Cute kids are the in accessory for all hip politicians this fall. Obama has got two amazingly adorable daughters. Remember when his youngest couldn't stop talking to daddy when he appeared live via sattelite after Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC convention (watch the end of the video I posted of Michelle's speech here if you want to relive the cuteness)?
Last night's speech by Sarah Palin provided the media a great opportunity to soak in the cuteness of Piper Palin... and boy did they grab some incredible stuff. I was happy today to find a YouTube clip of my favorite moment during the speech last night... the point where cameras cut away to little Piper holding her baby bro Trig and spitting on his head... er... fixing his hair. Awesome!
Thursday, September 04, 2008
“No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”
Outstanding piece from Roger Simon at Politico apologizing profusely for the elite liberal commie media's indulgences over the past week. I know this article will never see the light with the people at whom these "kill the media" attacks are aimed, yet the piece is so good... so good. It provided the Lily Tomlin quote I stole for the title of my own post. It also provided these nuggets:
"On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.
On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?
Bad questions. Bad media. Bad."
FOOTNOTE on ELITISM: Salon's War Room just posted the fact that Cindy McCain's outfit worn on the first day of the GOP convention cost a mere $300,000. I'm sorry... $300,000. Maybe it's me, but that's simply incredible. An outfit. 300k... literally many times what I make in a year. Wow.
Damn those liberal Northeastern elites and their elitist elite ways. SERIOUSLY!?!?! Wtf? Their post references this post over at Vanity Fair. How is it possible at all that these two-faced fakers can get away with such blatant ridiculousness? I begrudge nobody their ability to work and make as much money as they like... but for such filthy filthy rich people to call anybody elitist... ARGH!!!!!!!!
"On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.
On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?
Bad questions. Bad media. Bad."
FOOTNOTE on ELITISM: Salon's War Room just posted the fact that Cindy McCain's outfit worn on the first day of the GOP convention cost a mere $300,000. I'm sorry... $300,000. Maybe it's me, but that's simply incredible. An outfit. 300k... literally many times what I make in a year. Wow.
Damn those liberal Northeastern elites and their elitist elite ways. SERIOUSLY!?!?! Wtf? Their post references this post over at Vanity Fair. How is it possible at all that these two-faced fakers can get away with such blatant ridiculousness? I begrudge nobody their ability to work and make as much money as they like... but for such filthy filthy rich people to call anybody elitist... ARGH!!!!!!!!
Come For The Vetting, Stay For The Tacos
The fine folks at the Public Service Administration have done it again... already responsible for an amazing rework of the 3am ad and numerous other funny YouTube vids to date, they have hit the GOP VettingGate hard right in the funny bone. Wow... that's the worst thing I've ever written. Oh well, here goes:
Spitting Images
There are some clever people out there in this universe, and some of them spotted a nice similarity between Battlestar and McCain Palin... hence, they created this site for Tigh/Roslin '08. Check it yo.
I've always meant to get more into Battlestar, and I've watched a bit and enjoyed. For now tho, this is really just a post about cleverness
I've always meant to get more into Battlestar, and I've watched a bit and enjoyed. For now tho, this is really just a post about cleverness
Obama, Experience, etc
I must admit that every time I hear the word experience, I think of Dungeons and Dragons. I keep expecting someone to talk about how many orcs Obama's killed. So I'll try to avoid using the word experience. I will say, however, that one of the most important facts about Obama is that he spent less than 2 years in the Senate before announcing his candidacy for President and I will try to articulate why I think this matters.
First of all, Obama's short time in the Senate means that he has a very short record. Of course, most freshman Senator's do, but that's why I don't like voting for them as President. This matters to me because I think that a candidate's record is a good indication of what they will do in office. When people campaign they tend to take courageous positions in favor of America, families and puppy-dogs. In other words, their campaign is not a very good way to tell where they stand. Their record in office is harder to gloss over.
McCain, to use the obvious counter-example, has a very long record in the Senate. I don't agree with much of it, and probably no one does, but it let's me make some judgments about McCain. He's a generally conservative guy, who is willing to make some unorthodox calls and willing to take politically dangerous positions because he thinks they're right. I would think here of everything from immigration reform to opposing sending the Marines to Beruit. Obama simply doesn't have much of a record. I do not know of any serious legislative accomplishments that he's done and, for all his much vaunted post-partisanship, I do not know of any time he broke with his party to do something unpopular (not that people should be doing that just for the sake of looking good to independents). This makes it much harder to judge what he will be like in office. In fact, it seems to me that this is part of his appeal. McCain has been involved in so many pieces of legislation over the years that it's easy to find something you don't like. It's harder to do that with Obama and this lets him seem new and fresh. I think this actually helps him and he knows it.
Which brings us nicely to my second point. Many people that I deeply respect see Obama as a new kind of a politician, hope and change we can believe in. I wish I could see that too, and, sometimes, when he is speaking I do. But mostly I see an incredibly ambitious, calculating political mind. Oh, of course any one who runs for President is, including McCain, but there seems like such a deep disconnect between Obama the Philosopher King and Obama the Politician that I sometimes wonder how he can take himself seriously.
Anyway, I suspect this is just one post in a long and fruitful debate, about what experience is, who has it, and whether anyone can win the presidency without resorting to tactics that appall our better sensibilities. So I'll post in that spirit and look forward to continuing later.
First of all, Obama's short time in the Senate means that he has a very short record. Of course, most freshman Senator's do, but that's why I don't like voting for them as President. This matters to me because I think that a candidate's record is a good indication of what they will do in office. When people campaign they tend to take courageous positions in favor of America, families and puppy-dogs. In other words, their campaign is not a very good way to tell where they stand. Their record in office is harder to gloss over.
McCain, to use the obvious counter-example, has a very long record in the Senate. I don't agree with much of it, and probably no one does, but it let's me make some judgments about McCain. He's a generally conservative guy, who is willing to make some unorthodox calls and willing to take politically dangerous positions because he thinks they're right. I would think here of everything from immigration reform to opposing sending the Marines to Beruit. Obama simply doesn't have much of a record. I do not know of any serious legislative accomplishments that he's done and, for all his much vaunted post-partisanship, I do not know of any time he broke with his party to do something unpopular (not that people should be doing that just for the sake of looking good to independents). This makes it much harder to judge what he will be like in office. In fact, it seems to me that this is part of his appeal. McCain has been involved in so many pieces of legislation over the years that it's easy to find something you don't like. It's harder to do that with Obama and this lets him seem new and fresh. I think this actually helps him and he knows it.
Which brings us nicely to my second point. Many people that I deeply respect see Obama as a new kind of a politician, hope and change we can believe in. I wish I could see that too, and, sometimes, when he is speaking I do. But mostly I see an incredibly ambitious, calculating political mind. Oh, of course any one who runs for President is, including McCain, but there seems like such a deep disconnect between Obama the Philosopher King and Obama the Politician that I sometimes wonder how he can take himself seriously.
Anyway, I suspect this is just one post in a long and fruitful debate, about what experience is, who has it, and whether anyone can win the presidency without resorting to tactics that appall our better sensibilities. So I'll post in that spirit and look forward to continuing later.
Romney
I ought to thank Romney for his speech last night, because it reminded me why I despise him. In part it was the sheer hypocrisy of it all. The son of a wealthy-businessman liberal Republican governor, the graduate of Harvard Law, the long time Bostonian, the liberal Republican governor of MASSACHUSETTS-- railing against East Coast Elites? Then there is the pejorative use of the term "liberal", about which Sullivan has a great post this morning. And of course, the frightening chants of USA! USA! But of any moment in the speech, the one which most completley demonstrates why I hate Romney is when he addressed energy policy. He addresses that old bugaboo known as "dependence on foreign oil" and tells us that our buying oil from overseas represents "the largest transfer of wealth in history."
Mitt makes it sounds like we are simply shipping off billions of dollars to the Middle East. He doesn't mention that we are getting something very valuable in return: oil. Obviously we value oil more than the money we use to pay for it, or else we would not make the purchase. It's called a market, Mitt. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, capitalism? Now, if Huckabee said the same thing I could forgive him, 'cause you don't get the sense that Huck cares much for economics. Romney, however, is a gifted venture capitalist. He gets it. Which means he's just playing politics. Whatever problems I have with Palin, I still would prefer her at the bottom of the ticket.
Mitt makes it sounds like we are simply shipping off billions of dollars to the Middle East. He doesn't mention that we are getting something very valuable in return: oil. Obviously we value oil more than the money we use to pay for it, or else we would not make the purchase. It's called a market, Mitt. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, capitalism? Now, if Huckabee said the same thing I could forgive him, 'cause you don't get the sense that Huck cares much for economics. Romney, however, is a gifted venture capitalist. He gets it. Which means he's just playing politics. Whatever problems I have with Palin, I still would prefer her at the bottom of the ticket.
Experience and Obama
Matt wrote an interesting post a few days ago about Andrew Sullivan and the Obama/Palin experience question that has reared its head full-force this week. I have been bothered by the experience argument against Obama for awhile, so here's a quick download on why this whole thing bothers me. Certainly Barack Obama has a different kind of experience from someone like Joe Biden, John McCain or I dunno... Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi as other examples.
Obama has, admittedly not been in the senate for decades, and he has not worked face-to-face with the leaders of foreign nations for decades. He has not run a company, and he hasn't authored, sponsored and passed dozens of pieces of landmark legislation to make significant progress on specific issues over the course of his years in the Senate (but who does in their first few years as a Senator... has anyone produced an example of such accomplishment upon arrival on the Senate floor?). He has not run a beurocratic machine like state, province, nation, etc. These are all valid points.
That said, what bothers me is the (in my opinion) flawed notion that these types of experience are necessary to success as President or having them (or not) is indicative of ones' "readiness" to lead. This line of reasoning, to me, engenders a sense that you need to follow a prescribed path or clear a certain set of hurdles to be ready, able, etc. This pumping up of a path to power or to qualification for leadership seems overblown to me, and I think Sarah Palin and Barack Obama provide an interesting contrast case to help highlight why that is. If anything, the debate that continues to develop since Ms. Palin arrived on the Republican ticket makes this whole experience line even more patently absurd.
I honestly feel like if you look at Ms. Palin's resume you can see some of the specific types of experience commentators have found lacking on Obama's resume, namely tenure in executive office. That said, you can also find things on Obama's resume that are not present on Palins. One post I saw today compared Obama's chairmanship at the Harvard Law Review (first African American to hold this post) to Palin's minor in Political Science at Idaho State. Some might call this comparison elitist, but the fact remains there is a track record of leadership and accomplishment that backs up the rationality behind Democratic excitement, voting and support for their candidate. The guy isn't, as Hillary suggested back when she was still in it, running based on one speech. He's running based on his interest in and pledge to bring together disparate interest groups and to work for change in new and dynamic ways.
Obama has, in the course of his campaign, show his interest in doing just that. He went to Michigan, a state that is considered very much in contention, and he did not cave to the powerful auto industry, instead taking Detroit to task for their resistance to raising fuel efficiency in American cars and their laconic approach to competition. He went after his own party, challenging them to embrace religious groups and evangelicals as possible allies on issues like poverty, AIDS, and rebuilding our inner cities turning aside years of capitulation to the idea that these groups will always vote Republican no matter what. He pushed for his campaign to have a 50-state grass-roots foundation, and has taken many steps to continue relying on this connection to real supportors and their issues all along the way.
While I absolutely agree with Matt that a good campaigner does not necessarily a good leader make, I think these are three fine examples where you can see the mark of a leader interested in building a movement. This is a guy who doesn't, as the right wing might suggest, simply care about talking pretty. He cares about setting up his campaign and an energizing machine that will push forward towards a new day of progress. Now I am clearly in the tank, plain and simple. I can't deny it, and I wouldn't want to, but that said, I think there is a flawed simplicity to the argument about experience, and while I'm not sure I've fully exposed what bothers me about that, I hope I've provided enough to spark some discussion or response from various quarters. Please, please, please let me know what you think.
Obama has, admittedly not been in the senate for decades, and he has not worked face-to-face with the leaders of foreign nations for decades. He has not run a company, and he hasn't authored, sponsored and passed dozens of pieces of landmark legislation to make significant progress on specific issues over the course of his years in the Senate (but who does in their first few years as a Senator... has anyone produced an example of such accomplishment upon arrival on the Senate floor?). He has not run a beurocratic machine like state, province, nation, etc. These are all valid points.
That said, what bothers me is the (in my opinion) flawed notion that these types of experience are necessary to success as President or having them (or not) is indicative of ones' "readiness" to lead. This line of reasoning, to me, engenders a sense that you need to follow a prescribed path or clear a certain set of hurdles to be ready, able, etc. This pumping up of a path to power or to qualification for leadership seems overblown to me, and I think Sarah Palin and Barack Obama provide an interesting contrast case to help highlight why that is. If anything, the debate that continues to develop since Ms. Palin arrived on the Republican ticket makes this whole experience line even more patently absurd.
I honestly feel like if you look at Ms. Palin's resume you can see some of the specific types of experience commentators have found lacking on Obama's resume, namely tenure in executive office. That said, you can also find things on Obama's resume that are not present on Palins. One post I saw today compared Obama's chairmanship at the Harvard Law Review (first African American to hold this post) to Palin's minor in Political Science at Idaho State. Some might call this comparison elitist, but the fact remains there is a track record of leadership and accomplishment that backs up the rationality behind Democratic excitement, voting and support for their candidate. The guy isn't, as Hillary suggested back when she was still in it, running based on one speech. He's running based on his interest in and pledge to bring together disparate interest groups and to work for change in new and dynamic ways.
Obama has, in the course of his campaign, show his interest in doing just that. He went to Michigan, a state that is considered very much in contention, and he did not cave to the powerful auto industry, instead taking Detroit to task for their resistance to raising fuel efficiency in American cars and their laconic approach to competition. He went after his own party, challenging them to embrace religious groups and evangelicals as possible allies on issues like poverty, AIDS, and rebuilding our inner cities turning aside years of capitulation to the idea that these groups will always vote Republican no matter what. He pushed for his campaign to have a 50-state grass-roots foundation, and has taken many steps to continue relying on this connection to real supportors and their issues all along the way.
While I absolutely agree with Matt that a good campaigner does not necessarily a good leader make, I think these are three fine examples where you can see the mark of a leader interested in building a movement. This is a guy who doesn't, as the right wing might suggest, simply care about talking pretty. He cares about setting up his campaign and an energizing machine that will push forward towards a new day of progress. Now I am clearly in the tank, plain and simple. I can't deny it, and I wouldn't want to, but that said, I think there is a flawed simplicity to the argument about experience, and while I'm not sure I've fully exposed what bothers me about that, I hope I've provided enough to spark some discussion or response from various quarters. Please, please, please let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)