Jimmy Peanut and Hanoi Jane join Obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama received two more high-profile endorsements this week. One, at least at this point, is technically unofficial and mostly irrelevant anyway. The second however could come to bite Obama in the butt. (If you're in to that sort of thing.)

Let's start with the non-controversial one.

Former peanut farmer and president of the United States Jimmy Carter made an announcement earlier in the week that went as far as words can go to throw support at a candidate without actually endorsing them. In an interview with the Nigerian newspaper This Day he said on behalf of himself and his wife:

"We are very interested in the primaries. Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess."

Though off the record, I have it from a reliable authority that Carter's mailman is pro-Obama, too. And his barber, his dogsitter, his acupuncturist, his hangnail, and his two cats, Goobers and Jelly.

And get this. According to Ben Smith at Politico, Carter was in Nigeria apparently for a Guinea Worm Eradication Awards dinner.

Dinner?! Seriously, what kind of food do you serve at a banquet honoring the eradication of a parasite that lives in your body for a year and can grow up to three feet in length before exiting painfully through a blister or open wound? Spaghetti Marinara? Pigs in a blanket?

Now that I got you good and hungry, let's move on to the other endorsement, the one that might fester in Obama's craw like a Guinea Worm in an enflamed digestive tract. (Okay I'll stop.)

I'm talking of course about good ol' girl Jane Fonda, who gave her unofficial endorsement of Obama outside a Los Angeles restaurant. As reported by the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm:

"Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.

But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, “Who are you going to vote for?”

There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, “Obama!” Then she got into a car and drove away."

Here's some video.

This is bad news for Barack. If some of you need a reminder why—or were not born before 1972—here's a brief history on Hanoi Jane.

Jane Fonda has been pissing people off her entire life, WAY before she used the "C"word on the Today show. She's so good at it that she can piss off one group of people, and then a couple decades later, turn around and piss off the people who were originally supporting her pissing off the first group.

In the late 60's, the Workout Queen endorsed the Alcatraz Island occupation, which was supposed to raise awareness for Native American rights. Then she married Ted Turner. But that wasn't what pissed people off. It was when she accompanied her husband to a Atlanta Braves baseball game—a team that Turner still owns and which plays its home games in a stadium in his name—where she was seen doing the "Tomahawk Chop," an ignorant little gesture that would seem at least a little bit distasteful for a supporter of Native American civil rights.

Anyway, a few years after her Alcatraz moment, Jolly Jane somehow found her way to Hanoi, Vietnam where she was seen talking to a group of Viet Cong and resting her buns on an NVA anti-aircraft gun—a gun that shoots down the planes of her home country. The year was 1972, right smack dab in the middle of a violent, unpopular war; a war in which a soldier by the name of John McCain was being brutally tortured not too far away.

You see what I'm getting at? 

Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is clapping her hands in delight while sweating her way through Jane Fonda's Light Aerobics and Stress Reduction video.

It's probably a smart move for Mrs. Clinton to be working out. 

I heard that Ivan Drago is itching for a rematch.

And to learn more about Guinea Worm and how to eradicate it, please visit the Carter Center website.

Brains vs. beauty?

Is it true that there's a correlation between beauty and success? I've heard it before. I'm sure you have too. But my guess is that it probably matters what field a person is in.

For example:
--> You want to be a model? Sorry honey, you probably won't make it big if you're ugly.
--> So you want to be a politician? As a man, I'd say it probably helps. But as a woman, does it take anything away from a candidate's credibility?

Hillary Clinton - perfect way to test it out. Take the poll now!

Opinion Polls & Market Research

PETA would be mad: Funny quotes on the campaign trail

Which quote is funnier??

1) "When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper," said Mike Huckabee (see the video below)

--OR--

2) "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air," said Mit Romney laughing about strapping his dog to the top of his car. (see video below)

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Presidential candidates are always talking about how to get us out of Iraq, fix the economy, and improve health care. At least while they're not reminiscing about popcorn-fried squirrels and strapping they're dogs to the roofs of their cars. PETA would probably not be too happy with either Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee for their confessions. Perhaps that's why they're out of the running. However, quotes like these remind us that politicians arent always (or were'nt always) straight-faced fighters. It's always nice to be reminded that politicians are humans too - with a sense of humor and some funny memories to reminisce about.

Vouge'n

Hillary Clinton is a fashion plate on the go. She's a coffee, neckerchief and croissant kind of gal. Hilary can answer calls at 3 in the morning while balancing her checkbook and filing her nails. She doesn't bake her own cakes, she buys them at Ralphs. She doesn't need to please her man by sewing on his loose buttons, she'll just buy him a new one from the Regis Philbin collection! As both a senior citizen and a FASHION citizen, this prezzy lady has to think long and hard about what to wear everyday. So what do you think? Which pantsuit and necklace combos best suit this presidential fashionhopeful?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

The poll to end all polls

What's the most important quality in a presidential candidate?

So there are a lot of ways to answer this question. The middle class may want someone dependable; the rich probably want someone that would make them even richer; the elderly just want a nice shady place to read and talk to themselves.

And what about you kids out there? I know.

You want to fight. But that could be painful so you'd rather watch someone else fight. So put this in your UFC Octagon and smoke it:

Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton in a no-holds barred cage match.

Who wins?

You decide.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

A defeat for Bush? Maybe he doesn't care.

In the wake of one of the few Supreme Court rulings that go against the president, many are calling the defeat a huge one for President George W. Bush.




The Supreme Court issued its opinion this week, barring the president of the United States from enforcing International Treaties on U.S. states without Congress' approval.

While countless political pundits have called the decision a major defeat for Bush, who tried to force Texas to acknowledge Vienna Convention and reconsider a death penalty sentence for a Mexican foreign national, it seems it's really a win-win situation for the U.S.



Maybe Bush really didn't agree with the international treaty, but knew the supreme court would assert its global supremacy in the ultimate world arena. That way, without having to take the fall for disregarding the laws of the world court, he could shift the burden onto the supreme court while saying, "I did everything I could." After all, it's better when SOMEONE wins.

So maybe the set up was ripe for American political muscling, and in fact it was a victory for Bush, not a defeat.

Either way, it's not clear he really cares.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Pew-Wee

How much do Obama’s pastor’s comments matter? There are pundits now convinced that the Pastor Wright YouTubes have rendered Barack Obama unelectable. Some initial polling suggests the Wright controversy may indeed influence voters. Others believe the controversy has been rightly handled or mostly amounts to a distraction and will have little effect on the election.

Some issues on the table: (1) Was Obama lying when he said recently that he wasn’t aware of the nature of Pastor Wright’s comments and/or was he lying earlier in characterizing his relationship with Wright as “deep”? Could the relationship be both deep and unwitting? (2) Would perceptions that Obama is lying in either case— in the matter of the true beliefs of his pastor— significantly affect perceptions among Americans of Obama’s character and his fitness to be president? (3) Are there a significant number of voters disposed to vote for Obama who have now taken enough offense at Pastor Wright’s comments and Obama’s reaction to them to not vote for Obama in the general election… to either not vote or to vote for McCain instead? (4) Does Obama’s relationship to Pastor Wright and Wright’s church, Trinity United, significantly undercut the legitimacy of Obama’s appeals to a post-racial America? (5) Are Pastor Wright’s comments racist and, if so, should they be subject to the same scorn by Obama supporters as have been the witless comments made and repeated by the Clinton campaign’s Geraldine Ferraro?

Obama’s answer to the Pastor Wright controversy was to provide background on how he came to know and respect Reverend Wright and gave assurances that he never heard the man make these kinds of inflammatory comments; never while Obama was “in the pews” of Trinity United Church nor in personal conversation… Already, of course, the nation’s journa-trashdigger-lists are poring through the church calendars and Obama’s travel schedule to see if Obama might have been in a pew and neither daydreaming nor dozing for some of the reverend’s riffs on “Amerikkka.” So far, neocon New York Times columnist and proven hack William Kristol used his perch at the Paper of Record to declare that, indeed, Obama was in attendance for one of the sermons. Kristol wrote a whole column based around this nugget of information-gotcha, only to be proven wrong and made to write a three-sentence retraction complete with typo (“camapaign”)— the retraction as tossed off as the column, because what else would it be? Pee-ew stanky.

A much more insightful and carefully researched analysis was delivered by Tracy Morgan on SNL...

Cleaning up a mess from the media:
Obama responds to coverage of Rev. Jerimiah Wright with an honest speech about race relations in America. What was the effect?

The Storm...
This is a clip of one of Wright's sermons that appeared on FOX



The Clean-Up...
This is a clip from Obama's national addrees where he responds to the media's coverage of his minister




The Effect...

After Obama made his eloquent speech about race, the reactions were mixed. Some said the speech was an honest look at the real condition of race relations in America that would help his campaign. Others thought the media coverage of his pastor would severly hurt his campaign. Here's what the numbers say from usnews.com:

"Before the Wright revelations, Rasmussen in its nightly tracking showed Obama ahead of Clinton nationally 48 percent to 41 percent, a statistically significant 7 percentage point lead. On March 18, the day of Obama's Philadelphia speech, that was reduced to a 45 percent to 44 percent lead. The most recent results, reported March 24, showed Clinton ahead 46 percent to 44 percent. In other words, over two weeks, Obama was down 4 percentage points, Clinton up 5 percentage points—major movement, given the usually glacially show movement in Rasmussen numbers."

To watch Obama's entire speech on race relations click here.
To read an interview with Obama conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about his minister's sermons, click here.

Obama in the Tabloids:
Misleading article smears Obama in the National Enquirer,
which is owned by a key financial backer of Clinton.

When wandering up to the check-out line at the grocery store, my eyes feel an attraction with magnetic-like force to the colorful, bold tabloids that boast the newest celebrity secrets. Generally it's some superstar on the cover who is either pregnant, is going to rehab, has cheated on their husband, or has gained a lot of weight (it's always pleasant seeing a superstar's cellulite jiggling out of their bikini. I guess celebrities aren't immune!)

I think tabloids are America's guilty pleasure. We all glance at the ridiculous headlines and try not to seem too interested in public, but secretly want to tear through the tabloid and read all the gritty gossip.

I don't see too much harm in reading about Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades, but when tabloids creep onto political turf, my heart starts beating a little faster.

This is what happened when I saw this on the front of the National Enquirer:


After reading the article online from someone's blog who had scanned the article and posted it (which has since been removed), I realized that the headlines, like most that appear on tabloids were misleading. This scared me. I saw many customers reading the headlines, but not the article, and as of now, I can't find the article online anywhere. Luckily, I printed it out before it was removed and have investigated the accusations further.

First, and most scary, was the misleading headline that Obama has a close relationship to a terrorist. In today's society, the word terrorism is synonymous with the middle east. Obama's name has led many naive people to believe that Obama is a Muslim. The New York Times said in an article that "some posts even claim Obama is an Iranian agent." The Enquirer headline could only spur more rumors.

If readers read the entire article, however, it would become apparant that the word terrorist is actually referring to Bill Ayers who was a former member of a 1960's anti-american group the Weatherman who was involved with the hippie-era bombings of the Pentagon.

Ayers is now a professor in Chicago who is no longer associated with the activist culture of his younger years. And Obama's relationship with Ayers was not in the 60's, but the 90's when they served together as board members of the Chicago nonprofit the Woods Fund whose "goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area," according to their website.

This type of activity doesn't seem too harmful to me. Since when was helping the less fortunate an act of terrorism?

Yet the article included a photograph of like this one of Obama wearing a turban and Somali clothes that burn a middle eastern image into the minds of paranoid readers.

The two other accusations relied heavily, if not entirely, on rumors. The article quoted a private investigator, Donald Young, saying "There have also been rumors about Barack's personal life and his sexuality" - not quite a definitive source.

I wondered why the Enquirer would run such a story, so decided to look up who owns the Enquirer. I found this on politico.com: "the key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary."

Business Week said this about Altman: "As a former Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton, he is a player in Washington."

Interesting.

Anyways, the article made me wonder what kind of effect the tabloid attention would have an affect on the public's opinion of Obama. I was shocked, however, when over a week went by before I heard anything about it. I thought, for an instant, that maybe Americans had written it off.

That hope quickly dissolved when Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pictured and briefly mentioned in the article, became the focus of a media frenzy.

I'm not sure that the Enquirer was what led people to look the radical reverend up (although it may have - the article came out the 1st and ABC first ran the videos of Rev. Wright on the 13th), but whatever the cause, people sure have gone nuts. Videos of the minister's passionate sermons are all over the news and web. Googling Rev. Wright and Obama got 638,000 hits and searching Rev. Wright on YouTube pulled up 1,830 videos. The coverage is what prompted Obama to make his national address concerning race relations in America.

Whatever role the Enquirer played in all the mess that has become the democratic race, I have concluded that tabloids should stick with news about Brittney.

Are you hearing this?

Is anybody out there listening to Barack Obama?

I mean really listening to the words that are coming out of Obama's mouth lately. Had I no idea who the man was, you would have had a better chance convincing me that he was a Martian diplomat than an aspiring POTUS.

I will say this: Obama's recent speeches have seemed like they did come from outer space. And damn, has it been refreshing.

First there was his March 18 speech on race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. His eloquent, magnanimous and rich inquiry into the state of racism in this country was the most moving political speech given since John or Bobby Kennedy. It is a little out of date, but I implore anyone who hasn't seen it to sit down for half and hour and watch it. Reading quotes or transcripts does not do it justice.



Up to this point, "A More Perfect Union" has been the Obama campaign's defining moment. And right it should be. It was eloquent without being long-winded, it was intelligent without being pretentious, it spoke to both sides without once patronizing either, it was concise and powerful. We've certainly come a long way since Richard Nixon told the American people about his dog Checkers.



Put it this way: could you imagine President Bush trying to give a speech like that? Pigs would fly Concordes before that ever happened.

What's most striking about the speech is that it was given by a presidential candidate in the middle of a neck-and-neck campaign. We tend to expect pandering from our presidents, not to be spoken to, as Jon Stewart recently put it, like we're adults.

Racism tends to be a political buzzkill, but Barack went for it anyway. Of course, it was necessitated by the P.R. firestorm created by his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who's heated diatribe/sermons have gone viral on Youtube. Of course, in our media saturated culture, his comments were immediately disseminated on television, where they have been taken out of context and scrutinized for the past month.

Pastor Wright seems to me to be an overzealous, bombastic and polarizing figure. But to call the man a racist or an enemy of unity—and to call Obama the same by extension— as many in the media have suggested, belies a type of ignorance and misunderstanding that's precisely what Barack's speech addresses.

I may disagree with some of the things Wright has said, I might even be offended by others. But that's doesn't give me the right to criticize the man or call him racist. Because the truth of the matter is, I couldn't possibly understand where he's coming from. He's right when he says that Hillary's never been called a nigger. Neither have I and I'm sure most of his detractors haven't either. Perspective is everything.

Let me take you on a trip to the No Spin Zone for an idea. Take a look at how Wright is treated here and then tell me you understand where he's coming from.



I'm not saying that anyone is as obnoxious or disrespectful as Sean Hannity. But his thought that Trinity United is prejudiced because they advertise themselves as a black church is something that many people agree with. But who is Sean Hannity to be calling Wright prejudiced? Who is Sean Hannity to be quoting MLK to a black pastor? It's a shame.

My point is that the issue of race is a complex problem. Debasing it as a public spectacle will only halt the type of dialog that Obama has courageously opened up. Simplifying the idea of race was exactly the problem in the first place.

We have an incredible opportunity to address an issue that has been fundamentally ignored since the 1960's. I know there are other problems in this country right now. Perhaps some of them are more pressing needs than discussing it.

But there may never be a more perfect time than the present to progress race. Barack Obama went out on a limb. Will we follow as well?

Poll test

Opinion Polls & Market Research

What can Oprah tell us about the election?

It wasn’t Sen. Ed Kennedy. Nor was it California’s first lady, Maria Shriver. Nope, it wasn’t former Fed Chairman Paul Volker either. And while he may be America’s most eligible bachelor, it wasn’t George Clooney.

So who, then, in the long list of Sen. Barack Obama’s endorsers will prove to be the most important- and most telling- of all?

The answer, in just one word: Oprah.

Don’t get me wrong, every endorser brings voters, and is, therefore important.
In fact, currently, all the candidates seem to be waiting anxiously in the wind, vying for Gov. Bill Richardson’s endorsement, which the Obama camp preemptively, and wrongfully claimed access to this past weekend.

But there is one problem with calling Richardson the Big Kahuna endorser in this election: He is neither a woman, nor black, and therefore can’t speak the loudest for
either group.

Oprah is both, and not only that, but a virtual “champion” of both persuasions. She had to make a choice that necessarily left part of her identity unrepresented. I can’t imagine a louder voice.



As the head of a media empire dominated entirely by female consumers, Oprah went with Obama. So what does tell us about the candidates and how race and gender will play into the election?

Will other black women, or women in general be inclined to abandon their gender roots to vote for Obama?

Studying the list of endorsers for a candidate is a really helpful way to see what direction our nation is heading in, while not entirely indicative of America’s stance on our presidential candidates. So I have provided a list of both candidates’ endorsements, thus far, at the end of this column.

As actress Tina Fey said on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago,“…Women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.”

When this election process began, I was initially concerned about the effect racial and gender pride would have on the democratic process. Will the old adage “blood is thicker than water” prove true in America’s political context, where blood signifies race and gender and water signifies political views?

Will, for instance black republican voters abandon their political loyalty at the polls to further their racial cause and progression of African Americans in America? We obviously don’t know just yet.

But it seems Oprah’s decision is somewhat telling, because she has never before endorsed a candidate. The question here is not necessarily who she endorsed, but why. Why did she choose this election to sway her masses toward a politician, and not before? Why didn’t she just abstain as she has every other year?

Her decision to stand up for the African American candidate and never a candidate before him may indicate how other blacks will vote if it comes down to issues versus race. Oprah said herself, “I have not one negative thing to say about Hillary Clinton.”

Either of these candidates would further her cause for civil rights justice in America.

Perhaps in choosing, and endorsing a candidate for the first time, she is sending a message to the 47 percent of Blacks who did not vote in the last election, that because she is stepping up for the first time, they should too.

If she had been an avid political endorser in every other election, it would be different. It would be more conceivable that he choice was based on politics. But she chose this election, which has been so centered on race and gender, each of which she represents, it seems questionable that her motives are truly issue-based.



It will be very interesting to see how the additional diversity plays into vote counts in November. Whether racial and gender blood is thicker than political water, we soon shall see.

Certainly in the case of Oprah Winfrey, it seems to be.

Spitzer sputters, Limbaugh stutters and...a tub of butter?

So Gov. Spitzer couldn’t keep his hands out of the honey pot could he?

Why is it that the most overzealous politicos always seem to have a closeted habit for the very thing they so publicly scorn? Richard Nixon hated the hell out of the “authoritarian” regime in red China, but was so green on the inside he jimmied his way into DNC headquarters. And he was in the lead by double digits at the time! I don’t know if that makes him more insecure or a hypocrite. Maybe he’s just an insecure hippo.

And do you remember Rush Limbaugh? Whenever that bumpkin-bigot wasn’t railing against minorities or gays or Harry Potter, it seemed like he was focusing his self-important wrath on people who take drugs. Here’s a gem:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. Drug use destroys societies. And the laws [against drug use] are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” (The Rush Limbaugh Show, Oct. 5, 1995)

Of course, it turns out ol’ Limbo was addicted to Oxycontin. Some reports had his habit at upwards of 30 pills a day. 30 pills? Was he in perpetual labor? That’s enough hillbilly heroin to make Liza Minelli scoff. Cool it, honey baby. Save some for the cabaret!

Then it’s no surprise that Spitzer—for years a staunch enemy of prostitution—had been busy spending over $40,000 of tax payer’s money getting busy with high-end (no pun intended) professionals. You see that stuff smeared all over the former governor’s face? That’s called egg. (No comment on what might be on Kristen’s face.)

The high-rising Spitzer (I got to stop with all the innuendo) had been touted as one of the top Democrats in the country before Client 9 decided to rent out room 871, choking his career limp (now I’m just forcing it).

So that means his resignation Wednesday probably affected the 2016 presidential election more than the upcoming one. But tremors from hooker-Gate might be felt this year. If prospective balloteers needed a reason to be turned off by politics, this could definitely keep some skittish voters away from the polls.

The youth vote should be unaffected by all this. Most of the buzz around campus has been about how much more attractive (if not more trashy by association) 3-Diamond Kristen is compared to Monica Lewinsky. Others have debated what they would feel entitled to for $1,500 an hour (My favorite scenario involved Sock-em Boppers, the back of a Volkswagen and Abraham Lincoln.)

Nobody under the age of 30 has felt disillusioned by the political process. We’re pretty much used to this stuff by now.

But with Bulldog Clinton quickly catching up with O-bama-slama, who knows how much this will affect the delicate balance of the democratic race.

Speaking of delicate balance, did you hear the one with Gov. Spitzer, a prostitute, a tub of butter, a showerhead, and a tea cozy? Neither have I.

She said WHAT?

With wins in Wyoming this weekend and Mississippi last night, Obama made up all the delegates Hillary gained on him in Ohio and Rhode Island on March 4th. He is also set to add more delegates when the Texas caucus results are finalized.

According to Bloomburg News: “With the win in Mississippi, Obama has now won 29 contests compared with 15 for Clinton. In overall votes Obama has about 13.3 million to 12.6 million for Clinton, based on unofficial returns.”

AP exit polls suggest Obama won 90 percent of the black vote in Mississippi.

Meantime Geraldine Ferraro, former vice-presidential candidate and “unpaid Clinton fundraiser,” as I guess we’re referring to her now, is defending the statement she made to a newspaper in California Tuesday that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, went after her hard, calling her remarks racist divisionary politics. Obama told the Today Show that it was another example of “slice and dice politics … which are about race and about gender and about this and that, and that’s what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we can’t solve problems.”

Ferraro is standing by the comment but Hillary has begged off. Referencing the “She’s a monster” comments made by Obama adviser Samantha Power earlier in the week, Clinton said: “On both sides, some of our supporters have crossed the line and gotten personal. We have to keep this contest about the issues.”

Ferraro’s comments aren’t racist. They’re just stupid. They are meant to belittle Obama’s accomplishments. The idea that Obama is enjoying special privileges as a black man in this race is to miss the point entirely. The attention he has received because of his race is merely an acknowledgment of the daunting odds against a black man becoming president. For him even somehow to have surmounted the million obstacles, large and small, and make his way as a black man into the arena is one thing. To shine there as he has done is another, gaining support across demographics and leading the race for the nomination. Ferraro is no racist. She’s just another damn fool Democratic leader caught up in the destructive silliness that has taken over this primary race.

Was Clinton’s latest strategy- self pity combined with brute force- a good call?

I wish presidential debates were looked at more like boxing matches.



Have you ever seen a pre-fight meeting before a highly anticipated boxing match between two high profile boxers? They’re all about strategy.

The fighters stand chest to chest, sweat dripping from their furrowed brows, every muscle flexed beneath open silk robes as they stand on a stage and glare into each other’s eyes. Despite their records in the ring, you can often get a good sense about who’s going to win the impending bout by watching this interaction.

The real strategy comes in the delivery. A good boxer wants to be scary and intimidating, but not overzealous to the point of seeming insecure. Some of them stand on their chairs and yell, curse and threaten.

Others of them, however, don’t say a word. Those tend to be the scariest of all.
Barring the difference in attire, maybe boxing matches and presidential debates really are not all that different.

Tuesday’s presidential debate looked a lot like one of these pre-fight meetings and boxing match.

In what might be the final debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton(D-NY) and Barack Obama(D-IL), Clinton had two boxing strategies.

Her first was to be loud and proud. As she discussed health care and trade policies, she verbally struck down her opponent and rarely let him have the last word. Her other strategy was self pity, saying she has felt victimized in the whole process and that she hasn’t been dealt with fairly by the media.



The question widely asked afterwards was, “was her act believable?” Was this the right strategy coming into what might be her final primaries after Obama’s previous 11-win
streak?

Or should she have been the quiet, contemplative, scary opponent?

As Howard Fineman of Newsweek said after the debate, "Clinton wanted to be Joe Frazier, the relentless one, glaring across the ring for 90 minutes at the infuriating man with quick moves and tassels on his high-laced shoes. She complained about the referees, charged ahead as she had to do. She devastated him with a few power punches-but not enough of them-and didn't level him."



But perhaps it was a last-ditch effort for the struggling candidate, formerly believed to be a shoe-in to the oval office.

Peter Cannellos of the Boston Globe said, “…as the candidate who is trailing, she needed to take some risks and shake things up. In the end, she may have chafed some viewers but succeeded in taking the fight to Obama. Nonetheless, he seemed to emerge unscathed after skating through some verbal thin ice of his own."

Either way, she didn’t knock him down.

In my opinion, her strategy officially, finally, once and for all, killed her campaign.

Here’s why: The impending presidency will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the most challenging of all time, with global terrorism threats on the rise and a failing economy with the weakest dollar in history. She is standing up against a candidate who fought from the bottom, beat the odds and stands strong, while arguing about technicalities and what is fair. Clinton’s boisterous act was transparent; her eyes told a different story.

Appearing on Saturday Night Live was stepping out of the boxing ring to get a cheap shot. Maybe that happens in the entertainment wrestling circuit by brute men in masks, but not in the professional boxing arena. She only hurt her cause.
What Clinton’s latest strategy seemingly ignores and what she fails to realize, is that her bid for the nomination is a great indication of how she will act in the White House. We want a candidate like Obama; The strong, silent winner.
We don’t want a president who will stand on the global stage and argue about what’s fair. What traits was her strategy trying to display?

So is it the size of the dog in the fight or the size of the fight in the dog?
For as much as I despise cliché’s for their prosaic nature and idealistic mentality, it seems the qualities we look for in a president can really be summed up in this way.

The nomination process has evolved to its current status for a reason. It is a test of strength and will for the candidates. We don’t want to pity our president, we want to be led. We don’t need a president who will yell and scream that they’re the best and complain that no one else sees it.

We want a president who is a winner and knows it.

Obama, dazed and confused

If, as Slate V recently pointed out, Hillary Clinton is like Tracy Flick from Alexander Payne's irreverent film "Election" (1999), then perhaps Barack Obama is like quarterback Randall Floyd from Richard Linklater's high school classic "Dazed and Confused" (1993).

True, the comparison isn't nearly as on point as Clinton is to Flick:



But Obama and Floyd do have some similarities. Whether it was a presidential election or high school, both coasted through these periods on the strength of their charisma, jocularity and good looks. Both are masters of oratory. (Obama: "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."— Floyd: "It’s best to get it all at once. After the first 10 licks your ass gets so numb you don't feel it.")

For a time, life was good for these two. Obama swept 11 primaries in a row and was riding a wave of voter enthusiasm all the way to the Democratic nomination. Floyd was the captain of the football team on the eve of summer, paddle in hand, his future and a veritable field of to-be-freshman butts in front of him.

But then they reached a crossroads.

Each had to make a decision that could affect that once-promising future. Would Floyd sign the totally uncool anti-drug agreement his fascist coach was forcing on his players, thus making his summer irrelevant and like totally uncool? Will Obama sharpen his attacks against Clinton now that she has vaulted back into the race by winning both the Texas and Ohio primaries, thus jeopardizing the veneer of amiability that has, up until Tuesday, endeared him to his voter base? Will he channel his inner-Chicagoan and take the bat out of the trunk, aiming for the Clinton campaign's knees?

Well, we know Floyd chucked that anti-drug thing right in coach's smarmy face and bought Aerosmith tickets. ("Number one priority of the summer," he said. So cool.)

But only Obama and his advisors know what the future holds for their campaign. He did come out swinging—though jabbing is more like it—this morning. The New York Times was aboard his campaign plane to report on some of his opinions of his opponent.

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me,” he said. “I think it’s important to examine that argument.”

He also questioned her experience in foreign diplomacy: “What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear. Was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer’s no.”

With the Pennsylvania primary looming, it will be interesting to see how sharp his jabs become. Seeing as how Clinton dominated Ohio—and how similar the two states' demographics line up, especially economically—Obama could have a tough time winning there without answering Hillary's attack on his record of experience.

A suggestion to the Obama campaign: get to know Pittsburgh's sports teams. Steelers' quarterback Ben Roethlisberger just signed a contract extension worth over $100 million; Penguins' captain/phenom Sidney Crosby just returned to the lineup after an injury necessitated hiatus. (But don't say it like that, say it more blue collar, like "Good to see Sid the Kid back after some wonk f@#*ed up his leg.")

Just don't bring up the Pirates. That's still kind of a sore subject in the steel city.

It's about time to go, friend-o's so I'll sign off as I usually do with a thought. What if Obama didn't attack Clinton at all, and she in turn had a change of heart. Like the Grinch's, it would swell to three times its size and she would stop being such a Negative Nancy. Could you imagine that, Obama and Clinton just getting along?

Maybe it would look something like this.

Who loves black people the most?

Is Hill-lolzz playing the race card? The Washington Post’s Marjorie Valbrun made a pretty good case last month that it's starting to look that way. There’s the innuendo and backdoor references to Obama drug use. Then the careless reference to MLK that drew on the idea that if you want to get something done, you gotta ask a white person, a version of Franklin’s co-sign. Her pandering references to her marriage to Bill as “interracial.” Bill Clinton’s New Hampshire red-in-the-face diatribe about the media love affair with Obama, recalling his leveraging anti-Sista Souljah sentiment in the wake of L.A. race riots to distance himself from Jesse Jackson and “establish his white bona fides” during the 1992 presidential campaign…

Yes or no, whether the Hill is or isn’t, Valbrun’s short piece underlines how calculating and unappealing and destructive Clinton politics can be and have been and will continue to be, that history being a core part of Hillary’s vaunted “experience” and what Obama is partly campaigning against.

Valbrun’s conclusion:

“My generation of black voters is politically savvy and well educated. We couldn’t care less about outdated notions of party loyalty. We are not our grandmothers, and no amount of candidate appearances at black churches is going to shape how we vote. We will certainly not sit back and allow Democratic candidates, or Republicans for that matter, to engage in Willie Horton-style tactics, even if the tactics are Willie Horton lite.

If Hillary Clinton competes against Obama fairly and without resorting to covert race baiting, large numbers of black voters will surely embrace her should she be the party’s nominee. If she relies instead on racial fears and stereotypes, we should not give her our votes.”

There will be Barack

The Oscars were on Sunday. I didn't watch because I was on my way back from a weekend in Vegas. Naturally, there were plenty of stories that came out of the trip. I saw Mike Tyson outside of Pur in Caesar's Palace with five bodyguards he could have tore up with his thumb. He's got sides of beef for shoulders and he still speaks with the voice of a brownie scout, but he's put on a few pounds. I told him I could get him in touch with Mike Huckabee, maybe slim him out a little. He didn't get it, just looked at me like he wanted to bite my ear off.

Anyway, I'll leave most of my stories—along with my money—in Vegas. But I will share another piece of relevant info with you. If Barack Obama truly is the young person's candidate, then Vegas—filled to its seedy, immaculate brim with 20-somethings—should be Obama central, baby!

Spurned by journalistic curiosity and a general alcoholic disregard, I asked as many people as I could who they would vote for if the presidential election was tomorrow. Of the 10 people interviewed under the age of 30, five said Obama, 2 said Hillary Clinton, 2 said Ralph Nader and 1 person said, "Roger Clemens but not Barry Bonds."

I asked 20 people over the age of 30 the same question. This was more interesting. 10 of them said Clinton, 3 said Obama, 6 said McCain, and the last told me about a very sinister place where I could stick my question. It should be noted that a majority of the McCain voters play slots and a majority of the Obama voters play craps. Nader's supporters play poker.

You might have missed it but Ralph Nader did in fact enter the presidential race this week, following through on his promise that if Ms. Clinton was running so would he. Today, he endorsed former San Francisco Board of Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to be his running mate. Here is Nader's assessment of Obama in an interview with Amy Goodman.



I can't remember the last time I heard the term "male distribution of power." Probably some time during Janet Reno's tenure.

Anyhoo, Nader is obviously unimpressed by Obama's rhetoric of change. The question from this point until the convention is whether or not the American public is. And of course the answer is a resounding "Duuuuh."

But my question is why. Why does this strike such a cord now when it freaked people out so much in 2000 they voted for a cheerleader. (Then again, Gore's rhetoric was more along the lines of "change or the Earth will melt!)

I began this post talking about the Oscars. It occurred to me while I was looking for a bookie that would accept a four-way parlay futures bet on Sunday's Awards that the Best Picture nominees at least metaphorically linked to the leading presidential nominees.

I couldn't find anyone that would take my bet (BP: No Country for Old Men; BD: the Coen brothers; Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis; Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem), which is too bad because I would have won.

But the thought remained. The BP nominees (outside of Juno) were all incredibly dark, depressing, cerebral pictures. From an artistic standpoint they were all outstanding. But they were hardly feel-good movies; they were more like "feel-Emo" movies. They received great critical acclaim (hence the nominations) but did terribly at the box office. Nobody wanted to see them.

On the other hand, some of the biggest box office successes (Juno, Enchanted) were some of the more cheerful, sunny, HOPEFUL films you'll ever care to see. They simply made people feel good.

Now extend that analogy to the presidential candidates. (Ah, you see where I'm getting at?) Nominees like the tired, dour old Westerns (No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood; John McCain) have the experience, but are a little sparse on the hope.

People would rather see something smiling, fresh and clever (Juno; Obama). That's what gets people excited to go the theaters, enthusiastic to go to the polling booths.

So which movie would you rather see?



Or...



And in case you were wondering: Obama is a 7:4 favorite to be president in 2008.


(May you rest in peace Hunter S. Thompson)

Convention may change the tide of history

It’s been a while. 56 years to be exact.

And while a gaggle of political pundits have called it impossible, we might actually see the first brokered Democratic National Convention since 1952 in Chicago.



A “brokered convention” is the term used to describe the horse-trading for delegates that occurs when candidates come into a convention without a presumptive winner. It makes for the most interesting types of conventions.

In times of a brokered convention, the attention turns to the all-powerful super delegates who can be bought and sold- figuratively of course- to sway a nomination. They are charged with the task of taking one candidate to the next level.
Less than 100 delegates currently separate Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) on their quest to secure the 2,025 necessary for the Democratic nomination. Needless to say, it’s a neck and neck, photo finish. More than ever before, a brokered convention seems conceivable, at the very least, and the democratic super delegates will be necessary to determine the winner.

On the GOP ticket, a brokered convention is less likely, but is possible. The Republican Party hasn’t seen one since 1948. Mike Huckabee, however, is still incorporating a brokered convention into his strategy. He said in a Texas radio interview that his goal is to force a brokered convention, and then show himself as the real Conservative to convention delegates.

But because the real focus is the Democratic race, since neither candidate has emerged as a presumptive nominee, we are forced to ask whether the 56-year brokered convention drought could end this year?

The answer, I think, is it’s still far too early to tell.
While the candidates are so close in delegate counts, about 4 months of primaries and caucuses still loom in the distance and the Convention is not even until the end of August.

Even though Obama had, of late, been on a storied 10-win streak in the primaries, Clinton vows to regain full speed and catch up. In this highly contentious election, honestly, anything, including a brokered convention, could happen. The race could stay close all the way to convention weekend and result in a massive horse-trading session,
or one candidate might just run away with it this month.

But looking ahead, if the DNC is smart, they’ll find a way to avoid a brokered convention. Such conventions are typically viewed as a detriment for the party in which they occur, both because of the apparent existence of instability within the party and because the emerging presidential candidate has less time to campaign by his or herself. In the 1952 brokered convention, Adlai Stevenson was given the democratic nod, but would go on to lose to President Dwight D. Eisenhower months later.

If it’s any indication of how things will play out, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean says a brokered convention would be a disaster.

At different points in history, conventions have meant different things in the scope of a presidential nomination and eventual general election. Brokered conventions are perhaps the most pivotal kind of convention.
So super delegates are more important than ever.

Every election cycle introduces at least one buzzword that becomes part of our American vocabulary. This time around, and due to the importance they will undoubtedly play, that word is super delegates. From jokes at the academy awards to routine articles in the local newspaper, super delegates are popping up in almost every instance of presidential candidacy discourse.

The backroom, conventional wisdom regarding the inception of super delegates stems back as far as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Both in that convention and in conventions to follow, the unspecified, unwritten role of the super delegates has been to make sure Americans choose the “right” candidate in the primaries and caucuses. Or, at least, they have served as a last ditch effort to make sure we don’t choose the “wrong” one.

When Rev. Jesse Jackson got just a little too close to a presidential nomination in the 1980s, the super delegates were there to knock him down.
In the case of a brokered convention this year, the super delegates would be the impetus to send a black candidate with an Islamic middle name into the general election campaign.
We’ve certainly come a long way since 1968, and should be darn proud of it.

But in the interest of American politics, a brokered convention might serve to weaken the process in a time when our political parties need to be completely sure of themselves, their candidates and their platforms. Hopefully between now and August, both parties find a way to bring rise to a presumptive candidate, because after all, the real focus is on the general election.

But whether or these conventions change history, they’re undoubtedly bound to be interesting.

Obama, the youth vote, and the war in Iraq

So yeah yeah, we all know Barack Obama is the king of the youth vote. The reasons behind it are obvious - a young new face, a promise for change, a passion that can be heard behind each and every word of his speeches. We get it. But let's break it down into specifics now, shall we?

Each presidential issue can be discussed at length - health care, immigration, the economy, etc. But for this blog post, let's focus on the war in Iraq. Why that topic specifically? It's simple. The youth care about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The youth care about the men and women fighting abroad. The youth care about the lives of potential soldiers, who may risk their lives in the line of duty.

What youth care about

I'm not saying adults don't care about our armed forces. Of course any patriotic American will support our troops, regardless of their stance on the war itself. But let's make this comparison for a second. The war in Iraq has spawned the first overarching anti-war movement from the young demographic since Vietnam. That means this group would clearly support a leader who is also against the war in Iraq, right? Right.

And just so you know, I'm not saying every single young person agrees or supports this anti-war sentiment. But the vast majority have risen up against the George W. Bush administration and its handling of the war. Don't believe me? According to a Rockthevote poll, out of 668 people people within the ages of 18 and 29, 68% thought the U.S. is on the wrong track. Only a quarter believed it to be on the right track.

According to the same poll, 12% believed the war in Iraq to be the most important issue facing any potential president. It was the second most important issue, closely following jobs and the economy at 17%.


Where Barack Obama fits in

So we said that it would only make sense if this particular anti-war, youth demographic supported a leader who was also against the war. That removes John McCain from the list immediately. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. After all, according to cnn.com, McCain:

"Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq."

That's not the kind of guy that the 69% of youth who want to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq will want as their president.

With McCain pretty much a shoe-in for the Republican candidate, that leaves the Democrats - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If you listen to any debate these two have, you will hear both candidates' opposition to the war in Iraq. But keep one thing in mind. It wasn't always that way.

According to cnn.com, Clinton initially voted for military force in Iraq although she says now that she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now."

Barack Obama has been the one face in the crowd that has always opposed military force in Iraq from the beginning. Not only did he vote against it at the start, he also once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

Here's a video of Obama speaking in 2002 against the war.



Obama vs. McCain

Yesterday Obama and McCain exchanged some words with each other about the situation in Iraq. McCain referenced one of Obama's debate answers and questioned his knowledge of an al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

According to CNN's report, McCain said: "I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq. It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

Obama answered back to the comments by saying there was a misinterpretation and that he was answering the question hypothetically. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ,'Well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on." Obama continued to say: "Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

The speech where Obama makes those statements is below.

In this past week McCain has confessed that his stance on the war may affect his chances for the presidency. I am not sure the answer to that question, but I can tell you this. When it comes to the youth, anyone FOR the war in Iraq is NOT the candidate for them. Case is point - Barack Obama.