Do The Right Thing

As it becomes ever more evident that Barack  Obama will be able to continue raising almost unlimited cash so long as there's a world wide web, John McCain has a bone to pick with the presumptive Democratic nominee.  Inconvenient as it may be to Obama's big picture plans, McCain is reminding him of the agreement the two of them made last year (detailed here by Kenneth P. Vogel at Politico.com) to accept public financing, thereby limiting each candidate to $85 million in funding for the general election campaign.  At the time, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea to the Illinois upstart.  He was just another face in a crowded room (albeit a room filled with old, white faces so it's not like he didn't stand out).  Who could have predicted his embarrassment of riches?  Now, to limit his funding to a paltry $85 million seems absurd, given his remarkable abilities to persuade folks to pony up for his cause on a monthly basis, $25 at a time.

Trouble is, McCain has a point.

These guys are both running as reformers:  McCain cruises around the country in the Straight Talk Express, pissing off evangelicals, right-wing talk radio hosts and fat-cat lobbyists while Obama promises to ride into Washington and change the mindset of the city itself by getting Democrats, Republicans and Independents to sit together and compromise like reasonable men, thereby further promoting the image of Camelot and its mythical Round Table that was first invoked by the Bobby Kennedy comparisons.

And, as a reformer, one of Obama's hole cards has  always been campaign finance.  He lists it front and center on the Ethics page of his website:

"Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system."

The whole point of the Feingold legislation is to reduce the influence of private money and provide candidates with enough public funding to run an effective campaign without having to become full-time telemarketers.  The Washington Post quoted Obama last February:

"Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest:  limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."

He has promoted campaign reform, he has voted for campaign reform and he has written campaign reform.  Most importantly, he has campaigned on campaign reform.  Now, if he wants to maintain his integrity as an agent of change from George Bush's blatant mendacity and Bill Clinton's parsing of the truth, he must stand by his pledge.

Besides, money, while obviously important, may not be the magic bullet this time around.  McCain's most effective marketing is the continuous barrage of shameless character assassination and innuendo that the GOP and party faithful heap upon Obama.  They're like mental patients in the asylum slinging fecal matter against the walls to see what sticks:  from declaring Barack Hussein Obama a closet Muslim who took his oath of office on the Koran, to accusing him of refusing to pledge allegiance in a patriotic enough fashion, to claiming he was educated in an Indonesian madrassah.   McCain doesn't pay a dime for this crap.  It's out there, all the time, and he can pick and choose which of the most outrageous of the charges to disassociate himself from on those rare occasions when he is asked about them.  He has pledged to run a positive, issues-based campaign, so we can only assume that his legitimate, paid advertising will steer clear of these insults to the electorate's intelligence.  Unfortunately, hobbled by the truth, he would be reduced to trying to defeat Obama on a platform of Bush tax cuts and the Hundred Years Surge.  I don't think even he believes that will work.  So I'm guessing the slander will continue.

And as for Obama, the mainstream press may as well be a branch of his campaign.  Have you watched Hardball lately?  It's like a 60-minute Barack infomercial.  I don't know what Hillary did to piss off Chris Matthews but, whatever it was, it wasn't worth it.  Ditto for Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  If they're this biased for Obama against a Democrat, I can hardly wait to see what they have in store for McCain in the general election.

The point is, both of them are getting much of what they need for free, anyway.  There's so much media coverage now that political advertising doesn't carry anywhere near the weight it did when the financing laws were written.  Seriously, when's the last time you actually paid attention to a campaign commercial on television?

My question is, why not fight McCain even up, Barack?  You've got the momentum, the message, a tanking economy, an endless war.  Your organization on a state-by-state basis is the envy of all of your opponents.  You're younger, more eloquent and you're not a Republican following George Bush.  Plus, you're capable of beginning a sentence without the words, "My friends."  These are huge advantages.  

And most crucially, it's the right thing to do.  It's what got you to this point.  As you're fond of pointing out, "No one said this would be easy."  The high road can be a lonely place but it's where you need to be.

 

Enough Already

God, I'm tired.  I just finished watching the Clinton/Obama slogfest from Cleveland and I'm not sure I can climb out of this chair and make it to bed.  

I don't remember the last time I endured such an enervating performance from both parties involved.  Have you ever watched an NBA game in the doldrums of January between two lousy teams, the visiting team playing their fourth game in five nights and the home team just back that morning from a nine-game, west coast swing?  It was like that.  Fumbled exchanges, wild shots missing their marks, no ability to freelance or improvise.  

Everything that was said had been said before, but better.  Both candidates looked like they'd rather be just about anywhere but Cleveland State University in a snow storm.  Neither one appeared to give much of a damn about how they came off.  If this debate was a movie, it was The Godfather: Part III.  

Hillary was a mess.  The expression on her face whenever the camera showed her listening to Obama or the moderators was one of glum resignation.  It's the way I looked when my dentist told me I needed an emergency root canal.  Her shrill complaint against Williams and Russert (and, I can only assume, Campbell Brown, Natalie Morales, Wolf Blitzer and anyone else who's directed a question her way throughout these debates) for calling on her first would have struck the most politically tone deaf note of the night if not for her pre-packaged jab at Obama and whether he should be offered a pillow.  You would think she would have learned her lesson in Texas when her embarrassing Xerox "zinger" clunked resoundingly onto the stage floor.  She even managed to negate her only substantive advantage -- the fact that her health care plan is marginally less delusional than Obama's -- by refusing to let the subject go when it was time to move on, continually interrupting to inject one last mewling scrap of minutia.  By debate's end I was reminded of Robert De Niro in Raging Bull, hanging on to Sugar Ray Robinson after absorbing a punishing beating, mumbling, "You never knocked me down, Ray.  You never knocked me down."  

Obama's performance was only marginally better.  He seemed lethargic, content to sit back and parry the futile thrusts of his exhausted opponent.  Obama is at his best when he is in oratorical full flight.  When his words are meant to inspire the better instincts in all of us.  When he is setting the agenda.  These debates don't play to his strengths.  Sometimes, when his reaction to a Clinton attack is meant to be measured and deliberative, he comes across as smug, even condescending.  He once again missed opportunities to tie in the cost of the Iraq war with the free-falling economy here at home.  Perhaps he's saving that ammo for McCain.  He wasn't able to put to rest questions about his pledge last year to take public financing in the general election.  It's an interesting box he's constructed for himself on this one -- we'll have to wait and see how he extricates himself.  Hard to picture him voluntarily ceding the advantage his spectacular fundraising machine gives him.  He is, however, running a campaign based on ideals and accountability, right?  

Basically, not much changed as a result of this debate.  If I had to guess what the biggest blow of the night was, I'd say it was Russert's steamrolling of HRC on her NAFTA flip-flop.  He hit her with a flurry that underlined in no uncertain terms how she championed the trade agreement until it became a political albatross around her neck.  I'll bet that's what Ohio voters took away from what has otherwise become an exercise in picking over the barren carcass of this campaign in search of fresh ideas or stimulating arguments.

This thing is over.  Actually, it's been over for awhile now.  The exact moment it ended was immediately after the Wisconsin primary, when Hillary was giving her non-concession speech to a modest gathering of disappointed supporters in Youngstown, Ohio and all of the networks cut away from that lead balloon to show Obama raising the roof in front of 20,000 raucous fans down in Houston, Texas.  You can fool most of the people practically all of the time but when the guys sitting in the corner offices at the networks decide you're no longer relevant, well, that pain in your neck is from the big fork that's sticking out of it.

Clinton won't drop out this week.  If she was capable of that, she wouldn't be Hillary Clinton.  She's still polling okay in Ohio, she likes her chances in Pennsylvania, she and Bill are holding the chits of a bunch of undeclared super delegates and the Florida/Michigan fiasco is yet to be settled.  That all adds up to continuing the fight at least through Ohio.  

But make no mistake about it:  Hillary's campaign is well into its endgame now.  She'll be fine, by the way.  It's even money her next job title will be Senate Majority Leader.  Assuming she doesn't burn too many bridges between now and the Democratic National Convention.

Run, Ralph, Run

Ralph Nader made his quadrennial visit to NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday to deliver the news flash that he's . . . running . . . for . . . president . . . as . . . a . . . third . . . party . . . candidate.  Again.

The responses of HRC and Obama were predictable and can be reviewed in the New York Times article here.  In a nutshell, Obama made the always popular "he's not putting food on the voters' tables" argument while Clinton found the decision "really unfortunate."  Back in 2004, then-DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe termed that year's Nader announcement, "very unfortunate," so it's good to see that Hillary is still taking her cues from the democratic party's (and Clinton machine's) biggest rainmaker.  

If I'm Senator Clinton, Nader's announcement isn't, "really unfortunate."  Maybe it's "interesting."  At worst, "curious."  What's "really unfortunate" is that her campaign, helmed by the evidently distracted Patty Solis Doyle, squandered a twenty-plus point lead and burned through more than $105 million by Super Tuesday with little to show for it beyond access to the VIP lounge at the local Dunkin' Donuts.  She's never going to see her name across from Nader's on a ballot.  Obama's getting ready to drop the hammer in Texas and I wouldn't bet against him in Ohio.  At which point it's, as they say on The West Wing, "Game over."

But the national teeth-gnashing that the Dems engage in each time Ralph Nader sits down with Tim Russert has grown tiresome.  Yes, his previous campaigns hurt the Democratic nominee more than the Republican candidate.  Obviously, he attracted potential Democratic votes in Florida and Ohio, votes that would no doubt have gone to Gore and Kerry and perhaps have wrested the final decisions away from Jeb Bush and Rehnquist and Diebold and Triad Systems.  If the complaint is voiced as a statement, I respond, "So what?"  If it is framed as a question, I answer,  "Too bad."

If you truly believe that the system in its present construct is broken, and that we need new, outside-Washington blood to effect real change from top to bottom, then there is no rational argument you can make that Ralph shouldn't be allowed to run.  

Both Obama and HRC stump passionately against the influence of corporate lobbyists and the need for campaign finance reform.  But you could add together their respective years spent actually combating big money interests and then cube that number and you wouldn't equal the years Nader has spent fighting and winning against corporate fat cats. 

The mainstream candidates are happy to talk about environmental problems and solutions but neither has the nature-friendly bona fides of Nader, who ran in 2000 and 2004 as the candidate of the Green Party.  His career has been built upon the fight for clean air, clean water, safe food and  environmental standards.  

Ralph Nader is not going to play spoiler in the general election.  The 2.7% he won in '04 was down from the 3.0% he garnered in '00.  He will do worse in '08.  But his is a voice that it does us good to hear every four years.  Because deep down, buried under the cynicism and hypocrisy of our two party system, we know he's right.  And if all we have to do is listen to him make a couple of speeches, maybe read an op-ed or two in the Times, well, that's a small price to pay for acknowledging what we're doing to our consciences when we step into the voting booth.

Worst case scenario, Nader's candidacy drops Obama's margin of victory over McCain in November back down to single digits.

Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself...

Yesterday I realized that the world needs another blog.  I decided to give it twenty-four hours to see if the problem mightn't rectify itself.  But when I checked back in today after lunch the situation was unchanged -- still one short.  I sat in front of my laptop,  running the numbers backwards and forwards, hoping against hope it was merely an oversight on my part.  You see, my plate is rather full at the moment and I'd just as soon not take on the responsibilities of town crier, if at all possible.

But the numbers don't lie.  Any which way I add them up, we're still light one web log.  So, for the time being, on a strictly temporary basis until the real guy shows up, I am offering my services to fill the gaping hole in the blogosphere that has become so apparent to me and, I can only suppose, you as well.  

My humble mission is to stand by the side of the road and pass judgement as the parade slouches by.  While I am primarily a political junkie, I am often distracted by films, books, sports and the prospect of a good meal.  I believe in big government, affirmative (or, as I like to call it, restitutive) action, the abolition of the death penalty, campaign finance reform and the restorative powers of golf.  I prefer walking to driving and cafes to diners.  In fact, I would move to Rome in a New York minute if they had access to NBA League Pass.

I write on a Mac and talk on an  iPhone yet I buy my coffee at Starbucks.  There should be a philosophical contradiction inherent somewhere in that statement but, judging by the number of PowerBooks hogging, for hours at a time, the limited table space available in every Starbucks I've ever slapped down a $5 bill for a venti latte in, it appears my fellow Apple afficionados and I are only selectively bothered by the inevitable crushing of the individual spirit at the hands of giant monopolies.  But I digress...

I live in Manhattan, drive a Honda and don't consider illegal immigration a national security problem.  I believe words not only matter as much as actions, I believe they are actions.  Yes, I am a big-city, blue state, liberal elitist.  We're back, baby.  

Over the course of the coming months, I hope to enter into a debate with you about where we've been, where we are, and where we might be heading.  This is my first shot at a blog so, while the mechanics and design of this site may start out in a pedestrian manner, hopefully the content will not.  Because I can improve the design.

By all means, please write me back.  Often and loudly.