They Misunderestimate Obama

Watching the Sunday morning shows has really become a dull exercise in witnessing stupidity and ignorance. Having lived near and worked in Washington, DC for a brief period of time (back in the late summer and fall of 2003), I understand well the extent to which the "beltway bubble" exists for those who reside in the District or its suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. However, having gratefully escaped these confines and now experiencing politics from outside the DC establishment but still watching its members blather endlessly among themselves, I can only shake my head in puzzlement and bewilderment. That these people get paid--and some of them, large figures--to recite the talking points of the McCain campaign is enough to lead any one watching to throw themselves at the mercy of anything more interesting, even if it is a congressional hearing repeat on C-SPAN.

My rant against the DC media elites stems from their futile attempts to discredit and perhaps in the end even destroy Barack Obama. While it is true that the media were harsher on Clinton than Obama (at least during the first half of the primary; the debate in Philadelphia moderated by Stepinfullofshit and his bff Charlie Gibson) it cannot be argued, at least convincingly and at this point in the general election campaign, that the press has favored Obama over McCain. Just the opposite, in fact. Week after week, mistake after mistake, gaffe after gaffe, the media have given McCain and his allies "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. Barack Obama and his wife exchange a "fist bump" and its the lead story on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, with one commentator even calling it "a terrorist fist jab."

Leaving aside the media's continuing meme that Obama should be polling well ahead of his current standing (as of today, according to the Real Clear Politics average, he is ahead of McCain by 7 points, which is a larger lead than even President Bush had against Senator Kerry in 2004), it has become their weekly, if not daily, ritual to deliver mulligans to McCain but beat Obama over the head with a nine iron. For example, this past week, McCain senior advisor Charlie Black received attention for saying in Forbes magazine that a terrorist attack would bolster McCain's chances in November. Outside of Keith Olbermann's show, neither CNN or FOX or the major news networks ran major stories about Black's comments. McCain supposedly distanced himself from his advisor, saying that he disagreed with them, but would not let him go from the campaign. The McCain-loving media took his answer with a spoonful of gullibility and moved on. Then, Grover Norquist, current president of the right-wing Americans for Tax Reform, described Senator Obama as "John Kerry with a tan." His remarks, made to the Los Angeles Times, didn't even warrant an actual news story; it was only posted on the paper's political blog. Again, besides Keith Olbermann's show, the MSM closed its eyes, plugged its ears, and ran screaming in the other direction, completing ignoring the general election campaign's first use of overt, blatant racism. And, just today, there is a report that McCain and his beer-magnate millionaire wife have not paid taxes on one of their seven properties. Of course, it didn't make the nightly news.

Even as the media continue to attempt to drag down Barack Obama, with the aid of the McCain campaign no less, they do so at their own peril and stupidity, for they have already lost sight of one of the most remarkable feats of this campaign season: For the first time in nearly three decades, the Clintons have been defeated, at the hands of a first-term, black Senator. That Barack Obama has accomplished what the Republicans have attempted to do at least since the early 1990s, and have spent millions of dollars while doing it, should signal, at the very least, to the MSM and the McCainites that Barack Obama and his legion of followers are a force unrecognizable to them and others who have studied American politics for the past half century. That they think they can merely use the same old Rovian tactics and scare voters with Internet smears about Obama, and that they would ironically enlist the so-called liberal MSM as their partners in these endeavors, reveals that they are still living in a fallacy. The old ways of campaigning--the textbook ways of communicating, branding, and attacking--will not work this time around. And they have not worked. If the Republicans and their media whores think that by labeling Senator Obama an elitist, urban liberal who is untested and naive and ill-prepared to answer the phone at 3am, it will break voters into submission and vote for the septuagenarian, just ask the Clintons as to how well that tactic worked out for them.

Turdblossom Strikes Again!

Today, Karl Rove reared his cytoplasmic self to spew more bullshit. He told a gathering of Republican insiders, and no doubt card-carrying members of various country clubs, that Barack Obama was "coolly arrogant" and "Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

The blogosphere lit itself on fire--and rightfully so. Jake Tapper of ABC News nicely sums it up: "Interesting that Mr. Rove would use a country club metaphor to describe the first major party African-American presidential candidate, whom I'm sure wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent." Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo agrees with Tapper's characterization of Rove's comments as subliminally "uppity" although Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic disagrees. A reader of Ben Smith's blog hits it more directly.

Indeed, the Republicans for over a year--no, for almost a decade, at least since 2000--have been bracing to fight Hillary Clinton and now that they have Barack Obama they're just swinging at anything, hoping to land a few punches here and there to bring him down. Except, inevitably, they are bound to end up hitting themselves and knocking themselves out instead! It's more than an act of desperation: it's the sign of a truly desperate and flailing party in denial over its own failures to lead this country in a time of war and economic insecurity. That Karl Rove, whom Bush famously (or infamously) calls "turdblossom," is left preaching to a bunch of crusty, white, rich Republicans about the supposed elitism and the country club attitude of a black man is a sure sign that they are scared shitless.

Sunday Morning Show Round Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

On Expanding the Electoral Map and Declining Public Financing

It is no accident that Senator Barack Obama's campaign decided to forgo federal matching funds, in exchange for relying on his million-plus donor base, while at the same time begin running his first national campaign advertisement in 18 states. Yes, that is right: he is running television advertisements in almost a quarter of the country, and it is only June! These two actions are not mutually exclusive and, I'm sure, were not separately reached within the Obama campaign. Instead, they tie perfectly together. By tapping into his unprecendented campaign bank account, Obama is able to run the first truly national presidential campaign. Forget the 2004 anthem of "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio!" Screw the 2000 opera called "Florida, Florida, Florida!" The 2008 campaign playbook is being rewritten. It is called, "How to Win a National Election withour Losing Your Soul."

This strategy is queerly unfamiliar to the mainstream media and to Senator McCain's campaign. Exclusive allies, McCain and his media whores on television, radio, and the internet pounced on the Obama campaign's decision. George Stepinfullofshit on ABC News called it a "flip flop" and both NBC and CBS ran fairly negative stories on it. Taking their cues directly from the McCain campaign's direction, the media pretended to act in horror and shock that Obama would even consider anything but political suicide by accepting only $85 million in federal matching funds from August through November, when it is estimated he could potentially raise more than $500 million. Of course, poor John McCain, who can only muster a couple hundred people to a campaign event, compared to Obama's tens of thousands, is forced to fund his campaign with taxpayer dollars. Isn't he the one who is supposed to support less federal spending? By my calculation, Senator Obama just saved the American Taxpayer another $85 million. No doubt, it'll find its way into the sinkhole that is Iraq, however.

While John McCain and the media continue to scream and shout and jump and up down like sore losers standing in the corner of the room, Senator Obama is preparing something unprecendented: he is running a campaign in all parts of the country, from Florida to Alaska. In addition to the traditional "big three"--Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan--Obama's campaign is running its first advertisement in states that have not voted for a Democratic candidate for president in more than a generation. States like Alaska, which Lyndon Johnson last won in 1964. Since then, not a single Democratic candidate has received more than 36% of the vote. Polls already show Senator Obama besting the previous eight Democratic nominees in Alaska. How about Indiana? Last voted for Johnson, too. North Carolina? Jimmy Carter in 1976. Virginia, the former home to the Confederacy's capital? Johnson again. Barack Obama is competitive in states that shouldn't be competitive, especially for a black man with his name, background, and voting record.

So what is happening? As the national media continue to pretend that the race is a lot closer than it really is--just look at their lukewarm response to national polls only showing Senator Obama ahead by 6 to 8 points--Obama is preparing for a fall campaign that will have him flushed with hundreds of millions of dollars of cash to run advertisements, register new voters, galvinize his base, and bankrupt McCain, Inc. To think that a first-term Senator, with no national experience, and no discernible political accomplishments, could first vanquish the most potent political force of the past two decades and then destroy an American hero who sacrificed himself for the sake of his country, in the span of less than 12 months, we must be witnessing the most talented and gifted political icon since FDR and, before him, Lincoln and Jefferson.

The Next Vice President is the Former Vice President?

Right now, I'm watching Al Gore endorse Barack Obama for president. First impression: seems like Gore has lost some weight. Maybe 10 pounds, up to 20 pounds? He's still heavier than when he ran for president in 2000, but he appears a lot lighter than four years ago, when speculation was high that he would, once again, take the plunge. Second impression: this isn't the Al Gore version 2000. Hell, it's not Gore v. 2004. This is the Al Gore who looks as though he's running for Vice President again. Final impression: this Al Gore is ready to get back into the White House.

Obama has already leaked that throughout the primary campaign he spoke with Gore at least during a weekly basis. Although, Gore isn't exactly a profile in courage, having withheld his endorsement until well after the primary has concluded, when it will have negligible effect and probably sway only a handful of voters. Nevertheless, I highly doubt that Obama ever expected Gore to endorse him while Senator Clinton was still a viable candidate. And Gore's support of Obama will not likely cause a major bump in the polls, either.

Yet, with all of these caveats, Gore has just delivered a pitch-perfect, nearly flawless Vice Presidential-like introductory address. He hit all of the right notes: attacking Bush and McCain, defending Obama, and exhorting Americans to choose change. He was statesman-like and profound. If Obama is serious about selecting a Vice President who has the experience and the wherewithal to be President, where else could he go but to guy who once held the job and who now openly and rightfully calls himself "the former next President of the United States."

I highly doubt that Gore stands a better chance of being VP, as opposed to the likes of Webb, Biden, Clark, or Nunn. All of these men have tremendous years of experience in foreign policy and/or the military and all could possibly be assets to an Obama administration. However, none of them know from personal experience the consequences of losing the presidency and then witnessing the devastating effects from that election. With more than three quarters of the American people now believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the selection of Gore as VP would underscore that eight years ago there as a choice and things as they are today could have been different. Gore's record over the past eight years has been stellar: he opposed the war, blasted Bush on wiretaps and foreign surveillance, endorsed single-payer health care, and championed climate change, and the result of the latter was the Nobel Peace Prize. In many respects, Gore has accomplished more as an ex-Vice President than as Vice President.

Which then leads to this question: why would Gore entertain the Vice Presidency once more? If he is comfortable with his current lifestyle--and he is--and if he is having a greater effect on people's lives--and he is--than agreeing to be the second in command would be a step down, no? Except, this time around, he would not be Vice President under a maniacal, ego-centric, selfish, sexual deviant, but a man who is comfortable enough with his insecurities and his limits. Obama and Gore compliment each other nearly perfectly. Obama-Gore: I like how that sounds.

Frank Rich Nails it Again

Frank Rich's column in this morning's New York Times is an indictment both against the media and the media-whore that is the McCain campaign. He rightly points out the ignorance and false hopes of the McCain campaign's strategy in attempting to garner support from female voters, particularly those who pledged at the altar of the Church of Saint Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the night when the general election campaign came fully into swing, Senator McCain praised his colleague from New York and even went so far as to blame the misogynistic media and the male-dominated DNC establishment for her campaign's demise. This, too, has been the refrain of Hillary apologists, including those in the media. Everyone else is to blame for Hillary's demise, except for Hillary. And don't even dare touch Bill. Or else the pitchforks will come out!

The first general election campaign poll was released this week, by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. It showed Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by 6 percentage points, which is outside the margin of error and larger than any lead the former has had against the latter this election cycle. However, to judge from the media's reaction, the results were actually in reverse. NBC News' own Chuck Todd went on TV and wrote online that Senator Obama still had two major problems: he was behind by more than 20 points among white men and he was losing white suburban women by single digits. To think that these two groups of voters could swing the election in John McCain's favor is preposterous! As Rich points out in his column, Obama is beating among among white female voters generally by nearly 20 points and holds an even greater lead among Hispanic voters, both of which were keys to George W. Bush's success four years ago.

But the media narrative has been--and probably always will be--throughout this campaign cycle that Barack Obama can't seal the deal, he can't win over the critical Appalachian male vote, he can't beat Senator McCain in the big swing states. Part of the problem of this media narrative isn't necessary the narrative itself but the voices and writers and the dodo heads in TV who are delivering it. The crux of Rich's argument is thus:

"That story is minimized or ignored in part because an unshakable McCain fan
club lingers in some press quarters and in part because it’s an embarrassing
refutation of the Democrats-in-meltdown narrative that so many have invested in.
Understating the splintering of the Republican base also keeps hope alive for a
tight race. As the Clinton-Obama marathon proved conclusively, a photo finish is
essential to the dramatic and Nielsen imperatives of 24/7 television coverage."

And therein lies what we will continue to read and hear and watch until November: the infantile media drinking its mother's milk from John McCain's nipple.

Just Asking . . .

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision this week to uphold the rights of detainees at Gitmo, Senator John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” I wonder which other cases he considers to be worse than the one that preserves the Constitution and the centuries-old tradition of habeas corpus. Perhaps, he ranks Boumediene v. Bush right up there with Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education or Griswold v. Connecticut or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas or, for that matter, any decision the High Court has made over its 200-plus history to protect the civil rights and liberties of those living in the United States or our territories, including, yes Senator, at Guantanamo Bay.

I wish the media would follow up with McCain regarding his comment and ask him which other decisions he considers to be just as malicious, if not more so. I’m anxious for his reply, although I’m not about to hold my breath. For if the media finally takes their balls out of their purse, they might actually question the good Senator. After all, he did once favorably comment that the media was his “base.”