In the best of times, the presidency is a tough job. One can come in with all sorts of high-falutin’ ideas and goals, but something always comes up to complicate things. People flying airplanes into buildings… radicals taking a bunch of diplomats hostage… It’s always some dang thing or another.

2008, of course, is not the best of times.

This morning, TMV co-blogger Jazz Shaw wrote:

I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election or how many seats each party holds in Congress. Our national leaders are going to be facing some hard times across the nation next year, and the occupant of the Oval Office may not be able to count on more than four years in the seat.

For a couple of weeks now, my thinking has run along exactly these same lines.

Pick your favorite analogy: the “bottomless” financial well is running dry; the money tree is nearly bare. However you choose to look at it, we’re about to scrape the bottom of the barrel — and although both campaigns are publicly dodging reality at the moment, there’s really no getting around it.

If McCain or Obama forge ahead with their promises, the nation will be economically crushed — perhaps permanently. If they don’t (and frankly, they can’t), they’ll be despised by their “base”. Worse yet, any path they choose will not improve the coming economic difficulties for our nation in the short run, or the medium.

Even if the future holds no surprises (yeah, right!), a President Obama or a President McCain is going to be supremely unpopular. The next administration may not make George Bush look like the Homecoming King in comparison, but it might be close. Not only that, but in 2012 (or even 2010), people won’t be blaming the administration that came before.

They’ll blame whoever is in office then.

I think if I were Michelle or Cindy, I’d be gently suggesting that Dear Husband sit this next four years out.

Gracinda Teixeira de Jesus and John McCain, as they were during their torrid affair in 1957.

As we are learning, in his younger years, John McCain took a back seat to no one when it came to the ladies. Days ago, McCain’s former Brazilian lover, a former model, went public with her recollection of their torrid affair, which is said to have occurred in 1957.

WORLDMEETS.US has translated the entire article, available nowhere else in English, from Brazil’s O Globo Extra, in which she describes in some detail the man which she refers to as ‘my dear and my coconut dessert.’ The article is also packaged with O Globo’s video of the interview - which is fun to watch even if it’s in Portuguese.

She tells Paulo Carvalho of O Globo Extra:

“He kissed very well. It got to the point that I enjoyed it so much, that I bought a book that taught how to kiss,” said Maria Gracinda, who didn’t shrink from the question of whether the two had had sex or not …”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. presidential election.

Exasperation over the standard of debate in the U.S presidential race is definitely global, and in ‘Old Europe,’ this exasperation centers on how sex and religion insert themselves into a debate that ought to be about better public policy.

In this article, which might be regarded as a plea for rational political discourse in the United States, Carolin Emcke writes for Germany’s Die Zeit:

“What I don’t understand is all the fuss about Sarah Palin. She, the clueless, internationally inexperienced Governor of the pygmy state of Alaska has been chosen by John McCain to be the Vice President of the United States, and all the media can get animated over is the fact that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is expecting a child?”

Then, beginning a rather impressive rant about the American media obsession with sex and personal lives, Emcke writes:

“Why should I be at all interested in their husbands or wives, their mothers or children?

What does it matter if Palin’s husband was driving drunk, if her teenage daughter’s sex is good or bad, or whether Barrack Obama’s stepfather taught him to box in Indonesia? Why during an out-sized mass-gathering in Denver, do I have to witness Obama’s two little daughters standing in the spotlight waving like little dolls whose batteries are about to run out? Why should whether John McCain and his wife Cindy are happy be relevant?

“As far as I’m concerned, Sarah Palin’s children might not have sex at all, John McCain could be single and Obama’s children could play at home with their slot cars. They could all be bad husbands or wives, frequent brothels and subsequently lie to their families about it.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Do being honest and principled count for anything in an era when taking liberties with the truth is taken for granted and the high road is less traveled?

The answer is a tentative “yes” coming from someone who could have voted for John McCain not that long ago because he seemed to be a man of conviction whose moral compass was pointed in the right direction, but has watched with a dismay that has turned to horror as he runs what is easily the sleaziest presidential campaign of the nine that I have covered as a reporter, editor and blogger.

In yet another turn in an election year that has been chockablock with surprises, there is the makings of a backlash in the mainstream media and blogosphere (and we’re talking not just danged libruls but some right-of-center folks, including that flipping Bill O’Reilly) over McCain’s descent into the dirt.

Whether this backlash has legs remains to be seen. There is the reality that the media is a big megaphone: In pushing back against McCain’s lies and obfuscations — whether it is The Bridge To Nowhere or the obscene claim that Barack Obama believes that wee kindergarteners should be taught the birds and the bees — they are amplified.

Like the assertions from Wall Street and Washington bigs that one financial institution after another “is too big to fail” as one financial institution after another fails, McCain may rue the day that he abandoned any pretense of decency in his quest for a prize denied him in 2000 after he was tarred and feathered by the George Bush campaign. This included a foray into racial demagoguery and misogyny through Karl Rove-orchestrated whispering campaigns that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was a love child from an affair with a black woman and he and wife Cindy McCain were off their rockers.

For all of McCain’s talk of being presidential, he has surrounded himself with handlers who cut their teeth on the very tactics that scuttled his own hopes. So self confident are these handlers in the power of deceit that they unashamedly boast that the most important presidential campaign in decades will be won or lost not on the issues that cry out for discussion, but on personalities. And that there are “bigger truths” that trump “little facts.”

Read the rest of this entry »

You don’t want to miss Ariel Levy’s New Yorker profile of Cindy McCain:

When I travelled with the campaign in late spring, I asked the McCains, who were seated on the curved banquette at the back of the Straight Talk Express, how they imagined Cindy’s role as First Lady might affect her humanitarian work.

“I think some of her travels might be curtailed,” Senator McCain, who was wearing a blue Navy baseball cap, replied. “She’s been to Cambodia, where land mines are very dangerous, and no one knows exactly where they are, so that may be a little bit of a downside of her involvement.”

Staring into the middle distance, as she often does, Cindy McCain proceeded to contradict her husband. “What I tell everyone is, regardless of whether we win or lose, I will continue to do what I do because it’s so important to be an example,” she said firmly. “To my own children, and also for other kids in the community. Regardless of whether we win or lose.”

“Stop saying that,” John McCain interrupted.

“Say ‘when we win,’ ” Janet Huckabee instructed. She and her husband, the former Arkansas governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, were travelling with the campaign that day.

Cindy McCain gave a flicker of a smirk. “When we win,” she said. And she didn’t say anything more.

When I wrote about Senator Obama’s address last week I questioned whether a well-done convention speech really matters that much. I still have serious doubts on that topic. At one point, these speeches were important as a way to introduce the candidate to the voters. In a era without television or mass media campaigns the conventions were a way for voters to learn about the nominees.

Today I am not sure that is true and therefore while I think McCain delivered a great speech tonight I am not sure there will be much long-term impact. While Obama, Biden, Palin and McCain certainly had a good deal of pressure to deliver, these days if you avoid drooling on the podium then the story will only last for a day or so.

However having said that I would like to offer a few observations on the event.

The first thing that struck me was the manner of introduction of the speaker. Last week when Senator Obama came out to deliver his address it was to booming music and almost had the nature of a Presidential arrival. Tonight, Senator McCain just walked out to the crowd, himself quietly moving onto the stage. I’m not saying one method of arrival is better than the other, both probably have their benefits, but I do think it is an example of the celebrity nature of Obama versus the service nature of McCain.

There is nobody who will argue that John McCain is a great orator. Compared to Senator Obama he does not have the same level of eloquence or oratory. But I think he recognized that by the way he delivered his address. They created that walkway into the center of the arena which served to give the situation more of a town hall nature to this event. It also provided some really good images of McCain surrounded by signs, cheering crowds, etc. I would not be surprised to see that image show up in newspapers and magazines.

On the other hand they needed to work on the background. I realize that for those in the arena the changing images behind Senator McCain was very effective but when they did closeups for the television audience it looked somewhat awkward and distracting. They seemed to catch that and fix things as the speech developed but I would have thought they’d review things ahead of time. Ah well, nobody is perfect (remember Obama and the pillars).

Read the rest of this entry »

Consider that tonight Governor Palin was speaking to ‘her people.’
Her people were indeed wowed.
Her talents are obvious.

However, in the larger world, it remains to be seen how Governor Palin’s many talents will play, for it is still sometimes true in our culture, no matter how developed we might be…

that a man who is bold in attack, is often seen as authoritative, manly
Sometimes a woman who is bold is seen only as ballsy, pushy, castrating, not womanly… in essence, not dependable.

–Men have rules of engagement in battle (most of the time) and can thrust and parry; and listeners often remark on ‘the debate’ and on the elegance or inelegance, buffooning or grace of each opponent. And men, whether lawyers or politicians or sport players, or other, are often invited to meet for rematch another day.
–A woman who uses smiling thrust-and-parry that draws blood or not, even when she is right and abov-board, is often seen as snide, covertly vicious, a harridan, a scold, trying to start a ‘cat fight,’.. in essence, untrustworthy. Women whom others decide are ‘cat fight starters’ are not seen as heroic as men often are, but as divisive. They are not invited to a gentlewomen’s rematch; they are often marginalized instead.

–Actual satirists who deliver satire seamlessly are often praised and create a following.
–Politicians who use sharp-edged satire, as Governor Palin did tonight, risk confusing a good number of ‘undecided’ listeners about whether their intention is comedic or serious, retaliatory or leaderly.
–A woman in politics or business who attempts scathing or skewering humor, is often enough seen as bitter, vengeful, overtly or covertly angry.

–when a man is quick to judge and arm a plan, he is often considered decisive, ‘taking care of business.’
–when a smart woman is very fast to be decisive, she is sometimes seen as impulsive, unreliable, in essence… labile.

–Even when a woman is right , when she carries a chronic scornful tone of voice, a rolling-eyes-at-ceiling look that is mocking, many persons react negatively… even those who might agree with her premise… for they know if she will do it to another, the day will come when she may aim same at them.

There is more to say, but this is an article, not a book. lol. Yet, I would say this last about women in general who are in the public eye…

I have written here at TMV before… that women in politics and high-profile positions are sometimes treated in the MSM with highly-unusual attacks on their looks, allusions to their menstrual cycles, their ages, their attractiveness, their sexuality, their wife-liness, or singleness; their children, or their not having children, what they do or don’t do with their families.

Too often, the words used to describe them sometimes seem way, way out there, serving no revelation, devoid of accurate facts, psychologically way more than just simple dislike or different preferences.

Yet, I think we all note that anyone who sticks their neck out publicly for political leadership –male or female– will be barraged by ‘everyone and their mother… and father’ … both pro and con.

Yet, are women in the political public eye treated more scurrilously than men? I honestly don’t know. It appears, however, that women are often treated ‘differently,’ especially when the opinion/analysis–media or otherwise– is purely negative.

OK….. My first thought…

GET THE MAN A COUGH DROP…..

I like Fred Thompson, I think he is a nice guy and was a pretty good Senator.

But watching the first 2/3rds of his address, all I could think of was how many times he kept clearing his throat. I know that this is more and issue of style than substance, but when you keep making noises that sound like you need a doctor throughout the address it does tend to detract.

The first part of the speech was I think pretty flat. He did not have the energy that I think most people expected and, while his tribute to the lifetime of service by Senator McCain was eloquent, it was hurt by the dry delivery and the frequent throat-clearing events.

Now, once he got towards the end, things did start to pick up. He seemed to finally get a shot of energy which gave him one heck of a closing and that did fire up the crowd. As with the Democratic convention, these kinds of speeches are more intended to rev up the party faithful than inspire the TV audience (such as with the Warner and Schweitzer addresses to the Democratic event).

However if done properly the speeches can do both, appealing to the party faithful and to the nation at large. Warner and Schweitzer did that (though to some degree I suppose that was a negative because they made some of us wish THEY were the ticket instead of Obama/Biden).

But the fact remains that those speeches were big pluses for the Democrats and Thompson had the chance to do this for the Republicans. Overall however I have to give a thumbs-down to the Thompson address on that count.

In order to boost Palin’s “experience” credentials, including her national security and defense credentials, and her experience to be Commander-in-Chief “on Day One,” the McCain campaign and her supporters have been touting that, as Alaska Governor, Palin has extensive experience in such national defense roles as the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.

But, guess what, in a Huffington post article by Ted Anthony, “Alaska National Guard General: Palin Plays No Role In National Defense Activities Even When They Involve The Alaska National Guard,” we hear a different story:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin “extremely responsive and smart” and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

Cindy McCain will probably disagree and maintain that Palin not only has solid foreign policy experience because Alaska “is next to Russia,” but also solid national security, military, and commander-in-chief experience because, Alaska, being “next to Russia,” is the first line of defense against a Russian ground invasion, and Palin is there to stop it, moose-hunting rifle and all.

Poor Cindy McCain. It must be so hard to be a wealthy heiress:

Democrats’ attacks on her family’s wealth are unfair and offensive, Cindy McCain said today… on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

For nearly two weeks, Democrats have repeatedly hit Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for saying he is unaware of how many houses he owns, calling the presumptive Republican presidential nominee out of touch with everyday Americans. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Thursday, Democratic nominee Barack Obama turned up the heat on McCain, saying he “doesn’t know” about the lives of middle-class Americans.

“I’m offended by Barack Obama saying that about my husband,” said McCain’s wife Cindy. When asked if Obama went too far in his criticism of McCain, Cindy responded, “I do. I do. I really do.”

What nonsense. Obama is right to go after McCain for not being able to say how many houses he owns. We all know that McCain is out of touch with reality, but now we also know that he’s out of touch with the reality of his own life.

It may very well be that Cindy’s father, James Hensley, worked hard for his wealth. But what exactly did Cindy do, other than be born, to acquire that wealth?

And what exactly did John McCain do, other than marry into a wealthy family after ditching his first wife, to find himself in a position where he doesn’t even know how many houses he owns?

Cindy’s argument is the one Romney made a few days ago, and it’s simply ridiculous.

It is the Obamas, Barack and Michelle alike, who have worked hard all their lives to pull themselves up to where they are now (which is still far below the McCains). There is no denying that John, if not Cindy, has been through difficulty in his life, to put it mildly, but there is no excuse for being so blatantly out of touch, not least when you’re running for the presidency.

Obama’s criticism is hardly unfair, and Cindy’s pity play, the whining of the wealthy, is simply ridiculous, evidence of a character corrupted by a massive inheritance and a life lived in many houses and on many easy streets.

Read the rest of this entry »

I know more about it than John McCain or Barack Obama or anyone working in the State Department in Washington or anyone who teaches at Harvard or Yale.

I’m an expert. I must be because I live here in San Diego.

That was the title of the post I did on Joe Biden after Barack Obama chose him to be his running mate for the Democratic President/Vice President ticket. I figured, I might as well have a mini-series or two-parter and use the same title for Arizona Senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s VP selection, Alaska Governor and fellow Republican, Sarah Palin.

Let me start