6:33pm: Am starving. Running to Subway!
6:30pm: Obama wins AL. Racking up the South.
6:17pm: The Romney haters may have inspired people to vote for Romney. McCain is losing in all the Republican base states. First WAAAH?!? moment of the night-- Tom Brokaw: "Rush Limbaugh is an American original."
6:13pm: McCain gets NJ & DE according to MSNBC. In contrast, the NYTimes only calls Georgia & Illinois for Obama and CT for McCain.
6:06pm: MSNBC is calling like crazy. Obama gets Delaware.
6:03pm: SuperWall fun! CNN has not projected MA, noting that Boston is still out. Of course they show it in awesome zooms.
6:00pm: Clinton takes NY.
5:57pm: Clinton takes MA.
5:55pm: Huck wins Alabama. Richardsein is trying to thread the needle in his commentary without tipping his hat. That's three metaphors in a row, if you're counting.
5:54pm: I asked my Dad why he'd support Obama over McCain. His reply: "I think he has a shot at it. I look forward to learning more about him. It’s a clear choice for me if McCain becomes the republican nominee (old time politician (calculating), maverick (loner), and a moderate vs. Obama (moderate, new blood, inspiring, seems to desire to build bridges). He’ll have my endorsement and support. Have fun and give me a call."
5:52pm: From an L.A. Obama supporter via Blackberry: "I just came from getting my nails done and using my blackberry, I found polling locations for all of the nail technicians and customers whom hadn't voted yet. Some were still undecided but after I went "out of my way" to help them, they all said they were either likely or most likely to vote for Obama over Clinton!!!! On my way to The Avalon! Barack The Vote!!!" 5:49pm: Bill Richardson briefly appears on MSNBC. He's gone all Al and grown some facial hair. Sort of looks like Saddam Hussein.
5:31pm: Clinton and Huck take AK. Weirdly, MSNBC shows a graphic of Clinton vs. John Edwards for a second. Tom Brokaw says "the electorate is scrambled." My (Republican)Dad emails me: "If the general election choices are McCain vs. Obama....I will vote for Obama. Good luck tonight. " 5:16pm: Clinton takes TN.
5:15pm: Keith Obermann: "Tenessee is too early to call?, too early to call!"
5:02pm: CNN calls McCain for CT, IL Romney for MA Obama for IL Clinton for OK 4:46pm: Just a quick note- There's a rally happening at Barney's Beanery in West Hollywood. LAist is having a viewing party at Seven Grand and Obama supporters will gather at the Avalon starting at 8pm.
4:39pm:Chris Matthews: I really think New Jersey is a bellweather for tonight and how Jersey goes, so goes the nation." NJ Sen. Bob Menendez: "It's a national race." Matthews: "If NJ goes for Obama, as a super-delegate, will you follow the wishes of your state or stay with the candidate you pledged too?." Menendez: "I think New Jersey respects commitment."
4:32pm: On the Republican side, it's almost a three way heat, with McCain holding a slight lead. Huck could very well take second in this state....and the "Head On" commercial is back!
4:20pm: Obamentum hits Georgia. MSNBC is reporting that Obama's lead in Georgia is far higher than either the Clinton or Obama camp expected.
4:12pm: By the way, the Romney people are vicious tonight. Every spokesperson for the campaign is in an all out assault on McCain. I'll try to grab a quote next time they're on.
4:07pm: Seems like the Republican race is likely to be interesting tonight, with Huckabee making a strong showing and the divisions between Romney supporters and McCain supporters running deep. CNN pulls out the "Magic Wall" to show Georgia-- and there's nothing there! Because the polls just closed. Show the magic! And like that, on comes Candy Crowley. 4:00pm: Barack is the projected winner for Georgia.
3:50pm: On the Republican side, Pat Buchanan thinks McCain is letting Romney get under his skin, pointing to McCain's "rant" against Romney, who disparaged Bob Dole for supporting Romney. Buchanan: "He needs to act like the front-runner". First polls close in Georgia in moments.
2:54pm: HuffPo reports that Hillary accepted a debate request from FoxNews. The Dem candidates have previously refused to debate on the partisan cable news channel. Obama's people say they have no debates scheduled as of yet.
2:42pm: I've just heard my 12th "Head On" commercial on MSNBC this hour. Probably the only commercial which gives you the symptoms it claims to cure. I need to apply it directly to the forehead, stat.
2:24pm: My friend Roderick (who's originally from Mexico) sent this:
2:12pm: Chris Matthews is trying to get Howard Dean to say something contentious. First, he tries to get him to take a stand on Hillary trying to have the MI & FL ballots count. Dean doesn't take the bait. Then Matthews pushes Dean to speculate whether he would broker a Clinton/Obama ticket. Dean smiles and stays on message: Democracy at work! Our candidates are the face of the future. Matthews: "It's my job to get you to say something you regret in the morning!" Then, Matthews pays Dean a big compliment, saying he's responsible for getting young people involved in politics, telling Dean how proud he was when he saw his son on television at a Dean rally. Matthews marvels that "kids" are pushing their parents to vote.
File under "if wishes were horses"-- Tech Crunch looks at web traffic on candidates sites. Among Republicans, libertarian Ron Paul holds a huge lead, even though he barely registers in the actual polls. Oh, Internet readers, you're a fickle lot.
For most of the course of human events, we've all been witnesses to history. The few and the powerful, the kings and businessmen, warlords and pharaohs have been the actors and the rest of us, their audience. We've fought in their wars, died of starvation from their poor planning, and have been enslaved both literally and figuratively in their quests to make profit. This was the way of the world until a new nation arose upon the premise that all of us are bound to one another -- that all of us deserve the same opportunity. It's the great promise of America -- and far more than our vast resources or military power -- this promise is what has made this nation great in the eyes of its citizens and in the eyes of a world that believed that it could not be done.
Think about that promise for a moment and it just doesn't seem audacious, it seems like a folly- how could you or I be real agents of history? How could your neighbor, your mother, father or deli store clerk have the power to move the world? From King George III's laughter upon receiving to the Declaration to the nation ripping itself asunder over the inhumanity of slavery or the robber-baron's dismissal of the cries of the coal worker who slogged in a poisonous pit 18 hours a day for less than a dollar, the promise of America has always been in danger of turning into flash paper; ignited for a brief moment before vanishing forever. In our own time, it is fashionable to say that the dream's time is over: that we are too interconnected with the rest of the world, that too much blood and scandal has been spilled on the founding documents to make them legible, that politics is a dead-end contact sport that is available only to the wealthy and which only the most cynical hard-edged and scarred can hope to succeed. In short, we're told that the promise now belongs only to the few: to special interest groups who fund political dynasties. We're told that we can't be actors in our own history.
Today, we have the opportunity to say, "Yes, We Can." Through a confluence of events none of us could have foreseen, each of us stand in the doorway of history, with the choice of what path we will set this nation on resting on each of us.
Those of you, who have known me for years, know that I often have had a gloomy view of the future of our country. I see the challenges facing this nation and facing the world and look down the road a few years and shudder. The planet our generation inherits will be unlike any in the past 50,000 years of human existence. The upheaval we are beginning to see and will see in the coming years will dwarf that of the Industrial Revolution a thousand times over. Already, because of the vast planetary changes we have recently wrought, scientists are lobbying to call the time we live in a new geologic era: The Anthropocene-- which means, "new human". America is no longer a sole superpower, but part of a triumvirate, balanced between the EU and China. The economy and the heretofore never before seen disparity between rich and poor, how we communicate, new diseases and the prospect of extending our life through new technologies and above all, the unrelenting pace of this new world we are rushing towards has many convinced that that we must ride the tide and accept whatever may happen next. We're told that the old promises of America cannot be fulfilled in such a time.
Today, we have the opportunity to say, "Yes, We Can."
This adorable video from the Courage Campaign explains how easy it is for us DTS'ers (that's "decline to state") to vote for a Democrat on Super Tuesday. Just ask for a Dem ballot. Want to vote for a Republican? Too bad. Only the DNC and the poorly named 'American Independent Party (they're wacky conservatives) allow DTS voters to vote in primaries.
Regardless of your affiliation, please take part in history and VOTE.
Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to at least 8:00 p.m. Anyone in line at the time the polls close is allowed to vote.
You can find your polling place here, read about the ballot provisions here, and find all about voter fraud here (PDF).
Voters have the right to cast a provisional ballot even if their name is not listed on the voting rolls. If a voter is at the wrong polling location and has time to get to the correct polling location before polls close at 8:00 p.m., they should go to the correct one and vote with a regular ballot instead of voting with a provisional ballot at the wrong location.
If you declined to select a political party when you registered to vote, you can still vote for Barack Obama (or any Dem) if you request a Democratic ballot from the poll worker. Make sure you mark "Democratic" in the appropriate space or the vote might not be counted.
Voters have the right to return a completed vote-by-mail ballot to any precinct in their county.
If you have any difficulties, you can call the California Obama Election Protection Hotline:
The same news outlet that called Barrack to task for employing "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin strongly endorses Senator Obama in their latest issue. Read the full endorsement here.
What tipped the influential pub? Bill Clinton and the race card, it seems. The paper says "the LGBT community should lend its voice to a growing progressive chorus in turning its back on this kind of politics. For us, winning in the ghetto is no longer good enough - not for blacks, not for gays, not for anyone."
You can't blame CNN for cutting to audience shots all night long at the Dem Debate in Hollywood tonight: Barack and Hillary were too busy being substantive and friendly to provide much in the way of fireworks. And the DNC packed the house with celebs-- Leo, Spielberg, Diane Keaton, Bradley Whitford, Jason Alexander, but I have a question for you readers; a genuine non-rhetorical one. Is this too much celebrity to have at a DNC debate? Watching the show, I couldn't help but wonder if the Kodak Theatre has a "If you haven't received a gift bag in the last year, don't bother" admissions policy. We all know that for the most-part, Hollywood loves the Dems, but is the image of the two nominees performing for such an elite crowd really the one the party wants to send to America? Or do you think voters respond positively when they see that the Dems are the party that can make Stevie Wonder get up and cheer?
Everyone's getting in on telling their stories about why they're voting for Barrack Obama at YouBama. The site's owners, two Stanford students unaffiliated with the Obama campaign, describe it as a way "to democratize the election campaign process...voters can say what they want, how they want. Then they vote on the videos so the best ones rise to the top."
I think the editorial thrust of this article-- to draw comparisons between the candidates of '84 and today, is a specious one and worth arguing about.
Clinton's offhand remark about Jackson having won the '84 SC primary was a major topic of conversation on talk shows yesterday and this article seems like it could have used some revising to reflect that reality. Instead of looking harder at whether the comparison between '84 and '08 is a fair one to make, this piece just goes along with a premise.
It's very easy to write a biased article under the auspices of "historical comparison". Why not an article comparing the Clinton's to the main characters of the recent film "Sweeney Todd"? Or to keep it New York, why not compare multi-millionaire trial lawyer John Edwards to multi-billionaire real estate developer Donald Trump?
Caroline Kennedy Sees in Obama "A President Like My Father"
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." -- Caroline Kennedy from Sunday's NYTimes
Japhy Grant to Bill Clinton: "Some People Say You're a Morally Bankrupt Power Monger"
Well, Bill Clinton's just the gift that keeps on giving.
"I think it would be just as much a change, some people think more, to have the first woman president than to have the first African-American president," the former President and spousal surrogate said Tuesday. Now, this is a stupid argument to make and anyone who votes for either candidate based on their race or gender is -- well, racist or sexist, but last time I checked, America never fought a civil war over gender equality. It's sort of insulting to hear this comparison made by a former President of the United States, and also typical that he rhetorically shields himself from blame by saying "some people".
I'm beginning to get a little frustrated with the myopic Democratic base that continues to support Hillary. You have a candidate who regularly gets compared to JFK, MLK and Ronald Reagan, who is wildly intelligent, dynamic and appealing to a broad base of the country, from all political persuasions. On the other hand, you have a candidate who is unlikeable, rallies the fractured Republican base and who raises serious moral issues about her character at every turn. And you think she's the most electable one.
The most common argument I get is, "it's her turn, let Barack wait". This is naive. Politics doesn't wait for turns. The Democrats have a unique window-- one that will not come again in my lifetime, I'm certain, to reshape not only their party, but American politics. The confluence of events that have brought us to this point aren't going to be repeated. The Republican party will reshape itself, quickly if Hillary is the nominee. You won't have a wide open election like this again. Hell, even the writer's strike has forced Americans to tune in to politicians in a way I've never seen. This window will close. Electing Hillary will continue the status quo: closely contested elections, a firm belief that the other side is "the enemy", a division that prevents either side from acting with authority and stagnation, ruinous stagnation.
I'll call it now: If Hillary Clinton gets the Republican Democratic nomination, the partywill once again lose. The biggest fairy tale I've ever heard is the idea that this country would elect this woman President. I get it. Dems think this is some sort of karmic payback; the ultimate repudiation of the Bush years. But put it this way; I am a 28 year old gay man living in Los Angeles, California, who voted for her to be Senator when I lived in New York and I will not vote for her. I won't vote for her in the primary-- and I won't vote for her in the general election. I do not trust her, I believe her pragmatism is cynical and divisive and her vision of this country seems more to do with her legacy than it does with helping out you or I. Now, if I feel this way, what do you think the average middle-of-the-road electorate thinks of her?
The Democrats face a simple and clear choice: vote for the candidate that makes you feel good about yourself or vote for the candidate who will win.
That dinosaur of sophistry, Stanley Fish takes on independent voters in the New York Times today, in a column entitled "Against Independent Voters". As a lifelong independent voter, Mr. Fish's call that I should stop treating politics as a "shopping bazaar" and get "down and dirty" by becoming a partisan is laughable. I've voted in every election available to me since I was 18. I'm active in politics.
Like many Americans my age (I'm under 30), I've voted both for Democrats and Republicans. Many of my political beliefs could be characterized as firmly Republican. I think family values are in danger, I am against trimester abortions, I think the federal government aught to be smaller. And some are decidedly Democrat. I support gay marriage, I support universal health care and regulating carbon emissions.
Fish argues that the reason political parties exist is so that we can "organize with other like-minded folks and smite the enemy." Heh. I think this is exactly what many Independents do.
Neither of the two majority parties offer much to the independent-minded voter. The Republicans have a dangerously pragmatic tendency to cobble together ideologically inconsistent planks together: Pro-death penalty vs. anti-abortion, right to privacy vs. Orwellian anti-terrorism. This issue pandering approach has created, as we see in this election, a house that can not stand. The party leaders are corrupt because their ideology is corrupt.
The Democrats, until recently, have been either uninspiring, ineffectual, arrogant or, in the case of the Clinton's; far too eager to to play the game "if you can't beat them, join them." Given these two choices, neither of them appeal to me as "like-minded people" who I want to join in battle with, rather-- I feel a deep seated urge to smite these entrenched cabals that prevent American democracy from solving the profusion of problems it now faces.
Being an independent is not simply a protest stance, however. Mr. Fish is caught up in the idea that politics is an either/or proposition. It's a strange case to make in an election cycle in which both parties have revealed the seams of the patchwork that hold them together. A political party isn't a monolithic bloc; it's a coalition of similar interests. What we're seeing this year is that these coalitions interests are not all that similar after all. Even if a Hillary-nomination is able to galvanize the Republican base, the fissures that divide libertarians, Evangelicals and corporate conservatives have been revealed. These divides look likely to continue widening.
For Democrats the horse-race of Obama and Clinton also reveals significant differences between party members. Since Fish is comfortable with generalizing, so will I: Democrats who vote for Clinton do so because she's convinced them she's the best person to beat the Republicans, Democrats who vote for Obama do so because they want a new politics. It's less of an ideological struggle than it is a generational struggle for how the party presents itself. The Clinton's showed how to win by sounding like Republicans, Obama's candidacy argues that "sounding like a Republican" means "standing up for what you believe in".
In this climate, the independent voter is more likely than the partisan. There is no center to either party and everything in this election is up for grabs. Maybe it's because I grew up right next to New Hampshire, but from my perspective, every voter is an independent one nowadays. The days of people voting the party line are over. I know Republicans considering Obama and I know that should Hillary get the nomination, I would have to seriously consider voting for a Republican (especially if that Republican is John McCain).
Finally, Fish says that you should vote by party because it determines who will be appointed to the administration. This is a lie. As pointed out earlier, both parties cover large swaths of ideological territory. A vote for G.W. Bush brought in a very different administration than say if John McCain had been the nominee in 2000. The same holds true with the current candidates. It's naive to think you'll get the same administration from Romney that you'll get from Huckabee or that Obama and Clinton will appoint the same types of Dems.
The President, the individual, not the party sets the tone and tenor of his or her government. AThat's why the smart American; be they Dem, Republican, Independent or something else, will vote for the person, not the party; no matter how much partisans wish it weren't so.
California residents only have a few more days left to register to vote in time for the California Primary. It's a semi-open primary, meaning independent voters are invited to vote for Democratic and Independent Party Candidates, but not Republican candidates. Register here.
Main-stream media freakout's continue as the reality that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee sets in. Matt Bai of NYT's The Caucus argues that Dems need to stop anointing "Kennedy's" and then goes on to blame Obama for making the comparison. Only, he hasn't. Hillary has, the media has, but while Obama is comfortable placing himself on the same historical continuum as the civil rights movement; he's never cried Kennedy.
If you're under 30 (as I am), this Kennedy stuff has no real resonance at all. For my generation "Kennedy" and "Camelot" signify "Great Leader and Great Time" in the same abstract way Elvis Presley signifies "King of Rock". We get that it was goo times, but we don't get why and they're not our times anyway.
What's strange is the sudden 180 twist of the MSM in regards to Obama: the sudden rising of his expectations (from "Will he win NH?" to "Anything less than a 10 point lead is a failure!") and a marked rise in rallying behind Hillary-- the debate over if she's more qualified is now "she's so qualified!" and promulgating the idea that Barrack's rise is the result of some sort of irrational exuberance; as Bai's article tries to state. There's a nasty sentiment that the voter's are too stupid; that Barrack is a fad. Maybe it's just the news cycle, maybe they feel bad that Hillary cried, but my feeling is that, as they've been for most of this primary season; the MSM has been horribly out of touch with popular sentiment.
Hillary argues that nobody's asked Barrack the tough questions in any of the debates, that he hasn't been vetted, that she alone is ready to lead. There's been 20 debates; she's been at all of them. She's gone after him either on her own or through proxies. Nobody will argue that the Clinton's have not gone full tilt to discredit Barrack-- and they've failed. If you're looking for a vetting, I'd say surviving the Clinton attack machine unscathed is a pretty good one.
This was Hillary's election to lose; and she's lost it. Each retooling of strategy reminds voters that she will change her message to suit the popular sentiment; which was her husband's greatest foible. She keeps harping on her experience, but fails to offer up a vision. What Barrack Obama offers voters is a clear mandate. When he is elected, there will be a very high bar he will have to clear, but he's the one whose set it. If he fails, the country will turn on him, but they are supporting him now because he isn't hedging bets, playing strategies or making deals. He speaks plainly (lofty speech is the speech which cuts to the truth the fastest) and he offers up hope. Kennedy? Nah. Try the Democratic version of "Morning in America".
"It is true of the Nation, as of the individual, that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer. Of course, if the dream is not followed by action, then it is a bubble; it has merely served to divert the man from doing something. But great action, action that is really great, can not take place if the man has it not in his brain to think great thoughts, to dream great dreams." -- Theodore Roosevelt at Clark University, Worcester, MA, June 21, 1905
Here's a speech I've been giving for the last few weeks. I've been told by well-meaning friends that they're "disheartened" by my support for Barrack, that "it's Hillary's time" and everyone reminds me that there would be a fitting justice to having a Clinton bookend each side of Dubya's administration.
So here's why I'm voting for Barrack and why I'm asking you to vote for Obama as well. The history of this country is plagued by false divisions: black people vs. white people, the religious vs. those who do not speak of faith, the red state vs. the blue. These differences exist, but they are not what divides us. What divides this country is money.
My parents started off as a cop and respiratory therapist. They worked opposite shifts so that someone would always be home to take care of me when I was young. They both attended college, paying their way while raising two kids.
My Mom told me a story about how one of the parent's in my Cub Scout den approached my mother and told her that nobody would blame her if she decided to step down as the adult leader of the group. "Why would I do that?", my Mom asked. The mother replied, "Well, because all the other boys are black." Confused as to what that had to do with anything, my Mom asked for an explanation. "Well, where I come from, doing something like this would tarnish your reputation. Only poor white people hang out with black people."
A few years back, I tried making a documentary about religious roadside attractions across America. There's a guy in western Maryland building Noah's ark to Biblical scale and there's a giant aluminum cross along I-40 in the Panhandle of Texas and many other places-- and I went to most of them.
My crew and I traveled to these places and asked the people who ran them and created them about what motivates their beliefs and what they thought of the "godless coasts". I had gone into the trip expecting to show the weird underbelly of religious America; what I found was a lot of poverty and the desire to turn to something hopeful, when everything around them seemed bleak.
As a travel journalist, I get to go around the country. Last year, I spent a week in Denver, CO, before the midterm elections. Everyone had written off Colorado as a red state: the home of Coors, Ted Haggard and Raytheon. I met with Denver's mayor, John Hickenlooper and he spoke about his "Greenprint Denver" plan, which zones the city according to sustainability and who created a 10 year plan to eliminate homelessness in the city.
Later, I hung out with a friend of mine and his boyfriend and we went for a drive up to Boulder. Along the way, they shared with me what life in Denver was like-- watching lesbian roller hockey on the weekends, occasionally fending off requests to attend services at the mega-church my friend's boyfriend works at, and of course-- skiing.
America is not an either/or proposition. We are not a nation divided by race. We are not a nation divided by religion, nor are we a nation that can be divided into two colors on the map. It is our plurality that makes us strong. It's our plurality that gives us identity. We are both the conservative Mormon businessman in Salt Lake and the Good ole' boy who became an actor. We are the tough-talking mayor who dresses in drag now and then and the savvy strategist who stays with her husband even after he shamed her beyond forgiveness.
You can't blame these candidates for trying to sell you on their America, but what they (and Washington) has failed to see is that when selling your vision of America requires excluding everyone else's, you reduce statesmanship to being leader of the neighborhood tree house club.
Hillary Clinton would have you believe that she alone can fight the Republican attack machine. For those who believe that America is one way or another, this is reassuring news. To those of us who believe that America is not so easily reduced, Clinton's bunker mentality sounds just like Bush's; with the same tacit promise that they will be President to those who vote for her-- and the rest of us are just along for the ride.
There is no better way to perpetuate the current status quo of "us vs. them" than to put an already combative, insular Hillary Clinton in the White House. It will galvanize the Right and we will spend the next four years fighting the battles of the last 16.
I am excited to vote for Barack Obama because his politics are the future of this country. We're not a nation divided; we're a nation of many ideas.
I am voting for Obama because the problems this nation faces are growing exponentially. The threats we argue about today will shortly seem like child's play to the threats we are to face. For the first time since the end of World War II, America's role as a global leader is in doubt. By all estimates, our economy is in worse shape than we realize. The threat of global climate change is no longer an abstract; it is a pressing reality. The present gap between rich and poor dwarfs even the worst excesses of the robber-baron's of yesteryear. Our nations' infrastructure, be it roads or power lines, has never been in worse repair, nor in such high demand. We remain dangerously in the thrall of foreign oil.
These problems can not be solved by Republicans, nor can they be solved by Democrats. It will take an undivided America to succeed in such perilous times. Lincoln's words ring as true today as they did in his time: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country."
I am voting for Barrack Obama because he articulates in voice and action the America I believe in. It's an America where intellect and faith are put to work for all Americans. It is an America that does not live in fear of the threats it faces, but serves as a beacon of hope to the world that together we can surmount any obstacle.
It's an America where our differences are not what divides us, but are the very essence of what makes us great.
Sure, it's primary season and sure, she's not my candidate (I hope to do a post later this week on why I think Barack Obama is the person best equipped to return America to greatness), but on a weekend when Obama and Oprah stage the largest political primary rally in modern American politics, the New York Times is looking horribly biased for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Check out the multimedia items on the Politics Page (left): An interactive time line of HRC's career is followed by a video detailing her career in Arkansas. And if you don't think Chelsea looks adorable, the below-the-fold video compares her and Oprah's appearances this weekend as a mujer y mujer fight. It was the Times' strategy all weekend to make Ms. Clinton's decision to campaign with her mother seem as important a story as the Oprah and Obama appearances. It's the sort of fallacy of false comparison that Fox News employs when they call themselves "fair and balanced".
I've heaped praise on the Times for showing how blogs can be integrated into hard journalism, but lately the editors have been too liberal with using The Caucus, their "politics blog" to cover stories that ought to be reported on, as opposed to editorialized about. Particularly, the Times' frequent use of running a Caucus blog entry on the Times front page is troubling; the distinction between opinionated blogging and objective reporting gets further blurred when you can't easily distinguish them on the page.
In the past few years the paper has eased attitudes about allowing reporters to introduce their own personality into the pieces they file. It's something that seems to have started in the Style section and has slowly crept through the whole organization, though the World section remains immune. Often, it's improved the writing. If you're doing a story about Brooklyn mommies and the person writing it is a mother, that perspective adds interest. It's a strategy culled from magazines and used judicially and given context, reflects the needs of readers.
Somewhere along the way, this style infected The Caucus and to some extent, the Times' traditional election coverage. There ought to be a clear bright line between blogs like The Daily Kos or Andrew Sullivan and The Caucus, if only because the Times editorial staff uses The Caucus to break news so often. By using the blog to both break news and comment on it, the Times is forcing its readers to parse opinion from fact; a tedious and aggravating task. I have no problem with editorializing a story, but first tell the damn story. Pieces like "Oprahpalooza in South Carolina" are too skewed, too riddled with personal asides and opinion to be useful journalism and the New York Times should stop presenting it as such.
To close out the year (and to give you folks something to read while I finish up scripts), tMR is listing the "Top 20 Trends of 2007". But I need your help putting them in order. Starting Friday, you'll be able to vote for the trend you think is the most important. Somehow, there'll be a prize involved. I've got to figure it out. If you have a suggestion for a trend, email me.
2007: Republicans Go Down
It was just a few short years ago that Karl Rove & Co. were declaring that you could count on the Republicans to run the country for the next 40 years. How did it all go so wrong? Well, there's the sex scandals, the corruption charges, the incompetence, which certainly doesn't help, but there's a deeper current at work-- and one the Dem's ought to take notice of. The Republican rush to the right was by all accounts brilliant strategy-- combine moral conservatism to please the base with fiscal policy that favored big business and you get a party that translates into both votes and cash. Unfortunately consistent ideology was thrown out with the bathwater and Republicans found themselves becoming the very thing they accused the Dems of being; an issue party -- arguing that marriage was too important an issue to be left to the states, while howling that abortion could only be handled on a state-by-state basis.
For liberals, the parade of scandal and downfall of the G.O.P is cause to party like it's 1999 (when Bill was still in the White House), but they ought not to send out invitations to their pan sexual loft parties just yet. Less than 4 years ago, the Dem's future looked just as bleak and look what's happened. The calls of 'inevitability' are myopic ones. Just because your opponent's house is on fire doesn't change the fact that you're still living in a pile of rubble yourself. Voters aren't voting for Dems because of anything they've done; they're voting because they're dissatisfied with the status quo.
Both parties are in the process of reinventing themselves and the rapid shift of loyalties is more a sign of instability than in one party triumphing over another. While both sides have done a great job of securing their bases (watching the G.O.P. Presidential candidates trip over themselves to show which one is the most socially conservative is as painful as the Dem's quibbling over who was for what, when), but in America today, if you're not a partisan, you're probably disgusted.
Why should Dem's care? After all, they're getting the White House in 2009, right? Well, for one-- all those people who voted for Bush twice haven't suddenly become flower-wearing hippies. They're pissed off and disaffected and they're not going away. The candidate who takes the DNC nomination can either be a lightning rod for their collective frustration (rhymes with "Dillary Plinton") or can lead help the country move beyond the cul-de-sac of "red vs. blue".
No President operates in a vacuum and the one who is "most qualified to lead" in 2009 is the one who will be able to bring both sides to the table to forge a new kind of American politics. Both parties are in a unique position to reinvent themselves for the 21st Century; you see it in the popularity of Obama and Ron Paul, politicians with policies and positions that would not have had a platform eight years ago. It's impossible to predict the future of American party politics right now, but the Republican party is going to be a part of it. Whether it becomes the minority party of social conservatism or returns to a more ideological consistent centrist party is anyone's guess, but if Dem's need proof that you can't kill your opponent and dismiss them as inconsequential, they just need to look to their own recent history.
This week, the Democratic-Candidates-not-named-Hillary-Clinton took the New York Senator to task for what they and pundits have characterized as doublespeak. Check out this video from the John Edwards campaign for an example:
The piece de resistance was Hillary's answer to a question posed about giving immigrants driver's licenses. As the Edwards video points out, it sounds like Hillary is for Governor Spitzer's program to give immigrants licenses, but at the same time doesn't approve. Thus, the reasoning goes: Hillary is a shifty calculated politician who doesn't speak her values, but instead avoids saying anything that would cost her a point in the polls.
This isn't a new argument (her husband was known as "The Great Waffler" around my house as a teenager), but in Hillary's case it's untrue and unfair. In the particular case of the driver's license, Clinton was saying that she supports the Governor's efforts because something is better than nothing, but she doesn't think it's the best solution, and maybe the federal government ought to be doing something about this. The blunder, however is of the rhetorical variety. And while it scored Hillary's challengers some points in the debate: characterizing Hillary as a doubletalker actually demonstrates that these candidates fail to see an essential truth about governing: the ones who are really good at it are often the most conflicted.
Theodore Roosevelt was notorious for speeches and letters which argued both sides of the issue at hand. His policies mirrored that temper. He was part of the Knickerbocker elite and spent much of his political career trying to reform the system that brought about his ascendancy. He's remembered as the first conservationist, but lavished the walls of his White House with hunting trophies. He steadfastly maintained that America's foreign interests extended only to America, while increasing vastly increasing the scope of what "America" meant (namely, the whole of the Western Hemisphere). His ability to bridge the tension between two opposing ideas is a large part of what made his presidency successful.
Bill Clinton's presidency was notorious for it's contradictory actions. A professor of mine in college called him "the best Republican president we've ever had" and the Seattle Times summed him up as he left office by saying " He was the Great Empathizer yet at times was self-absorbed. He demonized his Republican opponents yet freely stole their best ideas. He preached tolerance toward gays as a matter of principle, yet, as a matter of politics, signed the law banning gay marriage and boasted about it in ads that he purchased on Christian radio." Yet, he's remembered today fondly (though admittedly, that probably has a lot to do with his successor).
Still, faulting Hillary for being a "doubletalker" or "flip-flopper" ultimately doesn't work. We've seen what happens when we elect leaders who relentlessly maintain one point of view despite changing realities. We've spent eight years under a President whose singular vision of the globe simply ignores any opposition or challenges to that view. That Hillary is capable of holding two ideas in her head at the same time is encouraging. It shows a mind fully engaged in the issues and a thoughtful approach that recognizes that situations evolve over time; qualities you hope to find in the leader of the free world. Who among us doesn't live a life free of contradiction? Most of us swim in it, as hard and fast realities are as fleeting as the phrase "Mission: Accomplished". Hillary seems uniquely suited to balancing contradictions in a way that make them workable. In fact, it may be her best talent.
The issue with Hillary, however: Is what is she striking the balance for? I believe she can make the government sail, but in what direction? Hillary has become so preoccupied with winning America over, in allowing us to understand her own internal contradictions (loving wife to a philandering husband, warm and domestic while being capable of waging war, an insider who is going to break the system by beating it at its own game) that she's failed to articulate just what Hillary Clinton's America looks like. What is the bright shining star she plans on guiding the ship of state with? There's talking points, but very little vision.
There's a moment in Tony Kushner's Angels in America where the angels are described as "fabulous bureaucrats". It's a description that fits Hillary. Like Kushner's angels, Clinton seems extraordinarily adept at the business of politics, but lacks the imagination required in this unique historical moment. All leaders compromise. All good leaders understand contradiction is necessary to politics, the art of the actual . All great leaders muster the contradictory forces around them to serve a greater cause; because what's a leader with nowhere to lead? It's a question Hillary needs to answer for herself, and for us.
Still sick (less so, but my throat is scratchy enough to prevent podcasting and I seem to want to nap constantly), but I know how fickle my readers are, so here are some awesome things I've been doing in between my delirium tremens. Like the title says, these things will swallow up your day, not that you were doing all that much to begin with:
Jericho: the complete first season online. All the major networks have video on demand versions of their major shows. It's pretty frikkin' awesome. Brought back from the dead by a major fan drive, apoco-drama Jericho will air seven new episodes sometime soon (depending on the writer's strike), but you can catch-up on the first season online.
Truth be told, the show takes a long time to warm up and the producers seem to miss the fact that the reason we love Jack Bauer is because he's a bad ass, not a guy just looking to fit in at the bake sale, but once the town next door goes all Lebensraum on Jericho and we see that the army's wearing a new version of the stars and bars, the show goes nuts.
My proposal is for something I call Riverside Park-- using the footprint of San Francisco's Candlestick Park in the railroad area north of Cesar Chavez Boulevard. It's extremely close to Union Station, could be connected by a "game day shuttle" and once you moved the L.A. County jail out of the area, you could infill the project with mixed-use retail and hi-rise condos. It could then be the third anchor for downtown, continuing the sweep from L.A. Live through Grand Avenue, as well as a catalyst for L.A. River development. What's great, though is that this map gets you thinking about these things.
Also, while I despised the 30-second "lightning round" imposed on candidates at last nights Democratic Debate, the guy on fire (and by my estimation, the most straightforward and Presidential) was Joe Biden. Check it out:
Jamie Kirchick Warns Gays of Their 'McGovern Moment'
Read his Washington Blade article on how the gay movement's opposition to ENDA imperils it's future as a viable political force. That over 300 gay groups stand opposed to Barney Frank would be ridiculous if their opposition wasn't also going to defeat a bill; not because it pushes them back, but because it doesn't push forward enough for their tastes.
It's aggravating to look at how, in spite of the facts on the ground-- we live in a time where gay rights are increasing across the board-- many leaders of the "gay movement" will accept nothing less than some sort of federal version of the Emancipation Proclamation: marriage for all, special protected status for gays, restitution for every mean thing ever said or done to a gay person ever and a national holiday for Cher all wrapped up in one neat little bow. Anything less is a failure. That there are civil unions in some places, that you can get married in the Bay State, that hate crimes legislation has passed means nothing to these people. And they are your leaders.
Should gender identity be included on this bill? Hell, yeah-- nobody who supports the bill would argue with that. Is it a betrayal to support a federal bill that recognizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unless it include gender identity? Um, no. The bill sets a far ranging precedence across the board that will effect not only its own provisions, but how gay rights are viewed from a legal perspective generally. Yeah, it sucks transgender people are not included. Having this bill passed, however makes it a lot more likely that protection will come in the future then if it's defeated. It's not selfish to support this bill. The only people are selfish are those who oppose it, to presume that they speak for all of us, and by doing, hold us back from greater protection and equality under the law.
Q: So, what did Nobel Prize winner Al Gore do yesterday?
A: Made a series of video podcasts on Current. One about Iraq, one about health care reform and one about privacy protection. Check them out here. Is he going to run? I don't know. But, he sure looks like he's thinking about it. If you're thinking about it, check out the Draft Al Gore website.
Fantastic piece in the NYTimes today about Rudy's radio show he ran when he was mayor. Listening to the mp3's of some of these shows took me back to the late '90s when I was going to school at NYU and the kids in the Dramatic Writing Program would sit around and howl about Rudy's flagrant disrespect for art (he opposed public funding for the Brooklyn Museum's Saatchi & Saatchi show, "Sensation", because it featured, among other things, a portrait of the Madonna made of elephant dung) and for hot dog vendors (he wanted them off the streets). Listen to him berate a caller for being prejudiced against the police (a sophistry that only Rudy could pull off convincingly) and you'll get what I mean.
The thing is, I love Rudy. Here's a guy as rude as direct and as whack-job as the city he governed. He typified the New Yorker attitude that serving it up to you straight was the highest form of respect. The only time you'd catch Rudy in a song and dance is when he'd dress up in drag. The problem is, on a national level, people think the New Yorker attitude isn't respectful, it's rude.
That Rudy's candidacy is being taken seriously by pundits is sort of astounding to me. The truth is, New Yorkers elect politicians the way dudes create fantasy football leagues-- it's all predicated on a "Wouldn't it be neat if...". It's why Hillary chose to run in New York. It's the only state that has the "Why the hell not?" attitude she needed. I think, like Theodore Roosevelt, she has successfully transcended the novelty of her political rise to become a successful statesperson, but Rudy? Fugghedaboutit. Like Junior's Cheesecake, Broadway and 24-hour deli's, Rudy Giuliani could only exist in the rarefied hothouse that is New York. But the man sure is funny.
It wasn't until Andy Samberg came along that I realized that most of my life, I wasn't really getting comedy. Thanks to a generation of comics steeped in observational humor, like most of the public, I came to believe that something was funny because a comedian told us it was.
"Look at this- isn't it outrageously funny?", Dude With a Hatred for His Ex-Wife intones into his microphone, throwing some air quotes up in the air. Not that this can't be fun in a smart aleck way (see Conan, Dave), but it's not really funny. You laugh because you're in on the joke, not because you're happy.
The alternative is the gross-out, frat boy humor of say, Adam Sandler. What Samberg does it combines the two. He's a smart dude that makes you think a little, but he's not uppity about it-- he just wants to make you laugh.
So thank YHWH for Andy. He did it again this week with "Iran So Far Away" and R&B love song to Iran's prime minister, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's not exactly Chaplin's The Great Dictator, but it's in the same territory. Check it out:
The soft touch is what makes it brilliant and potent. It's light-hearted irreverence is just the sort of thing Ahmadinjad brutally keeps his people from engaging in.
Samberg won an Emmy this month for "Dick in a Box", his duet with Justin Timberlake and of course, he's also the dude that gave America "Lazy Sunday", which looking back on it, basically introduced the hipster ethos to mainstream America. And then he also turned Natalie Portman into Easy-E by giving her a full out gangsta rap. Basically, the dude's been funnier in two years than Adam Sandler's managed to be during his entire career.
The Jena Six: Gays on the Bandwagon -- and Why They Shouldn't Be
A billion emails today about the Jenna Six, a group of six Louisiana teenagers charged with beating a white teenager. So, there's a lot of charges of racism and now everyone's mobilizing in defense of these kids (though, most of them are 17). Gay bloggers and activists, spurred on by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) are saying, "Your plight is my plight too-- Let's organize!"
And thanks to the ever-awesome, Jamie Kirchick, I get to have the night off. In an Advocate article titled "What's in the Jena 6 Case for "Us"? Nothing", he explains why this is not the cause for us to rally around. As he says, "In American law you are not entitled to beat a defenseless and innocent person because someone with the same skin color as that person offended you months earlier."
I understand the desire to create a link between black civil rights and gay civil rights (and I genuinely think there is a continuity there) and of course all Americans should stand up against racism, but why is it that prominent gay org's like HRC and that other one (rhymes with "bad") seem to jump at every opportunity they get to send out a strongly worded press release condemning the latest water cooler issue? Of course, they can do whatever they want, but considering their prominence, to many, they speak for the gay community.
What are your thoughts? Where's the MoveOn for the gay movement? Actually, we need more than that. We're in desperate need of a transparent organization that encourages direct involvement, but also is a self-reflective and proactive agenda setter. We need not just gay activists, but gay leaders.
A film as utterly goofy and fatally serious as the decade it chronicles, Julie Taymor's Across the Universerevives the acid musical genre (think Tommy & Jesus Christ Superstar) for the 9-11 generation. Take the Beatles catalog, a paper-thin plot performed by pretty, but pretty forgettable young actors, throw in cameos by Bono, Joe Cocker and Salma Hayek and throw in as many puppets, video filters and veiled references to the Fab 4's own history as possible. It sounds like an Odyssey of the Mind challenge and at times that's what this movie feels like: a bloated exercise in whistle-and-bell creativity that never coalesces into anything meaningful. The thing is, I wasn't bored for a second.
I saw the film by myself on Friday night to a sold out crowd of teenagers and young college kids that made me acutely aware that I'm not part of the 18-25 demo anymore. For one thing, nobody laughed when an old Liverpudian tells the film's romantic hero, Jude that he hopes to be happy "when he's 64". Other gags include a girl from Dayton Ohio coming in through the bathroom window and a character named Max at one point picks up his hammer and bangs a bent fan back into shape. I wondered if for many in the theatre, this would be their first exposure to most of these songs. Most critics seem to think the film is squarely aimed at Boomers, but if anything the film seems more a film by Boomers for their kids. "This is what we were about!", the film screams -- leaving the "so what the hell are you about, kids?" mostly unstated, save one scene where Lucy, Jude's blond-haired activist girlfriend shouts at him in West Village laundromat, "What is ity going to take for people to wake up? Do we have to wait for bombs to start exploding here for people to demand change?" Touche, hippies.
The film is so utterly innocent and uncynical that you could take pot shots at it all day. Bono, sporting a handlebar mustache, sings "I'm the Walrus" on the roof of what I can only presume is Ken Kesey's bus with a bunch of kids on acid. Which is as bizarre as it sounds, but c'mon-- who wouldn't want to see that? Same goes for Joe Cocker singing "Come Together" as a homeless dude--and a pimp---and I think a pot dealer. Hell, any movie with Joe Cocker singing anything is worth the price of admission.
There are darker notes as well. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is transformed into a terrifying G.I Joe draft-initiation scene--and when you see the new recruits, clad in Jockey shorts and boxers carrying the Statue of Liberty like waify Atlas's, moaning "she's so heavy", the nostalgia clears the room and you're in 2007 again. The same goes for a sequence that pairs a young (white) soldier's death with the Detroit riots set to a gospel rendition of "Let It Be."
I'm not sure how embarrassing this movie will be for people who lived through the 60s-- it seems the Boomer's have spent every last second of their adult lives trying to forget what happened in that decade (which seems to account for much of our current troubles, if you ask me), but for a younger generation looking to create a world of peace, kindness and meaning, Taymor's film, which is far better than it ought to be, says "All You Need is Love", a statement as impossible, but true as it was when it was first sung.
I got a little carried away on this one with the graphics, but I was trying to find a way to make a phone interview visual. Let me know what you think.
For more information on the A Mormon Presidentgo here. Christing hopes to release the film at the beginning of next year.
Not that anyone is surprised by Republican Fred Thompson's entry into the Presidential race today, but his decision to announce his candidacy on Leno is raising some eyebrows, especially since he skipped a Republican debate to do so--and aired an attack ad against the other candidates that aired before the debate. But that's not the only television related snafu facing the former Law & Order actor. While NBC made the decision Saturday to no longer air episodes of L&O in which Thompson appears, TNT plans to continue airing episodes, in spite of concerns that this could infringe on equal airtime rules for candidates.
If the world were a cooler place, this would lead to a ruling that every Presidential candidate get their own cable drama. Don't you think it would be great to see Kiera Sedgwick get Hillary Clinton as her new partner on The Closer? What hijinks will ensue after Mitt Romney moves next to Bill Paxton and his brood on Big Love? And for some reason, I kind of want to see Barrack Obama on The L Word.
How can we make this happen? What show should Kucinich be on?
Very sneaky article by Robin Marantz Henig in the New York Times about robots called The Real Transformers. I'm a big robot dork, so it was great to read about the sociable robot revolution. I knew about Kismet, but knew nothing of Mertz, Leo and Domo, a robot who is basically all arms and was my favorite. There are YouTube clips throughout the article and watching Domo slowly stick a bottle of whiskey into a Styrofoam cup all on his own (see above) is thrilling because the movement is fluid and yet so dumb.
The article is sneaky because while it does an excellent job of catching the casual reader up on current trends in robotics, it's really a feint to get into a deeper discussion about human emotions and consciousness. Read the article for yourself. It argues that current robot development, which has by and large abandoned the idea of creating a "thinking brain" A.I. in favor of creating robots which express human-like behaviors, is so successful because in reality, that's what humans do. Fake it till you make it, baby. 'It', here means "a soul".
There's a trend right now in philosophy to take a mechanistic and adaptive view of human intelligence. Oh, that sounds boring. Okay- so scientists nowadays are pretty certain that there is no "you". Daniel Dennett leads the pack on this- arguing in Freedom Evolves(probably the world's only page-turner about free will) that rather than the old-fashioned notion of a solid cohesive "self", the reality is that the thing you look at in the mirror every morning is made up of millions of little programs, behaviors, learned reactions, embedded flight or fight instincts, etc...
This ad hoc homminem theory doesn't deny the complexity of human experience, but it does reject that the human consciousness is one blended smoothie of self-awareness. There is no sum to our parts. Our perception of self is powered by the same ability we have to see animals in clouds and it's just as illusory.
It's taken me a long time to come to agree with this. The whole of Western culture is built on the nobility of the human soul. Not to mention, I can be pretty egotistical. There's something downright inhuman about stripping away the soul, to admit that our emotions aren't coming from some Apollonian well of spirit, but rather from millenia of trial and error by our ancestors (well, the ones who managed to breed). If you believe in evolution at all, however-- you can't hide from it. Art, poetry, music, greed, betrayal, kindness and imagination all resulted from the same process that gave us the opposable thumb.
There are all sorts of interesting questions posed by this world view. For one, if the Rube Goldberg contraption we call consciousness really does result from the same adaptive processes of evolution, then how does our own altering of the environment effect that? For instance, the Internet and the digital age in general has changed the way we communicate and has reshaped our social environments dramatically. As we adapt to these new technologies, are we reshaping our intelligence, reasoning and behavior? That is, are we reprogramming our brains? Are we changing the definition of human?
I, for one, take a bit of peace from the idea that I'm soulless. My failings are not the result of corruption, but faulty adaptation. It doesn't divorce me from being responsible for my actions and behavior, but it does allow me to be more self-aware and hopefully spend less time bemoaning my fate and more time adapting to and changing my environment, and making informed choices about integrating successful strategies and jettisoning those which don't work for the situation at hand.
I don't think (end of statement?) that this is a call to be a self-serving opportunist. It's a call to look around at the world and at yourself and decide (based on you know, all the cognitive resources you've picked up along the way) who you want to be and where you want to be and figuring out how to achieve those aims.
Just how smart is Sen. Clinton? In a first for any presidential candidate, she announced her candidacy on the web today and in her announcement tells us that she wants to start a dialogue with America-- and she's going to start with a series of video chats next week.
Now, political bloggers have a tendency to overstate their power, but they are a real force and Hillary's meeting them on their own turf. Hillary could have announced her candidacy anywhere--picking the 'Net is genius. The "conversation" approach was exactly what she did in her New York race and it worked like gangbusters. Let's see how it does on a large scale--and online.
If you wish to take part in Hillary's webcasts (Jan. 22, 23, 24 4pm PST), sign up here.
Barack Obama speaking at a rally in Portland on Sunday. 75,000 people attended.
From Nick: "You want to see the mark of a truly horrendous newspaper, go to MiamiHerald.com ASAP. Then go to any other news source. I took a screen shot of the Miami Herald page in case they cared to, by the time you read this, note that Fidel Castro stepped down. This is the news story Miami has been waiting for for decades and their excuse for a newspaper can't even be bothered to update their page."
Sure, it's primary season and sure, she's not my candidate (I hope to do a post later this week on why I think Barack Obama is the person best equipped to return America to greatness), but on a weekend when Obama and Oprah stage the largest political primary rally in modern American politics, the New York Times is looking horribly biased for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Just how smart is Sen. Clinton? In a first for any presidential candidate, she announced her candidacy on the web today and in her announcement tells us that she wants to start a dialogue with America-- and she's going to start with a series of video chats next week.