McCain – Page 2 – Don't Gel Too Soon

SARAH PALIN, SARAH PALIN, SARAH PALIN AND THE DANGERS OF A DESPERATE PARTY

This photo says it all. I took it yesterday, on our second Sunday canvassing for Obama in Virginia. When I got home I decided to review the stats for this blog and discovered that no post has drawn either the traffic or comments as those I’ve written about Sarah Palin. Friends tell me the same is true of theirs. I don’t think it’s brilliant writing that’s doing it. Sarah Palin has captured a large chunk of this presidential campaign as well as either the imagination or the rage (depending on perspective) of many American voters.

The Tina Fey stuff is funny, and effective, as I’ve mentioned before. The mean stuff is plenty mean. The "middle-class hockey mom" stuff is more effective than I wish it were, especially since the Palin family is worth over $2M and they made close to $200,000 last year. None of this matters as much as it should. She draws huge crowds. She’s cute. Those who support her either believe she is a wonder of accessibility and straight talk or have twisted themselves like pretzels to find reasons to justify her presence. For me, at least, it’s kind of sad.

What makes so many people prefer a less-educated, less-experienced candidate with a limited academic past, no curiosity or sense of exploration, untrammeled ambition and not much of a history over far more capable, experienced leadership? I remember when I was a kid and my mother’s adored Adlai Stevenson ran for president in 1952 and 1956, people called him an egghead, he was accused of being too cold and not able to connect to voters. And some analysts have compared him to Obama – two Illinois candidates too smart for the room.

I don’t see it. Obama appears to me far looser and more accessible- and more well-rounded in experience and education – and he’s younger and more available to young voters; Stevenson was a different man at a very different time and he was running against the man who, at least partially, won World War II. Even so, the question really is, how far have we evolved since then? AND how much have we learned from voting for the guy we’d "rather have a beer with" when that guy was George W Bush? AND in times so very dangerous that by the time each post is replaced at the top of the que, markets around the world have gone down once more and international tensions risen – will we still, as a country, opt for the "mavericky mom" who is not, at least on paper and on the stump, capable of understanding, much less solving, our problems? (OH and that guy who’s running with her…..)

As I write this, Palin, just introduced by Joe Lieberman (%#@!!**&) to a huge Florida crowd screaming "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah", continues to draw the faithful to great emotional response. It’s hard to know if, when people go into the voting booth, this emotion will translate into votes – or the reality will hit them and they won’t be able to do it.

My other fear is that because the race is moving toward Obama, acts of desperate chicanery will be part of the election day landscape. Here are some things that are already happening;

Republicans purging voter rolls, particularly of young first-time voters
De-listing voters whose homes have been foreclosed – with the claim that since the voters no longer have an address, they can’t vote.
Closing polling places in Democratic areas and intimidating officials
Trying to keep absentee ballots from newly registered voters
Names missing from voter rolls that affect legitimacy of absentee ballots

If you’re an attorney or law student, you can help with these things and the others that will happen.

We Americans will be tested in many ways in the next few years: economically, militarily, educationally, diplomatically and more. The first test, though, is this: As we face these challenges and all the others certain to emerge, and we think about our kids and what we want to leave for them, will we be able to take a deep breath and vote for "the smart guy" or is the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin the canary in our coal mine – warning us that our electorate is, even after W, not ready to choose the most capable and visionary, who has inspired so very many of our next generation to enter the fray, when they can elect Tina Fey light and her "old guy" running mate instead?

RETURN OF THE CULTURE WARS – BUT DID THEY EVER LEAVE?

Some very smart analysts, including POLITICO and PressThink founder Jay Rosen, are talking about the current Republican strategy in support of Sarah Palin as a "reigniting of the culture wars." Attacking with all the code words of past anti-"left" vocabularies. And here’s Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal:

I’ll tell you how powerful Mrs. Palin already is: she reignited the
culture wars just by showing up. She scrambled the battle lines, too.
The crustiest old Republican men are shouting "Sexism!" when she’s
slammed. Pro-woman Democrats are saying she must be a
bad mother to be
all ambitious with kids in the house. Great respect goes to Barack
Obama not only for saying criticism of candidates’ children is out of
bounds in political campaigns, but for making it personal, and
therefore believable. "My mother had me when she was eighteen…" That
was the lovely sound of class in American politics.

When the McCain Summer of Love ad debuted, I wrote this – They Will Campaign Against Us Until We’re Dead, and Maybe After. If you watch CSPAN, especially Washington Journal, you know from the phone calls how much anger still exists; how much hatred of the generation I grew up in. Against our opposition to the war, mischief and outrageousness, and even more, our search – no, demand – for peace. Going after all of us, FORTY YEARS LATER, still works.

I guess that since I’ve been posting quite a lot about that time forty years ago, the memories are long on both sides. But Barack Obama was 7 years old in 1968. It’s not and never was his culture war. It is, however, the never-ending flash-point in the conservative playbook, a safe way to rile folks up and re-ignite the hatred and anger manifested in the 60’s and 70’s and again in the 90’s when that Boomer couple, the Clintons, were in the White House.

I’ve given up trying to figure out how to respond. Most Americans, including us 60’s people, love our country and loved it then. It was the a desire to return the country to its true nature — just as it is today — that drove us. But it’s far more useful to the McCain campaign to taunt us — and Barack Obama; and to divide us, too, with these ancient battles. The tough part is figuring out how to answer.

SPEECH OF A LIFETIME– Oh – and that Sarah person

At
last. Our whole day had been built around this. Obama accepts
the nomination with the highest TV ratings of
any acceptance speech in modern US history, according to the Hollywood
Reporter:

Barack Obama’s historic acceptance speech for the Democratic
presidential nomination Thursday night was seen by 38.4 million viewers — 57%
more than watched John Kerry four years ago — and was the most-watched
convention speech ever.

Thursday
night’s viewership set a new record for national convention coverage, according
to Nielsen Media Research. Naturally, it’s also the largest number since the
convention began, up 42% from Hillary Clinton’s
speech on Day 2.

Obama’s
speech was seen by more U.S. viewers than the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony
(34.2 million).

It was a remarkable speech in a spectacular setting. You either watched it or
you didn’t – watch it here. It’s actually worth more than one viewing for
not only the substance but also the environment and symbolism. Watch it —
it’s pretty amazing.

Here’s
a
transcript, too.

I
waited until today to write this because I felt so much emotion last night that
I thought I should let it all sink in. I’ve seen so many acceptance
speeches, and my sense of Obama’s role is so deep that I didn’t think I had
much new to offer. It doesn’t seem to be wearing off though — not that
I’m alone. MSNBC super-conservative and often inflamatory and somewhat
cruel Joe
Scarborough was still rhapsodizing when I woke up. I think any aware
American, anyone who’s lived through a substantial portion of our modern racial
history, anyone with any desire for a better, more just country — any of us —
could not have watched what happened last night and remained
dispassionate. Tweets all night, and not just from those in the arena
kept saying "Tears everywhere" "Tearing up"
"Didn’t think I’d cry but…" I was fine until the family
walked out to the center of the stadium holding hands. Then I just
disolved.

Beyond
the moving historic moment, and the incredible tableau of two decent committed
families who have made public service a life-time commitment, who are the kinds
of people who seem to manifest what Americans used to think of as "real
American" character, the substance was also inspiring, at least for
me. You can read blogger comments on the wonderful CSPAN Hub — assembled by a team that
includes that very smart woman you keep seeing on CSPAN, Leslie Bradshaw. This post of
hers will give you an idea of
what it took to run the Hub operation – so valuable to so many bloggers.

Continue reading SPEECH OF A LIFETIME– Oh – and that Sarah person

WHO WANTS HILLARY? WHO WANTS BARACK? WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE? WHAT’S AT STAKE?

You really need to read this guest post at Political Voices of Women, Catherine Morgan‘s remarkable combination of editorial and aggregator. There are links there to more than 400 women who blog about politics – and guest posts. And (full disclosure) yes, sometimes that includes to my work. But I digress.

On Wednesday, April 23, just after the Pennsylvania primary, Slim, whose blog is called No Fish, No Nuts, was Catherine’s guest blogger. Slim’s post, which first appeared on her blog, wrote a loving but sad analysis of the Clinton supporters at her county convention where local Democrats elected their delegates. Listen to this:

Obama’s voters are looking toward Obama as a standard
bearer, as a point man for the change they want to see in the country.
Hillary’s supporters, at least the older women among them, are voting for their
surrogate: because they want to see a woman in the Oval Office before they die,
and because they themselves were denied so many opportunities for advancement
in their own lives.

I do not doubt that they also desperately believe in
Hillary Clinton, but their investment in her goes much deeper than politics.
Hillary Clinton is proof that they had it in them all along, the fire, talent
and creativity, and they could have been leaders but for the glass ceiling that
seemed to rise only inches a decade.

Slim also wrote that she was reluctant to offer these observations but that given polls showing many Clinton supporters saying they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination, and some the other way around, she felt that times were so desperate that she had to weigh in. In her view, "We cannot afford another 4 years of war, debt and economic stagnation,
the prescription of a McCain presidency. So we Dems cannot allow
Clinton voters (or for that matter, I add, Obama supporters if it goes the other way – though they report this feeling somewhat less frequently) to take their ball and go home come November."

To that I say "amen!" I was a member of the "Children’s Crusade" that was the 1968 anti-war presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy. We worked like demons through New Hampshire, did so well there that it was considered a win even though, technically, we lost, then saw Bobby Kennedy enter the race against us. We persisted, as did his supporters, until his assassination in June of 1968. After that, many of his supporters joined us, working still to try to elect a president who would stop the war. And then.

The riots in Chicago. The nomination of Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s vice president and for way too long a staunch supporter of the war. And then. Many, many of my colleagues and friends indeed picked up their footballs and went home. To stay. Not only did they not work for Humphrey – that would have been very hard after what had happened in Chicago. They didn’t even vote for him. Or vote at all. And that, my friends, is how we got Richard Nixon. Which is how we got Watergate. Which is how we got Jimmy Carter– who made such a mess that we got Ronald Reagan. Who took apart so much social safety net, environmental and regulatory and other federal function that we thought more was impossible. Until we got George Bush. Who decimated much of what was left, including much of our hope. Until now, when we have two candidates who stand for so much.

Of course that’s simplistic, but what really really upsets me is that every time we educated activists, in our righteousness, take a walk because things aren’t perfect, we aren’t the ones who get hurt the most. People who are poor, whose kids go to bad schools, whose unemployment insurance runs out too soon, who no longer can afford even in-state tuition or, for many, community college tuition, to say nothing of HEALTH INSURANCE (an issue which reaches up into the middle class) — and of course the war, where low-income people do most of the enlisting…these people are the ones who are hurt the most.

We let our singular perception of what’s perfect become the enemy of the good – or at least better than bad – that we could help to bring into being. It’s infantile. It’s sad. It’s shameful. And unless all of us in the blog universe who feel this way make a lot of noise and take lots of friends to lunch no matter WHO gets the nomination, it’s going to happen again.

Thanks to Slim for her great post that inspired this rant.

IS JOHN STEWART A POLITICAL KING (QUEEN) MAKER? DOES COMEDY RULE? SHOULD IT?

I used to run a television newscast for teenagers. It was tough to get them to pay much attention to the news, so one of the features I experimented with was "If you don’t know the news, you can’t get the jokes." Dennis Miller was doing Saturday Night Update then, and sadly, wouldn’t talk to us, so the idea failed. It wasn’t that original anyway; humor has always been part of American politics. But I wanted the kids to care more about it – and I thought that connecting news and cool comedy would help. I’m pretty sure I was right; political comedy is certainly a factor this year’s campaign. If you’re my age, you’re probably sitting there thinking "Hasn’t this woman ever heard of Mort Sahl? Yup. He’s just turned 80 and his political humor is as sharp as ever. But he didn’t have a daily "Daily Show" as a podium. Look at this:

I started thinking about this because this headline just appeared in the Media Bistro LA edition – which linked to this piece in the Washington Post. Comedy, at least this year, is an important factor in the campaign. Of course, Bill Clinton rebounded from one of his many backslides in 1992 with a saxophone-playing appearance on standup comedian and talk show host Arsenio Hall’s show. This clip, in fact, appeared on Channel One, the show I used to run!

That was the second time Clinton used nightly talk as a life preserver. After this disastrous keynote convention speech in 1988

Clinton went on the Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show and did the same thing. Not quite comedy but definitely popular culture. Carson had a unique impact, too. A wise Republican political consultant told me he could tell the mood of the country by listening to which jokes audiences responded to on The Tonight Show. So this year, despite all the fuss about Comedy Central, is not the first time that the worlds of entertainment and comedy have had more than a small role in choosing our leaders. And those are just in the past few elections. (OH, and don’t forget JibJab. )

We aren’t alone, of course. The 18th Century British cartoonist William Hogarth, is still taught in political propaganda classes. This one, The Times, is an example.

The difference today may be the ubiquitousness of any information that emerges; it’s not just in some elitist newspaper, it’s all over the place. It may also be the diminished influence of what used to be our respected news media. Young people (and others) turn to comedy not just because it’s arch, and fun, but because it’s less pretentious and heavy-handed, and treats audience members as co-conspirators rather than as a single passive body.

I worry that the deflation of our leaders that comes from the Comedy Central syndrome is as scary as it is useful. Americans like to believe; that’s part of the appeal of both Obama and McCain, I think. And it’s possible to believe without mindless acceptance. But if all, or most of one’s information emerges from the acerbic minds of comedy writers, does it undermine any capacity to follow a leader in what are truly perilous times?

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Fireside Chats and other communications with Americans, was able to bring the country along as war drew closer. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in NO ORDINARY TIME*, one of my favorite books, tells the story of one chat in particular. FDR asked Americans, in advance, to get a
map of the world and follow along as he described the current state of the war. Maps sold
out. And the Americans who had bought them sat there by the radio and followed as Roosevelt spoke. You don’t need comedy to inspire confidence when you have that kind of respect for your audience. I guess you could say that FDR was a kind of rock star who had built such a relationship with Americans during the Depression that he was in a different situation, but still, it’s a provocative example to place against 5 minute guest spots with Stewart or Colbert.

This has been long and a bit rambling because I’m trying to think it all out here – and I still don’t have an answer. I do think it’s going to be interesting to see how long this trend lasts — at least in this incarnation.

*go to the link and search inside under Fireside Chat and map and you will find the story (pg. 319)