Orwell On Socialism's Opportunity

Along with far too many other books, I keep at my bedside George Orwell's Why I Write, published by Penguin Books in its Great Ideas series. What follows is something I read to my wife the other night. (I am such a romantic; she yawned.) Please permit me to occasionally add things in [ ], and to use boldface when I think it necessary for emphasis.

From Page 71, George Orwell's Why I Write:

The fact that we are are at war [and in economic disarray] has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.

The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe [and apparently the United States]. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country [or their retirement plan] is in danger. War [and economic anxiety] is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war [and economic disarray] brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual [you must share; sacrifice]. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people in England [or America] who really want to see their country conquered by Germany [or Wall Street, or jihadists]. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler [and income disparity] means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto. [It is interesting to read news reports of Michelle Obama's frequent and recent meetings with military families in swing states.]

But do I mean there will be no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind.

There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence [like Weathermen bombs]. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth [or maybe they will even help]. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated, because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war [and economic crisis] than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro -- in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. ... It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war [and economic] aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinon can group itself.

I suggest the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
   
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
   
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic [read 'radical egalitarian'] lines.
   
4. Immediate Dominion status for India [Iraq?], with power to secede when the war is over.
   
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured [sic] peoples are to be represented.
   
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.
   

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.

[end of Orwell quote]

______________

Interesting: "...turning this war into a revolutionary war..." in order to produce a socialist state. Sounds eerily familiar.

Time to "cling."

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Proving Two Things? Biden Uses Fear; Cautions That Next President Will Have To Do Hard Things, The Sort Of Things George W. Bush Has Done

From ABC News:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee [Joe Biden] warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you--not financially to help him--we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right....

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I am not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us....

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Perhaps what we have here is the failure NOT to communicate. One can't imagine that this sits well with Barack Obama. But maybe it does. Maybe it sets him up perfectly. After all, he's the one who insisted that we must not play the fear card in the same paragraph in which he told us that Americans are less safe than ever. Maybe he's well-placed to blame all sorts of things on the Bush Administration; such blame will provide ample cover for months, even if a President Obama himself is the one worthy of blame. And maybe we are already hearing the Obama camp admit that "facts on the ground" change everything; maybe we are witnessing exactly the sort of thing the Bush Administration had to do when faced with the BIG PICTURE: it had to make "tough decisions" that were "unpopular" and brought "the polling so down."

Maybe in the end, we are seeing Joe Biden set us up for the fact that Barack Obama is himself McSame, or more of the same, or four more years of George W. Bush.

Or maybe, just maybe, we've heard Joe Biden play a different sort of fear card: Barack Obama is NOT ready to be president.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Sage Of Delaware: In Touch

As reported in the Grapevine:


Veep Mistakes

During Thursday's vice presidential debate one of the candidates said, "Along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon," and, "Our commanding General in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan," and that Barack Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad."

None of those statements is true. So who made them? Was it Sarah Palin, whose lack of foreign policy knowledge was said to be a liability?

No, it was Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

As The Wall Street Journal also notes today, Biden invited Americans to join him at Katie's Restaurant in Wilmington, Delaware, to witness the struggles of the middle class. Problem is, Katie's closed down about 20 years ago.

________

Democrats: Joe Biden is not fit for the presidency (that's why we rejected him twice), but he is fit to be ONE heartbeat from the presidency; what qualifies him is his vast foreign policy experience. (We'll ignore the domestic blunder about Katie's Restaurant.)

Excellent!

©2008.

Hearing What We Want To Hear

During Thursday night's debate, I wasn't sure of what I heard. I turned to a couple of folks who were sitting with me in one of the local pubs; the big debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had drawn a decent crowd (for these parts). I asked whether I had misheard Sarah Palin. "Did she just say 'Taliban?'" I inquired. One man, Bob, who operates a NH political website where I "work" as a blogger, corrected me. "She said, 'Talabani,'" he replied.

Apparently, well, not everyone who opines for a living asks rather simple questions. Perhaps since I do not opine for a living, I am in the habit of making sure I have the simplest things right. At least I try.

E.J. Dionne Jr., that esteemed but always left-leaning columnist from the Washington Post, got caught playing the charlatan on Friday's "The Diane Rehm Show," broadcast on National Public Radio. The ever-attentive James Taranto gives us an example of people hearing what isn't there, and of people unwilling to look anything less than omniscient. Read Taranto:

A hilarious example of press bias against Palin occurred last Friday on "The Diane Rehm Show," a production of Washington's WAMU-FM. The exchange between hostess Rehm, caller Tom of Norwich, Vt., and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne begins at about 46:10 of the "10:00 News Roundup":

Tom: I just wonder why not more has been made of the statement by Palin during the debate last night that "Maliki and the Talabani"--this is a quote from the transcript--"also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to the point of victory." The Talibani obviously are our absolute enemy and have been since 9/11; Maliki, our central ally in Iraq. This to me is a tremendous blunder, revealing a very superficial familiarity with these sorts of terms.

Rehm: Thanks for calling, Tom. . . . E.J.?

Dionne: I think that "superficial" is absolutely the right word for the knowledge or the lack of knowledge Palin showed yesterday. I'm glad the caller raised that one, and I suspect there is going to be a scouring of that transcript for exactly that sort of gaffe. That has echoes of some of the stuff she said to Katie Couric.

If you look at the debate transcript, however, you will see that the reference is not to "the Talabani" but to Talabani--as in Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq.

Indeed, it is quite clear Gov. Palin was talking about Talabani, and not the Taliban; because I was in the back of the pub while watching the debate I can excuse myself for mishearing her. But I at least asked someone who did not mishear -- someone who did not strike a pose but rather got things right. And I recall wondering whether what Gov. Palin said -- or DIDN'T say -- would be leapt on by the extremist blogosphere. Who would've thought that E.J. Dionne and his interlocutor TOM would have spoken with authority, or some semblance of it, on something never said?

(I do find it interesting that in the above quote Taliban is spelled both Talabani and Talibani; I have no idea why but it does strike me as a curiosity.)

Regardless. The fact is that there is an a priori assumption out there that Gov. Palin is a dope -- a lot like the dope in the White House. She's Bush with lipstick while McCain possesses Cheney's age and pugnacity, and very little else. The McCain/Palin ticket is merely a pastiche, even an inversion of the Bush/Cheney ticket. Palin HAD to have meant the Taliban precisely because TOM had never heard of Talabani AND because she is, as we all know, just plain stupid (and TOM is not).

Good thing that E.J. Dionne Jr., who is often on Ms. Rehm's show on Fridays for the "News Roundup," has instilled confidence in his readers.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

My Feelings About Sarah Palin's Debate Performance

I have been doing it so long I might as well say I've been doing it forever; it's a very disagreeable habit. Every time I sit in church -- watching how people worship, and listening to prayers and sermons -- I imagine what some outsider who has dropped in for a visit might be thinking -- some gigantesque intellectual, a skeptical professor perhaps -- as he or she observes what is done and said in the presence and name of an "awesome God." It is interesting how I often I find myself squirming when I yield myself to such fantasies. Of course, I recognize nearly any practice, system, custom, ritual or ceremony can appear impenetrable to the uninitiated eye; even an opera, play or symphony can be esoterica to those untrained in the finer arts. Nevertheless, whenever I find myself in church playing the role of the outsider, I discover that I am often utterly uncomfortable. It all seems so strange. No. It all seems so weird, even insane.

OK. Perhaps I've gone too far. I admit this has not happened to me in all churches, nor has it happened to me in any one church all the time. But I have indeed witnessed what is clearly insanity, especially in those lower-type churches, ones given to informalism; you know, those pentecostal churches that have open mic Sundays. I tell you, when I have sat in services where there is virtually no order, authority or clearly defined leader, I am doing all I can not to call 911.

Last night I had the same sort of feeling -- that feeling of identifying with someone else in a psychological act of transpositionalism (invented term) -- when I was watching the debate. Like a fool, perhaps, I was thinking about what my more liberal friends were thinking and feeling when they watched and heard Sarah Palin. Indeed, I found that if I projected some of my own types of biases onto the motives of my friends, or if I actually absorbed into myself the sort of biases they articulated beforehand, I found, as you can expect, that I was terribly uncomfortable. Sarah Palin looked, at least at times and even if for but the briefest moments, like some sort of automaton. She was a bit like a kind of sexy android from Heavy Metal or Blade Runner. OK. Perhaps that says too much, but it did appear, at times, not so much that she was reading from a teleprompter but that she had become one.

Forgive me. I like Sarah Palin. I like her in many ways because she comes from my sort of stock. I know that. I get it. I've seen babes with dirt under their fingernails; I've dated one or two: Sarah Palin is not the sort of woman a man would have ever had to hold the branches for while bushwhacking in the Great North Woods. In fact, she wouldn't need the branches held because she would be leading the way. Sarah Palin is clearly, at least to some, a BMW -- a beautiful mountain woman.

And I also like Sarah Palin in a sort of inversion of the way my father hated the New York Yankees, who always, or so he spat, won: she's the underdog challenging the well-heeled and conceited pinstripes in the Beltway. I am rooting for the smaller payroll, the roster of the Lesser Knowns.

But there were times when she made me leave my seat. Not because she was sabotaging something. She wasn't. Nor was she imploding or melting down. But what she was doing was missing opportunities to turn Joe Biden's words around on him. Because she was constantly looking at her notes when Joe Biden was speaking (I recognize that's OK for her to do), she would miss things he said that she could have rebutted without any notes. One example:

When Sen. Biden (apparently wrongly) insisted that John McCain also "voted against funding our troops in Iraq," he added that Sen. McCain did so because there was a timeline provision for troop withdrawal added to the bill. Of course, all sharp debate coaches were probably screaming at the telly, as Mr. Biden had just informed the American people that John McCain had a different but apparently rational reason for rejecting the bill. A shrewder debater would not have given Sarah Palin or the viewers any clues about Sen. McCain's motives. Sen. Biden should have just let it all hang in the obscurity of implication: McCain rejected the bill because he does not care for our troops.

Hurray, the door was wide open, and yet Sarah Palin somehow did not walk through it. And not a more courteous gesture could the gentlemanly Biden make! Here was an opportunity for Gov. Palin to think on her feet: 'Jeez, Joe. Don't you think a timeline is not in the best interests of both our troops and our objectives? Timelines are a bit like an invitation to capitulation via micromanagement of war, for it essentially says to our enemy, "You can stop fighting us now and return to your vicious objectives after we leave on this particular date." No wonder John McCain voted against it. Oh, and by the way, since I am not an archivist in the US Senate, I can't immediately refute your claims. Are you willing to provide our campaign with the documents that prove Sen. McCain -- and Barack Obama -- did what you are asserting?'

And when Senator Biden said this about his campaign's plans for Afghanistan, Sarah Palin missed a real chance to score major points:

"With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.

The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now -- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.

He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan." [emphasis added]

Had Gov. Palin been willing to take a risk now and again and directly challenge Joe Biden's words -- not words two or three years old but those spoken right then -- she might have said this, though prefaced with a laugh:

"That's rather funny, Joe. I wonder if you see the irony. I mentioned using the principles of the surge in Afghanistan. You say they won't work, and then you not only call for a key ingredient to those principles -- 'more troops' -- you spell out pretty much key aspects of the Bush Doctrine: Building governments, investing in infrastructure. John McCain and I very much agree with our military advisers in this key area. I am glad to hear that Barack Obama and Joe Biden agree with us and what John McCain has been working towards since the beginning of the War on Terror: peaceful democracies in the Middle East and its surrounding regions."

These are but two of the several if not many opportunities missed by Sarah Palin. And I have to say that, without even identifying with my liberal friends, these missed opportunities irked me. But I recognize that these were not fatal misses; but had they been properly exploited, they may have proven fatal to Barack Obama's campaign.

I can understand, really, why Sarah Palin might make my liberal friends squirm. There were times that I found her "Aw, shucks" and "Doggone it" affects a little too premeditated: at times her attempts to appeal to "Joe Six-Pack" (Oiks!) seemed far too much like political artifice. The down-to-earth stuff was just a bit too canned for me, too designed. I know that a bunch of midwestern- and western-types in the media defended Gov. Palin's diction, pronunciation and cadence as all very familiar and real. Maybe I am tone deaf to Gov. Palin; maybe this is my east coast snobbery rearing its head. But the fact is I don't mind casual speech; I engage in it all the time. It just seemed that there were moments her idioms were too forced to be authentic.

OK. Where do I stand in all of this? Well, I should think my last post was clear. She won the debate because Joe Biden was not able to separate himself from her by the leagues and leagues his vast experience should have provided him. As I said, he was merely adequate, which is equal to failure. She came across as calm and confident; and she seemed bright in a way that was not simply cognitive: she seemed to actually sort of radiate. There is a light about her; well, perhaps not so much a light as an aura, a lambent gleam, a shimmer. And she looks unflappable; she was not daunted at any point.

Lastly, she won because of one thing, one very important thing: No one in this entire election season has been under as much pressure -- not by a long shot -- as Gov. Palin. Her every pore and corpuscle, every preposition and conjunction, have been scrutinized in a very compressed time: she comes in with virtually no national experience, and yet she did not waver, nor did she embarrass, nor did she fail. Her family has been abused, mocked and derided. Her parenting has been doubted, questioned, and dismissed. Her background has been explored and found wanting. And yet, without so much as a sigh, when she finished debating, she waved and smiled at America, walked to the center of the stage, thanked Joe Biden, and then took her little baby in her arms -- a seamless transition from one role to another.

She is impressive, I'll say that.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

An Unbelievable Embarrassment: Cringe Reflex On High

I am afraid I will have to offend some of my readers today. Not that it will do any good, but I offer my apologies in advance of what I am about to say: Readers, forgive me.

Last night, as I watched the much-awaited debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, I found myself unable to sit or stand still. I was doing everything I could not to pace; instead, I stood and fidgeted, I trod a small circle. I left the room, I went outside. I flinched. I winced. I said "Ouch!" I did everything I could to stay cheerfully mild. I discovered, to my shame, that I could not.

In the end all I could do was say, "Poor, poor Joe Biden."
____________________

Senator Joe Biden. He's a legend in Delaware. He's a legend in the Senate. Nay, he IS the Senate, at least for most of us who were mere children when he first took office. He's a fixture of the Democratic Party. He has been the stuff of some of the wildest tales told about Senate hearings: He has reproached, chided, upbraided, rebuked, rebuffed, and rejected the likes of Robert Bork. He has raised his voice to men who now preside on the Supreme Court, men who barely made it through the very gauntlet which is Joe Biden.

This senatorial and legislative behemoth, this veritable leviathan of legislation, renowned for his 35 years of service to this country, failed -- abjectly, fully and undeniably publicly -- to put an upstart country-girl-small-state governor in her place. Not only did he not annihilate her in the debate's first five minutes, he permitted her to remain relatively equal to him in nearly every way. He did not impress us with his vast and superior command of all things political: his responses were adequate, and that's all. But mere adequacy is grossly insufficient; in a debate like this, adequacy is failure. Clearly, he never really distanced himself from his opponent. She remained doggedly confident; she did not lose a single ounce of confidence, her aplomb. She remained controlled, poised, eager -- and defiantly cheery. And she without a hint of embarrassment looked directly into the camera and spoke what we all knew -- and she knew that we all knew -- were some clearly canned set-pieces. But the fact is that she did all of this with pride, gusto, elegance; she laughed at diffidence and shame, and made her case to America. She came out of the debate liked by more Americans than when she went in.

But the Great Peacemaker's Great Elder Statesman, Joe Biden, made himself look like a dried-up old Washington insider who merely played verbal games: Instead of blowing Gov. Palin and the country away, he simply failed. The rookie was not fanned by the legendary CY Young award-winning pitcher; in fact, the rookie ended up on first with a 13-pitch walk. The novice was never schooled by her master. In that, Joe Biden's performance was a profound and legendary embarrassment.

A dear acquaintance of mine (I love him but we are not close) wrote a very well-received op-ed in New Hampshire's only state-wide daily paper. He was pitching for an Obama victory as the state headed into the last week's of the NH primary season. And in that ably written op-ed, my friend compared essentially the length of time it took Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to get where they were in December 2007. Hillary Clinton, far older than Barack Obama, had begun at a higher social rung than did he (at birth); she had a privileged upbringing, attending the best schools; she was a lawyer and first lady, and yet at her age was only now ready to run for president. By comparison, Barack Obama had actually accomplished far more in far less time, and he began with far less. The op-ed writer remarked:

"Obama's accomplishments show greater efficiency and clarity of purpose, forming productive alliances, making the most of his comparatively short career."

In effect, or so I believe, the op-ed writer could have been asking, "If Ms. Clinton was only ready to be president when she turned 61, how much more ready would Barack Obama be when he was 61 if he was ready at 47?"

Undoubtedly the same kind of question could be asked of Sarah Palin. If Gov. Palin is clearly fit to debate Joe Biden with only five weeks' experience, what would she be like when she was Joe Biden's age? If an inexperienced candidate can be considered by many pundits to have equaled the vastly more experienced Joe Biden in a debate, what does that say about her potential compared to his -- or even Barack Obama's?

The fact is clear in the plainest political sense. This sense may not be common sense; it may not spill over into the general populace. But the fact is that Sen. Joe Biden lost last night, terribly. No, he did not walk off the stage blushing, weeping, looking utterly dejected. No, he did not appear to wobble, nor did he begin to mutter circumlocutions like a doddering old man. But that Sarah Palin was able to walk off the stage last night in St. Louis, Missouri, waving and smiling and remarking that the whole thing was fun -- without being the slightest bit delusional -- proves that Joe Biden lost every second of last night's debate. Every second.

Lastly, even Sen. Biden's strongest points were utterly weak. He had an enormous debate advantage: he is a senator. Since Gov. Palin is not, he could pretend to talk authoritatively and knowingly about John McCain and Barack Obama's Senate records. Why would a governor know anything about such records, many of which are obscured by legislative politics and the trivialities that such politics engenders? Sarah Palin, as an obvious outsider, could not counter what the presumably all-knowing senator claimed to know. But it was precisely her outsider status that Joe Biden assiduously avoided: he did not argue against her record as governor -- for then he was in unknown territory -- he argued instead against John McCain's alleged record as a senator. Of course, today we are all learning that Sen. Biden essentially fabricated both Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's records in the Senate; he could do so simply by taking advantage of Sarah Palin's strength, namely, her outsider status. Last night, Sen. Biden was quite safe dropping complete or half-truths about his two colleagues in the senate chambers, realizing his interlocutor could not counter him during a live televised debate.

But all this shows the weakness of Sen. Biden, for even with his fabrications and assumed privileged position, he still failed to render Sarah Palin irrelevant, inconsequential or uninformed.

That is why the Contratimes poll, indubitably infallible, shows that, of those who were asked to declare who REALLY won the debate, 0 percent said Joe Biden won.

0 percent! That is just a few points lower than his class placement in his graduating class from law school. OK. Unfair. But could I really resist?

©2008/All Rights Reserved.

Denigrating Mediocrity Denigrates Democracy? Dismissing The Palin Candidacy

In 2004, on the eve of the general election, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper in which I explored a brilliant comment by the well-known Republican satirist, P. J. O'Rourke. I had heard Mr. O'Rourke, who lives nearby in this part of New Hampshire, speaking earlier in the year on New Hampshire Public Radio. Concerning what he said during that broadcast, I wrote, in part:

‘Let us stipulate that George Bush is a mediocrity, that he’s not particularly bright,’ said Mr. O’Rourke (and I paraphrase). ‘OK, fine. But to say that a mediocrity is unfit for the Oval Office is essentially antidemocratic, going against the very ideals of the American Dream. For if Mr. Bush is unfit for office because he isn’t brilliant, then the alternative is that only smart people can hold that office. If that’s the case, we’ve become a meritocracy, even an aristocracy of the mind.’

I would like readers for a moment to simply insert any name into Mr. O'Rourke's unarguably astute observation. Just add Barack Obama's name, or Joe Biden's. But maybe you should put Sarah Palin's name in the whole of O'Rourke's equation -- in bold letters.

Let us indeed concede, at least for the sake of argument, that Sarah Palin is the most mediocre person in the world, at least the Republican world. Considered it so conceded.

But are we not at worst conceited if we insist that a mediocre person -- and surely none of us here is one whit tepid, bland, or insipid -- is unfit for the vice presidency of the United States?

I recall arguing with a liberal Democrat friend during the 2000 election cycle. He had worked himself into quite a fury; I swear there were flecks of foam gathered in the corners of his mouth. You see, he could not comprehend that anyone could consider George W. Bush a viable candidate; my friend denounced the man as an idiot, a dolt, a veritable ingrate.

As you should all know by now, I've never been a big fan of Mr. Bush's. And I can assure you that in 2000, the man was nowhere to be found on my political radar screen. But I was at the very least somewhat taken aback that my friend would call George W. Bush stupid and incompetent. To counter this, I recall making this foolish statement:

"I don't quite know how you can call him 'stupid.' That man can't be all that stupid who earn degrees from two Ivy League schools (Yale and Harvard's Business School)."

I cannot tell you how counter-effective my statement instantly became. My friend became even more irate, denouncing me as stupid for not realizing that Bush was a "mere legacy" child of Yale and Harvard, that he was an "affirmative action" placement for the stupid but obscenely rich.

It struck me as odd how quickly my liberal friend had turned against such an esteemed credential as an Ivy League diploma; I noted a paradox. For only years earlier, America had been told that the "men of the people," the good old southern boy Bill Clinton and his sidekick Al Gore, were proud holders of Ivy League degrees (Clinton, a Georgetown undergrad, earned his JD at Yale). These added to their bona fides; they could not possibly be typical dopes. But amazingly, George W. Bush in 2000 was dismissed for being nothing but a privileged white kid whose daddy bribed Yale to serve as his son's reform school.

And then, of course, 2008 came along and we find ourselves constantly reminded that Barack Obama is qualified to be president because he holds degrees from two Ivy League schools.

(Did you know that George W. Bush actually performed better at Yale than his contemporary, Sen. John Kerry? You probably didn't, but, oh, how we heard about that C-student in the White House!)

Now comes Sarah Palin. Note that the Democrats, the leftist media, and even some of her own Republican colleagues have turned the American Dream upside down: Not everyone can be what they want to become, Sarah, and you should just cease aspiring to America's highest echelons. As I wrote in 2004 in my letter, such language does destroy the American Dream:

[Mr.] O’Rourke’s comments are quasi-revolutionary. For he affirms nearly every high school and university commencement address given over the last 30 years (‘Believe in yourself and you can be anything’), and yet subverts the popular paradigm. To oppose Bush or any president on grounds of intellectual inferiority is tantamount to declaring that some people - the mediocre - should not be allowed to fulfill their dreams. Only the brilliant should be in high places.

In other words, a democracy such as ours is only open up to a certain point. There are some places the mediocre cannot go, at least when it comes to participating in the governance of what is, or so it is said in theory, a nation governed by its own people.

I've already spotted, like you have, extremely damning commentary about Sarah Palin's lack of academic credentials. Writers have mocked her for attending the obscure North Idaho College and less-obscure University of Idaho. Curiously, nary a word is said about Joe Biden's self-described profoundly mediocre academic ventures at both Delaware and Syracuse (and we all know that neither school can ever pretend to be Ivy League). Sen. Biden's Wikipedia is rather telling (if true):

Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont, where he was athletically, not academically, oriented and a natural leader among the students. He graduated in 1961.

Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, where by his own later description he was a lazy student. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965, ranked 506th of 688 in his class.

He went on to receive his JD from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.

____________________

Thursday night is the "big debate" between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden. It is a one-shot deal for both of them. Here's hoping they both do well. But we can expect a billion words printed, published and voiced about "mediocrity" in the coming days. In anticipation of those words, I would like to conclude here the same way I concluded my letter in 2004 (with slight modifications):

One must consider carefully: We’ve all known smooth talkers who chat themselves into great jobs, only to drive co-workers and employers batty. Often the less stellar interviewee for a job turns out to be a winner. No doubt Bush has milked the diamond-in-the-rough image effectively, while oleaginous Kerry has become all-things-to-all-men so completely, he is nearly no one. All to say that – and please forgive the doggerel – a master of oration may be a disaster for a nation.

If we are truly committed to diversity and tolerance, if we are to dance about celebrating our grand differences, then ousting [or rejecting] a president [or candidate] because he [or she] is intellectually mediocre is philosophically repugnant.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Joe Biden And The Palin Paradox

Sarah Palin has been hammered by her critics for her apparently inept performances during her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. I'll concede, perhaps solely for the sake of argument, that Gov. Palin has been, at times, less than stellar, at least in the finer points of national statesmanship. I'll admit, too, that some people are comfortable with her having a steep learning curve; some folks are especially comfortable with that curve knowing that it appears, in many ways, to be less steep than Barack Obama's.

But a giant white donkey and white elephant are in the room, and nary a Democrat can see them. One beast is Joe Biden. The other is the Palin Paradox.

Without question, the veteran of the fabulous foursome vying for the White House -- Joe Biden -- should be the most competent of the bunch. He should be, at the very least, the person least prone to gaffes and missteps: Having served in the Senate for 35 years, he should of all people know the power, specifically the negative or adverse power, of a gaffe.

But on Monday of this past week, Mr. Biden blundered his way to denouncing his own running mate in something of a confessional to Katie Couric. Just watch for yourself (I've posted this before, but I can't get enough of it):




That Sen. Biden admits his own campaign's attack ad on John McCain is "terrible" is amazing in what it reveals: a sharply divided house. But what's the outcome of Sen. Biden's confession? Sen. Biden was reportedly scolded by the Obama campaign and thus later backpedaled on the severity of the unarguably grotesque ad to which Ms. Couric referred. Ouch!

Again, this same week, the inimitable senior senator from Delaware criticized President Bush's handling of the current (and alleged) financial crisis:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Attentive history buffs immediately corrected Sen. Biden, pointing out that Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed and that TV was not even yet commercially available as a medium for mass communication. Ouch!

At a recent campaign stop Mr. Biden was asked a question by a woman who stood behind a cordon; she was curious about whether the Obama-Biden ticket supported "clean coal" technology. Here's a report about his reply and its relation to the facts on the ground, so to speak:

[Biden's] response was, “We are not supporting clean coal… no coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them, over there (China).” But here's what Obama said at the Democratic National Convention: “As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”

Ouch!

And then there's this report about Sen. Biden's thoughts on bailing out financial insurance institutions:

Biden also told the Today Show that he was against the AIG bail out when it was first announced, even though he is now for it. That didn't fit well with the Obama campaign’s attack on John McCain for the same flip-flop. Obama told Matt Lauer, "I think Joe should have waited, (to voice his opposition to the bailout) as well."

Of course, the list goes on ... and on.

Apparently there isn't a Democrat of note, or even a major news outlet, that has shown any interest whether Sen. Biden has the slightest understanding of the "Obama Doctrine," or even the Obama objective. Sarah Palin, by comparison, has been reviled by her critics for failing to handle Charlie Gibson's inane question about the elusive "Bush Doctrine," or her seemingly naïve defense of her foreign policy creds given during her interview with Katie Couric. But both queries by both interviewers were quite lame, even sophomoric: they were lame and sophomoric because they were intended to blind-side a governor of a state, to make her falter and look foolish, despite such questions' dubious relevance to her currently emerging role. Amazingly, a SENIOR Democratic senator, one of the most senior of ALL senators, is given a pass when he blows easy and plain questions, or even when he blatantly rebukes his own running mate's anti-McCain ads, or contradicts the policy positions of that same running mate. Joe Biden clearly fails NOT in his understanding about foreign policy. He simply fails to get his own campaign correct. He's somehow fit for office while Sarah Palin is not because she can't answer questions that are indeed arcane and difficult. Joe Biden can actually talk like a fool and win support; while Sarah Palin, who has not made a single comparable blunder to any of the aforementioned Joe Biden gaffes, can actually talk rather plainly and yet is deemed a fool for doing so.

Curiously, Sarah Palin is rejected by Democrats offhand as unsuitable for the vice presidency; being "one heartbeat away," she is not ready to step in as president should the need arise. However, Joe Biden's bid to be president was overwhelmingly rejected by his own party -- HIS OWN PARTY, not his antagonists' party -- and he was even rejected TWICE; but overnight he is apparently more than ready to be president should the need arise in an Obama presidency. Joe Biden's party did not want him to have ANY heartbeats IN the Oval Office; but they think a man who blunders the simplest questions and talking points is now more than capable to sit just "one heartbeat away." Amazing. And ouch.

All this amounts to the paradox -- the true Palin Paradox -- given us by the media and partisans utterly devoted to all things Obama. It is a paradox, and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is not, or that it is in any way enlightened.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Who Needs Karl Rove When You Have ... Joe Biden?

Following up on "Who Needs Karl Rove? (Part 2)", I direct readers to the following interview given yesterday by Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate.



Where does Joe Biden leave us? And what are Democrats -- middle American Democrats -- thinking when they hear this sort of confession?

Mr. Biden thinks that his OWN RUNNING MATE'S advertisement denigrating Sen. McCain is "terrible." What does this admission say about the very health of the Obama-Biden ticket? And if these sorts of admissions are already coming from the Barack Obama campaign, what should we expect once Barack Obama assumes the presidency? If this no-holds-barred tactlessness, this scorch-the-earth-and-screw-the-handicapped-senator-and-his-satanic VP is de rigueur for Obama Nation BEFORE the Democrats have the White House, what will that Nation do if Sen. Obama did something untoward, controversial, stupid or, God forbid, illegal, after he attains the White House?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone in good conscience at this moment can support the Obama-Biden ticket. I really don't. But people of clearly bad conscience do support that ticket, people like "Forrester," a commenter over at FoxNews.com. Note what Forrester says:

“one reason McCain doesn’t use computers much is that his injuries from Vietnam prevent him from doing so” . . . riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Stephen Hawking can use a computer, but John McCain, not so much.

The idiocy of Forrester's comment is evident if one pauses for only the slightest moment. Moreover, his idiocy is pervasive; I've heard this unbelievably stupid statement uttered by callers to talk radio. (Forgive my incendiary remarks!)

The fact is that John McCain is simply a different person: according to reports, it HURTS John McCain to use the computer keyboard. But the paraplegic with a keyboard or the man with Lou Gehrig's Disease are not necessarily in pain while tapping out sentences or using voice-activated systems. Sure John McCain could probably afford to purchase an adaptive keyboard, but why should he bother when his wife is willing to type in his stead? Those of us who can actually feel pain know that pain can severely limit; even temporary pain stops a person in his or her steps.

What distances me from those who support the Obama campaign is that such folks, many of whom are my friends and neighbors, seem quite able to tolerate a level of cruelty I simply can't. The abject cruelty shown not only to Mr. McCain but to his VP pick is beyond the pale, and it is not a cruelty hurled from the bottom of some pit, but from society's highest echelons. Barack Obama APPROVED an advertisement that was cruel; and whether by intent or sheer ignorance, such cruelty is inexcusable. And only a complete incompetent could not find a brutal, cruel and even vicious essay or commentary written or voiced about Ms. Palin less than a stone's throw from this website.

Barack Obama is here to help us feel good about America again? Today, that strikes this writer as a rather cruel joke.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

I Was Wrong: Bill O'Reilly And Barack Obama Negotiate

I was simply wrong.

This past Friday I posted comments about the much-awaited (I guess) interview between Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's, I mean, the DNC's Barack Obama. In my comments I said that I thought Mr. O'Reilly did a reasonably decent job, that he asked tough questions and managed the interview well.

I also said that I felt Barack Obama did rather well, too.

After watching the interview a second time, I have to say that I was wrong in several places. First, while Mr. O'Reilly did ask some tough questions, he made something of a buffoon of himself -- and gave Sen. Obama some much-needed relief -- when he buddied up to the senator in a faux display of unity, with the two of them talking of saddling up and riding off to retrieve $78 billion in foreign aid that has been allegedly senselessly squandered. It was a very low moment in journalism, vapid, silly; sticky with narcissism.

I also believe, and I only touched on this on Friday, that Mr. O'Reilly sabotages his own interview by failing to self-edit. The guy, clearly, cannot shut up, and his leading questions, all padded out, just make him sound like, I don't know, Keith Olbermann, but without the glasses. Like Olbermann, he's quite taken with himself, and it shows in his posture, his self-referential remarks, and his over-wrought need to express where he agrees with Sen. Obama.

I note, too, that the very first question he asked his post-interview guests, Democrat Jane Hall and Republican Monica Crowley, was about him, about whether he made a fool of himself. Of course, he quickly emended the question with more SELF-reference: it was not all about him, he conceded.

But maybe it was all about him. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly represents the fulfillment of every journalist's dream: to finally interview great figures as equals, or even inferiors, injecting oneself in every sentence. Surely young journalists hope that their next story will be the one that breaks something huge, that brings them attention. Surely such a hope tempts reporters to inject themselves into their stories, eager for the big "gotcha moment," bringing great acclaim their way. Isn't Bill O'Reilly just the logical conclusion of a journalist's ambitions, holding court on all matters of state and culture?

When I heard yesterday Mr. O'Reilly's Friday radio program rebroadcast on some AM station (there is no decent talk radio on Sundays), I heard him tell his listeners that the reason he ran his interview with Barack Obama moments before John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was because of conditions set by the Obama campaign. Apparently, as one caller noted, John McCain is too much of a gentleman to have tried to upstage Barack Obama the Thursday night Mr. Obama gave his acceptance speech at his party's convention. John McCain waited till the next day to try to upstage the Democrats' candidate. But Mr. Obama, or so Mr. O'Reilly suggested, would only agree to an interview with O'Reilly if Fox ran the interview before McCain's speech. If this is true, it is stunning. Apparently it is true, as Mr. O'Reilly said that his hands were essentially tied: if he was going to have a shot at Mr. Obama then he would have to comply with the campaign's wishes. But the journalistic integrity of Mr. O'Reilly is now rather suspect, for he's admitted to being used by a political campaign. One wonders in light of such news how else Mr. O'Reilly has been used by the campaign in this interview.

As to Mr. Obama himself, he clearly remains an affable and likable chap. But that he squirmed and dodged and split already split hairs regarding his lack of support of the clearly and demonstrably successful surge in Iraq; that he could not simply say, "I was wrong," speaks volumes to me, and those volumes are resoundingly negative. He was wrong, and we all know it. And we all know he knows we know it. Yet from Mr. Obama we get nothing, really, but evasion, shrouded in the admission that the surge was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams, meaning that everyone was wrong about the surge. (That Sen. Joe Biden yesterday actually took credit† for the successes in Anbar province, or so he offered on the Meet The Press, is a stunning example of the sort of doublespeak he and Mr. Obama enjoy.)

To think, George W. Bush is a bad president because of his alleged intransigence. Amazing. Apparently if Barack Obama is elected president, he promises to give us a third term of George Bush's inability to change course.

So, I was wrong in my assessment of the O'Reilly/Obama summit, at least in part. There is much that commends it, but there is more that condemns it. It strikes me as two men using each other for personal gain. If that is what it is, I am left feeling like I've watched something really rather unseemly. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next three installments, the next of which airs tonight.

†Senator Joe Biden, Sept. 6, 2008, on NBC's "Meet The Press": 'The surge helped make that--what made it possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control.'

©2008 Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Touché! McCain's Audacious Pick

I was completely out of the media loop yesterday, having left all the political hoopla aside so I could attend to an important and wonderful domestic event. So by the time I learned of Sen. John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the chattering classes were already deep into their analysis. In fact, the only thing I first gleaned from the car radio was that a woman had been picked; being on the road, I called my wife to ask her what she could find out for me. In seconds, she was reading online news accounts: in one ear I had news, in the other, there was fevered reaction.

In haste, because I haven't much time this morning (and because I slept in far too late), I would like to simply state why I think Gov. Palin is a brilliant political choice.

1. Instantly, any media bump the Democrats hoped to gain from Senator Barack Obama's pre-inaugural inauguration in Denver was instantly flattened. The Agent Of Change quickly became stale news.
2. Gov. Palin instantly nullifies the "attack dog" role Senator Joe Biden might have played in the two parties' one vice presidential debate. Sen. Biden's notorious nastiness has been neutered, so to speak. There is no way he can snap his mighty and garrulous jaws at the heels of a pretty, youngish mother of five children, one of which is about to be deployed to Iraq while another has Down Syndrome.
   
3. Sen. Obama's choice of Sen. Biden was a safe and necessary pick: everyone agrees that Sen. Obama's choice lent "gray-haired gravitas" to an otherwise airy ticket. And nearly any honest soul knows that Sen. Biden is anything but "change." The only ticket that really represents "change [voters] can believe" is the McCain-Palin ticket. Sen. McCain must showcase that he is the old veteran leader who has a proven track record, while Ms. Palin is the "new face" of the Republican Party with skill and vision: she's the future, not the past. Clearly, Sen. Obama's message is that the future he envisions is rooted in the more-of-the-same moribund past, that rather ancient and tired past represented by the Congressional-lifer Joe Biden.
   
4. The Sarah Palin story is every bit as compelling as Mr. Obama's rise to fame. Maybe even more so. Her's is a Cinderella story. To women, well, this sort of thing speaks volumes. Add to the fray the fact that her story through the "glass ceiling" makes Hillary Clinton's story sound positively bland by comparison, and you've delivered a deft blow to a lot of Democratic and feminist mythology. It reminds people that for a long time now, Republicans have had powerful women serving at the highest reaches of government.
   
5. Sarah Palin instantly embodies the pro-life movement in all its intellectual honesty: she walks the talk. Her having a child with special needs drives this home particularly well. It will be hard to find fault with her on issues of family, child-rearing and domesticity.
   
6. With Gov. Palin's son heading off to Iraq, and John McCain reportedly having a family member in harm's way as well, the whole "chicken hawk" lunacy of the left asphyxiates. (Mr. Biden also has family heading into military conflict.)
   
7. The Wall Street Journal reports that Gov. Palin has been a thorn in the side to, that's right, Big Oil, in her home state. Interesting.
8. If reports are accurate that Gov. Palin rejected living in Alaska's governor's mansion; that she found other jobs for the domestic staff to which she was entitled to as governor, and that she chose to live at home, forsaking the governor's limo so she could drive herself to work, well, I can't say enough as to how good that is for Sen. McCain and the Republicans. That sort of story is legendary: it is the stuff that shatters many Democratic mythologies. Gov. Palin LIVES her ideals. She does not promise them. Unlike Barack Obama's resumé, which is one of the future, her's is one that is present, real, and tangible (as is John McCain's).
   

These eight things, at the very least, prove that Mr. McCain is in this race to win. As they might say in South Boston, his choice was "wicked shrewd." The only danger for Gov. Palin is that she comes across as a wicked shrew. I doubt she will. From what I've seen, she'd have to morph into something very different to ever earn the labels of shrew, harridan, termagant. She seems utterly likable, though time will tell.

Bottom line: McCain proves himself a brilliant strategist. He's got game, I'll give him that.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Logic Lesson?

If you would like to see logic put to both good and bad use, then see James Taranto's "The Weisberg Fallacy" in yesterday's Opinion Journal. It will appear too academic to some who are inspired by the sort of fallacious argument Mr. Taranto dismantles; some might consider it pedantic. I find it jolly good fun (though I admit I did not closely check Mr. Taranto's proof).

In my opinion, Taranto is just about the best political blogger in the blogosphere. He plays ball in the majors, while I'd be lucky to make single-A. The guy is sharp and quick. Yesterday's post, through and through, is just solid stuff. In an amusing and effective way, well, Taranto can bring the high heat (sorry for the lame baseball metaphors).

Oh, and the Biden stuff is pretty good, too.

(And I note that he finds the DNC's convention theme, "One Nation," rather curious, as did I when the DNC emailed me with the news. What happened to the "Two Americas" meme?)

Peace.

BG

If This Is "Rigorous Vetting," What Is Bad Vetting?

It is the third sentence that I find amusing, and maybe even bemusing.

In this morning's New York Times lead article on Barack Obama's choice of Sen. Joe Biden for his vice president, I read this curiosity:

"Over the course of two months, as the dynamics of the presidential campaign and world events shifted quickly, Mr. Biden’s stock rose through one of the most rigorous vice-presidential vetting processes that Democrats could recall." [emphasis mine]

I know I probably should not find the Times' sentence amusing, but I do. For it seems to me that it suggests far too much about the health of the Democratic Party leadership in America. If Joe Biden is the result of the toughest vetting process any Democrat can remember, does this not imply that all the other possible choices miserably failed this astringent test? And what does it say when Biden -- a known plagiarist (sorry, but he is) and loose cannon -- makes it through this "rigorous" vetting process? Do Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine fail the "rigorous" vetting process because of even worse sins than plagiarism? Or does "vetting" mean something other than sifting through a nominee's past to determine whether he, or she, is hiding anything that could hurt the ticket? If Biden's plagiarism, and his many volatile and damning statements, do not hurt the ticket, then what would have proven a liability had Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd been chosen as VP? And how does one perform a rigorous vetting process in two short months when, as the Times said, "the dynamics of the presidential race [i.e., Obama was tanking in the polls] and world events shifted quickly"?

And then there is this paragraph from the Times' story:

"On Saturday, as the two men [Obama and Biden] embraced before a crowd in Illinois, the new Democratic partnership made its debut. Yet in a moment that could have showcased Mr. Obama’s decision-making, his top advisers made a concerted effort not to disclose how he made his choice, instead choosing to showcase the life stories of the two men on the ticket and to present Mr. Biden as a forceful new critic of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona." [emphasis mine]

I note that the Saturday moment in Illinois could have been used to show a great number of things. That Mr. Obama chose not to summarize for the world the rigorous vetting process he allegedly used to reach such a monumental decision could have also suggested that he did not want to disclose the process because it would reveal that his decision was weak, or fear-driven and utterly irrational, or crassly opportunistic. That Mr. Biden was indeed chosen suggests to at least this writer that the vetting process could not have been as rigorous as the Times might like to believe. Plus, was it really Barack Obama's "top advisors" who made this decision not to showcase the putative political genius of Mr. Obama? If so, who is the true leader in the bunch? And why would his "top advisors" make a "concerted effort" to conceal Barack Obama's decision-making process? Why the secrecy? What is there to hide? Why not showcase it?

Perhaps this sentence from the Times' story explains more than we know:

"Mr. Obama reached the [Biden] decision about 10 days ago while on a weeklong vacation to Hawaii. That week, Mr. Biden’s strengths in foreign policy were highlighted by the conflict between Russia and Georgia, giving his prospects a further boost."

Rigorous indeed.

I note the Times uses quite a bit of ink on Bill Richardson. The Times tells us that even Richardson's financial records were pored over by the vetting team. Apparently he passed the rigors of vetting quite well; one wonders, however, how a guy like Richardson, who also has legitimate foreign policy experience, falls short in Obama's world, especially when -- without doing any vetting at all! -- the Obama team knew Biden carries some serious baggage.

Somewhere, buried in all this, is some sort of change I can believe in.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The 2008 Democratic Ticket: A New Word Game?

[Addendum: Alas, the ever-savvy, tech-omniscient n[ate]vw, has pointed out that I am about 12 hours late in making the observation I've made below. Oiks! But that's OK. At least I try.]

Let me be the first among fools, word fools, to note the following: If many pundits and pols have had a difficult time pronouncing Barack Obama's name, often confusing it with that other name, Osama (bin Laden), how long before someone starts mispronouncing the Democratic ticket, Obama and Biden? Lovers of anagrams will have a field day now. Obama 'n' Biden.

And that rhymes with?

Of course, I note that had Mr. Obama chosen Tim Kaine of Virginia, the ticket would be Obama-Kaine, which sounds like ObaMcCain (or Oh, Bomb McCain). I can see why that might have been considered both advantageous and not so advantageous (as would have been Obamacaine, the painkiller). What if Evan Bayh had been chosen as Mr. Obama's running-mate? Would Obama-Bayh -- Obama Bye -- have worked? Perhaps subliminally, and not at all advantageously.

Just a fool's curiosity; just a fool having fun.

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

"Biden Pick Shows Lack Of Confidence" ... And Nothing New

Big News: Joe Biden is Barack Obama's running-mate. Very old news: Joe Biden is not change we can believe in.

I love the headline over the AP essay written by veteran AP political analyst Ron Fournier:

BIDEN PICK SHOWS LACK OF CONFIDENCE

Here's a great quote from Fournier's commentary:

"For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator [Obama] worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack."

Ah, yes. Willing to attack. The thing about Biden, one of my family members said, is not that he just attacks. It's that he's an attack dog. A salient point, considering Mr. Obama promised the country his campaign would rise above rabid and feral partisanship. But like nearly all political promises, such is short-lived.

What does Biden bring, or so nearly EVERYONE avers? He brings gravitas, and foreign policy experience to Mr. Obama's rather unimpressive resume. The Biden gift proves that Mr. Obama's having "lived abroad" does not add up to much. It also proves that Biden is Obama's Cheney: we will all know who really runs the White House -- who the real 'decider' will be -- if Mr. Obama is elected.

And what else does Biden bring? Well, according to one pundit we get this:

"As he [Biden] speaks, as he goes on and on and spins his long statements, hypotheticals, and free associations--as he demonstrates yet again . . . that he is incapable of staying on the river of a thought, and is constantly lured down tributaries from which he can never quite work his way back--you can see him batting the little paddles of his mind against the weeds, trying desperately to return to the river but not remembering where it is, or where it was going. I love him. He's human, like a garrulous uncle after a drink."

Thanks Peggy Noonan (and James Taranto) for this hilarious description of our country's potential "new" (What do you mean by that?) vice-president.

So, who is Biden? He's a rambling po-mo nuanced-to-the-gills old Washington insider who is Barack Obama's Dick Cheney, an old white dude who brings change we can believe in; though that change is just one in name, not attitude, posture or vision.

Amazing: The Democrats pretty much rejected Biden every time he ran for the White House. Now, somehow, he is suitable to have the White House -- in an emergency. Is he "the man" called on to guide "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" (as Biden so deftly described Mr. Obama in early 2007) as Obama "leads" America toward a "brighter future"?

The only way ANY candidate can ever bring "change we can believe in" is if he or she runs for office as neither a Republican nor a Democrat. The world -- including the Europeans! -- knows that there is nothing new under the American sun. Especially this time.

Food for thought, or not.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.