Four Life Stories for '08

With the emergence of Sarah Palin, this is officially the year of personal narrative in national politics--no more Bush or Clinton dynasties, but a quartet of compelling biographies to let voters choose from a menu of American success stories.

Last week it was all about Obama's mixed racial heritage with heartland grandparents and an idealistic single mom, paired with Joe Biden's journey, on Amtrak, from hardscrabble Scranton childhood through personal tragedy to decades of public service.

Next week John McCain's transition from POW patriot to straight-talking politician will be paired with the rapid rise of Sarah Palin from hockey mom to crusader against corruption who detoured from the Bridge to Nowhere to Somewhere Indeed.

In our llogorrheic panel's eye view of the conventions through cable TV squeezed down into an hour of network coverage of highlight orations, there is little tolerance for all those boring speeches about policy and issues.

Those who care about such stuff are reduced to watching C-Span, wading through web sites or putting up with the rants of their favorite bloggers.

If you want to send a message, the old movie moguls used to say, try Western Union. Their wisdom still prevails in the Capraesque melodramas of the candidates that dominate the campaigns today. `

As to their plans to save the economy or reorient foreign policy, many, perhaps most voters will take a pass and decide on whom to trust based on their life stories and likability. It worked out well enough with George W. Bush, didn't it?

Can Hillary Be a Healer?

As they hold their private summit in Washington tonight, the question that hangs in the air, whether she is on Obama's ticket or not, is: Can Hillary Clinton rise above a lifetime of experience to help heal the Democratic Party?

As someone who has had to fight all her public life, from the 1992 health care fiasco through her husband's impeachment and a year and a half of brass-knuckles campaigning, who has had to show voters she is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief, who has had to carry the accumulated anger and resentments of her gender, and now their bitter disappointment, is it humanly possible for one woman, however resilient, to turn away from all that and use her strength to bring peace to a fractured party?

This moment is as much a test for Hillary Clinton as her 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Back then, none of the potential Democratic candidates could summon the courage to oppose it for fear of appearing weak. They all failed, but how much more pressure did she feel then as a woman in that position and five years later not to admit it was mistake?

As it turned out, the need to appear tough hurt her candidacy, and in the past few weeks, her posture as "a fighter" in the face of impending defeat and in the past few days her refusal to acknowledge the reality of it have damaged her even further.

But now, in these next days, Hillary Clinton has a chance to turn away from all that. As her backers try to blackmail Obama into putting her on the ticket, her statement today that the choice is his alone is a good start.

It would be heartening to see her rise above the politicking of this moment and show the wisdom and leadership her party needs to start repairing the damage that eight years of nasty Bush-Rove politics has done to the country.

Mission Accomplished, Again?

Only the most churlish opponents of the war would want to minimize the low Iraq casualty figures for May or even argue over the Washington Post editorial contention today that "the US-backed government and army may be winning the war."

Any hope of bringing our troops home sooner than later is welcome but, under the circumstances, it would be just as unseemly to claim that this turn of events means John McCain has been right about the war and should be elected to the White House.

If anything, the beginning of the end in Iraq--if that's what it really is--should only deepen our sadness at the loss of more than 4000 American lives, millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, and the US' moral standing in the world.

"If the positive trends continue," the Post editorial observes, "proponents of withdrawing most US troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise."

Call it what they will, but let's start ending the nightmare. If it would get our men and women home safely any sooner, start making plans for President Obama to be inaugurated on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner than reads "Mission Accomplished."

In this case, words don't matter. Lives do.

The House Is Not a Home for GOP

Congress keeps turning Bluer with the Mississippi victory yesterday of Democrat Travis Childers despite Dick Cheney's stumping for his opponent and the imminent departure of a five-term New York member after starring in a 21st century remake of an Alec Guinness movie, "The Captain's Paradise," about the master of a ship who shuttles between wives in two separate locales.

After a complicated Mother's Day weekend, Rep. Vito Fossella was back in Washington yesterday, but his future was clouded by a DIU arrest after running a red light in Alexandria, Va., which disclosed that he had a second family there.

But it is the Bush presidency rather than scandal that is decimating the party. According to The Hill, "The third straight House special election loss in three conservative districts this year is a clear indication that the GOP brand is turning off voters and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is in disarray."

In an effort to market themselves better, House Republicans have come up with a new catch phrase, "Change You Deserve," but some spoilsports are pointing out the slogan was borrowed from an ad campaign for an antidepressant.

The way things are going, that may turn out to be prophetic.

Slicing and Dicing the Electorate

Whatever happened to the Melting Pot? Now we learn that "Barack Obama is faring better than might be expected among Jewish voters, beating John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily general-election matchups and trailing Hillary Clinton only slightly in Jewish Democrats' preferences for the Democratic nomination."

This crucial piece of information tells us what? That Jews don't blame Obama for the anti-Semitic outbursts decades ago by Louis Farrakhan, who is admired by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is this something we need to know? A wise old editor I worked with used to say about such useless information, "Uninteresting, if true."

As pollsters and political "experts" turn this election year into a demographic nightmare, pinning labels on voters by race, gender, religious affiliation, age, income, education, everything but height and weight, the dominant theme of the campaign coverage has become parsing everything that divides Americans and deciding which politician profits from which.

Obama keeps talking about reaching across those divisions, but the media story line keeps magnifying them. All of this perpetuates the beliefs of Karl Rove et his ilk that the way to win elections is to divide and conquer.

Voters, who have seen how well that worked out for them in the past eight years, may be ready to defy the labels and surprise the experts. Now that would be interesting, if true.

The Speech

Barack Obama had only words today, but it would take a heart of stone and a closed mind to deny their power at this moment in American history. You can read them now or watch to make up your own mind about the kind of President he would be, but to ignore his vision would be to leave America's future to the inane sound bites that have brought us to where we are today at home and around the world.

There can and should be debate over what he said and didn't say, and it should start now on the level to which he has raised this campaign. Anything less would be a shame.

Narrowing News and Drive-By Journalism

Two stories hogged the attention of Americans in 2007 with "reverse trajectories," at first the war in Iraq, which declined in interest as the '08 Presidential elections took over the spotlight.

That's a main conclusion of the State of the News Media 2008 report, just released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which also cites "markedly short attention span" stories such as the Virginia Tech massacre, the Minneapolis bridge collapse and the California wildfires, one-week wonders that drew intense coverage and suddenly faded from sight.

Subjects least covered last year included urban sprawl, the legal and court system, religion, transportation, education, and race, gender and sexual identity issues, none of which attracted more than 1% of coverage over all.

"This kind of news," the report says, "requires more continuous attention to be able to understand and explain incremental changes along the way or to know when the small changes have added up to something more comprehensive-- specialists, beats, sentinels assigned to watch. Many news organizations have cut back on staff devoted to specific beats like these.

"Also, news that breaks, such as car crashes or explosions, generates more immediate news appeal, often involving strong visuals or attention-grabbing headlines."

Economic pressures dominate the worries of journalists, rather than the issues of media credibility and the quality of news coverage.

More people get their news online than ever before, as media sites steer readers away from their own content and link to outside sources.

According to the report, "Web sites run by citizen journalists are multiplying--rapidly approaching 1,500 heading into 2008--offering stories, blogs and videos. And that trend is considered a healthy one by professional journalists, who call on citizens more frequently to inform their reporting."

Hybrid journalism is evolving rapidly, but questions about whether Americans who know more make up a public that understands more still have far from clear answers.

Cuba's Next President and Ours

The man who plagued the White House from JFK on won't be around for the next occupant, although the turmoil of his succession may be more of a problem than he himself has been in recent years for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain in their campaigning in Florida and elsewhere.

From several generations of Cuban-Americans, Castro's announcement that he is stepping down will elicit joy and hope, shadowed by bitter sorrow over decades of exile from their native land. Feelings will run high again.

For once, perhaps because he is continents away from home, George W. Bush sounded presidential today in noting "the question really should be what does this mean for the people in Cuba. They are the ones who suffered under Fidel Castro."

Bush expressed hope this would be "the beginning of a democratic transition for the people of Cuba...An interesting debate will arise. Some will say let's promote stability. In the meantime political prisoners will rot...This should be a transition to free and fair elections. And I mean free and fair. Not these elections that the Castro brothers rig."

Nepotism and iffy elections are not a strong suit for the man who took power in 2000, but we can be grateful that he won't be in office long enough to help the Cuban people find democracy as he has been doing in Iraq. His successor will have to find subtler ways.

In the Political Trenches

Tall, handsome Jim Himes looks a little like James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and, at a meeting with supporters in a Westport living room, sounds like him as he talks earnestly about repairing the damage done to the world and America's place in it during the Bush years.

Behind the hoopla over Presidential primaries and caucuses, the struggle for America's political soul goes on in meeting halls and homes across the country to decide what kind of Congress will set priorities for families and communities next year with a new president in the White House.

Himes, a political newcomer, is trying to unseat Chris Shays who has been entrenched in the House seat of the 4th District in southwestern Connecticut since 1987, the only Republican in New England to survive, barely, the purge of Bush supporters in 2006.

It won't help his cause that, after weaseling about getting troops out of Iraq, Shays planted a kiss on George W. Bush's cheek as the President walked in to deliver his final State of the Union speech last month.

In his campaign, the 40-year-old Himes is being supported by the so-called 30-something Democrats in their tactful revolt against the party's ineffectual elders in the House. Two of them, one from Florida, were in the room last night to cheer him on.

After a year in the trenches, the novice challenger has outdone Shays in fund-raising and is ready to campaign against him, coupling the issue of impending recession with the trillion-plus dollars being wasted in Iraq that could have been providing jobs and repairing our infrastructure back home.

It shouldn't take a Frank Capra ending to get Himes, and others like him, to Washington this November.

Big Brother Bloomberg

After the uproar over Bush Administration surveillance of American citizens, the news from Bloomberg country today is unnerving.

During his Hamlet-like deliberations about whether or not to run for President as an Independent, New York's Mayor has been collecting and collating a lot of information about all of us.

According to the Huffington Post, "Using the microtargeting model, research firms working for Bloomberg are gathering comprehensive information on voters throughout the country, such has who owns a home, has children in college, where they vacation, type of car or computer and past political support. All the puzzle pieces will then be arranged to create a picture of each individual."

After the Bush years, Americans may not be thrilled to have their picture taken this way by Bloomberg or anyone else, especially for the purpose of manipulating their political choices.

In the light of voters' recent attraction to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee for their individuality, Mayor Mike would be well-advised not to start his run as Big Brother.

Poll-Axed

If the Presidential election were held today, it might end up in a worse muddle than Bush-Gore in 2000. Gallup tells us Hillary Clinton can beat any Republican, while Zogby reports she is trailing five of them in their polling.

With a year to go, it's safe to say Americans are undecided--safe but how useful? With a flood of statistics from all directions, nationally and in early primary states, are polls turning the process into a numbers game that obscures the issues?

If that sounds stuffy, or even Luddite, consider the checkered history of Presidential polls. In 1936, the Literary Digest famously predicted Alf Landon would beat FDR, but he lost every state except Maine and Vermont. The mistake was asking voters who had cars and telephones, not a fair cross-section of the whole population back then.

Sampling is more sophisticated now but on election night 2000, we were whipsawed by exit polls from the Voters News Service that reported Gore winning Florida and the White House and then maybe not.

What can we believe? Gallup polls by phone, Zogby "surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls," but does it make any difference?

What does matter is that politicians and public may be getting too mesmerized by the numbers and, based on their fallible evidence, making "electability" the main issue instead of substantive differences among the candidates.

Those who like horse races can get a better run for their money at the race track rather than the voting booth.

Governing by Tantrum

"I veto, therefore I am" is the new theme of the Bush Administration.

In 1948, Harry Truman got to stay in the White House by railing against a Republican "do-nothing" Congress, and George W. Bush is now using the tactic in an effort to remain "relevant" as he prepares to leave the Oval Office.

"Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by," he complained at his last press conference, a bizarre charge for a President who has vetoed Iraq appropriations bills, S-CHIP health insurance and this week is threatening to send back a water projects bill with enough bipartisan support to override his veto.

There is a kind of spoiled-rich-kid intransigence to the new Bush that is consistent with his behavior for six years when Republicans controlled both Houses and rubber-stamped whatever he wanted. Now, in the face of opposition, he is stamping his feet and threatening to hold his breath if he doesn't get his way.

"He may decide that all he wants to do is veto and stop progress," says Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus. "But everybody will know who wants to change things, and who wants to keep them just the way they are."

But if Congressional Democrats are confident that voters will make that distinction next year, they should look closely at their approval ratings, which are lower than the President's.

To dramatize his claims about a do-nothing Congress, Harry Truman had called a special session on what was known as "Turnip Planting Day" in Missouri. His opponents obliged with inaction and made his point.

If today's Democrats want to avoid looking like turnips in '08, they had better start moving now.

Gut Check Time for Democrats

The party that could win the White House and extend its majorities in both houses of Congress next year is in disarray.

In confronting a President with abysmal approval ratings, Democrats have managed to lose every major battle this year--over the war in Iraq, children's health insurance and illegal wiretapping--and dissipate the mandate that gave them legislative control last November.

Now the internal bickering is on. Today a sappy memo from a House aide blames it on semantics. "Why,” writes Dave Helfert, who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “are we defending S-CHIP instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?...Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995.”

But imitating Frank Luntz won't solve the party's problems. True enough, as a new book "The Political Brain" argues, Democrats may be too cerebral instead of going for the gut. But their real problem is not language but leadership.

On the surface, Bush's intransigence and their narrow margins in both houses have tied their hands, but no more so than the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get beyond playing it politically safe.

Their approach to S-CHIP is symptomatic. Yesterday they passed another bill that inches toward the White House position with an Oliver Twist-like, "Please, sir, we want some more."

As for slowing the war in Iraq or stopping a new one against Iran, they have not only given up trying but talking as well. On the overriding issue of our time, Democrats have been cowed by accusations of "not supporting the troops" if they block funding. It's past time for someone to step up and rally them to try.

There are signs that something is stirring. Chris Dodd is threatening a Senate filibuster of FISA bill provisions to grant telecoms retroactive immunity for helping Bush-Cheney spy on Americans, and other '08 candidates may join him. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but it could be a start.

What's the point of winning it all in '08 if Democrats don't show the will and courage to change course between now and then?

Money Talks, MSM Listen

There is jubilation among Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign manager exults in an e-mail, "This is the moment when your dedication defied the skeptics."

News that Clinton raised $22 million for the nomination race and another $5 million for the general campaign in the third quarter is being greeted like victory in a large primary state. Barack Obama raked in only $19 million in primary money and another $1 million in general election funds.

These figures confirm that, in politics, big money tends to track the polls in a self-confirming cycle and that MSM are only too happy to focus on keeping score until voting begins.

On front pages, that’s the big headline. The fact that Obama is making a speech today, proposing a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, gets lesser billing.

Only the Huffington Post gives it the top spot, but what do bloggers know about the real world?

Rudy's 9/11 Backlash

Too-muchness is beginning to catch up with America's Mayor. Initially propelled by TV images of those terrible days in 2001, the Giuliani campaign is now in danger, thanks to the candidate himself, of suffering from an excess of 9/11.

*In New Hampshire, Giuliani tells voters that only he can protect the U.S. from another attack because, if Democrats win, “we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

*In subsequent speeches, he claims, "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers.” The ensuing uproar makes him back off when it turns out he spent more time at World Series games in Yankee Stadium.

*After taking a cell-phone call from his wife during a speech to the N.R.A, he explains, “Since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other."

*Campaign supporters organize a dinner, suggesting checks for $9.11 as contributions.

*In the New York Times today, Tom Friedman quotes a satirical piece in The Onion:

“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters...Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”

Friedman asserts that “9/11 has made us stupid,” turning the U.S. from a country of hope to one of fear: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

When the Republican contest goes negative, Giuliani will be on defense. At the last debate, John McCain raised doubts about whether his performance after 9/11 "translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it."

Can a “one trick pony” trot all the way to the White House?

Fairy Tale for '08

That noted connoisseur of children’s stories, George Bush, has gone on from “The Pet Goat” to rewriting a classic for 2008.

In his version of “The Three Bears,” the voters aka Goldilocks will find Hillary Clinton too hard, Barack Obama too soft and the Republican nominee, whoever he turns out to be, just right.

In excerpts from a new book, “The Evangelical President,” the Washington Examiner quotes Bush as believing Sen. Clinton will win the Democratic nomination but not the general election.

"I think our candidate can beat her, but it's going to be a tough race," the President predicts. "I will work to see to it that a Republican wins and therefore don't accept the premise that a Democrat will win. I truly think the Republicans will hold the White House."

Bring on Tinker Bell, and just keep believing.

Media Mash-Up

While George Bush tells Old America his new plans for the plantation tonight, the Democrats will be engaging New America in cyberspace on the first candidate mash-up, a power-to-the-people event hatched in a Swiss Alps resort.

The President will be endorsing the proposals of Petraeus and Crocker, his overseers of the Iraq outpost, as Bill Maher badgers Barack Obama about the Ten Commandments.

Symbolically, unconnected citizens will be passively watching their TV sets as the electronic elite point and click to, in Arianna Huffington’s words, “take control of designing the debate you want to see--picking and choosing what issues you want to hear about and which candidates you want to hear from.”

Some citizens may find all this enlightenment too much to bear and go to bed early. Wake us when the media discovers an alternative to autocracy or anarchy.

Schwarzenegger on Boffo Ballot Box Office

Gov. Arnold, who knows about these things, is advising his party on how to get the grosses up next year. He told a Republican convention this weekend that they are "dying at the box office" and “not filling the seats” because they have "lost the middle.”

“I have been a Republican since Nixon,” Schwarzenegger said. “I have been a Republican in spite of years of debates with Maria, the entire Shriver clan and all the Kennedys up at Hyannis Port. Believe me, it would have been far easier to abandon my Republican identity years ago.”

The majority of Republicans want health care reform and action to reduce global warming, he pointed out, suggesting their leaders follow them.

“I am of the Reagan view that we should not go off the cliff with flags flying,” Schwarzenegger said, quoting his fellow actor-governor who became President: "We cannot become a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments...This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat."

The Governor went even further back for a new role model for the party, “President Eisenhower, the moderate military man who understood the need for logistics and infrastructure and created the Interstate Highway System--the largest public works project in American history. The majority of Republicans understand the need for investment.”

Schwarzenegger named no names, but another fellow actor, Fred Thompson, does not sound like good casting for the role he described. He has spoken warmly of Rudy Giuliani and, if all else fails, there is another New York Mayor he likes, Mike Bloomberg, who may run as an Independent.

Oozing Out of Iraq

So this is how the war starts to end, not with a bang but a whimper, as the Hollow Men in Washington quibble, equivocate and compromise over how we edge out of a country we broke and own until we can find the right bipartisan words to cover our retreat.

“Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq,” says today’s New York Times while the Christian Science Monitor finds “On Iraq war, bipartisan tack afoot” and Madeleine Albright OpEds in the Washington Post about “How to Change Iraq.”

The real contest is over crafting ways to, in Secretary Albright’s phrase, “enable President Bush to continue denying that his invasion has evolved into disaster” while we “prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for al-Qaeda, a client state of Iran or a spark that inflames regionwide war.”

And, she might have added, get enough Congressional defectors to start backing away from the war without being vulnerable to rabid voters on both sides of the issue next fall.

This week and next, the air will be filled with unbearable blather as Democrats and Republicans jockey for ways to accomplish that statesmanlike mission. There will be enough “reports” on progress in Iraq or lack of it to back any proposal that can get 60 votes in the Senate.

The process will not be uplifting, whimpers seldom are. But it’s past time for Congress to start to stop the killing any way they can.

Obama's Better Half

In Iowa this week, Michelle Obama gave voters a new reason to consider her husband for President.

“First ladies were once more or less average, and were expected to be,” Peggy Noonan wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “Now they are accomplished, worldly, and expected to be. Candidates for the first lady's job have to find a balance. It's delicate. Strong is good, aggressive not. A person who cares, yes; a person who pushes an agenda, no.”

Introducing her husband, Ms. Obama was so far from average that her presence raised the question of how special a man would have to be that so attractive, articulate and passionate a woman would choose to spend her life with him.

The day he is elected, she said, her husband will change the way the world looks at America. Michelle Obama would be an important part of that change. See for yourself.