For the winners--the ones on the top looking down--an asterisk is the kiss of death. Ask baseball's new home run king, who may as well legally change his last name to Bonds*. Or President George W. Bush*, indelibly linked to an election won in court.
While cute as a snowflake in appearance, this little star belies scrutiny, demanding further explanation, forever challenging any achievement to which it is affixed. Which explains why those not on top cling to its five tiny tenticles (or six, depending on the manufacturer of your computer) as if dangling from a precipice.
Okay, that's a bit dramatic. Suffice to say, a tiny whiff of foul air can cause the defeated to question the validity of any competition, or the legitimacy of its victor. An asterisk provides them with an ambiguous photo-finish of sorts, keeping ajar the door to eternal speculation. Could there have been wrong-doing? Horseplay? Scull-duggery? There's always scull-duggery, right? The fish never get smaller. And soon, enough uncertainty is cast that the recognized champion can never truly be seen as the real champion.
If the Democratic Party fails to pull together shotgun primary elections in Florida and Michigan, candidate Hillary Clinton--lacking elected delegates, states won and popular vote totals--will turn her attention to this most prickly of punctuation marks. It's her her exit music, her one ticket out. A way for her to lose without really being defeated and keep her own drum beating well into the next decade. Should this battle end short of the convention, Hillary will show up in Denver wearing her * like a hound's tooth pants suit. And as she stands at the podium and exclaims, "I hereby give my unconditional support to our party's nominee, Barack Obama*!"--we all will learn what an asterisk sounds like.
You won't see a * in the Illinois senator's name. Not immediately, at least. But somewhere in her speech, perhaps under the thin veil of "humor" she uses so prolifically (I put it in quotes because it resembles bitter, biting sarcasm more than anything else) you will hear the *. Maybe it will be a simple "even though I won two big states we disqualified" or "despite my attempts to have the voices of the people heard in Florida..." Or something even less subtle. This tiny little phrase will float out of her mouth, satisfying the hordes of female supporters and causing the eager media to jot down her every next thought as the new truth, so they can spread her spin epidemically through every outlet.
I am a Michigan resident. I was not allowed to cast my vote for the person I wanted as my president. Last fall, the state's democratic party moved up its primary date in clear violation of DNC rules. The party's braintrust (boy oh boy am I taking liberties there) decided to strip the state's delegates and unseat them for the Denver convention. The national party candidates--Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc.--all ostensibly agreed to abide by the DNC's decision and not campaign in the state nor participate in its primary. Yet for some reason, while every other major candidate took their names off the ballot, the former First Lady didn't touch hers--"Oops, was I supposed to do that?"
So, my choices on the ballot were Hillary, the line marked "Uncommitted", or one of the Republican candidates--most notably John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
Being that I have been an Obama supporter (gee, can you tell?) since last December, I had planned to vote for one of the GOP candidates. I think it was going to be Huckabee. Mitt had the private sector experience, as he would let anyone waiting for an elevator know. But he had this sleaziness to him that just wasn't right. I let intuition guide most of my initial impressions. McCain is a trigger-happy man in his 70s in need of anger management. And it's just... let's just say it's not a good trifecta. Huckabee, while the thought of this Arkansas gubernatorial pipeline to the Oval Office thing makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, is nonetheless a governor. So he's had to run a state, which is an important though not essential step. He is principled, in fact no one really had taken issue with his character.
He's just, you know, Mike Huckabee. I like having a clean dashboard. I like ceiling white paint. I like new socks and a freshly edged driveway and a recharged cell phone battery with four bars. I'm just not excited about it. These things don't stir me. Neither does this election season's version of Dr. Phil.
So I had sufficiently practiced holding my breath for the trip to the ballot box... and then, THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY, I decided to investigate this "uncommitted" thing further. And a tiny supplemental page on the Michigan party website nearly put me into shock.
Apparrently, the law stated that, should a decision be made subsequently to seat the delegates at the convention, they would be free to vote for whomever they choose... PROVIDED that 15% of the people choose "uncommitted" on the ballot. Otherwise, if "uncommitted" were to garner less than 15%, the delegates, if seated, would be required to vote for the candidate who won the primary. And gee, what do you know, there was one major candidate who--oops!--forgot to remove their name. So Hillary would get them all, will of the people be damned.
Now do I think Hillary Clinton intentionally left her name on the ballot to take advantage of this little-known stipulation? Um, hell yes. The same way she knew what she was doing when she flew to Florida the day before their primary for a big smiley photo-op on the airport tarmac while on her way to plan her "victory party" the following night. (Where's that askteris when you need it?)
So I phoned, emailed and yelled out my window to all the Michigan democrats planning on voting Republican, to vote "uncommitted" instead. No one knew it was something other than throwing your vote away. No one knew it really mattered. It was the "anti-Hillary" vote that really counted. So as it turned out, "uncommitted" received 40% of the vote. Hillary received 55%, but it didn't matter. She couldn't steal the state's delegates.
But she hasn't stopped trying. All year long--in speeches, on her web site, even spinning some networks into believing it too--she has shamelessly claimed victory in both states. And now, despite her comments last October that "Michigan and Florida do not count", she has done an about-face, a show of pure desperation, and is trying a last-gasp delegate grab. The problem is, there is NO WAY to re-do the primaries in any way that can be construed as fair. (I'll explain later... in fact, it will be the topic of my next post, so stay tuned.)
Even though it jeopardizes my candidate's chances of winning the nomination, I hope I get to vote again, and that it counts this time. First, because it's my right as an American, and I do take that right seriously. Second, becausI am currently one of FOUR people in the entire state of Miichigan with an Obama sticker in my car. I like the political season, the hype, the campaign stops, etc. Particulary if I have a candidate I like. And third, because if we don't have a primary that counts, and if Florida doesn't count, then the results of the national primaries will not be beyond dispute.
Then Hillary would not have really lost, and Obama would not have really won. Oops, I mean Obama*.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
If this is a turnaround, why are we still pointed in the same direction?
Okay, last time I checked, Democratic Party nominees are chosen based on their delegate count. Not how many states they've won, or which ones, or even the popular vote. That being said, as of March 13 here are the accurate delegate counts in the aftermath of The Big Momentum Shift:
Rhode Island: Clinton +5 (13-8)
Vermont: Obama +3 (9-6)
Ohio: Clinton +9 (75-66)
Texas: EVEN (92-92)
Texas caucases: Obama leads 56-44% (41% reporting), results due 3/31
Mississippi: Obama +5 (19-14)
So... in the five primaries since Obama's surge of 11 straight wins, the point where the media has announced Hillary Clinton as roaring back and officially in possession of the "Big Mo", the former First Lady has seen a net gain of six delegates. And she may lose that when the Texas caucus results are finalized.
In the words of former rapper Deion Sanders, "don't call it a comeback".
Rhode Island: Clinton +5 (13-8)
Vermont: Obama +3 (9-6)
Ohio: Clinton +9 (75-66)
Texas: EVEN (92-92)
Texas caucases: Obama leads 56-44% (41% reporting), results due 3/31
Mississippi: Obama +5 (19-14)
So... in the five primaries since Obama's surge of 11 straight wins, the point where the media has announced Hillary Clinton as roaring back and officially in possession of the "Big Mo", the former First Lady has seen a net gain of six delegates. And she may lose that when the Texas caucus results are finalized.
In the words of former rapper Deion Sanders, "don't call it a comeback".
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Difference Makes All The Difference
Remember "Super Tuesday"? The supposed turning point of the Democratic presidential race? Hardly. How bout "Comeback Tuesday" last week, when Hillary Clinton got up off the mat, took off the gloves (or did she put them on? even the sports metaphors escape me sometimes) and sent Barack Obama to crushing defeats in the two huge states of Ohio and Texas? Hmmmmm. I'm going to have to say, no. The superlatives were flying like confetti, yet now that the political dust has settled, anyone who cares to look at the results can see what really happened: Hillary Clinton didn't gain enough delegates to make up for Obama's win in Idaho.
Idaho?
When it comes to states, it's not how many delegates a candidate has that matters in the new math of the Democratic primary season. It's how many more delegates you have than your opponent. Sure, wins in states like California, New York and Ohio are impressive--and will surely look good on your resume come convention time--but not if you don't walk off with the lion's share of delegates.
Obama's finely tuned political machine has known this from the outset. So when will the former First Lady learn that size doesn't matter?
Well, it's clear the news hasn't even reached the Clinton doublespeakers. Earlier tonight on CNN, longtime Clinton family apologist James Carville dismissed with a laugh the point that Obama has won more than twice the states (26) that Hillary has (11), saying, "How many Idahos equal one Ohio?" Truth be told, it's the other way around, since Idaho equals a 12-delegate advantage for Obama against Clinton's gain of 9 in Ohio.
Still laughing, Jimmy? Either Mr. Carville is as dumb as he looks, or he's attempting to spread the perception that some states are more important than others. Whatever the motivation may be, he can't hide the ill-focused strategy he's trying to defend. His candidate may lie, but the numbers don't.
Savant that I am, I couldn't help but take a look at the real scoreboard, the numbers that really, really count: the delegate differentials. These are the real indicators--though clearly not as colorful as the homespun 47-year-old short-order cook in Spokane, or the picket-toothed white supremecist from Southern Ohio. The media delights in lighting up U.S. maps, discussing daily rhetoric with expert panels and "talking to the people". Yet scientifically speaking, it's the political equivalent of summoning Puxatawney Phil out of his hole. Wake up, the real story is right under your nose. (The nose of the collective media, not Puxatawney Phil.)
There's a reason why Obama won Nevada's delegate count, 13-12, despite "losing" the state on primary night. There's a reason, while the press was boldly hailing Mrs. Clinton's "huge" win in New Hampshire, that Mr. Obama had actually tied her, each gaining nine delegates. It's the same reason why, as we sit here with 10 domestic primaries remaining in the march to Denver, Hillary has effectively won just 11 states, while Barack has bested her delegate total in 26 (with three states even). He's won more than half of the United States; she's won about one fifth of them.
It's also the very likely explanation should the Voice Of Hope win Mississippi tomorrow with a double-digit delegate advantage. Some other fascinating points I discovered, simply by doing what the media refuses to do... look at the race in terms of DELEGATE DIFFERENTIALS:
> Barack Obama's lead is reportedly slim, with the difference in delegates being anywhere from 139 (1336-1227 per NBC) to 141 (1345-1204 per the yahoo dashboard). Yet in reality, we're getting close to magic-number time. A closer inspection of the delegate differentials tells us that the Clinton regime will need to average a 14-delegate gain in each remaining primary in order to overtake Obama. Yet, of the 40 contests held so far (not counting the USVI), less than a third of them (13) resulted in a delegate difference of 13 or higher. And only three--Arkansas, California and New York--were won by Clinton.
So in other words, with 10 state primaries left to go, if Hillary intends to reach Denver with a lead in total elected delegates, she has to do 10 times in a row what she has done just 3 times in the 40 states thus far. No tall tale can mask such a tall order.
> There are seven states that were won by a differential of at least 20 delegates. Five of those seven were won by Obama (Illinois, Georgia, Washington, Virginia and Minnesota). In fact, two of the three states that saw a 40-or-greater differential were Obama wins. So much for the "can't win the big one" angle.
> And the largest delegate differential of all? Obama's 54-delegate rout in his home state of Illinois, edging out Hillary's delegrabs in home states both genuine (19, Arkansas) and artificial (45, New York). So, being that the state most likely to go Hillary's way (Pennsylvania, Michigan & Florida) happens to be the largest remaining primary, equalling her highest margin of victory (45), while unlikely to say the least, would still leave her nearly 100 delegates behind Obama. And as we've already seen in the Idaho-beats-Ohio, Third Millenium world of the DNP, the Illinois senator could win Mississippi tomorrow by enough delegates to offset a close defeat next month in the Quaker state.
> Should the Democratic Party cave like a spoiled brat's parent and forgive Michigan and Florida for violating party policy, and should these two large states become "in play", to the delight of Bill & Hill... well, in the words of Todd Rundgren, it wouldn't really make any difference. A 3/7 Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Michigan shows the candidates in a virtual dead heat, each preferred by 41% of respondents. Assuming Camp Clinton doesn't hoodwink officials into validating the initial results or something similarly ridiculous (not to mention unconstitutional), Michigan will pretty much end up even. That leaves Florida, a state large enough to turn heads with a substantial win.
Problem is, unless it's Clinton's home state, Obama's home state or California, even a landslide win won't appear to garner more than 30, maybe 40 if it's a true blowout (and Obama's already shown he'll likely avoid a rout, as he gained a fair share last time without the benefit of a single campaign stop).
He'll keep Pennsylvania close (within 60-40), minimizing delegate damage. And by the time we get to Puerto Rico, we'll probably be roughly where we are now. Bracing ourselves while Hillary Clinton and her husband tirelessly woo super delegates.
Idaho?
When it comes to states, it's not how many delegates a candidate has that matters in the new math of the Democratic primary season. It's how many more delegates you have than your opponent. Sure, wins in states like California, New York and Ohio are impressive--and will surely look good on your resume come convention time--but not if you don't walk off with the lion's share of delegates.
Obama's finely tuned political machine has known this from the outset. So when will the former First Lady learn that size doesn't matter?
Well, it's clear the news hasn't even reached the Clinton doublespeakers. Earlier tonight on CNN, longtime Clinton family apologist James Carville dismissed with a laugh the point that Obama has won more than twice the states (26) that Hillary has (11), saying, "How many Idahos equal one Ohio?" Truth be told, it's the other way around, since Idaho equals a 12-delegate advantage for Obama against Clinton's gain of 9 in Ohio.
Still laughing, Jimmy? Either Mr. Carville is as dumb as he looks, or he's attempting to spread the perception that some states are more important than others. Whatever the motivation may be, he can't hide the ill-focused strategy he's trying to defend. His candidate may lie, but the numbers don't.
Savant that I am, I couldn't help but take a look at the real scoreboard, the numbers that really, really count: the delegate differentials. These are the real indicators--though clearly not as colorful as the homespun 47-year-old short-order cook in Spokane, or the picket-toothed white supremecist from Southern Ohio. The media delights in lighting up U.S. maps, discussing daily rhetoric with expert panels and "talking to the people". Yet scientifically speaking, it's the political equivalent of summoning Puxatawney Phil out of his hole. Wake up, the real story is right under your nose. (The nose of the collective media, not Puxatawney Phil.)
There's a reason why Obama won Nevada's delegate count, 13-12, despite "losing" the state on primary night. There's a reason, while the press was boldly hailing Mrs. Clinton's "huge" win in New Hampshire, that Mr. Obama had actually tied her, each gaining nine delegates. It's the same reason why, as we sit here with 10 domestic primaries remaining in the march to Denver, Hillary has effectively won just 11 states, while Barack has bested her delegate total in 26 (with three states even). He's won more than half of the United States; she's won about one fifth of them.
It's also the very likely explanation should the Voice Of Hope win Mississippi tomorrow with a double-digit delegate advantage. Some other fascinating points I discovered, simply by doing what the media refuses to do... look at the race in terms of DELEGATE DIFFERENTIALS:
> Barack Obama's lead is reportedly slim, with the difference in delegates being anywhere from 139 (1336-1227 per NBC) to 141 (1345-1204 per the yahoo dashboard). Yet in reality, we're getting close to magic-number time. A closer inspection of the delegate differentials tells us that the Clinton regime will need to average a 14-delegate gain in each remaining primary in order to overtake Obama. Yet, of the 40 contests held so far (not counting the USVI), less than a third of them (13) resulted in a delegate difference of 13 or higher. And only three--Arkansas, California and New York--were won by Clinton.
So in other words, with 10 state primaries left to go, if Hillary intends to reach Denver with a lead in total elected delegates, she has to do 10 times in a row what she has done just 3 times in the 40 states thus far. No tall tale can mask such a tall order.
> There are seven states that were won by a differential of at least 20 delegates. Five of those seven were won by Obama (Illinois, Georgia, Washington, Virginia and Minnesota). In fact, two of the three states that saw a 40-or-greater differential were Obama wins. So much for the "can't win the big one" angle.
> And the largest delegate differential of all? Obama's 54-delegate rout in his home state of Illinois, edging out Hillary's delegrabs in home states both genuine (19, Arkansas) and artificial (45, New York). So, being that the state most likely to go Hillary's way (Pennsylvania, Michigan & Florida) happens to be the largest remaining primary, equalling her highest margin of victory (45), while unlikely to say the least, would still leave her nearly 100 delegates behind Obama. And as we've already seen in the Idaho-beats-Ohio, Third Millenium world of the DNP, the Illinois senator could win Mississippi tomorrow by enough delegates to offset a close defeat next month in the Quaker state.
> Should the Democratic Party cave like a spoiled brat's parent and forgive Michigan and Florida for violating party policy, and should these two large states become "in play", to the delight of Bill & Hill... well, in the words of Todd Rundgren, it wouldn't really make any difference. A 3/7 Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Michigan shows the candidates in a virtual dead heat, each preferred by 41% of respondents. Assuming Camp Clinton doesn't hoodwink officials into validating the initial results or something similarly ridiculous (not to mention unconstitutional), Michigan will pretty much end up even. That leaves Florida, a state large enough to turn heads with a substantial win.
Problem is, unless it's Clinton's home state, Obama's home state or California, even a landslide win won't appear to garner more than 30, maybe 40 if it's a true blowout (and Obama's already shown he'll likely avoid a rout, as he gained a fair share last time without the benefit of a single campaign stop).
He'll keep Pennsylvania close (within 60-40), minimizing delegate damage. And by the time we get to Puerto Rico, we'll probably be roughly where we are now. Bracing ourselves while Hillary Clinton and her husband tirelessly woo super delegates.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Our Fearless (and clueless) Leader
A few lines from George W Bush's two appearances last month on Fox News Sunday, giving us an unusual glimpse into the mind of this man (giving us about the same feeling as a glimpse of our parents "doing it"). Here now are the words of the man authorized to push "The Button":
“I think the experts would tell you we are not in recession. And they would tell you that there is a lot of uncertainty.”
"History takes a long time for us to reach. And there is no such thing as short-term history."
“Any president can make the decisions of how many troops we need (in Iraq). I mean, I could have increased troops or decreased troops in Korea, and we had a long-term security agreement… and so I — some of these arguments, I view, are — they just need to be — the people making these arguments need to think through exactly what they are saying.”
“I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans. And I understand that, a lot.”
“listen, I no more want to trample the civil liberties of the American people than anybody else does.”
“History will be the judge of an administration… It's going to take a long time to figure it out and so this is all — I could give you a whole, I could give you reams of books about criticisms of my administration. I understand this.”
And last but not least, though the decision process was exhaustive, my personal favorite...
"It's very hard to write the future history of America before the current history hasn't been fully written."
More better words weren't never have been spoken.
“I think the experts would tell you we are not in recession. And they would tell you that there is a lot of uncertainty.”
"History takes a long time for us to reach. And there is no such thing as short-term history."
“Any president can make the decisions of how many troops we need (in Iraq). I mean, I could have increased troops or decreased troops in Korea, and we had a long-term security agreement… and so I — some of these arguments, I view, are — they just need to be — the people making these arguments need to think through exactly what they are saying.”
“I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans. And I understand that, a lot.”
“listen, I no more want to trample the civil liberties of the American people than anybody else does.”
“History will be the judge of an administration… It's going to take a long time to figure it out and so this is all — I could give you a whole, I could give you reams of books about criticisms of my administration. I understand this.”
And last but not least, though the decision process was exhaustive, my personal favorite...
"It's very hard to write the future history of America before the current history hasn't been fully written."
More better words weren't never have been spoken.
The Effect of Sniffing Too Much Ditto Paper
It's sad enough for the first family of dirty politics, that they happen to be competing against Barack Obama, a man so apparently squeaky-clean that all they could scrape together was an alleged incident of plagiarism. Plagiarism? They stuck Capone with tax evasion, but at least they got him locked up. Besides, this charge was made all the more entertaining in that it came from a woman that claimed authorship of a book she didn't write (the Grammy-winning "It Takes A Village").
Nonetheless, in terms of impact, it was an "A-Ha!" moment that couldn't have been less riveting if it were, "A-Ha! That's the bank teller's pen!" or "A-Ha! The eggshell finish does work nicely in the guest bedroom!". Somewhere along the way it had been divulged that the line in question was written by Obama's campaign manager, who penned it for a congressional colleague's 2006 election. But that wouldn't keep the former first lady from missing yet another opportunity to take yet another ironic and well-worn turn toward the unoriginal.
She's trying. Like a Hollywood starlett after signing the big money-grab contract, trying to act her way out of a lousy script, Hillary Clinton is attempting to be the hip/cool female counterpart to Barack Obama and capture a larger chunk of the fresh new 20-something voter population.
First was her response to the Illinois senator's inspirational, relevent and widely popular "Yes We Can" video. Ms. Clinton released a me-too YouTube follow-up effort, a "We Are The World" ensemble piece as awkward in its construction as it was in its execution. The contrived piece left viewers with a warmed-over, "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" vibe, and an inescapably embarrassed feeling akin to watching your father dance techno.
Then came The Punchline. That scud missle she dropped upon the single biggest cable television audience of 2008, during their most recent debate. If the video was wrong, this was wrong on wrong with a side of wrong.
The hackneyed pasttime Hilary chose was something known as the "Debate Zinger". A sound byte one can own for the duration of his or her campaign, as Reagan enjoyed with his "There you go again" critique of then President Carter. Or GHW Bush's "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" proclamation, one he ultimately betrayed after winning the 1992 election. I'd say the best-delivered "Zinger" was the verbal sword the late senator Lloyd Bentzen drew to lance little Danny Quayle in 1998. The sitting Veep even teed it up for Bentzen, who did to the set-up for his "You're no Jack Kennedy" bomb what Manny Ramirez does to an 80mph change-up: take it yard.
This new line, Hillary envisioned, would be the video clip of the campaign, and as Sen. Obama responded to Brian Williams' question, she stood there with her pearly-white overbite aglow. She couldn't wait to drop it on Barack, on MSNBC and much of the Western Hemisphere. And when her moment came, she let her well-rehearsed ad-lib flow: "Using other people's words isn't 'Change you can belive in.' It's 'Change you can Xerox.'"
"Change you can Xerox"?
Obama shook his head at the former First Lady, who seems to lower the bar as much as a limbo artist. The audience would have been cricket-chirp silent were it not for a few hundred boos echoing through the auditorium. Even those in her section sat open-mouthed and stunned, making better fly-catchers than supporters.
Okay, forget that it was entirely inappropriate. Forget that it was dirty politics and a cheap attempt at a sound bite. Forget all that. Xerox?!? Weren't they a duplication company back before the computer chip? Has anyone used that reference since the 1970s?
Honestly. Has anyone even heard the name Xerox since the Carter-Ford debates? What in the world wide web was Hillary thinking? Short of rolling a mimeograph machine out onto the stage, she couldn't have tried to be more out of touch with today's pop culture. A culture watching her stand-up routine falter while downloading network sit-coms onto their iPhones.
Even with all that, at least it could have been funny. But she flat-out bombed. I had to explain what Xerox was to my teenage son. Here's a thought Hill, how bout "Change you can download?"? "Change you can drag-and-drop"? "Change you can import"? Or, to appeal to the broader 1.0 crowd, "Change you can cut and paste"? This was the post-Internet sequel to Pappa Bush not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. A "floppy disk" joke would have vaulted her into the '90s, for the love of God.
Okay, the Zinger was dead on arrival. So as a follow-up, Hilary reached into her holster and came out a-shootin' with, of all things, her recent Saturday Night Live drop. She referenced a humorous debate sketch in which the Obama character was faced with such grueling questions as, "Are you comfortable? Can I get you some coffee or a pillow?" Yet being that the show is watched every week by an audience safely reaching the dozens, it was lost on the vast majority of blue-collar Ohioans, many of which work early shifts and therefore are in bed long before the late-night variety show airs.
Campaign Co-Presidency is about as healthy as a face-down Jane Doe floating slowly along the Potomac. Not only has Hillary Clinton trusted the abilities of "her people" in Camp Clinton--despite their Tysonesque ability to burn effortlessly through tens of millions of campaign dollars. But she has put her fate in the hands of a writing staff that, given the material they have cranked out so far, might be best served drafting her political epitaph.
"Change you can Xerox"? They should have written her a few Nixon jokes while they were at it.
Nonetheless, in terms of impact, it was an "A-Ha!" moment that couldn't have been less riveting if it were, "A-Ha! That's the bank teller's pen!" or "A-Ha! The eggshell finish does work nicely in the guest bedroom!". Somewhere along the way it had been divulged that the line in question was written by Obama's campaign manager, who penned it for a congressional colleague's 2006 election. But that wouldn't keep the former first lady from missing yet another opportunity to take yet another ironic and well-worn turn toward the unoriginal.
She's trying. Like a Hollywood starlett after signing the big money-grab contract, trying to act her way out of a lousy script, Hillary Clinton is attempting to be the hip/cool female counterpart to Barack Obama and capture a larger chunk of the fresh new 20-something voter population.
First was her response to the Illinois senator's inspirational, relevent and widely popular "Yes We Can" video. Ms. Clinton released a me-too YouTube follow-up effort, a "We Are The World" ensemble piece as awkward in its construction as it was in its execution. The contrived piece left viewers with a warmed-over, "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" vibe, and an inescapably embarrassed feeling akin to watching your father dance techno.
Then came The Punchline. That scud missle she dropped upon the single biggest cable television audience of 2008, during their most recent debate. If the video was wrong, this was wrong on wrong with a side of wrong.
The hackneyed pasttime Hilary chose was something known as the "Debate Zinger". A sound byte one can own for the duration of his or her campaign, as Reagan enjoyed with his "There you go again" critique of then President Carter. Or GHW Bush's "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" proclamation, one he ultimately betrayed after winning the 1992 election. I'd say the best-delivered "Zinger" was the verbal sword the late senator Lloyd Bentzen drew to lance little Danny Quayle in 1998. The sitting Veep even teed it up for Bentzen, who did to the set-up for his "You're no Jack Kennedy" bomb what Manny Ramirez does to an 80mph change-up: take it yard.
This new line, Hillary envisioned, would be the video clip of the campaign, and as Sen. Obama responded to Brian Williams' question, she stood there with her pearly-white overbite aglow. She couldn't wait to drop it on Barack, on MSNBC and much of the Western Hemisphere. And when her moment came, she let her well-rehearsed ad-lib flow: "Using other people's words isn't 'Change you can belive in.' It's 'Change you can Xerox.'"
"Change you can Xerox"?
Obama shook his head at the former First Lady, who seems to lower the bar as much as a limbo artist. The audience would have been cricket-chirp silent were it not for a few hundred boos echoing through the auditorium. Even those in her section sat open-mouthed and stunned, making better fly-catchers than supporters.
Okay, forget that it was entirely inappropriate. Forget that it was dirty politics and a cheap attempt at a sound bite. Forget all that. Xerox?!? Weren't they a duplication company back before the computer chip? Has anyone used that reference since the 1970s?
Honestly. Has anyone even heard the name Xerox since the Carter-Ford debates? What in the world wide web was Hillary thinking? Short of rolling a mimeograph machine out onto the stage, she couldn't have tried to be more out of touch with today's pop culture. A culture watching her stand-up routine falter while downloading network sit-coms onto their iPhones.
Even with all that, at least it could have been funny. But she flat-out bombed. I had to explain what Xerox was to my teenage son. Here's a thought Hill, how bout "Change you can download?"? "Change you can drag-and-drop"? "Change you can import"? Or, to appeal to the broader 1.0 crowd, "Change you can cut and paste"? This was the post-Internet sequel to Pappa Bush not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. A "floppy disk" joke would have vaulted her into the '90s, for the love of God.
Okay, the Zinger was dead on arrival. So as a follow-up, Hilary reached into her holster and came out a-shootin' with, of all things, her recent Saturday Night Live drop. She referenced a humorous debate sketch in which the Obama character was faced with such grueling questions as, "Are you comfortable? Can I get you some coffee or a pillow?" Yet being that the show is watched every week by an audience safely reaching the dozens, it was lost on the vast majority of blue-collar Ohioans, many of which work early shifts and therefore are in bed long before the late-night variety show airs.
Campaign Co-Presidency is about as healthy as a face-down Jane Doe floating slowly along the Potomac. Not only has Hillary Clinton trusted the abilities of "her people" in Camp Clinton--despite their Tysonesque ability to burn effortlessly through tens of millions of campaign dollars. But she has put her fate in the hands of a writing staff that, given the material they have cranked out so far, might be best served drafting her political epitaph.
"Change you can Xerox"? They should have written her a few Nixon jokes while they were at it.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
"I Promise You The Most Ethical Blog EVER" (...the first of many broken promises)
Everybody remembers their first beer. The first time they tried cigarettes. That first adult-rated movie. But do we remember that first moment we got sucked into the vortex that is American politics? It's just as addictive, every bit the personality-altering vice that tears friends and families apart. And in the end, it leaves you far worse for the experience. It's like a drug, but without the high.
So I was minding my own business, creating television commercials, writing web site copy, posting on my sports blog and helping my autistic teenager cope with middle school. Then I overheard a CNN report on some element of the upcoming primaries. And I found myself scribbling down an opinion on a sheet of lined paper, typing blank notes on my desktop, finding message boards to blow out unproductive viewpoints to an electronic audience of anonymous "you suck!" responses (sheesh, like I didn't know that already). I had to be honest with myself: it's time I create a forum on the off chance someone may find merit in my words. Even if that someone is merely myself.
Too much is going on in this already-historic race for the White House, too many points are being missed here and someone needs to voice them. So as of today I've officially turned off my 'mute' button. Move over, Mrs. Clinton. I think I found my voice, too! (I'm even welling up as I type this...)
I hope you enjoy my words, and I hope I don't offend. But I'm sure that someone out there is bound to take issue with one of my takes. Please remember, it's only politics. Nothing more. And even the best candidate out there will soon end up a corrupt, waffling, fillibustering, filandering, hypocritical tax-and-spend liberal commie neo-fascist conservative who doesn't care about our nation's safety, environment, global warming, stem-cell research, the sanctity of life enough to get out of our reproductive systems and save our planet, end the war, create jobs and just plain care about me.
Okay, there. I think I touched on everything.
So I was minding my own business, creating television commercials, writing web site copy, posting on my sports blog and helping my autistic teenager cope with middle school. Then I overheard a CNN report on some element of the upcoming primaries. And I found myself scribbling down an opinion on a sheet of lined paper, typing blank notes on my desktop, finding message boards to blow out unproductive viewpoints to an electronic audience of anonymous "you suck!" responses (sheesh, like I didn't know that already). I had to be honest with myself: it's time I create a forum on the off chance someone may find merit in my words. Even if that someone is merely myself.
Too much is going on in this already-historic race for the White House, too many points are being missed here and someone needs to voice them. So as of today I've officially turned off my 'mute' button. Move over, Mrs. Clinton. I think I found my voice, too! (I'm even welling up as I type this...)
I hope you enjoy my words, and I hope I don't offend. But I'm sure that someone out there is bound to take issue with one of my takes. Please remember, it's only politics. Nothing more. And even the best candidate out there will soon end up a corrupt, waffling, fillibustering, filandering, hypocritical tax-and-spend liberal commie neo-fascist conservative who doesn't care about our nation's safety, environment, global warming, stem-cell research, the sanctity of life enough to get out of our reproductive systems and save our planet, end the war, create jobs and just plain care about me.
Okay, there. I think I touched on everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)