Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Obama vs. Clinton... The Ohio debate and predictions...

Obama and Clinton will show up for another "debate" tonight. I have five questions in anticipation of the Ohio Battle Royale. Here they are, along with my predictions about the answers...

QUESTIONS

1. Will Barack Obama find a way to stay "on message" or will we lose discipline and sink into the slime pit of petty attacks and smarmy reactions?

2. Will Hillary Clinton have the guts to say "shame on you" to Obama's face and to mock his hopeful message while he's only a few feet away, or is that just the kind of thing she does when he's not in the immediate vicinity?

3. Will Hillary Clinton find a way to explain why she's allowed to keep the mojo of White House experience based on her time as first lady while simultaneously disclaiming responsibility for the parts of Bill's legacy that don't play well in Ohio?

4. Will Barack Obama lazily continue to allow the "35 years of experience" and "ready on day one" bullshit to continue unabated or will he finally provide the obvious and substantive response to Clinton's most beloved meme?

5. Will we be forced to listen to bullshit about turban pictures, Muslim rumors, missteps on the part of low-level campaign staffers, foolish accusations about plagiarism, and assorted other superficialities or will Russert & Williams manage to conduct a meaningful discussion?

PREDICTIONS

1. He'll basically stay on message but will find it impossible not to (errantly) sling a little slime here and there. Nobody's perfect.

2. No. She might come out with a toned down version of her recent attacks, but she lacks the courage to make those tougher pronouncements personally. Whether because of cowardice or strategy, she won't wag a finger of shame at Barack.

3. No. She wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If the matter is addressed, she'll duck, juke, deflect and change the subject. She needs that experience to maintain her current strategy and she needs to avoid the negatives associated with it. Her position is untenable under scrutiny, but she'll avoid scrutiny by whatever means necessary.

4. Obama will again fail to take the "experience" argument on in a meaningful way. He'll hope that the combination of people who don't give a shit and those who are able to figure it out for themselves will be enough to continue beating it without meaningfully engaging it. Sometimes, unfortunately, it seems as though Obama mistakenly thinks substantive argument and disagreement are at odds with his "higher purpose" message. It doesn't have to be that way.

5. Absolutely. This one is a lock. Russert is a tool and even the Giant Head of Brian Williams cannot contain Timmy's uselessness. Look for Russert, guided by his desire for moron-ready arguments about useless things, and utilizing his "gotcha" skill set, will find a way to drag down the quality of the discussion.


Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Change You Can Xerox!

"Change you can Xerox."

Were those boos I heard over the death rattle of the Clinton campaign?

Give me a break, Hillary. You are getting an ass-kicking in state after state because people are NOT responding to the "zingers" and "gotcha" point-scoring techniques. That shit won't work this time. It's producing blowback.

"Change you can Xerox."

It's definitely silly season for at least one political campaign, isn't it?

Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Was Chelsea pimped out? It's hard out there for a pimp, just ask Hillary...

Is Senator Clinton a mother who has taken legitimate umbrage with inappropriate language regarding her daughter? Or is Hillary an attention whore who's been pimping out her daughter? You make the call.

It's hard out there for a pimp, especially when the pimp in question is trying to become the President of the United States. Big pimpin' just isn't as easy as you'd think.

It's so hard, in fact, that the pimp may resort to transforming a relatively innocuous (albeit clumsy) talking head's comment into a controversy.

PART ONE: In which I provide a synopsis of Pimpgate...

David Shuster was babbling on MSNBC about Hillary's campaign. He's talking about Chelsea Clinton dialing up superdelegates and being a proxy stump speaker for Sen. Clinton. He then made the Mega Egregious Super Mistake of All Times. He asked if Chelsea was being "pimped out". The claxon started ringing at Hillary '08 HQ. The red lights starting blinking at NOW's offices. David Shuster had just FUCKED UP. He said "pimped". PIMPED! PIMPED!!!!!!

Here's the exact exchange between Shuster and Bill Press on MSNBC:

"DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates.

BILL PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great, I think she's grown up in a political family, she's got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she'd make a great president...


DAVID SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"


Clinton's campaign took offense to the remark. Hillary was disgusted. Hillary supporters are upset. Those committed to the noble cause of equality think the remark was misogynist. Shuster double-apologized. MSNBC suspended him. Hillary intimated that she might not appear for any MSNBC-hosted debates.

Controversy? I guess. Bullshit? I know.

PART TWO: In which I sort of defend and explain the Shuster remark...

Look, I don't think it's really smart to go around talking about pimping and shit when you're on TV. I'll give you that. I also think that it's less than brilliant to try to be all cool and "with it" when you are David Shuster. No offense, David, but you're not on my big list of people who are really f-ing cool, okay?

So, I can agree with the critics who claim Shuster's "pimped out" remark was dumb. However, being dumb is not necessarily grounds for suspension from a television network. If it was, we'd be watching test patterns all day and/or volunteering at soup kitchens serving displaced TV talking heads. That would suck, because you know Tucker Carlson would be all bitchy about the quality of the soup. No, Mr. Bow-tie, we don't have croutons.

Shuster was less than elegant. He was not, however, claiming that Hillary Clinton gave Chelsea some coke, squeezed the kid into fishnets and a mini-skirt, and sent her out to the corner to turn tricks with superdelegates. He wasn't using "pimped out" in a traditional Magic Don Juan Bishop kind of way.

He was, instead, trying to use relatively common vernacular to express the idea that Hillary might be exploiting Chelsea a little bit. He may have felt the whole thing with Chelsea suddenly taking to the stump was weird because (a) she's historically been kept away from day-to-day politicking, (b) she's making these appearances while simultaneously avoiding any real press contact, (c) she's suddenly calling super-d's and begging for votes now that things are looking tight with Hillary and Obama. There's something sort of different about the rapid emergence of Chelsea that smacks a wee bit of desperation.

He used "pimped out" as a synonym for "exploited". People do that sometimes. They don't generally do it on MSNBC, but elsewhere it's not the weirdest thing to ever happen. It's an actual dictionary definition, too. Hey, using "pimp" that way is sort of a modern spin on the traditional concept of turning out whores, but it's roots are old school. Check it out: Definition #6.

I know that some people immediately conjure up mental images of dudes with feathers in their hats bitch-slapping a whore for not coughing up enough cash when they hear "pimped out". Some of us, however, don't rely exclusively on 70s blaxploitation movies to inform our vocabularies.

When one says another was "pimped out", they COULD mean that one was compelled to participate in sex-for-money or related activity. They might also mean that the "pimped out" party was exploited in some other fashion for the benefit of another. They could mean that someone was dressed up or decorated (i.e. "Pimp My Ride" is a TV show in which cars are refreshed and decorated). This was not what Shuster meant, but it is another example of pimping. People "pimp out" their websites when they request attention from others. People may refer to being asked to do tasks for third parties by an employer as being "pimped out" (i.e. "I was doing my thing over in the graphics department, but the boss pimped me out to the mailroom to help them with overflow"). I could go on... "To pimp" is to do many things. It's a word with a variety of meanings (over 200 at the Urban Dictionary, FYI).

Let it be known that David Shuster was not envisioning Hillary Clinton counting cash under a streetlight while her daughter shimmied up to car windows asking for a "date". I won't comment on the desirability of such a vision. I'm just saying Shuster didn't have it in mind.

Thus, I believe it was bullshit for MSNBC to suspend Shuster.

Encouraging him to apologize for using an expression that didn't necessarily match viewer expectations for news programming would've been okay. Asking him to clarify his comments for those thick-headed enough to think he was being intentionally offensive would've been okay. Having him explain that he understood his comments carried with them some negative connotations and that he should've been more carefully in the selection of his terminology would've been okay, too. Suspending him was silly. I don't think it's a great policy to start suspending people because assholes are whining.

Did I say whining? Yes. I could've said "whining or sleazily angling", but I definitely wouldn't characterize the complaints about Shuster's comments as legitimate concerns. It's whining/angling because the gripers knew what he really meant and decided to jump on the comments anyway.

The alternative, that they were really and truly bothered by the remark, is unthinkable. It would require (a) a complete inability to interpret context and (b) a complete inability or unwillingness to investigate potential meanings for the terms used. If you're pissed at Shuster, it's because you're hooked on whining, you want to use the event to score political points, or you're really lazy and/or stupid.

I'd hate to believe that the complainers are really THAT dumb or lazy. That's why I think they're whining and conniving. Which brings us to the next part of this post...

PART THREE: In which we investigate the reasons WHY Hillary and her allies are up in arms over pimping...

Hillary Clinton is smart. Hell, I've heard about her 35 years of experience and her readiness on "day one" so many times that I'm inclined to think she's a genuine fucking genius. Hillary hires smart people, too. They seem to be smart, anyway. And, after all, she hired them. It's hard to imagine a Wellsely/Yale product with over 3 decades of experience hiring dummies. Thus, it would appear that they are not griping about Shuster out of stupidity.

It isn't a matter of intellectual laziness, either. For all of their warts, Hillary's people are willing to work and to learn things. They read. They research. Things like that are actually their strengths. Campaigning and running campaigns are tough. Lazy people don't last long. I think we can safely assume that they are not lazy, either.

That leaves only one possibility for all of the hoo-ha-ha over Shuster's "pimped out" remark. It's all a matter of conniving and political angling. Let's look at some potential motivations for the rage over Shuster's utterance...

Rallying her key demographic. Hillary's biggest base of support is women. This gives her a chance to get all pissed off about sexism and misogyny. It's a perfect base rallier. She can speak directly to the sisterhood on this one, folks. See, sexism is alive and well! See, it's time for a change!

Attention-grabbing. Obama is getting all the attention these days and that's bad news for Hillary. Making a mountain out of a pimped out molehill is a good way to snag a few headlines as the nominating process marches on. You might call it "attention whoring", but we know how dangerous that kind of vernacular can be, don't we David?

Illusion of power. In case you missed it, Hillary's campaign is lagging behind the Barack Obama team in fund-raising. She's even loaning her campaign cash from the Clinton coffers. Clinton even pulled the old "I need to make up for less funding with more free publicity via debates" gambit recently. That wasn't happening. Claiming that you're deeply offended by MSNBC and that you might opt to skip any debate they may host is a good way of looking less desperate. Don't be fooled, though, she'd let Chris Matthews spank her for two free hours of screen time, even on lowly MSNBC.

Sure, Hillary is a mom. Yes, hearing about your daughter being "pimped out" might rattle your cage a bit. When you're battle-tested Hillary, the one who can handle whatever the enemy slime machines can generate, it seems unlikely that you'd get too worked up over some random David Shuster remark. People are saying meaner things about Hillary and the kid every single hour of every single day.

PART FOUR: In which interesting questions are raised...

Let's pretend that Hillary Clinton is deeply offended by the remarks Shuster made. Let's pretend she finds that kind of discourse degrading to women. Let's pretend she is committed to fighting sexist language and misogynist attitudes at every turn. I know, it's a stretch, just play along.

Okay. If that's true, let's try to explain the events of March 31, 2007 in Miami, Florida. On the night of 3/31, people paid over $1,000 a plate and opened up their wallets to give even more at a Clinton fund-raiser. President Bill Clinton was in attendance. Senator Hillary, she who doesn't like pimping, was there. The Clintons were happy for the support and Hillary was glad to pocket the proceeds of this gala event. The host? Timbaland.

I'm not a hip-hop scholar, but I know that Timbaland is sort of a big thing in his preferred musical genre. He's a producer and a rapper. Timbaland is a big name star. Have you ever heard him rap? Check out these rhymes, bitch, from the Timbaland/Magoo ditty known as "Considerate Brotha":

"Slam the mask out of these hoes and they say, "What is that, velvet?"
And they betta meet they quota,
betta yet betta meet they deadline

And I got hoes who legs go back further than yo' father hairline

From Raggedy Ann & Andy to daquiri drinks and brandy
I take 'em off the streets and put 'em back on with a lil' candy

I'm the - pimp of the year, I'm a pimp all around

A pimp of the town - we pimpin 'em up, HOES DOWN
"


and

"Carry a automatic, keep up on all tactics
I'm just that pimp nigga from Va. Beach

Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech

I got that liquor in me, no juice no vodka

But the straight up Remi, kicks bout to get loose

cause I got it in me, bout to take one home
and "Free Willy" -
Timb, you so silly

See I been pimpin, before yo' days
Pimpin ain't easy, hey hey hey hey"

Don't try to tell me she just didn't know about this sort of thing. She's ready on DAY ONE. She's brilliant and experienced. She wouldn't let this kind of language use go undiscovered before participating in a massive fundraiser organized by the evil forces of Big Pimpin.

I bet Hillary was PISSED about that, right? I mean this song is actually ABOUT pimping. Real pimping, not just "figure of speech" pimping. We pimpin' 'em up, HOES DOWN. Will Hillary loan her campaign another $800,000 in order to prevent profiting from the misogynist Timbaland's generosity and refund the dough? Hell no.

She shouldn't either. Hip-hop isn't the devil's work. The Timbaland money isn't tainted. Hillary's decision to go political on "pimped out", however, is. Timbaland should be asking for her to give the money back to the donors, if anything.

People are calling it a matter of hypocrisy. I suppose it is. Mainly, though, the Timbaland fundraiser is just more evidence that current rage over Chelsea being "pimped out" is manufactured crap designed to generate a few headlines and some positive attention during a tight campaign. It's bullshit, but no one gets hurt.

Well, except for David Shuster. He's been forced to kiss ass over the whole deal and to serve a suspension. We sort of get hurt, too, if you think about it.

It's hard out there for a pimp.

Bookmark


Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Romney bitch-slaps McCain... Good for him...

Let it be known that John Brown is not a fan of Mitt Romney. That being said, I find John McCain's crock of shit misrepresentations of Romney's position on the war in Iraq a perfect example of all that is wrong about American political discourse and campaigning.

I recently explained my distaste for McCain's pre-Florida efforts to paint Romney as a "cutter and runner" who favored timetables for troop pullbacks. McCain, who loves to claim he's all about "straight talk" twisted words like pretzels in order to lock down a victory in the sunshine state. It was a repulsive bit of politicking that did absolutely nothing to explain, clarify, amplify or improve the Republican nomination process or the country. It was disgusting.

The Republican debate at the Reagan Library featured a prolonged exchange between Romney and McCain over the "timetable" argument.

Romney bitch-slapped McCain. Romney clarified his position, explained the context of the comments made over a year ago and even called McCain on the right-before-Florida timing of the attacks.

McCain's responses were weak and desperate. He refused to yield an inch and continued to repeat his accusations. Mitt Romney called his bullshit and lit into McCain, asking how Johnny Boy became the expert on Mitt's own positions.

I originally thought that this detour into nonsense on the part of the Straight Talk Express might come back to bite McCain's ass in a general election. Based on my viewing of the debate, his gamble with outright dishonesty is already haunting him. McCain looked silly. That silliness was exacerbated by his lack of grace, his non-sequitir comments about Romney's money and his unwillingness to back away from his own misstatements.

Way to squander your momentum, McCain.

Wrapping up the debate:

Winner: Romney
Loser: McCain
No change: Huckabee
No significance: Paul


Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Friday, January 25, 2008

Republicans debate in Florida... Four things of note...

Tim Russert is a tool. Mike Huckabee seems like a nice fellow. Mitt Romney is not a robot. Republicans do have a Clinton obsession.

I watched the Republican debate last night (full transcript here), even though the odds on me voting for any of the R candidates is currently set at 1,993 : 1 at Mandalay Bay (surprisingly, Caesar's has me at only 1,100 : 1).

I'll spare you a recap of the 90 minute affair. Many of the arguments presented deserve discussion and a single debate can give a critical person like myself a few billion excuses to launch into a rant. I'm going to pass on that, though. Instead, I'm just going to share Four Things I Noticed. Not all of them are new developments or groundbreaking insights, but all were clearly illustrated during the Boca Raton talkfest.

ONE. TIM RUSSERT IS A TOOL. I'm sure that co-moderating a debate with Brian Williams is a Herculean challenge, so I don't want to be too critical. However, Tim Russert is a piece of shit in that role. Period. Did you hear his questions of the candidates? Sweet baby Jesus on a fixed income, they were pathetic.

"Do you trust Candidate X to be a tax cutter?" He tossed that one out to every candidate. Why would anyone ask that question? The answer is utterly predictable. The respondent will either ignore it completely before talking about his own position vis-a-vis taxation or the respondent will graciously commend his competitor for wanting to keep taxes down before launching into his own "I'm gonna cut 'em" speech. It's elementary. I suppose someone COULD say, "No, I think the guy is an untrustworthy POS", but the odds of that happening are probably hovering near the odds of me voting for Rudy911. Slim to fuckin' none.

Oh, and Russert also had the "Here's a long list of things that sucked during periods of Republican governance. Why should anyone trust a Republican and will you run on this record of abysmal failure?" thing. Look, I'm as anti-GOP as the bastard child of Keith Olberman and Cynthia McKinney. I think it might actually be sort of fun to beat Sean Hannity around the head and shoulders with the severed leg of Rush Limbaugh. Yet even I recognize that the Russert questions were too editorial and far too loaded.

Another great Russert moment: "I want each of you to take 30 seconds. Will you go to the country... and say the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, and we will stay?"

Thirty seconds. Was the war a good idea? Was it worth it? Will we stay in Iraq? Thirty seconds. The clock is ticking. Don't try to make any distinctions between the value of the objectives underlying the war and its actual execution. Don't bother discussing the difference between shorter terms costs and potential long term costs and benefits. Don't even try to figure out what the hell "will we stay" means in a nuts and bolts kind of way. You started with thirty seconds. Tick tock. You are out of time. The lights are blinking. Boy, aren't you flustered!

Tim Russert is a tool.

TWO: MIKE HUCKABEE SEEMS LIKE A NICE FELLOW. Hey, I'm not going to vote for Huckabee. I don't give a shit if Chuck Norris summons the ghosts of Bruce Lee and Charles Bronson and then comes to my house ready to "persuade me", but he seems like a genuinely nice guy.

I'd guess that I wouldn't feel comfortable with about 99.9% of Baptist preacher dudes who used to cook up squirrel in popcorn poppers. Huckabee, though, might be an exception. He'd be an okay neighbor.

He has a certain earnestness about him and he at least attempts to have a sense of humor about things. The whole deal about giving Romney's kids a better world and a larger inheritance with a Huckabee vote was over the top, but it was still funnier than Rudy911's attempt at humor (note: if you have to explain that you were joking, you are not funny).

I currently have a list of 369 reasons NOT to vote for Huckabee. Personality, however, is not among them.

THREE: MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A ROBOT. Much is being made about the magic whisper of "he raised taxes" that was audible just in time to help Mitt with an answer to a question about Ronnie Reagan's behavior in 1983. In case you missed it, Tim "the Tool" Russert mentioned that Romney (like every other Republican) had mentioned a love of the Gipper. He wondered if Romney would follow in His 1983 footsteps.

That was a sneaky little Russert trick because '83 was the year Reagan hopped up a few taxes in an effort to keep Social Security rolling along.

A voice out of nowhere appeared to help Romney, just in the nick of time. "He raised taxes", the magic voice uttered. Romney ran with the hint, giving a "I won't raise taxes" answer.

Some have maintained that a Romney aide blurted out the clue. Others think it might have been one of the other candidates chatting into an open mic. I'm sure someone thinks the answer emanated from Romney's magic underwear. Here's a post about the whisper that has over 100 commenters offering opinions. I tend to believe that it was Brian Williams or someone else on the MSNBC production team.

Based on my not-so-careful review of the matter, it was a network hand who piped up with a little extra information in order to create a (hopefully) more meaningful Q&A. That makes a lot more sense than believing Romney had a midget aide hiding under the lectern.

John Brown concludes that the magic whisper to Romney is a non-issue. Romney may be many different lame things, but he is not a cheating robot debater.

FOUR: REPUBLICANS DO HAVE A CLINTON OBSESSION. Did you happen to notice how many times Hillary Clinton's name was invoked last night? Seemed like plenty. Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal says that Hillary received a whopping 29 mentions. My favorite was the "General Hillary Clinton" crap Romney was slinging.

Meanwhile, there was little or no discussion of Barack Obama. The individual who counted 16 "Clintons" came up with ZERO "Obamas". What does that mean?

Personally, I think it demonstrates that the Republicans believe raising the specter of Hillary is the best way to get their base all riled up and active. It also shows me that the Republicans have been planning on facing Clinton for awhile and may not be as ready to take on Obama.

Both of those notions could be considered reasons for Dems to back Barack, from a strategic sense. John Brown believes in selecting candidates on the merits of their positions and skills, as opposed to doing so on the basis of "electability", but the Republican hate of all things Clinton is an interesting point to ponder.


Bookmark


Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags: