The Liberal Observer

VOTE!

2008-10-04T10:04:00.001-04:00

Of Podiums, Plain and Tall

2008-09-02T23:31:00.002-04:00

Ok, now that we've gotten past the non-convention day due to Gustav, and the Republicans in St. Paul have gotten their convention off to a partisan start, I have to comment on the podium.

I've had a fascination with the “set design” of political conventions for years. I remember back in 1988 when the Dukakis campaign was criticized for the palate of colors used for the podium in Atlanta. They didn’t use true red white and blue, but pastel substitutes.

Last week the Democrats had a pretty spectacular podium at the Pepsi Center,

and when they moved it to Mile High Stadium; they added some stately columns and a rostrum to the mix, taking design elements from the 2004 GOP event in New York.

Contrast the current podium at the Republican convention this week:

It is very plain. In fact the design of the whole convention is quite understated as compared to what we saw with the Democrats last week, and podiums we have seen in the past. I haven’t seen a design this plain since maybe 1972 or 1976. Sure, the huge digital screen that serves as a backdrop is high tech, but it is technology that is delivering some simple and bold imagery. I do suspect that there is some amateurishness in the McCain camp, but I don’t think the design cues at the Excel Center are an accident or a sign of penny-pinching the convention budget. Perhaps this look is meant to telegraph McCain as the opposite of the “celebrity,” Obama.

Shame on you, James Dobson.

2008-09-01T01:53:00.003-04:00

Hurricanes are serious business. As I write this, over two million people have evacuated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as Gustav bears down on the area. We all remember the devastation of Katrina, and I pray that the nation is spared from the death and destruction Gustav could bring.

Michael Moore (and Don Fowler) got themselves into trouble today because they took note of the irony of a major hurricane headed for New Orleans just as the George Bush and Dick Cheney were preparing to address Republicans at their convention on Monday. The comments were callous. Natural disasters are not a joke, and certainly not fodder for political "gotchas." That is exactly why I just can't stop thinking about James Dobson and his cronies at "Focus on the Family."

Back in the beginning of August, Focus on the Family unveiled a video on their website where they urged their followers to pray for rain to disrupt Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Essentially, they asked God to smite Obama with rain:

“abundant rain, torrential rain … flood-advisory rain ... I’m talking about umbrella-ain’t-gonna-help-you, swamp-the-intersections rain.”

The video called for a weather disaster to befall Denver on the day of Obama's speech because Focus on the Family disagrees with Obama and the Democratic Party.

It is not ironic that there now is a terrible storm heading for the Gulf Coast that is disrupting the Republican Convention. It IS a reminder of the stupidity of individuals and tax exempt organizations that purport to have a religious mission invoking the Almighty to get involved in partisan politics. By James Dobson's logic, the God he prayed to for meteorological punishment on his political enemies, heard his prayer and responded by smiting his allies instead.

Thankfully, the God I believe in would never do any such thing. I pray that the good people of the Gulf Coast be spared another devastating storm.

Breaking News: McCain throws deep

2008-08-29T12:50:00.003-04:00

I'm going to take a break from talking about my experiences in Denver to go to the big news of the day: McCain decided to 'throw deep' and make a very bold, unexpected pick of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his VP nominee.
As an aside, the scheduling of both conventions so late, and back to back (first back to back conventions since 1956) has really wrecked havoc with the news cycle. I wonder if the typical convention bounce will happen this year, as McCain just turned all focus on the GOP ticket today after a history-making night for Obama and the Dems.

McCain's pick is a brazen move to appeal to the women's vote, particularly in the aftermath of Obama's passing over of Hillary Clinton. Gov. Palin's resume is thin for someone who would be a heartbeat away from being commander-in-chief. I've said along along that putting a woman on the ticket would be a great move, but McCain had to look way down the bench to find someone who would be acceptable to the right wing of his party. Selecting a Pro-Choice moderate woman would have brought him more swing voters, but since he is beholden to the extremists in his party, Palin was the option.

James Carville was quoted in the National Journal earlier in the week saying that the goal of the VP pick is to make your opponent's campaign manager throw up. I think if I was managing Obama's campaign, I'd have my head in the trashcan right now. A McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have been much easier to game plan against (and a bit of a snoozer). David Plouffe and the rest of the team are going to have to figure out how to attack Palin without stepping on the historical significance of the 2nd woman on a national party ticket. Others will probably try to "Ferraro-ize" her as best they can (recall that Ferraro was dogged during the 84 campaign about investigations into her husband's finances) with the brother-in-law scandal and her ties to big oil.

There is no question that there will be some appeal to a portion of swing voters. In a sense, this provides an opportunity to make history, regardless of which ticket one votes for. Palin dramatically cited the anniversary of women's suffrage in her remarks this morning. Whether or not that resonates with a significant portion of the electorate remains to be seen.

I do think this underlines the misstep that Obama made in not choosing Hillary. I like Biden fine. I like his Catholicism, his working class roots, I loved how he talked about his mom during his speech, and we got to see her reaction -great stuff. I did talk to some Hillary supporters in Denver who had profound disappointment that Hillary was not on the ticket. The vast majority will support Obama-Biden, but all of them would have been tireless fighters in the trenches for the ticket if she was on it. Many still will be, because Obama is the best choice when it comes to "women's issues" (notice the prominent mention of fighting for equal pay in his speech), but we can't deny that the selection of Palin is another crack in the glass ceiling.
I had the privilege of attending both meetings of the Women's Caucus at the DNC. I consider myself a feminist in many ways (more men should consider themselves feminists, especially husbands, brothers, and fathers). As I watched Michelle Obama give a good speech to the caucus, I could not help but feel wistful that once again, it was the spouse of the candidate who was a woman, and not the nominee. What does the selection of Sarah Palin mean to others who may feel that way? I know the Democratic Party and our allies at NOW, Planned Parenthood, and others, will deliver the message that McCain-Palin is wrong on issues like Choice and pay equity, education, etc., but we have a serious fight on our hands. (Hey, did anybody really believe it would be easy?!?!?)

The Convention Builds

2008-08-28T03:24:00.004-04:00

The drama of the last two days has left me pretty drained. The anticipation for Hillary Clinton's speech on Tuesday night was great. The MSM was fomenting the so-called riff between we Hillary supporters and Obama backers. After Gov. Ed Rendell pointed out his "Hillary Supporter for Obama" button to me, I couldn't wait to get one myself. It's been on my lapel since Tuesday and has garnered lots of nods of approval and comments.
Hillary gave a wonderful speech. (She looked great in that orange pantsuit!) I watched it from an entranceway to the floor, alongside for a time, Annette Benning. There was a hint of sadness in my heart that Hillary wasn't the nominee, but my admiration for her grew event stronger for the way she handled herself.
Hillary has been outstanding throughout this Convention. She has been held to an impossible standard, (typically imposed on a woman) and she nailed it. I heard her speech to her delegates on Wednesday, and later in the day, her move to nominate Obama by acclamation was more than we have ever expected from a candidate who fell short of victory.
President Clinton helped to re-focus this convention on the candidacy of Barack Obama with his speech tonight, and Obama's surprise visit to the Pepsi Center was a brilliant move. I've been concerned about some of the missteps on the part of the Obama Camp during this convention. Wednesday night firmly nudged attention back to Obama and why he should be President.

I'll be getting out of town before Obama's speech at Mile High, but not because I am a disgruntled Hillary supporter. I can't get tickets, and I need to get back home to my real job as soon as possible. If I was lucky enough to attend, I would express my concern for the logistics. I keep hearing buzz from attendees about the six hour wait they face at the stadium and the challenges of transportation. I hope 70,000 people get there; they will be witnesses to history.

Day 1 in Denver for the DNC/ Some Photos from Day 2

2008-08-26T04:04:00.005-04:00

Denver has really rolled out the red carpet for the DNC, and the city looks great! The logistics and security are a bear, but that is the world we live in today.

Said hello to Gov. Kaine of VA (we have a mutial friend). I was struck by how very different his life would be right now if he had been tapped for VP:

Also chatted briefly with the gregarious Ed Rendell, Gov. of PA. I told him he was doing a good job giving voice to those of us who supported Hillary and are loyal Democrats:

Much more to say, exhaustion setting in after a long day of travel and no sleep . . .

DAY TWO: some photo highlights

Music on the Trail

2008-08-23T10:59:00.001-04:00

As I get ready to head out to Denver for the DNC, I am reminded of how the campaigns use music at their rallies. I'm sure we will be hearing some of these songs in Denver. This is an itunes mix of songs heard during the primaries and this summer:

How Many Mansions Does McCain Own?

2008-08-22T10:35:00.001-04:00

Great new viral campaign!

2008-07-17T17:13:00.000-04:00

Just the Facts, Please

2008-06-10T11:55:00.002-04:00

A great way to keep tabs on the TRUTH during the upcoming campaign, check out Fact Check.org:

Visit Fact Check

More about the "double standard" in the Hillary-hating MSM

2008-04-25T14:30:00.003-04:00

Editorial today from Geoff Garin, strategist for the Clinton campaign:

Fair Is Fair

By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23

What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.

The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

I keep saying that at some point we are going to make sense of the hostility the Hillary Clinton receives from the media and theorize as to its root cause. In the meantime, voters are going to have to come to terms that Barack Obama is a politician, just like Hillary. That's not a bad thing, folks. The 'game' being played (and it is a 'game' with serious real world consequences) is POLITICS. It is best conducted by those who understand how it works. And, so, the 'game' continues.

The PA Primary is finally here

2008-04-22T07:35:00.002-04:00

To all my friends who are Obama supporters, and one obvious piece of advice to the Obama campaign:

Want Hillary out of the race? Beat her today in the Pennsylvania primary. Not a 'moral' victory, not "we closed the gap to only 5 points". Win.

All those who have been calling for Hillary to get out of the way of Obama's nomination continue to ignore the obvious. If Barack would just win PA (of if he had won OH) then it's over. Hillary would be out of the race in 48 hours.

If HIllary does win PA today, as is likely, then I think we need to acknowledge that there is a flaw in the Obama movement. I will embrace the nominee of the party when all is said and done. For now, I will continue to point out the shortcomings of the Obama campaign. Winning important states like Ohio, PA, Florida, NJ is critical for the nominee of the Democratic Party, we all know that. Utah and South Carolina will not be in the Democratic column in November.

The MSM beats the drum of Clinton's 'improbability'

2008-04-03T15:05:00.002-04:00

Great column on the RealClearPolitics site written by Fromma Harrop about how the Media have embraced the idea that Hillary has virtually 'no chance' of winning the nomination:

The latest collapse started some days ago on what is normally a four-star destination for good journalism, PBS's "NewsHour." The news summary started off with this: "Clinton's fellow Democrat in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, today urged her to leave the race for the good of the party."

The "fellow Democrat" also happened to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters, but whoops, they forget to mention that. For days even mainstream media were portraying Leahy, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and other members of the Obama team as "elders" thinking only of the party.

David Brooks and misogyny

2008-03-26T14:26:00.003-04:00

In today's column, David Brooks spews the typical hostile rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has been facing lately. To wit: "why would she insist on pursuing her campaign now that the odds of her winning the nomination have narrowed? what an egomaniac! What a monster! She is bent on destroying the party!"

With all the attention on race in this campaign, it seems that no one is noticing the gender issues. Does anyone think that such attacks would be levied at Hillary if she were a man? Folks, it's classic. If Hillary were a man, the narrative would be about Clinton's brave effort to continue a difficult campaign, complete with lots of war/warrior terminology. I cannot recall any other primary battles where the underdog was so dismissed and disparaged.

Bad Arguments Against the Candidates, Will they influence the election?

2008-02-29T12:23:00.004-05:00

As I was deciding which candidate would get my support in the Democratic primaries, I heard folks make this argument against Hillary Clinton:

She is divisive. People hate her. If we nominate her, the right wing will be foaming at the mouth and use the dirty tricks of the 90's, so she should not get the nomination.

More recently, I have heard Obama's supporters make similar claims. i.e. Hillary can't bring the country together because so many conservatives hate her. Barack can bring the country together. In fact, this idea of "unity under Obama" seems to be one of the most powerful arguments in his favor, after his inspirational oratory.

I think in the last few days we are seeing what the right wing is going to be doing to candidate Barack Obama. Radio personality Bill Cunningham attacked Obama as a 'Chicago Hack' and repeatedly used his middle name. Afterwards he disingenuously claimed that he meant nothing by it. Hogwash. Of course Cunningham and the others who are doing this intend to inflame racism and suspicion of Muslims, and imply that by virtue of his name, Senator Obama has some connection to "our enemies in the Islamic world." A Republican member of Congress appeared on MSNBC earlier this week, and attacked Obama's patriotism because Obama does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Host Dan Abrams immediately pointed out his hypocrisy given that the congressman himself was not wearing one. Now, McCain distanced himself from Cunningham (but, so far not from Rep. Jack Kingston), but this is not going to stop the 'haters' like Cuningham, like Rush Limbaugh from proceeding to cast these aspersions on Obama.

So, I ask you, can Obama be the messenger of Hope and bringer of unity, if these hateful right wingers are going to impugn his patriotism at every turn? They will point to the misinterpreted 'no-hand-over-his-heart' photo, gleefully display the picture of Obama wearing the garb of his father's homeland, crow about the flag lapel pin, and on and on. Even if McCain distances himself from this at every turn, it will not matter. The public will be barraged with these hateful messages and lies. How, then, can we Democrats get our positive message out and win the election? For all those who are excited about Senator Obama's message of Hope and Unity, please be prepared to have to fight a very different battle: a battle over lapel pins and patriotism. I've already found myself telling people that Obama is not a muslim (in response to the infamous email going around) and then doing my best Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that."
We Democrats may want to wage a campaign about Hope and Unity, but I fear "the right wing freakshow" has a very different battle in mind.

I do not present this as a reason why we should not nominate Obama. I rejected this argument when I heard its corollary against my first choice candidate, Senator Clinton, and I reject it now. I do want my friends who do support Obama to be ready for the kind of campaign we are going to have. Those who chose Obama because they wanted to avoid a 'dirty' or divisive campaign need to know the politics of America in a post-Bush/Cheney world won't allow it. Prepare for battle.

Hillary Gets Key Ohio Endorsement

2008-02-26T19:16:00.004-05:00

From this week's Akron-Beacon Journal (and Ohio.com):

For President

Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary

Published on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Can't we all just get along??

2008-02-11T11:58:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman hits the issue on the head again today in his Column:

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

I'm sorry, but there just aren't enough significant policy differences between our two leading candidates for there to be this kind of intensity and antagonism. I am a strong supporter of Senator Clinton, but if Obama is the nominee, I will support him strongly as well. We all need to agree that we need a Democrat in the White House. I expect Obama's supporters to return the favor. To not do so reveals a selfishness and a lack of understanding of the political situation in this country. It reminds me of the catastrophic mistake made by left-leaning voters in 2000 to turn their backs on Al Gore, and look what that wrought.

We've already had Barack stating publicly that his supporters "might not support her in the fall," and Michelle Obama said in an ABC interview that she might not be able to bring herself to vote for Hillary. What is this nonsense? Could it be policy based or is it really just about personalities and pettiness. I keep hearing Bill Clinton talk about all the great choices in this primary season and how they would all make great presidents. Imagine the outburst of Clinton-hating that would occur if Bill said he may not be able to support Barack in the fall??? This brings me to another excerpt from Krugman's column about 'Clinton rules' that the Obama supporters better keep in mind, because the MSM will turn them in to 'Obama rules' soon enough if he is the nominee or President at some point:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent . . .

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

That's it for now. I'd love to write more about the sexist coverage at MSNBC, but I'll save that for another day.

Every Vote Counts!

2008-02-08T11:33:00.001-05:00

If you think that a single vote can't make a difference (do people STILL think that after all the close elections in recent years?, take a look at this:

Dead heat: Obama and Clinton split the Syracuse vote 50-50

February 7, 2008

In the city of Syracuse, the strangest thing happened in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama received the exact same number of votes, according to unofficial Board of Election results.

Clinton: 6,001.

Obama: 6,001.

"Wow, that is odd," said Jay Biba, Clinton's Central New York campaign coordinator. "I never heard of that in my life."

The odds of Clinton and Obama tying were less than one in 1 million, said Syracuse University mathematics Professor Hyune-Ju Kim.

"It's almost impossible," said Kim, who analyzed the statewide and citywide votes.

Lisa Daly, Obama's Syracuse campaign coordinator, said she thought a mistake had been made when she was first told the tally by the Board of Elections.

What are the chances of it happening?

"Good thing it wasn't a mayor's race," quipped Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

A total of 12,346 votes were cast for Democrats in the city. Four other Democrats also received votes: John Edwards, 114; Dennis Kucinich, 113; Bill Richardson, 90; and Joe Biden, 27.

Is this going to be what we hear about for the next two months?

2008-02-08T10:49:00.000-05:00

Interesting bit from the Sunday Telegraph of London:

As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.
Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.
And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".
According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates

Now, Hillary Clinton once served on the board of Wal-mart, where she asserts she fought for workers rights. I found the piece above of interest as an example of the kinds of opposition research, journalistic 'digging' and attacks we could be in for over the coming weeks, and certainly in a general election.

going into Super-Duper-Tuesday

2008-02-04T13:17:00.000-05:00

Some good analysis from NCEC. Two pieces worth mentioning, the first shows how well Hillary did in Florida (despite the lack of delegates 1.7 million voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary:

More than 1.7 million Democratic voters cast ballots in Tuesday's primary, the largest presidential turnout in the state's history, exceeding the previous 1976 high by more than 400,000 votes and more than doubling the 2004 turnout and tripling the 2000 turnout. The winner, Senator Hillary Clinton, amassed more votes than did any previous Democratic contender, including two past southern presidents -- Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Read more

NCEC also reports that going into S-D-T, the race is tightening even here in NJ, where Hillary's lead is down to 6 points. Obama is in the state for a major rally today, and Chelsea is stumping for mom at a famous diner here in North Jersey.

As we approach Super Tuesday, it is extremely hazardous to formulate predictions. Here is what we do know: The national polls show an ever-tightening race. Obama has drawn close to the margin of error with Clinton . Moreover, a poll in New Jersey , released today by Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Al Quinlan, revealed that the Clinton margin is down to 6%.

We should anticipate something of a mixed verdict on Tuesday. While Senator Clinton is likely to carry New York , and is favored in California and New Jersey by diminished margins, and is also expected to carry Arkansas , Senator Obama is thought to be ahead in Alabama , Georgia , Kansas , and his home state of Illinois . A state to watch is Missouri , with a large African-American vote, and a proximity to Illinois . The winner there, in a quintessentially red state, will boost either candidate. Read more

Hey, Dems, Let's Not Snub Florida!

2008-01-29T15:06:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I don't make much out of Obama's so called 'snub' of Hillary last night, but I am more concerned about the party snubbing Florida voters, who are turning out in large numbers today despite being told by the DNC that they will not seat FL delegates at the convention in August.
We need to win Florida and Michigan in November, and while I respect the DNC for laying down some rules and trying to control the primary calendar, we are kidding ourselves if we think we won't seat the delegates from these two swing states in Denver.
What will the media make of today's results in Florida? My guess is that they will discount it as 'irrelevant' because the delegates 'don't count'. But, here's the thing: millions of voters in Florida are voting today. Should we count their votes? (Hey, does THAT sound familiar???) The lack of delegates is a DNC procedural issue. The voters in Florida have been exposed to the media coverage of the campaign for weeks. Both the Clinton and Obama campaign have aired ads that were seen by Florida voters. The expression of the Democratic voters in Florida will be an accurate reflection of their choice for President. It counts.

Why Hillary?

2008-01-28T15:12:00.000-05:00

I have been attempting to articulate my choice of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for some time now. My natural inclination would be to be very attracted to Obama's message of hope and unity, but you see, I lived through the 90's. Bill Clinton's message in the '92 campaign was one of hope and unity as well (see: "I believe in a place called Hope" from the campaign and "there is nothing wrong with America that be cured by what is right with America" from the inaugural). As a young person just out of college, I was very inspired. Unfortunately, the right did everything it could to discredit a sitting Democratic President, they had no care, no USE, for bi-partisanship and unity.
Paul Krugman does a much better job of explaining this in his column today:

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

So, as I look around at the young people all around me who are excited by Obama's message, I too get excited. Without the mobilization of the youth vote, the US will never break the chokehold the right has on our country. I just remember what happened to the last guy, and I have no reason to expect anything less from the right in the years ahead.

The 'bonus' in this primary election is that we have an extremely qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton, who KNOWS the battles ahead. She's lived through them in the past and has learned from them (see her successful work in the Senate).

I hear many people say we cannot afford to fight the battles of the 90's again. I agree. That's why my choice for President is Hillary. She won't have to learn how to do the job, she is ready from day one.

Also, Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office represents CHANGE. Change from the damaging policies of the Bush administration in EVERY way, from foreign policy to domestic and economic affairs. Inaugurating our nation's first woman president will send a signal throughout the world that we have changed and America can go about restoring its place in the world.

None of this should be construed as an attack on Senator Obama, who is an inspirational figure. In fact, I very much want him to be on the scene, what could be better than a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall? His presence on the ticket would continue to mobilize and inspire young voters. Now, if we can all just get though the next few weeks of primary season without tearing each other down, we can make sure that the person sworn into office in January 2009 will be a Democrat.

Liberal. Liberal! LIBERAL!!!!

2008-01-25T17:10:00.000-05:00

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." -- Matt Santos, The West Wing

Hillary Wins NH, Obama coming to Saint Peter's in Jersey City

2008-01-08T22:55:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like Hillary pulled a big upset and is now "The Comeback Gal"!
I thought this blogger post on "Open Left"does some interesting delegate math.

Meanwhile Senator Obama is coming to my workplace!:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4vyz8

In New Hampshire

2008-01-05T19:20:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the debates tonight from the Current TV storefront here in Manchester, NH. I'm up here to see the retail politics of the New Hampshire primary up close. Today, I saw Huckabee, Kucinich and Bill Clinton. I was just interviewed by Joan Walsh of Salon.com, and I 'came out' as a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I am ready to embrace her as the nominee. The right wing echo chamber is going to play dirty against our nominee, and I am convinced that Senator Clinton is our best hope to defeat them and put a progressive in the White House.
I'll write more later about my experience up here, but I could not pass up a post from this unique venue sponsored by Current TV. There are multiple TV screens here and iMacs and interested folks watching. They also have a little production booth here for citizens to video their thoughts to be posted on the current.com site. (Here's a sample one by Ms. Walsh herself).

The trip up here was neat, I took a flight from LaGuardia. Had Bill Schneider from CNN and GOP Rep. Peter King on the prop plane with me. Saw Tom Brokaw and George Stephanopolous at the gates. Downtown Manchester is chock full of campaign workers, signs, media ... it's all here.

My good friend Chuck put together this excursion, he brought his wonderful 12 yr old daughter up to New Hampshire for her first taste of politics, and she was great, asking Mitt Romney a serious question about torture at a Q&A on Friday.

Saw Gov. Huckabee at an event with Chuck Norris and his much younger wife in the morning:

After the debate, went to the Clinton 'afterparty' and got to see and hear the Clinton's up close:

and I got to chat with Chelsea and she was kind enough to pose for a photo:

What does Huckabee's win in Iowa mean?

2008-01-03T22:04:00.000-05:00

As I predicted some time ago, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. With his evangelical populism, Huckabee is anathema to many traditional fiscal conservatives.
A possible rise in popularity for Gov. Huckabee (lets say he has a good showing in a few more states with evangelicals like South Carolina) might signal the beginnings of collapse for the social conservative/fiscal conservative/corporate Republican coalition that has been so successful for Republicans in national elections.

Gore and the Media in the 2000 election

2007-12-26T22:23:00.000-05:00

I caught up to this article in Vanity Fair while visiting my brother for the holidays, it was in the October issue:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

Now, my friends might very well tell me to get over the 2000 election already, but part of me never will. Moreover, we still have much to learn from what happened. With the 2008 election battle heating up, I hope some of those same mistakes don't happen again.

The piece does an excellent job of detailing how two reporters, Katharine Seelye of the New York Times, Ceci Connolly from The Washington Post lead the way in beating up on Gore with distorted information and misquotes. The entire MSM latched on to the 'exaggerations' storyline and went into a feeding frenzy over irrelevancies like Gore's "sigh's" during the first debate with Bush. We are given several examples of the outright distain for Gore and cynicism that carries through the news articles. This type of journalism is a long way from the work of the legendary "Johnny" R. W. Apple, who covered camapaigns and was the Washington Bureau chief for the Times for years.
On the editorial pages, Maureen Dowd belittled Gore at every turn.
So, the question is, what happened? Why did the national media cover Gore with distain and Bush with kid gloves? Were they manipulated? Was this the outcome of a self-loathing "liberal media" turning on a progressive politician? After the Clinton years was the MSM overly cynical?

Perhaps the MSM just acted like sheep:

The trivial continued to dominate during the postmortem following Gore and Bush's first debate, on October 3, 2000. The television media were sure Gore won—at first. But then Republican operatives promptly spliced together a reel of Gore sighing, which was then sent to right-wing radio outlets. Eighteen hours later, the pundits could talk of little else. "They could hear you audibly sighing or sounding exasperated as Governor Bush was answering questions," Katie Couric scolded him the next day on the Today show. "Do you think that's presidential behavior?" For the Times's Frank Bruni, the sighs weren't as galling as Gore's familiarity with the names of foreign leaders. "It was not enough for Vice President Al Gore to venture a crisp pronunciation of Milosevic, as in Slobodan," he wrote. "Mr. Gore had to go a step further, volunteering the name of Mr. Milosevic's challenger Vojislav Kostunica."

Which candidate can do the best job fighting against this in 2008? I have to think it's Hillary Clinton, given all of her experience in the battle with the 'vast right wing conspiracy'.

For more on the MSM echo chamber read Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160001

Thoughts?

Al Gore in the Oval Office again.

2007-11-28T17:22:00.000-05:00

What a photo:

Gore visited the White House this week as a Nobel Prize winner.

Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2007-10-15T00:14:00.000-04:00

Does this make up for getting robbed of the Presidency?
I wish he could run, but he won't and it's probably the right thing for him but . . .

Justice Thomas full of contradictions

2007-10-08T19:03:00.000-04:00

Clarence Thomas logic makes my head spin. Frank Rich gets it right in his op-ed piece.

Can Democrats win without White Male votes? (yes!)

2007-09-18T15:02:00.000-04:00

From this week's Salon.com:

So long, white boy

Could 2008 be the year that Democrats finally admit an old sweetheart is never coming back, and stop pandering to the white male voter?

By Thomas F. Schaller

Sept. 17, 2007 | Those who have been closely following the politics of the Democratic primaries may have noticed that someone is missing -- and I'm not referring to Bob Shrum, the Rev. Al Sharpton or an as-yet-undiscovered "Gravel Girl."

I'm talking about the white male voter, or at least a certain long-coveted variety thereof. He is variously known as "NASCAR dad" -- that shirt-sleeved, straight-talkin', these-colors-don't-run fella who votes his cultural values above all else -- or "Bubba," as Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders affectionately call him in their book, "Foxes in the Henhouse." Start looking on milk cartons for Bubba because he has vanished, and not a moment too soon: The Democratic obsession with the down-home, blue-collar, white male voter, that heartbreaker who crossed the aisle to the Republicans many decades ago, may finally be coming to a merciful end.

A note on Liberals

2007-09-05T12:21:00.000-04:00

I found this passage from a Slate article by Charles Taylor to ring true:

"Liberals have an unfortunate tendency to confuse compromise with corruption, to mistake the ballot box for the confessional and assume the choice made therein should leave our souls clean. (That's why so many of us have gone off the deep end and voted for Nader.) The challenge the Clintons have always posed to liberals is the challenge of growing up and realizing how things get done. "

Rudy calls Dems "Party of Losers"; Biden Responds.

2007-07-29T22:24:00.000-04:00

So, I thought Rudy was trying to make the case that he is most electable and will draw Democratic and Independent votes. Well, calling Democrats "losers" is probably not the best way to do that. Senator Joe Biden, who I think has been the most aggressively vocal critic among the legitimate contenders in this campaign, responded forcefully. Well done, Senator, Bravo.

Here is the original story in the USA Today.

Salon covered Rudy's comments on their War Room page.

I certainly like the way Senator Biden has been on the attack, and his voice has been strong in the debates, especially on Foreign Policy. Has he come on too strong? What do people think? It's tough to cut through the crowd on that stage, so at least it gets him noticed and demostrates the power of his convictions. I think the real challenge for Biden is to break through the perception that he is really just the top candidate for Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration.

The GOP and its struggles with the English Language

2007-07-27T13:30:00.000-04:00

You know, the fact that many Rebublicans say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" is a pet peeve of mine. My friend Rob chimes in in his usual amusing and insightful way on his blog, Captain Oblivious.

So, it's come to this. Anyone surprised?

2007-07-25T00:27:00.001-04:00

Last Friday, the Washington Post published a story discussing Senator Clinton's cleavage.

Keeping tabs on how the MSM (mainstream media) treats the first woman to be a major party frontrunner could be a full time job, and would probably drive me nuts.

During Monday night's CNN YouTube Debate, Anderson Cooper let a 'regular American' do the dirty work for him and ask how the leaders of Muslim nations, where "women are second class citizens", are going to take a woman president seriously during things like diplomacy and negotiations (Ask Madaleine Albright about that, who as Secretary of State actually did the job. And yes, I did not mention Condoleeza Rice).

And, if you like to read about candidate wardrobe (remember the stuff about Al Gore's earthtones in 2000?), the NY Times weighs in.

2007-07-17T17:55:00.000-04:00

Interesting interview with Elizabeth Edwards.

I really admire her for speaking up and confronting Ann Coulter recently on MSNBC's Hardball.

She also speaks up in favor of marriage equality.

Here's her appearance on the Today Show a few weeks ago.

Georgia on the verge of executing an innocent man

2007-07-17T17:12:00.000-04:00

The state of Georgia is about to execute an innocent man:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1643384,00.html

Thankfully, a 90-day stay has been issued:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/07/16/davis_0716.html

Will "Bloomberg's Folly" elect another GOP President?

2007-07-06T12:37:00.000-04:00

Having observed Mike Bloomberg from just across the river for his entire political career, I have a hard time believing he will run for President just for the ego trip and his need to get rid of large sums of money.
He will have to beleive he can win.
Well, the Times recently profiled the guy who is working on that.
The article mentions that this guy, Kevin Skeekey (who has done a great job for Bloomberg so far, really) has an associate, Korrine Kubena, who just became a top aide to Karl Rove.
Now it starts to come together! Here comes Rove again, with a way to insure another GOP victory: get a liberal to run a third party campaign (preferably someone with billions to spend), siphon off a large chunk of votes from the Democratic nominee (20%?) and presto: President President Fred Thomson!
Rove must be chortling and rubbing his hands together in finest evil guy fashion. Bloomberg's possible ambitions present a much more promising scenario than getting Ralph Nader to run again in the hopes of a Florida-redux.
I can only hope that Mayor Bloomberg comes to his senses. Does he have any relationship with the Clintons? Perhaps Bill needs to pay him a visit and urge him to spare the nation another idiot President ala Bush.

Olbermann Calls for Resignations

2007-07-04T01:11:00.000-04:00

In the wake of"Scooter-gate", Keith Olbermann of MSNBC delivered a strongly worded call for Bush and Cheney to resign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Nixon must be rolling over in his grave over what bush can get away with (or will he?)

Hillary Spoofs the Sopranos

2007-06-19T13:38:00.001-04:00

In announcing her new campaign song today, Hillary Clinton unveiled a 'Sopranos'-spoof video. See it for yourself on her site:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.

I wonder if my friends at the Sons of Italy are going to take her to task for "offending Italian Americans." As one, I certainly am not; smart way to leverage a cultural phenomenon.

Back in 2004 I asked friends to share with me favorite campaign songs, or ones that should be, for a mix/itunes playlist I sent around. I will have to post that here and talk about Hillary's new song too. This might seem like a trivial thing, but as a former advance person, I know how important it is to set a theme at an event with music. One of my fondest campaign memories took place on election eve, 1992 at the Meadowlands arena, listening to a live performance of Sam Cooke's classic "A Change is Gonna Come."

Back to Hillary: I was lucky to be able to attend a Hillary event here in NJ on Monday night. (The song they used was "Suddenly I see", not the Celine song that won the contest and was announced the next morning.) I wanted to see if I could absorb some enthusiasm for the Hillary campaign. (I haven't decided who I am supporting yet.) There were lots of young people there working as volunteers (all women, how great!), and many of the folks I talked to were quite passionate in their support. One up and coming NJ operative who was there, however, referred to the Clintons as old and tired and relying on calling in favors for support.

I need to post an entry here about Susan Estrich's book, "The Case for Hillary". I just finished it and I am near-convinced.

Another interesting topic for discussion in a future post: What role should President Clinton have in this campaign? What role will he have?

What Happened to Camille Paglia??

2007-06-13T01:16:00.001-04:00

Camille Paglia has lost it.
Have you been reading Camille Paglia's columns on Salon? Seriously, I ignored the early critics of these columns as rants from haters, but now I see for myself . . . can Ms. Paglia still consider herself a feminist? Where does all this hate come from? I think we on the left need to stop paying attention to people like this (she is on her way to becoming Christopher Hitchens!) Can you imagine how the world would change if we elected a woman president? Yet, here she is foaming with hatred for Hillary. Al Gore has done so much to advance the issue of global warming, but here she is, not only insisting he ought not run for president, but accusing Gore of HARMING the environmental movement?!?!? Yeah, because it was going so well before his book and movie. Did Exxon and Halliburton send flowers, gifts or cash in thanks? "Basta", enough, as my nonna would say.

read more | digg story

Fred Thomson's 'Red Truck' a sham!

2007-06-06T17:21:00.002-04:00

Media Matters has the truth behind the 'folksy' Fred Thomson and the 'Red Truck' he 'drove' around TN for his Senate campaign.
It was a rental, and he didn't even drive it!
Read more: http://mediamatters.org/items/200706020001

What does a girl have to do to get excommunicated? | Salon.com

2007-05-21T00:28:00.001-04:00

Good piece from Frances Kessling

read more | digg story

compact fluorescent light bulbs

2007-05-11T13:13:00.000-04:00

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL's). you know what those are right? The energy saving bulbs that look like this (photo on the right),

and we are all urged to start using them to help save the planet. Basically, they use much less electricity and will reduce carbon emissions significantly. If you saw An Inconvenient Truth, it was on the list of things you can do to help slow global climate change. Now, I always hated the quality of the light from these things, having seen them in hotel rooms in the early 90's, and my dad bought one for his house a while back when they were huge and expensive. However, I was game to give them another shot. We signed up for 'Green' power last year, my wife bought a hybrid Civic, and I thought replacing the incandescent bulbs in our apartment would be a good next step. (Incidentally, when my wife suggested we replace our bulbs right after we saw the movie, I insisted that the light was horrible, and 'vetoed' it.)
I had already replaced the bulbs in our hallway with CFL's. Light quality out there was not so much a concern, and I was tired of having to replace them all the time anyway. I did lots of searching for some bulbs I might like. Maybe if they didn't have that serpentine tubular shape, they would look more 'normal'? I found these at Lowes:

(The one on the left.) It's shaped like a normal bulb, and the package claimed it had a more 'natural' light. Installed them into the ceiling fixtures in our office/workout room, and then in the kitchen. Sadly, a colder, more bluish light than the previous bulbs. Also, they do take a few minutes to warm up and come on at full power. But, I was willing to live with it, to help assuage my guilt about power usage. Interestingly, my wife finds them annoying now.

OK, so I read this goofy article in the Washington Post about the gender issues with CFLs. I tended to agree with the Broadsheet article on Salon that mocked the Post for the fluff piece that threw around lots of gender stereotypes. Interestingly, the Brian Lehrer Show on Thursday had some info that had me second-guessing. Apparently, according to Gary Gordon, biologically, women usually have greater color perception than men, and that may be why we see stories about women allegedly objecting to these light bulbs more than me do.

So, I guess this is further evidence of the fact that I am a sensitive, Alan Alda-type man. I certainly noticed the difference in the quality of the light. I always hated looking at myself in the bathroom mirror where there was only an old fashioned fluorescent lamp above the sink. EVERYone looks bad in those mirrors. Those lamps lack those nice red tones from the warm part of the spectrum that make us look human.

Bottom line, though: Using these new CFL's, which aren't nearly as harsh as those old lamps I remember, is worth it. It cuts way back on the electricity needed to light the room, and that just makes sense environmentally and economically. Perhaps the companies developing these bulbs will come up will bulbs that produce a 'warmer' light eventually. That, I believe, will get more people to use them.
If anyone has come across a brand of CFL's that does that effectively, please let me know.

Here's a helpful guide from environmental defense.org

This guy reviews a bunch of bulbs: http://members.misty.com/don/cfapp.html

What about LEDs? They may be the future: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/05/11/ap/strange/d8p1ud183.txt

Funny campaign ad for Bill Richardson

2007-05-09T18:24:00.000-04:00

Take a look at this new ad from the Bill Richardson campaign. It uses humor to try and drive home his campaign theme that he has the White House-bound resume.

What do you think? I've always be a proponent of ads that cut through the typical campaign ad clutter to get noticed. Back in the '97 NJ Gubernatorial campaign, Michael Murphy got lots of notice for his outside-the-box ads where he zipped around the state in a mini-van with kids asking questions.

Clerics for Justice in South America

2007-05-08T12:58:00.000-04:00

Great story this morning on NPR about Catholics in Brazil fighting to save the rainforest from exploitation and agitating for Justice.

"The opposite of poverty is not wealth – it is justice. And the objective of liberation theology is to create a more just society, not necessarily a wealthier one. And the great question is, how do we do this?" - liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff.

"Morality is not just about sex. Morality in Jesus' mind means social morality, solidarity, responsibility, ethics – that is morality. And you cannot go to communion on Sunday, and on Monday destroy the forest. It is against the law of God." -Father Edilberto Sena

What's in a logo?

2007-05-03T13:37:00.000-04:00

A discussion on the design of Presidential campaign logos.

I remember an op ed in the Times in 2004 that destroyed the Kerry-Edwards logo and 'predicted' victory based on logo designs in Presidential elections. I took issue with the author's conclusions at the time, but then again, he did predict the "outcome" correctly.

It may seem petty, but I DO think that there is something to be said for good design in politics. Every opportunity to convey a message needs to be utilized, and with two full years to 'brand' a candidate, maybe effective logo design does have impact.

Frivolous? What say you?

Marriage Equality is a Civil Rights Issue

2007-05-02T12:51:00.000-04:00

In February of 2006 I sent this email to my friends on the topic of 'Gay' Marriage:

Amici,

I just wanted to share with you a wonderful experience that Nora and I
had on Valentine's Night. We attended a rally sponsored by Garden State
Equality on the eve of New
Jersey's Supreme Court hearing a same-sex marriage case. We heard
powerful witness from Laurel Hester, a terminally ill former
investigator with the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office who successfully
fought to have her death and pension benefits go to her domestic
partner. We heard from many: clergy, both straight and gay, parents and
children of all ages, elected officials, -all in support of marriage
equality.

My position on this civil rights issue has evolved over the last several
years. I felt the right wing was using it as a wedge issue in the last
Presidential campaign and I bought into the rhetoric from some national
Democrats that civil unions were enough to protect the rights of our
fellow citizens. Well, a lot of good that did us. Our presidential
candidate was still defeated and national Democrats still didn't stand
up for what was right.

The recent passing of Coretta Scott King serves as a reminder that
"separate but equal" was unacceptable in the days of segregation, and it
is unacceptable today when it comes to the rights of LGBTI Americans.
It is apparent once you hear the many stories of those who have suffered
this discrimination, that there will only be justice when we extend this
basic human right to all.

I know that there are many people of faith in this country that are
unwilling to accept "same-sex marriage." (Luckily here in NJ recent
polls show a majority in favor of marriage equality.) Until the Roberts
Court tells us otherwise, we still have separation of Church and State
in the United States of America. I propose that the state define "civil
marriage" in a way that is fair and just for all our citizens, and that
we leave it up to individual denominations and faith communities to
determine what is appropriate "Holy Matrimony." This seems to be in the
appropriate tradition of America - I don't want to tell the Southern
Baptist Convention who can or can't participate in one of their
religious ceremonies; and I sure don't want them telling me who can or
can't get married at City Hall. This is a civil rights issue, not a
religious one.

(As a side note, some of you would call me out for making no mention of
my Catholic Church. Guilty on that count. That is a topic for another
time. The RC has a long way to go, like full participation of women in
the priesthood. In this case I am drawing a distinction myself between
Church and State and I'm focusing on the civil issue for the here and
now.)

Lastly, most politicians are ducking this issue (like so many) out of
fear.
Well, this is a good opportunity for the
people to show the way. I really think in my home state of NJ, where we
have a progressive track record on rights (first to grant gay couples
adoption rights), this will be a reality very soon.

Keep your eye on NJ, we may be making some history soon (thanks
Massachusetts!).

Thanks for reading.

Peace,

Joe

The Times on Gay Marriage

Is Apple an Environmental "Bad Guy"?

2007-04-23T11:54:00.000-04:00

There's been some negative press lately for Apple Corp. regarding its environmental record, with Greenpeace picketing Apple events, and some email campaigns making the rounds. From what I can tell, it seems like Apple still has a way to go, but at worst it is on par with other Computer manufacturers, and given market share, a company like Dell is having a far greater negative impact. Apple does make its case, though. Perhaps this additional attention, and the presence of Al Gore on the BOT of Apple will help as well.
A couple of thoughts: Macs and ipods seem to have a long life. I believe data shows that Macs tend to be usable for a longer period than PCs (check out www.lowendmac.com), and become hand-me-downs. Also, Apple seems to have decent trade in policy (not that I would know, I have a de-facto Mac museum in the works).
Any ideas from my fellow Mac Lovers?

Greenpeace off the Mark

Red Herrings

2007-04-20T16:40:00.000-04:00

Have you seen this email going around the net about George W. Bush's 'house' and Al Gore's?
(See below)

This is a classic case of folks on the right (the brokers behind Fox News, the Oil and Gas Industry, essentially those who have short term economic gain at stake in the battle to save the planet) DISTRACTING us from the issues at hand.

Of what relevance are the 'facts' about Al Gore's house and George Bush's ranch? Setting aside the accuracy of these reports about the Gore Household (and I will point out that the Gore's, like myself, purchase 'Green Power' from their local utility at greater expense than 'regular' power. Gore purchases carbon offsets for all of his travel. His family home is old and in a historic district of Belle Meade, and he has been in the process of getting zoning variances to add solar panels for some time. They have compact fluorescent light bulbs throughout the home and office, and they all drive hybrid vehicles. Do I need to go on?*)

Does it matter that Mr. Bush's ranch is a model of energy efficiency and 'green' construction? What of the destructive and damaging environmental policies of this administration to date?

The dissemination of this email is part of a larger campaign by the right to distract the public from the message Mr. Gore is promoting. The right wants people to be distracted by questions of Al Gore's personal energy usage (distorted, of course): to undermine his credibility. There is a long history of this (see links below). It worked in the 2000 election, so they are doing it to him again. Everyone reading this should be familiar with these tactics by now. Remember how John Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam was reduced to a questions about 'exaggerations' about his bravery for which he was awarded medals? And what was George Bush doing during Vietnam? Cheney? Limbaugh? And they didn't stop with him, how about former Georgia Senator Max Cleland who lost limbs in service to his country? In the current election battle we already have the false accusations about Barack Obama's education in a Muslim madrassa, and this week, stories about John Edwards expensive haircuts and obsession with his looks (and Limbaugh calling him the real 'woman candidate' in the race, and the hateful slur used by Ann Coulter).

Ask yourself, "what is the process here?" This has been documented in the book "The Way to Win" (Halperin and Harris). Essentially, someone makes something up/distorts the truth, and publishes it in a blog or website somewhere. From there it enters the media echo chamber, usually Fox News, the Washington Times, and other outlets controlled by the right wing start reporting the 'story'. Then the existence of the story itself 'legitimizes' its coverage by the 'mainstream media' and it appears in the NYTimes, CNN, etc. Then the opinion magazines like the New Republic publish pieces about the 'fact' and its impact and the insight it gives on the character of the target.

So, to majority of the public, these falsehoods and character assassinations become part of the background of information they know about a candidate or public figure.

Just when there was an opportunity to convince 'regular folks' who are not liberals or environmentalists that we have a crisis of Global Climate Change, the 'machine' tells them not to believe Al Gore. "He's a hypocrite! An exaggerator! Look, a frozen flag in Buffalo!** There is no global Warming going on! Worry about the terrorists who want to kill you and the gays who want to convert your children, get married and live next door to you!"

I wish I had a solution to this. But perhaps if some of us can call attention to the real issues at hand when these red herrings come our way, we can do our part to bring America's focus back to where it needs to be: striving for a better world.

Resources:

*Citations for Gore energy use: http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382
Details of the slanted coverage of the Gore House issue: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010008?offset=20&show=1
Media revive, retool, and create anti-Gore smears and attacks: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230004
Al Gore Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
Media Bias: http://www.eriposte.com/media/bias/media_bias_gore.htm
Gore Myths: http://www.algoresupportcenter.com/goretruth.html
Obama school disinformation: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/
** Inohofe thinks globe getting too cold: http://www.nysun.com/article/50932?page_no=2

Joe Giglio
Jersey City, NJ

***********************************

-----Original Message-----
From:
---------- Forwarded message ----------

Some facts probably many people do not know. Be sure to read all the way to the end. You will find it very interesting.

HOUSE # 1: This house has 20-rooms (not including 8 bathrooms) and is heated by natural gas. In addition, there is a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In an average month, this house consumes more energy than the average American household in an average year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt". It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor, this house incorporates every green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Native flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the private residence of Al Gore, inventor of the Internet( or so he says) and now global warming expert and doomsday predictionist.

HOUSE # 2 is near Crawford, Texas. It is the private residence of George W. Bush.

________________________________

2005-11-01T11:40:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my Soapbox. I am the kind of person who has a running commentary on the political world running through my head most of the day.
I thought it was about time I got around to publishing those thoughts somewhere, so here I go.