Is the 2008 election like 2004?

How much things change, and how much they stay the same.  At a certain angle, the election in 2008 is very similar to 2004.  Or is it?

A few things to think about when making the comparison:

• Who are the candidates perceived as?
• What support are they tapping in order to secure a win?
• What type of campaign can be expected as a whole?
• What issue will win the election?

First, lets look at the two fellas:

Who are the candidates perceived as:

In 2004, the contrast was between the most liberal senator in Congress and the pro-war Republican candidate.  John Kerry ended up being portrayed as a stiff, hollow man who calculated more than a calculus professor.  George Bush did a fine job of putting himself in stark contrast as the passionate president who led with his gut as much as with his belly.  

John McCain may not be a conservative in the same vein Bush was, but he is slowly making inroads in that direction.  Framing himself as a no-nonsense right winger who is pro-life, pro-war, and anti-hippie, he knows the move he needs to make is to the right, to the right, as Beyonce would say.

Barack Obama is also not a liberal in the same vein as Kerry.  First of all, Kerry always rubbed liberals the wrong way with his pro-war stance.  The only reason he was stomached by most was because he was NOT Bush.  He ran a campaign off of a negative quality.  Obama is already outraging liberals, but for other reasons.  He is as much an intellectual as Kerry, but he does not wear it on his sleeve; instead, he takes a step back and takes the most pragmatist approach to issues.  This may eventually paint him as calculating, which was one of the downfalls of the Kerry campaign.

What support are they tapping in order to secure a win:

In 2004, it was all about the base.  Independent voters, undecided citizens, bah!  They played second fiddle to both parties.  Bush was lucky enough that the grand Karl Rove strategy to increase Evangelical turnout by 4mill proved to be a success.  Kerry built his campaign around the Bush outrage, again running a negative quality campaign.

The 2008 election could not be anymore different.  The base has dispersed from both parties, especially the GOP.  Instead of courting the choir, McCain and Obama have to proselytize to a new flock.  Moderates, independents, discouraged former party loyalists, they are all walking around aimlessly, judging each candidate with a grain of salt.

In order to win in 2008, both candidates will have to win the voters who decide who to vote for the day before the election.

What type of campaign can expected as a whole:

Dirty.  But that would not make 2004 that much different from most elections.  What made it distinct was how the dirt was thrown and received.  On both sides the dirt was thrown from outside the official campaign.  Bush mostly used the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (most effective, in the end), while Kerry relied on MoveOn.org and every other left-leaning group in the Western Hemisphere.

So far this campaign has been run with little fanfare.  An awkward New Yorker cover here, some inappropriate jokes made by McCain there, but nothing earth-shattering.  I suspect as the months roll by that McCain will become the aggressor in this campaign.  He is already positioning himself as the "underdog", which he is but not really.  His party is still fundraising very well, and he is not that far off from Obama in most polls.  Still, he is quite vicious when pinned against a wall.  Obama might keep a low profile except on media-heavy occasions, such as the debates and the convention.

What issue will win the election:

Security, security, security was the motto in 2004.  Bush knew this, Kerry didn't.  Kerry thought making himself a reasonable, smart, careful candidate would raise the collective feeling of comfort and give him a win.  But Bush knew better, creating instead a gap between what might happen with me and what happen without me.  The key emotion was fear, not comfort, and Bush tapped it out for all it was worth.  

In addition to the tandem of fear and security, 'morality' was key.  Bush won this handidly because of one thing he had over Kerry: clarity.  It was not really consistency, because both candidates lacked that.  But Bush was able to make what would be a 3-page long argument by Kerry into a bumper sticker that sticked.  He made his positions clear and compact, while Kerry went on diatribes that felt like lectures not positions.

So far there are a few issues that are raising their heads this year.  One is the economy, or more specifically, the potential of a worst economy.  The other is change.  This does not secure a win for Obama, as the polls show.  This is an issue that McCain is continually trying to adopt by making "Unlike the President, I..." statements.  How successful he will be at that, I am not sure of.

I believe the issue of Afghanistan, lobbyists, and healthcare will gain some prominence.  These are issue Obama and McCain differ in by wide margins, so the decision between both candidates, by Nov. 4th, will be an easy one to make by someone who has made up their mind on these issues already.

The comparison between 2004 and 2008 shows that while party faithful drive your primary campaign, they can ruin your national campaign.  Going after independents voters is essential, but ultimately, the power to rein is held in the hands of those who have held it before.  Obama and McCain are two of the most contrasting presidential candidates in decades, and keeping that contrast while reaching out for the middle will test both campaign's mettle and will to win.

lhp

Obama: Vietnam was not my bag

In a very thorough interview with the very thorough Fareed Zakaria (this guy is seriously a genius), Sen. Obama pretty much proves Andrew Sullivan's and my theory right.  

Fareed Zakaria centered the interview around foreign policy and the Senator's view on everything from Islam to Vietnam to the importance of Iraq.  

In one enlightening question, Zakaria pinpoints the core reason why Obama will fail to own the definition of 'Liberal' we have come to expect:

ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?

OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

Some inferences from this answer:

A) Vietnam did not form him like it did the Clintons, McCain, Bush, and Gore.

B) His candidacy is not so much about expertise, but exposure and comprehension of what the world is currently.

C) He is a pragmatist and unifier, who prefers a workable answer that dissatisfies some, rather than a faulty answer that promotes some.

lhp

Is 2008 more like 2004, 2000, 1992…1968?

Elections are no different from other grand shows of spectacle.  The Super Bowl, the Olympics, the new Batman movie, all of these are events that come with their own expectations and expected consequences.  Being so grand and anticipated they are often compared to other great events that have past.  Will the Giants be like the Joe Namath Jets and upset the seemingly invincible Patriots?  Will Phelps be our era’s Spitz?  Will the new Batman be a successful superhero sequel like Spiderman 2, or will it crash on top of its viral marketing scheme like Snakes On A Plane?  Questions, comparisons, anticipations, this is what makes stuff worth talking about.

How will 2008 measure up?  I see a few possible comparisons of what is still a nascent election season.

It could end up becoming an election decided by each party’s base, just like 2004 pitted Kerry’s angry liberals against Bush’s angry evangelicals.

It could become an election decided between two progressively similar candidates, moving each to the center as the campaign goes on until voters are not sure who is who or what makes them different, as was the case in 2000.

It could be an election lost by a splintered conservative base, thereby handing the presidency to the Democrats, similar to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory.

Or it could become a historic election with historic implications, won by a photogenic, charming Senator over an older man considered angry, rough around the edges, and just untrustworthy because of the company he kept, like it was in 1968 between JFK and Nixon.

Which will it be?  I will explore each scenario in greater depth in later posts, but for now, what election year does this remind you of?  See any parallels with other elections?

lhp

Obama Supporters Flinch When Asked To Help Clinton

At a Women For Obama Fundraiser, Hillary Clinton might have hit it right on the nose:

Anyone who voted for me has so much in common with those who voted for Barack and it is critical that we join forces, because the Democratic Party is a family, sometimes a dysfunctional family, but it is a family and we care about what’s going to happen to the economy and health care and education and what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can only infer that Hillary is the stepmom the Democratic kids aren't sure of, and she is trying to let them know she is cool with papa Barack, even though she might rub them the wrong way.  

The biggest problem with the Democratic party right now is themselves.  They are not sure how much they like each other.  Progressives are going against moderates, Clintonites against Obamaniacs, all the while Barack and Hillary pose nice for portraits and crack jokes about each other tinged with a slight bitterness.

As this NY Times article pointed out, the jabs were light-hearted, and reminded those present of an old school "screwball comedy."  How delightful!  Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn all over again.  I call it "Bringing Up Barry"...get it? Barack used to go by Barry...ah forget it.  

The premise here is a bit more dramatic than a screwball comedy could offer.  Barack needs Hillary.  Hillary needs Barack.  But Barack doesn't need all of Hillary, just her moral support.  Hillary needs Barack's dollars. So again we go back to the stepmom/kids methaphor.

But that is the sticky point.  The Democratic kids, especially those on the Obama side, aren't quite sure what motivates this Hillary lady, and they sorta distrust her, too.  A point of concern is how vocal Obama supporters are being when they refuse to help Hillary out with her massive debt.  Some choice responses:

Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Senator Obama?

Gas prices are up, the markets are in turmoil, my kid’s fall tuition bill is coming soon. Writing checks to politicians I don’t like is not at the top of my list.

Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband. Or — god forbid --Mark Penn.

They are not sure about this Hillary lady at all.  What does she want from papa Barack, and why does she keep pinching our cheeks when we don't like it???

The Obama knows what needs to resolved, and what needs to be resolved now: Unity.  I don't mean the little town in New Hampshire where the senators made their first joint appearance after Barack clinched it.  I mean party unity.  Sen. McCain is still having major issues working on his own party's unity, so if these two senators could come in to the convention with a happy family, that would be all the more powerful of contrasts between campaigns.

Barack and Hillary may not love each other, they just need to bear each other.  Do it for the children.  And children, in return, please try to like this new girl daddy is with.  Lets try to be a family, ok?

lhp

The Ting Tings-That's Not My Name

I'm in love.

lhp

McCain Talk Pretty One Day

There is a proposition made by the McCain campaign, and considered by the Obama campaign, that a string of town-hall debates should be had across the country.  Very a la Stephen A. Douglas v. Abraham Lincoln.  This is a nice idea.  The traditional town hall give and take is a nice show to check out.  It keeps the candidates on their toes, the voters involved, and the media in full attention waiting for a faux-pas.  What strikes me as specially cute is the Douglas v. Lincoln comparison.  Lincoln, the tall, lanky, oratorical genius hailing from Illinois, against the short, stout candidate of a splintered party, who was well known for as a political tactician, the "Little Giant" of politics.  How fitting!

McCain is not Douglas in a traditional way.  Douglas had a bit more hair and had a meaner mug.  But he does share something with the racist dead man: going against a Lincoln.  I am not comparing Obama with Lincoln, although a solid case could be easily made.  The likeness is in their rhetorical wizard.  Obama can galvanize thousands in an arena with only a few sentences.  McCain has trouble uttering a few sentences correctly to a few dozen supporters waiting for the free donuts and coffee.

As this New York Times article points out, McCain is getting better.  But don't get crazy now, he is still mad at the teleprompter:

In a town meeting in Cincinnati the next day, Mr. McCain would again slip up on the name of the Massachusetts town, where, he noted, “Americans asserted their independence once before.” He called it “the Lexiggdon Project” and twice tried to fix his error before flipping the name (“Project Lexington”) in subsequent references.

 

 It can be a tricky thing, you know, reading.  Is this a character flaw? Not at all.  Bill Clinton was a poor public speaker before he became a great one.  In the 1988 Democratic National Convention, a then Governor of Arkansas Clinton gave a boring, booed-at 32 minute schpeel that almost destroyed his political career.  So, things can get better. 

What is inopportune for McCain is the circumstance.  He is not Bill Clinton in 1988, going against only himself and bored to death party faithful, but against Barack Obama, one of the greatest orators American politics has ever witnessed.  The stout, grinchy McCain is absolutely going against the tall, galvanizing Obama.  This is not a character flaw, but a political one.  This a campaign of change, no matter who takes up the slogan (both have).  If you present yourself as an inept, uninspiring, dull candidate, how does that translate to sense of dynamic change? 

Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, it doesn't.  That is unfortunately, Un-four-choo-nat-lee.

lhp

Obama Make Liberals Mad! Liberals Smash!

The weeks after Obama secured the Democratic nomination have made liberals cringe.  They bitch and moan and yell "Treason!"...but only under their breath.  Liberals do not want 2004 redux.  They trust Obama will keep his liberal streak going when he is elected; they know he is just courting the center and a bit of the right just enough to secure a win.  He's just playin', they tell themselves.

And it gets harder and harder to believe themselves.  The most recent gasp-inducer was Obama's proposal to keep, and potentially expand, Bush's faith based initiatives.  Nay!, they say, Separatin of Church and State!, they clamor.  But they just don't get it.  Obama is not your typical liberal.  Is he a liberal, period?  Yes.  But instead of a period it is more of a 'w00t'.  A new brand of punctuation.

Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, wrote an enlightening article on Why Obama Matters.  The key question all Obamaniacs have to answer for themselves.  But Sullivan takes a pragmatist approach, not a trait typically assigned to liberals (I would know, I slowly went from liberal to pragmatic liberal, and like it here, thank you very much).  In sum, he believes Obama is important because he is the one bringing the least amount of generational baggage:

It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

That is the point most liberals are missing.  Obama will not be like Ted Kennedy, will not be like Kucinich, like Edwards, or even like Hillary.  He does not share their generational baggage.  He was born after the 'silent majority' and the 60's kids clashed.  He will not be a peacenik, not a welfare liberal, not a culture warrior.  He is something else.

Bush's faith based initiatives, while they have been proven to work and help out those in need, are immediately dismissed by liberals because they tend to proselytize.  True, but that is only part of the reality.  This is enough to take them out, however, for the most militant liberals.  Black or white answers are what people acting based off an ideology, theology, or tradition, prefer.  Obama likes grey more.  He is not bipartisan, or partisan, or party-none...he is antipartisan, which includes the liberal faction of the partisanship.

Obama will continue to disillusion liberals.  And he will take the wind out of them when he takes his presidential oath.  This, what you are seeing now, is the real Obama.  He is a liberal, but is also a pragmatist.  He will favor leftist policies, but he will also favor real politik.  The ideological war Hillary and McCain represent is something foreign to Obama.  Why does he matter? Because he doesn't 'get' the divides, the animosities, the loyalties.  Good for him, and good for us.

lhp

ROT: Reviews Off Trailers

Here is another installment of ROT, where I dissect a trailer and tell you if it will be a good movie or not based off that little sliver of screen time. It would seem pretentious to do that, but believe me, my track record is pretty outstanding. On we go!

Movie: Quantum of Solace

WTF: A Bond movie is like a grilled cheese: you know exactly what is in it, what it will look like, and whether you will like it or not.  BUT, it still depends on the details to make it a great grilled cheese, or a mediocre one.  Daniel Craig was the organic, perfectly tasting cheese the franchise needed, and he is back for seconds (seriously, I could go off this analogy for days).  This movie is an immediate continuation of the last.  It looks like it will still be darker than most, which worked well in Casino Royale.  The only thing to look out for is how much Bond will be in Bond.  Will it ham itself up, or will it take itself seriously and give us some interesting insights into how James becames James.

Prognosis: Good grilled cheese, but maybe getting colder.

Movie: Hellboy II The Golden Army

WTF: Not to be confused with The Man with the Golden Arm, this is not a Frank Sinatra diddy.  Although, Frank Sinatra would be right next to Ron Perlman if the asked you who would be least likely choice to helm this franchise a few years ago.  Seriously, this guy?  Well, 'this guy' has done a good job so far.  People were mixed about the first one, but I thought it was visually stunning, grimy, and fun-loving.  This one looks BETTER.  Do not be surprised to see this become a sleeper hit.  Sure, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and Batman are gonna have a helluva summer, but Hellboy II might creep up on them.

Prognosis: I got a fever, and the only thing that can cure is some more Hellboy.

Movie: X-Files: I Want To Believe

WTF: Seriously, WTF? I Want To Believe??? I am sorry to say this to any X-Files fans out there, but you are alone.  Alone in going to see this movie.  Besides the bad movie title, the trailer does nothing more than keep cranking up the volume on the hectic background music, rehash 90's pop culture (Mulder believes, Scully doesn't, and it will end up being Mr. Hooley, wearing a mask, almost getting away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids), and assuring us that something, something!!!, is under that ice.  Oh yeah, and the priest dude's eyes bleed.  This movie may have a nice opening weekend, but it will soon die off.  Off the trailer alone, I have no reason to be interested in what might be found by those two FBI peeps, and, as a nod to the poor work done on this piece of advertising, I am almost certain whatever is found will be anti-climactic.  I feel like this will be like The Village.  

Prognosis: Stop believing.  It aint a UFO, it is a bad movie.

view responsibly.

lhp

TV Commercial You Will Hear About Tomorrow

This little diddy by JC Penney is causing quite the hub-bub, many calling it controversial and unsavory. Bah! It also the Cannes Lions 2008 Bronze Award. So I guess it is kinda good.

Actually, it is very good. It finally reflects life as we actually live it, rather than being overly cheesy or overly corny. Not everyone talks like we were written into Juno (although, that would be nice), and we all don't laugh and high-five each other when we are eating at Chili's.

JC Penney, bravo for having the cojones to put this ad up. Now could you please tell me where the Dickie's are...

lhp

Obama's Worst Enemy? His Shadow

Progressives are easy to displease, but it will take a lot to make them lose faith in anything.  Or anyone, for that matter.  That is good news for Senator Obama, after this last week of what are seen as blows to the progressive following he has built.

His shifts in position in regard to gun control, the death penalty, and wire-tapping, have come as a punch to the liver to his left-leaning followers.  He stayed mute when DC took out a ban against handguns.  He vocalized that he believes child rapists should be eligible for a death sentence, after the Court ruled otherwise.  He even endorsed the renewal of FISA, to the behest of moveon.org and the petition they tried to pressure the senator with.  He is carving out a more centrist, and yes, even more conservative hole for himself.

Should we be surprised? Hardly.  Politicians take this road all the time.  It should not be seen as a character flaw, but a realization that the political process demands it in order to win campaigns.  Put simply, the way we select our candidates, and eventually our presidents, demands that they first campaign to the most active party members that will vote in the primary (usually those with strong ideological inclinations), and then make themselves more mainstream for the general election (focusing on numbers, rather than fervor).

Where does this leave Obama, a self-labeled 'reformer', a man whose campaign's central theme is 'change' and a new brand of politics? His appeal will not be hurt, overall.  He knows progressives will have to bite the bullet, more so than ever before, since the only other option is McCain.  There are no lesser than two evils, there is only evil and hope.  Obama is doing what he needs to do to broaden his appeal beyond active african-american members of the Democratic party, young voters, some independents, and the educated few.  His problem is one a politician has not faced in sometime, however, since his move to the center, as to be expected for any presidential candidate, takes away some of this novelty.  He will be like every other politician trying to make his appeal to a country, rather than a county.  He will not be Obama, a supra-political figure as much as he was a month ago.  Or two, or three.  

Obama needs to realize that this mainstream moves are smart, but not easy.  He must be extra careful, more than McCain will ever need to be, to keep his appeal as a cause leader and expand his appeal as a world leader.  If he can manage to do both, he will be a shoe-in.  If he trips over either one, the other will follow suit.  If the American people see he tries to label himself as something other than a politician as we know them, but does just what see politicians do all the time, he will come off as a charlatan, a rain man that cannot deliver in a time of drought.  This is why a convincing campaign by him will speak to his skills as  a diplomat, a leader, and an organizer of people.  He is his own worst enemy.  His shadow is larger than anyone else's.

lhp

Justice Is Fair. Unless You're Black

This might get you pissed off.  So go eat a cookie, or watch a man getting hit in the crotch with a football to lighten the mood.

If this doesn't get you pissed off, then check your blood pressure.

This, by itself, addresses not only injustices in the court system, but more specifically, the injustices in high crime sentencing.  This, by itself, is an argument against the death penalty.

Enjoy:

lhp

Best. Danceoff. Ever.

No intro needed.  Just watch it.  Happy Thursday.

lhp

Where the Hell is Matt?

I gotta admit: this video is amazing.

I usually don't throw that out to any of the dozens of bits of media I check out on a regular basis.  But this video, because of its scope, its enthusiasm, its joy, and its originality, is right up there.

www.wherethehellismatt.com

I am also pretty jealous of that lucky bastard.

Enjoy.

lhp

Alcoholics Eponymus by Jimmy Chen

Great, funny writing:

MODERATOR: Thank you all for being here. I know this is very difficult. The first step is admitting that you have an addiction—I'd like to congratulate each one of you for doing that. Now let's go around the circle and introduce ourselves.

JACK DANIEL: Hi, I'm Jack.

ALL: Hi, Jack.

JIM BEAM: Hijack, my ass. I just got off the damn plane.

MODERATOR: Mr. Beam, please wait your turn—and we don't swear in our circle of trust.

JIM BEAM: (Silence.)

MODERATOR: That's better. I know you're a little strung out from last night. Hang in there, OK? Sir, how about you?

RÉMY MARTIN: Bonjour, je m'appelle Rémy Martin.

MODERATOR: Now, Rémy, I know you speak English.

RÉMY MARTIN: (Sigh.) Hi, I'm Rémy. You know, I try to throw in a little class and immediately get shut down.

JIM BEAM: Hey, froufrou, this is America—we're not impressed with that Frenchie stuff. That shit wouldn't pass in Kentucky, boy. Speak English.

RÉMY MARTIN: Vous me faites pitié.

JIM BEAM: English, boy.

RÉMY MARTIN: Vous me donnez la nausée. Ma bouche va littéralement s'ouvrir et mon dernier repas se déversera dans ce monde.

JIM BEAM: If you speak French one more time, I'll—

RÉMY MARTIN: Mm!

MODERATOR: Oh, dear.

JIM BEAM: English!

JOSE CUERVO: Inglés!

MODERATOR: Please.

RÉMY MARTIN: Voudriez-vous que je couvre votre tête de foie gras?

GREY GOOSE: Honk!!!

JOSE CUERVO: ¡Sacad este pajaro de aqui, se esta cagando por todos lados!

JOHNNIE WALKER: I think the goose is concerned about the foie gras.

GREY GOOSE: (Flapping its wings wildly.) Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk!

JACK DANIEL: Jesus Christ.

MODERATOR: Plea—

GREY GOOSE: (Flying around the room.) Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk!

(Moderator faints in the middle of the circle.)

ALL: (Silence.)

JOHNNIE WALKER: It is peculiar how the inebriated soul honks for attention. Look at what we have done to this poor lady; she even ripped her pants. Oh, I have seen many things in my days: the sullen look of a jaded 14-year-old lover, a brick of peat moss buttered in the final notes of a summer sunset, an oak barrel swollen with solemn unsung years ... oh, so many things. I brave to tread the path less traveled, twirl my cane amidst the havoc and chaos of modernity. We, suspended in this age of excess, brine our livers in nectared poison with self-delusional love and irrevocable loneliness, for true love—the kind that shines so bright its white rays burst your retinas—is but a lost notion quivering toward the past.

ALL: (Silence.)

GREY GOOSE: My bad.

source: McSweeney's

lhp

Nader is 'Delusional' About Obama

You know that crazy old man that randomly walks into a McDonald's, with an empty paper bag in hand and a shaggy bed of thinning hair, and starts screaming rants about socialism and the end of the world? That guy's name was Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader is smart. No doubt that this man is well-read, knowledgeable, and is probably a good person. But he is now nothing more than that crazy old man with the paper bag. He is a relic. He is an egomaniac that cannot look past his nose or two feet behind him. He doesn't care that his candidacies for president are just a joke, "Oh, that Ralph, there he goes again *chuckle*". His appeal is left to only who would vote for Dennis Kucinich if his wife weren't so tall (and hot) and make for awkward photo ops. Ralph Nader is to the Left was Jerry Falwell was to the Right: an old vestige, made up of living proof that crazy stereotypes do actually exist somewhere in the world.

I am not taking away what Ralph Nader has done in the past. He has done a lot for progressive ideals, consumer advocacy, and lazy-eye syndrome awareness. But his time came Nov. 3rd, 2000. But he likes the spotlight, so he keeps asking for it.

His latest attempt at Look-at-me time, is the interview he gave to the Rocky Mountain News. In it, he says Obama is trying to 'talk white', is 'half African-American', wants to avoid becoming 'another Jesse Jackson', and is only popular because he appeals to 'white guilt'.

People have already commented that if these statements were made by Limbaugh, Hannity, Clinton (either) or anyone who would be in a traditional adversarial position to Obama, they would be called 'racist'.

THEY ARE. Call it for what it is. Ralph Nader is being at best insensitive, at worst the worst kind of liberal: the one who thinks he is so 'in' with unprivileged groups he can talk the talk, walk the walk, and preach his wisdom down onto them. He is a pandering racist. He knows what is going on here, in case you didn't, and he will take time off his busy schedule to teach you what that 'what' is.

Nader, do us all a favor, and get yourself out of that 60's mentality. You cannot compare Obama to other African-American politicians, just as much as you cannot attach labels to him that are only used by those having a 1960's conversation. That language is out. Those attitudes are out. If you knew anything about the appeal Obama actually has, and why he is striking a chord with younger voters more than you ever did, it is because of this: He was reaped after what was sowed in the 60's. He is the fruit, not the seed. So stop acting like a farmer out of a Rockwell painting. And quit looking at me, that lazy eye gets creepy.

lhp

Quarter Century of Advice

Portable computer from 1983.

I love reading those little blurbs old people write about the 25 lessons or whatever they have learned in their lifetime. Good stuff. Most of them come off as the stereotypical wise, yet prickly geezer. But they still give out good stuff to think about.

I am turning a quarter of a century old today. I prefer calling it that rather than 25 years old, because it emphasizes the weight I believe this point in life carries. While I may not be wise and old and grumpy (well, not the first two), I've still learned some stuff and heard some good lessons here and there. What follows are things I have caught along the way. Most of it are things I have heard from others and have applied to my own life, some are things I learned along the way and am working on still. But NOTHING here is a piece of advice I have not tested out myself. Therefore, you will not see 'Raising your child is the most amazing thing ever', or 'After your first heart attack, you fear burgers'. Nope. What I write below are things I can vouch for. May not work for you, but then too bad, screw off!! (see, I am grumpy):

• Become Self-Aware
This is easier said than done, but it is very important. Probably the most important thing I have to say here. Become aware of what you do, say, think, and how others may perceive all of the above. There is fine line shared here with being self-critical. That doesn't help. That only focuses on the negative, rather than the whole thing. Also, don't worry about what others think of you. Just be aware of your existence, pretty much, and if you like what you see or not. Barack Obama is a great example of this. His self-awareness has made his appeal widespread, and his rise a meteoric one
• Like to dress well:
Hubert de Givenchy, the founder of said fashion line, lived through a simple maxim: Never be afraid to be the best dressed man in the room. What you wear says volume about who you are. Not what you are made of, but who you are. Are you tidy? Are you old-fashioned? Are you interested in detail? Are you lazy? A good website to check for everyday style is www.thesartorialist.blogspot.com. But if you ARE lazy, here are a few tried and true rules that will raise you up a notch at least:
• Your socks should match your pants, and if possible, create a 'segueway' of color between your pants and shoes. E.G. Brown pants, white shoes=light brown socks. Also, NEVER wear white socks unless you are going to the gym or are a london bus driver.
• Never wear pleats. The list of why you should is shorter than the number of presidential candidates.
• Black, white, and grey go with everything. Especially each other.
• Know your tones. Find out what colors work best for you. Keep an ear out when people give you compliments, and then analyze what you wore and work off that. Never wear Yellow. It is a horrible color and should be shot.
• Avoid trends. Make your own.
• If you write, write often:
This is an easy one. It isn't really about length or depth, but about consistency. Write out random thoughts for 15 minutes each day, and then next week make it 20 minutes, and so forth. This will spark your Muse, I assure you.

• You will become your parents
I was eating ice cream the other day. I went to go sit down, and people watch while I ate my ice cream. I crossed my leg, laid back in my chair, and started chowing down. At that moment, I knew: I had become my dad. This is exactly what he loves to do. I've noticed other things before, but this did it for me. So be forewarned: If you are a girl, you will become your mother; if you are a boy you will become your father. If you only have one parent, you will become him/her. Gay parents, not sure, but keep me updated.

• Keep Yourself Interesting
I like to read. But what I mostly read aint books. I read books, but the bulk of my reading time is not assigned to them. But I read. About almost everything. The founder of Princeton said, "The person you spend most of your life with is yourself. Might as well make yourself as interesting as possible". So true. If you are not even interesting to yourself, why should I care to heard what you think? Look out for new things to do, learn, say, eat, drink, grab, write, read, whatever. Just keep yourself interesting to yourself.

• Find Your Speed
One thing I should've figured out awhile back is that you can't please everyone. You can't even please yourself sometimes, for mercy's sake. So don't pressure yourself to be the everyman to every man. Find your speed. Know what environments you like to be in. What people do you like to hang out with? What crowds do you feel at home with? Or maybe no crowds. I suggest doing this: Go to three very different venues, like an art museum, a dive bar, and a park. What do you like of each? Dislike? Be true. Maybe you are an art lover deep inside, or maybe you love alcohol...if the latter is the case, gimme a call and we can do both.

• Assume Positive Intent
I believe it is the current CEO of Coca Cola that said that one of the ways she has made her life richer and simpler is to always assume positive intent in other people. When someone would be rude to her, she would assume they had a horrible day and are actually pretty sorry for being rude to her. If someone started bragging to her she would think he is trying to let her know of good things to buy and wants to help her find them. Etc. Always think people are acting in a godly way. Sure, it might get you in trouble for thinking everyone is Jesus incarnate, but the ease and positive attitude you will have will be much more of a benefit.

• Look For Solutions Outside Your Problems
I have often found myself stuck in a problem. Like, seriously, stuck. I can't go back or forth. But sometimes when I look for solutions out of the problem 'box', it works. This can be wide-ranging. For example, if you are stressed out and none of your medication helps you--it might even be making things worse--then why not try something out there. Like maybe going for a swim, or eating some ice cream, or punching a pillow. Do you dislike your friends? Get out of your usual social circle and tread new ground. If you keep looking for solutions inside your problems, you will probably find new problems, nothing else. Branch into new environments, cultures, philosophies, and people. Exposure will at least let you know what you like and dislike, and what works and doesn't work.

• Make Others Interesting
People love to be listened to. So be a good chap and do it. Listening to them might be educating to you. You might find out if this person could be a good friend, partner, businessperson, or bartender for a party. You might also find out a lot about you. Are you judging them as they speak, or attentively listening and trying to connect? Do you get what they are saying, or are they smarter than you (meaning, go watch some History Channel)? Ask questions and become genuinely interested in them, and stay in the conversation like there is nothing else going on in the world. That is how people will like being with you.

• Be in the NOW
A nice little exercise to help you become more centered, stop having an unnecessarily busy mind, and appreciate that you are still around: close your eyes, start breathing slowly, focus only on your breathing, and do that for a minute. IF you start thinking and having a busy brain again, which you probably will, then visualize yourself looking at yourself thinking. See yourself seeing yourself avoiding being in the moment. Do that until you don't have to. And then open your eyes and live your life. That will be $50, please.

• Quit Your Job
I find there is really no reason to NOT switch jobs if you dislike it. If you truly dislike it and aren't just bitching about how tiring it is, then switch. Quit. Move on. Find something you like, at least. Don't be one of those people that dreads going to work everyday and walks around lifeless. That used to be me. I now know better.

• Get A Hobby
I am almost certain everyone is good at SOMETHING. This may be a bit Socratic on my part, but I believe it's true. Go find what that is. It might be boxing, or drawing, or cooking, or curling, or making miniature cities out of potatoes...who knows. Just get a hobby you love and stick with it. It may end up taking over your day job. Wouldn't that be great!

• You Value 'You'
Set goals and expectations for yourself. And then judge yourself by those goals and expectations YOU set. You are the only one that can give yourself value, and no one can take it away. What you think of 'value' may be different from what others consider valuable, so why should you be judged by other's measuring stick?

Take care.

lhp

Obama's VP Shortlist Getting Shorter

Now that the Hillary noise machine is taking a nap, Obama is dealing with the mumbling rants of McCain. That is fine, since McCain is better at defeating McCain than anyone else. Let him keep talking. Thanks to this eye of the hurricane week, when the furious storm has passed, but a new one is on the horizon, Obama has had a chance to start his own version of "The Dating Game". VP-style!

Unfortunately, it started rocky--a blind date type of date, if you will. James Johnson, one of the three picked by Obama to vet any VP candidates (the other two are daughter of JFK, Caroline Kennedy, and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder), had to step down. Fishiness when he was head of Fannie Mae made him step down, to avoid further messiness in the future.

No worries, because the VP shortlist the Obama campaign is working on seems to be taking care of itself. The list is becoming smaller, or at least, easier to work with, as people in it are taking themselves out of contention.

First was Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, who said, in no uncertain terms, "I will not accept if nominated, I will not serve if elected" if put on the Obama ticket...so, that's a no?

Next is Sen. Chris Dodd, an Obama little helper (he IS pretty little). In the same vein as James Johnson, Sen. Dodd received 'special mortgage rates', i.e. better, from Countrywide. Woap woap. Outie for you Doddy-o.

Next is a beloved son of the South, and one that is gathering steam among the Obamites (Obamans? Obamoians? Obamists?): Sen. Jim Webb from "We Aint A Bunch of Inbreds!" Virginia. He talks the talk, walks the walk, and gets along with Obama. He might, however, talk to much and walk to much, according to this Slate article. In all fairness, the article makes him sound like the feisty southerner McCain will probably add to his ticket. Sounds like a good cage match.

Who's next? Mayor Bloomberg is still in play, but for both parties. Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, and John Edwards, but they either are part of the furniture in Washington (Daschle, Biden) or have a losing record becoming said furniture (Edwards...Democrats dislike losers more than Republicans do). Chuck Hagel, the Republican who is more of a maverick by far than McCain ever has been, would be a valiant, and possibly good gamble to make. But you can't ever forget Hillary...mostly because she won't let you.

Sen. Obama, I do not envy your current situation. But it sure beats being crazy McCain.

lhp

Tim Russert has Died, at age 58

One of the most influential political pundits in the United States has died today, according to reports from his family.

As the NY Times's The Caucus reports:

Tim Russert, the host of “Meet the Press,” and NBC’s Washington bureau chief, has died. He was 58.

Mr. Russert was a towering figure in American journalism and moderated several debates during the recent presidential primary season.

Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News, came on the air at 3:39 p.m. that Mr. Russert had collapsed and died early this afternoon while at work. He had just returned from Italy with his family.

Mr. Russert hailed from Buffalo and worked for two prominent New York Democrats, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Gov. Mario Cuomo, before being hired in 1984 by NBC in its Washington bureau. He became bureau chief four years later.

MSNBC (part of the NBC network Russert's "Meet The Press" aired every Sunday on) reports:

Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58.

Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. No details were immediately available.

Russert, the recipient of 48 honorary doctorates, took over the helm of “Meet the Press” in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television.

And FOX News:

Page Cannot Be Found

You've requested a FOXNews.com page that cannot be found. The page you are looking for may have moved or it may no longer be available. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Please try the following:

• If you typed the URL, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
• Open the FOXNews.com home page and look for links to the information you want.
• Use the navigation at the top to find the link you are looking for.
• Click the Back button to try another link.
• Enter a term in the search form above or below to look for information on FOXNews.com.
• If the page has moved, reset your bookmark.
• If you think this is a server error, please contact foxnewsonline@foxnews.com.

I am not even kidding about what is above. FOX News brings you to that when you click on their Russert story.

Tim Russert, the reporter who was known for his tough questioning and off-the-cuff honesty, was the host of Meet The Press for 17 years. Meet The Press was a necessary platform for any politician who wanted to be taken seriously. The Russert grilling was a requisite for any politician to have national appeal. He was a man you needed to chat with if you were to make anything of your career. He was THAT influential.

My condolences to his family.

lhp

Benefits, 401k, and Facebook, please

The Engineered Generation, my generation, knows what it wants. A very interesting, but not very surprising, study found that close to 40 percent of 18-24 years olds would quit their job if it blocked Facebook. As it reads:

A recent survey by IT services provider Telindus found that a whopping 39 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds would consider leaving their jobs if a Facebook ban was imposed, reports vnunet.com. Another 21 percent said they’d feel “annoyed” by such a ban.

The older you are, however, the less likely you are to ditch the gig for your scrabulous game:

Not surprisingly, the number of folks who’d consider quitting in response to a Facebook ban shrinks with age. Just 16 percent of 25-to-65-year-olds (an oddly large sample, if you ask me) would so so, and 13 percent would be annoyed by such a ban.

What can I say...We feel we deserve everything. Even the chance to tag you in that kegger photo album we just uploaded with a caption that reads: "nice form".

lhp

FOX News, Biased? Nah

Anyone who gets their news from ONE sole source will have a warped sense of the world. I stand by the statement firmly.

No matter if it's CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, The Drudge Report, National Review, The Daily Show, etc. It will fail to capture the nuances of opinions and angles of what is going on out there.

But if your sole source is FOX News, then you are just plain messed up.

I already posted here the video where a FOX News contributor jokes about taking out both Barack and Osama bin Laden "if we could" *chuckle chuckle*. Add to that this:

An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he'd spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as "Obama's baby mama."

I checked, and sure enough, as you can see below, our e-mailer was right. In fact, that description was displayed on screen several times during the segment, which featured anchor Megyn Kelly and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, an FNC contributor.

Or this:

During the June 6 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill teased an upcoming discussion by saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently." In the ensuing discussion with Janine Driver -- whom Hill introduced as "a body language expert" -- Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," adding that "people call it all sorts of things." Hill went on to ask Driver: "Let's start with the Barack and Michelle Obama, because that's what most people are writing about -- the fist thump. Is that sort of a signal that young people get?" At no point during the discussion did Hill explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."

It is funnier when you actually see it:



Hilarious!

Don't tell me about the fairness of one news outlet. All have their biases. But don't you dare call FOX News a NEWS outlet to begin with.

Therein lies the rub, as the old barb would say.

lhp