Obama's challenge in responding to "celebrity"
obama faces a challenge in responding to mccain's continually calling him a "celebrity". the problem is that "celebrity" doesn't have the same effect when it's used against obama as when it's used to refer to mccain.
when used against obama by mccain, the focus is on the vapidness of (some) celebrities, the fact that their very celebrity can distract some people from whether the person is really contributing anything of value. however, i fear that if obama responds by associating mccain with celebrity (SNL, "Wedding Crashers", etc.) the association for some people would be that he is a celebrity for his war heroism - i.e., for being a person of (assumed) substance and character.
so i don't think it works for obama to reply by saying "yeah, but he's a celebrity too". it makes "celebrity" look like a bad word, when the problem is that in the skewed world that is this election it IS a bad word when applied to obama, but NOT a bad word when applied to mccain.
obama is much better off demonstrating his substance and command of the issues, and perhaps reminding people that his "celebrity" is due to millions wanting to take this country in a different direction, not by joking about mccain being a celebrity as well.
the real issue is which candidate has something valuable to offer for america's future. mccain's "celebrity" name calling is just a distraction - obama shouldn't take the bait by pointing out mccain's celebrity. instead focus on the idea that mccain is talking about celebrity because he DOESN'T want to talk about substance and his third Bush term aspirations.
when used against obama by mccain, the focus is on the vapidness of (some) celebrities, the fact that their very celebrity can distract some people from whether the person is really contributing anything of value. however, i fear that if obama responds by associating mccain with celebrity (SNL, "Wedding Crashers", etc.) the association for some people would be that he is a celebrity for his war heroism - i.e., for being a person of (assumed) substance and character.
so i don't think it works for obama to reply by saying "yeah, but he's a celebrity too". it makes "celebrity" look like a bad word, when the problem is that in the skewed world that is this election it IS a bad word when applied to obama, but NOT a bad word when applied to mccain.
obama is much better off demonstrating his substance and command of the issues, and perhaps reminding people that his "celebrity" is due to millions wanting to take this country in a different direction, not by joking about mccain being a celebrity as well.
the real issue is which candidate has something valuable to offer for america's future. mccain's "celebrity" name calling is just a distraction - obama shouldn't take the bait by pointing out mccain's celebrity. instead focus on the idea that mccain is talking about celebrity because he DOESN'T want to talk about substance and his third Bush term aspirations.
Advertisement
the convenient QHA (Quadrennial Heightened Alert)
josh posted on the main TPM page about the Dept of Homeland Security deciding to declare a "Period of Heightened Alert". the ABC News article on the PoHA includes this explanation of the reasons for the heightened alert:
and since the War on Terror (TM) could go on forever (or at least another 100 years!), DHS presumably foresees heightened alerts (with or without terror level color changes) in the summer and fall of every presidential election year for the rest of our lifetimes.
how convenient. a great way to get the populace to vote its fears, rather than its hopes.
Anti-terror officials in the U.S. cite this summer and fall's lineup of two major political parties' conventions, November's general election and months of transition into a new presidential administration as cause for heightened awareness and action.gee - the two major party political conventions, plus the summer olympics, plus a presidential election always fall during a four-month period towards the end of a presidential election year. and there is a period of "transition into a new presidential administration" at least every eight years - and certainly the potential for such a transition every four years.
and since the War on Terror (TM) could go on forever (or at least another 100 years!), DHS presumably foresees heightened alerts (with or without terror level color changes) in the summer and fall of every presidential election year for the rest of our lifetimes.
how convenient. a great way to get the populace to vote its fears, rather than its hopes.
Military experience qualifies McCain to be president?
While I am mystified by (though not surprised by) the misinterpretation of Wesley Clark's statements about McCain's military record, I am equally mystified by the idea that McCain's military record by itself qualifies him to be president.
McCain served in the Vietnam War, was held as a prisoner of war, then returned to the US in 1973. At the time he returned to the US, was he qualified to be president? He was certainly old enough (about 37 years old) and born a US citizen, and overall met the minimum qualifications under the US Constitution. But I don't think even his biggest supporters would say that he would have been a credible candidate for president in, say, 1976. (Or even in 1984, a few years after he retired from the Navy.) Clearly his experiences at war by themselves do not qualify him to be president.
Or what if McCain had retired from the Navy in 1981, moved to Arizona and then become a used-car salesman? Then in 2006, after 25 years of selling cars, he thought he would make a good president and decided to run for the 2008 Republican nomination. Even his staunchest supporters would acknowledge that that John McCain would not be a credible candidate this year, nor a credible president.
So it seems obvious that the entirety of McCain's experiences in the military, though they may be indicative of courage and inner strength, would not by themselves make McCain qualified to be president. Which is pretty much the statement that Wesley Clark made. So why the uproar?
McCain served in the Vietnam War, was held as a prisoner of war, then returned to the US in 1973. At the time he returned to the US, was he qualified to be president? He was certainly old enough (about 37 years old) and born a US citizen, and overall met the minimum qualifications under the US Constitution. But I don't think even his biggest supporters would say that he would have been a credible candidate for president in, say, 1976. (Or even in 1984, a few years after he retired from the Navy.) Clearly his experiences at war by themselves do not qualify him to be president.
Or what if McCain had retired from the Navy in 1981, moved to Arizona and then become a used-car salesman? Then in 2006, after 25 years of selling cars, he thought he would make a good president and decided to run for the 2008 Republican nomination. Even his staunchest supporters would acknowledge that that John McCain would not be a credible candidate this year, nor a credible president.
So it seems obvious that the entirety of McCain's experiences in the military, though they may be indicative of courage and inner strength, would not by themselves make McCain qualified to be president. Which is pretty much the statement that Wesley Clark made. So why the uproar?
What if the ability of presidents to issue pardons was suspended from, say, October 15 of a presidential election year through January 20 of the following year?
It would never happen (the Constitution would need to be amended), but it's an interesting thought experiment.
From the perspective of a potential "pardonee", there shouldn't be a big difference. A person who had the misfortune to have alleged misdeeds (or a criminal conviction - think Ted Stevens) come to light after October 15 of an election year might be out of luck, especially if the next president is of a different political party. But no one is entitled to get a pardon anyway.
From the perspective of the country, there would be, at least, a small way to register disapproval with a president's use of the pardon power. Of course, it's not ideal - a president probably would still save the most controversial pardons for the year in which she or he was not up for re-election. So the voters would have only the option of voting against the nominee of the president's party if the voters disapproved of the pardon.
But even that potential consequence might deter presidents from some pardons that might be issued otherwise. Not the most pressing issue around, but a good time to think about it given the pardons that the current (otherwise absentee) president will likely issue between now and January 20.