It got real apparent that something was amiss when at the conclusion of Sen.Obama's victory speech in Iowa, the camera's returned to Chris Mathews, Kieth Oberman and the rest of the MSNBC guests and no one knew what to say. As the evening unfolded and they took comfort in knowing that maybe all of them did just see a UFO, or in this case perhaps the most impressive speech of the last 50 years, slowly they came to acknowledge it.
To start there wasn't the usual, "well guest so and so, what did you think about the speech?" Chris Mathews threw it like a hot potato to Pat Buchanan and the Air America lady for a few irrelevant thoughts then Gene Robinson tip-toed in with a "it gave me goosebumps" comment and finally Howard Fineman who clearly recognized what had just happened, said among other things, "the torch has been passed."
It would take forever and ultimately amount to speculation to track down and discuss the sources of their early inhibitions but it shows how long it's been since we've seen greatness. Unlike the Supreme court who admits they can't describe it but know what pornography looks like; we have forgotten what real leadership looks like. We don't know it when we see it.
Now mind you that it will be a long time before I'll put Sen. Obama squarely in this category. In fact he'll probably have to win the general election to get there but for now I'll keep hoping that he is the real deal and that gives me hope.
Showing posts with label Chris Mathews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Mathews. Show all posts
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
AFL/CIO Dem Debate
MSNBC went with their entertainment newsman Kieth Oberman to referee this event. His day job is being MSNBC'S counter-weight to Fox News where he slings mud and generally takes the low road in challenging the competition. Luckily we were spared the insufferable sermonized drivel he has become famous for. In fact in last nights role and in others, to be fair, he's done a decent enough job. I guess that was the Kieth Oberman who was influenced by Hal Fishman who he duly thanked at the end of the debate. Fishman, a 46 year TV news veteran from Los Angeles, died yesterday. He was an old school, quality newsman who will be missed.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Monday, April 30, 2007
When Whimps think they're Warriors
I can't seem to get the commentary that followed the first Democratic Debates out of my mind. The media who gas bagged about what a great job they did making a three ring circus out of the Virginia Tech tragedy felt we couldn't live without them and gave us another double dose of blather about a relatively meaningless so called debate. This stuff went on for hours.
Chris Mathews had a round table discussion and one of the very first comments was from Howard Fineman who was complementary to Hillary Clinton for her decisiveness in answering a question that went something like, what would you do if a forceful new terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil? How quickly she used the word retaliate was his measure for praising her. He went on to say that the others were hesitant or indecisive. He also said that being a women makes it particularly important for her to show her toughness. This answer seemed to give her the edge in the debate according to Fineman although a day later a pole of North Carolinans, where the debate was held, showed Obama coming out on top.
Now, the question was obviously hypothetical and the answers were about winning votes. I'm not saying that what the candidates said doesn't reflect who they are to some extent but you have to keep the context in mind and you must sift through the performance to find the closest thing to the truth as possible. Something like the mantra that good journalist use when putting a story together.
Fineman's response was actually far more interesting to me than most of the candidates answers. He seemed eager to make this point like it was most certainly the opinion of the country and the rest of the panel seemed to agree. Andrea Mitchell only seemed less enthused about Hillary having to prove her toughness but let that slide.
What I gathered from this is that the air is still thick with the might-makes-right, shoot first, ask questions later approach to our security in this country. The standard justification for this is that 9/11 changed us as a nation. It is indisputable that 9/11 changed us and you can't hide under a blanket but what we're doing is not working. I believe 9/11 also gave the green light to a lot of people, mostly men, who for one reason or another were insecure to start with.
Granted, power is part and parcel to our system. If you think not then try to move up the ladder in a corporate environment or any organization for that matter. Capitalism, by it's very nature is no place for the faint of heart. We survive by it and it pervades our every thought.
But power, when used improperly is dangerous, particularly on the world stage and it can allow wimps to play the role of warriors even though real warriors are far better suited to deal with matters of strength.
I grew up in southern California where there was a small Samoan population. If you were lucky enough to have a Samoan friend you could go anywhere and no one would mess with you. Remember this is before hand guns became so prevalent. The Samoan guys I knew were big and tough. It seemed odd at the time that they were also nice guys, very gentle, kind and very sincere. They never started the fights even though their presence sometimes made wise guys want to. They were different than the tough white guy's I knew who were a little crazy. They all seemed to come from hard luck backgrounds, weren't very trustworthy and, they liked to start fights. Not Samoans, they had good families and were loyal to their friends and enjoyed peace.
Later in my life I spent some time working in American Samoa. It's a very interesting place with lots of unique traditions in a beautiful setting.
We were mostly on the outer Islands, actually where Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, did a lot of her work. I was assisted by a local fellow named Puna. He took us to all the villages and a translated for us.
Puna was a big tough guy. He could climb a coconut tree with bare hands. He started fires with a stick and was good with a machete and could run up a mountain in bare feet. Once he and another guy had to pull two big dogs apart that looked to be fighting till death. They were vicious and had their jaws clamped around each others throat. They got them apart somehow with the dogs snapping and biting them the whole time. Puna was fearless and well respected but he was gracious and kind just like the guys back in California.
We got friendly and talked a lot about this and that. He told me stories of the old days when Samoans were warriors navigating the Pacific with stick charts.
One day I was watching how Puna greeted the people in each village. When you spend day after day among people who speak a different language you start to notice non verbal things more. Samoa has a Chieftain system and respect shows up in body language and I'd try to figure out who the chief was but I was usually wrong. Chieftain status wasn't based on clothes, size or strength or appearance at all. When they were pointed out it usually made sense though. They always seemed calm and wise and very gracious and commanded respect. Powerful in their own right.
Another thing I noticed in Puna's greetings was the word Malo. He used it a lot and sometimes with other words and sometimes not. I knew the greeting "talofa," so I asked him once what he meant by "Malo" in greetings. He said, the best in English would be," you win, you know in case there was any problem, then you can get on with business," Well needless to say that has stuck with me my whole life.
My point is not about Howard Fineman because I don't know much about the man. But the impression he gives is typical these days and I think completely backwards. They use the tough act, the selfish arrogance, ignoring the rest of the world, picking fights and even suppressing female sensibilities where one might expect some help with perspective at a time like this.
I see it like this, truly wise self confident strong men who are unafraid, the kind that know what man is capable of, good and bad, can figure out ways to clear the air and get down to business. And the other, filled with uncertainty, knowing they're weak, use others to fight for them and try to make up for their shortcomings with a lot of bluff and bluster in the name of strength.
Chris Mathews had a round table discussion and one of the very first comments was from Howard Fineman who was complementary to Hillary Clinton for her decisiveness in answering a question that went something like, what would you do if a forceful new terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil? How quickly she used the word retaliate was his measure for praising her. He went on to say that the others were hesitant or indecisive. He also said that being a women makes it particularly important for her to show her toughness. This answer seemed to give her the edge in the debate according to Fineman although a day later a pole of North Carolinans, where the debate was held, showed Obama coming out on top.
Now, the question was obviously hypothetical and the answers were about winning votes. I'm not saying that what the candidates said doesn't reflect who they are to some extent but you have to keep the context in mind and you must sift through the performance to find the closest thing to the truth as possible. Something like the mantra that good journalist use when putting a story together.
Fineman's response was actually far more interesting to me than most of the candidates answers. He seemed eager to make this point like it was most certainly the opinion of the country and the rest of the panel seemed to agree. Andrea Mitchell only seemed less enthused about Hillary having to prove her toughness but let that slide.
What I gathered from this is that the air is still thick with the might-makes-right, shoot first, ask questions later approach to our security in this country. The standard justification for this is that 9/11 changed us as a nation. It is indisputable that 9/11 changed us and you can't hide under a blanket but what we're doing is not working. I believe 9/11 also gave the green light to a lot of people, mostly men, who for one reason or another were insecure to start with.
Granted, power is part and parcel to our system. If you think not then try to move up the ladder in a corporate environment or any organization for that matter. Capitalism, by it's very nature is no place for the faint of heart. We survive by it and it pervades our every thought.
But power, when used improperly is dangerous, particularly on the world stage and it can allow wimps to play the role of warriors even though real warriors are far better suited to deal with matters of strength.
I grew up in southern California where there was a small Samoan population. If you were lucky enough to have a Samoan friend you could go anywhere and no one would mess with you. Remember this is before hand guns became so prevalent. The Samoan guys I knew were big and tough. It seemed odd at the time that they were also nice guys, very gentle, kind and very sincere. They never started the fights even though their presence sometimes made wise guys want to. They were different than the tough white guy's I knew who were a little crazy. They all seemed to come from hard luck backgrounds, weren't very trustworthy and, they liked to start fights. Not Samoans, they had good families and were loyal to their friends and enjoyed peace.
Later in my life I spent some time working in American Samoa. It's a very interesting place with lots of unique traditions in a beautiful setting.
We were mostly on the outer Islands, actually where Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, did a lot of her work. I was assisted by a local fellow named Puna. He took us to all the villages and a translated for us.
Puna was a big tough guy. He could climb a coconut tree with bare hands. He started fires with a stick and was good with a machete and could run up a mountain in bare feet. Once he and another guy had to pull two big dogs apart that looked to be fighting till death. They were vicious and had their jaws clamped around each others throat. They got them apart somehow with the dogs snapping and biting them the whole time. Puna was fearless and well respected but he was gracious and kind just like the guys back in California.
We got friendly and talked a lot about this and that. He told me stories of the old days when Samoans were warriors navigating the Pacific with stick charts.
One day I was watching how Puna greeted the people in each village. When you spend day after day among people who speak a different language you start to notice non verbal things more. Samoa has a Chieftain system and respect shows up in body language and I'd try to figure out who the chief was but I was usually wrong. Chieftain status wasn't based on clothes, size or strength or appearance at all. When they were pointed out it usually made sense though. They always seemed calm and wise and very gracious and commanded respect. Powerful in their own right.
Another thing I noticed in Puna's greetings was the word Malo. He used it a lot and sometimes with other words and sometimes not. I knew the greeting "talofa," so I asked him once what he meant by "Malo" in greetings. He said, the best in English would be," you win, you know in case there was any problem, then you can get on with business," Well needless to say that has stuck with me my whole life.
My point is not about Howard Fineman because I don't know much about the man. But the impression he gives is typical these days and I think completely backwards. They use the tough act, the selfish arrogance, ignoring the rest of the world, picking fights and even suppressing female sensibilities where one might expect some help with perspective at a time like this.
I see it like this, truly wise self confident strong men who are unafraid, the kind that know what man is capable of, good and bad, can figure out ways to clear the air and get down to business. And the other, filled with uncertainty, knowing they're weak, use others to fight for them and try to make up for their shortcomings with a lot of bluff and bluster in the name of strength.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)