The Miseducation of the American Voter

Governor Sarah Palin is referencing a New York Times article in her attacks on Senator Barack Obama. Governor Palin argues Mr. Obama has been “palling around with terrorists.”

“Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” was written by Scott Shane. The article was poorly written. The article appears to imply a connection between Senator Obama and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.

Governor Palin is dishonest in her argument. She is merely reciting the talking point of the day. Or, maybe she did not carefully read the article.

Mr. Shane reports Mr. Ayers met Mr. Obama at a lunchtime meeting regarding school reform in 1995. He was no longer the 60’s radical who founded the Weathermen. At the time, Mr. Ayers was an education professor in Chicago.

Mr. Shane explains Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama’s careers overlapped. In the sixth paragraph Mr. Shane wrote, “But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers…”[i]

Buried deeper in the article, Mr. Shane wrote, “Since 2002, there is little evidence of their relationship.”[ii]

Mr. Shane implies Senator Obama “has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers.”[iii]

The seventh paragraph includes the standard campaign denial stating, “The Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate.”[iv]

Mr. Shane’s article is unclear. He should have started with the following lead: “During the Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton argued there was a link between Mr. Obama and 60’s Weathermen radical William Ayers.

“Senator McCain’s campaign also expressed concerns over Mr. Obama’s possible involvement with domestic terrorists.

“Conservative talk show hosts have expressed outrage over Mr. Obama’s possible association with radical groups.

“However, after a careful investigation, it can be concluded that there is no formal relationship between Senator Obama and Mr. William Ayers. Any relationship between both individuals is casual at best.”

From that point, Mr. Shane should have described the history of the Obama – Ayers relationship, which he did starting on page three of the article (the downloaded format).

Mr. Ayers was instrumental in winning a $50 million grant from Walter H. Annenberg, a billionaire philanthropist and former United Kingdom ambassador under President Nixon.[v]

“In March 1995, Mr. Obama became the chairman of the six member board that oversaw the distribution of the grants in Chicago.” Contrary to right wing speculation, Mr. Ayers was not involved in the appointment.[vi]

It was Ms Deborah Leff, president of the Chicago based Joyce Foundation, who suggested Mr. Obama “would make a good board chairman.” Also present at the lunch meeting was “Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation.” Mr. Ayers was not at that meeting.[vii]

From 1995 to 2000, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attended six board meetings. Mr. Ayers briefed the board members on school issues.[viii]

In 1995, Mr. Ayers hosted a gathering in his townhouse. State Senator Alice J. Palmer was planning to run for Congress. Ms Palmer introduced Mr. Obama as her “chosen successor” at this gathering.[ix]

In 1997, during an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama offered praise to “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” a book written by Mr. Ayers.[x]

In 2001, Mr. Ayers contributed $200 to State Senator Obama’s re-election campaign.[xi]

From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attendance overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, “a Chicago Charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer…”[xii]

That is the nature of the relationship between Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama. In conclusion, there is no formal or close relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers.

Perhaps if Mr. Shane’s article were clearly written, then Governor Palin would not be using it as source in her campaign speeches.

But if the article were written clearly, then the Republican Party would have accused the New York Times of being apologists for domestic terrorists, and supporting Senator Obama.

Maybe the article was poorly written on purpose as a preemptive defense against bias, to protect the New York Times from attacks by the Republican Party.

The relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers has been in the public domain since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity adopted the mission of exposing a connection between Senator Obama and William Ayers. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain willingly joined the crusade.

During a telephone interview with “This Week” host on April 15, 2008, Mr. Hannity suggested George Stephanopoulos should ask Senator Obama to explain the nature of his relationship with Mr. Ayers during a presidential debate.

Mr. Stephanopoulos complied. During the April 16, 2008 Democratic presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama about, “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers – he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that, and, in fact, on 9-11, he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

“An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[xiii]

It is worth repeating, Mr. Stephanopoulos said the Obama campaign admits Senator Obama and Mr. Ayers are friendly.

Senator Obama calmly explained that he served on a board in Chicago with Mr. Ayers, but was not “somebody who I exchanged ideas from a regular basis.” Senator Obama described Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

Mr. Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen conducted their domestic terrorist activities. Mr. Ayers was not a fugitive when he met Mr. Obama. He was not a convicted felon who was ostracized from society.

It is a story that will not die because the mainstream media continues to ignore the facts. The Mediacracy allows the McCain campaign to smear Senator Obama, and does not even attempt refute these baseless allegations. The mainstream media rationalization is that it is Mr. Obama’s responsibility to counter the charges.

The William Ayers controversy will not end after the election. If elected, the Republicans in Congress will demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the relationship between President Obama and Mr. Ayers, or with Tony Rezko, or with ACORN.

The Republican Party has proven they are unwilling to work with others. America will continue to falter because of their obstinacy.




[i] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iv] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[v] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[viii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ix] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[x] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xiii] “Right Wing Radio Host Suggested Damn Good Question to Stephanopoulos Day Before Debate,” Media Matters for America, April 17, 2008.

Political Three Card Monte

The current presidential campaign reminds me of a game I see played everyday on street corners. Three Card Monte is promoted as a game of chance, but is really is a confidence scam.

A dealer places three cards on a cardboard box, usually the Jack of Spades, the Jack of Clubs, and the Queen of Hearts. The Queen of Hearts is the winning card.

The dealer shows the Queen of Hearts to the audience, quickly rearranges the cards on the surface of the cardboard box, and asks members of the audience to place a bet and guess the location of the Queen of Hearts.

Find the Queen and you win the amount you bet. If you guess wrong, then you lose your money.

The crew operating the con game consists of the dealer, shills who are pretending to play in order to draw in innocent victims, a lookout to alert the crew of approaching law enforcement, maybe an enforcer to protect the crew from a disgruntled loser, a distraction to divert the attention of the victim, and the victim known as the mark.

The dealer sets up a make shift table, usually a cardboard box. He makes his pitch to pedestrians. A shill agrees to play. The shill may win to demonstrate how easy the game is. Other shills will become involved in the action, encouraging the game further.

A mark decides it is an easy game to win, and will place a bet. The dealer may allow the mark to win a few bets, while the shills encourage the mark to increase the amount of money being wagered. Once sufficient money is staked, the dealer will use sleight of hand tricks to fool the mark. Or the crew may use shills to distract the mark, for example, a couple starts to argue just as the pot has peaked. Eventually the mark loses the money.

In the context of our presidential campaign, the dealer is the Republican Party. The shills are the Mainstream Media and the Pundit class. The distraction is Governor Sarah Palin. Voters are the mark. The Queen of Hearts are the issues. This is how this con game works.

The Republicans want to win this election, more than any other. The Bush Administration did not undermine the Constitution, did not create an imperial presidency just to turn it over to the Democrats, especially Senator Barack Obama.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney will leave behind dirty secrets, some of them criminal. The Republicans cannot risk the possibility of investigations, for example war profiteering, initiated by President Obama. The Bush Administration needs time, at least four years, for the crimes of the current administration to fade away.

The Republican Party understands it cannot win this election on the issues. The majority of Americans, 80%, believe the country is on the wrong track.

In this instance, the dealer needs to distract the voters, or the mark. Selecting Governor Palin was a brilliant tactical move.

Governor Palin is unknown to the general public, but her profile is appealing, especially to the Republican base. She is the mother of five children. Her oldest son is about to deployed to Iraq. Governor Palin is a member of the National Rifle Association. She is pro-life. She is a self-described hockey mom. Voters connect with the profile.

In selecting an unknown vice presidential candidate, the Republican Party insured it would take weeks for the Mainstream Media to fully vet Governor Palin. While the media researched Governor Palin’s past, the Republicans defined the image of Governor Palin as a maverick, Washington outsider who will help Senator McCain change the corrupt political culture of Washington.

The Palin narrative included her opposition to earmarks such as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” selling the state plane on E Bay, and firing the chef – because having a chef cooking meals for her family at taxpayer expense was extravagant.

The Republicans will argue, with a straight face, that Governor Palin has national security experience because she is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. In addition, Governor Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia.

The public was already infatuated with Governor Palin by the time the media exposed the Palin narrative as a fraud. She did not sell the state plane on E Bay.

Governor Palin did not fire the chef. The chef was transferred to another job title, but continued to cook meals for the governor’s family.

At first, Governor Palin was in favor of the “Bridge to Nowhere,” but changed her position after the bridge became a source of embarrassment. And Governor Palin does not mention the fact she kept the money for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” She used the funds for other infrastructure projects in Alaska.

During her term as governor, Mrs. Palin did not deploy the Alaskan National Guard. In her interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson, Governor Palin displayed a lack of knowledge in foreign affairs that would have derailed the career of any other political candidate.

But the tactic succeeded. The mark is not paying attention to the cards. Voters are paying attention to Governor Palin, the distraction.

Meanwhile, the dealer continues to move the cards, trying to conceal the Queen of Hearts from the voters. The election will be over by the time the mark makes an educated guess.

Where is Senator Obama and the Democratic Party in this con game. Mr. Obama is trying to warn the mark about the deception, but the shills, the Mediacracy and political pundits are drowning out the Democrats with background noise.

In the last 18 months, the Mainstream Media embraced the campaign narrative that Senator Obama was inexperienced, unknown, exotic, and risky.

Governor Palin is as inexperienced, unknown and risky as Mr. Obama, but the Mainstream Media is using a different standard with Governor Palin. She is a great story, the hockey mom who could be vice president.

The mark cannot hear the warnings because the shills have successfully drowned out the good Samaritans who are trying to interrupt the game.

Senator McCain’s judgment and positions are no longer issues in this presidential campaign. Instead, it is about people, who would the voters feel most comfortable with, the maverick POW and the hockey mom from Alaska, or the black couple from Chicago.

If you think issues matter in a presidential campaign, then remember George Bush and Dick Cheney defeated an incumbent party during a time of peace and prosperity.

Americans are placing their good faith in a Three Card Monte dealer who has its own agenda, and does the have the best interests of the country at heart. The mark is about to bet its future on random chance, but in games of chance the dealer usually wins, and the mark does not realize it’s been duped until the con game is over.

Deconstructing McCain

Senator John McCain proudly accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president. In his speech, Mr. McCain attempted to reintroduce himself to the public, and rationalize his candidacy.

It was the culmination of a long battle that started in the late 1990’s, was derailed by a smear campaign conducted by the campaign staff of current President Bush, and almost died prematurely last year as Senator McCain struggled to raise money, and convince a nation involved in two wars, and is in the mist of an economic catastrophe that the maverick had the answers to our problems.

It is unfair to pass judgment on Mr. McCain speech making ability. He is not an eloquent public speaker, and his inability to deliver a speech should not be held against him especially when he is running against one of the most eloquent speakers our country has ever produced – Senator Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Senator McCain has trouble reading from a teleprompter. This problem interferes with his ability to add emotion and build momentum during the speech. Mr. McCain would not be able to effectively convey the power of the Gettysburg address if he read it from a teleprompter. Delivering a speech is not his strength, therefore only the content of the speech will be evaluated.

The acceptance speech could be divided into three parts: the introduction, the middle, and the third act – the lessons he learned as a prisoner of war (POW).

The introduction was standard, thanking family and supporters. Mr. McCain welcomed Governor Palin to the ticket. Senator McCain warmly mentioned his opponent, “honoring Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.”[i]

In the third act, Mr. McCain spoke of the hardships he endured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He was tortured for five years. It was poignant and sad.

Our government manufactured intelligence and lied to our country. We were at war against the Vietnamese people who at the time were not really a threat to the United States. History proved the infamous “Domino Theory” to be false, as well as every other rationalization for the war. Mr. McCain and thousands of other Vietnam War veterans suffered in vain over a mistake.

A good speech is not just eloquent, but is also well written. I will attempt to evaluate the middle part of the speech strictly using the text.

Mr. McCain deserves credit for admitting the Republican Party missed an opportunity when they controlled congress and the presidency. “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us,” said Mr. McCain. “We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government…”[ii]

However, once in power, the Republican Party resembled a crime family. They took advantage of their position in government to divide the spoils – mostly at the taxpayer’s expense.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain’s speech included falsehoods, and distortions.

Senator McCain called for increased bipartisanship. “I’ve worked with members of both parties to fix the problems that need to be fixed,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s how I will govern as president.”[iii]

Senator McCain said he would work with and include Democrats and independents in his administration. “Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn’t think of them first, let’s use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let’s try sharing it.”[iv]

There can be no greater distortion than a Republican calling for bipartisanship. Senator McCain’s call for bipartisanship and mutual cooperation is disingenuous.

It reminded me Senator Clinton’s supporters demanding Senator Obama to select her as the vice presidential nominee for the sake of unifying the party, except that it was Senator Clinton who divided the Democratic Party during the primaries.

Rip Van Winkle would have been moved by Senator McCain’s call for unity and cooperation if he woke from his long nap on the final day of the Republican convention. Mr. McCain wants to unite a country that was divided by the Republican Party over the last 28 years. The Republicans have refused to cooperate with the Democrats.

The divisiveness started with Senator McCain’s political hero, President Ronald Reagan, who demonized liberals, practically associating them with communists. President Bush (The First) denigrated liberalism, mocking his opponent Mike Dukakis for being a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization devoted to protecting the Bill of Rights.

But current New York Times op Ed columnist William Kristol was the philosophical godfather of the current Republican ideological movement. In a zero sum game in which one party must win, and the other party must suffer a crushing defeat, Mr. Kristol believes “what matters most is offense, crushing your opponents, carrying the day.”[v]

Mr. Kristol opposed President Clinton on every policy matter except for NAFTA. According to Mr. Kristol, the goal of the Republican Party should not be to find common ground to produce solutions to the countries problems. Instead, the goal of the Republicans is to “Defeat the Democrats, no matter what the issue, no matter what the consequences.”[vi]

This philosophical tactic was used to defeat President Clinton’s health care plan. Passage of the Clinton health care plan in any form would be disastrous,” wrote Mr. Kristol in the Wall Street Journal. “There is no health care crisis.” According to Mr. Kristol, “If we are to negotiate with Democrats over health care reform, it must be on our terms, not theirs.”[vii]

For years, the Republican Party campaigned against welfare. President Reagan spoke of the mythical Welfare Queen who drove a Cadillac while receiving public benefits. Yet Mr. Kristol encouraged Republicans not cooperate with President Clinton’s plan to “end welfare as we know it.”[viii]

Mr. Kristol argued Republicans should not compromise with the president under any circumstances. “Republicans should not busy themselves seeking promising signs or areas of possible agreement in the president’s plan. Instead, we should make plain what this welfare proposal amounts to: marginal tinkering…,” wrote Mr. Kristol in a strategy memo.[ix]

Imagine that, Republicans against welfare reform. The Republicans call that a flip-flop.

In 2000, President Bush campaigned as a politician who had experience working with Democrats in the Texas legislature. In 2004, after defeating Senator Kerry in the presidential election, President Bush extended his hand to the defeated Democrats, indicating he would be willing to work with the opposition party – as long as they agreed with his policies. In his eight years as President, Mr. Bush has rarely practiced the art of bipartisanship.

In his acceptance speech, Senator McCain attributed his failing campaign to his support for the troop escalation in Iraq (The Surge). “I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I’d rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.”[x]

Furthermore, the line about preferring to lose an election instead of losing a war is a Republican Party talking point initiated by Senator McCain. The talking point was designed to question Senator Obama’s patriotism. Also, Mr. McCain argued Mr. Obama was more concerned with personal glory than winning the war on terror.

Mr. McCain was magnanimous and conciliatory towards his opponent in the first part of his acceptance speech. “A word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We’ll go at it over the next two months,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other.”[xi]

The tone of the speech changed from magnanimity and conciliatory to cheap politics in the span of eight paragraphs.

Mr. McCain’s campaign was not in trouble because he believed our military needed to increase troop levels in Iraq. This is false. Except for Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates were in favor of the surge. In addition, the Democrats in the House and Senate caved in to President Bush’s demand for troop escalation.

It was his comprehensive immigration reform legislation, co sponsored with Senator Ted Kennedy that almost killed off his campaign. Mr. McCain changed his position on immigration, and would vote against a bill he authored.[xii]

Senator McCain abandoned bipartisanship during the current presidential campaign in order to salvage the nomination.

Senator McCain is a self-proclaimed maverick who speaks of putting the interests of the country first, but in this instance he placed personal ambition ahead of his principles.

Mr. McCain uttered a falsehood about Senator Obama’s tax proposals. He claimed Senator Obama will raise taxes. Even Fox News said Mr. McCain’s assertion is false. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Obama said he would lower the taxes of 95% of the people, and he would cut capital gains taxes.

Senator McCain boasted his health care plan “will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance.”[xiii]

According to Mr. McCain, Senator Obama’s health care plan “will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”[xiv]

Mr. McCain’s health plan is flawed because he does not account for people with preexisting medical conditions obtaining health insurance, and he wants to maintain a system dependent on HMO’s. He said a bureaucrat will stand in the way of a patient and medical treatment, but an HMO currently stands in the way of a patient and medical treatment. HMO’s will make every effort to deny coverage.

Senator Obama’s health care plan is also flawed because he wants to include HMO’s in his plan. While Mr. Obama is willing to offer alternatives to Americans who cannot afford health insurance, I believe adopting a single payer, national heath insurance plan is the only way to solve the health care crisis. Simply stated, you go to the doctor, the government pays the bill.

Mr. McCain said Senator Obama voted for “corporate welfare bill for oil companies.” Not true. In 2005, Mr. Obama supported an energy bill that raised taxes on oil companies, “by about $300 million.” Furthermore, Senator Obama said he would remove tax breaks for oil companies.[xv]

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is in favor of reducing corporate taxes, including oil companies.[xvi]

Senator McCain’s energy policy is a not really new. He wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants throughout the United States.[xvii] Mr. McCain wants to use antiquated technology to solve the energy and global climate change crisis.

Mr. McCain made another false statement regarding oil. “We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much,” said Mr. McCain.[xviii]

In fact, the United States spent $536 billion on foreign oil in 2007 to all exporting nations, with “32% of U.S. oil imports from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.”[xix]

Senator McCain was right when he said developing new energy technologies would “create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.”[xx] Senator Obama made the same argument in his acceptance speech.

Republicans continually mock former Vice President Gore’s concerns for the environment. And the Republicans mock Senator Obama’s plan to solve global warming. In her acceptance speech on September 3rd, Governor Palin said of Mr. Obama, “What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?”[xxi]

Shouldn’t Senator McCain be mocked and ridiculed for saying in his acceptance speech, “We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.”[xxii]

Mr. McCain offered solutions to our problems. He promised eliminate earmarks, or pork barrel projects from the federal budget and would veto appropriation bills containing earmarks.

The budget deficit will be approximately $200 billion in 2009. Earmarks constitute $16.9 billion dollars of the federal budget.[xxiii] You cannot balance the federal budget by reducing expenses by 8.5%.

Senator McCain proposed changes in unemployment benefits. “Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s going to change on my watch.”[xxiv] But he did not specify how.

Senator McCain offered a policy proposal that appears to be a federal program designed to subsidize the incomes of workers who lose their jobs, and forced to take lower paying new jobs. “For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.”[xxv]

Isn’t that a new social welfare program, and aren’t Republicans against using tax revenue to finance social welfare programs? Interesting how the media did not report the potential creation of a new federal social welfare program.

There was a part of Mr. McCain’s speech that I thought was odd. “We believe everyone has something to contribute,” said Mr. McCain, “and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We’re all God’s children and we’re all Americans.”[xxvi]

In a country as diverse as ours, Senator McCain could only mention the descendants from the Mayflower and immigrants from Latin America? What about the dreams of African Americans, Asians and Jews? Makes you wonder if he envisions a country made up of white people and their Latin servants.

If you read and study the text of the speech, you will realize it was not Senator McCain’s finest effort. The constant applause and watching Mr. McCain struggle with the teleprompter serve as a distraction.

The speech is not memorable because it does not contain a vision of where Mr. McCain intends to lead our country. Talking about change, about fighting for the good cause, about victory without specific proposals, making false and misleading statements is empty rhetoric.




[i] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[ii] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[iv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[v] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[vi] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[vii] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[viii] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[ix] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[x] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xi] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xii] “McCain Would Rather Lose an Election Than Win a War,” The Washington Post, September 6, 2008.
[xiii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xiv] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xv] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xvi] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xvii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xviii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xix] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xx] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxi] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxiii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxiv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxvi] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.

Impaired Judgment

“If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have,” said Senator Barack Obama during his landmark acceptance speech in front of 80,000 cheering supporters in Denver.[i]

The Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, failed the first judgment test of the presidential campaign when he selected Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

It could have been worse. Senator McCain could have asked Vice President Cheney to serve another four years.

It’s not like Senator McCain has not displayed poor judgment over and over again for the past seven years. During an interview on the David Letterman show in October 2001, Senator McCain implicated Saddam Hussein in the anthrax attacks.

Senator McCain supported President Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq, therefore he accepted President Bush’s premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, had an alliance with Al Qaeda, and was a threat to world peace.

In addition, the Arizona senator has repeatedly stated Iraq is the central front on the war on terror.

Actually, Iraq is not the central front on the war on terror. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are at the epicenter of the war on terror. Our government either refuses to acknowledge the threat, is appeasing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or is deliberately ignoring the threat.

During the summer, Senator McCain said, on more than one occasion, Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them back into Iraq.

It is highly unlikely Iran is training Al Qaeda. Shiite rule Iran. Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi sect that believes Shiites are heretics, and heretics are supposed to be put to death according to the Wahhabi’s strict interpretation of Islam.

Senator McCain argues that off shore drilling will reduce gas prices, but experts agree that it will take ten years for oil to be ready for the market if off shore drilling started today.

Senator McCain’s latest judgment spasm was the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

During the 2000 Republican presidential campaign, Senator McCain was asked if he would accept the nomination for vice president. According to Mr. McCain, “The vice president has two duties one is to inquire daily as to the health of the president and attend the funerals of third world dictators.”[ii]

Strictly using Senator McCain’s job description of the vice president, then Governor Palin is qualified to be his running mate. It is not beyond her abilities to ask President McCain, “How are you feeling today sir?” and attending funerals. Otherwise Governor Palin is not qualified to be the next vice president.

Governor Palin is not exactly sure what are the responsibilities of a vice president. In a July 31, 2008 interview she expressed apprehension about becoming a vice president. “What is it exactly that the vice president does every day?” she asked.[iii] She is politically active and was worried the vice presidency could be a demotion.

However, it is reassuring that Governor Palin has not been aware of Vice President Cheney’s excesses during the past eight years, and has not expressed delight in becoming the next subverter of the United States.

Governor Palin’s political resume is anorexically thin. Mrs. Palin served two terms in the Wasilla city council from 1992 to 1996, then served two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. The current population of Wasilla, Alaska is 9,780, or approximately “one twentieth the size of Barack Obama’s Illinois state senate district.”[iv]

Mrs. Palin won the Alaska gubernatorial election in 2006. She has served less than two years in a state with the population of 670,000. In 1992, Republicans argued Governor Clinton was not qualified to be president because he was the governor of a small state. The population of Arkansas in 1990 was 2,350,725.

Governor Palin does not have the foreign policy experience to become president if Mr. McCain is physically or mentally unable to complete the presidential term.

Senator McCain, the Republican Party and the Mainstream Media have spent the last 18 months arguing Senator Barack Obama does not have the experience, or the qualifications to become the next president. The selection of Governor Palin nullifies that argument.

Senator McCain and the Republican Party argue Senator Obama is more of celebrity than a leader, going so far as to compare Mr. Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

Mr. McCain undermines the celebrity argument by selecting a contestant to beauty contest as his running mate. Mrs. Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest in 1984, and was second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant.

It’s like a focus group selected Governor Palin to be the vice presidential nominee. Conservatives and Christian evangelicals are suspicious of Senator McCain’s motives. Mrs. Palin is conservative, Christian, pro-life, opposes embryonic stem cell research, is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), does not believe pollution is the catalyst for global warming, is against adding polar bears to the list of endangered species, is in favor of drilling for oil in Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR), believes intelligent design should be taught in schools, and her children were home schooled. It does not hurt that she is an attractive woman with an attractive family.

Parenthetically, late night comedians will have fun with Senator McCain’s selection, but it would be unfair to dismiss her as a lightweight because of her appearance. Beauty does not equal stupidity. The debate should be about her qualifications, not her looks.

Although Republicans will no doubt in the future argue the Democrats are treating Governor Palin harshly because she is a beautiful woman.

Senator McCain and the Republican Party believe Governor Palin will pull angry Hillary Clinton supporters away from Senator Obama. The Democratic Party convention was picketed by the P.U.M.A’s (Party Unity My Ass).

However, Hillary Clinton supporters who despise Senator Obama were going to vote for Senator McCain regardless of his selection for vice president – including the PUMAS.

The Republicans will counter the inexperience argument by claiming Mrs. Palin’s 15 months experience as governor is more valuable than Senator Obama’s experience as a United States Senator. She has chief executive experience that Senator Obama does not have. Furthermore, Governor Palin is the Commander in Chief of Alaska’s National Guard.

A question the Mainstream Media will not ask is, “As governor of Alaska, how many times have you deployed the National Guard in Alaska, and what where the circumstances that led you to deploy the National Guard?”

The most absurd foreign policy argument in favor of Mrs. Palin is from Michael Barone who wrote, “Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia.”[v]

Another Republican talking point will be that Mrs. Palin is not that far removed from the lives of average Americans, her husband belongs to a union, and her family faces the same challenges other American families are forced to endure. Mrs. Palin has stronger connections to the average American.

The Republicans will argue Governor Palin is a maverick, like Senator McCain, who challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska, and will use her opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” as an example.

However, Governor Palin changed her position on the infamous earmark. In 2006, she was in favor of funding the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Responding to a questionnaire from The Anchorage Daily News, Mrs. Palin said, “I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our Congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”[vi]

The Mainstream Media will play an important role in Senator McCain’s presidential campaign. Sometimes the media will portray Governor Palin favorably. Sometimes the media will echo the Republican’s talking points. What the Mainstream Media will not do is question or scrutinize Governor Palin experience, qualifications or record in Alaska.

The selection of Governor Palin was characterized as bold by the Mainstream Media. But Senator Obama is risky because he is inexperienced, and the country does not know him and may not feel comfortable with him.

Governor Tim Pawlenty was interviewed on Meet the Press. Tom Brokaw asked Governor Pawlenty if Mrs. Palin was as qualified as Senator McCain’s other potential choices for vice president, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman. Governor Pawlenty did not answer the question. Instead, he said Governor Palin connects with the average American. Mr. Brokaw did not ask a follow up question, nor asked Governor Pawlenty why he did not answer the question.[vii]

During the same broadcast of Meet the Press, Maria Bartiromo of CNBC, one of the few journalists who actually interviewed Governor Palin, said Mrs. Palin was an energy expert. Energy is also a national security issue, therefore Governor Palin is well versed in energy and national security issues.[viii]

The Mainstream Media will be delighted in telling Governor Palin’s story. The media will not discuss her qualifications to be vice president. They will deflect attention to her story, the hockey – mom of five, her eldest son who is in the military and is about to go to Iraq on September 11, a woman who became pregnant in her early 40’s, was informed by her doctors that the baby would be born with Downs Syndrome, but decided to have the baby anyway, a woman who “went into labor and got on an airplane to go back to Alaska. That’s pretty cool,” said NBC analyst David Gregory. “I think there’s a lot of people, men and women, who are going to look at this story and say, ‘This is a compelling person. I want to take a new look at this ticket.”[ix]

The Mainstream Media will continue to reinforce the notion that Senator McCain is a maverick, and the selection of Governor Palin is proof of his maverickness.

By the way, I invented a new drinking game. Anyone who is interested in playing needs to buy a bottle of their favorite hard liquor. In fact, you might have to buy a jug of the stuff. Open the bottle, turn on the television, and select any political talk show. Take a shot every time a pundit or talking head says the word “maverick.” You should have an empty bottle by the end of the hour.

But if Senator McCain really wanted to prove he was a maverick, then he should have selected his first choice, Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator McCain let a focus group overrule his decision. This is just another example of Senator McCain caving in to the right wing of the Republican Party.[x]

In a previous article, I argued the selection of a vice president was important because voters would get an insight in the potential president’s judgment. Senator Obama selected Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. This decision tells me what type of candidate Barack Obama is.

During a Democratic presidential debate, Senator Biden was asked if Mr. Obama was ready to be president. Mr. Biden, with Senator Obama by his side, said no, he was not ready. Senator McCain liked the answer so much, he decided to use it in a negative advertisement against Senator Obama.

An individual with a different temperament, Senator McCain or Mayor Giuliani, would not have selected Mr. Biden as his running mate. Mr. McCain or Mr. Giuliani would have been insulted by Mr. Biden’s answer, and Senator Biden’s political career would have ended.

But Senator Obama displayed sound judgment and temperament. He understood Senator Biden strengthened the Democratic ticket. Mr. Obama did not allow a perceived slight to impair his judgment because Mr. Obama has a sense of security about himself. He is not afraid of what other people think about him because he possesses inner strength.

It is that sense of security, inner strength and good judgment that led him to the decision to grant Senator Clinton her own night at the Democratic convention to celebrate her accomplishments, to allow Senator Clinton’s name be placed in nomination, and give President Clinton his own night as well. The Clintons dominated the news for two nights, and it did not intimidate Senator Obama.

In selecting Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain is insulting the political process. Mr. McCain chose someone who is not qualified to be President of the United States. Senator McCain is pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, and to women in general.

Or maybe Senator McCain is deliberately selecting a candidate with no record in order to blunt the media’s vetting process. Governor Palin may be another Clarence Thomas. At the time, there were more qualified conservative African American jurists, but President Bush I selected the judge with the least experience. You can’t criticize what you don’t know.

“I know I’m older, and I’m going to choose somebody – the first important thing is that they be ready to be president,” said Mr. McCain.[xi]

Maybe Senator Obama was right about Mr. McCain. It’s not that he doesn’t care, “he doesn’t know…, and John McCain doesn’t get it.”[xii]



[i] Transcript Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech, New York Times, August 28, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[iii] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[iv] Daniel Nasaw, “Just How Small is Wasilla, Alaska Anyway?” Guardian American, August 30, 2008.
[v] Michael Barone, “Palin Will Be Welcomed By Social and Economic Conservatives,” Washington Post, August 29, 2008.
[vi] David Kirkpatrick and Larry Rohter, “Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated,” New York Times, September 1, 2008.
[vii] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[viii] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[ix] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[x] Elizabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, “Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman,” August 31, 2008.
[xi] Meet the Press, August 31, 2008.
[xii] Transcript Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech, New York Times, August 28, 2008.

Less Than Ideal

Senator Barack Obama inspired millions with his accomplished oratory skills during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, but his recent actions speak louder than his elegant words, threatening to undermine the potent message of change. Mr. Obama is demonstrating strong political survival skills, but it is not meant as a complement.

The first clue was during the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Senator Obama claimed he was not aware of Reverend Wright’s controversial sermons.

Mr. Obama’s claim is disingenuous. Not attending the church during the sermons is a plausible excuse, but a fellow parishioner would have immediately informed Mr. Obama of the incendiary sermons, at least in the context of, “Did you hear what Reverend Wright said on Sunday?”

When asked about Senator Obama’s comments about his sermons, Reverend Wright said Mr. Obama was acting like a politician. Mr. Wright displayed amazing insight.

Recently, Mr. Obama decided to forego public financing system for the general election in November. Granted, Senator Obama said he would participate in the public financing system if the Republican presidential candidate also agreed to use public financing.

Early in the Democratic presidential campaign, Senator Obama answered a questionnaire. “If I’m the Democratic nominee,” wrote Mr. Obama, “I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”[i]

According to the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign, “there were never any real negotiations.”[ii]

The pledge was made months before Senator Obama realized he could potentially raise the unimagined sum of 200 to 300 million dollars for the presidential campaign.[iii]

Under the public financing system, Senator Obama would have received “84 million dollars … from federal taxpayers.”[iv]

Flush with cash and relinquishing public financing will allow Senator Obama to campaign in 50 states, an advantage no other Democratic presidential candidate ever had.

During a campaign rally in Michigan, Senator Obama’s staff made a campaign faux pas when two Muslim women were removed from their seats behind Mr. Obama “because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.”[v]

In the era of Islamophobia, Senator Obama has been fighting the perception he is a Muslim. Having two Muslim women in the background during a campaign rally could ignite further speculation.

What makes this incident disappointing is Senator Obama’s constant admonition to ignore Republican smears tactics designed to instill fear in Americans. The mere mention of his middle name, Hussein, is used as a smear tactic.

The Obama campaign caved in to fear. Although he did not make the decision to remove the Muslim women, I was disappointed Mr. Obama did not demonstrate leadership and allowed the Muslim women to sit in the background. Mr. Obama’s staff acted politically, not with integrity.

In addition, Senator Obama sounds and acts like current President Bush when the latter ran for president in 2000.

Mr. Obama claims he is able to work with Republicans, using his experience in the Illinois State Senate as a reference. Governor Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider and he was able to work Democrats in the Texas legislature.

Senator Obama delegates responsibilities to his campaign staff. President Bush also delegates responsibilities. Vice President Cheney has taken advantage President Bush’s lack of initiative.

Issues do not matter in a political campaign. Universal health care has been a campaign issue since the Truman administration.

Equal pay for women has been a campaign issue since the Kennedy Administration.

Overturning Roe V Wade has been a campaign issue since the Reagan administration.

The names change every four to eight years, but the same issues remain constant. Issues do not matter. Character matters.

Senator Clinton displayed some disturbing character flaws during the Democratic presidential campaign. It was enough for this page to endorse Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has the luxury of running against an unappealing Republican candidate. However being disingenuous, reneging on a campaign pledge, and allowing fear to impact judgment raises character issues.

Mr. Obama’s argues he wants to transform politics. It appears politics is transforming Mr. Obama and that would be unfortunate.


[i] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[ii] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[iii] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[iv] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[v] Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama’s Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access,” New York Times, June 19, 2008.

Lady McClinton

With each passing day, Senator Hillary Clinton is clearly demonstrating characteristics that make her unfit to be president. It’s not just that she refused to admit (at least until the 20th Democratic Presidential debate) that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002.

Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.

However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.

After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.

In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]

We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.

Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.

Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]

We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.

The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.

Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]

As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]

Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.

Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]

As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]

Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”

Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.

To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.

Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.

Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.

But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.

To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.

Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.

Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?

In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.

Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.

As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?




[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.

Gaffe in the Eye of the Beholder

Gaffes are the entertainment portion of political campaigns. A candidate makes an unfortunate statement or a mistake, and then has to spend the next week trying to clean up the mess as the media and late night comedians regurgitate the gaffe in a continuous loop.

At best, the gaffes will make the politician look human. At worst, it can cost an election, for example, President Ford, in a nationally televised debate said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.”

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was double teamed by the media and his Democratic rivals over comments he has made during interviews, televised debates and campaign stops. The media labeled his comments as “gaffes.” His rivals, namely Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, argued that the Senator from Illinois is naïve and inexperienced.

The first so-called gaffe from the Senator from Illinois was in May 2007 when the young Senator stated, “In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas.” He mistakenly said 10,000 people had died in Kansas as a result of a tornado. In reality, only 12 people died. Senator Obama “blamed tiredness for the gaffe… A spokesman later said Mr. Obama meant to say at least 10 instead of 10,000.” Later on in the speech, Mr. Obama acknowledged, “there are going to be times when I get tired… There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”[i] The junior Senator from Illinois underestimated the level of attention his mistakes would attract.

On July 17th, the Senator gave a speech at Planned Parenthood. Senator Obama was talking about a prior campaign smear against him in 2004 by his opponent Alan Keyes. The Republican candidate suggested Mr. Obama favored sex education for children in kindergarten.

The Senator stated he supported “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” The Obama campaign used a prior newspaper report from The Daily Herald on October 6, 2004 to clarify his position. Senator Obama “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” Furthermore, “the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate… envisioned teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’”[ii]

In fairness, Senator Obama could have said something worse, for example, “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” (George W. Bush, Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000).

However, the media focused on “sex education” and “kindergarten” – words that would question the judgment of anyone running for public office who thought sex education for young children would be appropriate.

During the You Tube debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he would consider meeting with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to discuss US relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba face to face.[iii]

Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on him, saying he was naïve and inexperienced. Media pundits also attached the inexperience label on the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois. But at least he was able to spontaneously name foreign leaders.

In a foreign policy statement, Senator Obama said “he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country’s tribal areas…

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said, “we will.”[iv]

The media completely misrepresented Senator Obama’s statement, instead reporting that Mr. Obama would invade Pakistan. ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper – who often finds the need to state the Senator’s full name: Barack Hussein Obama – said “Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.”[v]

Incidentally, during the January 16 2007 edition of Nightline, ABC’s Jake Tapper said, “If three years ago, in January 2004, someone had told you that this man, then an Illinois state legislator named Barack Hussein Obama, was thinking about running for president, you might have thought he was, well, unhinged…. But beyond the excitement among Democrats and some in the media, it's not tough to discern a certain sense of confusion up here on Capitol Hill, fueled, in part, by jealousy and resentment, sure, but the question you hear bears answering: Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?”[vi]

ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported Senator Obama would “be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.”[vii]

CBS Evening News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported, “that during Obama’s speech, he said he would ‘possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan.’”[viii]

An August 2 article about Obama’s speech in the Los Angeles Times “reported” that Senator from Illinois said “the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.”[ix]

The factually challenged newspaper The New York Post, invented a quote in its August 2 edition claiming Senator Obama “warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren’t doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil.”[x]

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped into the fray saying, “It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say ‘we’re going to go into your country unilaterally.’ Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.’ We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet.”[xi]

In the case of the Bush Administration, first you wait for disaster to strike, then you express your option to unilaterally invade - Iraq.

During another interview with the Associated Press, Senator Obama talked about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At first, he ruled out using nuclear weapons because he was concerned over civilian casualties.

Sensing he made a mistake in discussing the use of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”[xii]

Again, his rivals pounced and “questioned his foreign policy experience.” Senator Clinton declined to comment on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, but the Senator from New York said, “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”[xiii]

Under-whelming second tier Democratic contender Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut issued a statement to draw attention to his faltering campaign and slammed Senator Obama. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”[xiv]

Senator Obama is learning the hard way that statements, no matter how well thought out, no matter how eloquent will somehow or someway will be twisted to look like something else. To counter his critics, he should say, “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” (George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000).
But Americans can be forgiving when it comes to mistakes or gaffes on the campaign trail. It helps when the media under reports or ignores the gaffes.

Campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, former New York City Mayor, 9/11 hero and current Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani praised the United States heath care system, arguing that it is better than Europe’s and Canada’s because “it’s private, competitive, and for profit.”[xv]

That statement is almost as entertaining as “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (George Bush Cleveland, Ohio, July 11, 2007).

Furthermore, America’s Mayor compared the health care industry with purchasing plasma TVs. Mr. Giuliani argued that “if the federal government required all Americans to own a plasma TV and paid for those who could not afford it, lower quality televisions would cost upwards of $15,000 today.” However, thanks to the invisible hand of the free competitive market, “higher quality [TVs are] now available for only $2,000.”[xvi] Sometimes I wonder if the media has a sense of humor.

Mayor Giuliani focuses his presidential campaign on the leadership he provided to New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, America’s Mayor is not immune to hyping his own biography. Recently he boasted, “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers,” Mr. Giuliani said last week in Cincinnati. “I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”[xvii]

Giuliani realized he made a mistake, and attempted to explain the statement. He meant to say that he felt their (the workers) pain, and his thoughts were with them everyday.

Unfortunately for the 9/11 hero, with great power comes greater scrutiny and Mayor Giuliani’s public record contradicts his statements. “A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”[xviii]

And how did America’s Mayor spend those 29 hours. “The 29 hours Mr. Giuliani spent at ground zero involved 41 appearances, mostly to give tours to other officials and foreign dignitaries. Many entries include meetings away from the site before the tour. For instance, the schedule included 30 minutes on Nov. 15, 2001, for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but Mr. Putin’s tour of ground zero was widely reported to have lasted 13 minutes.”[xix] In other words, he was having his picture taken at Ground Zero with famous people.

America’s Mayor Giuliani is not the only presidential candidate who said or did something stupid that was ignored by the media.

Former Governor – of a Northeastern State he is too ashamed to mention (Massachusetts) – Mitt Romney employed great wisdom in having his picture taken with someone who was holding an “Obama is Osama” sign. Later on that same day, a questioner at a town hall meeting jumped on the ex Governor, informed Mr. Romney that comparing a wanted fugitive and mass murder with the Senator from Illinois was wrong. Flustered, Mr. Romney responded by saying we should all lighten up.

In the spirit of jocularity, the former Governor from Massachusetts won’t mind if you call him Mitt Romney Bin Al Shibh.

At a June Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked Governor Romney if it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will,”[xx] answered Mr. Romney. First, he misused the term “non sequitur.” This should disqualify him outright for the presidency.

But I digress. The Governor said, “If you’re saying, lets turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”[xxi] Mr. Romney echoed the Bush Administration argument that Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in the country.

In fact, Saddam Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and as of March 17, 2003 found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The only reason weapons inspectors were forced to leave was over concerns for their safety because the Bush Administration was about to invade Iraq.[xxii]

The media gave Governor Romney a pass on his gaffe, instead focusing a more “egregious” gaffe from Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said “Today’s the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”[xxiii] By the way, the reported gaffe was Huckabee not knowing Reagan’s birthday. Reagan’s triumphant victory over the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union, is supposed to be a fact.

At a campaign stop in Iowa, Mitt Romney – a big supporter of the “WAR ON TERROR” – spoke about the military and his fives sons and their devotion to America. “The good news is that we have a volunteer army and that’s the way we are going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”[xxiv] Comedians at gunpoint could not write funnier material.

The difference between Mr. Obama’s so called gaffes, and the Republicans is that in the case of the former, his Democratic rivals and the media hammer the Senator from Illinois whenever he makes a “mistake” reinforcing the notion that he is inexperienced. In contrast, the Republicans do not beat on each other during the debates, and the media under report and ignore their gaffes.

But we should not use gaffes made during a presidential campaign against the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. We should judge them on the standard set by our current president who has elevated gaffes into an art form.

“This is what I’m good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them.” (George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000). You would almost expect Mr. Bush to also say, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.”

“I don’t think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.” (George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000). Subliminal: adjective, inadequate to produce a sensation or perception; existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness. President Bush was correct. He is inadequate to produce a sensation or perception, and he exists and functions below the threshold of consciousness.

“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.” (George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000). I’m sorry, the word you are looking for is antidote – noun, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison, such as your presidency.

“It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.” (George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000). Import: verb, to bring from a foreign or external source – like an idea.

“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000). Thank God, or else we would have to fight them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here.

“I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” (George W. Bush, second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000). This is the sad result when two thoughts collide – racial profiling and education.

“It’s important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It’s not only life of babies, but it’s life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.” (George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000). Does the president know the Internet is not an actual place?

“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.” (George W. Bush, Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000). The word you’re looking for is resonate, as in your lack of command of the English language resonates throughout the land.

“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” (George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000). Social Security is a federal program, duh!!!

“If you don’t stand for anything, you don’t stand for anything! If you don’t stand for something, you don’t stand for anything!” (George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000). President Bush never heard the axiom, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”

Furthermore, during a Republican debate in 2000, when asked who was his most influential political philosopher, Governor Bush answered, “Jesus.” By the way, J.C.’s critique of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is inspiring. Also worth reading is Jesus’ article about Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”

In 1999, during a television interview, Governor Bush was asked who were the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The best he could come up with was “Lee” for Taiwan.

And don’t forget some of his gaffes as President of the United States. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003). Probably?!!!

“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” (George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003). Excuse me Mr. President, we have weapons of mass destruction.

Also, Iraq is an imminent threat, and has weapons of mass destruction, or his GI Joe Mission Accomplished photo op in which President Bush said, “my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”, or “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007).

If we did not hold George Bush accountable for the countless gaffes he has entertained us with from the moment he announced his candidacy for president, then why should we start now.

News has become entertainment. It stands to follow we should not be surprised if we elect clowns for political office.


[i] BBC News, “Tired Obama Makes Tornado Gaffe,” (May 9, 2007).
[ii] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Carlson Claimed Obama’s Sex Ed Policy Provides Powerful Fodder to Deride Him,” (July 20, 2007).
[iii] Alexander Cockburn, “How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months,” The Nation, (August 27/September 3, 2007), page 10.
[iv] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times (August 2, 2007).
[v] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed He Didn’t See Anyone Reporting That Obama Wanted to Invade Pakistan, (August 8,2007).
[vi] Media Matters for America, “Tapper’s profile of “Barack Hussein Obama” asked: “Just who the hell is Barack Obama?,” (January 17, 2007).
[vii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[viii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[ix] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[x] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[xi] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Reid aired “Strangelove” attack, but didn’t note Romney’s agreement with Obama on substance,” (August 7, 2007).
[xii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiv] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xv] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvi] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xviii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xix] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xx] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s Iraq Falsehood, Wash Post Called Huckabee’s Reagan Remark the Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxi] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiv] Media Matters for America, “The Media Misses Mitt Romney’s You Tube Moment,” (August 13, 2007).