They can't run a company but....

Well, yesterday we had Carly Fiorina telling us that not only Sarah Palin, but also John McCain would not be able to run HP.

Let's look back at March, however (Reuters):

Warren Buffett said on Monday that he would be comfortable putting Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in charge of running a business..

Let's see: Fired Fortune 500 executive, who had some ethical lapses, says her guy (and gal) couldn't do the job she did; All time top 10 extremely successful business person says that Barack or Hillary could run one of his businesses. Hmm...

Now, to be fair, Warren did exclude the flagship of Berkshire Hathaway itself when making this statement but still!

Meanwhile, CNN reports that Carly has been exorcised from the campaign, at least for the moment:

A top McCain official contacted by CNN said, on condition on anonymity, "No big deal, but not how you get on the surrogate all-star team. Very Biden-like."

“This campaign source said Fiorina would be discouraged from additional media interviews.

Another top campaign adviser was far less diplomatic.

"Carly will now disappear," this source said. "Senator McCain was furious." Asked to define "disappear," this source said, adding that she would be off TV for a while – but remain at the Republican National Committee and keep her role as head of the party’s joint fundraising committee with the McCain campaign.

Fiorina was booked for several TV interviews over the next few days, including one on CNN. Those interviews have been canceled.

Not good. But apparently she isn't completely exiled:

A third source said "it was another bad day for her, and important people are mad because the timing is horrible… But I would not necessarily buy the Siberia storyline."

After all, what are they going to do for the 'face' of their 'economic plan?' Bring back Phil Gramm?? LOL!!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

"No way, no how, no McCain, no Palin!"

Here we go folks, let's listen to Hillary in Florida:



Now, here is what I said on August 29, after Sarah Palin's introduction speech:

The fact that she had the gall to bring up Hillary's 18 million cracks! OMG! If Hillary wasn't invested in Obama before, she sure as hell will be now! Hillary will work overtime to make sure that ceiling holds for at least four more years.

I think that the 18 million cracks reference was a serious tactical mistake by the McCain campaign. Did they vet the speech? Did they think Hillary would take that sitting down?

I think Hillary will volunteer herself for attacking this one personally now. She may not have been a willing attack dog before but look out now. No half term governor, former mayor of a city of less than 9,000 people is going to hijack what she started, after all the time and effort she put into this, especially if she will not benefit from it.

Here is where is begins. She will not attack her as a woman. She will attack her ideas. She will attack them mercilessly. She will attack them more often and more intensely than she would have if John McCain had picked anybody else.

That is not being petty. This woman represents absolutely none of the values that Hillary Clinton has based her career on. They are diametrically opposed. That is why she will campaign, and campaign hard for Barack Obama now.

What I really love is that she is not directly calling out Sarah Palin on adopting her "18 million cracks" line in that speech. The Democrats have learned so much. It almost makes me want to cry.

They are staying on message. The message is voting for McCain/Palin is four more years of Bush/Cheney (albeit without the Dark Lord himself). And they are staying on that message. No distractions.

And now, because of Governor Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton will also be pounding that message home for the next 2 months. It's amazing.

Will wonders never cease?

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

First Impressions

Governor Sarah Palin was much stronger than I thought she'd be. Problem: I had my bar set pretty low.

• She attacked on a lot of fronts with a lot of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I wonder if the McCain camp is hoping to swamp the Obama-Biden camp, the media and the blogs so much with refuting and debunking her speech that they take some time off from digging in her past.
  


• What the heck is with the Harry Truman reference? Do you want to remind us that McCain could croak and you might be behind that desk in the Oval Office? Doesn't strike me as a great image to bring up for you, yet.
  


• What is this about Russia's objective in Georgia being the pipeline? Yes, that is a valid point if you are a pundit or if you are a politician not in the White House or running for President/Vice President. It is a very dangerous thing for the official nominee of a major American political party, to one of those offices, to publicly state in a very public speech. Tread carefully here.
  


• Overall, came across well. Style was well suited for the base that they are aiming for. Chris Matthews said it well when he said that he was not reminded once during the speech of Hillary Clinton. She will not attract those voters. That the McCain camp seems to understand that is all well and good for them.
  


• I thought the loss of the mini-movie intro might have been bad but she acquitted herself well.
  

Some others thoughts:

• Talking Points Memo - Josh Marshall
  
• David Schraub: Sarah Palin: Can You Feel The Energy?
  
• You absolutely have to read Andrew Sullivan's live Blog on the speech: Live-Blogging Palin
  
• Over at Donklephant: Game on.
  

I'll will, I am sure I will have more thoughts over the next day or sixty.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Really? Seriously?

Just finished watching Governor Sarah Palin's speech in Dayton, OH. Hmm. Take a gander:



Seriously, she looks and sounds like a soccer mom giving a campaign speech! We are really supposed to buy into the idea that she can step into the presidency at a moments notice?

David Schraub's post at The Moderate Voice while watching:

So far, this is not going well. She looks star-struck up there. My girlfriend says she’s rambling. I think she sounds hokey (sometimes that’s a good thing, but I don’t think here). Her diction is not strong — she sounds halting to me. And it’s thematically disjointed.

The part about mentioning Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton was a forced nod. The fact that she had the gall to bring up Hillary's 18 million cracks! OMG! If Hillary wasn't invested in Obama before, she sure as hell will be now! Hillary will work overtime to make sure that ceiling holds for at least four more years.

I think that the 18 million cracks reference was a serious tatical mistake by the McCain campaign. Did they vet the speech? Did they think Hillary would take that sitting down?

I think Hillary will volunteer herself for attacking this one personally now. She may not have been a willing attack dog before but look out now. No half term governor, former mayor of a city of less than 9,000 people is going to hijack what she started, after all the time and effort she put into this, especially if she will not benefit from it.

Does the McCain campaign seriously want Hillary to be Obama's active attack dog along with Biden?

Speaking of Biden. What is McCain going to do about the debate. Can you imagine the woman at that podium in a debate with Joe Biden? Are they going to lock Sarah Palin in an intensive debate immersion room for the next few weeks?

I assume the woman is intelligent. Even with that assumption, what is the strategy? That she will appear so overmatched against Biden that people will equate Biden with the hunter that killed Bambi's mom? Why would you try that strategy?

They've got an incredible amount of work to do in the next several weeks. They get a pass for the convention, maybe, but then all bets are off.

I think that either:

1. John McCain had a defining lapse in judgement that even exceeds the lapses in judgement that Ronald Reagan, and, later, Ronald Reagan's lapse in judgement, George H. W. Bush came to regret. Or....
   
2. John McCain is about to learn, quite painfully, that your advisors can be complete idiots even when they are getting paid obscene amounts of money.

Which it is depends entirely on who made the call here. Either way, I am not seeing this ending well.

I said it earlier, and I still believe, John McCain had few, if any, good choices. I didn't envy him his decision. I still don't.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Joe Biden Acceptance Speech

It is remarkable how the Democrats almost seem like they have a coherent theme this year. Joe Biden gave a great acceptance speech:



I liked how he attacked in this speech. Some haven't liked the common theme amongst some of the senators speaking that refer to John McCain as their "friend." I am quite sure it is true of all of those who used it. Joe Biden used his 'close friendship' better than any of them as he contrasted his radically different view of the problems and solutions for the country with John McCain. I thought that was great.

I am hoping that the attacking trend continues. They almost seem as if they have a rising crescendo of attacking McCain which will hopefully culminate with Barack Obama's acceptance speech. If that was the strategy, I hope it works. If there is a drop off, I will be very disappointed.

Joe Biden may be the designated attack dog but Barack Obama needs to do some attacking tonight himself.

Great speech. Loved the family at the end. The grand kids are cute.

I have mixed feelings about the special guest appearance. I suppose it had to be done, otherwise he would never have made an appearance in the facility in which the bulk of the convention was held. Still, it was Joe's night to shine. He took a tiny bit away from Joe by stopping by.

Can't wait for tonight!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton

If you didn't see Bill Clinton's speech last night, but are still interested, here it is (I promise it is a LOT shorter than his 1988 convention speech):



Bill did a great job with what he had to do, namely come out unequivocally for Barack Obama. Because he had to do that there was a lot less McCain/Bush bashing than some of us were hoping for. He did fit in a pretty good amount of that in the second half though.

All in all, pretty good, even for him. Didn't think I'd be able to say this a few months ago but Hillary's speech was better. Sorry Bill, but she rocked. I think you already know this though.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Kennedy Speaks

Senator Edward M. Kennedy didn't wave from a luxury box. He didn't just give the taped speech he had prepared just in case. He, like a Kennedy, addressed the convention. In case you missed it, here it is courtesy of cspanjunkie:



And thus, the Kennedys continue to dominate the Democratic National Convention as they have for the last 52 years since Jack challenged Estes Kefauver for the Vice-Presidential nomination in 1956.

Chuck Todd had an interesting take on all the Clinton-Obama stuff swirling amongst the delegates throughout the evening. He said that in a few weeks all that people will remember will be Ted Kennedy's speech last night and Barack Obama's speech on Thursday. He added the caveat that if Obama loses the general election perhaps peoples memories may alter somewhat.

The point is that this convention is not about the Clintons. It will not be remembered for them. It is, rightly so, a great historic moment as the Democratic Party becomes the first major party to nominate a black man to be President of the United States.

It will be remembered for nominating the most inspiring figure that the Democratic Party has had since Robert Kennedy was felled 40 years ago.

It will be remembered for the heir of the Kennedy legacy passing the torch, with great enthusiasm, on to this new inspiring leader.

Ted Kennedy made this about the Democratic Party, Barack Obama and the people of the United States last night. It is no longer about the Clintons. It can't be. There is too much at stake.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Time to kick off the convention!

It's time to kick off the convention! What better way could there possibly be to kick off convention season than with a Jib-Jab production. I can't think of one. Therefore, I happily present "Time for Some Campaignin'":

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Now if that doesn't get you in the mood, what will?

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Kennedy to appear tonight?

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is in Denver for the Democratic National Convention that opens today. There are reports that, if he is healthy enough, he may make a public appearance at the convention. Whether that would involve saying something on the dais or merely waving to everyone from a luxury box at the Pepsi Center is unclear.



Does this have any effect on the fractiousness that seems to continue between the Obama and Clinton camps. Well..yes and no.

Heck, all democrats love Ted. He may occasionally be a overblown left wing nut job who has a checkered past but he is our overblown left wing nut job with a checkered past. He is as close to royalty as the democrats have. Everyone will cheer.

Still, the Clintonites have not forgotten that the Kennedy family, and Ted in particular, came out for Obama instead of Hillary.

Verdict: Who knows. We'll see how it all plays out. I think it would be great for Ted to make an appearance. I also think these Hillary supporters need to get their noses back in joint before they become the equivalent of the Ralph Nader supporters of 2000.

We won't know the success of this convention until November. This convention needs to unify the democrats in one common purpose: Making sure that Senator John McCain is not our next president. Convention bumps and all the other crap will not matter if that goal is not attained.

If Barack Obama is our next president it will have been a great convention. If John McCain comes from behind...well, this convention didn't do any better than John Kerry's "We shall not speak ill of G.W." convention four years ago.

After lord knows how many months of this stuff, it'll be great to finally start the last leg of this election. Have fun watching!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

It's Joe!

Well, somewhere around 1AM EDT last night the Obama campaign started running into problems hiding the private plane and the police escort in Delaware. Thus it was that AP first reported Joe Biden as Barack Obama's pick for Vice-President.

Those of us who were waiting for two days for a text message or email got the shaft. My email came at 4:44am although I've heard reports about the text message as early as 3AM. Of course, I got about 9 emails from the Obama campaign yesterday, which was, of course, the idea. Fundraising leads.



This pick, as Chuck Todd explains in the video, makes the most sense. He says the Obama campaign was all about avoiding a drama pick.

My explanation is rather simpler. The Obama campaign wants to spend as little time as possible introducing the VP candidate to the American people. Kaine, Sebelius and even Bayh to some extent suffered from a need for the campaign to mount a "Meet ...." campaign that they didn't want to waste time on.

That is why I was pretty certain that when Chet Edwards' name popped up on the radar it was either a red herring or some reporter suddenly realized that he had already been vetted and was trying to find a story to report on. C'mon! I been following the House and Senate for years and Chet Edwards isn't usually on MY radar screen.

That is also why I wasn't completely ruling out Hillary. Picking her still carried a lot of advantages for the Obama campaign. Those advantages did not outweigh the negatives enough, however.

I am happy with the pick. I wanted to vote for him twenty years ago, before the whole Neil Kinnock plagiarism thing came up. He knows his way around foreign policy and was also a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will be a great attack dog on McCain and whomever he chooses.

C'mon, this is the guy who said of Rudy Giuliani:

There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11.

How can you not love that!

I think Obama made a safe but correct pick here. I look forward to seeing how much of a bump they can get out of the convention.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

VP Candidates Front and Center

With the Democratic (please note the spelling and pronunciation all you Republic(an)s) National convention rapidly approaching, the Vice Presidency is entering it's brief, and only, shining moment. Never shall these men and women shine so brightly. At least, until their candidates presidency is over and they themselves get nominated.

That said, on Meet the Press, their, unfortunately abbreviated analysis:



And on the Today show, their report:



The skinny?


Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) is the current front runner. Most national security experience. Heck, he just visited Tbilisi at the invitation of the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to discuss the Russia-Georgia conflict. Great attack dog persona for destroying whomever the Republic(an)s pick in debate. Downside: he is a little long in the tooth. He is in the old white guy to balance the ticket mold that the Obama people may want to avoid. At least he isn't from the south.


Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is a close second. Safer pick. Less likely to do damage or embarrass with his (lack of) bravado. Has decent foreign chops. Was a governor for eight years. Been in the senate for 10. Downside: He is a little plain vanilla. He isn't the debater Biden is and might have some issues holding his own against certain Republic(an) counterparts. He also suffers some from the 'safe white male' pick that the campaign may be intentionally avoiding.


Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) would be a great pick, except for his lack of experience. He has the vision, the idealism and the passion but not the credentials. With a candidate that also has a credentialing issue, that is not a particularly good thing. That said, he and Obama have good chemistry and picking him would signal that Obama is confident in his message and would rather have someone who he considers comfortable with rather than someone who would help him shore up his own shorcomings. Whether that is a good thing is debatable.


Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). His name keeps popping up. I have no clue why. Serious foreign policy and a defense chops. Not very charismatic. Why you would want to pick a cranky old southern white guy completely baffles me. Credentials smentials (or something like that). This would be an awful pick. Even worse, I have the feeling that if they did want him, he would rebuff them.


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Yes, I know everyone has her written off. But seriously, she has no weak spots that haven't already been messed with. You know what you are getting. There is some serious potential bonus for the woman candidate. And, after essentially giving her a non-consider for the last two months, you may bring Hillary supporters who have drifted into the nether back into the fold and give the campaign an extra infusion of life. That said, I consider this a long shot, but I don't think the odds are as long as some pundits would have you believe.


Senator Chistopher J. Dodd (D-CT). Chris was the original 'Biden' candidate. Serious foreign policy chops, as well as some super relevant domestic chops (Banking Committee) after 28 years in the Senate. Not quite as ferocious a debater as Biden. Also, apparently, not as interested in campaigning for the position as Biden. Both of which have relegated him to the end of the line. He could still be a dark horse though.


Finally, although I doubt it will happen, I shall mention Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM). A seriously major contender early on, his vice-presidential prospects seem to have mimicked his presidential prospects. He also has some serious chops on issues that Obama is perceived to be weak on. He is not exactly an attack dog though. For reasons that I may never fully understand, I fear this man, whom I respect greatly, may fade into obscurity.

I'd like to see Evan Bayh. Why? Because, intellectually, he is more akin than the vast majority of potentials to my own views. I supported him for president until his very early dropout. I would love to see him as president. I would love to see him as Vice-President.

Likely choice: Sen. Joe Biden. Again, as I said, he is a little long in the tooth but he is the Dems answer (and revenge) for Dick Cheney. I will not be unhappy with this pick. I have been a great fan of his since I started politics. (I thought is was super cool that he was elected at age 29 since he would be 30 before he took office in the senate.) I think he has the right combination for Obama now.

Truth be told I would not be unhappy with any of the above candidates. There are, of course, many not mentioned whom I would be equally happy with but who have no chance.

I don't know that this decision makes that much of a difference in this election. To the extent that it may, Biden will help you the most, particularly since he will be a near slam dunk in the Vice-Presidential debate regardless of his opponent.

We will find out in the next week or so who it is. We will find out in the next 10 weeks or so if it matters.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Stumping On Gas Tax

Seriously, does Senator Barack Obama want the biggest differentiation between himself and Senator Hillary Clinton to be supported a "tax holiday" or not? You're really going to be the 'guy on the other side' of this issue:



Obama really needs to make this a non-issue by supporting ASAP, stupid or not, before it does real damage to his campaign.

Update: Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central says that Howard Wolfson just confirmed on a conference call that Sen. Clinton would be going forward with introducing legislation on the gas tax holiday. As he points out, it is unlikely to even come to a vote in the House with Nancy Pelosi opposing it, but can you really be sure she will still be opposing it next week? We'll see....

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Is Still Trying

Senator Barack Obama is still trying to explain the truth to people:



While, as I have said, the truth is a great idea, putting money, even 25 or 30 bucks, in people's pockets is even better. Barack, we live in a short term society. 'Give me money now' is the mantra. It is why Wall St. works the way it does. Dozens of companies have gotten into trouble in the past because they maximized short term profits to the detriment of long term viability. Dozens more will in the future. They are a mirror of our society. Or, vice versa. Go argue about that in the comments.

From the Wall St. Journal:

But the political popularity of gas-price relief illustrates the uphill climb facing Sen. Obama. After making his plea Thursday at a retirement community in Columbia City, Ind., an older voter asked him why he couldn't support a gas-tax holiday that would be funded by a tax on oil companies, as Sen. Clinton has proposed, because it would offer some short-term relief. "A lot of us are short term," she quipped.

The New York Times reports Senator Hillary Clinton putting the full court press on Congress:

“Do they stand with hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the big oil companies?” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said. “That’s a vote I’m going to try to get, because I want to know where they stand, and I want them to tell us — are they with us or against us?” (Some Clinton supporters and superdelegates in Congress are among those who oppose a gas tax holiday.)

The same article quotes Senator John McCain in Iowa:

“You’d think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it,” Mr. McCain replied. “The special interests, ‘Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.’ Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief.”

I guess the battle lines are drawn. I think that Senator Obama is finding himself on the wrong side.

A ray of hope? Over at First Read, Domenico Montanaro reports that:

Since a gas tax holiday doesn't look feasible, congressional Dems are pushing an alternative that could give some money back to consumers.

And:

“Democrats are likely to propose a temporary ‘windfall-profits tax,’ possibly of 25%, on major oil companies. Companies would be exempt from the tax if they invested profits in domestically produced renewable fuels or expanded refinery capacity or renewable electricity production. Democrats were discussing Thursday how the additional tax revenues might be used, with some advocating rebates for consumers and others backing additional investment in research and incentives for renewable energy."

Now, I am unsure, since I have not really seen it elsewhere, why a 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible. Nevertheless, the whole 'windfall-profits tax' thing would fall right into Obama's lap. While it wouldn't turn the issue around it would at least neutralize it.

Now, if you excuse me, I will continue to search, much like Obama, for why the 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary and the Coffee Machine

Here's is what Jon Stewart would call "Your moment of zen.":



I, personally, think that she is remarkably calm. I would have been getting really ticked if it wasn't working for me. At least, by the end. ;-)

Hat tip: The Moderate Voice.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Gas Tax High On List Again Today

OK folks. As I said yesterday, this whole proposal of a gas tax holiday is stupid. We all know that. Barack Obama knows that. Hillary Clinton knows that. John McCain knows that. Have we settled that?

Apparently not. It will take an awful lot of energy to convince your average American that a gas tax "holiday" is smoke and mirrors but apparently, at least for now, the media has decided to see if they can support Senator Barack Obama in his quest.

The Chicago Tribune correctly pointed out in on Tuesday that Senator John McCain was the one who let the genie out of the bottle. A fact that is mentioned only in passing, while heaping abuse on Senator Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post today.

James Fallows has it mentioned prominently in his "Stupidest policy ever" contest update over at The Atlantic.

Now, please bear in mind that I too agree that the whole proposal is an exercise in futility. My reference to the genie in the bottle has a purpose. As I argued yesterday, there are just to many people who will find this idea appealing for it to merely 'go away.' McCain let the genie out and now it isn't going back in.

Senator Obama and, apparently, the media for the moment, are trying to patiently explain to this constituency why this is all a farce. The effectiveness of this strategy will be seen in the not too distant future.

Even the WaPo article has a caveat in it's criticism of the proposed holiday:

Political consultant Carter Eskew, a former Al Gore adviser, said that if he were advising Obama, he would have said: "If you want to oppose this . . . you're going to have to spend a lot of time and energy explaining.

"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,' " he said. "I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions . . . that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous."

This explains, more concisely than I, why I don't think that the Clinton camp made a bad decision here. McCain brought it up. You aren't going to be able to keep quiet about it. Do you, if you are running for president in a close race, support or oppose such an idea? Duh! I think this was a no-brainer for the Clinton camp.

I applaud Senator Obama for his courageousness in trying to patiently explain to the American people that this is stupid. But, in the middle of an economic crisis, I still think the pocket book wins out over logic. He is wasting a lot of energy in a battle I think he will ultimately lose. Not a good idea when you are running for any office, much less president.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

It May Be a Gimmick...But If It Gets Votes

The whole gas tax "holiday" or "moratorium" or whatever we are calling it today may indeed be a "gimmick" as Sen. Obama says. It may also play well with the American public.

The Los Angeles Times has one column critical of the whole proposal. It even includes specific reasons that Sen. Obama may be hostile to the proposals of Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is refusing to play along with what he has called a gas-tax "scheme,” perhaps because he has learned from experience. When he was an Illinois state senator in 2000, he voted in favor of a six-month suspension of the state's sales tax on gasoline. A study later showed that the state lost $175 million in revenue, and consumers barely benefited -- gas prices simply rose to make up for the tax cut. Any economist could have predicted this: If you lower the price of gas without increasing the supply, it will only raise demand and thus boost prices.

Marc Ambinder has a post in The Atlantic that has reasoning from economist Jonah Gelbach on why all of this won't work.

Despite all of this, do you really think the idea of a "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to go away? Hell no! It sounds too good to too many Americans. It sounds good to conservatives and libertarians who hate taxes anyway. It sounds good to poor Americans who can't afford gas from week to week. It sounds good to middle class Americans who also can't afford gas from week to week.

Opposing the idea on the grounds that it is just a smoke screen is all well and good in and of itself but it won't matter to these people. A "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to be a popular idea. Senator Obama should get on board and shape it rather than oppose it. For instance, if Senator Clinton's plan goes forward, it will, allegedly, be revenue neutral while Senator McCain's plan will add to the deficit.

You aren't going to stop it. You might as well limit whatever damage might occur from all of this. Meanwhile, you are supporting a popular, if empty, position. Keyword: Popular. It may be stupid, but if it gets you votes than what the heck are you doing?! JMHO.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Eats Babies?

Joan Smith has an excellent column at the Seattle Post Intelligencer entitled Why do Americans hate Clinton?

Snippet:

Hillary Clinton is a witch who eats babies. She is a modern-day Medusa who turns men to stone. She is a DemocRAT, with a rodent's body and long tail.

Yes, it is tongue in cheek. Good read as it explores why some people feel this way about our former first lady and examines why we tolerate it.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

That Wasn't a Speed Bump Barack

Nope. That wasn't a speed bump Senator Barack Obama's campaign bus rolled over today. That was his now, apparently, former pastor the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright after the senator threw him under the bus. Not that he didn't have it coming. After all, he dared to defend himself and his ministry rather than fall on the sword for Sen. Obama.

I won't get into the specifics problems with Sen. Obama's statements today. Suffice to say he largely reiterated what and how Dana Milbank and the rest of the media establishment chose to interpret Rev. Dr. Wright's remarks to the National Press Club. I already stated my rebuttal of those interpretations in this post.

What does concern me is the deep sincerity with which Senator Obama made his statements. It is the same honest, no BS tone he uses for all of his other speeches. That worries me. This is, indeed, must be, a purely political move. His campaign staff saw no other option after yesterday. He himself may have seen no other option.

The problem with this is that:

1. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's comments could not really have been that shocking to someone who has belonged to his church for as long as Sen. Obama has or


2. Sen. Barack Obama is an incredibly naive person who is not even capable of seeing a man he has known for many years at face value, much less read what the man's real values are.

If it is number one then this is a man who can make anything sound like it is coming from the "Tree of Hope." That is, on the one hand, absolutely great. On the other hand, it is scary as all hell. When is he being earnest and when is he being expedient if he always sounds as if he is delivering us to the 'promised land', even when he isn't. His greatest differentiation from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the belief that he wasn't full of crap and he wasn't jaded enough to throw his own values out when it was politically expedient. He may very well have lost that differentiation now. Why?

Because, otherwise number two has to be correct and Senator Barack Obama makes President George W. Bush look like the world's greatest judge of character. I don't think anyone believes this is the case.

This is a man who married Obama, baptised his children, was his pastor for a great many years and inspired the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Now we are supposed to believe that Obama did not know of his pastor's views? All of this is a great big surprise? Ridiculous.

I can understand if Senator Obama is pissed about the theatrics yesterday, and, from his comments, it appears that he is. But to completely repudiate the Rev. Dr. Wright? You haven't defended him. Why shouldn't he defend himself. I also suspect that there is more than a little truth to the feelings Rev. Dr. Wright implied that Sen. Obama had towards the views of the Rev. Dr. Wright. Did the reverend hit too close to home? We won't ever know because, yes or no, the campaign has to make that implication seem like a smear.

As I have said, the comments don't really need repudiation when they are viewed/listened to in context. Senator Obama and his staff have come to believe that they do, however. They have come to believe that the soundbites cannot be overcome. They have come to believe that it is more important for the Senator to distance himself from his pastor, who, "spiritual mentor" or not, obviously was a major influence on him (see the title of his book), than it is to embrace the man while rejecting the comments. Even better, defend the comments as not being seen in context, as I have done. (I do, however, realize this is far too much to ask a man to do for his pastor when he is running for president.) He almost, vaguely, defended the 'soundbites' in just such a way at the news conference. (Think that that might have been a hint at what is in his heart?) Nope, we're gonna cut bait.

This could, and most likely, to one extent or another, will backfire on Sen. Obama and his campaign. Sen. Obama is too closely linked to Rev. Dr. Wright. His protestations about "not knowing" are disingenuous at best. I think that more will see this as a failure to stand up when he is needed than will see this as a necessary step to be taken if he wishes to win in November. His best hope is that Sen. John McCain will be too embarassed by his own connections to the likes of John Hagee and Rod Parsley to attack him for abandoning his own minister. Or, maybe, McCain will do just that after not abandoning Hagee and Parsley!

I don't agree with everything my pastor says. Never will. He sometimes says some relatively controversial things. Nothing quite like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Nevertheless, even if he did say things that controversial, and I were running for president, I would like to think I would stand by the man. I am not sure I am that strong. I do, however, now know that Barack Obama is not.

Short "Soundbite" version from the AP


Essential Elements version from MSNBC



Full News Conference Video from MSNBC



Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

NC's Governor Endorses Clinton

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as foretold by TalkLeft, was endorsed by North Carolina Governor Mike Easley today. Read the story at the Washington Post.

I am not entirely sure how much this will help her. But it sure can't hurt.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

(Photo:Elise Amendola - AP)

Sphere: Related Content

Wright speaks to NAACP

Here are some of the words from Rev. Jeremiah Wrights' speech to the NAACP Detroit Branch last night:



There are several things I have to wonder about all of this. First, what is really so divisive about his comments? When you get past the sound bite shock value of some of his phrases what he is saying, in general, is really not all that far from John Edwards and his "Two Americas." It is more race focused than Edwards but the message is quite similar.

Second, I have to wonder what the Obama people are thinking about all of this. Do they want him to just go away? Speaking out may actually be the best way for him to show what he is and to dampen the problem. Meanwhile, the Obama camp isn't scripting HIS speeches so even if they are alright with this strategy, they have to be nervous every time he approaches a podium with cameras focused on it. (As he will again today.)

Obama was asked about Wright again this weekend (from the WaPo):

Obama himself was asked again about Wright in a "Fox News Sunday" interview broadcast Sunday morning. Although the senator from Illinois said Wright had been "caricatured....in a fairly deliberate way," he noted, "People were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he made in the past," and added "the fact that he is my former pastor...makes it a legitimate issue" in the presidential campaign.

I personally think this whole issue of "attribution of affiliated peoples views" crap needs to go away. Candidates usually have enough problems explaining the things they said on subjects long ago. Is Obama's record really so unblemished that we need to go looking for others around him whom we can hold over his head? Apparently the media thinks so.
Oh, and please don't blame this on Hillary Clinton. She is trying to win a nomination for President here. I think it can be justified that she tried to make it an issue. The problem is that she tried and the media acquiesced. This is the media, plain and simple.
Rather than continuing to try to pin John Hagee's comments on John McCain, perhaps we should try to focus on real issues. McCain does not support every (or even most) utterance(s) of John Hagee any more than Obama supports every utterance of Wright or I support every utterance of my pastor. While a more distinct repudiation of the specific remarks made be Hagee would be nice, I still don't believe that McCain himself believes a word of this bunk. (And it is rather insulting to him to ask him to specifically repudiate them.)
Stop covering crap and get back to the real issues please.

Sphere: Related Content