What wins elections

I was thinking, after watching Sarah Palin's sarcastic, snarky, and dismissive speech, about what it would mean if John McCain wins this election. Not in terms of policies or what it will do to America's well-being or place in the world--that's a whole 'nother depressing topic. I mean--what does it mean about politics in America? It will mean, I think, that cynicism, sarcasm, and avoiding the issues wins elections. It will mean that counting on the fact that voters aren't paying attention to your lies, stretched truths, flip-flops, hypocritical statements, and full-of-shit spin wins elections. It will mean that cheap, political stunts win elections.


Obama has tried to run a different kind of campaign, in a lot of ways. (He is still a politician, of course, but a far less cynical one than we've become accustomed to.) Obama has tried to criticize John McCain without demeaning him. He has always insisted on honoring McCain's military service, while pointing out the truth of what he stands for politically. He has insisted that Sarah Palin's family is not up for criticism, despite the other side's unfair and demonizing criticism of Obama's wife. He has tried to run a campaign that involves the input and energy of thousands of every day people. He has spoken seriously about topics of great importance to the country--energy independence, war and peace, job losses, and the failure of modern politics and politicians.

John McCain's campaign has been about sarcasm and belittling its opponent. Instead of touting any realistic proposals for the economy or the war, they spend obscene amounts of money on advertisements saying Obama is like Paris Hilton. I mean, come on! They lie and say that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class (he will return tax levels to pre-Bush levels on the very wealthy--in other words, repeal the irresponsible tax cuts McCain himself originally opposed, until it became politically expedient to support them, which he now does.) Then, McCain pulls a political stunt and puts a laughably unqualified evangelical woman on his ticket in a transparent attempt to get some Clinton and Bush voters in one swipe. Who cares if her experience is far less than the man they said was too inexperienced to be president? Then, she gets up on stage and spews lies and sarcasm, belittling the work of community organizers, falsely claiming that Obama has never authored legislation (in fact, he's authored important legislation on securing nuclear weapons and ethics reform, among others). She lies and says she opposed government pork, when she in fact supported ridiculous earmarks for her town and state, including the "bridge to nowhere." And, instead of talking about real political issues, or revealing that she knows or thinks ANYTHING about national or international affairs, she makes fun of Obama's stage, his speeches, and his time helping poor people in South Side Chicago find work.

If THAT'S what the American people vote for, then it means Bush and Rove were right: Politics is about appealing to the worst in people. A lot of us were hoping Obama could prove them wrong. He still might, but the fact that it's even close is downright depressing.

Experience

Did John McCain choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to create some kind of false equivalence between her paltry experience and Obama's (relatively) brief, but exceptional experience?

Perhaps.

It's a ridiculous equivalence to make, however. Look, Obama served for eight years in the Illinois Senate, representing a diverse, heavily populated region that encompassed rural areas, rust-belt regions, and the third-most populous city in the United States. He has served four years in the United States Senate, again representing the complex and diverse entity of Chicago and its environs. He passed legislation securing nuclear weapons across the globe and enforcing ethics reform for the nation's most powerful elected officials. He has thought about and made sophisticated policy statements and proposals about international affairs--beginning with his strong condemnation of the Iraq war before it began, when it was a very popular notion. He studied and taught Constiutional Law, studied at Harvard Law School, and worked as a community organizer in poverty-stricken South Side Chicago. He has shown remarkable grasp of the difficult topics necessary for the leader of the free world.

Sarah Palin has served as governor for about a year-and-a-half for one of the least populated, least diverse (racially and economically) states in the Union, one lacking any large urban center. Before that, she was the mayor of a town with a population of about 6,000 (which she saddled with $20 million in debt). I grew up in a town of about the size. I do not believe the mayor of Iowa Falls should be next in line for the most powerful political position in the world, in the history of the world, behind a 72 year old man with a history of cancer. I don't think Sarah Palin should either. In terms of knowledge, she has a bachelors degree in journalism. She has never made any pronouncements about national or international affairs, stating that she hadn't really thought about Iraq because she was focussed on Alaska's affairs. Good thinking. She should have stayed focussed on those issues and turned down John McCain's reckless and ill-considered offer of the Vice Presidency. What does she believe? What does she know about national and international issues? What does she know about the rest of the country and world? Obama has answered these questions in countless speeches, debates, interviews, and policy proposals. Palin is quite simply in over her head. Hopefully, the Republicans are not able to shield her from the tough questions she should have to answer. But, I fear they will, and she will simply hide behind her mildly interesting personal story.

It could be disastrous for this country if Sary Palin is dumped into the role of President, which could very likely happen. I never wanted John McCain to get elected, but now I'm pretty scared about what could happen if he was--and about how poor his leadership and decision-making skills must be.

This whole argument is made much better here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html#more

Why Wesley Clark's getting tarred

It's been really ridiculous the way the right wing has responded to Wesley Clark's comments. To summarize, he basically said that John McCain's military service, and being taken prisoner of war, does not qualify as foreign policy expertise or executive command experience. Both these statements are unquestionably true. Foreign policy experience is political. It has little to do with piloting jet planes, as difficult and dangerous as that job might be.

Clark is being attacked for something he DIDN'T say. Republicans are claiming that the general "attacked" McCain's military service. No, he did not attack it. He simply said that people should feel free to admire it, but not misconstrue it as something it is not. In effect, the (feigned) outrage amounts to this: you are not allowed to say that John McCain's military service is NOT something, if that something is good. You can't say "John McCain's military experience is NOT as tasty as chocolate ice cream," even though that's probably true. That would be an "attack." If I were to say, for instance, that John McCain's military service does not necessarily make him the most handsome man in the country, that would be an attack. Or, if I were to say that John McCain's time as a prisoner of war doesn't necessarily mean he has an enormous penis, and that experience doesn't really have any relationship to the size of his penis, or his sexual prowess in any respect whatsoever, that would be an attack. However, if I said John McCain's military service means he's the just the bestest damned awesome ass kicker who ever laid boot to butt, then I just might be a redneck...sorry, I mean, then I'm a Patriot.

In any event, what's going on here, I think, is that the right sees a guy who could be a great surrogate, or VP candidate, for Obama, and they see a chance to discredit him. I've long thought that Clark would be an ideal Obama VP, actually--good command of military topics, real executive experience (unlike McCain, he commanded others as head of NATO in Bosnia), southerner, smart--Rhodes scholar, close to the Clintons, and an early and intelligent opponent of the Iraq war. The right wants to make sure Obama doesn't have access to those strengths. I still think Obama should pick him. At least consider it. Never mind all this sound and fury.

Obama makes smart people dumb

Or, to put it more precisely, his candidacy seems to bring out some idiotic comments about race from seemingly intelligent people, cf Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton. The latest is Ralph Nader, who has accused Obama of "trying to talk white." Yeesh. Ok, granted, what he was really saying was that, by not talking enough (according to Nader's standards) about inner city poverty, etc., Obama was trying to "talk white." That's still pretty dumb. Yes, there is some truth to the idea that Obama doesn't want white voters to think of him as the "black" candidate only concerned about issues pertinent to black people. Can you blame him? Does Nader understand what campaigning for president really means? It means attracting a broad coalition that will give you the votes to get in office, and get some good things accomplished. Talking up inner city issues now would do no one any good--it would marginalize Obama and rob him of the power to actually do anything about those issues. On the other hand, once elected, Obama could use the bully pulpit to give a lot more attention to inner city issues that have been ignored by previous presidents.

What does Nader think Obama would accomplish by focusing on these issues during the general election? Does he really think it would lead to anything getting done about them? Of course it wouldn't. My point is, even if you give Nader the benefit of the doubt, his comment not only sounds stupid, his broader point doesn't even hold water.

clearly...

I know nothing about basketball (see my previous post). But, I'm glad the Celtics won, anyway. Good series, great team play, great to see so many different members of the team play well in different games. The comeback game was a lot of fun to watch, and it was really great to see Paul Pierce exceed expectations so thoroughly. I get it that sports is overdramatized and made to seem more important than it really is--but, still, it's pretty great when you get to see someone perform much better than anyone ever thought him capable of, when someone who was always just pretty good becomes unexpectedly great right before your eyes.

Celtics-Lakers

So, I was thinking I was going to make this a political blog. But, basketball has become much more interesting than the Democratic primary of late, so I'm going to talk NBA.

In a hyphenated word: Celtics-Lakers. I am actually kind of embarrassed at how excited I am about this. This is going to be awesome--but one thing could ruin it: The Lakers could sweep Boston. It could happen. This LA team is ridiculous. They have a ton of talent, they have great coaching, they have a solid bench. And they have a guy with a pathological need to win and amazing skills (Kobe). The Celtics, on the other hand, have kind of stumbled their way to the Finals. I hope it goes 7, and I'd really like to see the Celtics win (partly because I always root for the Eastern Conference teams--look, sports allegiances are ridiculous no matter what, this one no less; but also because I like this particular team and the players--esp. KG and Pierce.)

Here's my thoughts on 'strategy': Rivers should give his regular starting lineup a shot in the first game. See how it goes. Based on that, he should consider benching Ray Allen and relegating him to free-throw/three-point shooting help. Kobe will devour him, at both ends. Bring in another big and put either Pierce or Posey on Bryant. It's their only chance. KG will more than handle Odom or Gasol. Perkins can take the other one reasonably well. Allen's already playing poorly. Against Kobe, it could get ugly. And it could mean the series.

yay, fourth parties!

I admit it, I'm one of those square killjoys who "blames" Ralph Nader for George W Bush's "election" in 2000. I know, I know--it was Gore's fault, really, for running a poor campaign. It was Florida's fault, for fucking everything up. Third parties are necessary for a healthy democracy, of which, this country of ours is not the most shining specimen. I've heard it all before. The points have some validity. But, if there had been no Nader, it would have been President Gore--a man who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, we got a likeable guy who mispronounces things amusingly. But, I digress...my point is here, that I have no problem with challenging the two party system--in principle. But, in practice, it fucks things (things meaning the country, the world, the economy, things like that) over royally when it's one sided. Look, Ralph Nader wasn't really running as an alternative to the two parties--i.e., someone with moderate compromises or new solutions to old gridlock. He was running as a "pure" liberal, someone who appealed to the far left of the Democratic base. He wasn't a third party, he was an extra Democrat. To avoid simply skewing the election results, you need something more balanced. You need a genuine third party that appeals to people from both sides--or, two extra parties who appeal to the "purists" from either side. (Or, all three, wouldn't that be lovely?)

Weeeellll...looks like we might just have something workable this year. Nader is running again. But...so is this guy, and it has Republicans worried. Good. Karma for all of their cheering on (and, sometimes, it's rumored, outright assistance) for Ralph Nader's runs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24582429/

Four parties is great. I love four parties. It's three that gets me down. See, I'm not square--I'm just anti-triangle.