Correctly Impolitic

Yesterday, my friend Robin asked me if I thought all the negative racist advertising was going to backfire for the Clintons and the Republican Party. Truthfully, I don’t know, but I certainly hope that the positive energy of the young people supporting the Obama candidacy, have helped to generate enough enthusiasm that it will overtake all the negative and fear crap. We also talked about what we call OWO4O. If you can’t guess, it means Older White Women for Obama. Apparently there are some, but you certainly wouldn’t know if by looking at the campaign—although in Pennsylvania the campaign did do better with older white people in general. We also acknowledged that there were prominent Black men and women for Hillary. Our conclusion was that there was a real opportunity for a stand-up comedy routine with one OWW4O, and one OBW4H. And no I am not going to be one of the entertainers. But seriously folks…

I listened to the Sunday morning shows with some trepidation. And I was disappointed, once again, in the trep. When talking about any subject the pundits/talking heads, refer to the news media as ‘they’. As if ‘they’ were a whole other group of individuals. But ‘they’ are them. ‘They’ have managed to bury and bring Hillary back to life. ‘They’ have forgotten that last February (only 4 months ago) Barack was not even on the radar screen. We were all still thinking John Edwards might give Hillary a contest, but Obama, “ha, ha”, we replied when it was discussed. Obama? However, ‘they’ are often ridiculous in their analysis of most actions and events. Further, ‘they’ don’t seem to read or listen to anything in it’s entirety. ‘They’ certainly didn’t read the whole text of any of Rev. Wright’s sermons. Nope, ‘they’ have chosen to quote one another instead of the actual source.

Let’s pause for a minute so I can share some important information. My new book “So You Think You Can Be President” is finally available on Amazon.com. You might think that’s a nice thing, but the reason it’s important is because last week (granted it was before the book was available), we were at somewhere around 800.000 on their list for book sales. I am happy to announce that we are now number 4 in the “Humor, Entertainment, Law and Criminals”, category. I have no idea why this is a category but let’s celebrate it because number 4 anywhere is totally excellent.

Now, getting back to OWW4O, which is funny but does not involve criminals. Why would the campaign seemingly ignore women over 50. Do they not understand that those women have the same listening ability as the women under 50. Well, maybe they need to turn the volume up on their TV’s, but they still hear the same words, and sense the same desperation. But the Obama campaign has not offered them a home. Rest assured, not all OWWr4H. Without some assurance that their issues will be some kind of priority—and remember, women are not a constituency they are 51% of the electorate – they will still cast their votes for the person who gives them a sign. And, BTW, women’s priorities do not differ from men’s. They care about health care, the economy and the war. But they also frame their conversations in terms of the impact all these things have on their families. The way we say things may be different (we like to draw pictures about a situation), but the end results are exactly the same. If Barack would just tell them that they are important—feed the female ego’s so to speak, he would be surprised by the political benefits he would reap.

Here’s what I still don’t understand. How did Obama go from being a guy with all the issues of a multiracial middle class candidate, to being an elitist. And how did Clinton go from being a very wealthy Senator from NY, to being the blue collar Annie Oakley. Neither makes sense to me. As I have said before, they are both Ivy League educated people, who have solid progressive credentials, and not much difference in policy solutions to enormous problems of national concern. How have ‘they’ reduced these two people to a sound bite. Maybe a better question is, how have we allowed these two fine candidates to be reduced to fodder for a hungry and overexposed media? The media think of themselves as the stars instead of the sources of information. It’s easy to understand when you realize their careers are at stake. The more air time they get the more money they make. That’s why it is so important for them to get interviews with prominent political people. And since that list is fairly limited of late, why you see so many repeat performances (they all appear on one another’s shows) by the TV celebrities. I can assure you, it’s not that they like getting up at 4am, staying on the air 24/7 and spending the days listening to themselves blather—it’s all about air time, money and renewing their contracts. It’s why one day they are extolling the virtues of one candidate and the next day—maybe even the next hour, they are reporting the candidate’s inevitable demise. ‘They’ have to have something to say in order to get paid. But we don’t have to believe what they say. We don’t even have to listen—although, I admit I do watch for the entertainment, not news, value.

Finally, I love the contest but I am tired of the campaign strategists speaking from the same script – not unlike the pundits. What a bore. Wouldn’t it be great if they would just call each other “big fat pig snot” and respond with “double back to you whatever you say to me” and then move on to talk about how their candidates are going to make the planet a better place for ourselves and our families. Or as ‘we’
said in a song “We Are the World”… now deal with it!

What happened to “Yes We Can”?   I mean other than Hillary stealing a version-which is benign at best.  I loved when Obama asked a question and everyone yelled, “yes we can”.  That was the kind of enthusiasm and hopeful rhetoric that resonated with a discouraged and sometimes disenfranchised public, and with cynics such as myself.

If you saw the ad for the Governor’s race in North Carolina, you know what the Republican’s are planning for the fall. This ad was about Reverend Wright and the candidate.  Obama has his arm around Reverend, then Obama has his arm around Democratic Gubernatorial candidate, and the voice over connects the dots.  I don’t think it’s necessary to tell you much more.  You can write the script.  Hillary should denounce it - but she won’t because it works for her - only right now.

There isn’t a person who watches TV, reads the newspaper, or listens to the radio, who doesn’t know what the Republicans are going to do an Obama candidacy.  So do we think he should throw in the towel, take his bowling ball and go home, or simply disappear into the morass of a do nothing senate.  Which by the way reminds me of a Clinton speech I heard a few days ago.  Hillary said if she’s elected President she will investigate the oil companies for gouging.  I may be wrong, but can’t a sitting Senator call for a hearing?  What’s she waiting for?

Anyway,  I don’t want him to go anywhere.  I like primaries.  As I have said many times, I do think they tell you a great deal about the candidates, the campaign, and the staff people who might be running the government next January.   But more than primaries I like a good, clean, feisty contest. So how does Barack get back in the game-if you hadn’t noticed he’s been treading water rather swimming strokes since the last debate.   It is clear that people want to believe he understands the problems they face daily.  He needs to address those issues of concern to the public (as well the media) and there can be no secrets. He can do this by getting back to what has worked repeatedly…. Yes he can!

Suppose he took a list of those issues, (the flag/lapel pin, misspeaking ‘bitter’, the real estate scandal, the Reverend Wright nonsense, etc.)  and designed a vocal riff that ended up with, “Yes We Can” , or a version like the ones he used to get to the political place he is now.  Suppose he cut off all this noise at the knees with his incredible ability to articulate the passion people feel.  I’m not very good at this and I changed the riff a little, but here’s an example of what I mean:

“They are trying to tell you that I don’t love this country.  But you know that’s not true, and together we need to make it clear that this is a lie.  Yes We Can.   They say that Michelle isn’t proud of her country.  This is also a lie, so we need to talk louder and clearer.  And We Can.  They say I sat in church and listened to the minister preach hate. So we talked about it as a nation, and still the lies continue, the hate mongering has become sport.  But we need to bind together and get beyond the hateful rhetoric.  And We Can. They tried to connect me with thieves, and terrorists and who know what else.  They know it’s not true but they think if they say it enough times in enough ways, people will believe it. And maybe they’re right about some people.  But not the people who want real change.  We need to win this election because the world is in trouble, people are suffering.  And We Can.  They take a word like bitter and twist it and maybe I misspoke but people are angry about paying high health costs, high food costs, high oil costs, high costs of education.  We need to tell the people who have friends making money from all the high costs we pay, that it has to stop.  And We Can.”

OK, These examples may seem a little lame, more like the Daiyanu chant at Passover than a preacher at a sermon, but I’m not writing speeches anymore. My point is that the high road was working for Obama.  Over the last six weeks he has allowed his opponent to define the terms of the debate.  You can never win when you are fighting with someone else’s definitions. Further, he needs to have surrogates do the mud slinging.  He should never do more than say he is angry, outraged, indignant, about something terrible that’s been done or said about him by an opponent. A Bill Richardson or a Lanny Davis- like colleague needs to do this.  He cannot in any way afford to appear smug, elite, or unfeeling.  The campaign should determine what their definition of a leader is and every time he appears he needs to talk about what that means.  Consequently, it will define what he can be as a leader and what his opponents are not.  I wish I was getting paid for this incredibly good advice.  But, as they say, you get what you pay for.  Who says that?  Anyway I am happy to offer suggestions.  And I hope what I think, makes everyone feel better about going forward with a candidate about whom they still have concerns.  But if he does a few simple things it will answer the questions that Super Delegates are asking, he will be the nominee and he just might be the next President.   And He Can.

This may be the only country where you can lose an election and win it at the same time.  Hillary won the primary in Pennsylvania but the New York Times says she should get out of the race because her campaign reached new lows in decency.  (My words, their suggestion).  Barack Obama lost the Primary by ten points but his campaign insists it was a win because he closed a 25 point gap and only lost by 10 points.  Can someone win and lose at the same time?  I guess so if you realize it’s ‘all about’ nuance.

Let’s pause here for a minute and figure out what this all means in the long run.  Actually,  let’s try to figure out what exactly ‘all about’ means. I remember the first time I heard the expression I asked myself, (it’s something I do with great frequency because I get the answers I want), is there a synonym for ‘all about’?  Or, is there another way to say the same thing?  At first I absolutely refused to use the two words together in a sentence. Then, like with ‘duh’ and finishing a stupid statement with ‘not’,  I kind of slipped, rather than plunged into it.  While I still think there must be a better way to describe a situation, it’s just simpler to use this overused expression.  Now, as I was saying, this campaign season is ‘all about’ nuance and maybe nasty, too.

Barack Obama is not good at nasty, it’s not his style.  Hillary Clinton it turns out, is excellent at nasty and makes no apologies for it.  Instead she says it’s just a sign that she can be tough.  Does this mean that Obama can’t be tough because he’s not good at rolling around in the mud-or bowling.  What does it mean to be tough?  And is going for the jugular a sign that you can lead a nation.  Honestly, I don’t think that any of this rhetoric is important when it comes to deciding who the next President should be.  Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who wins the next few primaries because it’s not winner take all - so the numbers aren’t going to change much.  There are however, things we should look at as indicators. I’ll come back to that.

Last night we were at an excellent party with Obama supporters.  Needless to say, they were disappointed by the results but still supportive of the candidate. One guest, Susan Eisenhower (yes the granddaughter of the President) made some truly insightful comments. (This was right after she told the story about how the President [ her grandfather]  didn’t have Secret Service once he left the White House, so his son had to drive him home.  He might actually driven, but he didn’t have a driver’s license).  Susan said that her decision, as a Republican, to support Obama was based on a number of things.  Not the least of which was personal courage.  She said that, while she agreed John McCain was courageous during his years as a prisoner, Obama  displayed great personal courage everyday  because he took his life in his hands every time he left his house, and went out in public to campaign for this critical job.

As I see it Obama has two real problems to overcome if he wants to convince Super Delegates to stay or go with him and if he wants to win in the fall. Here they are from my limited but not inexperienced perspective. It’s not too early to develop more of a national strategy–rather than a state to state determination of what to do next. Presently, every state is a local campaign but the “local’ stuff is going to go away soon.  As I said, I would be more concerned if the next primaries were winner take all.   Just as an example, one of the things you do with National vision, is have a National Surrogate strategy. For example, I did not know that David Boren, Sam Nunn, and Lee Hamilton endorsed Obama. Why aren’t they out there with Susan Rice talking about international issues?  Or why isn’t Susan Eisenhower or her sister-in-law Julie Nixon, on TV everyday talking about the courage of this candidate.  I expect there are many more of these examples, but you get the point.  There seems a hesitancy to utilize the strengths of people who want nothing more than to be used - everywhere.

The second thing they have to do is stop dealing with women as a constituency.  When you are more than 50% of the population you are not a constituency– you are a voter. Maybe with certain issue priorities — but a voter, nonetheless.   I really believe older white women would to commit to Obama if he would assure them that women will have a voice in his administration and that he understands their priorities and concerns. Maybe even name a few - but be specific to how it will impact on their lives.  He has said almost nothing. A statement on a special occasion doesn’t do it.  So where else can women turn?  I think it’s great to run the campaign from Chicago. I think it’s even smart. It does not matter where the National campaign headquarters is housed as long as the people who are housed there have ongoing National perspective.  But where women are concerned they also have to stop treating every group in Washington like they’re the enemy. — and like it’s inevitable that “old white gals’ as some friends would say,  will be with Hillary - for eternity.   Because whatever else, the Democrats want them too, and not for McCain. Besides, some of these ‘gals’ can make a real difference.

One of the Obama campaign’s great strengths is that they have raised a lot of money and spent it wisely.  If they outspent the Clinton’s 4 to 1 in Pennsylvania it was because they had to come from behind to appear competitive.  But the important thing is that from the beginning, they showed good political judgment in raising the money and in how it was spent.  The Clinton campaign could have done the same thing but they spent too early, and they didn’t raise enough to spend past February.  Nope, they are in debt and celebrating the fact that the win in Pennsylvania means she is still ‘viable’.   Code for “now she  can raise more money to spend on consultants and advisors who have her wallowing in the mud.”  It’s unattractive at best-and let’s face it, for ‘gals’ unattractive is ultimately not what it’s ‘all about’.

What’s going to happen in Pennsylvania?  Will Hillary win by double digits?  Will Barack come from behind and surprise the media and the pollsters? What’s it all about?  Did you expect an answer to that question?  It’s all about the candidates-it always is.
There’s not a great deal of difference between the candidates in terms of policy. They both say they want to address the important issues-of course there’s been so much noise that you can’t hear how they want to address those issues, but at least they know there are problems - unlike the President of the United States whose most memorable response this week was that the Pope’s speech was “awesome”.  I still can’t get over the fact that he doesn’t know that gas prices are high - but he doesn’t fill his own tank, and he probably doesn’t look out the window when he’s driving past a gas station.

However, the real question is: the candidates.  Do people want another four years of Clinton drama - because that’s not going to stop.  And do people believe that Obama is an elitist who doesn’t understand what real people are suffering.  Is this election about Reverend Wright, Hillary’s inability to remember whether she was in a dangerous war zone or McCain’s decision to embrace,  actually seek the endorsement of a hateful Reverend Hagee,  and explain that he loved the guy but didn’t embrace what Hagee says about Catholics.

This was an extraordinary political week for any number of reasons.  The Pope talked openly about sexual abuse.  He refused to discuss women as priests or priests as women, but he did talk about sex.  I guess that’s taking a real step forward if you are mired in 18th century thinking.  OK, now you’re thinking, the Pope is not about politics, he’s about religion.  Really?, I retort.  Well what do you call the decisions about who gets a ticket to the Mass and receives communion?  How was it decided that Rudy Giuliani, (divorced twice) not only can receive communion but gets it from the Pope.  Everything is political about the church, or the synagogue or the mosque or any ‘organized’ religion.  Religion is why we fight wars, it’s why we hate our neighbors, and it’s why we don’t want our children to intermarry.  Whew!

Anyway, back to Presidential politics.  Hillary did a few shooters, Barack dusted off his shoulder and off they went to find ways to decimate the other.  I have said before that I have no problem with the Primary season lasting until June.  I think the longer it goes on the more opportunity we have to get to know the future Commander-in-Chief;  additionally, it  gives them the chance to grow and to mature as candidates.  Unfortunately, they appear to be shrinking instead of growing.  Take their performance at the controversial ABC debate.  Sure, I thought the questions were foolish and certainly not what I expected of Charlie.  And sure, it did appear that George was ragging on Obama- and some would say that was because he worked for the Clintons - which I think is just not true.  But here’s the bottom line.  They are TV people.  Right or wrong, ratings (and entertaining), are important to them. They clearly thought those were the questions the public wanted answered and that would keep the audience interested and tintillated.  However, there is no law that says the candidates have to answer those questions.  It would have been so much better if Obama had said, “you know people want to hear what we think about the war, the economy, foreclosures, and health care. We should not be wasting our time on the word ‘bitter,’ and how I feel about a lapel pin.”  If you are running for the highest office in the land you need to be able to either answer any question, or explain why you shouldn’t have to.  I think it was more a missed opportunity than a bad performance.

And, although she finally admitted that he could win the election, Hillary was still talking about Barack’s character.  There is a prayer Jews say at their Passover Seder called “Daiyanu”.  It means ‘enough.’  Everytime I hear her talk about what Obama doesn’t understand or what kind of person he is, I just want to shout “Daiyanu”.  I want to say,  “tell us something about you.  Don’t give us a list of what the problems are, we know them only too well.  Tell us how you are going to solve them.  On day One, what will you do that’s going to make any difference in my life?”    There are so many people with Clinton fatigue that it may start to rank right up there with the flu as equally debilitating.

The pundits are all using analogies to describe the difference in candidates.  He’s a cell phone.  She’s a hard line.  He’s the internet.  She’s a fax machine. Is that a way to say he’s young and hopeful,  she’s old think?  I’m tired of technical analogies but seriously grateful that they are not using sports analogies-he’s a bowling pin and she’s the ball.

The truth is, most of the pundits are old think and those young pundits don’t know much about national politics or campaigns.  Combined, the two groups may actually be able to make some reasoned predictions, but they will have to really listen and learn.  Never mind. They won’t.  They are in it for the attention and money and it only matters if you care what these people have to say.  What’s important is that younger voters seem more concerned about hope and change, than about race or gender.  The TV pundits are still talking about these two factors as if this election was being held in 1960.  Things have changed.  Attitudes have changed.  First time voters, and they are certainly not all Democrats, understand that they can make a difference.  The candidates better watch out.  There is more to this voter than an appearance on “Colbert” or “SNL.”  But they do get that they have had enough of an impact that the next President feels it is important to do ‘shtick’ on shows that they watch.

This whole thing reminds me of what Moses said to the Pharoah. He said, “Look Pharoah, if you don’t let my people go there’s going to be some hell to pay.  I’m sending locusts, plagues and boils.  If that doesn’t convince you, I’m taking all the first born sons.”  You are probably saying, “What is she talking about?”  Indirectly, you may say circuitously, I am talking about spin.  The Clinton people say, ‘if Obama can’t win after all the money he has spent in Pennsylvania, then he’s not going to be able to win a general election.’  The Obama people say, “We were twenty points behind.  We came from nowhere.  We can certainly win a general election.”  I say, “The Obama campaign raised and spent it’s money wisely. Clinton was so sure that the election would be over in February, she did not make any long range plans.”  Although governing and campaigning are different, running a good campaign is a sign that candidate, as well as the staff, know what it takes to affect change.  I just hope we’re all smart enough to know that boils, plagues, and locusts are not the route we want to take to make that change.

Despite her every effort, Hilary Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania seems to be diminishing.  Some would say this is a consequence of her, “you can beat a dead horse” campaign style.  I would say, they never to know when to quit - not the race but the rhetoric. The desperation, on the part of her campaign, is such that when they finally find something they think resonates with the public, they can’t let it go. Further, and in case they didn’t know it, you can’t be worth 100 million dollars, throw back a few shots, say your dad took you hunting (especially when you have been a staunch gun control advocate), and expect to be perceived as authentic.

Hillary did grow up in a middle class family.  But just like Barack, she went to an Ivy League school, became a lawyer, worked to make positive change and then became the First Lady of Arkansas. As far as I know, Barack didn’t become the First Lady, but that was biological.  And although their lives were not that similar, their career paths weren’t much different.  He grew up in a multiracial family, his mother was a single parent and he met his father once. He probably didn’t do much shooting with the guy.  He, like Hillary, was a product of the public school system.  Michelle Obama went on to say it best in response to the “elitist” accusations,  “I am an example of what the investment in public education can do.”  On Colbert, when he asked her to tell him about growing up an elitist on the South Side of Chicago with silver spoons in her mouth she said, “I had four spoons in my mouth, and when my father got a raise and I got five spoons.”  Growing up the way both the Democratic candidates did, and living the lives they all chose to live, does not a good elitist make.

If you are going to define an elitist you need to look no further then the White House.  George Bush and Dick Cheney are true elitists.  George grew up that way, and never changed.  Cheney grew into it sometime between the Ford White House and the Halliburton job as CEO.  An elitist is someone who thinks they are better than everyone beneath them.  And how do I think they define beneath?  Simple, it is someone who doesn’t have the money, family connections, religious affiliation, or education that they think is necessary to maintain an exalted position of power in their society.  Now this can get a little confusing.  In Medieval days you would have called them serfs.  The Cheney/Bush’s and friends would have been the landed gentry.  The people who owned land, and in fact owned the serfs, felt that they were far superior to the menial laborers who did all the work and made the country run.  The people with land were educated, powerful and dressed nicely.  If I was explaining it today, which I guess I am, I would say the elitist is the person who can afford to put gas in a humvee, never worries about food costs, and is never concerned about losing their homes.  What makes them an elitist, however is that all the terrible conditions people are suffering, means nothing to them. They are untouched by the problems of the great unwashed.  They may pretend to care when it’s politically advantageous, but they go back to their subtly restricted country clubs, have a drink, and talk about how the greens need to be repaired and how we are winning the war in Iraq.

What the campaigns don’t understand is that people are tired of the noise.  Howard Wolfson, the Hillary mouthpiece-and I don’t mean that in the kindest way possible - is proud of the fact that the name calling seems to be resonating with the public in Pennsylvania.  According to my anecdotal poll taken yesterday at a flea market called Cow Town in Penns Grove, New Jersey — which is adjacent to Pa, (most of the people with whom I spoke came from Pa), they are no longer listening to the noise.  They want to hear about things that have impact on their lives.  This is not happening.  Pennsylvania is not a cross over state. You can only vote for the candidate in whatever party you are registered.  But Republicans are registering as Democrats in order to vote.  Most are voting for the candidate they think can be easily defeated by McCain. But some are voting for the Democrat they like.  These are middle class folks who think Hillary has over played her hand. They think that while Obama may have misspoken and used the wrong words– like cling and bitter, Hillary outright lied. They think her attacks on Obama have been orchestrated (my word not theirs) to change the subject on what she did on the tarmac in Tuzla.  Who knows.  But the campaign noise is deafening and unfortunately it has nothing to do with the issues.

Many people are asking how and if the Democrats can survive what they consider the mean spirited petty bickering.  Having been in many Presidential primary seasons that lasted until June, I’m not that concerned.  There is a way to heal the Party but it has to happen before the Convention-whether there are two candidates or one.  My idea would be to convene a bi-candidate issues oriented press conference.  Where both Obama and Clinton supporters (issues experts as well as political people) come together and make it clear that no matter who emerges victorious in the Convention, the party is committed to being united behind one candidate.  Further, that the Republicans cannot count on a fractionalized Democratic party because it is not going to happen.

Maybe I’m delusional or I’ve gotten that “hopeful” bug from Obama.  But I believe that the state of the nation is such that anyone who wants to be the Commander in Chief, needs to look at what works for the greater good.  They both need to put on their big girl panties, think about what they say and consequently, what the public hears, remember who their real opponent is, and most important — get beyond the silly noise.

Wouldn’t it be great if all the people who watched ‘Idol’ had to vote not only for a contestant but for a candidate. Wait, here’s a better idea. Why don’t all the candidates compete on Idol, in addition to all the primary States. Maybe that’s the way to resolve the dilemma of Florida and Michigan. The big three made their first appearance the other night on the Idol Gives Back special. They rightfully weren’t considered as important as Terry Hatcher singing what I thought might be karaoke, or Robin Williams doing worn out shtick pretending to be the winner of Russian Idol, so they got bumped. It seems that Idol, like all the other entertainment awards show, couldn’t keep on schedule so they ran over-and someone had to go. Or three someones had to go.

Maybe that was good news for Democrats because the second night the ratings were much lower and the person who emerged as the best Idol Presidential contestant - or at least the person who seemed most authentic in his pitch for donations-was John McCain. Hillary and Barack did same old, same old- “the world would be a better place if only we all came together to make it happen,” (who didn’t know that). Why didn’t they just sing “We are The World?” I love that song. Or maybe the suggestion of “holding hands across America” would have been a nice touch. McCain said, “American Idol is a lot like the Presidential primary election except for the people who live in Michigan and Florida-their votes will actually count.” He was real and the youth of America can feel that.

Here’s what frightens me. The other day I heard a staunch Democrat say, “McCain is a nice guy and he wouldn’t be a bad choice.” What does nice guy have to do with anything? He could be the nicest guy in the world and still be inflexible, short sighted, right wing, willing to continue a senseless war despite the cost in lives and resources, (otherwise known as caught up in macho bull doody) and too old to really understand the direction in which this country needs to go. He doesn’t understand the economy, he doesn’t care about freedoms to choose, and I’m not sure he has the moral compass-and I mean that in the nicest possible way. It’s just that when you’ve served as much time in the Senate as he has, it impacts on what’s right and wrong. He would be a terrible choice. He is not, as is now being touted by Republicans, a moderate middle of the road kind of politician. He is not! He is not! He is not! I think I have made my point.

Speaking of more of the same. I find The new flack over the word “bitter” to be tedious but not without ramifications. It simply proves the Presidential campaign has gotten stupider. Of course the candidates are going to track everything their opponents say and try to find something negative that resonates with the public. The Reverend Wright stuff backfired because Obama used it as an opportunity to have a conversation about race. The hateful Reverend Hagee endorsement of McCain went unnoticed because the press are still enamored of this candidate. The Tuzla controversy was a big deal because Clinton repeated it even after the truth was revealed-and then Big Bill went on to repeat it after the press had already moved on. I would truly like to know what has happened to his mind. His brilliant political instincts. Maybe when he had the heart trouble he didn’t get enough oxygen to his brain for too long a time. It’s pointless trying to figure out what Bill Clinton thinks or does-like the finger pointing - which makes everyone think about his initial Bill Clinton/Monica denial. I wonder if it’s the arrogance of the Clintons or again, a severe case of stupid.

Does the fact that Hillary spent the evening doing shooters with the guys mean she gets what real people are suffering through? (Her drink of choice is Crown Royal - not an ordinary guys drink). Or does the fact that Barack said working class people turned to guns and prayer in their desperation, make him an elitist. It’s simply more campaign noise, about which people are getting tired - I hope. Here’s the truth, as I see it of course. People are bitter about a great many things which will impact the election. Unlike when Gary Hart said “I got stuck in New Jersey” and he lost the state. (Of course he did-too many people chose to get stuck in New Jersey). Obama is absolutely right. People are pissed off that their jobs are gone overseas or filled by cheap immigrant labor. Maybe he misspoke about the shooting and praying, but people are angry. For a guy great with words, he didn’t choose these words carefully. But so what. Should we care about this foolish screw up more than we care about his vision for where the country is going to go, the fact that he ran a terrific campaign, and found a message which resonated with old, young, black, white, rich and poor. I don’t think so but I’m only one person. And should we look at Hillary and say, “wow, she’s really one of the guys.” Or should we remember that she and Bill have, since dinosaurs were eating people and plants, never been regular people. And additionally, have made about 100 million dollars in the last few years. It’s not unlike “W” saying, “Gas prices are high?” You cannot have 24 hour security, a staff that does everything for you - including carrying your money-and be in touch with real people. Because you are no longer real people when you serve in the Senate or run for President. Obama was a real person for longer than the other two candidates as well as the President, but he still hasn’t filled his own car up with gas for the last six months.

Do we as voters have unrealistic expectations about the people who are our leaders? Not if we elect them. We are not counting celebrities and religious personalities in this discussion. We want them to make judgments based on an understanding of what we, the majority of the public are suffering. Whether it be gas prices, food costs, loss of our jobs or homes, cost of education for our children, or a war that indirectly impacts on everything we are as a country. How then do we decide who is the one person who should be in charge? It’s not an easy decision to make. But maybe we should do it like the Idol does, and vote for the person who we think can best represent us on the world stage. Maybe listening to the lyrics of their songs without the noise isn’t a bad idea.

Mark Penn finally got fired – almost.  Beyonce got married – maybe. And Moses is dead—definitely.  General Petraeus says we need to pause the withdrawal of troops—oh please. American Idol is giving back – hooray!  Which of these things has the most impact on your life?

I’ve been thinking long and hard about it because some of them maybe important in the greater scheme of my life, but, as the generous philanthropist George Soros says “do they have some relevance for greater mankind.”  Ah, a question to ponder. Don’t get a headache thinking too hard.   They all have some significance in the world of deception, pop culture, and religion. I hope I don’t need to explain which is which.

Speaking of me, (because as in the past, it usually is all about me), I am so tired of being angry about this war that I can almost not blog about it.  But I’ll try.  When I watched the hearings I just wanted to scream at the good Senators, “Ask a real question. Follow up with something that requires an answer.  Ask the guy to define his terms like success and goals.  Ask the guy to explain why we are funding a war that has lead to us paying over $3 a gallon for gas, while the Iraqi’s are making a profit on –guess what,  selling their oil. Ask the guy what will it take to bring the troops home.  Ask the guy if keeping his job is more important than the loss of thousands of lives.”   I mean does he think we don’t know that Generals and other people who wear military gear, want wars because it gives them something to do.  If they don’t have a war to fight than they wind up tripping over each other at the Pentagon.  You can only imagine what it’s like to have spent your entire  life studying military maneuvers, shooting, and marching and then having no one to order to march, shoot or whatever they do to maneuver. How bored you would be.  It’s like asking a Broadway producer if they want their show to be mounted on a stage with performers … or would they rather wander aimlessly and castless looking for a venue for production. You don’t ask someone with a vested interest to defend something on which they are totally dependent not only for their livelihood but for their self image.  Remember the theater analogy and insert it wherever appropriate.

This morning the White House Press Secretary Dana Ditzie,  was being interviewed and she assured the public that the President wouldn’t enter into any agreements with the Iraqui government without Congressional involvement.  But that was only because the Senate found about what may have been yet another disastrous commitment on the part of the “Bush” people.  She also outlined the President’s concern about the war. “He’s going to limit deployment from 15 months to 12 months”, she said with a straight face and like it was a gift. “It would not be in the best interest of the country to pull out until the people of Iraq can govern, defend, and sustain themselves.”  What then, I want to know, what would be in the best interest of the country.  To have our children keep fighting in the retched war and getting killed or wounded for eternity—or until who can defend, sustain and govern themselves. What is going to happen that will make next year, the year after or five years from now any different than it is today.  We are in the middle of a civil war—which if we didn’t start we certainly can’t control.  We have antagonized even people who like us to the point that they are no longer standing by our side singing “We Are the World”.  And where there were no terrorists before, it seems they have done what the old testament suggested — “gone out and multiplied, as a result of this administration’s desire to “save face”.

And what does it mean to save face. Saving face is a macho “boy toy”.  For whatever reason, women don’t need to save face.  Sure we obsess when we screw up. We blame ourselves and our own ability, we even shed tears.  But the only way I know that women save face, it to do it surgically or with very good make-up.

Based on what Petraeus said, we are in a “fragile” state in this war.  As opposed to what?  The state of things when we invaded and we protected the oil fields instead of the museums.  Or the state of things when we decimated the capital and where there was once an infrastructure—water and electricity, now simple services are only sometimes and temporary.  Again, these guys just talk and no one follows up with a question that forces them to say anything specific, so there are no answers to any questions the public might ask.

We did see the next President of the United States asking the General and the Ambassador several questions.  McCain might as well have been sitting at the table rather than facing it, because we know he is not going to challenge the decision of a General—it’s another military game that people who were in the service play.  Obama asked good questions and showed he could be a leader—which is all he needs to do.  Clinton asked substantive questions and indicated her displeasure about their lack of  substance in any of their answers, but neither of them went for the jugular.  I get that everyone wants to be respectful , but when there are lives on the line, the public deserves more. We want a headline beyond “It’s business as usual.”

Speaking of business as usual, my friends went to an Obama, thank you to people who have maxed out in contributions, and they couldn’t get in.  (Being maxed out means you have given as much money as legally permitted).  They had invitations in their hands and they couldn’t get in the door because they hadn’t maxed out enough, “and besides”, they were told, “they had given old money and now the campaign wanted new money”.  Needless to say, they were insulted and angry about this ill mannered rejection, but they were more concerned about the appearance of business as usual in a campaign that is based on hope and change.  I hope it changes.  My guess is that in Washington this will happen with some frequency,  but in more civilized society donors are donors, and they are thanked as well as welcomed.  I could be wrong and if it’s true than what can we say beyond woe is us.

When the elevator door of my mom’s apartment building opened, I came face to face with a hospital gurney which was blocking my exit.  It was in a vertical position, but not empty. There was someone on it, in a body bag –it was a first for me.   Talk about coming face to face with reality.  Just FYI, Mom is Ok, but Rosemary is not.

While elder care has become an important element in so many lives, it has also become an incredibly lucrative business.  The people who own and run independent or assisted living facilities, as well as the people who pack nursing homes with people who cannot care for themselves, are generally not in it to do the righteous thing. They are in it to make money.  A great deal of money. And they will succeed because there are so many families that can not take care of the elderly relatives for whom they assume responsibility.

Rosemary lived in my mother’s apartment complex.  It is not called an assisted living facility. It is called a retirement community.  Although there may not be much of a difference in how people are cared for in assisted or retired homes, there is subtle difference between the words and an enormous difference in attitude.  Just think about the words assisted and retirement.  One indicates an independence and the other a frailty. Here’s a subtle difference. When Mom resided in assisted living, she noticed  that there was no salt, pepper or ketchup on the table. The staff seasoned your food — if it was permitted.  All the coffee was decaf. There was no discussion about the caffeine and there was no choice about what she preferred. As it happens, she likes regular coffee in the morning.  In the place termed assisted, the common rooms were lovely, the staff was nice, but there was no question that the residents were treated like entities in a profit center.  The retirement community is less fancy,  but the residents are encouraged to make their own decisions.  They are treated like adults who have simply aged.

Rosemary sat at her meal table with four other people, but had no friends. I am told she was quiet and had very few visitors.  She chose not to participate in activities, they were not what she called “her cup of tea”.  So no one forced her to be uncomfortable in a group situation.  Unlike Rosemary,  my mother is quite social, and when she was in assisted living,  the staff insisted she participate in everything that was offered.  So she ran from activity to activity until she was exhausted.  We think she thought that since she was paying to be there, she had to join in every activity.  It was like attendance was mandatory.  At the Madison Avenue Retirement  Center where she lives now,   she sometimes goes to a sing along, a birthday party, or a movie. But she doesn’t feel compelled to do anything.  She doesn’t feel the need to pass the time in group commotion.  She is calm but not bored spending her time alone in her apartment, watching the Hallmark station or a game show on her cable TV.  She seems more at peace.  But the most important thing is that she is no longer racing around trying not to be frightened about being alone.  She is happy because my brother and sister-in-law live close enough to see her almost every day.

There is hardly a person who doesn’t want to face old age.  Consider the alternative.  But getting old is not easy on the elderly and it is certainly not easy on the people (unpaid) who are responsible for their care—if there is a person.  In too many cases there is no one.  Take for example the elderly woman I saw begging on 45th street in NY.  At first I passed her by,  but there was such a sadness in her eyes that I went back to give her a dollar.  Her voice was small and apologetic when she thanked me and she shared a little of her story. “It wasn’t always like this for me.  My husband left me years ago.  We had a child who was very sick.  It was very expensive to care for him.  Then he died and I had nothing.  My government check was too small to pay for the rent, food, utilities, and medicine. I had to move out of my home and now I live in an overcrowded kind of shelter, but I still don’t have enough money to pay for my medicine.  It’s so expensive you know. I hope you are blessed with someone to take care of you.”  Then she walked away.  The cynic in me said she was making up a story because she wanted to be begging on a NY street corner.  But the political philosopher, (some might say hack), added, what does it matter,  “there but for God go I.”

Everyone knows there is a health care crisis.  The elderly seem especially hard hit.  Maybe because they aren’t prepared.  (How many of us now young and healthy, even think about buying long term care insurance.) Some of them never expected to live beyond the time they had the means to support themselves.  Some just never expected to have to face all the issues of  getting old in a nation that doesn’t take care of the people contained within it’s borders.

In Europe, where there is socialized medicine, people may not have a choice of doctors, but if they are sick the costs are not such they have no choice but to die.  They can go to the hospital without worrying about having medical insurance and they get the medicine they need to cure them of whatever disease without skipping lunch.   If they can’t be cured, the government pays for them to die with dignity. In fact, if you get sick while you are vacationing, don’t call the American Embassy, you are not in their job description.  But the country where you are visiting will provide care free of charge.  I’m not saying socialized medicine is the route we need to go, but certainly whomever you vote for in the next election needs to make sure something changes.  There are simply too many of the aged who now have to decide if they will eat, pay rent, or be well.  The nameless woman I met on the street was just a little too close to home.

The next President will need to think about the consequences, not only for the elderly, but for those of us who will be there someday, because the impact on the economy and the culture will be disastrous and unimaginable if they look away.   The next election is, unfortunately, not going to matter to Rosemary.  But it is going to matter to those of us who want happy and healthy lives for ourselves and our families — without it costing so much that we can’t afford to live. Right now the reality stinks, but the only way it will change it is if we demand that the new President pay attention to all the ways in which we age, and all the positive possibilities that should be made available to do it gracefully.

Is it good news or bad that the President seems to be among the missing. Oh, we know where he is physically, but he has left the explanations of all the policy decisions up to the policy people he appointed.  Maybe he doesn’t understand the policy decisions he, or someone in the White House has made, but at this point,  I am not surprised about his absence and really, who cares.

Difficult as it is for me to say anything nice about the Administration, I do find it refreshing that there are people who serve “at the pleasure” of Mr. Bush, who are both articulate and intelligent.  Mr. Paulson is quite impressive. Granted, I do not know or understand anything about the reorganization of economic institutions, but I do understand the importance of a rhetorical presentation and his was good.  Additionally,  General Hayden, the Director of the CIA makes a good case for what he has been doing at the CIA.  And let me be perfectly clear about this, I do not know what they do at the CIA, because if I did they would have to kill me.  But when I heard him speak last weekend I thought his approach to terrorism was, how should I say this, quite sensible.  He talked about the importance of knowing what terrorists were up to in order to protect ourselves from the danger of another attack.  But he did it in quite a patriotic and moving way.  He did not sound like Cheney or Rumsfeld in his approach to the rest of the world.  The “they are all trying to get us” approach to diplomacy.  He did not lick his lips while he talked about attack, conquer, mutilate, disembowel, waterboard, or any of the good stuff.  He talked about the survival of democracy, and in that context, why the tasks they performed at the CIA were important.

This is not to say I agree with anything he said, because this was all with regard to spying on the American public,  but he was the first person who explained his position in a way that was neither threatening nor confrontational.  It was a just a simple explanation of a complicated policy.  It makes you miss Colin Powell, who also seems to have disappeared. I guess the humiliation of being lied to by the President and then defending the lie was too much for him. I wonder what would have happened if Connie Rice, instead of being George Bush’s policy wife,  had told her impetuous head of state husband, that the war was wrong and we didn’t need to allow the killing and maiming of the nations children to continue—just because he was wrong. Her ability to tell the truth seems to have disappeared right along with her sense of justice.  She must be negotiating some whopper of a job in corporate America.  Although word has it she wants to be the commissioner of baseball.  Keep in mind I know nothing about a great many things but…

And speaking of disappearance—which I may not have done but I meant to—where was  the animus between the candidates yesterday and the day before.  Or did I miss something?  You’re probably going to say, but what about Bill Clinton’s tirade over the Richardson endorsement.  I know it’s hard to remember this, but Bill Clinton is not the candidate. It seems Obama has moved on to better things like bowling, a college tour of Pennsylvania — where he answered questions from the students, not about his underwear, but about issues that affect them like the economy — and tuition. In his desire to be President, the realization that his target has to be McCain, seems to have become obvious.  Further, he doesn’t need to get into the mud with McCain as of yet, he needs to assure people he can be a leader.

I guess Hillary was too busy answering the phone.  Since it was a 3am call, she was probably too tired (additionally, no make-up or hair), to spend quality time attacking Obama—and at this point  it would have to be quality time for it to make any difference. The Hillary  advisor’s think this “3am call” is working.  I think it’s just another way to give late night talk show hosts more material with which to ridicule her.  But maybe that’s what she wants because when it appears she’s being picked on by any of the boys – be they the media, politicians, or comedians, that’s when she wins. We’ll see if it works on April 22nd.

Not that I miss him and I still have the sense that he is lurking in a dark corner waiting to pounce on discussions about international issues, but since his incredibly pithy “So” in  response to questions about the war, we haven’t heard word one from the Vice President.  The bigger question for those of us who remember Dick Cheney during the Ford and first Bush Presidency is, when did that pleasant guy with what seemed like a moral core, disappear and this caricature of Darth Vadar arrive.  Many people think that it was when he left his job as CEO of Haliburton .  The speculation is that hanging out with all those corporate “white guys” at  companies like Haliburton sucked out his humanity and maybe his soul.  I’m sure you will remember how uncomfortable he was during the last election when he had to come to terms with the public outing (media inquiries) about his lesbian daughter.  He insisted he loved her, which I’m sure or at least I hope he does, but he insisted that her life choices were not choices he would allow for the rest of the country.  And just who is he to think he should be allowed to make choices for the rest of the country. There’s the rub, as most of my pirate friends would agree.  The pirates also agree that we don’t want the government making choices about how we live our lives.  Where’s the threat to humanity if people who love one another want to marry or even pick their noses.

When I met the Cheney’s in the 80’s Lynn Cheney, the now second lady (I guess that’s what you would call her if you didn’t want to say dirty words), wife was an assistant producer for the Mark Shields (a former Udall campaign manager and presently a liberal TV commentator and Washington Post columnist) at the Maryland PBS station.  I was a guest on the show and afterward she asked me if she could write a piece about my adventures. The article was later published in important journals like the American Airlines magazine.  But she was a warm, pleasant, smart person, who if not ever a close friend, certainly a kind of Washington buddy.  Talk about disappearing.  When did Frankenstein and his bride take the place of these seemingly lovely people.  They are a perfect example of power corrupts or maybe money and power corrupt or maybe take care of your friends and they’ll take care of you.  You, unlke the President  may have noticed the price of gas and cost of the war.  How much money, is enough to buy back your soul.   I for one prefer the Bill Gates, Warren Buffett approach to money and power.

There is good news about disappearing.  It appears, earmarks for Congressional pet projects are going to disappear for at least a year.  This is bad news for lobbyists and Cong. Murtha—who has turned the district he represents in Western Pennsylvania, into a place with a plethora of government funded projects.  But it’s good news for taxpayers who have built bridges to nowhere in Alaska and funded studies about the difference in wine drinking in restaurants in cold and warm weather climates. Not that wine drinking is a bad thing, but it’s not up there with cancer research, finding a cure for the common cold or the feeding children programs.

Where is the abrcadabra in our lives?  It would be great to be a magician and decide what else disappears, but I can wait until until next November.