Sunday, August 31, 2008

Join Sarah Vowell On Her Trail Of Tears

A better Sarah emerged this week with an evocative polemic for The Hopester. Vowell served as a guest columnist for the New York Times during several weeks in July 2005, briefly filling in for The Cobra (aka Maureen Dowd). Vowell's bite is gentler, but she makes a powerful point for The Hopester. Vowell's account of her Cherokee ancestors along the Trail of Tears was accorded the full hour of Ira Glass' "This American Life" on public radio on July 4, 1998. Like The Hopester, Sarah Vowell has a story that is the story of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. If this is (fair & balanced) eristicism, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Bringing Pell Grants to My Eyes
By Sarah Vowell

On Monday night at the Democratic National Convention, Caroline Kennedy introduced a tribute to her uncle, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, by pointing out, “If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell Grant has made it more affordable, Teddy is your senator, too.”

To my surprise, I started to cry. Started to cry like I was watching the last 10 minutes of “Brokeback Mountain” instead of C-SPAN. This was whimpering brought on by simple, spontaneous gratitude.

I paid my way through Montana State University with student loans, a minimum-wage job making sandwiches at a joint called the Pickle Barrel, and — here come the waterworks — Pell Grants. Thanks to Pell Grants, I had to work only 30 hours a week up to my elbows in ham instead of 40.

Ten extra hours a week might sound negligible, but do you know what a determined, junior-Hillary type of hick with a full course load and onion-scented hands can do with the gift of 10 whole hours per week? Not flunk geology, that’s what. Take German every day at 8 a.m. — for fun! Wander into the office of the school paper on a whim and find a calling. I’m convinced that those 10 extra hours a week are the reason I graduated magna cum laude, which I think is Latin for “worst girlfriend in town.”

Twenty years after my first financial aid package came through, I have paid off my college and graduate school loans and I have paid back the federal government in income taxes what it doled out to me in Pell Grants so many, many, many, many times over it’s a wonder I’m not a Republican.

But I would like to point out that my perfectly ordinary education, received in public schools and a land grant university, is not merely the foundation on which I make a living. My education made my life. In a sometimes ugly world, my schooling opened a trap door to a bottomless pit of beauty — to Walt Whitman and Louis Armstrong and Frank Lloyd Wright, to the old movies and old masters that have been my constant companions in my unalienable pursuit of happiness.

I’m a New Yorker now. Every now and then when I have time to kill in Midtown, I duck into the Museum of Modern Art to stare at Van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” I love looking at the picture, but I also love looking back on when and where and how I first saw it — on a slide in a first-year art history course in which some of my fellow students were ranchers’ sons who wore actual cowboy hats to class. It was a course I paid for, in part, with a Pell Grant, a program always and as ever championed by “my senator,” Ted Kennedy, a program so dear to Barack Obama’s heart that increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grants for needy students was the first bill he introduced upon arrival in the United States Senate.

I am a registered Democrat. That first night’s convention speech by Senator Kennedy about his life’s work reminded me what being a Democrat means. I have spent the last eight years so disgusted with the incompetent yahoos of the executive branch that I had forgotten that I believe in one of the core principles of the Democratic Party — that government can be a useful, meaningful and worthwhile force for good in this republic instead of just an embarrassing, torturing, Book of Revelation starter kit.

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke on Tuesday night, she brought up some of the people she met in her thwarted campaign for the nomination, including a young marine beseeching her for better medical care for himself and his comrades, and an uninsured single mother with cancer rearing two autistic children.

Imploring her most ardent supporters, some of whom have been, let’s say, a tad tepid about backing Senator Obama, Senator Clinton said, “I want you to ask yourselves: were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?” In other words, in a fine display of adulthood, she asked her delegates to decide whether they are in a cult of personality or members of the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama is the best possible presidential candidate to campaign for traditional Democratic ideals because of his ability to stir party diehards and rally new voters, because of his backbone, his gift for oratory, formidable intelligence, compelling back story, swell wife, adorable offspring, and no small amount of cool. I mean, the morning after that acceptance speech in front of 80,000 people, even Richard Nixon’s personal Rasputin, Pat Buchanan, was on MSNBC calling Senator Obama “manly.”

Honestly, when I think about how Senator Obama would handle the nuts and bolts of governing I have no more and no less faith in him than any of his major rivals for the nomination of the Democratic Party. This is actually a huge compliment. They were a seriously solid group. Compare them to the incoherent Republican primary field, a set of candidates expressly invented to make the average Republican voter nervous: the businessman was too Mormon-y; the evangelical might worship Jesus more than money; Senator McCain has campaign reform cooties; Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

But I would have been content with any one of the Democratic candidates in the Oval Office — Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, even John Edwards (because it is possible to make bad decisions about one’s private life and still have good ideas about health care). Each one has his or her gaping drawbacks, of course, but that’s always going to be true of people seeking a job only a damaged lunatic would want.

When Barack Obama talks about an America as it should be, I’m guessing the best of all possible countries he imagines would look awfully similar to the ideal America just about every registered Democrat would dream up. Picture this: a wind-powered public school classroom of 19 multiracial 8-year-olds reading above grade level and answering the questions of their engaging, inspirational teacher before going home to a cancer-free (or in remission) parent or parents who have to work only eight hours a day in a country at war solely with the people who make war on us, where maybe Exxon Mobil can settle for, oh, $8 billion in quarterly profits instead of $11 billion, and the federal government’s point man for Biblical natural disasters is someone who knows more about emergency management than how to put on a horse show. Is that really too much to ask? Can we do that?

As Senator Obama, the plainspoken former editor of The Harvard Law Review would answer, yes, we can. As the recipient of a partly federally subsidized, fancy wallet-size diploma from Montana State, I prefer to put it this way: Indubitably, we shall.

[Sarah Vowell is the author of Assassination Vacation and the forthcoming The Wordy Shipmates, about the New England Puritans. Vowell earned a B.A. (Magna Cum Laude) from Montana State University in 1993 and an M.A. at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in 1996.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Chomp, Chomp: First, Jeff Darcy — Then, The Cobra! Pity The Mighty Quinnette!


The Mighty Quinnette is chum and the sharks are circling. If this is (fair & balanced) political blood-sport, so be it.



[Jeff Darcy graduated from the University of Dayton in 1986 with a degree in Political Science. Since 1993 he has served as Editorial Cartoonist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio. From 1987 to '93 he served as Editorial cartoonist for the Sun Newspaper group of Northeastern Ohio, and for the Cleveland Edition. Darcy's award winning cartoons have also appeared in Newsweek,Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and have appeared on "Good Morning America," "Meet the Press," CNN, and MNBC.]





[x NY Fishwrap]
Vice in Go-Go Boots?
By Maureen Dowd

The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick.

So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hokey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

Sheer heaven.

It’s easy to see where this movie is going. It begins, of course, with a cute, cool unknown from Alaska who has never even been on “Meet the Press” triumphing over a cute, cool unknowable from Hawaii who has been on “Meet the Press” a lot.

Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes “The Brady Bunch” and “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested.

Instead, they embrace 72-year-old John McCain and 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose average age is 58, a mere two years older than the average age of the Obama-Biden ticket. Enthusiastic Republicans don’t see the choice of Palin as affirmative action, despite her thin résumé and gaping absence of foreign policy knowledge, because they expect Republicans to put an underqualified “babe,” as Rush Limbaugh calls her, on the ticket. They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West, like the previous Miss Congeniality types Dan Quayle and W., and then letting them learn on the job. So they crash into the globe a few times while they’re learning to drive, what’s the big deal?

Obama may have been president of The Harvard Law Review, but Palin graduated from the University of Idaho with a minor in poli-sci and worked briefly as a TV sports reporter. And she was tougher on the basketball court than the ethereal Obama, earning the nickname “Sarah Barracuda.”

The legacy of Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to be that no one would ever go on a blind date with history again. But that crazy maverick and gambler McCain does it, and conservatives and evangelicals rally around him in admiration of his refreshingly cynical choice of Sarah, an evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion crusader who became a hero when she decided to have her baby, who has Down syndrome, and when she urged schools to debate creationism as well as that stuffy old evolution thing.

Palinistas, as they are called, love Sarah’s spunky, relentlessly quirky “Northern Exposure” story from being a Miss Alaska runner-up, and winning Miss Congeniality, to being mayor and hockey mom in Wasilla, a rural Alaskan town of 6,715, to being governor for two years to being the first woman ever to run on a national Republican ticket. (Why do men only pick women as running mates when they need a Hail Mary pass? It’s a little insulting.)

Sarah is a zealot, but she’s a fun zealot. She has a beehive and sexy shoes, and the day she’s named she goes shopping with McCain in Ohio for a cheerleader outfit for her daughter.

As she once told Vogue, she’s learned the hard way to deal with press comments about her looks. “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots,” she said. “A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.”

This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one.

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Then she takes off in her seaplane and lands on the White House lawn, near the new ice fishing hole and hockey rink. The “First Dude,” as she calls the hunky Eskimo in the East Wing, waits on his snowmobile with the kids — Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)

“The P.T.A. is great preparation for dealing with the K.G.B.,” President Palin murmurs to Todd, as they kiss in the final scene while she changes Trig’s diaper. “Now that Georgia’s safe, how ’bout I cook you up some caribou hot dogs and moose stew for dinner, babe?”

[Maureen Dowd is a Washington D.C.-based op-ed columnist for The New York Times. She has worked for the Times since 1983, when she joined as a metropolitan reporter. In 1999, Dowd was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her series of columns on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Dowd received a B.A. in English from Catholic University in Washington, D.C.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Butcher Tenderizes The MSM & Spills The Geezer's "Joke"

MSM (Mainstream media) types babble incessantly about nothing and The Butcher weighs them and finds them wanting. A lagniappe in The Butcher's Sunday slicing was a link that supplied The Geezer's great sense of humor: a joke involving Chelsea Clinton, The Hillster, and former Attorney General Janet Reno. The Geezer belongs to that great group of Dumbo humorists: The Trickster ranting about Jews on the Oval Office tapes, Earl Butz making fun of African Americans, and The Huckster joking about Obama ducking gunfire. If this is (fair & balanced) male bovine excrement, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Obama Outwits the Bloviators
By Frank Rich

Stop the presses! This election isn’t about the Clintons after all. It isn’t about the Acropolis columns erected at Invesco Field. It isn’t about who is Paris Hilton and who is Hanoi Hilton. (Though it may yet be about who is Sarah Palin.) After a weeklong orgy of inane manufactured melodrama labeled “convention coverage” on television, Barack Obama descended in classic deus ex machina fashion — yes, that’s Greek too — to set the record straight. America is in too much trouble, he said, to indulge in “a big election about small things.”

As has been universally noted, Obama did what he had to do in his acceptance speech. He scrapped the messianic “Change We Can Believe In” for the more concrete policy litany of “The Change We Need.” He bared his glinting Chicago pol’s teeth to John McCain. Obama’s still a skinny guy, but the gladiatorial arena and his eagerness to stand up to bullies (foreign and Republican) made him a plausible Denver Bronco. All week long a media chorus had fretted whether he could pull off a potentially vainglorious stunt before 80,000 screaming fans. Well, yes he can, and so he did.

But was this a surprise? Hardly. No major Obama speech — each breathlessly hyped in advance as do-or-die and as the “the most important of his career” — has been a disaster; most have been triples or home runs, if not grand slams. What is most surprising is how astonished the press still is at each Groundhog Day’s replay of the identical outcome. Indeed, the disconnect between the reality of this campaign and how it is perceived and presented by the mainstream media is now a major part of the year’s story. The press dysfunction is itself a window into the unstable dynamics of Election 2008.

At the Democratic convention, as during primary season, almost every oversold plotline was wrong. Those Hillary dead-enders — played on TV by a fringe posse of women roaming Denver in search of camera time — would re-enact Chicago 1968. With Hillary’s tacit approval, the roll call would devolve into a classic Democratic civil war. Sulky Bill would wreak havoc once center stage.

On TV, each of these hot-air balloons was inflated nonstop right up to the moment they were punctured by reality, at which point the assembled bloviators once more expressed shock, shock at the unexpected denouement. They hadn’t been so surprised since they discovered that Obama was not too black to get white votes, not too white to win black votes, and not too inexperienced to thwart the inevitable triumph of the incomparably well-organized and well-financed Clinton machine.

Meanwhile, the candidate known as “No Drama Obama” because of his personal cool was stealthily hatching a drama of his own. As the various commentators pronounced the convention flat last week — too few McCain attacks on opening night, too “minimalist” a Hillary endorsement on Tuesday, and so forth — Obama held his cards to his chest backstage and built slowly, step by step, to his Thursday night climax. The dramatic arc was as meticulously calibrated as every Obama political strategy.

His campaign, unlike TV’s fantasists, knew the simple truth. The New York Times/CBS News poll conducted on the eve of the convention found that the Democrats were no more divided than the G.O.P: In both parties, 79 percent of voters supported their respective nominees. The simultaneous Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that 79 percent of Democrats support Obama — which, as Amy Walter of National Journal alone noticed, is slightly higher than either John Kerry and Al Gore fared on that same question (77 percent) in that same poll just before their conventions.

But empirical evidence can’t compete with a favorite golden oldie like the Clinton soap opera. So when Hillary Clinton said a month ago that her delegates needed a “catharsis,” surely she had to be laying the groundwork for convention mischief. But it was never in either Clinton’s interest to sabotage Obama. Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday speech, arguably the best of her career, was as much about her own desire to reconcile with the alienated Obama Democrats she might need someday as it was about releasing her supporters to Obama. The Clintons never do stop thinking about tomorrow.

The latest good luck for the Democrats is that the McCain campaign was just as bamboozled as the press by the false Hillary narrative. McCain was obviously itching to choose his pal Joe Lieberman as his running mate. A onetime Democrat who breaks with the G.O.P. by supporting abortion rights might have rebooted his lost maverick cred more forcefully than Palin, who is cracking this particular glass ceiling nearly a quarter-century after the Democrats got there first. Lieberman might have even been of some use in roiling the Obama-Hillary-Bill juggernaut that will now storm through South Florida.

The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman. That’s what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber. Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. [A link to David Corn's 1999 Salon article attributes the following "joke" to McCain: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."]

Given the press’s track record so far, there’s no reason to believe that the bogus scenarios will stop now. The question of why this keeps happening is not easily answered. Ideological bias, unshakeable Clinton addiction and lingering McCain affection may not account for all or even most of it. Journalists are still Americans — even if much of our audience doubts that — and in this time of grave uncertainty about our nation’s future we may simply be as discombobulated as everyone else.

We, too, are made anxious and fearful by hard economic times and the prospect of wrenching change. YouTube, the medium that has transformed our culture and politics, didn’t exist four years ago. Four years from now, it’s entirely possible that some, even many, of the newspapers and magazines covering this campaign won’t exist in their current form, if they exist at all. The Big Three network evening newscasts, and network news divisions as we now know them, may also be extinct by then.

It is a telling sign that CBS News didn’t invest in the usual sky box for its anchor, Katie Couric, in Denver. It is equally telling that CNN consistently beat ABC and CBS in last week’s Nielsen ratings, and NBC as well by week’s end. But now that media are being transformed at a speed comparable to the ever-doubling power of microchips, cable’s ascendancy could also be as short-lived as, say, the reign of AOL. Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Forum, which monitors the intersection of politics and technology, points out that when networks judge their success by who got the biggest share of the television audience, “they are still counting horses while the world has moved on to counting locomotives.” The Web, in its infinite iterations, is eroding all 20th-century media.

The Obama campaign has long been on board those digital locomotives. Its ability to tell its story under the radar of the mainstream press in part accounts for why the Obama surge has been so often underestimated. Even now we’re uncertain of its size. The extraordinary TV viewership for Obama on Thursday night, larger than the Olympics opening ceremony, this year’s Oscars or any “American Idol” finale, may only be a count of the horses. The Obama campaign’s full reach online — for viewers as well as fund-raising and organizational networking — remains unknown.

None of this, any more than the success of Obama’s acceptance speech, guarantees a Democratic victory. But what it does ensure is that all bets are off when it comes to predicting this race’s outcome. Despite our repeated attempts to see this election through the prism of those of recent and not-so-recent memory, it keeps defying the templates. Last week’s convention couldn’t be turned into a replay of the 1960s no matter how hard the press tried to sell the die-hard Hillary supporters as reincarnations of past rebel factions, from the Dixiecrats to the antiwar left. Far from being a descendant of 1968, the 2008 Democratic gathering was the first in memory that actually kept promptly to its schedule and avoided ludicrous P.C. pandering to every constituency.

Nor were we back at August 28, 1963. As a 14-year-old in Washington, I was there on the Mall, taken by my mother, a tireless teacher, with the hope that I might learn something. At a time when the nation’s capital, with its large black population, was still a year away from casting its first votes for president, who would have imagined that a black man might someday have a serious chance of being elected president? Not me.

But even as we stop, take a deep breath and savor this remarkable moment in our history, we cannot linger. This is quite another time. After the catastrophic Bush presidency, the troubles that afflict us on nearly every front almost make you nostalgic for the day when America’s gravest problems could still be seen in blacks and whites.

As Obama said, this is a big election. We will only begin to confront the magnitude of our choice when and if we stop being distracted by small, let alone utterly fictitious, things.

[Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times who writes a weekly 1500-word essay on the intersection of culture and news. Rich has been at the paper since 1980. His columns and articles for the Week in Review, the Arts & Leisure section and the Magazine draw from his background as a theater critic and observer of art, entertainment and politics. Before joining the Times, Rich was a film critic at Time magazine, the New York Post, and New Times magazine. He was a founding editor of the Richmond (Va.) Mercury, a weekly newspaper, in the early 1970s. Rich is the author of a childhood memoir, Ghost Light (2000), a collection of drama reviews, Hot Seat: Theater Criticism for The New York Times, 1980-1993 (1998), and The Theatre Art of Boris Aronson (with Lisa Aronson, 1987). Frank Rich is a graduate of the Washington, DC public schools. He earned a BA degree in American History and Literature from Harvard College in 1971.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Krait Calls Out The Mighty Quinnette

The Krait (aka Gail Collins) might have eased up on The Mighty Quinnette, The Geezer's Half-Baked Alaska, but The Krait sank her fangs with an imagined exchange between Jumpin' Joe and The Mighty Q at the Veep Debate. The Mighty Q babbles about The Hillster and Jumpin' Joe says, “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.” Unfortunately, that line (about "Jack Kennedy") won the Veep debate for Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) in 1988, but the Donkeys lost the election to Poppy and Potatoe-Head anyway. If this is (fair & balanced) invective, so be it.



[x NY Fishwrap]
McCain’s Baked Alaska
By Gail Collins

It is conceivable that some people will think John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate because she is a woman. I know you find this shocking, but I swear I have heard it mentioned.

McCain does not believe in pandering to identity politics. He was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half. He put down his foot!

The obvious choice was Palin, the governor of Alaska, whose guard stands as our last best defense against possible attack by the resurgent Russian menace across the Bering Strait.

Also a woman, but that’s totally beside the point.

True, the only nonfamily members other than McCain that Palin really mentioned in her introductory speech were Democrats Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan? Isn’t there a rule that you have to mention Ronald Reagan?

“It was rightly noted in Denver that Hillary made 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America,” Palin said. “It turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

O.K., the women thing might have been a little bit of a selling point. Not nearly so much as the national guard commandership, of course. But if the millions of Democratic women who are still ticked off at Obama for stepping in front of Hillary in the line want to look elsewhere ...

John McCain has a low opinion of the vice presidency, which he’s frequently described as a job that involves attending funerals and checking on the health of the president. (Happy 72nd birthday, John!) There’s a lot we don’t know yet about Palin, and I am personally looking forward to deconstructing her role in the Matanuska Maid Dairy closing crisis. But at first glance, she doesn’t seem much less qualified than Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota who most people thought was the most likely pick. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Palin is a member of the same party as the presidential candidate. And unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car.

However, I do feel kind of ticked off at the assumptions that the Republicans seem to be making about female voters. It’s a tad reminiscent of the Dan Quayle selection, when the first George Bush’s advisers decided they could close the gender gap with a cute running mate.

The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong. When the sexes have parted company in modern elections, it’s generally been because women are more likely to be Democrats, and more concerned about protecting the social safety net. “The gender gap traditionally has been determined by party preference, not by the gender of the candidate,” said Ruth Mandel of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.

Over the last week, we have heard over and over and over that Tuesday was the anniversary of the day women got the right to vote. (They got it when a state representative in Tennessee, where the House was split on the ratification issue, changed his vote because his mother wrote him a letter telling him to shape up. That’s a story that I would love to get into, but, unfortunately, right now we have Sarah Palin to deal with.)

After that big moment of enfranchisement, women went through a long period in the desert where they had the vote but not much else. Then came the great revolutions of the 1970s, when all the assumptions about the natural divisions between the sexes were challenged. During that era, women could be excited and moved by symbolic candidacies that promised a better, more inclusive future, like Shirley Chisholm’s presidential race and Geraldine Ferraro’s presence on the Democratic national ticket.

This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back.

If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice. Joe Biden may already be practicing his drop-dead line for the vice-presidential debate: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

[Gail Collins joined The New York Times in 1995 as a member of the editorial board and later as an op-ed columnist. In 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of The Times editorial page. At the beginning of 2007, she stepped down and began a leave in order to finish a sequel to her book, America's Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates and Heroines. She returned to The Times as a columnist in July 2007. Collins has a degree in journalism from Marquette University and an M.A. in government from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Prior to The New York Times, Collins wrote for the New York Daily News, Newsday, Connecticut Business Journal, United Press International, and the Associated Press in New York City.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Infrastructure Nightmare Is Just Beginning

We can drill until we're blue in the face; the refinery capacity of the United States cannot process any more oil than it currently has in its pipes. We can install wind farms as far as the eye can see and it still won't mean any more electrical power at the plug. The United States has a woeful lack of high power transmission lines to move the electricity from the wind turbines to power stations. If the infrastructure news wasn't bad already, the Internet — invented in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave — has grown up and moved to Italy, China, India, and Japan. The U.S. telecom giants have not invested in fiber cable networks and the other aspects of broadband infrastructure and not a single U.S. telecom company is among the top Internet providers in the world today. The fat lady's song is getting louder. If this is (fair & balanced) infrastructural gloom, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Internet Traffic Begins To Bypass The U.S.
By John Markoff

The era of the American Internet is ending.

Invented by American computer scientists during the 1970s, the Internet has been embraced around the globe. During the network’s first three decades, most Internet traffic flowed through the United States. In many cases, data sent between two locations within a given country also passed through the United States.

Engineers who help run the Internet said that it would have been impossible for the United States to maintain its hegemony over the long run because of the very nature of the Internet; it has no central point of control.

And now, the balance of power is shifting. Data is increasingly flowing around the United States, which may have intelligence — and conceivably military — consequences.

American intelligence officials have warned about this shift. “Because of the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing with a tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to exploit that edge,” Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006. “We also need to protect that edge, and we need to protect those who provide it to us.”

Indeed, Internet industry executives and government officials have acknowledged that Internet traffic passing through the switching equipment of companies based in the United States has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence agencies. In December 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had established a program with the cooperation of American telecommunications firms that included the interception of foreign Internet communications.

Some Internet technologists and privacy advocates say those actions and other government policies may be hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away from the United States.

“Since passage of the Patriot Act, many companies based outside of the United States have been reluctant to store client information in the U.S.,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. “There is an ongoing concern that U.S. intelligence agencies will gather this information without legal process. There is particular sensitivity about access to financial information as well as communications and Internet traffic that goes through U.S. switches.”

But economics also plays a role. Almost all nations see data networks as essential to economic development. “It’s no different than any other infrastructure that a country needs,” said K C Claffy, a research scientist at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis in San Diego. “You wouldn’t want someone owning your roads either.”

Indeed, more countries are becoming aware of how their dependence on other countries for their Internet traffic makes them vulnerable. Because of tariffs, pricing anomalies and even corporate cultures, Internet providers will often not exchange data with their local competitors. They prefer instead to send and receive traffic with larger international Internet service providers.

This leads to odd routing arrangements, referred to as tromboning, in which traffic between two cites in one country will flow through other nations. In January, when a cable was cut in the Mediterranean, Egyptian Internet traffic was nearly paralyzed because it was not being shared by local I.S.P.’s but instead was routed through European operators.

The issue was driven home this month when hackers attacked and immobilized several Georgian government Web sites during the country’s fighting with Russia. Most of Georgia’s access to the global network flowed through Russia and Turkey. A third route through an undersea cable linking Georgia to Bulgaria is scheduled for completion in September.

Ms. Claffy said that the shift away from the United States was not limited to developing countries. The Japanese “are on a rampage to build out across India and China so they have alternative routes and so they don’t have to route through the U.S.”

Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota who tracks the growth of the global Internet, added, “We discovered the Internet, but we couldn’t keep it a secret.” While the United States carried 70 percent of the world’s Internet traffic a decade ago, he estimates that portion has fallen to about 25 percent.

Internet technologists say that the global data network that was once a competitive advantage for the United States is now increasingly outside the control of American companies. They decided not to invest in lower-cost optical fiber lines, which have rapidly become a commodity business.

That lack of investment mirrors a pattern that has taken place elsewhere in the high-technology industry, from semiconductors to personal computers.

The risk, Internet technologists say, is that upstarts like China and India are making larger investments in next-generation Internet technology that is likely to be crucial in determining the future of the network, with investment, innovation and profits going first to overseas companies.

“Whether it’s a good or a bad thing depends on where you stand,” said Vint Cerf, a computer scientist who is Google’s Internet evangelist and who, with Robert Kahn, devised the original Internet routing protocols in the early 1970s. “Suppose the Internet was entirely confined to the U.S., which it once was? That wasn’t helpful.”

International networks that carry data into and out of the United States are still being expanded at a sharp rate, but the Internet infrastructure in many other regions of the world is growing even more quickly.

While there has been some concern over a looming Internet traffic jam because of the rise in Internet use worldwide, the congestion is generally not on the Internet’s main trunk lines, but on neighborhood switches, routers and the wires into a house.

As Internet traffic moves offshore, it may complicate the task of American intelligence gathering agencies, but would not make Internet surveillance impossible.

“We’re probably in one of those situations where things get a little bit harder,” said John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who said the United States had invested far too little in collecting intelligence via the Internet. “We’ve given terrorists a free ride in cyberspace,” he said.

Others say the eclipse of the United States as the central point in cyberspace is one of many indicators that the world is becoming a more level playing field both economically and politically.

“This is one of many dimensions on which we’ll have to adjust to a reduction in American ability to dictate terms of core interests of ours,” said Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. “We are, by comparison, militarily weaker, economically poorer and technologically less unique than we were then. We are still a very big player, but not in control.”

China, for instance, surpassed the United States in the number of Internet users in June. Over all, Asia now has 578.5 million, or 39.5 percent, of the world’s Internet users, although only 15.3 percent of the Asian population is connected to the Internet, according to Internet World Stats, a market research organization.

By contrast, there were about 237 million Internet users in North America and the growth has nearly peaked; penetration of the Internet in the region has reached about 71 percent.

The increasing role of new competitors has shown up in data collected annually by Renesys, a firm in Manchester, N.H., that monitors the connections between Internet providers. The Renesys rankings of Internet connections, an indirect measure of growth, show that the big winners in the last three years have been the Italian Internet provider Tiscali, China Telecom and the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI.

Firms that have slipped in the rankings have all been American: Verizon, Savvis, AT&T, Qwest, Cogent and AboveNet.

“The U.S. telecommunications firms haven’t invested,” said Earl Zmijewski, vice president and general manager for Internet data services at Renesys. “The rest of the world has caught up. I don’t see the AT&T’s and Sprints making the investments because they see Internet service as a commodity.”

[John Markoff received a BA in Sociology at Whitman College and a Master's degree from the University of Oregon. In 1988, Markoff joined The New York Times as a business writer. In 1994 Markoff wrote an article about computer hacker Kevin Mitnick, who was then a fugitive on the run from a number of law enforcement agencies. Markoff wrote several more pieces detailing Mitnick's capture. Markoff also co-wrote, with Tsutomu Shimomura, the book Takedown about the Mitnick case. Markoff writes about information technology for The Times.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Holy Smoke: Bar-B-Q Is Evil?

If you frequent this blog often enough, some bat guano theory will jump right out of your computer screen. Andrew Leonard, a columnist for Salon has ventured far into the bat cave this time with a review of a book by a Brit claiming that Bar-B-Q was born of racism and genocide.

To digress (a favorite pasttime of this blogger), the Bar-B-Q pilgrimmage meandered past two venues last weekend: one was a restaurant(?) and the other was definitely a joint.

[x Texas Monthly]
BBQ08
By Patrica Sharpe, et al.

AUSTIN
LAMBERTS DOWNTOWN BARBECUE
Building used to be: One of Austin’s first general stores.
Can a place that cooks its meat in a gas-burning rotisserie make really great ’cue? Well, the brown-sugar-and-coffee-rubbed brisket was delicious, the maple-and-coriander- encrusted pork ribs were tender, the pulled pork was perfect, and the chorizo-ish jalapeño hot links were unforgettable. Sides and desserts were extraordinary. A jícama-and- carrot slaw, in particular, had plenty of cilantro and lime to cleanse the palate, and the hot blackberry fried pie prompted an “oh, my God.” KV (Katy Vine)
Rating: 4.25.
401 W. Second, 512-494-1500. Open 7 days 11–2 & 5:30–11.

AUSTIN
MANN’S SMOKEHOUSE BAR-B-QUE
Building used to be: A KFC.
Owner Jim Mann and his jovial staff served us fatty brisket, pork ribs, loin, and pulled pork that offered a surplus of smokiness and juice. (The salty sauce worked well with the loin.) Jim’s wife, Sallie, makes sides from Southern family recipes. Her black-eyed peas, lima beans, and cornbread perfectly accompanied the meat. Come on Fridays for free homemade ice cream (especially during peach season). KV (Katy Vine)
Rating: 4.5.
8624 Research Blvd., 512-459-5077. Open Tue—Sat 11:30—8. Closed Sun & Mon.

With all due respect to the TM reviewer, Katy Vine, this blogger rated the pork ribs at Lambert's a lot lower than a 4.25 on a 5.0 scale. Lambert's is a sit-down restaurant with wait-staff and linen napkins! Real Bar-B-Q is served in a chow line on butcher paper, folks! On top of that, Lambert's didn't serve the best liquid refreshment to go with 'cue: a Silver Bullet. Lone Star just doesn't do it for this Texas wannabe. Onward to Mann's on the way home, the place is a joint. The ribs were better than Lambert's, but not on a par with Louie Mueller's in Taylor or Zimmerhanzel's in Smithville. On top of that, Mann's doesn't know that Prohibition was repealed in 1933; the big beverage options are sweetened or unsweetened iced tea. I would peg Mann's at a 4.0 and that's gradin' on a generous curve.

In this blogger/Bar-B-Q pilgrim's heart, the best 'cue to be had in Austin proper is Rudy's. Here is what another blogger had to say about Rudy's:

[x If You Write It Blog]
By Descartes

Rudy's Barbecue The Best Worst BarBQ in Texas

Rudy's Barbecue is slow cooked, slow smoked, and quickly eaten. This is real Texas Barbecue. Their logo says The Worst Barb-B-Q in Texas, but that is just a marketing gimmick, they are among the best. In Dallas the big name in Barbecue is Sonny Bryant's, and they do have pretty good sauce, but they have some of the blandest, dullest, driest barbecue I've ever eaten. Cover it with enough sauce and it is not that bad, but real Texas barbecue, like the kind you find at Rudy's Barbecue, doesn't have to be hidden under a thick layer of sauce to taste great. The whole point of Barbecue, for those of you that have never been to Texas, Kansas City, or Memphis, is to cook it slow with smoke so that the meat is flavored by the wood that is being consumed. Rudy's Barbecue does this as good as anyone, anywhere.

KC Masterpiece is my favorite barbecue place, because it is a real restaurant, something most barbecue Joints don't aspire to be. But it is nice to sit down at a clean booth and have a waiter bring you your slab of ribs and give you a hand towel to whip off the excess sauce. Expect none of that at Rudy's Barbecue.

Most of the Rudy's Barbecues I have been to are half aircraft hanger and half converted gas station. There are long wooden tables with checked picnic tablecloths. The walls have a few old signs that seem to be required whenever anyone opens a new restaurant, but they are so high on the distant walls as to go unnoticed. The main room is usually vast for the number of people that it seats. This is a good thing. Even though everyone shares these long tables, there is no feeling of being crowded. And Rudy's Barbecue can be crowded.

The menu is the usual barbecue suspects, barbecued brisket, barbecued pork ribs, barbecued pork, barbecued chicken, barbecued smoked sausage and barbecued turkey. There is an item they call a stew that is basically the trimmings from all the cuts of meat they serve. It is a bit peppery, but it's very good. They have some of the best Cream Corn I have ever had. The pinto beans and the cold slaw are also very good.

The beverages are keep in over sized coolers filled with ice and cold water, or you can order a fountain drink. Everything is available to go and the meat is just as good the second day as the first.

The service is fast and brisk, as usual in a barbecue joint. They expect you to know what you want when you get to the head of the line and may go to the next person if you hesitate while reading the menu. But the food appears quickly and is served with a couple of slices of white bread and a bottle of sauce. Barbecue always costs more than I think it should, but at Rudy's Barbecue it is worth the expense.

Like all barbecue Rudy's Barbecue is not a health food. If you are counting calories or watching your weight, you'll be better off heading to Subways. But if you want some of the best barbecue west of Memphis and south of KC, this is the place to go.

Rudy's originated in Leon Springs, TX (west of San Antonio on I-10) and has morphed into a franchise operation with outlets throughout Texas (all the way to Lubbock and Amarillo) and outward to Oklahoma and New Mexico.

According to the corporate Web site:

In the 1800's, Max Aue developed the small community of Leon Springs, in the Texas Hill Country outside of San Antonio. In 1929, Max's son, Rudolph, opened a gas station, garage and grocery store. In 1989, Bar-B-Q was added to the Country Store and Rudy's "Country Store" and Bar-B-Q, was founded. Today, Rudy's "Country Store" and Bar-B-Q, has expanded throughout the southwest with the same original recipes that made Rudy's Leon Springs famous.

Rudy's is a meat market that sells cooked meats. Our pits are 100% wood fired with oak, a slower burning wood as opposed to mesquite. Our meats are cooked in a dry spice, not in our "Sause" (we use it on the side). Our unique "Sause" is being shipped throughout the United States (and Texas, of course).

Rudy's serves the meat on butcher paper, sells it by the pound, provides good liquid refreshment, and accepts plastic — unlike the other joints that sell genuine Texas barbecue. If this is (fair & balanced) gastronomy, so be it.

[x Salon]
The Dark History Of Burned Flesh
By Andrew Leonard

(Summary: Drop those spareribs, imperialist pig-eaters! A new book argues that the great American barbecue smolders on the coals of genocidal racism.)

A good barbecue, as I see it, should begin with a trip to Home Depot to buy 6-foot lengths of rebar. When suspending an entire butterflied lamb over an oak fire for many hours, while basting it with stalks of rosemary dripping with lemon juice and red wine, the rebar comes in handy for spread-eagling purposes. Just insert the rebar through diagonally opposed leg joints, and your crucified lamb is easily maneuverable.

I performed this ritual (or rather, I should say, a cabal of carefully recruited barbecuing partners in grill did, while I was busy tending baby back ribs in a honey-mustard glaze in my smoker and shucking lightly roasted oysters over the grill) in my backyard a month ago for a couple hundred of my closest friends. The lamb, suspended over a gaping, smoking pit, with the ends of the rebar resting on cinder blocks, exerted an irresistible seductive force over my guests. Some gathered around just to watch, to commune with the ancient splendor of meat and smoke and fire. Some ventured further and volunteered their efforts tending the coals -- smoking a lamb over a wood fire for five or six hours is a tedious business: Labor is required. Some basted and, finally, some carved. Everyone ate.

All in all, it made for a kick-ass party. But after reading Andrew Warnes' Savage Barbecue: Race, Culture, and the Invention of America's First Food, I suspect more was going on, beneath the smoke cookery, than I cared to acknowledge.

To this day, writes Warnes, a lecturer in American literature and culture at Leeds University, barbecue "has yet to escape the fraught implications of savagery and cannibalism inbuilt and original to its name." Barbecue's early popularization in 18th century London was "wedded to the ascent of new notions of racial exoticism and mastery." In one of the earliest English-language descriptions of this imported cuisine, Ned Ward's The Barbacue Feast, published in 1707, "the whipping of slaves goes hand in hand," theorizes Warnes, "with the savage barbecuing of meat. Both belong to the production of a new imperial supremacy that can corrupt those it empowers."

Best of all, or most absurd of all, there is Warnes' rumination on what it must have been like to participate in one of President Andrew Jackson's famous Election Day barbecues:

And perhaps these mountains of meat in turn connoted a power over violence in a way no other food could. Perhaps prospective politicians kept planning this particular event because, even as it offered opportunities to display public generosity, it declared to all in town that they were men — warriors even. Slowly rotting in the summer sun, the piles of pig would have announced a kind of power, a mastery over rather than servitude to death. War veterans, after a drink or two, could comment on the meat, contemplating its resemblance to the roasted and dismembered Native corpses they had seen.

Savage Barbecue is either the most ridiculous book ever written about America's defining "grass-roots" food, or it is the most profound. Or perhaps it is both. As someone who takes his barbecue very, very seriously, and who is equally unafraid of fire and raw flesh (not to mention writers like Warnes, who tackle their subjects with a clutch of poststructuralist deconstructionists cheering them on and the likes of Edward Said nodding in sage approval), I found myself both riveted and appalled by Warnes' investigation of barbecue. Was I cultivating a heart of darkness in my own backyard? Or did I, like so many Americans, just like to hang outside by the fire and rend some exquisitely prepared meat with my teeth?

The story begins and ends with the name. As legend, and the Oxford English Dictionary, would have it, the word "barbecue" is derived from "barbacoa," a word supposedly used by indigenous Haitians to refer to a "framework of sticks set upon posts" upon which the Native Americans placed their meat, for purposes of slow smoking. Barbecue may have even played a part in the earliest initial encounters between Europe and the New World. Columbus' sailors are reported to have been horrified at the sight of slowly smoked whole iguanas hoisted above the beaches of what later became dubbed Hispaniola.

Etymologically speaking, therefore, it is only a coincidence that "barbecue" shares some syllables with "barbarian" (derived from the Greek word denoting "those who don't speak Greek"). But for Warnes, there are no coincidences. Assonance is no accident! Europeans invested the connotations of barbarism in the indigenous word barbacoa, and, voilà, barbecue came to signify not just smoke cookery but also the savagery of the New World, as opposed to the civilization of the Old.

Warnes gives a clue to his overall approach when he observes that "the editors of dictionaries and encyclopedias would perhaps view the inferential character of this argument with some suspicion."

Well, yes. Proper historians, anthropologists, etymologists and probably most lovers of barbecue would likely run screaming from Warnes' text, horrified at the liberties he takes while pursuing his argument. Too many sentences begin with the words "conceivably" or include constructions such as "it is not hard to imagine..." Too often, Warnes makes leaps of faith, for which there is, strictly speaking, no hard evidence. One example, Thomas Jefferson's inexcusable failure to so much as mention the practice of barbecue in Notes on the State of Virginia (or, egad, in any of his writings) is transformed into proof that he was "aloof and loath to experience barbecues firsthand."

But let's give Warnes credit for being forthright about all this, before we string him up over coals of his own making. In the preface he notes:

As a tradition that dislikes its own cultural status, a tradition that wants everywhere to establish itself at a grassroots and instinctual level, barbecue cannot be approached head-on. It will only give up its historical secrets if we are prepared to read adventurously, and between the lines of the colonial and Republican archives.

And adventuring we go, from some of the earliest accounts of European visitations to the Americas, to the works of the likes of playwright Aphra Ben and Ned Ward (whose other classics include two books that have jumped to the top of my must-read list, Sot's Paradise and Delights of the Bottle), to Cotton Mather and Thomas Jefferson and Zora Neale Hurston and Andrew Jackson. Perhaps it would be best to think of Warnes' approach in the way one appreciates a risk-taking jazz soloist. Sometimes the improvising works; sometimes, not so much.

The thesis is provocative: Europeans embraced a barbecue mythology because it allowed them to "present the cultures" of the New World "as the barbaric antithesis of European achievement." So barbecue, at its core, throbs with racism.

But before considering the contradictions inherent within Southern pit barbecue, cherished by both black and white, and indeed, during the Jim Crow era, one of the few social arenas in which black and white could mix, I must concede that even though I bridled at some of Warnes' more histrionic formulations, like his revels in "the satanic poetics of American savagery," I found myself acknowledging that there is definitely something foul lurking behind the delectable fumes of rendering pig fat.

One has only to look at a photograph of the stunning copper engraving "A Tupinamban Cannibal Feast" by Theodor De Bry from 1592 to understand that, right from the earliest times, barbecue did connote unspeakable savagery to many Europeans. There is virtually no historical evidence that Native Americans were fond of cutting up their fellow humans into manageable pieces and throwing them on the barbacoa, but it is clear from multiple early accounts that Europeans believed that they did, or wanted to believe they did. And there is a fascinating, as yet not well understood, story to be learned about how indigenous smoke cookery intersected with the traditions and cultural practices of imported African slave labor (and imported pigs). What resulted was uniquely American, and profoundly entangled in the economics of slavery and the violence wrought upon the original inhabitants of the Americas.

Because in the South, at least, it's clear that slaves did most of the work. Smoking an entire beast is a time-consuming, labor-intensive project. Slaves dug the pits, tended the coals, basted the meat. This most American of foods is precisely so American because Europeans adopted the cooking technology from the Indians they exterminated while giving the job of chef to the slaves they brought from Africa.

Does this explain Southern pit barbecue's rejection of the "effete" — its conscious adoption of low-rent plastic cutlery and paper napkins as markers of an explicit disavowal of more "civilized" cuisine? Can we then stomach Warnes' assertion that "to take pit barbecue joints at face value, to accept that where they begin culinary standards end, is to see this culture not as it is but as it wants to be seen: subaltern, rebellious, wild, barbaric."

I don't know. As I read Savage Barbecue I found myself scribbling in the margins: "ridiculous," "kooky," "he's making this up as he goes along!" and then, on the next page, being forced to confront just how much of the early history of my country is inextricable from abhorrent acts of racism — the wholesale forced migrations and annihilations of peoples — and to admit that barbecue does, indeed, fit intimately into that narrative.

The "true barbarians," concludes Warnes, are not the half-naked Native Americans slow-smoking their iguanas or salmon on raised platforms above a bed of coals, but those "who wash their hands of the violence they have sent out into the world." That could, I suppose, include my guests and I, as we pledged obeisance to the smoking lamb and gnawed on our baby backs, dabbling in a cuisine forged out of genocide and slavery.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be to cherish how even out of such savagery, a hybrid mestizo cuisine was born, an edible jazz, that ultimately belongs to us all. And tastes real good.

[Andrew Leonard is a freelance writer based in Berkeley, CA. He is a contributing writer for Wired Magazine. His work has also appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Nation, British Esquire, the New York Times Book Review, the Columbia Journalism Review, Asia Inc., the San Francisco Bay Guardian and numerous other publications. He has been technology editor for the online magazine Web Review, Packet culture columnist for HotWired, and was the writer of the ill-fated Secret Files of Bill Gates for America Online. His first book, Bots: Origin of New Species," was published in 2007. Leonard attended the University of North Dakota.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Friday, August 29, 2008

The Mighty Quinnette?

This blog's old chum (and stringer) from Way Up North, Tom Terrific, sent along the following e-mail today:
Can you believe????

• Bret Favre: New York Jet?
• An Illinois African American: Democratic nominee for President?
• The Chicago Cubs: 2008 World Series winners?
• New Orleans: another major hurricane?
• Michael Phelps: eight Olympic gold medals?
• Chinese women gymnasts team: all older than 16 years of age?
• Republicans spend millions to attack Obama's qualifications?
• The same Republicans then nominate 42-year-old Sarah Palin?
Only in America. . . .

Tom Terrific's mention of this Dumbo woman brought the recollection of Willie Morris' list of types of mean, nasty people Morris had met prior to his encounter with a slumlord in NYC: "...The landlord and his sons treated every complaint (by tenants) with a hurried, exasperated crudity. I had known Mississippi red-necks, mother-killers, grandmother-killers, sixth-year graduate students, and spit-ballers who threw at your head; I had never run up against people so lacking in the human graces." (North Toward Home, p. 342.)

There is no quarrel with Morris' typology of mean, nasty people, but Willie Morris omitted one large and nasty group: Republican women. From Phyllis Schlafly to Liddy Dole to Kay Bailey Hutchinson to Laura Bush and down to Sarah Palin, we have a monstrous regiment of women who are lacking in the human graces. All of them will gibbet a political target in the blink of an eye. The Geezer chose The Mighty Quinnette to slip the shiv to The Hopester with a smile. Jumpin' Joe cannot attack a chick mano-a-mano although the Dumbos had no qualms in savaging Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. Nor did the Dumbos shy from going into the gutter in their attacks on The Hillster in 1992 and 1996. And, (drumroll please), the nastiest of the Dumbos on the attack? Republican women! Leading the way for this monstrous regiment will be the former mayor of Wasilla, AK (pop. 9780) and first-term Governor of Alaska: The Mighty Quinnette! If this is (fair & balanced) misogyny, so be it.




[x Time]
Why McCain Picked Palin
By Michael Grunwald and Jay Newton-Small

John McCain needs to persuade swing voters that he's willing to take on the Republican establishment. He needs to persuade conservatives that he isn't squishy about social issues. And he needs to close the gender gap. When you think about it, the real surprise about Sarah Palin's selection as his running mate is that it's such a surprise.

Palin may be an obscure 44-year-old first-term governor and mother of five from Wasilla, Alaska, but in many ways she reinforces John McCain's narrative. She's risen to power by battling corruption in her own state's Republican establishment, exposing misconduct by the state GOP chairman and challenging the incumbent GOP governor. She's pro-life in practice as well as in theory; she recently gave birth to a son that she knew would have Down Syndrome. She'll be the first woman on a Republican ticket, which could appeal to Hillary Clinton voters and help reduce Barack Obama's advantage among women. Her son is about to deploy to Iraq. She's an ice fisherman, a moose hunter and a lifetime NRA member. She killed her state's pork-laden Bridge to Nowhere that McCain has ridiculed on the trail. She's a fresh face to counteract Obama's message of change.

One more point in her favor: In the topsy-turvy election of 2008, the Last Frontier is actually a battleground state—and Palin is Alaska's most popular politician.

There are, of course, real risks to the choice. Palin's presence will make it awkward for McCain to harp on Obama's inexperience, much less play that attack-dog role herself. She's only served as governor one month longer than Obama's been running for president, and she's argued that her youth helped her clean out corruption in Juneau, echoing an Obama talking point. "The age issue, I think, was more significant in my career than the gender issue; your resume isn't as fat as your opponent's, that kind of thing," Palin told Time last month. "I don't have 30 years of political experience under my belt but that's a good thing. I've never been part of a good-ol'-boys club."

Still, it's a long leap from the Wasilla city council to the White House, and the top consideration for any candidate for the number-two job is readiness for the number-one job, an issue that may weigh more on voters' minds when the potential number one is 72 years old.

And Palin has not always seen eye to eye with McCain. Her strong support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will contrast with McCain's muted opposition, and though she has no foreign policy experience, she has criticized the lack of a long-term plan for Iraq. She also surprised her state's conservatives by vetoing a bill that would have denied state benefits to same-sex couples.

Her profile as a good government crusader may not be such an easy sell, either. She was endorsed in an ad by Senator Ted Stevens, who is now under indictment, and she faces an investigation into the firing of her public safety commissioner; there have been allegations that she sacked him because he refused to fire a state trooper who's involved in a custody battle with her sister.

Palin certainly does have an unconventional profile for a national politician. She won Miss Wasilla in 1984 and competed in the Miss Alaska contest. She's worked as a TV sports announcer. Her husband, Todd Palin, is part native Eskimo and a champion snowmobiler; he's known in Alaska as the First Dude.

But politically, in a year where the Republican brand is so tarnished, Palin will help McCain make the case that he's a different kind of Republican. It might be his best shot to be America's First Dude.

[Before joining Time magazine to cover politics, Michael Grunwald was a reporter for The Washington Post. He has won the George Polk Award for national reporting, the Worth Bingham Award for investigative reporting and numerous other prizes, including the Society of Environmental Journalists award for his reporting on the Everglades.

Jay Newton-Small covers politics for Time magazine. She has covered the Bush 43 White House and also Congress from the DeLay era to the present. And, yes, despite the misleading name SHE is a she.]

Copyright © 2008 Time, Inc.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Hoping For A Better Day With A Stranger In A Stadium

Eags (Timothy Egan) is one of the best writers in the NY Fishwrap's stable of columnists. Today, Eags spells out The Hopester's task for tonight (and all of the remaining nights over the next two months). If this is (fair & balanced) yearning for confidence, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Stranger In A Stadium
By Tomothy Egan

The nominee did not look or sound like most Americans. He spoke with flair in a flat-voweled land. He was optimism in a time of gray, a tomorrow man in a country where many felt their best days were behind them.

On top of that, he was thought to be a man without heft, a bit of a dandy.

But with one speech, Franklin Roosevelt put himself on the side of a huge majority of Americans eager to throw out a president. His voice would be that of “the forgotten man,” Roosevelt vowed on April 7, 1932, a day when he found his theme, and the Democratic Party found its agenda for the next half-century.

When Barack Obama goes before 70,000 people at Invesco Field on Thursday night, he will try to be the voice for those who also feel forgotten in the age of the global economy, among the nearly 80 percent of voters who say the nation is on the wrong track. But he’s fighting the headwinds of history. Obama is now clearly the underdog, as the weight of just how unusual his candidacy is becomes clear to voters, who truly only focus as summer ends.

Obama’s central dilemma — strange in this age of media saturation — is that so many voters still don’t know him. The most frequent thing I heard in the suburbs of Colorado recently was a simple question: Who is this guy?

All those who lament that Obama is only tied with John McCain in a big Democratic year forget the obvious: Obama does not look like most Americans, and grew up in Hawaii, a state that a supposedly mainstream commentator, Cokie Roberts, called “some sort of foreign, exotic place.”

“My story is your story,” Obama tells crowds. But it’s not. And the inspiring and deeply resonant parts — the son of a single mother who needed student loans to get through the nation’s best schools, the prodigy who passed up big bucks law firms for low-wage community organizing — are already being cast in a negative light.

On the Republican National Committee Web site, under the section on “Meet Barack Obama,” he’s called “a street organizer,” which can mean only one thing. By insinuation, Mother Teresa would be one step from a crack dealer.

“Do we know if he ever sold drugs?” Sean Hannity, ever eager to inject a lie that fits a stereotype in the national bloodstream, asked Jerome R. Corsi, the professional character assassin and author of “Obama Nation.”

The Texas Republican Party targets Obama with a Web video that shows pictures of an African who lives in a shack, identified as Obama’s half-brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama. Hint, hint.

And at a Washington state fair this week, the Republican booth distributed $3 bills depicting Barack Obama with Arab headgear and a camel.

This is just the stuff on the surface. McCain will not bring it out directly. He has others — legions — to do it for him. Imagine what is out of sight and less organized. But it speaks to one of two big issues that Democrats are trying to resolve during this week’s convention: Can a majority of voters get comfortable with the son of a Kenyan of the Luo tribe?

Obama himself spent much of his life trying to fit into his identity. His father, Obama writes in his memoir, “was black as pitch” and thus “looked nothing like the people around me.” He also abandoned his American family before Barack ever got to know him. On Obama’s mother’s side are ancestors of Scottish and English stock, and Obama writes of staring at an old sepia-toned photograph from a Kansas homestead. “Theirs were the faces of American Gothic, the WASP bloodline’s poorer cousins.”

The dissonance that Obama felt growing up is now shared by many voters. Where does he fit in their lives?

Democrats started to answer this question with the knockout speech by Michelle Obama on Monday. She could not have been more likeable, and the story of the father with multiple sclerosis who worked 30 years at the water filtration plant, the family that sent two kids from the South Side of Chicago to Ivy League schools, the girl allowed only one hour of television who memorized every episode of “The Brady Bunch,” was designed to take “different” off the table.

On Thursday night, we’re likely to hear more about “Toot,” the Midwestern grandma who helped raise Barack, from the Dunham family that produced a free spirit — Obama’s mother Ann, never more than a step away from poverty. That’s his first challenge — connect. Then he moves on to what Franklin Roosevelt did with his forgotten man speech: define the campaign from the anxious voter’s perspective.

It was largely overlooked, but the former Republican congressman from Iowa, Jim Leach, now an Obama supporter, framed it well in a speech on Monday. “Nothing is riskier than more of the same,” he said.

Two months from now, people may remember Teddy Kennedy’s heroic effort to hold onto life long enough for one last speech, and Hillary Clinton’s tangerine pantsuit. If her supporters vote for McCain they were never Democrats anyway, or they’re clueless, like the former Clinton supporter in the Republican ad who mistakenly thought McCain was pro-choice on abortion.

Those vignettes, all part of convention drama and filling cable television’s vacuum, will last no longer than a Rocky Mountain thunderstorm.

What people will remember is whether the stranger in the stadium sounded like someone who could lead them to a better day.

[Timothy Egan, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes the weekly "Outposts" column on the American West. Egan — winner of both a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 as a member of a team of reporters who wrote the series "How Race Is Lived in America" and a National Book Award (The Worst Hard Time in 2006) — graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in journalism, and was awarded an honorary doctorate of humane letters by Whitman College in 2000 for his environmental writings. Egan is the author of four other books, in addition The Worst Hard TimeThe Good Rain: Across Time and Terrain in the Pacific Northwest, Lasso the Wind: Away to the New West, Breaking Blue, and The Winemaker's Daughter.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

And A Dummy Shall Lead Them?

Jeff Dunham is the Edgar Bergen of 2008. A SoCal friend from long, long ago, sent along these YouTube & MySpace video clips of Jeff Dunham with one of his most popular "dummies": Walter, the Grumpy Old Man. Walter is a retiree whose arms are always crossed in discontent. Married 47 years, he has a brash, negative, and often sarcastic view on today's world. He is a Vietnam War veteran and a former welder, and "doesn't give a damn" about anyone; especially his own wife. Demonstrating improvisational comedy, Jeff sometimes does a segment at the end of Walter's routine in which Walter answers questions that the audience members were asked to provide prior to the show. Now, Walter is running for President of the United States of America. Only in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave do we have the prospect of one dummy succeding another. If this is (fair & balanced) voice projection, so be it.

[x YouTube/MySpace]



"Walter For President"


"Walter for President" Part 2



[Jeff Dunham is an award winning ventriloquist and a stand-up comedian. He has performed on numerous comedy shows, including Comedy Central Presents in 2003. His usual puppets include a woozle (a fictional creature mentioned in the Winnie the Pooh stories) named Peanut, a bitter old man named Walter, a dead terrorist named Achmed, José Jalapeño — a talking jalapeño pepper on a stick, Bubba J, a beer-loving NASCAR-enthusiast and redneck, Sweet Daddy D, Dunham's African American "manager," and most recently, Melvin, the Super-Hero Guy. Dunham was born in Dallas, Texas and graduated from Baylor University. He now is a SoCal guy who performs many gigs in Orange County.]

Copyright © 2008 Jeff Dunham


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

A Prairie Home Switchblade

Garrison Keillor is a mild-sounding Minnesotan who slices and dices with his words. Keillor's dismissal of The Dubster as "a Yalie who learned to pass for redneck, a Methodist who learned to pass for evangelical," is priceless (and absolutely true). If this is (fair & balanced) political humor, so be it.

[x Salon]
Rolling With The Punches
By Garrison Keillor

California is another country. You wake up in the morning and New York is already on its first coffee, and the first scandal has broken in Washington, one more Republican crony caught with his hand in the honey pot. It all feels very far away.

You wake up, your laptop is full of e-mails but you're in California so you don't have to reply to them. Your e-mailers imagine that you are busy attending some sort of Mayan fertility ceremony on a beach, bare-chested men whanging on little drums, dinging bells, naked children strewing blossoms in the surf, a priestess in a white caftan playing a Peruvian flute. Stereotypes live forever: Minnesota is cold, California is ditzy. Whereas the California I know is a land of gorgeously normal people, serious, reverent, clean, agile men and women, athletic nerds who love to surf and hike and shoot hoops and also read Frederick Buechner, listen to Bach. I grew up thinking you had to choose between smart and sexy; in California they think you can have it all.

They are less jittery than us flatlanders: Disaster does not terrify them. They roll with earthquakes, the landscape ripples, the china clinks, and so what, it's only an earthquake. Giant mudslides and brush fires — you ride them out and you move on.

They remind me of Londoners, who are famous for rolling with the punches. The night of the horrible bombing in the Underground, the streets of London were full of people who came out to show each other and themselves that they would not be intimidated by a bunch of suicidal maniacs. And even though the danger of terrorism is very real in London, much more so than in Omaha, Nebraska, or Kenosha, Wisconsin, or Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the English have been stubborn in defending their freedom. You cannot be required to carry a photo ID in the U.K. The police still don't walk around with pistols on their belts.

In this country, the attacks by terrorists opened the doors to the darkness of Dick Cheney and furtive vicious men just like him who unleashed an assault on constitutional law, hoping to turn a traumatic occasion — the twin towers burning, smoke billowing over Manhattan — into a permanent Republican majority. As so often happens, vicious men were in the saddle for a time while decent men blithered and dithered. But the ignominious fall of Mr. Giuliani was evidence that Americans have gotten over it. You can't wave the bloody shirt anymore and expect people to fall into line.

And that's a problem for John McCain. A great candidate for hustling neocons and owners of five or more homes, he is dead wrong about Iraq, dead wrong about the economy, and he was born 20 years too soon. But Republicans feel sorry for how he was savaged eight years ago and so they will prop the old man up, retrain him as best they can, keep him on message, stuff a rag in him when he starts kidding around.

People have lots of questions about Barack Obama and that's as it should be. The man inspires curiosity. The problem for McCain is that Barack explains himself so well. Those people jamming basketball arenas aren't going there to look at his shoes. If you listen to the man speak, you're likely to vote for him. If you listen to McCain, you're reminded of your great-uncle Elmer hashing over the injustice of MacArthur getting canned by Harry Truman. Who cares?

And then there is the Current Occupant. He's kept quiet for a while, cutting brush, playing speed golf, treadmilling, but he's bound to emerge in the fall, make a speech, issue a statement, do something, and this will not be good for McCain.

America has paid a terrible price for one family's decision to take a boy out of the public schools of Midland, Texas, and send him off to Chutney or Amway or whatever his prep school was called, and then to Yale, where he picked up a permanent grudge against people who were smarter than he. A Yalie who learned to pass for redneck, a Methodist who learned to pass for evangelical, he was cut out for politics, but what a lousy administrator and what a dull, uninspiring leader. Fewer people want more bushiness than want to see the return of infantile paralysis. And the truth is marching on.

[Garrison Keillor is an author, storyteller, humorist, and creator of the weekly radio show "A Prairie Home Companion." The show began in 1974 as a live variety show on Minnesota Public Radio. In the 1980s "A Prairie Home Companion" became a pop culture phenomenon, with millions of Americans listening to Keillor's folksy tales of life in the fictional Midwestern town of Lake Wobegon, where (in Keillor's words) "the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all of the children are above average." Keillor ended the show in 1987, and 1989 began a similar new radio show titled American Radio Company of the Air. In 1993 he returned the show to its original name. Keillor also created the syndicated daily radio feature "A Writer's Almanac" in 1993. He has written for The New Yorker and is the author of several books, including Happy to Be Here (1990), Leaving Home (1992), Lake Wobegon Days (1995), and Good Poems for Hard Times (2005). His radio show inspired a 2006 movie, "A Prairie Home Companion," written by and starring Keillor and directed by Robert Altman.

Keillor graduated from the University of Minneosta in 1966... His signature sign-off on "The Writer's Almanac" is "Be well, do good work, and keep in touch."]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The (Meth) Gang That Couldn't Drive (Let Alone Shoot) Straight — Keep Down, Hopester!

It's comforting to know that The Dubster's minions in the FBI (and the Department of Justice) and the Secret Service are charged with protection of The Hopester. Not! A trio of losers in Aurora, Colorado (a suburb outside Denver's easternmost boundary) were making threats against "That nigger who wants to be president." and the Feds didn't throw the book at the clowns. Just harmless young men who are methamphetamine addicts who happen to have rifles, ammo, and hatred in their hearts. Just think, these fools (or someone like them) can join the ranks of Richard Lawrence (Jackson) John W. Booth (Lincoln), Charles J. Guiteau (Garfield), Leon F. Czolgosz [pronounced Chall-gosh] (McKinley), John Schrank (TR), Giuseppe Zangara (FDR), Griselio Torresola & Oscar Collazo (HST), Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK), Arthur Bremer (Wallace), James E. Ray (MLK), Sirhan Sirhan (RFK), Samuel Byck (Nixon), Lynette Fromme (Ford), Sara J. Moore (Ford), Raymond L. Harvey (Carter), John Hinckley (Reagan), Frank E. Corder (Clinton), Francisco M. Duran (Clinton), and Robert Pickett (Bush 43) and Vladimir Arutyunian (Bush 43). The preceding list of successful and unsuccessful assassins provides context for 2008. The Hopester is not safe; H. Rap Brown said it best: "Violence is as American as cherry pie." If this is (fair & balanced) fear and loathing, so be it.

[x Salon]
When Is A Plot Not A Plot?
By Mike Madden

Undated photos of Shawn Robert Adolf, left,
Tharin Gartrell and Nathan Johnson,
released by the Denver Police Department

Late Saturday night, the cops in Aurora, Colo., stopped a blue Dodge truck that was swerving all over the road. The driver, a 28-year-old "trance" D.J. named Tharin Gartrell, had a suspended license, a criminal record and four grams of methamphetamine in his pocket. In his trunk, he had two rifles (one stolen), a few boxes of ammo, a bulletproof vest and a portable meth lab. By the next day, based on what Gartrell told them, the cops had called in the feds, and authorities had arrested his cousin, a convicted burglar named Shawn Adolf, and a friend, Nathan Johnson, and turned up more drugs. And in Adolf's case, a background check turned up some outstanding warrants, one with a $1 million bail set. Which might explain why Adolf jumped out the window of his hotel room in Glendale, Colo., when the Secret Service showed up to arrest him on Sunday. From the sixth floor.

That might have been the end of the episode, and it might just have been unusually dramatic fodder for the local paper's crime blotter, except it turned out Gartrell, Johnson and Adolf had a problem with Barack Obama. Namely, they objected to the Democratic presidential nominee's being black, though court documents say they expressed that fact in less delicate terms. And a woman who'd been hanging out in their hotel to "chill and do drugs," according to court papers, told federal agents the three had gathered on the outskirts of Denver in order to try to do something about it. Specifically, to shoot him with the rifles and ammo they'd brought along.

Nathan Johnson confirmed the plot in an interview with a local Denver television reporter from inside the Denver jail. "So your friends were saying threatening things about Obama?" the reporter asked. 



"Yeah," Nathan Johnson replied. 



"It sounded like they didn't want him to be president?" continued the reporter.



"Well, no," Johnson said.

"He don't belong in political office. Blacks don't belong in political office. He ought to be shot."

By Tuesday, officials had decided the three men didn't have the capacity to act on their racist impulses, no matter how heavily armed they were. But the whole episode was a strange, and alarming, reminder of why Obama has had Secret Service protection since the spring of 2007 — there are a lot of people out there who hate the idea of a black president, and are crazy enough to say they'll do something about it. The arrests raised the frightening specter of yet another of America's charismatic young leaders being gunned down by a lunatic. Obama aides declined to comment, citing a strict policy of not discussing security.

The arrests seemed more threatening when they first became public. Serious brass was pulled in; Attorney General Michael Mukasey was briefed. But Tuesday, after an investigation involving three different federal agencies, Colorado's U.S. attorney, Troy Eid, announced that authorities had decided Adolf, Johnson and Gartrell were basically not as dangerous as they looked. The feds didn't plan to charge any of the three men with threatening a presidential candidate, a federal felony that comes with a possible five-year prison term. Instead, Eid charged Adolf (who is variously referred to as Adolph and Adolf in federal documents) and Johnson with violating federal bans on felons owning weapons, and Gartrell with drug possession. (Admittedly, the fact that the three thought Obama was staying in the exurban hotel in which they had rented a room made it seem like they hadn't planned very carefully.)

So the case, instead, became basically an object of curiosity for a press corps hungry for unscripted news. One helpful offshoot from the brief saga: It helped show exactly what it takes to get charged with an assassination plot. Evidently, you need to have some degree of competence and/or sobriety. "The reported threats, hateful and bigoted though they were, involved a group of 'meth heads,' methamphetamine users, all of whom were impaired at the time, and cannot be independently corroborated," Eid told reporters. "The law recognizes a difference between a 'true' threat — one that might actually be carried out — and the reported racist rantings of illegal drug users." That was, apparently, what differentiated the case from earlier ones, including an incident where Eid charged a Colorado prisoner with sending an anthrax hoax to John McCain's office near Denver, and a Florida case where a would-be bail bondsman threatened to shoot Obama.

The security in and around Denver this week is extraordinary, as is the security whenever Obama (or McCain) goes anywhere. Both men are basically guarded as if they were already president. (Joe Biden surely learned a quick lesson in the stakes of what he's getting himself into as Obama's running mate when the Secret Service dispatched agents to his house late Friday night, before news of his selection was even officially confirmed.) It took the arrests, and the mini-frenzy of breaking news alerts they set off earlier this week, to remind convention-goers that the metal detectors and searches were more than just a nuisance. Sadly, it seems, they're still a necessity.


[Mike Madden is Salon's Washington correspondent. Madden attended the University of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1998. He is currently working as a Washington Correspondent at Salon Media Group. He has worked with The Arizona Republic as a Washington bureau, Gannett as a Correspondent, and The Philadelphia Inquirer as a Suburban Staff Writer.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

It's Not The Color Of His Skin, Stupid! It's The Content Of His Character!

Through the magic of YouTube, this blog becomes a vlog with The Hopester's Keynote Speech to the Donkeys in 2004; the technology required the division of the speech into two video clips. However at the end of the day, a spellbinding speech in 2004 does not guarantee a spellbinding speech in 2008. This is the moment for The Hopester to close the deal. This is the moment for The Hopester to step up and hit one out of Mile High Stadium (or whatever the Hell its corporate owners of "naming rights" call it). Much will be made of the 45th anniversay of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech during the March On Washington in 1963. However, another lightly-regarded Senator — John F. Kennedy (D-MA) — began his presidential campaign by electrifying the Donkey convention in 1956 with a failed attempt to land the VP nomination. JFK's campaign was born in that convention-moment. The Hopester's campaign was born in his convention-moment in 2004. Unfortunately, linking The Hopester to both Dr. King and JFK raises the spectre of assassination. The evil that lurks in the hearts of men is as present in 2008 as it was in 1963 (JFK) or 1968 (King and RFK). If this is (fair & balanced) apprehension, so be it.

[x YouTube/Lakeman Channel]
Obama 2004 DNC Keynote Speech - I



[x YouTube/Lakeman Channel]
Obama 2004 DNC Keynote Speech - II


[x Slate]
Show Us You Care, Barack: What Obama '08 Can Learn From Obama '04.
By John Dickerson

In 2000, Barack Obama couldn't even get a floor pass to the Democratic National Convention. Tomorrow he'll be speaking before Greek columns to a crowd of 75,000 people as the party's nominee.

In the exact middle of that trajectory was The Speech: Obama's keynote address to the 2004 convention. We all like to say that conventions are meaningless, and Obama himself once called them nothing more than infomercials to reward wealthy contributors. Nevertheless, it was at the convention in 2004 that Barack Obama became a star. (Watch the instant analysis at the time and the speech itself, where the cutaway shots show people listening gape-mouthed.)

Watching the speech for the millionth time in my Denver hotel room the other night, I was immediately struck by Obama's passion. He can be cerebral and aloof sometimes. (He's trying to fix that.) But in 2004, he didn't have that problem. He was amped up but not jumpy. He was making an argument, one that animated him, and he all but demanded your attention. If it wandered, he almost seemed to snap his fingers and say, "Listen up."

Obama's message was resonant because his enthusiasm was infectious. Now he faces a different task. He's lost the element of surprise—everybody knows he can give a good speech. Now he has to apply that same enthusiasm to explaining the stakes in this election. In 2004, he talked about what people sensed in their bones. He needs to do that again, but he also needs to show voters what he senses in his bones.

In 2004, Obama set out to prove pundits and Republicans wrong. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," he said, "and yes, we have gay friends in the red states." You could imagine him using the same construction Thursday to fight the celebrity rap against him. McCain appears to have had some success by characterizing Obama as an empty suit who can draw big crowds but offers no real solutions. Some 75,000 screaming people will provide images that fulfill the McCain caricature. Obama has a chance to turn that on its head. Republicans say you're here because I'm a celebrity, he might say, but you're really here because you believe everyone should have the right to see a doctor and go to college.

Obama says that one of his tasks for the convention is to help people understand who he is and where he came from. That's his challenge because voters—some innocently, some not so innocently—wonder whether he shares their values. It is the weakness Hillary Clinton's strategist Mark Penn tried to exploit, explaining in one of his strategy memos that voters would find that Obama was "not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values." What's striking about the political distance Obama has traveled since 2004 is that the idea that he was emblematic of the American dream was not something he had to prove four years ago. It was self-evident. It was one of the reasons he was speaking in the first place.

In 2004, Obama talked about the collective American dream of which he was a part. That balance has gotten out of whack. He's been tagged, with justification, for having too much self-regard. How much of the campaign is about him and not us? Obama will work hard Thursday to sublimate himself to the larger collective goals of all Americans.

There's one potential impediment to this plan. Obama is going to be standing in front of a row of Greek columns. This, tragically, is something of a convention trope. Bush spoke in front of columns in 2004 (and atop a presidential seal), and it looked ridiculous. It seems like an overly theatrical idea for Obama. With McCain trying to paint him as a self-styled god, the image of him standing where Zeus might will only play into this critique. Also, on aesthetic grounds, the no-drama candidate should not imperil that brand by looking like the suburban-dinner-theater candidate.

The columns and frieze echo the façade of the Lincoln Memorial, where, exactly 45 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous speech. This might be a subtle nod to the plain fact that Barack Obama's candidacy is the fulfillment of part of King's dream. Still, it's too much. The Obama campaign doesn't need more theatricality.

An Obama aide wrote to set me straight: "We wanted something that was simple and sober, and that's exactly how it will appear. He will be surrounded by everyday people in keeping with the opening up of our Convention."

Maybe that will work. But eight years ago, at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Barack Obama was denied not only a credential but also a rental car (his credit card was rejected). Now he's not only accepting the party's nomination, he's practically arriving on a chariot. (He won't, of course, but the neoclassical theme could evoke such images.) His progress is a testament to the American dream, but the symbolism could turn into a political nightmare.

[John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent. Dickerson holds a degree in English with distinction from the University of Virginia. His 2008 book, On Her Trail, describes his relationship with his late mother, Nancy Dickerson Whitehead, a pioneering television newswoman.]

Copyright © 2008 Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.