Entries Tagged 'politics' ↓

A Chicago artist is obsessed with Sarah Palin—and not necessarily in a good way.

“I’ve been following her religiously,” [Bruce Elliott] said Monday at the bar. “I had never heard of her before, like everyone else. I find her bizarrely fascinating, even though I pretty much despise everything she stands for.”

You will know her name. He will make her even more famous.

Andrew Sullivan asks for his readers’ blessing to root around in mud of Sarah Palin’s life:

It seems to me that if you are on record saying that your life is an open book, and you have a state-run web-page about your infant son, and your own children’s travel is paid for by the state, and you presented your infant son at a convention televised across the entire world, and you sent out a press release outing your own daughter’s current pregnancy, then it is not despicable, evil, vile or outrageous for the press to ask factual, answerable questions about Sarah Palin’s experiences as a pregnant and non-pregnant mother and about her marriage and about her parenting of her children. Palin herself just said so.

Please email me and tell me why I’m wrong about this. I want to air all possible views and dissents. I want to do the right thing, to learn as much as we can about this woman. All I want is to know more - about this new, unknown, clearly dishonest person who is asking to be elected a potential president of the United States by next January.

You certainly have my blessing, Mr. Sullivan. It’s a free country, after all, with a free press. And The Atlantic also has my blessing to continue to compete with the National Enquirer.

After all, what’s in a 150-year-old brand name?

I thought I’d try to continue to bring you tidbits of real information while the rest of the Western world tunes in to The Perils of Palin, I was delighted to come across a BBC interview with General David Petraeus, who had a lot to say about Iraq [e.a.]:

Leaving his post, [Petraeus] said there were “many storm clouds on the horizon which could develop into real problems”.
Overall he summed up the situation as “still hard but hopeful”, saying that progress in Iraq was “a bit more durable” but that the situation there remained fragile.
He said he did not know that he would ever use the word “victory”: “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”
He said al-Qaeda’s efforts to portray its jihad in Iraq as going well were “disingenuous”. It was, in fact “going poorly”, he said.
Of his strategy of establishing joint security stations in key locations, Gen Petraeus said that “you can’t secure the people if you don’t live with them”.
He said it was now fair to say that the Iraqis were standing up as US forces stood down. The confidence and capability of Iraqi forces had increased substantially, he said.

We finally get down to the good stuff.***

Jennifer Rubin sniffed out one of Sarah Palin’s most cutting remarks when she spoke before the RNC:

One of [Rubin's] favorite lines from [Palin's] speech:

My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of “personal discovery.”

Palin seems, upon further reflection, to be rather ill suited to play the role of patient/guest on the Oprah coach. She exudes confidence, refuses to whine, and emphasizes action over good intentions.

All the more reason for Oprah to invite Palin on the show—imagine the tension! the conflict! the ratings!

But that dig about Obama’s “journey of personal discovery” sounds very much like a McCain dig, not a Palin dig. It is very, very personal … and in keeping with the McCain camp’s longtime antipathy to and resentment of the Obama campaign, which I mentioned here.

No candidate has ever acted in this fashion. No one has ever campaigned in front of foreigners. He’s showing hubris and contempt for the rest of us in how he considers America fundamentally broken and he’s the solution. Messianism is usually a quality you don’t want in a president. This was always the soft underbelly of his candidacy. They’ve gotten too caught up in their own story.

Oprah, the Goddess of Infotainment, is the soft underbelly of our culture.
Soon she’s going to find out that she probably should have stayed out of politics. It’s a punishing business, and you can’t always restore your reputation with one smashing performance.

update: Posters to Oprah’s site are not happy. She released this statement:

———–

*** I love Oprah stories! My very first post, in February 2006, was (peripherally) about Oprah. I gave her an Infotainment Blip of the Month Award.

It’s fun to be a detached observer of the Incredible Campaign of 2008, which has galvanized a nation. Our “mass of niches” culture seems to have coalesced in these past two weeks into a genuine mass audience. It’s probably temporary and of course there’s no guarantee that getting our attention will lead to our doing something (or even voting), but we are riveted to the political soap opera unfolding before our eyes.

The viewership for various segments of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions was huge.

As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.

Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the “American Idol” finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.

“It clearly suggests that a great number of Americans think that who will be the next president is important and worthy of their time,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter and director of the Project for Excellence in journalism.

One day, this will be seen as a watershed—the moment that the world of politics, borrowing from the world of showbiz, inspired the Couch Potatoes of Amercia to take a good, hard (though, possibly, brief) look at their country, their neighbors, and, most of all, themselves and to see if maybe we all couldn’t do a little bit more to get along, goddamnit, and while we’re at it, to do more for ourselves—individually and collectively.

But I must be dreaming, because that would be true progress.

However, I do have some hope that something better will result from the election of 2008, regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats win the White House this time around, because all of the candidates are dedicated—and inspiring—public servants (even if they are politicians and thus by nature suspect. Every one of the current crop has sacrificed something and done good things for others. Along the way, we unruly American, with our crude democratic system, shoved aside some folks who had already had their turn and we got rid of at least one rotten apple and we rejected alarmism as a way of daily life).

Well, goddamn!

Ain’t that America somethin’ to see, baby!

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, agree with ‘em or disagree with ‘em, we’ve finally got some great role models (new heroes and villains, as JFK memorably referred to them in 1959,***) that people are paying attention to.

And so we sail into uncharted waters.

————–

*** Admirably, JFK warned the people not to believe in the false idols launched by the new TV era. Then he proceeded to become one of them. He succeeded beyond his wildest imagination, because politicians are still emulating his style, and Democratic politicians all covet the imprimatur of the Kennedys and … but that’s a story for another day. Let’s just say for now that the imprimatur will long outlive the Kennedys.

Politicians cannot possibly accomplish everything they promise the people. They are ambitious above all else. John McCain knows this and is torn up about it, as the NYT reported the other day; nevertheless, he’s running for president for a second time. And he is using war strategies (such as surprise) in his political campaign. He means to win—with honor and within the rules of the arena.

(via Marc Ambinder) His name is Barack Obama, and I endorse his message [e.a.]:

Jake Tapper: Governor Palin and her husband issued a statement today saying that their 17 year old daughter Bristol who is unmarried is 5 months pregnant. Do you have a comment?

BO: I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18. And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off limits.

A lot of Obama’s supporters do not understand that, but I forgive them [even when they make fools of themselves after being reminded of the fundamentals of biology, and still want a doctors letter? Yes, even then. And I'm not even a Christian! ---ed.] They’re passionate about their candidate, and they’re human.

On one level, it’s good that they care enough to get engaged in the messy process that is our democracy—a process that, alas, also gives rights to those caught up in a mob mentality.

The proper remedy to their antics is to outsmart them, and to accomplish your goals: the success of your cause is always the best revenge.

If you like soap operas, this one is getting better by the hour: VP hopeful Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant.

A statement released by the campaign said that Bristol Palin will keep her baby and marry the child’s father.

“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents,” Sarah and Todd Palin said in the brief statement.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,” they added.

As I write, no retraction yet from Andrew Sullivan. Interestingly, though, Kaus defends Sullivan’s posts as the legitimate work of bloggers, whose function, he implies, is to push “undernews” to the surface:

The Case for Excitability : Andrew Sullivan’s role in publicizing the rumor seems legit too. The feeding frenzy of publicity is what flushes out the counter-evidence quickly (and then it gets a lot of attention).

[Why didn’t kf, self-appointed Guide to the Undernews, write about the rumor?–ed. It seemed more likely that an older woman would have a Down syndrome child. Nor do I see what the huge moral scandal would be if the Palin rumor were true. So I didn’t get to it. I’m not Guide to the Undernews! At least not to All the Undernews. That’s a full time job.** My argument is that the Web as a whole potentially functions as the Guide to All Undernews, as bloggers argue about whatever rumors interest them. …

**–The Edwards/Hunter undernews was also different, from my perspective–I pushed it because I knew with reasonable certainty, from off-the-record sources, that it was true. But I defend obsessed bloggers who hash out undernews rumors about public figures when they don’t know if they’re true or not.

Longtime readers know how cynical I am, so it won’t come as any surprise to them to read that I’m impressed by the immediate, visible impact Sarah Palin has had on the McCain campaign. Jonathan Martin reports:

The Palin effect: crowd size

17,000+ today for the McCain-Palin rally outside of St. Louis, according to a Secret Service magnetometer count provided by the campaign.

As one veteran of Missouri politics said, that’s the sort of crowd usually seen in October for a president — not in August for a candidate.

Call me a simpleton, but that looks like evidence of a bounce.

I am not a fan of John McCain for president (though I am a big John McCain fan). In fact, I find myself leaning toward Obama now. But I do admire McCain’s moxie and his mental toughness, and, purely from a political point of view, his decision to pick Palin.

Noemi Emery laid out the items in the plus column of the decision three days ago (impressive!), and it looks like many of her predictions are coming true—against all odds, since she didn’t take Gustav into account, and even that is figuring to put the GOP at a (relative) advantage: Bush and Cheney won’t be speaking at the convention due to the weather, and yet the worst of the storm happens to be bypassing New Orleans. [Who is stage-managing this show? This dude or dudette is even better than the guys who handled the Beijing Olympics and Obama's acceptance speech performance! ---ed.]

1. Steps on the story of Obama’s speech (and convention), and possibly the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. [ see today's NYT ***---ed.] The Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.

2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam. [ Not really, but you can blame Gustav, and/or the media, whichever one is more politically convenient ---ed.]

3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person. [true dat; see the first paragraph of this post ---ed.]

4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.

5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets. [yep. I think that's why Obama's fans are so incredibly upset. Palin is, undeniably, an agent of change---both in her actions and her image. She makes Obama less special. Plus: she's fresh meat. We're tired of him. He has used up all his material. She gives us a new character to root for or to deride---or, if you're Andrew Sullivan, to try to ruin. Sorry if you're offended, but that's the way it is in our democracy. It has always been like this. The only difference now is that we're attuned to it. The curtain has been pulled back to reveal fully the behind-the-stage machinations on both sides of the aisle and in the newsrooms of the MSM. The means to report---and to reveal formerly closely held secrets---has been spread to anyone with an internet connection. Likewise, the means to make up lies and spread them instantly across the globe.

And that's as true for Daily Kos diarists as it is for the Russian prime minister, Dmitri Medvedev, who is taking advantage of the three-ring circus that is our election cycle to declare a new era, in which Russia has a sphere of influence to compete with America, which isn't so exceptional. Take that! ---ed.]

6. May detach some young people, especially women. [Meghan McCain gave Palin a big endorsement as a "cool role model." ---ed.]

7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary. [Hmmm. That's complicated. ---ed.]

8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.

etc.

Read the whole thing.

Obama built a very impressive organization from the ground up, and created the impression of a pro-Obama movement, which in turn has sparked an interest in politics the likes of which this country (and Europe) hasn’t seen in decades (if the interest of the under-30 crowd around me is any indication … but I have to say that the jury is still out on that, because I live in an unrepresentative bubble in downtown Manhattan and cannot extrapolate much from my immediate surroundings).

McCain, however, seems to have ignited a movement. If indeed he has been mulling over this choice for a long time, you have to tip your hat to his boldness (or recklessness … take your pick). The Republican Party needs a shake-up not only for McCain to have a shot at the White House but in order for the Republicans to have a shot at staying relevant in our fast-moving society.

John Podhoretz hinted at this immediately after McCain picked Palin last Friday:

For the first time this year, there will be some pop-cultural interest in a Republican. Her family story — a conservative Republican with a blue-collar worker of a husband who takes primary responsibility for childrearing with a special-needs baby — is like a dream People Magazine cover.

And indeed, here is People’s immediate coverage.

Podhoretz continued:

Even though her pro-life views will make her anathema to New York City women’s-magazine editors, the possibility of huge newsstand sales in Red State Wal-Marts is just going to be too tempting for them to ignore her or belittle her.

It won’t swing an election, but it’s the kind of thing that can help change the narrative of the election.

It can do more than change the narrative of the election. McCain is confronting the culture war head-on. Suddenly, it’s a little hard to picture rural folk as bitter gun-and religion-clingers now, isn’t it?

Crazy!

A rejuvenation of both brands—Democratic and Republican—would be really healthy for our Republic. Long live the founders!

———–

*** The Democrats’ best-laid plans for a post-convention honeymoon have been derailed, Jeff Zeleny writes:

The Obama-Biden tour, officially branded “On the Road to Change,” drew far less attention than the campaign had envisioned. Before their plane took off Friday from the Democratic convention in Denver, Senator John McCain dropped the bombshell news that he had chosen Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Then, as Hurricane Gustav churned toward the Gulf Coast, Mr. McCain turned up in Mississippi on Sunday.

The debut of Sarah Palin, the new gal in town, is still the subject du jour 24 hours later, having wiped Obama’s smashing convention spectacular from the news cycle and thus, for all intents and purposes, from memory. His really big shew didn’t have time to stick, because McCain trampled all over it with fresh meat.

The media’s instant switchover from covering Obama’s triumph to covering the sensational instant celebrity Sarah Palin reveals the danger in relying on the MSM to carry your message (and your momentum, not to mention your water), as Obama did with the convention spectacular: you can be swept aside by the next story that comes along. And if the story introduces an exceptionally telegenic new archetype (who scores) into the tired old cast of the “Mediathon” (see Frank Rich’s brilliant article about the phenomenon)—well then, if you’re Obama, you might just have lost your mini-momentum.

But you had a fabulous moment! Even I thought so!

Wretchard analyzes the meaning and impact of McCain’s VP pick:

One of the more interesting questions for political historians is whether McCain chose Palin before or after Obama chose Biden. After a long period of bleeding numbers at the polls, Obama had a chance at Denver to take the initiative in two ways: first to refocus the election on George W. Bush and second, to dominate the news cycle for at least a couple of days. But several circumstances spoiled the opportunity. First, Denver turned out to be at least partly about the Clintons; an misfortune which BHO endured with gritted teeth. Yet even when the duo had sullenly lumbered off and he strode at last into the limelight before the stage the rumor that McCain was about to select his Veep was beating on the edges of the media’s attention. At first there seemed little to worry about; there were contingency plans in the event McCain selected either Romney or Pawlenty. But now it is clear the old attack pilot pulled a move which aims to exploit several chinks in Obama’s armor: gender and class.

From early indications, BHO’s camp has elected to expend at least some ammunition to attack Palin. Despite its aggressive appearances [it] is a defensive move designed to blunt the potential threat she poses to his narratives. The effort will divert resources away from what should have been Obama’s central focus: attacking GWB and McCain.

Every campaign is about both hearts and minds, of course.

We Americans don’t have much in our minds—we’re an ignorant lot, and apparently don’t care to change our ways—but we’ve got open hearts

There’s a surefire way to capture our hearts—with a great story.

It looks like the Red American hot mama from Alaska has got one hell of a story. And the visuals aren’t bad either.

Whether she’ll make a difference in the election is something we can’t know now. But that she has the potential to make a huge difference in the image of rural, conservative, evangelical Americans is undeniable (just as Obama has already made a huge difference in the image of African Americans).

Who’d a thunk it?

Being a dyed-in-the-wool cynic—somewhat like my favorite director, Billy Wilder, who was of the opinion that there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and that the difference that really counts among human beings is between human decency and indecency-–I appreciate Glenn Reynolds’s observation:

For me, of course, most of the fun of the past 24 hours has come from watching Democrats get caught up in the whole identity-politics tangle. As the San Francisco Chronicle says, “Republican Sen. John McCain played the gender card like an ace Friday with his surprise choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate.”

Should McCain be above tricks like that? Well, maybe, but . . . nah, it’s politics, who am I kidding? And I have to say, this whole election, which a year or two ago looked to be a boring slog between Hillary and Rudy, has been the most entertaining I can remember. Regardless of how it comes out, let’s be thankful for that! [e.a.]

Of course policies do make a difference, and to the extent that political parties can change policies it does matter which party is in power. But the needle doesn’t ever move too far from the center in America. Neither party will ever be the ruin of the country, and neither party will ever be the savior, either.

So … unless we’re out there participating and making a difference (and even if we are out there participating and making a difference), we might as well sit back and enjoy the show.

This is our glorious democracy.

And politics—which includes public circuses and spectacular attempts to influence public opinion while stealing your opponent’s thunder—is indeed the greatest show on earth.

Jack Shafer on the media’s typical coverage of campaigns contains this gem about last night’s spectacle in Denver—and a useful reminder [e.a.]:

Instead of decoding the Obama propaganda, the broadcast press mostly wallowed in it: Flipping the dial, I didn’t hear much in the way of disparagement from the talking heads. Indeed, the fact that the networks paid $100,000 to install a Skycam to hover over the cheering hordes at Invesco Field proves how easily they can be co-opted by a campaign that spends the money to produce a terrific “show.” The Skycam added no journalistic value to last night’s coverage, only buckets of oomph for the Obama-Biden ticket. If you can’t avert your eyes from such spectacles and the network anchors refuse to frame them skeptically, be prepared to discount the emotional effect they may exert on you.

He’s right, of course. What he doesn’t note is that the very next day, the Republicans put on an equally compelling “show” with the very photogenic Sarah Palin:

Aren’t political campaigns fun?

Especially when a resurgent Russia is all but forgotten in the process?

Here’s one of the shrewdest takes on Elizabeth Edwards’s behavior in the unfortunate incident involving her weasel of a husband, from Hanna Rosin at the XX Factor [e.a.]:

I find this Elizabeth Edwards post on Daily Kos excruciating. We are supposed to ride with this couple through her cancer diagnosis and relapse, through their son’s death, their fertility treatments, and the rededication of their marriage, but then we are supposed to butt the hell out when the story line veers from the tragedy and heroics. If you believe in a system, you have to live and die by it. Elizabeth Edwards buys into the culture of overconfession. She is an obsessive blogger, for God’s sake. You can’t just get suddenly pissed off because the confessional culture came back to bite you. A “string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication”???

Yes, that was a huge mistake on the part of the Edwardses. It was they who put their great marriage front and center in his campaign, as Kaus wrote recently, when he was explaining why it’s important for the MSM to cover this story.:

Edwards’ most effective anecdote this year, however, was probably the story of his popular wife Elizabeths’ struggle against cancer. He made it the emotional center of a TV ad:

And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room, after 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news, what we were going to spend our lives doing. For all those that have no voice. We are not going to quietly go away.

During a joint 60 Minutes interview focusing on his wife’s illness, Edwards explicitly linked his behavior in that struggle and his fitness for public office:

Katie Couric:
Some have suggested that you’re capitalizing on this.

John Edwards:
Here’s what I would say about that.

First of all, there’s not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. ..[snip]

But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we’d make. [E.A.]

Once Edwards brought America into his family’s private hell, all other bets were off and there was no more “zone of privacy.”

Soon it won’t only be the tabloids snooping into politicians’ affairs. This is the era of the citizen journalist, after all. And if the mainstream media proves itself too squeamish or “high-class” to report on these kinds of things—which involve lies, cover-ups, hush money, personal betrayals, and which speak directly to the issue of character—you can be sure after this major breach of the public trust from a former presidential candidate and his wife, a lot of freelancers will be operating in this territory from now on.

The public may not have a “right” to know, but the public wants to know the whole story—including the sordid stuff. Fairy tales they can get in People magazine. They want the full range of possible fabrications and truths about celebrities (and politicians), including the dirt.

Rich Lowry salutes McCain’s virility. Wait. Did I say virility? Ewww. I meant McCain’s virality:

Who would have thought it? The McCain campaign is now running more effectively viral ads than the Obama campaign. The Landstuhl ad, which I didn’t like (because of the factual problem) stoked a week’s worth of debate that was harmful to Obama. The “Celeb” ad has dominated cable chat and had 1.2 million YouTube hits the last time I looked. Now, there’s this brilliant “The One” ad noted by Kathryn earlier which will, I’m sure, be a YouTube sensation because it’s so fun to watch.

And for those of you who think it’s just too tawdry to contemplace, and beneath McCain, and that he has somehow sullied himself—well, I hate to say it, but consider the curious case of John Edwards. Now, there’s someone someone who has (allegedly) sullied himself (not to mention his wife, his family, his friends, and his political supporters).

Meanwhile, here’s John McCain, whom you were mocking just recently because he doesn’t even know how to use the google…as if that matters.

Lowry concludes [e.a.]:

As everyone has said this week, this isn’t “worthy” of the old John McCain of 2000. Which is a good thing because: 1) it’s a new media and technology environment and he’s got to plug into it; 2) he’s running behind with fewer resources and less organization, so his campaign has to have a certain guerrilla element and viral video is a cheap way to drive the debate. Bravo…

Those of you who continue to think that a presidential campaign is serious business about the catastrophes facing our nation need to do some reading and to think again.

About the latest ad, Jennifer Rubin writes:

The interesting thing about these humor pieces is that there is really no response [from the Obama camp] other than: “Knock it off !”

What are they gonna say? That there’s nothing funny about their candidate? They tried that once.

And (funny thing!) it almost worked … for a couple of weeks.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m gonna sit back and enjoy the rest of this campaign. I’m pretty sure that both candidates will do an adequate job as president, and I am cold to both of them.

(I’m a registered Democrat. I have never yet in my life voted for a Republican for president … in case anyone is interested.)

Richard Byrne recently reread The Selling of the President (which I happen to have mentioned just the other day) and took away some lessons [e.a.]:

Forty years on, McGinniss and the prominent Nixon staffers of his generation are in their late 60s. But The Selling of the President 1968 holds valuable lessons for the present generation of presidential campaign staffers, who are already trying to define Barack Obama and John McCain.

The fact that these lessons continue to be so relevant also hints at an uncomfortable fact: There is little true innovation in American political discourse, and its purveyors recycle key language and concepts to a disturbing degree.

In a campaign where Obama’s mastery of political oratory has been applauded, it may be difficult to remember that words can clutter or bog down the total impact of a televised campaign message. Nixon’s 1968 campaign ads are notable for their willingness to set a simple and forthright proposition and then let music and images do the heavy lifting to evoke a host of conflicting moods. That tempest of sound and image is then resolved succinctly with a carefully modulated statement from the candidate — tough, but not mean.

For John McCain, a similar approach might be the most effective against Obama in the fall. In fact, his first TV ads are already doing it: Obama as celebrity. Obama as cheap politician using troops as campaign fodder. Particularly on Iraq, look for McCain to set forth simple propositions like “the surge worked” — and pluck heartstrings with patriotic pictures and music.

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

The Edwards story takes another step up the ladder to the MSM from the undernews.

(via Kaus, your source for paranoia and for tabloid truth)

Faster Comics–Jay Leno Beats NBC News: Charlotte’s WCNC airs a hostile, smart, doomy segment on the “scandal brewing.” Pegged to Edwards “ducking reporters,” plus the suggestive birth certificate. … Leno, Conan jokes featured. Leno’s is even funny. … Resonant clip from campaign “webisode.” … Reporter Stuart Watson says Edwards is in danger of “disappearing from the national stage … unless he finds a way to squelch this story fast.” … Maybe he did: It would be paranoid to notice that the segment isn’t featured on the station’s Web site. … Update: Strangely, I am paranoid! Video is on main WCNC video playlist and on the “Investigators” page. … 12:18 P.M.

Some people just can’t get over how unfair it was to Obama to call Wesley Clark’s idiotic comments about John McCain’s service to his country an “attack.”

Someone over at the Columbia Journalism Review gets on his high horse:

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

No shit, Sherlock.

But what I want to know is why it’s so “crucially important” that we have a “sophisticated” political debate in this country.

Politics is not a debating society! It ain’t bean bag, either. It’s about power struggles!

Wesley Clark is an asshole, an Obama supporter, and he is trying to torpedo John McCain’s image by belittling his wartime experience. You bet it was an attack.

Channel-surfing last night, I happened upon Luke Russert, son of the recently deceased Tim Russert, discussing politics with Larry King, who was holding a “Rock the Vote” special. It was pretty astonishing to see his poise in the wake of the sudden death of his father, but I was soon taken with young Russert’s interesting (and politic) take on politics. He’s non-partisan—indeed, he’s an independent [e.a.]:

KING: Luke, why are you an independent?

RUSSERT: Well, I’m an independent because I believe it’s important to vote for politicians and not a party. I like to see what a politician’s going to do and what he says he’s going to do in Washington. Being here in the District of Columbia, we don’t vote for a governor or senator or congressional representatives. You pretty much vote for mayors, city council members and the president of the United States. And I just really like to wait on my vote until the last second to see what each politician has done, what they say they’re going to do, and what the media scrutiny reveals of each politician.

I think it’s very, very important to see how politician holds up to the questions the media asks. One of the things my dad always liked to say is, how are you going to make tough decisions as a commander in chief if you can’t answer tough questions from media. That’s why I’m an independent. I also think it’s kind of ridiculous how people in the United States, if they’re a member of the party, they don’t even listen to the other side of the issue; oh, the Democrats are voting this way, I agree with that; Republicans vote this way, I agree with that. I might be sounding a little Lou Dobbs, but that’s why I’m an independent in that sense.

Compare and contrast with the unappetizing spectacle I wrote about here. What a refreshing change.

Today—as opposed to 18 months ago, when Obama was launched as the Messiah—pretty much everybody who matters agrees that Barack Obama is (as I’ve been saying for a while) the coolest Machiavellian dude in the presidential race.

David Brooks launched the debate by positing a “Fast Eddie” Obama (as a peer of “Slick Willie” Clinton).

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Ann Althouse digs deep into Obama’s dissembling and sees a positive sign. Note her response to one of her readers:

mporcius said…”Ann likes that Obama has betrayed a pledge about or changed his mind about campaign financing because Ann doesn’t want to give up on the war effort in Iraq. Ann wants to believe that Obama will change his mind about Iraq (or that he has been lying the whole time) and when Obama pulls something like this, Ann is encouraged.”

[Althouse answers:]That’s basically the answer. In fact, I think Obama may be a better bet than McCain on Iraq.

My number 1 concern about Obama is that he won’t check the Democratic Congress. But I’m not confident that McCain will either.

Look, you can’t trust either man completely. You can’t trust anyone running for President. Remember when George Bush assured us that he opposed nation building?

Jonah Goldberg pokes the biggest hole in Brooks’s and Althouse’s “theory.” He points out that being a great in-fighter and ruthless politician does not make you adept at handling foreign policy:

But it’s worth noting that being cutthroat and savvy in electoral politics doesn’t necessarily translate into being cutthroat and savvy, never mind wise, in power. George W. Bush — we’ve been told — was ruthless in getting elected. When in power, he discovered Putin’s soul. (Bush’s dad, who did what it took to crush Dukakis, is a better example of Brooks’ fast-eddie thesis). Ted Kennedy is arguably the most ruthless politician in America, that hardly means he’d be a great foreign policy president. In fact, I would argue that despite Kennedy’s toughminded political cynicism, he’s still naive about foreign policy. If Brooks is right about Obama’s campaign smarts, my guess is that Obama would still be naive about foreign policy. All his throw-’em-under-the-truck maneuvering is likely rationalized by his desire to “do good” once elected. And that do-goodery is not (necessarily) any less naive simply because he’s doing whatever bad he deems necessary to do good.

Andrew Sullivan, who for months on end tore down the Clinton’s for their “Rovian” tactics, is now a fan of these underhanded tactics when they’re carried out by his American idol Obama, and especially when Obama bests the Clintons by doing them.

As for me: I admire Obama’s political skills—and indeed I’ve advocated for Democrats to get just as tough and ruthless as the Republicans are wont to be. But I just don’t trust him, because I don’t know one thing that he stands for and stands firm on. And I’ve been saying the same thing, like a broken record, ever since I started writing about Obama—and his “narrator.”

Why does a candidate for president of the United States need a “narrator” unless he is spinning tales? Some months ago, I wrote:

[The novelist Richard] Russo gets at the issue: the media’s storytelling reduces everything and everyone to a binary choice—Spitzer is either All Evil or All Saint, take your pick.

A similar dynamic is at play in the Reverend Wright scandal. Obama’s problem is that there isn’t a simple story line that can explain his 20-year affiliation with Wright and allow Obama at the same time to hold on to his own pacific, post-racial Magic Negro Healer image.

In order to keep believing that Obama is the Magic Negro, you’ve got to write off Wright as an inconvenient uncle. If you can’t bring yourself to believe that the bile-spewer is a harmless old fool, then you are left doubting the sincerity of the Magic Negro. He begins to look like just another cynical politician who makes alliances that will advance his career.

Either way, Obama loses (and we voters lose our illusions). And the blame can be laid directly at the feet of his “narrator,” David Axelrod, who manufactured a PRopagandaTM image of Saint Barack Obama that no human being can live up to and thus put him inside a box from which he cannot escape.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask a presidential candidate who is an unknown quantity to the American people (because he has no track record) to be clear about what, specifically, he stands for. Do you?

He’s completely unlike the old Obama.

WaPo:

BARACK OBAMA isn’t abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it’s in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn’t about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he’d get if he stuck to his promise — and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. “It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters

 Jake Tapper:

On Wednesday morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would be a strong ally of the Jewish state. As such, he repeated one of the talking points AIPAC likes to hear, that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” …

In an interview [later] with CNN’s Candy Crowley, Obama said of Jerusalem, “obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.” …

Of his feelings about dividing Jerusalem, Obama said: “As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to — to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

Some in the media portrayed this as something of a flip-flop. “Facing Criticism, Obama Modifies Jerusalem Stance,” said Reuters. “Obama amended his support for Israel’s stance on Jerusalem on Thursday…”

David Brooks:

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Speak for yourself, Brooks. I have not failed to appreciate his ambition. Indeed I have noted it repeatedly (but I’m too lazy to provide the links right now).

The word “Islamophobia” doesn’t appear anywhere in this item from The Politico, but that’s the implicit accusation being leveled against—are you ready?—Mr. Barack “All the World Loves Him” Obama:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The Obama campaign has apologized to the women. But The Politico notes the problem that I’ve been writing about for a while—Obama’s image as Mr. New Politics is compromised every time someone reveals the machinations behind the creation of that image [e.a.]:

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. … But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America.

There’s also another little matter [e.a.]:

The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

If I weren’t so irritated by the selling of the candidate as the Messiah, I’d actually be irritated on his behalf by these … distractions.

update: In a surprising show of liberal piety, Ann Althouse asks [e.a.]:

[I] know, it’s a sensitive question: What sort of people in the background send the wrong subliminal message?

Answer: the gentlemen in this picture, for starters.

If I were in the Obama camp, I would quit trying to sell the idea that the “change” he’s offering is generational, because, as I recently noted, the Clinton generation (of which I’m nominally a part) is not exactly ready to hand over the reins (and Obama’s tendency to talk like a punk doesn’t help matters).

But generational change is how some Dems are painting the “differences” between the Clinton and Obama camps—differences that are being elided as Obama “Moves to the Center,” claims Thomas Edsall in the HuffPo [e.a.]:

In the international relations policy arena, sources in and out of the Obama camp described a more subtle process taking place, as Obama is forced to decide which Clinton experts to add to the team, and at what level in the hierarchy.

“While there are exceptions on both sides, one of the key differences between the Clinton and Obama foreign policy gurus is generational. And this generational split has significant consequences,” one knowledgeable expert said, speaking on background. “In the main, the senior folks in the Clinton administration (1993-2001) went with Hillary, while many of the less senior people went with Obama.”

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisers came of political age during the Cold War, in many cases during in the Carter administration, and tend to see the world in terms of states and state conflicts, this source said. In addition, many of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers “spent eight years dealing with Saddam [Hussein's] intransigence in the 90s,” making them more receptive to the arguments for invading Iraq.

Conversely, this expert argued, many of the Obama advisers are post-Cold War theorists who tend to see the world in terms of failed states, the influence of technology, food crises, non-state actors like Osama bin Laden, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization.

Another way of seeing this “generational difference,” of course, is this: having experience (aka coming of political age is a form of experience, which the Clintonistas have) versus having smart-(ass) ideas (aka being post-Cold War “theorists”—which the Obamabots think they have).

Meanwhile, one prominent California family lives out a different kind of drama at home, where it’s not a left-sectarian fight but rather a GOP-vs-Dems debating (sorta) society:

Of all the supporters behind the two presumptive nominees for president this year, none are quite as intriguing as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has thrown his support behind Senator John McCain, and the governor’s wife, Maria Shriver, a Democrat and vocal backer of Senator Barack Obama.

The lawn of their Brentwood home has dueling campaign signs. The breakfast table has become a casual debating society. Ms. Shriver is even threatening to bring a life-size cutout of her preferred candidate into the house, something the governor has seen her do in other elections. “When one of the candidates screws up,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said of the cutouts, “the kids carry them outside.”

And to my great relief, the Dem side in this battle is represented by a fair-minded person—a “little-d democrat” [e.a.]:

“I think there are great benefits to having kids grow up understanding that we do not live in a one-party system,” Ms. Shriver said. “That there are two ways at looking at an issue. To be patient, and to compromise, those are good lessons not just in politics but for life. I grew up believing there was only one way to think. There isn’t.”

All hail the friendly enmity between people with different politics!

Mark Steyn reads a New York Times editorial and detects a price that Hillary supporters will have to pay:

I’ve been mulling over that weirdly hysterical anti-Hillary editorial in yesterday’s New York Times in which the voice of America’s liberal establishment turned on the candidate it had endorsed only a couple of months previously for going negative, “waving the bloody shirt of 9/11″, etc.

If I were a timeserving party hack - which is to say a “superdelegate” - wondering about my support for Hillary, Pennsylvania ought to confirm the shrewdness of my judgment: Obama’s a hopelessly weak candidate with minimal appeal beyond blacks and upscale white liberals who enjoy the kinky frisson of racial guilt. But, if I were a timeserving party hack who reads the Times, I’d be struck by the ferocity of its assault on a woman it’s admired for 15 years and I’d be thinking, whoa, I don’t want that kind of publicity if that’s the price of sticking with Hill…

And the number of people who qualify for membership in polite society grows ever smaller.

“Comrade Lenin Cleanses the Earth of Filth”

John McCain captures his Reagan moment, sticks it to Obama, and uses him as a footstool from which to launch his campaign for real:

“In my other profession and the war I served in, the country relied overwhelmingly on Americans from these same communities to defend us. As Tocqueville discovered when he traveled America two hundred years ago, they are the heart and soul of this country, the foundation of our strength and the primary authors of its essential goodness. They are our inspiration, and I look to them for guidance and strength. No matter their personal circumstances, they believed in this country. They revered its past, but most importantly they believed in its future greatness, a greatness they themselves would create. They never forgot who they were, where they came from, and what is possible in America, a country founded on an idea and not on class, ethnic or sectarian identity. And America must not and will not forget them.

The McCain campaign will now start his “Forgotten Parts of America” tour.

Is it impossibly corny? You betcha.
Will it work? Maybe, if the media gives him some airtime … which is doubtful.

In case you haven’t thought of these yourself, the Politico offers 12 reasons to substantiate its claim that Obama’s Bitter Lesson in Political Etiquette will stick around to do a lot of damage.

1. It lets Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) off the mat

2. If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don’t say it in San Francisco.

3. Some people actually use guns to hunt

4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort. [Plus: you claim you are a religious Christian; is that because you are bitter? ---ed.]

5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation.

6. It provides a handy excuse for people who were looking for a reason not to vote for Obama but don’t want to think of themselves as bigoted. [I'd word that differently: "It provides a believable rationale for people who were anti-Obama before, because they disagreed with his stated policies and found his manner deeply irritating. But that would be me. ---ed.]

7. It gives the Clinton campaign new arguments for trying to recruit superdelegates,

8. It helps Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) frame a potential race against Obama,

9. The comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy … that Obama has limited appeal.

10. The timing is terrible. With the Pennsylvania primary nine days off, late-deciding voters are starting to tune in.

11. The story did not have its roots in right-wing or conservative circles. It was published — and aggressively promoted — by The Huffington Post, a liberally oriented organization …

12. It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama’s remarks.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Newsweek investigates Obama’s claim that his superior knowledge of the world will make him a better president than his rivals.

I find it hard to believe this, but Barack Obama has singlehandedly managed to make Hillary Clinton believable as a solid Middle American. But suddenly she has become their voice.

Ann Althouse takes us back 40 years to remember the last time our country, supposedly in the name of Middle America, rejected an antiwar elitist in favor of a shifty-eyed, mean-spirited liar.

1969
The Middle Americans
FROM THE TIME [magazine] ARCHIVE
Jan. 5, 1970
The Supreme Court had forbidden it, but they prayed defiantly in a school on Netcong, N.J., reading the morning invocation from the Congressional Record. In the state legislatures, they introduced more than 100 Draconian bills to put down campus dissent. In West Virginia, they passed a law absolving police in advance of guilt in any riot deaths. In Minneapolis they elected a police detective to be mayor. Everywhere, they flew the colors of assertive patriots. Their car windows were plastered with American-flag decals, their ideological totems. In the bumper-sticker dialogue of the freeways, they answered Make Love Not War with Honor America or Spiro is My Hero. They sent Richard Nixon to the White House and two teams of astronauts to the moon. They were both exalted and afraid. The mysteries of space were nothing, after all, compared with the menacing confusions of their own society.

The American dream that they were living was no longer the dream as advertised. They feared that they were beginning to lose their grip on the country. Others seemed to be taking over—the liberals, the radicals, the defiant young, a communications industry that they often believed was lying to them. The Saturday Evening Post folded, but the older world of Norman Rockwell icons was long gone anyway. No one celebrated them: intellectuals dismissed their lore as banality. Pornography, dissent and drugs seemed to wash over them in waves, bearing some of their children away.

Of course the Clintons, being dyed-in-the-wool Democrats of 2008, would never make the arguments that Time magazine made in 1970 about Middle America. Indeed, I don’t see anyone making such arguments with a straight face anymore about “Middle Americans” reclaiming their birthright.

But John Harris and Jim VandeHei at the Politico do—finally!—spell out why Hillary Clinton has stayed in the race. Even if she can’t spell it out, they can: because it’s not about the primary; rather, it’s all about the general election, which Obama can’t win.

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

This view has been an article of faith among Clinton advisers for months, but it got powerful new affirmation last week with Obama’s clumsy ruminations about why “bitter” small-town voters turn to guns and God.

There’s nothing to say that the Clintonites are right about Obama’s presumed vulnerabilities. But one argument seems indisputably true: Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges.

Most interestingly, Harris and VandeHei claim that Obama’s biggest vulnerabilities aren’t inherent to him (i.e., his “liberal ideology, exotic life story, …and elitist style”). Rather, they claim, he will become a victim of the same anti-liberal conspiracy that undid, via stealth, the previous two Democratic candidates for president [e.a.]:

Al Gore and John F. Kerry, were both military veterans, and both had been familiar, highly successful figures in national politics for more than two decades by the time they ran.

Both men lost control o