New Ad
Obama has a new ad, unusual for being 2 minutes long and featuring him talking to the camera. I like the way he has recently cast our economic woes as a repudiation of longheld Republican policies, and this ad continues that theme. I'm not as optimistic as some who believe the last few days mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, but a substantial victory on this argument would be a nice step in that direction.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
We're Being Set Up
There's no way Palin is this bad in debates.
There's no way Palin is this bad in debates.
[I]n recent days, Gov. Palin flubbed quasi-mock debates in New York City and Philadelphia, some operatives said. Finger-pointing began, and then intensified after her faltering interview with CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric.She's worked on little else for a few weeks, and she gets to keep her answers brief, so generic platitudes will fit. I think they are leaking all this stuff about her being a disaster so that people will rally to her again if she just so much as manages to muddle through. Yeah the Couric interview was bad, but she didn't have a foil like she will have in Biden on Thursday. I fully expect him to be the more informed of the 2, but for her to "win the debate" by the stupid terms that we evaluate such things.
Monday, September 29, 2008
They Voted it Down
Interrupting this regularly scheduled MEDIA MONDAY to say: God help us all. The Dow is down500 more than 750 and I can't believe so many in the House picked doing nothing over doing something.
[Deep Thought Update for those Democrats voting Nay: When you find yourself on the same side as Lou Dobbs and my horrible Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, think again.
Late Night Deep Thought Update: I would much prefer seeing some stability in the credit market to seeing Bush's approval ratings hit single digits, but I'm not sure I will get my wish there.]
Interrupting this regularly scheduled MEDIA MONDAY to say: God help us all. The Dow is down
[Deep Thought Update for those Democrats voting Nay: When you find yourself on the same side as Lou Dobbs and my horrible Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, think again.
Late Night Deep Thought Update: I would much prefer seeing some stability in the credit market to seeing Bush's approval ratings hit single digits, but I'm not sure I will get my wish there.]
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Quote of the Day
The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on the transcript of Governor Palin's nearly unwatchable interview with Katie Couric.
The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on the transcript of Governor Palin's nearly unwatchable interview with Katie Couric.
This seems to be a case of incoherence of thought leading to incoherence of syntax. Pronouns wander in search of antecedents like Arctic explorers in a blinding snowstorm.
...
The whole thing reads like something rendered from the Finnish by Google Translate.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Deep Debate, Uh, Thought
Obama will help his debate performance tonight if he can stop himself from saying "uh" so often. He fills his pauses with uhs, like most of us do. But most of us haven't been through nearly 2 years' worth of nationally televised debate prep. It makes him sound unsure, and like a bit of an amateur. Surprised they haven't cleaned that up by now, it's one of the reasons his teleprompter speeches are so much better than the off-the-cuff delivery. But he was doing it even yesterday, so I don't have my hopes up.
[UPDATE: I thought Obama was very strong in delivery - forceful and confident and focused. He missed some opportunities to put McCain on the defensive, but when he did he was direct and clear. I thought McCain was rambly and bitter, maybe won a couple of exchanges but not sure why everyone seems to think it was tied.]
Obama will help his debate performance tonight if he can stop himself from saying "uh" so often. He fills his pauses with uhs, like most of us do. But most of us haven't been through nearly 2 years' worth of nationally televised debate prep. It makes him sound unsure, and like a bit of an amateur. Surprised they haven't cleaned that up by now, it's one of the reasons his teleprompter speeches are so much better than the off-the-cuff delivery. But he was doing it even yesterday, so I don't have my hopes up.
[UPDATE: I thought Obama was very strong in delivery - forceful and confident and focused. He missed some opportunities to put McCain on the defensive, but when he did he was direct and clear. I thought McCain was rambly and bitter, maybe won a couple of exchanges but not sure why everyone seems to think it was tied.]
Are They Considering All the Options? [UPDATED]
Something, again, we have to leave to trust: is this basic bailout approach, in which the Treasury Dept. is authorized to purchase and hold on to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt packages, the best model for intervention? Have other methods been duly considered and rejected? I read the proposal of James Galbraith in the Washington Post, and of course didn't understand it all but it does leave you thinking, geez I hope the reason they're not doing that is that it has some big flaw, and not because they weren't really trying to think of any options beyond their default bailout reaction.
I have never understood why - being the majority - we have to start from the Paulson model, and the Paulson dollar figure, and amend from there. Why not from scratch? Here's hoping the reason is because it really is the best model, most likely to solve problems, and not because old habits die hard.
[UPDATE: Also, read Steven Pearlstein.]
Something, again, we have to leave to trust: is this basic bailout approach, in which the Treasury Dept. is authorized to purchase and hold on to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt packages, the best model for intervention? Have other methods been duly considered and rejected? I read the proposal of James Galbraith in the Washington Post, and of course didn't understand it all but it does leave you thinking, geez I hope the reason they're not doing that is that it has some big flaw, and not because they weren't really trying to think of any options beyond their default bailout reaction.
I have never understood why - being the majority - we have to start from the Paulson model, and the Paulson dollar figure, and amend from there. Why not from scratch? Here's hoping the reason is because it really is the best model, most likely to solve problems, and not because old habits die hard.
[UPDATE: Also, read Steven Pearlstein.]
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Country First
I hate when McCain talks about stopping the campaign to put country over partisan politics-- a time to be Americans, he says, not Democrats or Republicans. For some of us, this election has been about saving the country all along. Interesting that McCain has 2 ways of being: in one, he puts the interests of the country ahead of partisan politics, and in the other, he campaigns for President. And never the twain shall meet.
If I believe in Obama beyond my fundamental agreement with his policies, it is because I believe he would never have to "suspend his campaign" to focus on what's right for the country. Focusing on what's right for the country is the rationale for his campaign.
I hate when McCain talks about stopping the campaign to put country over partisan politics-- a time to be Americans, he says, not Democrats or Republicans. For some of us, this election has been about saving the country all along. Interesting that McCain has 2 ways of being: in one, he puts the interests of the country ahead of partisan politics, and in the other, he campaigns for President. And never the twain shall meet.
If I believe in Obama beyond my fundamental agreement with his policies, it is because I believe he would never have to "suspend his campaign" to focus on what's right for the country. Focusing on what's right for the country is the rationale for his campaign.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Barney Frank
Along with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank is one of the bailout proponents I most respect. He was on Charlie Rose last night and explained things in a very helpful way for an ignoramus like me I thought. It's about 15 minutes.
Along with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank is one of the bailout proponents I most respect. He was on Charlie Rose last night and explained things in a very helpful way for an ignoramus like me I thought. It's about 15 minutes.
Bush Speech Deep Thought
Is he still President? Since he's at 19% approval shouldn't he use reverse psychology and come out against the bailout if he wants it to go forward?
[UPDATE: Some primary documents. Here is the text of Bush's address, a slightly better read than it was a listen. It was about as morosely and incoherently delivered as any presidential address I've ever heard. Remember when he used to annoyingly slow down and enunciate each syllable of some words for emphasis? This speech could have used a little bit of that, and I never thought I'd say that.]
Is he still President? Since he's at 19% approval shouldn't he use reverse psychology and come out against the bailout if he wants it to go forward?
[UPDATE: Some primary documents. Here is the text of Bush's address, a slightly better read than it was a listen. It was about as morosely and incoherently delivered as any presidential address I've ever heard. Remember when he used to annoyingly slow down and enunciate each syllable of some words for emphasis? This speech could have used a little bit of that, and I never thought I'd say that.]
Framing
Does the public support government intervention to purchase massive amounts of debt? Via Political Wire, it depends on how you ask the question. The Pew Research Center found the Americans largely supportive, by a 57 - 30% margin. This is what they asked:
Does the public support government intervention to purchase massive amounts of debt? Via Political Wire, it depends on how you ask the question. The Pew Research Center found the Americans largely supportive, by a 57 - 30% margin. This is what they asked:
As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?An LATimes/Bloomberg poll found 55% opposed to the idea. But of course:
The Times/Bloomberg poll asked respondents whether they believed it was "the government's responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers' dollars." A majority said no.This debate will probably be obnoxious, because those opposed will call it a bailout of failed Wall Street companies, as if it was the same thing as bailing out a failed restaurant. Supporters will insist its necessary for basic economic stability and avoiding another major depression, though they will not be able to prove that is the case. We're basically stuck just deciding who we trust. The pickings are slim.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bailout
Obviously, we're not economists here. Frankly, I'm not sure even that expertise offers a clear awareness of the scope of the current financial crisis, much less the judgment and insight to know how to fix it. Still, it puts you several steps ahead of me (and most of the bloggy heads now offering strong opinions). It does occur to me that any institution that, by going under, can bring us - apparently - to the brink of economic collapse is an institution that's entirely too big. But that could just be the ignorance talking.
Where I come down right now is wedged between 2 concerns: I don't like the idea of bailing out risky corporate greed for the failure that we should expect from risk and greed. But, at the same time, if that failure is going to cause a systemic collapse of our economy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 30s, then the greatest harm will come to those who don't deserve it, and can least afford it. If that threat is real, then something must be done - something bold that addresses structural fault lines that hold us in peril.
And, there's the rub. The Bush Administration has proven itself untrustworthy and incompetent in identifying, measuring and addressing national threats. I can show you a foolish war to prove it. After the WMD fiasco, we collectively wondered: how will the world and the country respond the next time they tell us a serious threat requires immediate and dramatic action? And, here we are. We assumed the test would be an international issue, not an economic one, but here were are anyway. And instead of being able to unite around the common cause of national fiscal stability, we're left skeptical, worried of an overreaching power grab by Republicans, or a pandering cave of principles by Democrats.
There is a trust vacuum right now. And let there be no mistake about who put it there. Political gamesmanship and power-hungry government officials are not a new concern. But, the last 8 years have left us unable to believe in the judgment and good faith of our leaders even in a moment of national crisis. At a time like this, we are left with little choice but to hope that experts - dare I say elites - with the nation's well-being clearly in their sights will drive the discussion, and that national leaders will absorb the truth as best they can, and do what has to be done to avert catastrophe and retain our national principles of fairness and justice. And yet, we don't believe in them. I don't, anyway. That, if you ask me, is the legacy of George W. Bush. Corporate greed runs unchecked, the law is crooked and disinterested, and people are on their own.
[UPDATE: At TPM, Josh Marshall puts it a little more succinctly.]
Obviously, we're not economists here. Frankly, I'm not sure even that expertise offers a clear awareness of the scope of the current financial crisis, much less the judgment and insight to know how to fix it. Still, it puts you several steps ahead of me (and most of the bloggy heads now offering strong opinions). It does occur to me that any institution that, by going under, can bring us - apparently - to the brink of economic collapse is an institution that's entirely too big. But that could just be the ignorance talking.
Where I come down right now is wedged between 2 concerns: I don't like the idea of bailing out risky corporate greed for the failure that we should expect from risk and greed. But, at the same time, if that failure is going to cause a systemic collapse of our economy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 30s, then the greatest harm will come to those who don't deserve it, and can least afford it. If that threat is real, then something must be done - something bold that addresses structural fault lines that hold us in peril.
And, there's the rub. The Bush Administration has proven itself untrustworthy and incompetent in identifying, measuring and addressing national threats. I can show you a foolish war to prove it. After the WMD fiasco, we collectively wondered: how will the world and the country respond the next time they tell us a serious threat requires immediate and dramatic action? And, here we are. We assumed the test would be an international issue, not an economic one, but here were are anyway. And instead of being able to unite around the common cause of national fiscal stability, we're left skeptical, worried of an overreaching power grab by Republicans, or a pandering cave of principles by Democrats.
There is a trust vacuum right now. And let there be no mistake about who put it there. Political gamesmanship and power-hungry government officials are not a new concern. But, the last 8 years have left us unable to believe in the judgment and good faith of our leaders even in a moment of national crisis. At a time like this, we are left with little choice but to hope that experts - dare I say elites - with the nation's well-being clearly in their sights will drive the discussion, and that national leaders will absorb the truth as best they can, and do what has to be done to avert catastrophe and retain our national principles of fairness and justice. And yet, we don't believe in them. I don't, anyway. That, if you ask me, is the legacy of George W. Bush. Corporate greed runs unchecked, the law is crooked and disinterested, and people are on their own.
[UPDATE: At TPM, Josh Marshall puts it a little more succinctly.]
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Yargh
Shiver me timbers, matey! 'Tis the 19th day of the 9th month and all of ya bilge rats have let the scurvy go right to me land lubber brain. Talk Like a Pirate Day nearly set sail without notice. Aye! The sun still has eyes enough to drop anchor with me mates for pirate talk. Avast! Me best wishes for grog and rich booty aplenty yer next 2 days! Then, back to the decks with you!
Shiver me timbers, matey! 'Tis the 19th day of the 9th month and all of ya bilge rats have let the scurvy go right to me land lubber brain. Talk Like a Pirate Day nearly set sail without notice. Aye! The sun still has eyes enough to drop anchor with me mates for pirate talk. Avast! Me best wishes for grog and rich booty aplenty yer next 2 days! Then, back to the decks with you!
I'm Confused
Can someone explain why, exactly, McCain's membership in the Keating 5 is somehow off limits this election cycle? I know, it's no sex-with-an-intern, but still a pretty flagrant violation of the public trust that seems fairly instructive into the man's character.
In addition to providing that window into McCain, wouldn't you say the S & L crisis of the 80s bears a fair enough resemblance to the current situation to be supremely relevant?
Over at Washington Monthly, Steve Benen takes a stab at bringing into focus, but I'm really not sure why it's considered a low blow for the Democrats to bring this up directly. He had to apologize for his inappropriate actions, even. It was no small scandal.
Is it just considered too long ago? Or the fact that he may have been the least culpable of the 5? Isn't that kind of a low bar in the presidential character test?
Can someone explain why, exactly, McCain's membership in the Keating 5 is somehow off limits this election cycle? I know, it's no sex-with-an-intern, but still a pretty flagrant violation of the public trust that seems fairly instructive into the man's character.
In addition to providing that window into McCain, wouldn't you say the S & L crisis of the 80s bears a fair enough resemblance to the current situation to be supremely relevant?
Over at Washington Monthly, Steve Benen takes a stab at bringing into focus, but I'm really not sure why it's considered a low blow for the Democrats to bring this up directly. He had to apologize for his inappropriate actions, even. It was no small scandal.
Is it just considered too long ago? Or the fact that he may have been the least culpable of the 5? Isn't that kind of a low bar in the presidential character test?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
But What About Europe?
This international gaffe-scandal McCain kicked off last night, by clearly not remembering that Zapatero is thePresident Prime Minister of Spain, is to me not the hugest deal, but still a surprise for somebody that's running on foreign policy experience. I would bet that even President Bush today knows who his counterpart in Spain is. I think too, some of the problem was in McCain not hearing the interview well - what with a translator talking over the mix. (When, flustered, she asks "But what about Europe?" And he says "What about me, what?" thinking she said "what about your... " he's not being dumb so much as just not hearing clearly what she's saying).
Still, there are some points worth making...
1. If Obama had made this mistake, not knowing who Zapatero is and trying to cover it up with generic bluster, the McCain campaign would have made a big deal about it, and the right-wing talk machine would make an entire day about his being an empty suit and not so smart without his teleprompter.
2. Can we get rid of the mythology that McCain is somehow a global affairs guru, at least? I mean, they are running the GOP ticket under the premise that somehow he will take the inexperienced Governor Palin "under his wing" and teach her about foreign affairs. What's she going to learn, that the Soviet Union is our biggest enemy out to get us and Spain is led by Francisco Franco? I really don't care that he doesn't know who Zapatero is - maybe I should care - but I do mind the perpetuation of this nonsense that he is some paragon of wise experience.
For some reason, this line of critique carries no weight in the media because it refutes the standard McCain narrative, rather than reinforcing it. I wish our politics cared as much about debunking myths when direct evidence comes along as it does about repeating repeating them over and over even supported only by the slimmest allegation.
3. Maybe the most important to me. Whether we want to call this a "senior moment" or poor communication or whatever, he's not a good listener. Beyond not knowing the leader of a NATO ally, his response to not knowing is a bit telling. His instinct was to cover up his lack of knowledge with tough talk, pretending to respond to a question that he was in fact trying to deflect out of ignorance. And his defensive attack posture so enveloped him that he was literally unable to hear the questioner's attempt to move the conversation forward with a clarification.
Haven't we had enough of that kind of leadership? The kind that doesn't know how (refuses) to listen? Bill Clinton was great at listening. Obama seems fair at it. But McCain demonstrates Bush-like abilities in this area, as does Palin, which is to say, none at all.
Would it really have been *that* embarrassing to have just stopped the interview and said..."Zapatero...?" and then after she reminds him, say "oh of course...I'm sorry...you had me focused on Latin America so I drew a blank at his name" or something like that? Seriously - is it that much better to just pretend and then deny, deny, deny? Maybe it is better, politically, but it is surely a character flaw. I have it too sometimes I admit - that defensiveness that comes from a fear of looking ignorant. But then I am not asking to be the leader of the free world.
[UPDATE: Gambler that he is, McCain doubles down. Now, he's willing to pretend that, no, he really has Spain on his watch list, and not sure he wants to meet with its leader, rather than admit to even not hearing the Spanish speaking interviewer correctly? Shall we adapt all of our foreign policy to fit with the coverups of McCain's cognitive lapses?]
This international gaffe-scandal McCain kicked off last night, by clearly not remembering that Zapatero is the
Still, there are some points worth making...
1. If Obama had made this mistake, not knowing who Zapatero is and trying to cover it up with generic bluster, the McCain campaign would have made a big deal about it, and the right-wing talk machine would make an entire day about his being an empty suit and not so smart without his teleprompter.
2. Can we get rid of the mythology that McCain is somehow a global affairs guru, at least? I mean, they are running the GOP ticket under the premise that somehow he will take the inexperienced Governor Palin "under his wing" and teach her about foreign affairs. What's she going to learn, that the Soviet Union is our biggest enemy out to get us and Spain is led by Francisco Franco? I really don't care that he doesn't know who Zapatero is - maybe I should care - but I do mind the perpetuation of this nonsense that he is some paragon of wise experience.
For some reason, this line of critique carries no weight in the media because it refutes the standard McCain narrative, rather than reinforcing it. I wish our politics cared as much about debunking myths when direct evidence comes along as it does about repeating repeating them over and over even supported only by the slimmest allegation.
3. Maybe the most important to me. Whether we want to call this a "senior moment" or poor communication or whatever, he's not a good listener. Beyond not knowing the leader of a NATO ally, his response to not knowing is a bit telling. His instinct was to cover up his lack of knowledge with tough talk, pretending to respond to a question that he was in fact trying to deflect out of ignorance. And his defensive attack posture so enveloped him that he was literally unable to hear the questioner's attempt to move the conversation forward with a clarification.
Haven't we had enough of that kind of leadership? The kind that doesn't know how (refuses) to listen? Bill Clinton was great at listening. Obama seems fair at it. But McCain demonstrates Bush-like abilities in this area, as does Palin, which is to say, none at all.
Would it really have been *that* embarrassing to have just stopped the interview and said..."Zapatero...?" and then after she reminds him, say "oh of course...I'm sorry...you had me focused on Latin America so I drew a blank at his name" or something like that? Seriously - is it that much better to just pretend and then deny, deny, deny? Maybe it is better, politically, but it is surely a character flaw. I have it too sometimes I admit - that defensiveness that comes from a fear of looking ignorant. But then I am not asking to be the leader of the free world.
[UPDATE: Gambler that he is, McCain doubles down. Now, he's willing to pretend that, no, he really has Spain on his watch list, and not sure he wants to meet with its leader, rather than admit to even not hearing the Spanish speaking interviewer correctly? Shall we adapt all of our foreign policy to fit with the coverups of McCain's cognitive lapses?]
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mission Accomplished
Consider the Article 19 series of (controversial!) posts complete and, obviously, a success. Really, no need to thank me.
Consider the Article 19 series of (controversial!) posts complete and, obviously, a success. Really, no need to thank me.
In a sign that John McCain's convention bounce has dissipated, Barack Obama has taken a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over his Republican rival among registered voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
...
Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)