When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes.
For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he turned a defense into media-friendly offense — and is indicative of many Democrats’ determination to not be defined anymore by Republicans on national security issues.
TV talk shows, newscasts and many blogs have been having a field day with the White House’s shifting explanations of what Bush really meant. But there have been enough news reports now to solidify the fact that the remarks were indeed aimed at Obama. And it wasn’t just a Bush oversight that he swiped at the Democratic frontrunner while international news cameras whirred during his address in Israel.
First, it showed that despite the fact that Bush is winding up his second term and battling charges of lameduck-ism, he still an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country.
Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain. Deride Bush — and his strategic team — if you will, but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers. Bush’s political judgment since 2004 has proved somewhat suspect, but to dismiss his ability to understand and effectively analyze the political landscape could be a mistake on the part of Democrats.
That’s why it was so fascinating today to watch cable casts, listen to talk radio shows and read comments in blogs where the most lockstep Republican defenders of Mr. Bush insisted Obama and the Democrats were being paranoid. White House officials gave reporters various explanations of about to whom Bush was “really” referering, latest being that he was really referring to Jimmy Carter.
But you can now read Cillizza and any number of seasoned reporters covering this mini-firestorm and they’re not running the spin but calling it as it is. And bluntly.
The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over. Amid all of the “he said, he said” between Obama and McCain/Bush, the one figure that has been almost entirely absent is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Can you imagine that happening even three months ago?
We’ve written about that since this story broke. It was instructive because (a) a day after former Senator John Edwards endorsed Obama and nearly wiped Clinton’s huge West Virginia win off the media’s stories-to-cover list, Bush made his comments aimed at Obama, (b)Clinton was out of this debate, (c)coverage of this news cycle shoved Clinton out of news coverage almost completely yesterday and today (except for her statement condemning Bush’s comments).
The third, and most important lesson, is that Obama is ready and willing to fight Republicans over foreign policy and national security concerns.
Bush’s remarks at the Knesset provided Obama with an interesting conundrum. Refuse to rise to the bait or engage full force in an attempt to begin to address concerns — voiced privately by some Democratic strategists — that the Illinois senator may not be able to win a general election that is framed as a referendum on which party can keep America safe.
Obama, to our mind, took the smarter course by not simply answering the inherent critique offered by the president but also pivoting to try and make McCain answerable for the foreign policy pursued by the United States over the last eight years.
Obama turned the proverbial lemon (being attacked by Bush and being put on the defensive and having to answer) into lemonade (going after Bush by rattling off specific criticisms, using humor and sarcasm and tethering McCain tightly to Bush one after McCain made a major speech in which the Arizona Senator tried to inch himself away from the most unpopular President in modern polling history).
But the biggest change is in the approach of Obama and the Democrats themselves.
As Cillizza notes, the Democrats usually would try not to aggressively challenge the Republicans on national security issues. They’d respond and quickly try to move onto domestic issues, such as health care, environment, the courts….figuring those were the party’s strength.
Rather than battle the GOP with the Republican’s choice of weapons, they tried to use other ones. But it turned out to be trying to counter a shotgun with a nail file.
Then there came the change, as Cillizza notes:
The 2004 election may well have signaled a sea change in that strategy, as Bush effectively turned the election into a referendum on the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security as Democrats were unable to mount an effective response.
In 2006, the Democrats began to engage the Republicans on what the GOP felt was its own national security turf even more…and saw results. Polls began to show that many Americans did not whoppingly trust the Republicans more than the Democrats.
One of the signs of political savvy is learning from mistakes and adapting. The Democrats seem to have started to adapt in recent years — and if Obama’s response in this controversy is any indication the rules and responses in the game have changed. Cillizza again:
It marks a remarkable change in tactics that speaks to just how much the political landscape has shifted since 2004. McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor, but Obama’s initial response is a sign that they may have to adjust their tactics in the runup to the November election.
What’s changed are several factors, which can’t be applied to the most lockstep Bush administration supporters, but to many Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
Simple spin won’t do anymore. Spin is a lot more to be countered by a press singed by duly reporting official Bush administration statements over the years and in some cases being accused of doing more stenography than journalism. The Bush administration now has a massive — and profusely documented — credibility gap. McCain has enjoyed much credibility but if Bush keeps roping him in, McCain will begin to morph into Bush Lite among more voters than just progressive Democrats, who never liked him to begin with.
2008 ain’t 2006 which wasn’t 2004 which wasn’t 2000 in terms of the mega-quick response time of the Internet, the growth and popularity of cable news talk shows, talk radio, and a mainstream news media that is trying to respond quicker and more decisively to breaking news stories in order to compete with the new media. Many newspapers now have excellent political weblogs.
So the Democrats are responding faster, they have a presumptive candidate who turned a trap into media and political gain, and the Democrats will find more rapid coverage from the new media and also be dealing with a mainstream media that has been burned by Bush and the Republicans over the past few years.
Obama may be no John Kennedy, but in this instance he proved he was no Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.
And Democratic leaders’ super-quick responses falling in line behind him also suggested that the Democrats of 2008 are….so far at least (and the campaign is still young)…not the Democrats of 2004.
Cartoon by Huffaker, Cagle Cartoons
May 13th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Recap of BBC Show, as promised to TMV readers earlier.
I was on a BBC radio show today as a blogger from The Moderate Voice.
The issue of the day there was (still), “Should Hillary Clinton quit?”
As a sign of intense international interest in the Obama-Clinton primary race, the BBC has been airing many opinion shows about the elections.
This one segment of one particular show today was just a few minutes of discussion on that topic.
There were, in those few moments on air, lots of emails flying, listener-phone callers… also, about 7 passionate bloggers on the long distance lines too at the same time… and a well-spoken BBC reporter on site at Clinton headquarters in West Virginia.
The BBC show was what I would call ‘a scattershot of opinions,’ wherein as one of the many guests, you sort of get called on by the radio host, as in school, to give your briefest .02 worth… the question itself pressuring for a yes or no response with some details of support.
There’s no time, really, ‘to question the question’… and it would have been bad form on my part, disrespectful of the host and all the planning that went into this segment… but I wanted to ask, “But, is this the right question?” or, “What is behind this question?”
I do hope that’ll be another show though that will cover such ideas. I think we need opinions. But also, like any living entity, we need routes into far larger ideas too.
Quicker vs. Deeper
I note, and certainly not just in this segment at the BBC, that radio guests cannot respond nor interact with one or two other persons, as one would in an actual conversation.
So, the talk-fest is almost like a subliminal/ fast slide-show of opinings, valuable in an instant-snapshot-of-the-culture montage way. Yet, it cannot– as a true conversation in depth would– provoke or catalyze thoughtful grasp and grappling with deeper issues… the latter, I think, adds value to listeners’ shorter-term ‘right/wrong’ and yes/ no/maybe judgments re election issues.
In such important cultural discussions, just to coin a metaphor, I wish for a flowering plant with roots. Rather than just a cutting and gathering of the roses as one may. Both beautiful forms. But, one has far more longevity.
Yet, the radio show was interesting nonetheless, and the male radio host was snappy and energetic. The woman reader of emails on-air was very expressive in tone of voice, lending a theatrical air to listener’s emails. And, the people who are this show’s producers are good-natured, smart, and gentlemanly to the bone.
Though I’ve been on radio many times over these years, at length, and as the sole guest… I’m sincerely appreciative of being asked on today… even though I’m not sure they’ll ever ask me back again… as I interposed Read the rest of this entry »
Why is the man above smiling? Because, apparently, he has a RIGHT to.
If all goes according to projections and Senator Hillary Clinton somewhat narrowly wins the Indiana Democratic primary (CBS has projected she will narrowly win it), he has a right to smile. Because if early indications are correct, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have provided a textbook case of the influence of radio talk show hosts on partisans in the 21st century.
His “Operation Chaos” — designed to get his listeners to vote whenever they can in Democratic primaries for Clinton to prolong the Democrats’ highly divisive Clinton/Barack Obama Presidential nomination — could have given the Cinton the winning edge, if the victory margin in the end is like what seems to be shaping up now. The New Republic’s The Plank:
Some reporters have speculated about the impact of the “Limbaugh effect” — partisan Republicans crossing over to vote fr Hillary Clinton solely to help weaken the Democrats against John McCain. The sieze of the effect is hard to measure. But there is one numerical measurement, first pointed out to me by the Pew Survey’s Richard Auxier following the Pennsylvania primary, that gives some sense of it.
One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.
Now, this isn’t a precise measure of the “Limbaugh effect” — no doubt there are some Republicans who backed Obama in the primary out of anti-Clinton sentiment, but plan to vote for McCain in November. But it is a good place to start when making a ballpark estimate. And it’s a sizeable number — 7% may wind up being as big as her margin of victory.
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein looks at exit polls and reaches the same conclusion: Limbaugh played a role in motivating some voters whose motive was basically to sabatoge the Democratic primary…something some Democrats have tried in cross-over primaries the past but not on such an organized, sustained and serious scale. Stein’s post must be read full but here are some excerpts:
Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?
The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.
Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said “neither candidate” shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.
These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don’t relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.
He goes into some detail then writes:
The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton’s support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn’t like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh’s hatchet plan could be having political ripples.
Perhaps it’s a mix of all three.
Republican partisans will applaud what truly seems to be a Limbaugh success. And his “legend” as someone who can press a button and get followers to do his bidding (or jettison previous beliefs and get with the party line) will grow. Some Hillary Clinton supporters will say Well, what does it matter why they vote the way the do — they have the right to vote as they vote. (Which they do.)
But there is an ineffable stench of political sleaziness when Republicans — and Democrats — decide to cross party lines to sandbag the other party. Who would have ever thought 20 or 30 — or 10 — years ago that partisans of either party would vote in another party’s primary specifically to prolong the other party’s turmoil or weaken that party’s candidate? There have been charges that siphoning off another party’s votes has been used via third parties but this hasn’t been an actual calculated strategy until now. Welcome to mega partisan 2008.
Perhaps when Superdelegates look at these numbers, it might influence their perceptions on the components of the Indiana vote….particularly as Limbaugh starts hyping his impact and if the mainstream media latches on to the story.
P.S. Limbaugh’s power isn’t just because he’s a partisan. He is also a talented, first-class broadcaster who knows how to use the broadcast medium and get and hold an audience. He makes it look easy, and it isn’t — which is why so many other conservative and progressive talk show hosts have failed.
This may be the first vote in which his influence can be measured in qualitative terms.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has urged his Republican listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton in today’s Indiana primary, pointing to what he said is a double standard when it comes to cross-over voters, the Boston Globe reports — and another newspaper reports signs of “hardcore” Republicans voting Democratic.
Indiana’s primary is open to Republicans and independents, as well as Democrats. Limbaugh is urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton to extend the Democratic nomination fight and, he hopes, further damage the eventual nominee.
Exit polls suggest that Limbaugh’s soldiers could have made a difference March 4 in Texas, where Clinton pulled out a narrow win in the primary, though Obama won the simultaneous caucuses.
Limbaugh told listeners on Monday that Democratic Party officials in Indiana are trying to intimidate Republican voters with monitors at the polls. So he issued these orders: “Flood these precincts. Vote for Mrs. Clinton as an act of defiance against these police-state tactics as a form of protest.” Read the rest of this entry »
And now it moves to media center stage: the trend of Republicans crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries. But the New York Times reports that many GOPers aren’t doing this because they’re “dittoheads” obeying the wishes of mega-partisan talk show host Rush Limbaugh, but disgruntled Republicans who feel their party has left — or is leaving — them:
INDIANAPOLIS - Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.
But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis — the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.
“I used to like John McCain, but he’s aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that’s just not what I want for this country,” Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.
This should be a warning flag to John McCain. As I’ve predicted many times on this site, there is a large segment of voters that aren’t going to look at political party at all this year — but want to take a big broom and sweep away the people who are in charge who have brought the United States a war seemingly without end (even if X voter originally supported the war), a decimated economy, a sagging dollar, an epidemic of home foreclosures and plummeting local property values, and an economy peppered by massive corporate cutbacks or failures and employment ills.
Seen from this perspective, the decisions of Democratic rivals Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to ignore Democratic progressives’ demand to boycott Fox News, makes political sense: Republican voters are in play in these primaries and they all can’t be dismissed as participating in Limbaugh’s call to basically sabotage the Democratic primaries.
This suggests that indicates that the potency of the Democratic party’s most progressive wing, is now being offset in some primaries by more conservative and centrist voters who are cross-over Republicans who feel their party has failed them. And they’re shopping around.
The Times confirms this:
Since the start of the primary and caucus season in January, Republican voters have been crossing over in increasing numbers to vote in Democratic contests — supplying up to 10 percent of the vote in states that allow such crossover voting — and they are expected to play a pivotal role in the fiercely contested primary here. What is less clear, however, is the motivation for their behavior: are they genuinely attracted by the two Democratic candidates? Or are they mischief-making spoilers, looking to prolong a divisive Democratic fight or support a candidate Mr. McCain can beat in November?
Local Republican Party leaders in Indiana concede the attraction of the Democratic candidates to some of their party members. And interviews with roughly a dozen Republican voters in central Indiana suggest that they are driven mainly by concerns about the economy, with discontent over Bush administration policies driving their involvement in the Democratic race.
What’s now happening between Obama and Clinton is competition for some of these Republicans — Republicans probably dismissed as “well-they-must-be-Rinos” by lockstep Republican partisans who will adjust their positions or jettison previous principles according to the latest pronouncements from the White House or EIB Radio Network. The Times again: Read the rest of this entry »
April 29th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Past political campaigns have had their share of people associated with candidates who are placed on the defensive — but seldom has one in any year had one as proactively insistent on keeping himself alive and injected into an excruciatingly close race as the political albatross now dangling around Democratic Senator Barack Obama named Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Aside from the eager nodding of heads and the unspoken “Keep it up!” you can almost feel coming from the campaign of rival Democratic Presidential wannabe Senator Hillary Clinton, conservative Republicans are ecstatic. Jonah Goldberg, writing in The Los Angeles Times:
God bless the Rev. Jeremiah Wright!
After Barack Obama gave his big race speech in mid-March, many critics noted that the Illinois senator had thrown his own grandmother under the bus to defend his controversial pastor. Well, Wright proved over the last few days that he would not be outdone. He not only threw Obama under the bus, he chucked much of the liberal and mainstream media under there with him. If this keeps up, to paraphrase Roy Scheider in “Jaws,” he’s gonna need a bigger bus.
For six weeks, Obama’s biggest supporters have diligently argued that to so much as mention Wright is in effect racist. When Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Wright wouldn’t have been her pastor, Andrew Sullivan gasped on his Atlantic blog that this was “a new low” in the election. When Lanny J. Davis, Clinton’s consummate spinner, defended her on CNN by describing what Wright actually said, CNN’s Anderson Cooper lambasted Davis for daring to even repeat Wright’s comments. Newsweek’s Joe Klein chimed in, “You’re spreading the poison right now.”
What Wright has done the past few days by (over)exposure is to leave himself in the eyes of many indefensible in terms of the center — and converted himself into an unrelenting albatross also chained to a 1,000 lb. anchor dangling around Obama’s neck:
Obama and his defenders have repeatedly insisted that the bits from Wright’s sermons that got wide circulation last month had been taken “out of context.” His infamous sound bites were grounded in concrete theological or factual foundations, they claim. He was quoting other people. He’s done good things. Nothing to see here, folks.
And so God bless Wright because he’s left all of these folks holding a giant, steaming bag of … well, let’s just call it a bag of “context.”
His positions and the context of his remarks, some could argue, are still explainable, but the problem is that those making that argument right now veer into a nuanced area of nuance — the kind of argument that usually does not work in elections where candidates oversimplify, generalize and try to link up their opponents with broad-brush imagery of stances, events or individuals that will be seen unfavorably by key chunks of an attention-span-challenged electorate.
All this comes at a time when Obama’s campaign is reportedly battening down the hatches for what is expected to be a brutal campaign lasting well into the summer, the New York Times reports:
Mr. Obama’s aides said that they remained confident he would win the nomination. “We feel very good about the position that we are in,” said David Axelrod, his chief strategist. “But we have gotten to the position we are in by taking every week and every contest seriously.”
Still, they said they were no longer as hopeful as they once were that the contest could be resolved before June 3, the day of the last primaries. As a result, they were girding for six weeks of attacks by Mrs. Clinton and potential election defeats that could raise further questions among superdelegates — the elected Democrats and party leaders who will ultimately determine the nominee — about Mr. Obama’s strength as a general election candidate.
And Wright’s double-whammy of appearances came at a time of introspection and private disappointment:
In discussions with donors and supporters last week, Mr. Obama’s advisers played down the loss in Pennsylvania, noting that both sides had expected Mrs. Clinton to win there.
Still, the message belied private frustration and disappointment that Mr. Obama shared with a few associates and advisers, particularly over the hardening narrative that he could not appeal to working-class voters, and a personal frustration for comments he made about some small-town voters being “bitter” at their economic conditions. (Mrs. Clinton seized on those remarks, which have shadowed his campaign.)
“Everyone’s got a real calmness about where we are,” said David Plouffe, who is Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, “but a real sense of urgency that we have eight contests coming up in pretty rapid succession.”
But now it’s clear from the amount of space Wright has gotten on blogs, on serious cable talk shows, on screaming head cable and radio talk shows and in the opinion columns:
Wright is proactively making it tough for Obama to right his campaign.
Will he have to make a statement to distance himself even more from him? And what if Wright’s love affair with national media coverage continues? In essence, Wright himself has been putting the muscle, meat and flesh on the skeletal stereotypical imagery critics have tried to sculpt about Obama. And he won’t stay out of the spotlight to let the issue defuse itself.
Candidates’ associates have seldom totally sank a national political campaign.
But perhaps we are about to see an example of what happens when an association does.
“The Clinton campaign describes Hillary’s voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash.”
–Randi Rhodes
How can this kind of s**t from those in the tank for Obama possibly be good for the Democratic party?
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Iraq. The economy. Terrorism. Foreclosures. Taxes. Education. These among the issues facing the U.S. but a new firestorm has started sweeping the blogosphere via a You Tube embed: Did Democratic Senator Barack Obama give Democratic Presidential nomination rival Hillary Clinton the finger?
Did he try to signal it to the crowd? Wasn’t that a knowing look? And, it stands to follow, since he did this (an assumption some are already making — so each viewer is urged to watch the video) doesn’t it therefore mean he lacks class and should immediately apologize? And — not said yet — shouldn’t this disqualify him from the Presidency if he refuses to admit it? And, if he won’t come clean and admit it, shouldn’t he resign his Senate seat?
See the video below. To my mind, this is totally in the eye of the beholder. Republicans and Democrats who are vehemently anti-Obama are looking for things now to discredit him — just as Obama’s supporters and looking at things to discredit Clinton and McCain supporters are looking for things to discredit Obama and Clinton. Welcome to 21s century seek-and-destroy politics.
Once again, American politics boils down to seemingly discussing anything but actual issues that impact the country and the peoples’ pocketbook. But you judge for YOURSELF:
So American politics has now moved to a stage where LITERALLY every gesture is analyzed and given the worst interpretation on it — as if unconfirmed suspicion equals reality.
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Fuses are exceedingly short among cable talking heads as well. Did MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough walk off the set — or did he merely choose not to participate any more in an on-the-air discussion with progressive talk’s rising radio and cable star Rachel Maddow? Details and the video are HERE.
Even if Scarborough did walk off, it’s unlikely to hurt his standing with his network. Scarborough is a unique and authentic talent. He’s a former pol and former professional Republican talking head who broke out of the pack due to his independent viewpoints and the fact he comes across so well on television. Maddow is also a major talent: not all radio types do well on television and she comes across as an assertive and thoughtful progressive who represents her side exceedingly well.
But look at this event as a sample of what’s going on this election year. Tempers are frayed on all sides and discussion often deteriorates into shouting and anger. Scarborough’s point was he won’t do screamfest talk shows a la Crossfire and Maddow’s point was that he was interrupting her while she was giving her take on events. You decide..
Expect this motif to get much worse after the Democrats choose a candidate. Right now (as can be seen in the blogosphere) there is a three way split between people who support Republican Senator John McCain, and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain is an increasingly strong candidate — someone who appeals to independents, Democrats and is now successfully shoring up the GOP’s longtime winning coalition.
If trends continue, by August GOPers will realize they have an authentic chance to win a once-seemingly-unwinnable Presidential election and Democrats will realize once a candidate is picked that they could well blow winning a once-seemingly-easy Presidential election. If you think tempers are frayed now…and given how America’s political culture increasingly sparks anger and confrontation…fasten your seat belts.
April 17th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
This was a debate?
No. It was double jeopardy for both the candidates: the prosecution of an individual twice for the same offense.
Take that back. It was umpteenth jeopardy.
If most people were forced to watch the OJ trial all over again, they would consider it capital punishment.
I sense strongly, that viewers were turning away from watching the kangaroo court, I mean, the debate being held tonight with candidates as defendants, I mean, opponents.
Again.
Perhaps the issue is who asks the questions.
Most voters I know, look like, act like, think like no one who has been an inquisitor, I mean, questioner at the debates… any of them… from any side.
Frankly, I’d rather see a wide-mouth bass fisherman and a woman who cleans houses for a living, asking the questions.
I’d rather have a meat cutter and a rancher and a truck farmer ask the questions.
I’d rather have immigrants without papers ask the questions,
or drug addicts trying to get another chance to go clean,
or the married couple who sell coffee from the side of their panel truck in the parking lot of the light rail station every morning,
or overland truckers who are going under from the cost of fuel,
and kids who cant get into ‘good’ colleges for they haven’t the money,
or angelic social workers worked beyond human reason with overload cases
and the family that just lost their home and are living in a shelter, and have college degrees,
and gun owners who are shy and smart and thoughtful
and adults who cannot read or write
and people who are paying 30% interest on their credit cards and have no reprieve from the banks,
and people who depend on the water to grow their crops
and men and women who have American flags in the place of honor on the mantle when they’d much rather have their son back,
and people who believe everything has a soul.
I like most of the radio and TV pundits, the educated Irish boys, and the English guys, the Jewish boys and Black guys and German-Americans, the Latinos, and Asian Americans, and all the rest.
But they don’t live where and as most other people in the USA live.
Their questions are often too book-title-like, too slogan-ish, too predictable. Quite a few seem overly aware they are being watched/ televised, and some appear pointedly trying too hard to sound like whatever their fantasy is of being ‘hard-hitting.’
Hard-hitting tonight? Yes, as hitting a lot of grounders really really hard. Score: zero
Hard hitting as in fresh and insightful, revealing? No.
No doubt some media will now dawdle on with further “aummmm, shame on you stories’ about various.
Some more prescient might investigate more deeply each candidate’s understanding of how the United States is SUPPOSED to go to war IF the USA is, God forbid ever again, the direct recipient of an attack. There appeared to be an emotional idea about going to war if need be with /regarding Iran. As we have already seen, grievously so, the decision is not supposed to be made emotionally only.
So, for tonight, as per useful, startling, deep questions being asked of the candidates, there was barely an introit to the core concerns. Hopefully, the next time– if there is a next time– the questions will be more like making love with all you’ve got: wilder, deeper, longer, more responsively…
My father, who had a second grade education and could barely speak English, used to say: Ve dont care vat de hell der best answers are if de qvestions are not de right qvestions.
April 10th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Campaign 2008 has now claimed its first talk show host for going over the line: Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes, who was suspended from the progressive talk radio network after using expletives to describe Democrats Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro at a meeting of station affiliates, has reportedly quit the network.
Now the scramble among reporters will be to find out if she did indeed quit, was encouraged to resign, or just had enough and decided to leave the struggling network.
The Huffington Post has learned that Randi Rhodes quit Air America after being asked by the network to apologize for her inflammatory remarks against Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
A source at Air America, who asked to remain anonymous, said, “Many people screw up and then apologize and move on. Like Imus. Like David Shuster. Like Jay Rockefeller on McCain. Like Obama on Rezko. Like Hillary on Bosnia. Randi Rhodes refused to apologize for her obscene comments and has chosen instead to terminate her relationship with Air America.”
The source also said that there is no love lost between Rhodes and her colleagues at the network. “No one is upset. She made the move but there’s relief and joy.”
Last week Air America suspended Randi Rhodes for abusive, obscene language at a recent public appearance in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.
Air America Media was informed last night by Ms. Rhodes that she has chosen to terminate her employment with the company.
We wish her well and thank her for past services to Air America. We will soon announce exciting new talent.
But Rhodes may not be off the air for long: On the KKGN website, PD John Scott had early word of Rhodes’ AAR exit and says, “We are bringing her back.” Scott says that on Monday, April 14, “it will be our pleasure to announce the return of Randi Rhodes to the Green 960 family.” Whether that return will be with KKGN itself or through a new syndication deal is yet to be determined.
“We have been very frustrated the past few days in our efforts to rectify the Randi Rhodes Situation (her suspension by her network, Air America Radio). It is our understanding that today (April 9th) she is no longer an employee of Air America. So we are bringing her back.”
Monday, April 14th at 4pm… it will be our pleasure to announce the return of Randi Rhodes to the Green 960 family.
Be sure to read our previous post which put Rhodes’ suspension in perspective.
What’s most notable about this incident is that it shows that there is a line that can’t be crossed — particularly in a divisive election year.
Vigorous, even controversial discussions or characterizations could spark denunciations but aren’t on the same level as name-calling swearing (even if, as some argued, it was done to be funny or even satirical).
It also underscores the changing nature of Air America, which started out as a company in which progressives had great hope that they could challenge the conservative talk radio’s dominance in the marketplace or, at the very least, checkmate it.. The company has since had problems, reorganized, and was sold. Its present programming is not quite as far to the left as it had been when it debuted amid great fanfare.
Also: given its need to carve out cohesive progressive audiences, Air America could not afford to alienate Hillary Clinton supporters en-masse. Did that play a factor in the suspension and — if it turns out she was actually fired - -departure?
More details will come out via reports — and most certainly via Rhodes herself.
Was there a genuine impasse? Was she basically forced to quit? Or did she simply feel Air America didn’t back her and wanted to move on? Will she be picked up by the same company that syndicates progressive talkers Ed Schultz (who himself created controversy by calling Senator John McCain a warmonger, but that wasn’t quite on the same level as Rhodes’ problem) and Stephanie Miller? Or is she fated to be a local host or syndicated by a lower-profile company?
Stay tuned. Literally.
NOTE THE UPDATE: It sounds as if she was given an ultimatum — apologize or leave so she left. But Rhodes will most certainly have more to say about this at a later date.
There was a good bit of chatter over the weekend concerning rumors that Secretary of State Condi Rice might be actively seeking the VP slot on John McCain’s presidential ticket. This is certainly not a new idea. If you traveled the blogs in the Right side of the sphere last year you probably saw numerous “Draft Condi!” buttons exhorting her fans to push the Secretary into a run for president. But how receptive would the movers and shakers of the Republican party be to the idea of Vice President Condi under President McCain? We can get a pretty good feel for this from The Weekly Standard’s Richelieu.
He is clearly dubious about the prospect, citing several reasons why Ms. Rice would not be a wise choice for the Arizona Senator’s ticket. These include (correctly, in my opinion) Condi’s background as more of a policy wonk than a politician, her inability to pull any swing states, (she’s from California which is not in play) and the fact that she would remind voters of shortcomings in the Bush administration’s early Iraq strategy. However, he also lists this telling complaint.
She would pull exactly 14 black votes away from Barack Obama.
I’m not sure if Richilieu has a specific list of 14 people or if that’s just a generalization, but it certainly has the ring of truth. In the modern era the popularity of the GOP among black Americans has been spotty, to put it generously. I’ve spoken to a number of Republican pundits who worry over this and sincerely wish that they could build a bigger tent for their party, but inroads seem hard to come by. Why is this?
First, let’s take a look at the list of currently seated black Republicans in Congress.
(Insert here the sound of crickets chirping softly in the evening.)
Ok… now that we’re done with that, perhaps we can move on to who is getting nominated for President. (Take a peek at this photograph of the ten candidates who started this race to refresh your memory.) This is a classic shot - as one Democratic friend of mine likes to say - of a stable of ROWGs. (She pronounces it “rogues” but it stands for Rich Old White Guys.) In contrast, a look at the Democratic slate tells much of this story. Read the rest of this entry »
A new CNN poll tells us that 76% of Americans are ready for a black president. In the breakdown we see that 78% of whites and 69% of blacks answered this question in the affirmative. Additionally, 63% of Americans feel that the country is ready for a female president. On the surface you may be cheered by these numbers, but I suppose I’m just more of a pessimist by nature. When I first read the results I found myself asking, “you mean nearly a quarter of Americans are not ready for a black president and almost a third aren’t ready for a woman?” I had hoped we’d come further than that in the last few decades.
But then, upon further reflection, I tried to put myself in the shoes of some of these people answering the phones and responding to this poll. Do we really have that many racists in the nation? Are our ranks so filled with misogynists? Or might there be something a bit more complex beneath the surface?
I wonder if our pollsters aren’t being taken in yet again. If I am an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and a caller asks me if the nation is ready for a black president, what I’m really hearing is, “are we ready for Barack Obama?” And then my answer might just be no. Would there not be a temptation for a die-hard Obama supporter to say we’re not ready for a female president because the question today means Hillary Clinton?
No, I suspect we’re doing betters on issues of race and sex than this poll might indicate. The area we’re falling down on is partisan political attitudes. As Shaun pointed out earlier, we will be addressing this question during the first part of our show on Mid Stream Radio today at 1:00 pm Eastern, 10:00 am Pacific. Stop by to listen or call in with your own thoughts on the subject.
We’ve said it before and we will say it again: some (but not all) of liberal and conservative talk radio is seemingly merging now into one big blur of partisan and intra-party demonization — and host and caller rage — that has little to do with political discussion or even show biz: and here, in the middle of Campaign 2008, we now see a glaring example of this in the suspension of Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes.
No, it wasn’t on the air…but it’s a symptomatic extension of the push-the-envelope, ratchet up the political rage talk show radio culture:
Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro.
Rhodes used obscene language in her choice remarks during a March 22 appearance in San Francisco, sponsored by an Air America affiliate station. In a statement issued on the liberal radio network’s Web site, Air America chairman Charlie Kireker said that kind of salty talk has no place in the political dialogue.
“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts,” reads the statement by Kireker, issued on Thursday.
What did she actually say? Basically, she used a word that suggested Clinton and Ferraro are in the same class as the high priced ladies resigned New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer used to hang around with.
The Moderate Voice adheres to “newspaper standards” on language (although we occasionally slip). So we’ll pass on embedding the &%@$!-mouthed You Tube, but you can watch it yourself HERE.Enjoy.
Another season of Hollywood big budget releases is grinding onward and, as Deadline Hollywood Daily tells us, the latest in a long line of films about the Iraq War (and/or the Global War on Terror) seems set to take a dive at the box office.
I’m told #7 Stop-Loss opened to only $1.6 million Friday from just 1,291 plays and should eke out $4+M. Although the drama from MTV Films was the best-reviewed movie opening this weekend, Paramount wasn’t expecting much because no Iraq war-themed movie has yet to perform at the box office.
This is hardly the first time we’ve seen this. In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition and Home of the Brave, among others, were financial disasters. But why is this so? If you ask some of our friends from the Right leaning side of the sphere, such as the excellent Republican blogger Rick Moran, it’s simply a case of America rejecting the leftist Hollywood liberal elite anti-war (or even anti-American!) message in these films.
But this type of reaction seems a bit short-sighted, failing to take into account the success of films critical of the Vietnam war, such as Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and others. And any theory of wholesale rejection of anti-Iraq war films fails to take into account the blockbuster success of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 911, which broke all records for documentaries at the box office and won wide critical acclaim along with an Oscar.
Jazz: Betty Jo, Why do movies about the Iraq War or the Global War on Terror fare so horribly at the box office?
Betty Jo: 1. Most people go to the movies for escapist entertainment, and the Iraq War & Global War on Terror are too serious for this type of viewing.
2. Because information and/or visuals about the Iraq War and the War on Terror run almost 24/7 on television news, the internet and radio, we are less likely to pay money for a film about them.
3. Our current “enemies” seem inferior technologically, so many of these movies lack dramatic presentation.
(Guess that explains why my husband and I chose to see a silly comedy called Superhero Movie instead of Stop-Loss this weekend!)
Jazz: Is it just American attitudes about the war which sink these films, or are they simply bad movies in terms of acting, directing, cinematography, etc.?
Betty Jo: Two films in the categories under discussion deserve more support and recognition than they’ve received to date. I’m talking about Rendition and In the Valley of Ellah. Both are high-quality in every respect — as well as entertaining. Rendition, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon, depicts how using torture to get information can backfire on the torturers – and it does so with excitement and suspense. The compelling In the Valley of Ellah, with Tommy Lee Jones, Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron, adopts a kind of detective story format as it shows the Iraq War’s impact on an ordinary guy and his parents.
Other movies about the Global War on Terror haven’t fared as well critically or at the box office. Despite its star-studded cast (Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford), Lions for Lambs ended up being too talky and preachy, and even with George Clooney’s Oscar-winning performance, Syriana came across as too complicated and overly ambitious, while Redacted, from respected filmmaker Brian De Palma, was practically unwatchable.
As a side note, if you would like to hear more on this from Betty Jo, we’re going to go into more detail on this question when we have her as a guest on Mid Stream Radio, hosted by myself, Ron Beasely of Middle Earth Journal and Cindy the Lady Logician of Lady’s Logic, this Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm Eastern / 10:00 am Pacific. (Click on the link for the radio show’s home page, where you can – if you wish – sign up for a free BTR user account. By selecting our show as a “favorite” you can opt to receive e-mail notifications prior to upcoming shows, participate in a live web chat with other listeners during the show, and/or call in with your own questions. If the timing is bad for you, you can catch a replay of the show at any time using iTunes.)
Another point to ponder is exactly what types of movies Americans generally like to watch, and how do these Iraq war films fit into that formula? Yahoo conducted a poll on that recently and found that the most successful genres ran a wide range.
Gangster films
Dramas (including courtroom dramas)
Suspense / Horror
Comedy (including romantic comedies)
Action and Sci-fi
Where exactly would Iraq war films fall in that list? War films covering conflict of any era don’t even make the list these days, though they were immensely popular in decades past. There may simply not be a market for this subject no matter how negatively or positively the conflict is portrayed. This too may be a reflection of shifting national attitudes. Long ago, World War 2 films were almost always sure-fire box office gold. But Americans seem to have a very different perception of that era. First, it is a war that we most definitely won, against a well defined, evil adversary. Support for the war was massive across the nation, regardless of the cost in blood and treasure. Wars since that time have become more muddled in American discussion, with the good guys and the bad guys not being as clearly defined by who was wearing the white hat.
Film historian Jonathan Kuntz of UCLA points out that most memorable war films appear many years after a conflict ends, when the nation has had time to reflect on the experience and a historical consensus emerges about the war’s successes and failures.
The classic films about Vietnam — starting with “The Deer Hunter,” “Coming Home” and “Apocalypse Now” in 1978 and 1979 and ending with “Born on the Fourth of July” in 1989 — came out years after the last U.S. serviceman had left the battlefield. “M*A*S*H,” which was essentially an anti-Vietnam film but set in the Korean War, was released nearly 20 years after the Korean armistice.
But the outcome in Iraq remains an open question, with America’s military commitment to the country under constant debate.
For now, Kuntz agrees with Bochco: “We’re bombarded by information about [Iraq] 24 hours a day,” he says. “We already know plenty about it. We don’t need to learn more about it from the movies. Right now, it’s something people want to forget and escape from. I speak for the American public when I say, ‘What a bummer.’ “
No matter what the reason, whatever Hollywood is selling regarding the Iraq war, the American public isn’t buying. Is this a good or bad thing? I see it as a free market case study. If you spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars producing a movie you are taking a huge risk. And for that risk to pay off, you’d better be quite skilled at predicting what your audience is willing to consume.
As a a journalist, a woman, a white person, anything else that someone could you use to distinguish and identify me from anyone else, but especially as a sentient human being, I am made speechless by this story - which occurred a few days before Obama gave his speech on race, and which, as the reporter says, is, in her opinion, like many others except that it was caught on camera. When Rush Limbaugh says that, “America, I think, for the most part (there are, of course, exceptions to this) has transcended race. There’s so much evidence of that that I don’t even want to waste time citing it,” we can say, I think, for the most part, Rush doesn’t know the hell he is talking about.
