I hate to make light of a person with an obviously troubled pyschology, but it just struck me that the image of Ashley Todd, the young McCain volunteer who made up the story of her mugging, is the perfect image for the McCain campaign itself:

Battered and bruised by a bunch of self-inflicted wounds, and literally branded with a 'B', symbolizing how McCain just got owned by the better candidate.  All of McCain's negative ads and wacko attacks have boomeranged and given him a huge black eye, and he has only himself to thank.  Now, his onetime supporters and promoters have suddenly fled in the face of his perfidy, leaving him bewildered, lost in the headlights of the on-coming train.

Rather than painting Sarah Palin as a bumbling incompetent,  I think the Obama campaign needs to turn the tables, and start making the following argument: 
Palin is the next Cheney.  She has a lot in common with him.  First, she believes she is above the law and that executive power is not subject to any outside limitation (see Troopergate).  Second, she brooks no disagreements from subordinates and has wielded her power in a bullying fashion against those in her own administration who questioned her, rather than listening to their concerns. Third, she is an ideological extremist, attempting to ban books at her local library, someone who actively supports a church in which disagreements with the Bush administration are viewed as sins that will send you to hell.     
Finally, and most importantly, she is already more powerful than her running mate.  It is her agenda and policies that are now running the nominal "McCain campaign."  McCain has revealed himself to be a weak leader, caving in to pressure from the extreme wing of the party.  Palin has the rabid support and loyalty of the base; McCain does not.  He is an isolated and impotent figurehead, a stranger in his own party.   In power, then, it would be Palin setting the course for the administration. Given her support from the right-wing base, she will be determining who gets appointed to important government positions.
The point should be that if you want to have four more years of our federal government being run by ideological zealots whose first allegiance will be to the VP, and not to the good of the country -- then vote for Palin/McCain.  
It's time to stop playing into the "victim" and "outsider" narratives that Palin is exploiting, and time to start emphasizing the incredible power that she will be wielding if she comes to office, given McCain's weakness and lack of a real constituency in his own party.   That's downright scary, not innocuous.   
This line of attack takes advantage of all the excitement and idolatry for Palin, and steers it to Obama's advantage, showing it to be a dangerous cult of personality.  

A key point is being overlooked by people who want to argue that Obama supporters have no standing to challenge Palin's inexperience:  the role of the voters in the primaries. 
 
The -voters- chose Obama to be the nominee of the party.  They took the measure of him as a candidate, with his strengths and his weaknesses (including his relative lack of experience), and decided that the former outweighed the latter.  Voters, of course, did not get to choose his running mate.  That responsibility was entirely on his shoulders, and that authority was entirely his to exercise.  He knew that he had a grave responsibility to choose wisely, and he made a sound choice -- one that balanced the political advantages of choosing a running-mate with the need to ensure good government.

McCain, however, exercised this same power to select his VP in an irresponsible manner.  It says a lot about how he plans to govern the country.  If he becomes President, we can expect to hear more phrases like "Great job, Brownie!"

Palin has no electoral mandate, and hopefully never will. 

We must not let this happen!!!  This plays right into the Republicans "celebrity" theme, and will simply cheapen the entire event.   Rather than looking like Dr. King's speech at the March on Washington, or Kennedy's acceptance address, Will.i.am is going to turn this into a Hollywood mess, providing McCain with plenty of images for his next commercial.

REPORT:  The Emmy-winning "Yes We Can" video that spliced together clips of Barack Obama's New Hampshire primary night speech and set it to music, will be re-created live on stage at Invesco Field in Denver Thursday night before the Illinois senator accepts the Democratic presidential nomination there.
The video, which appeared shortly before Super Tuesday, became an Internet sensation. It was adopted by the Obama campaign, and used often on the trail.
Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.i.am — who produced the celebrity-packed video — will perform Thursday evening, backed by singer John Legend and a full gospel choir.

Last night, Michelle brought down the house. 

Of course, it was a political speech, with every word weighed and calculated.  Nevertheless, what came through was just how real, down-to-earth and NORMAL she is, and the entire Obama family is, especially compared to the McCains -- with all their houses and all their privilege.  

What has attracted many voters to Obama (especially younger voters) is the underlying sense that he is "one of us" - a guy who understands where people are coming from, and who has the ability to relate on a genuine level with all different kinds of people -- as people, and not as means to an end.   That is the content, I think, of the notion of Obama as aiming to create a "post-political" movement, a personal kind of politics, rather than one of constinuencies and categories.

Michelle's speech, and just importantly, her sense of genuineness, highlighted by contrast how McCain is a kind of bubble-boy, one of these politicians (and they exist on both sides of the aisle) who has little real capacity to relate with everyday people -- because he has never related to them as anything other than a means to an end (as military personnel to be commanded or obeyed for the sake of the mission; and later, as voting units necessary to secure his power, rather than as neighbors - for lack of a better word). 

Even his marriage to Cindy seems to have been motivated by a cold calculation:  a "trading up" in order to secure money and a trophy wife, leaving behind the woman who faithfully loved him because she was now damaged goods and wouldn't look good at campaign events -- where the focus should always be on his injuries, his suffering, not hers. 

The fact that the Obamas are the ones seen (for example, by HRC's demographic) as "elite" or "aloof" says more about the continuing power of the racial divide in this country, than it does about any of Obama's supposed failures to connect with voters.  To be sure, Obama can and should do more in this regard (the recent 7 Houses meme and the pick of Biden are good signs). . . but he is fighting against a lot of interference that has nothing to do with his personality or the content of his character, and has everything to do with the color of his skin.  Hopefully, 45 years after Dr. King's speech, we will begin to see that cultural barrier begin to dissolve. 

  

       

In reaction to the New Yorker cover contoversy, Maureen Dowd has a typically insipid, meandering, self-congratulatory piece today about Obama's supposed lack of a sense of humor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?hp

She quotes from comedians, such as Kimmel, complaining of a "weird reverse racism" going on because of their audiences' reluctance to laugh at Obama.  Apart from the fact that Maureen Dowd is the least-qualified person I know to explain what we should find funny,  
this analysis, offered by the likes of Kimmel and Leno, seems wildly off-base and speaks volumes about how insulated so-called "entertainers" are from the real world.

First, the article ignores the generational shift going on in this election, which I think explains a lot of the supposed "reluctance" to laugh at Obama.  Among those Generation Xers who have just started families, and younger voters in their 20s and those in college, who make up a large percentage of the late-night viewing audience, there is a pervasive sense that Obama "gets it" and gets us in a way that no other presidential candidate has before.  To cite just one frivolous example, his ability to "brush his shoulders off" in the middle of stump speech establishes a connection with younger voters.  Such coded allusions to pop culture, which younger people make all the time in everyday conversation, speak volumes about the kind of person Obama is and where he's coming from.  We know this guy -- he's one of our friends.  And he seems a heck of a lot cooler and in-touch than someone like Maureen Dowd or Jay Leno, who represent the old guard and old media.

Second, and more importantly, Obama has dedicated himself to public service at a time of national crisis, when America is on the brink of falling well behind the rest of the world in terms of economic development and quality of life.  These are not funny times.  There's nothing funny about our economy, the mindless and costly war in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the potential for Iran and Israel to get into a war, global warming, growing religious terrorism and extremism, the abuses of human rights being perpetrated by our own government and by others, the problems with our food quality and supply, etc., etc.  I'm not saying that Obama will solve these problems, but at least he represents a break with the past, and embodies the potential for a new generation of Americans to lead us in a new direction.  It's almost as if these comedians are complaining that Obama is not funny because he's not as shallow, irrelevant and useless as them.      

That's not to deny the real potential for a goofy excess of rigtheousness among Obama supporters.  But after 8 years of being ruled by someone who seems to take everything as a joke, including sending young Americans to die in Iraq for no reason (remember W's hilarious "where are those WMDs?" skit for the National Press Club???), I think it's refreshing to have someone running for office who takes our problems, and his responsibility, seriously.   We can laugh at him later, once he's in office.

I think Colin Powell should be Obama's pick for VP for a number of reasons:

1) It would be an incredibly bold move, across party lines.

2) By picking Powell, Obama would be saying that he is not going to pander to racial fears.  The conventional wisdom that he needs to "balance" his ticket with a white person only reinforces the idea that a black man cannot achieve things by himself, and needs the helping hand of a white "buddy."  By picking Powell, Obama would be giving the big F.U. to that racist mindset.  (And Obama would still reap the benefits of having an older candidate on his ticket with a tremendous amount of foreign policy and military experience.)

3) Picking Powell would allow the Obama campaign to get out of the shadow that HRC has cast over his VP selection.  Powell would destroy the dynamic of having to compare Obama's VP selection with Hillary.  It would become apples and oranges.

4) Powell would help with moderate white voters in key states.  And those people who are opposed to a black man becoming president would not vote for Obama simply because he has a white person on the ticket, anyway.   

Of course, there are some downsides:

1) Powell helped get us into the Iraq War.  But I think he could just acknowledge the mistake, say he was given faulty intelligence, and announce that he is on board with a responsible withdrawal.

2) Powell probably knew of the CIA's torture techniques and did not object.  McCain, by contrast, has stood against waterboarding and other uses of torture.  Again, Powell announcing his opposition to such techniques now would help to neutralize the issue. 

 

In all the excitement over Obama's clinching of the democratic nomination, one voice has been noticeably absent (at least as far as I can tell): Colin Powell. A google news search for him turns up only this event as his latest public appearance:

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/19298674.html  
I'm very curious about Powell's reaction to this historic event. Sec. Rice has already weighed in this morning. So why not Powell? Is he in the running for McCain's VP? I'd appreciate links/information about Powell's reaction, if any exist.

Almost an entire day has gone by without an amusing Hillary anecdote, gaffe, or bizarre reimagining of reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last one was her claim early yseterday that "all the polls" showed her as the stronger candidate against McCain.  Before that was her strange refusal to talk to the press at Mount Rushmore.  Before that was her awkward attempt at Latin dance ("I want something Spicier!  SPICIER!! Taco, Taco, Burrito, Burrito!!), and before that was her RFK debacle.  

Let's keep the momentum going, Hill!  It's well past noon EST, and you've not said or done one amusing thing!!   

(Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

I'm curious about why Richardson has seemed to drop out of the conversation about potential VPs for Obama lately.  He brings two important things to the table:  foreign policy experience and the ability to appeal to Latinos. 

 

So what gives?  Is this just about the ticket becoming "too ethnic"?  And does Obama really have a chance winning those voters who would have a problem with a Latino VP - it would seem those same prejudices would already preclude a vote for Obama.  The notion that Obama needs to "reassure" white voters with a clean, white running mate seems both silly and offensive to everyone concerned. 

Thoughts?

The following is an exchange that took place yesterday on CNN's show "American Morning" between Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California and Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey.  The show is hosted by John Roberts.

This is yet more indication of the Clinton campaign's strategy to highlight and reinforce the racial divide in the Democratic party and then to point to that divide as evidence that Obama is the weaker candidate.  This kind of retrograde talk is both highly insulting to those "types of people" that Sanchez refers to (because it condescendingly assumes that their political views are determined by their race or ethnicity) and highly corrosive to our political discourse generally.  If a white Republican Congressman had made such comments on national television, they would have received tremendous scrutiny and been widely condemned.  Yet there has not been a peep about this yet. 

Enough is enough. 
  

ROBERTS: So why can't he win West Virginia in a general election?


SANCHEZ: I don't believe that he will win West Virginia.


(CROSSTALK)


SANCHEZ: I don't believe that he might. I think Florida, if we don't count the delegates from Florida, I think we run into a big problem. All Democrats run into a big problem. I think Ohio is a problem. I think when you look at the largest base of the Democratic Party, women and quite frankly Anglo-Saxon, Italian, Irish-American type of people, I don't think that he has convinced those types of people that they would vote for him.


ROBERTS: Final word, Congressman Payne.


PAYNE: He will win Florida, he will win Ohio, he will win Pennsylvania, and with that in the state that were won by Senator Kerry, he's the president of the United States, and that's going to be what's going to happen in November.


ROBERTS: We'll see. Congressman Payne, Congresswoman Sanchez, thanks for being with us this morning. Appreciate you coming in. Good to have you here.


Transcript here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/13/ltm.03.html

I was listening to CNN's "American Morning" show this morning in my car (via sat. radio). There was a Clinton surrogate on the show debating with an Obama surrogate. The host asked the Clinton person why Obama was going to lose big in West Virginia. The Clinton surrogate stated outright that "Obama has had trouble winning Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and Italian Americans" and would be less likely to win the general election because of this. So much for losing gracefully and keeping the best interests of the Democratic party in mind. Did anyone else hear this? I've searched for video, but no luck. The transcripts are not available yet from this morning's show.

Paul Krugman once again plays hitman for Hillary, criticizing Obama for failing to connect with white, working class voters, while staying completely silent on how Hillary has played the race card again and again throughout this campaign. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

He doesn't even mention Hillary's stunning comments yesterday that she has the support of "hard working people, white people" while Obama is "only" the candidate of black people and the liberal elite (who, heaven forbid, went to college).  Instead, Krugman reinforces these divisions in the guise of urging Obama to overcome them. It's classic doublespeak.  In my view, Krugman has lost his intellectual integrity and irrevocably diminished his stature.   He's a weasle in my book.


 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat Buchanan just said that HRC continuing in this race could be likened to her "just whipping" the candidate with the white vote.  Oy.

This morning the news media are faithfully repeating Clinton's talking point that Obama cannot "close the deal."  What this conveniently ignores is the fact that it was Clinton's deal to close in the first place, at the beginning of the primary process.  She's the one who has failed miserably over the course of the past several months to capture her once "inevitable" nomination. 

Hillary has utterly failed to capture the core Democratic constituencies of the young, the college-educated, and those African-Americans who do not fall into the first two categories.  What does this say about her electability in the fall? 

Her campaign will not be able to draw on either the energy of the young, or the wealth of the college-educated, or the mobilization power of African American institutions (black churches, civic groups, etc.).   Her supposed "strength" lies in her seeming appeal to elderly, rural, white, working-class voters.  But those are the very voters who are most likely to be swayed by John McCain -- i.e. those voters who are most likely to still despise Bill Clinton for his moral failings while in office (and not want him anywhere near White House interns), and most likely to harbor unease about voting for a woman to be Commander-in-Chief.  

If Hillary somehow secures the nomination, what Democrats will end up with is a lifeless, cash-strapped, disorganized campaign that cannot even count on its own base.