Forty years ago, Baby Boomers were out rocking and rolling in the mud to, as one put it, "terrify our parents in a deeply satisfying way." Now, facing Medicare, they are acting out in public again, this time over death panels that might finally put those aged begetters out of their misery.
"It’s a vivid reminder," Frank Rich observes, "that what most endures from America, 1969, is not the peace-and-love flower-power bacchanal of Woodstock legend but a certain style of political rage. The angry white folk shouting down their congressmen might be--literally in some cases--those angry white students whose protests disrupted campuses before and after the Woodstock interlude of summer vacation ’69."
Politically the Baby Boomers never did get it right. For all their idealism about race, sex, gender, war and politics, they produced only two presidents, Clinton and W, both of whom managed to dodge serving in Vietnam and went on to exemplify selfishness that marred their tenures and helped wreck the economy.
Now the first president after them is struggling to overcome, in his words, "the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation--a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago.”
But the Boomers have migrated from campuses to town halls, turning health care reform from an issue that deserves serious, rational debate into another me-first sandbox squabble, with a little help from Obama's post-Boomer polar opposite, Sarah Palin, with what Maureen Dowd calls "her visceral talent for aerial-shooting her favorite human prey: cerebral Ivy League Democrats."
At least back in Woodstock there was music to compensate for all the madness.
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Women of the Week, Men of the Past
Sonia Sotomayor is on her way to the Supreme Court as Laura Ling and Euna Lee are reunited with their families after being wrested from the grasp of Kim Jong-il.
Yet the imagery of these triumphant women is blurred by double exposures from the past of men involved in their fates.
Voting against Sotomayor's confirmation today as the third woman and first person of Latino heritage on the Court will be John McCain, who incurred his party's wrath by being soft on immigration and was defeated last year after choosing a female running mate.
Calling Sotomayor's background "inspiring and compelling," McCain insists that "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it."
McCain, who reveled in Sarah Palin's campaign feistiness last year, now finds Sotomayor not demure enough for his tastes.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, a decade ago was prattling in public about what the meaning of "is" is in his dicey relationships with women. Now here he is standing silently by as a courtly white-haired figure after rescuing "damsels in distress" from a pint-sized North Korean dragon, hugging only Al Gore at the scene of their reunion with loved ones.
In the age of Obama, the former president has shown that we are not quite yet living in no country for old men, but his activities and McCain's this week suggest that we are getting there.
Yet the imagery of these triumphant women is blurred by double exposures from the past of men involved in their fates.
Voting against Sotomayor's confirmation today as the third woman and first person of Latino heritage on the Court will be John McCain, who incurred his party's wrath by being soft on immigration and was defeated last year after choosing a female running mate.
Calling Sotomayor's background "inspiring and compelling," McCain insists that "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it."
McCain, who reveled in Sarah Palin's campaign feistiness last year, now finds Sotomayor not demure enough for his tastes.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, a decade ago was prattling in public about what the meaning of "is" is in his dicey relationships with women. Now here he is standing silently by as a courtly white-haired figure after rescuing "damsels in distress" from a pint-sized North Korean dragon, hugging only Al Gore at the scene of their reunion with loved ones.
In the age of Obama, the former president has shown that we are not quite yet living in no country for old men, but his activities and McCain's this week suggest that we are getting there.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Presidential Libidos
The flogging today of John Edwards in the public square, aka the New York Times, raises the question of what relevance marital fidelity has to the qualifications of an American president.
Trust and truth-telling come to mind, of course, but it gets more complicated in looking back. JFK famously cheated on his wife, while Richard Nixon, as far as we know, was a faithful husband while betraying the country.
Jimmy Carter told Playboy he "lusted in my heart" but presumably overcame his desires to become a disastrously naive president.
Uxorious Ronald Reagan, Bush I (although there were rumors) and Bush II bracketed Bill Clinton, who couldn't keep it zipped but left office with a budget surplus and no wars.
Now the Obamas, as they have in so many areas, have upped the ante on connubial bliss, often holding hands and displaying a closeness most recently reflected in their sneaking out of the White House for a dinner date last Saturday night.
But how much do we need to know about presidential marriages?
Elizabeth Edwards has dragged her husband into the spotlight for, as Maureen Dowd writes, "a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who’s now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J."
We could have all lived happily ever after without hearing the details of their marital wreckage and, more to the point, is it at all relevant to voters who did not otherwise sense that John Edwards was not to be trusted, even if he had never succumbed to the stalker who told him "You're so hot"?
Trust and truth-telling come to mind, of course, but it gets more complicated in looking back. JFK famously cheated on his wife, while Richard Nixon, as far as we know, was a faithful husband while betraying the country.
Jimmy Carter told Playboy he "lusted in my heart" but presumably overcame his desires to become a disastrously naive president.
Uxorious Ronald Reagan, Bush I (although there were rumors) and Bush II bracketed Bill Clinton, who couldn't keep it zipped but left office with a budget surplus and no wars.
Now the Obamas, as they have in so many areas, have upped the ante on connubial bliss, often holding hands and displaying a closeness most recently reflected in their sneaking out of the White House for a dinner date last Saturday night.
But how much do we need to know about presidential marriages?
Elizabeth Edwards has dragged her husband into the spotlight for, as Maureen Dowd writes, "a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who’s now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J."
We could have all lived happily ever after without hearing the details of their marital wreckage and, more to the point, is it at all relevant to voters who did not otherwise sense that John Edwards was not to be trusted, even if he had never succumbed to the stalker who told him "You're so hot"?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Abbott and Costello of Presidents
Life after the White House is always problematic for former occupants. Jimmy Carter devoted himself to hammering up houses for poor people and monitoring elections in faraway places, Reagan retreated into Alzheimer's and Bush 41 started parachuting out of airplanes, but none ever put together a vaudeville act as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are doing.
The two will appear together at the Metro Toronto Convention Center on May 29th to, as a flier for the event promises, “discuss the challenges facing the world in the 21st century” for 90 minutes that will include audience questions.
How much they are being paid, why they are previewing their routine in Canada and what on earth possessed them to do it in the first place, the flier sayeth not.
For two men who presided during the impeachment of one for lying about sex in the Oval Office and the other for lying the country into an unnecessary war, it might be more seemly to leave 21st century challenges to Barack Obama and go off together and build houses or jump out of planes holding hands, if they crave joint activities.
But the lure of show biz is apparently irresistible. Who's on first, Bill? I don't know, George. No, he's on third...
The two will appear together at the Metro Toronto Convention Center on May 29th to, as a flier for the event promises, “discuss the challenges facing the world in the 21st century” for 90 minutes that will include audience questions.
How much they are being paid, why they are previewing their routine in Canada and what on earth possessed them to do it in the first place, the flier sayeth not.
For two men who presided during the impeachment of one for lying about sex in the Oval Office and the other for lying the country into an unnecessary war, it might be more seemly to leave 21st century challenges to Barack Obama and go off together and build houses or jump out of planes holding hands, if they crave joint activities.
But the lure of show biz is apparently irresistible. Who's on first, Bill? I don't know, George. No, he's on third...
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama and Bill Clinton Share a Laugh
There was a moment last night when Barack Obama was saying the McCain campaign was calling him a Socialist because he had once shared a peanut butter sandwich with a classmate and Bill Clinton laughed--not that slit-eyed, calculated political chuckle but a genuine guffaw of recognition from someone who had suffered the smear treatment and survived.
When the former President was being hounded by Newt Gingrich and his merry midgets, it was no laughing matter, and there is still reason to believe that Clinton failed to take out Osama bin Laden when he could have back then because it would have been seen as a "Wag the Dog" diversion from his impeachment.
But more than a decade later, the politics of personal destruction has worn thin, and what was tragic back then can be seen as comedy now in the tired attacks that McCain-Palin are mouthing about terrorists, wealth-spreaders and the like.
In his campaign, Barack Obama may not exactly be standing on Bill Clinton's shoulders, as he graciously suggested last night (“In case all of you forgot, this is what it’s like to have such a great president”), but in the finesse with which he is swatting away Rovian accusations in these final days, the candidate of tomorrow is definitely profiting from the bitter experience of yesterday's target.
It was nice to see them sharing a laugh about it last night.
When the former President was being hounded by Newt Gingrich and his merry midgets, it was no laughing matter, and there is still reason to believe that Clinton failed to take out Osama bin Laden when he could have back then because it would have been seen as a "Wag the Dog" diversion from his impeachment.
But more than a decade later, the politics of personal destruction has worn thin, and what was tragic back then can be seen as comedy now in the tired attacks that McCain-Palin are mouthing about terrorists, wealth-spreaders and the like.
In his campaign, Barack Obama may not exactly be standing on Bill Clinton's shoulders, as he graciously suggested last night (“In case all of you forgot, this is what it’s like to have such a great president”), but in the finesse with which he is swatting away Rovian accusations in these final days, the candidate of tomorrow is definitely profiting from the bitter experience of yesterday's target.
It was nice to see them sharing a laugh about it last night.
Wednesday Night Live
The presidential campaign peaked on prime-time TV with Barack Obama's 30-minute, $5 million valentine to the American middle class, followed by John McCain on Larry King, free of charge, expressing pride and confidence in Sarah Palin, while admitting their maverickosity leads to an occasional difference of opinion.
Later, Obama upstaged himself on the Daily Show by simultaneously appearing live in Florida to embrace and be embraced by Bill Clinton. In contrast, George W. Bush seemed to be in a presidential protection program as far as McCain was concerned.
A visitor from another planet could easily tell who is ahead by Obama's concentration on hopes for the future, while McCain and Palin continued to belabor fears about their opponent's past, adding a Palestinian professor to their pantheon of scary passing acquaintances.
The political pundits have now been reduced to debating the reliability of public opinion polls to produce suspense in a race that seems to be headed in one direction even as a deciding World Series game ended competition in the other national pastime.
Later, Obama upstaged himself on the Daily Show by simultaneously appearing live in Florida to embrace and be embraced by Bill Clinton. In contrast, George W. Bush seemed to be in a presidential protection program as far as McCain was concerned.
A visitor from another planet could easily tell who is ahead by Obama's concentration on hopes for the future, while McCain and Palin continued to belabor fears about their opponent's past, adding a Palestinian professor to their pantheon of scary passing acquaintances.
The political pundits have now been reduced to debating the reliability of public opinion polls to produce suspense in a race that seems to be headed in one direction even as a deciding World Series game ended competition in the other national pastime.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Presidential Reality TV
The two most recent occupants of the Oval Office were in prime time tonight, while aspirants to succeed them prepared to go to the White House tomorrow morning in a bizarre interactive TV reality show that will affect the financial survival of millions of Americans.
George W. Bush, who was voted off the island two years ago but refused to leave, looked voters in the eye and talked about panic and recession with a straight face as if he had just arrived and would fix it if only they cheered for his Hail Mary pass without delay and without asking too many questions.
His predecessor, Bill Clinton, with his usual maddening mix of half-faux sincerity and guile, was telling Larry King that Hillary had campaigned for the Democratic nominee more than any runner-up in the last 40 years, that he would join her in Florida after the Jewish holidays, that although he admired McCain and Palin was backing Obama and Biden but devoting most of his energies to making Americans good global citizens for the future. All in all, it came across as the pitch for a new Hillary survival show in 2012 or 2016.
With the past presidents on their way out, the two wannabes were trying to please the electoral audience. Chris Dodd, who is quarterbacking the Senate effort to make sense of the Bush $700 billion dollar plan, welcomed John McCain's interest but drily noted that his campaign suspension sounded more like a rescue plan for his own candidacy than the national economy.
This series will run for the next 40 days until viewers get a chance to vote for the ultimate survivor, but meanwhile the show keeps getting more tacky and there is no way to use a remote control to tune in on something better.
George W. Bush, who was voted off the island two years ago but refused to leave, looked voters in the eye and talked about panic and recession with a straight face as if he had just arrived and would fix it if only they cheered for his Hail Mary pass without delay and without asking too many questions.
His predecessor, Bill Clinton, with his usual maddening mix of half-faux sincerity and guile, was telling Larry King that Hillary had campaigned for the Democratic nominee more than any runner-up in the last 40 years, that he would join her in Florida after the Jewish holidays, that although he admired McCain and Palin was backing Obama and Biden but devoting most of his energies to making Americans good global citizens for the future. All in all, it came across as the pitch for a new Hillary survival show in 2012 or 2016.
With the past presidents on their way out, the two wannabes were trying to please the electoral audience. Chris Dodd, who is quarterbacking the Senate effort to make sense of the Bush $700 billion dollar plan, welcomed John McCain's interest but drily noted that his campaign suspension sounded more like a rescue plan for his own candidacy than the national economy.
This series will run for the next 40 days until viewers get a chance to vote for the ultimate survivor, but meanwhile the show keeps getting more tacky and there is no way to use a remote control to tune in on something better.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Bill Clinton Hyperbole, Pro and Con
The former President has "helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency." Anyone who doubts that can check with his office.
If Scott McClellan thinks he was pummeled for turning on George W. Bush, he might want to consider the fate of former New York Times reporter Todd Purdum for stirring the wrath of Bill Clinton this weekend with a profile in Vanity Fair.
“A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece," says a statement from aides to the former President, "repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.”
The screed goes on to huff, "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn’t find time to talk to even one of them for comment."
If other journalists ask politely, may they have the names and phone numbers of a few hundred thousand to interview?
What we have here is hyperbole run amok on both sides of the journalistic equation, the Clinton people in their outrage outdoing the VF piece, heavily laced with anonymous sources, about their idol's "post-White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse."
Now, if both sides will calm down and tell us what they really think, we may be able to make some sober judgments about the liveliest White House occupant in American history.
If Scott McClellan thinks he was pummeled for turning on George W. Bush, he might want to consider the fate of former New York Times reporter Todd Purdum for stirring the wrath of Bill Clinton this weekend with a profile in Vanity Fair.
“A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece," says a statement from aides to the former President, "repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.”
The screed goes on to huff, "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn’t find time to talk to even one of them for comment."
If other journalists ask politely, may they have the names and phone numbers of a few hundred thousand to interview?
What we have here is hyperbole run amok on both sides of the journalistic equation, the Clinton people in their outrage outdoing the VF piece, heavily laced with anonymous sources, about their idol's "post-White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse."
Now, if both sides will calm down and tell us what they really think, we may be able to make some sober judgments about the liveliest White House occupant in American history.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Desperate Househusband
Not easy to boggle the public mind these days, but Bill Clinton seems to have done it again by appearing on the Rush Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas primary.
The former President did not have intercourse with that man himself, who was suffering from a convenient case of one-day flu after urging his listeners to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton on the theory that Barack Obama would be harder for Republicans to beat. A substitute interviewer did the deed.
Andrew Sullivan's reaction: "Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
"There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results."
Several days later Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson complained about Obama's "attacks" on his candidate: "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
His target, the former President, is making Starr look like a pussycat.
The former President did not have intercourse with that man himself, who was suffering from a convenient case of one-day flu after urging his listeners to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton on the theory that Barack Obama would be harder for Republicans to beat. A substitute interviewer did the deed.
Andrew Sullivan's reaction: "Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
"There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results."
Several days later Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson complained about Obama's "attacks" on his candidate: "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
His target, the former President, is making Starr look like a pussycat.
Monday, February 25, 2008
What's Wrong With Obama
Now we know the worst. Behind all the electoral enthusiasm for the Democratic front runner is a treasonous self-regard.
In today's New York Times, William Kristol explains it in his inimitable style. In declining to wear an American flag lapel pin as "a substitute...for true patriotism," which he defines as "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security," Barack Obama is guilty of...moral vanity!
"What’s striking," Kristol instructs us, "is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good--too patriotic!--to wear a flag pin on his chest."
A surge of unity after 9/11 inspired Americans to display the flag--on their lapels and their lawns--after the trauma of an unthinkable attack. But Kristol's heroes--Bush, Cheney and Rove--converted that heartfelt feeling into a Neo-Con tool for waging preemptive war, trampling on civil liberties and winning elections by attacking their opponents' love of country.
In rejecting that definition of patriotism, Obama is embracing "the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry."
As a member of that fraternity, Obama can't expect to be pinned by William Kristol, who has belatedly pledged John McCain into the circle of true believers who wear their American hearts on their sleeves and their chests.
In today's New York Times, William Kristol explains it in his inimitable style. In declining to wear an American flag lapel pin as "a substitute...for true patriotism," which he defines as "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security," Barack Obama is guilty of...moral vanity!
"What’s striking," Kristol instructs us, "is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good--too patriotic!--to wear a flag pin on his chest."
A surge of unity after 9/11 inspired Americans to display the flag--on their lapels and their lawns--after the trauma of an unthinkable attack. But Kristol's heroes--Bush, Cheney and Rove--converted that heartfelt feeling into a Neo-Con tool for waging preemptive war, trampling on civil liberties and winning elections by attacking their opponents' love of country.
In rejecting that definition of patriotism, Obama is embracing "the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry."
As a member of that fraternity, Obama can't expect to be pinned by William Kristol, who has belatedly pledged John McCain into the circle of true believers who wear their American hearts on their sleeves and their chests.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Is Huckabee Clinton or Carter?
His campaign chairman wanted to knock out Mitt Romney's teeth, but Mike Huckabee decided to turn the other cheek.
Internal struggles are common in the heat of campaigns, but this week's press-conference melodrama in Iowa suggests that Huckabee is (1) a man of principle who turned away from stooping to attack ads at the last minute or (2) ambivalent and indecisive or (3) devious in the extreme, having it both ways by publicizing the ads and renouncing them at the same time.
Like the first national politician from Hope, Arkansas, Huckabee elicits meaning-of-is ambiguity as voters attempt to parse the man beyond the slick surface of his good-boy image as opposed to Clinton's bad-boy charm.
If what you see is what you get, Iowa and New Hampshire voters will have to decide if Huckabee is the antidote to what they may have disliked in Bill Clinton or another Jimmy Carter, who promised never to lie to them but couldn't handle the complexities of the real world.
Internal struggles are common in the heat of campaigns, but this week's press-conference melodrama in Iowa suggests that Huckabee is (1) a man of principle who turned away from stooping to attack ads at the last minute or (2) ambivalent and indecisive or (3) devious in the extreme, having it both ways by publicizing the ads and renouncing them at the same time.
Like the first national politician from Hope, Arkansas, Huckabee elicits meaning-of-is ambiguity as voters attempt to parse the man beyond the slick surface of his good-boy image as opposed to Clinton's bad-boy charm.
If what you see is what you get, Iowa and New Hampshire voters will have to decide if Huckabee is the antidote to what they may have disliked in Bill Clinton or another Jimmy Carter, who promised never to lie to them but couldn't handle the complexities of the real world.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Republican Perfection Police
In defending his client from the latest smear-by-whisper in the '08 campaign, John McCain's lawyer says he “was the victim of false, vicious rumors about his personal life” during the 2000 South Carolina primary, and that “rumors and gossip damaged his campaign and may have cost him the election.”
So the spirit of Karl Rove lives on in whatever dirt is at the bottom of Matt Drudge's "revelations" about a story McCain's people have tried to persuade the New York Times not to publish.
In the Republican moral universe, human frailty is a disqualification for President, so the last two candidates standing are Mike Huckabee, the man of God, and Mitt Romney, he of the unblemished personal life.
For a while, his 9/11 aura kept Rudy Giuliani afloat, but the weight of personal imperfections finally dragged him down in the polls, and Fred Thompson has not shown enough orthodox Republican zeal to make up for his actorish womanizing and trophy wife,
In their neo-Victorian fervor, the GOP gave us the exemplary personal life of George W. Bush as an antidote to Bill Clinton's waywardness, and now it seems that nothing less will do for '08.
As the protagonist of Jean Anouilh's "Waltz of the Toreadors" observed about the original Victorians, propriety demanded that couples be seen serenely swimming through life side by side and, if there was a need to relieve oneself, it had to be done under the water, out of sight.
Today's Republicans are keeping that ethos alive with a vengeance.
So the spirit of Karl Rove lives on in whatever dirt is at the bottom of Matt Drudge's "revelations" about a story McCain's people have tried to persuade the New York Times not to publish.
In the Republican moral universe, human frailty is a disqualification for President, so the last two candidates standing are Mike Huckabee, the man of God, and Mitt Romney, he of the unblemished personal life.
For a while, his 9/11 aura kept Rudy Giuliani afloat, but the weight of personal imperfections finally dragged him down in the polls, and Fred Thompson has not shown enough orthodox Republican zeal to make up for his actorish womanizing and trophy wife,
In their neo-Victorian fervor, the GOP gave us the exemplary personal life of George W. Bush as an antidote to Bill Clinton's waywardness, and now it seems that nothing less will do for '08.
As the protagonist of Jean Anouilh's "Waltz of the Toreadors" observed about the original Victorians, propriety demanded that couples be seen serenely swimming through life side by side and, if there was a need to relieve oneself, it had to be done under the water, out of sight.
Today's Republicans are keeping that ethos alive with a vengeance.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Over to You, Vladimir
Being Time's Person of the Year is no barrel of laughs, it comes with a lot of headaches.
For the whole year, last year's mylar cover has been sitting next to the computer screen as a taunt to Time's designation of me "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game."
That's the kind of pressure you're facing, comrade, as the newsweekly praises your accomplishments, salutes your longevity and calls you an "elected emperor" who will be the "longest-serving statesman among the great powers, long after such leaders as Bush and Tony Blair have faded from the scene."
For a guy who has never sent an e-mail in his life and whose father was Stalin's cook, you've done very well, but believe you me, that kind of talk can unnerve anybody, even someone with your Tsar's stare. If you look back at some of the other cover people, remember what happened to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. It's not exactly the Sports Illustrated cover jinx, but...
Now the crown is yours. Serving the Time correspondent a "dinner of lobster-and-shiitake-mushroom salad, 'crab fingers with hot sauce' and impressive vintages of Puligny-Montrachet and a Chilean Cabernet" was a good start.
Last year's winners salute you as they go back to their keyboards, stuffed with fast food, relaxed and ready to face a new year of solving the world's problems without all that pressure.
For the whole year, last year's mylar cover has been sitting next to the computer screen as a taunt to Time's designation of me "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game."
That's the kind of pressure you're facing, comrade, as the newsweekly praises your accomplishments, salutes your longevity and calls you an "elected emperor" who will be the "longest-serving statesman among the great powers, long after such leaders as Bush and Tony Blair have faded from the scene."
For a guy who has never sent an e-mail in his life and whose father was Stalin's cook, you've done very well, but believe you me, that kind of talk can unnerve anybody, even someone with your Tsar's stare. If you look back at some of the other cover people, remember what happened to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. It's not exactly the Sports Illustrated cover jinx, but...
Now the crown is yours. Serving the Time correspondent a "dinner of lobster-and-shiitake-mushroom salad, 'crab fingers with hot sauce' and impressive vintages of Puligny-Montrachet and a Chilean Cabernet" was a good start.
Last year's winners salute you as they go back to their keyboards, stuffed with fast food, relaxed and ready to face a new year of solving the world's problems without all that pressure.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Democrats Sowing Confusion in Iowa
If you look carefully at the Hawkeye State, you can find polls showing John Edwards is in the lead (b) Barack Obama is ahead (c) Hillary Clinton and Obama are tied or (d) after the "viability rule" excludes candidates with less than 15 percent of the vote, who knows?
Iowans have a reputation for being contrary, but this year they have raised sowing confusion to an art form. Yesterday, three of their journalists wrote a New York Times OpEd, saying "if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy" because of the arcane, secretive way that Democrats report results of their caucuses:
"Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents--that is, the headline “winner”--did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it."
Is that clear? For months now, we have been hanging on every word from voters in the Tall Corn State as they ogle butter sculptures, eat fried stuff on a stick and respond to the presence of Oprah, Bill Clinton and Magic Johnson.
But do we get any clear answers from them? Not in your Field of Dreams. Maybe Meredith Willson had it right in the "Music Man" when he had them singing “And we're so by God stubborn/We can stand touchin' noses/For a week at a time/And never see eye-to-eye.”
Iowans have a reputation for being contrary, but this year they have raised sowing confusion to an art form. Yesterday, three of their journalists wrote a New York Times OpEd, saying "if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy" because of the arcane, secretive way that Democrats report results of their caucuses:
"Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents--that is, the headline “winner”--did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it."
Is that clear? For months now, we have been hanging on every word from voters in the Tall Corn State as they ogle butter sculptures, eat fried stuff on a stick and respond to the presence of Oprah, Bill Clinton and Magic Johnson.
But do we get any clear answers from them? Not in your Field of Dreams. Maybe Meredith Willson had it right in the "Music Man" when he had them singing “And we're so by God stubborn/We can stand touchin' noses/For a week at a time/And never see eye-to-eye.”
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Obama: Getting More Experience Every Day
If Bill Clinton is right about the importance of experience in a candidate for President, shouldn't he be backing Joe Biden or Chris Dodd who, between them, have been in Congress for 66 years?
But the former President's doubts about inexperience are selectively aimed at Barack Obama as his challenge to Mrs. Clinton gathers strength, today with an endorsement in the New Hampshire primary by the Boston Globe.
“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?” the ex-president asked in a PBS interview Friday night, deftly slicing eleven months off Obama's resume.
Obama responded yesterday that Clinton himself had said when he ran in 1992 that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience” and that his own involvement in government for over a decade matches Clinton's ten years as a governor back then.
"When it comes to waging peace," the Globe editorial says, "Obama has the leadership skills to reset the country's reputation in the world...Obama's critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities."
The perception that he is now running against two Clintons may very well help Obama, if voters consider it a learning experience.
But the former President's doubts about inexperience are selectively aimed at Barack Obama as his challenge to Mrs. Clinton gathers strength, today with an endorsement in the New Hampshire primary by the Boston Globe.
“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?” the ex-president asked in a PBS interview Friday night, deftly slicing eleven months off Obama's resume.
Obama responded yesterday that Clinton himself had said when he ran in 1992 that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience” and that his own involvement in government for over a decade matches Clinton's ten years as a governor back then.
"When it comes to waging peace," the Globe editorial says, "Obama has the leadership skills to reset the country's reputation in the world...Obama's critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities."
The perception that he is now running against two Clintons may very well help Obama, if voters consider it a learning experience.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
The Rudy Mud Keeps Rising
With Bernard Kerik as a character witness, Mr. 9/11 is fast becoming the most ethically challenged Presidential candidate since Bill Clinton came on the scene with a reputation as "Slick Willie."
Giuliani's sleight of hand about the hidden tryst fund that had taxpayers underwriting his courtship expenses enhanced his image this week as the guy with a green eyeshade who inspires other poker players to keep cutting the cards and calling for fresh decks.
To explain why hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for his security, presumably to protect against terrorists in beachwear while the Mayor was courting Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, were buried in accounts of obscure city offices, Giuliani fell back on that old reliable, a "political hit job." It was only done to speed up slow payments from the Police Department, he claims.
Kerik, Giuliani's police commissioner now under federal indictment for tax fraud and corruption, backs his former boss and business partner. “There would be no need for anyone to conceal his detail’s travel expenses,” Kerik insists.
But the current and former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says he knows of no problems with the delay of payments before Giuliani was mayor or afterward.
Blogger Big Tent Democrat, a lawyer, points out related charges that the Mayor's then-mistress, according to a former city official, "used the PD as her personal taxi service," the same practice that led former NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi to resign as prosecutors were preparing to indict him for felonies over using state employees to chauffeur his wife.
The New York Times, overflowing with Giuliani's truth abuses, did an omnibus piece yesterday about his penchant for "misleading statistics" to claim accomplishments during his tenure as mayor that are "incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong."
In coming weeks, there will be more Giuliani mud, some of it from Manhattan fire fighters over 9/11, much of it no doubt inspired by Fred Thompson's New York Chairman, Alfonse D'Amato aka Sen. Pothole, whose day job is lobbying for the Poker Players Alliance to overturn a federal ban on internet gambling. D'Amato is an expert on sleaze.
At some tipping point, this rising tide of sewage could overwhelm the Republican front runner's campaign. If not, we might have a President to make Bill Clinton look like Snow White.
Giuliani's sleight of hand about the hidden tryst fund that had taxpayers underwriting his courtship expenses enhanced his image this week as the guy with a green eyeshade who inspires other poker players to keep cutting the cards and calling for fresh decks.
To explain why hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for his security, presumably to protect against terrorists in beachwear while the Mayor was courting Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, were buried in accounts of obscure city offices, Giuliani fell back on that old reliable, a "political hit job." It was only done to speed up slow payments from the Police Department, he claims.
Kerik, Giuliani's police commissioner now under federal indictment for tax fraud and corruption, backs his former boss and business partner. “There would be no need for anyone to conceal his detail’s travel expenses,” Kerik insists.
But the current and former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says he knows of no problems with the delay of payments before Giuliani was mayor or afterward.
Blogger Big Tent Democrat, a lawyer, points out related charges that the Mayor's then-mistress, according to a former city official, "used the PD as her personal taxi service," the same practice that led former NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi to resign as prosecutors were preparing to indict him for felonies over using state employees to chauffeur his wife.
The New York Times, overflowing with Giuliani's truth abuses, did an omnibus piece yesterday about his penchant for "misleading statistics" to claim accomplishments during his tenure as mayor that are "incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong."
In coming weeks, there will be more Giuliani mud, some of it from Manhattan fire fighters over 9/11, much of it no doubt inspired by Fred Thompson's New York Chairman, Alfonse D'Amato aka Sen. Pothole, whose day job is lobbying for the Poker Players Alliance to overturn a federal ban on internet gambling. D'Amato is an expert on sleaze.
At some tipping point, this rising tide of sewage could overwhelm the Republican front runner's campaign. If not, we might have a President to make Bill Clinton look like Snow White.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Democratic Divas With a Difference
The names on the ballots are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but, in Iowa and New Hampshire, a perfect storm of celebrity is brewing with two forces of nature named Barbra and Oprah on a collision course.
Like hurricanes, Streisand and Winfrey need be identified only by their first names, and they are lending their clout to Hillary and Barack to help elevate one of them to the ultimate celebrity.
The two women are a contrast in personal histories and styles. Winfrey, surviving an abusive childhood and early adulthood, created herself through empathy with millions of women. In backing Obama, she is taking her first steps into politics. When she appears with him next month, it will be a new experience.
At a fund-raiser that brought in $3 million, she reportedly told friends, "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States,"
Streisand, a decade older and now eligible for Social Security, is a self-made powerhouse with an ego that is outsized even by Hollywood standards. She has been involved in politics for decades.
After Bill Clinton was elected, she was omnipresent at his inaugural. When his mother died, Streisand arrived by private jet for the funeral and announced her $200,000 donation to start a breast cancer research fund in memory of the President's mother, who, Barbra solemnly noted, had spent the last weekend of her life at Streisand concerts in Las Vegas.
This week, she announced her support of Hillary with a historical flourish: "Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote,‘In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.’ More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
Streisand will help Hillary with the Hollywood power structure, but Oprah will be giving Obama a unique advantage. Unlike 2000, when George Bush got a boost from appearing on her program, she won't be interviewing other candidates this time.
In light of her support for Obama, she has said, that would be "hypocritical," and nobody has ever accused Oprah of waffling about her feelings.
Like hurricanes, Streisand and Winfrey need be identified only by their first names, and they are lending their clout to Hillary and Barack to help elevate one of them to the ultimate celebrity.
The two women are a contrast in personal histories and styles. Winfrey, surviving an abusive childhood and early adulthood, created herself through empathy with millions of women. In backing Obama, she is taking her first steps into politics. When she appears with him next month, it will be a new experience.
At a fund-raiser that brought in $3 million, she reportedly told friends, "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States,"
Streisand, a decade older and now eligible for Social Security, is a self-made powerhouse with an ego that is outsized even by Hollywood standards. She has been involved in politics for decades.
After Bill Clinton was elected, she was omnipresent at his inaugural. When his mother died, Streisand arrived by private jet for the funeral and announced her $200,000 donation to start a breast cancer research fund in memory of the President's mother, who, Barbra solemnly noted, had spent the last weekend of her life at Streisand concerts in Las Vegas.
This week, she announced her support of Hillary with a historical flourish: "Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote,‘In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.’ More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
Streisand will help Hillary with the Hollywood power structure, but Oprah will be giving Obama a unique advantage. Unlike 2000, when George Bush got a boost from appearing on her program, she won't be interviewing other candidates this time.
In light of her support for Obama, she has said, that would be "hypocritical," and nobody has ever accused Oprah of waffling about her feelings.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Front Runners Hear Footsteps
Weeks before primary voting in The Election That Looked Like It Would Never Come, front runners in both parties are losing some of their luster.
Yesterday's indictment of Bernard Kerik may finally slow down Giuliani's broken-field running toward the Republican nomination. He won't swivel-hip away as effortlessly from the corruption of his post-9/11 business partner as he has from abortion, gun control, gay rights and multiple marriages. Conservatives, burned by so many crooks in Congress, may balk at iffy integrity in the White House.
In Iowa, Rudy's woes give new hope to Mitt and his money, Fred Thompson's sleepy stumping, John ("I was right about Iraq") McCain, and there could a perfect storm brewing for Mike Huckabee, moving up in the polls and fund-raising, who's getting praise from Bush's former favorite speech writer and is about to reel in his first Religious Right whale, James Dobson.
To the left, Barack Obama has finally found his campaign voice, competitive if not combative, and Hillary Clinton's national lead is narrowing. New Hampshire polls next week will show a closer race and in Iowa, it's a tight three-way with John Edwards, who could now claim residence there, not far behind.
Signs of Clinton concern abound: being caught planting questions, setting up still another web site to counter attacks, the former President trying to deflect blame for the 1993 health fiasco away from his First Lady.
His emergence was prompted by Obama's needle that "part of the record she’s running on is having worked on health care" while also suggesting "that somehow she doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that it didn’t work.”
Not exactly brass knuckles, but Obama is beginning to blend the politics of hope with some nimble in-fighting, pointing out that "to say there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function. And anybody who thinks I have hasn’t been paying attention.”
Voters are beginning to pay attention. Stay tuned.
Yesterday's indictment of Bernard Kerik may finally slow down Giuliani's broken-field running toward the Republican nomination. He won't swivel-hip away as effortlessly from the corruption of his post-9/11 business partner as he has from abortion, gun control, gay rights and multiple marriages. Conservatives, burned by so many crooks in Congress, may balk at iffy integrity in the White House.
In Iowa, Rudy's woes give new hope to Mitt and his money, Fred Thompson's sleepy stumping, John ("I was right about Iraq") McCain, and there could a perfect storm brewing for Mike Huckabee, moving up in the polls and fund-raising, who's getting praise from Bush's former favorite speech writer and is about to reel in his first Religious Right whale, James Dobson.
To the left, Barack Obama has finally found his campaign voice, competitive if not combative, and Hillary Clinton's national lead is narrowing. New Hampshire polls next week will show a closer race and in Iowa, it's a tight three-way with John Edwards, who could now claim residence there, not far behind.
Signs of Clinton concern abound: being caught planting questions, setting up still another web site to counter attacks, the former President trying to deflect blame for the 1993 health fiasco away from his First Lady.
His emergence was prompted by Obama's needle that "part of the record she’s running on is having worked on health care" while also suggesting "that somehow she doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that it didn’t work.”
Not exactly brass knuckles, but Obama is beginning to blend the politics of hope with some nimble in-fighting, pointing out that "to say there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function. And anybody who thinks I have hasn’t been paying attention.”
Voters are beginning to pay attention. Stay tuned.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Haters for Hillary
Barack Obama is the devil. If you doubt it, there is a highly professional web site updated daily to provide chapter, verse and venom on the subject.
The spewings of "Hillary Is 44" (44th President, that is) make Bill Clinton's remarks about other Democrats ganging up to vilify his wife look a tad hypocritical. The deceptively mild-looking blog with a pink background makes Rove's raiders look like pussycats.
A few recent samples:
"After all the many lies and denials concerning internal struggles with chaos, confusion, and complaints, Obama is not to be believed."
"Like a common street hustler ripping off tourists in a streetside shell game, Obama skips from issue to issue."
"Barack Cheney Obama, fresh from his Slime Hillary Clinton gig on the Tonight Show, today proudly continues his Slime Hillary Clinton tour."
"Obama is convicted, using his own standards of behavior and leadership, of being unfit to be president."
"This is typical Obama behavior. When Obama does something dirty he tries to disguise the dirt with flowery language."
The latest: "Obama made sure (Stephen) Colbert would not get on the (South Carolina) ballot. Obama, of course, denied he had anything to do with the Colbert Chicago style drive-by shooting."
Recent headings include: "The Obama Delusion," "Obama the Clown," "Obama's Iran Lie(s)" and "Obama's Macaca Weekend."
The Clinton campaign has been reaching out to voters online in a big away, not only cultivating Matt Drudge but hosting a Drudgelike site of their own, HillaryHub. "Hillary Is 44" claims to have no affiliation with the campaign but is raising money by selling Hillary t-shirts and buttons.
Identity of the operators is a Washington mystery, but it is professionally put together by more than one person, and the tone, Peggy Noonan has written, is "very Tokyo Rose."
Complaints about ganging up on Clinton should be accompanied by a clarification about the activities of her own attack dogs. Their barking may not have much bite, but they undermine her claims of being victimized.
The spewings of "Hillary Is 44" (44th President, that is) make Bill Clinton's remarks about other Democrats ganging up to vilify his wife look a tad hypocritical. The deceptively mild-looking blog with a pink background makes Rove's raiders look like pussycats.
A few recent samples:
"After all the many lies and denials concerning internal struggles with chaos, confusion, and complaints, Obama is not to be believed."
"Like a common street hustler ripping off tourists in a streetside shell game, Obama skips from issue to issue."
"Barack Cheney Obama, fresh from his Slime Hillary Clinton gig on the Tonight Show, today proudly continues his Slime Hillary Clinton tour."
"Obama is convicted, using his own standards of behavior and leadership, of being unfit to be president."
"This is typical Obama behavior. When Obama does something dirty he tries to disguise the dirt with flowery language."
The latest: "Obama made sure (Stephen) Colbert would not get on the (South Carolina) ballot. Obama, of course, denied he had anything to do with the Colbert Chicago style drive-by shooting."
Recent headings include: "The Obama Delusion," "Obama the Clown," "Obama's Iran Lie(s)" and "Obama's Macaca Weekend."
The Clinton campaign has been reaching out to voters online in a big away, not only cultivating Matt Drudge but hosting a Drudgelike site of their own, HillaryHub. "Hillary Is 44" claims to have no affiliation with the campaign but is raising money by selling Hillary t-shirts and buttons.
Identity of the operators is a Washington mystery, but it is professionally put together by more than one person, and the tone, Peggy Noonan has written, is "very Tokyo Rose."
Complaints about ganging up on Clinton should be accompanied by a clarification about the activities of her own attack dogs. Their barking may not have much bite, but they undermine her claims of being victimized.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Ron Paul and Ross Perot
There is an eerie déjà vu to the sight of another Texan with the same initials crossing a Clinton's path to the White House as Ross Perot did in 1992.
News that Ron Paul raised more than $4million on the Internet the other day recalls Perot's surge in the polls back then, at one point running ahead of both the first George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Perot's erratic on-again off-again campaign as an Independent faltered but still drew over 19 million votes, reflecting unhappiness with the two major parties and politics as usual.
Four Presidential elections later, after Clinton and another Bush in the Oval Office, that disaffection has led to the odd sight of another maverick Texan drawing support, this time in the race for the Republican nomination.
Paul's surge reflects a mixed bag of discontent--with the plastic Republican front runners and their failure to call for getting out of Iraq, as he does; with politicians of both parties who hem, haw and hedge about issues, as he does not; with the linear nature of political discourse, which Paul's digital supporters have rejected and imaginatively left behind and, according to some, distorted.
All this makes good political theater to enliven the long, boring slog of an overheated campaign, but older observers may be put off by Paul's oversimplifications and nostalgia for an America-that-never was and troubled by his roots in the conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society.
Perot turned out to be an egotistical clown without staying power, but Ron Paul has been around for a long time and is not likely to fade away. It's time to stop finding him refreshing and take a closer look at what he is really offering.
News that Ron Paul raised more than $4million on the Internet the other day recalls Perot's surge in the polls back then, at one point running ahead of both the first George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Perot's erratic on-again off-again campaign as an Independent faltered but still drew over 19 million votes, reflecting unhappiness with the two major parties and politics as usual.
Four Presidential elections later, after Clinton and another Bush in the Oval Office, that disaffection has led to the odd sight of another maverick Texan drawing support, this time in the race for the Republican nomination.
Paul's surge reflects a mixed bag of discontent--with the plastic Republican front runners and their failure to call for getting out of Iraq, as he does; with politicians of both parties who hem, haw and hedge about issues, as he does not; with the linear nature of political discourse, which Paul's digital supporters have rejected and imaginatively left behind and, according to some, distorted.
All this makes good political theater to enliven the long, boring slog of an overheated campaign, but older observers may be put off by Paul's oversimplifications and nostalgia for an America-that-never was and troubled by his roots in the conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society.
Perot turned out to be an egotistical clown without staying power, but Ron Paul has been around for a long time and is not likely to fade away. It's time to stop finding him refreshing and take a closer look at what he is really offering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)