Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me

Actually, I have one more economics-themed post that I wanted to include on the last one about inverted yield curves, but just didn't seem to fit there. This might actually have less to do with economics than it does politics. You decide. But I promise: discussions of which obscure old movies I've been watching from NetFlix are coming soon to this space. Get up for it!

At this point, I wanted to bring up quotes from the op-ed piece President Barack Obama penned for the Washington Post on Thursday. The full article is here (free registration may be required). Obama, naturally, was defending his administration's "Stimulus Package", which people have critiqued as nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. Obama sounded a clarion call for action, trying to get some amount of bipartisan support from the GOP side of Congress, but here is what he said:

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Now, I don't want to get too historical on you, but I fear Obama could slide down the slippery slope of sounding too much like Jimmy Carter did in the late '70s.

At this point, I would love to link to a YouTube clip showing the scene from an early episode of The Simpsons, when the townsfolk of Springfield were expecting the unveiling of a statue dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. Instead, when the drape was lifted, the statue was of Jimmy Carter (with the tagline "Malaise Forever" -- classic!), which of course created a town riot. Sadly, that clip doesn't exist on YouTube, but I can provide the actual Carter "Crisis of Confidence" speech from 15 July 1979, archived by the University of Virginia. Side note: who knew that when Bill Clinton used the line "I feel your pain," he was practically quoting Carter?



Economic recessions have everything to do with crises of confidence, of course. If consumers have no faith their jobs are secure, their buying patterns change radically. That is one reason why Hyundai's offer to buy back a new car purchased this year if the buyer loses his or her job is so revolutionary. As almost every other car manufacturer saw huge hits on new car sales, Hyundai's sales actually increased 14%. Consumer confidence levels are so critical to the economy, a dedicated organization exists to track them.

Consumer confidence was one factor why the economic crisis described in Tom Clancy's 1994 novel Debt of Honor was so realistic. Clancy understood that for a foreign entity to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, all they had to do is sow distrust and fear of our economic institutions (like the financial firms on Wall Street) among the American people. The resulting crisis of confidence brought the American economy low, setting up the rest of the novel. Sorry, I don't want to play spoiler for anyone who has not read it yet.

FDR understood how important consumer confidence was during his first Inaugural address, in 1933, when he famously declared, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The U.S. was already in the midst of the Great Depression, and only by dispelling the negative cloud of uncertainty and fear could FDR lead the country towards economic recovery.

Getting back to Obama and Carter, President Obama will get his stimulus package approved eventually. There was word on the news today that Congress either already approved or appears ready to compromise on a reduced spending bill, one that totals a mere $780B price tag to future generations.

I just think that if Obama wants to help the U.S. recover from this recession in a timely manner, he will skip the doom and gloom speechifying. For heaven's sake, don't mention the possibility of 5 million jobs going away! He needs to leave the fearmongering to the MSM. They do a great job of that.

Elvis (the Horse) Has Left the Building

Yahoo! today carried an AP news article about President Obama imposing new caps on executive pay for any financial firm yet to receive part of the $700B Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), better known as the first of many federal bailout programs. TARP specifically targeted the financial services sector of the economy, and caused much of the Wall Street vs. Main Street hand-wringing when it was proposed and approved last fall.

Since the approval of using federal funds to bail out huge mistakes on bad bets by investment bankers, hedge funds, and virtually any bank dealing in securitized subprime mortgage loans, many commentators rightly pointed out that C-level executives of those same firms were still clearing huge amounts of money in annual bonuses. The AP article pegged the bonus figure at $18B last year alone.

Those of us living on Main Street had every right to be angry at the payment of these huge bonuses, since we're familiar with the model of rewarding good performance with a bonus. If one of us made the bad bets and mistakes the leaders of these financial institutions made, we'd be fired, not enticed to stay with a handsome year-end bonus. Gregg Easterbrook even railed against the 2008 bonuses in several of his most recent Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ) columns on ESPN's Page 2.

So, this action by Obama, stepping into a leadership void left by the collective members of the U.S. Congress, is a good thing, right? Right?!

I think the key paragraph to note is this one:

The pay cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for "exceptional assistance" in the future. The restriction would not apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help.

Sadly, the analogy that applies here is closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. The article does not mention just how much of the taxpayers' $700B remains unclaimed at this point, but I dare say not many banks will line up to take the bailout funding after today.

While this was a nice gesture by Obama, I don't think it will have a great impact on the TARP program (brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department), on other federally-funded bailouts of the auto industry, on the upcoming "stimulus" package (really just a pork-laden spending bill by Congress; it's now up to $900B in additional spending not offset in any way by cuts elsewhere or higher taxes -- the shame!), or on other federal legislation.

He does get to look like he's providing leadership and make headlines, though. For whatever that's worth.

One thing I had to note, though: the POTUS makes an annual salary of $400,000. Plus such benefits as a $50K expense account, a $100K nontaxable travel account, and $19K just for entertaining or entertainment. Does he pay taxes on all the income other than the travel account?

I also had to laugh at the past salaries of U.S. Presidents table found on Wikipedia, under the Salary section of the page. I can appreciate they want to state what the equivalent "Salary in 2008 Dollars" is for the salaries established so many years ago. But there is an error in the math here. If you're talking about what something costs, adjusted for inflation, then something that cost $400K in 2001 would cost $471K in 2008 terms (using just the numbers on the Wikipedia page).

However, since the salary of the President has remained the same since 2001, the equivalent purchasing power of $400K is actually less than what it was in 2001, not more. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) own inflation calculator seems to provide the same type of analysis as what is found on the Wikipedia page. If the salary of the President were adjusted to account for rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) every year, then Obama would be earning $479K in 2009. But he's only making $400K. Put it this way, if you reverse the numbers in the BLS calculator, Obama's $400K salary in 2008 could purchase only the equivalent of $333,482 of 2001 goods.

That's still more than the vast majority of us living on Main Street earn, so I don't feel sorry for his diminished purchasing power. I just wish Obama could bring real change to Washington. It hasn't happened yet.

Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...

I must not be very intelligent when it comes to matters of foreign diplomacy. Perhaps I should request a crash course in negotiating sensitive matters of national and international security from one of my good friends, who currently works for the U.S. State Department. Or is it the U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action! as their website says?

See, I tend to think that if a person or a country is going to negotiate in good faith using bargaining chips, then those chips should already be on the table before the negotiating session begins. I may very well be wrong about that. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

I did see this article on Yahoo! news this morning, in which the Russians claim to make a wonderful conciliatory gesture towards a more cooperative and peaceful approach with the new Obama Administration. Look at us! We promise we won't deploy nuclear-tipped missiles on the Polish border because George W. Bush is no longer in office! Especially since Obama has not ruled out the possibility of continuing Bush's plans for a missile defense shield in Europe (he only promised to consider the policy on its merits before deciding what to do), Russia's move seems to be fairly magnanimous.

However, check out when Moscow originally announced the deployment of their Iskander missiles: it was 5 Nov 08, the day after Obama was elected President. So, this whole announcement of a new era of cooperation, of extending an olive branch to the Obama Administration, is really just a ruse designed to make the Russians look good. They created the faux crisis a day after our Presidential election for the sole purpose of being able to use that bargaining chip now.

That must be how international diplomacy is really conducted.

Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha...

Please Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

I really try to avoid creating multiple posts in one day, primarily because I'm worried that I won't have enough to write about on other days. However, I just saw this video clip from what appears to be a Republican response to Slate and just had to respond:



Now, I'm no political guru, but what Mark McKinnon says about President Bush not revealing his lighter side to the national media runs counter to everything we've been taught to believe about the press. I'm not talking about the presumed bias against anything Republican here; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fill that void. No, it is this direct quote from McKinnon:

It’s really hard, and it’s increasingly hard with the proliferation of media, to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to. To get kind of behind the curtain and show the human side.

Wait, you're trying to make the claim that the reason why no one ever saw the softer side of Bush 43 is because of the proliferation of media? That there are too many sources from which we voters can get to know a candidate?

I don't think I've ever heard anything more patently false* than that. I know that these political insiders, spin doctors, and apparatchiks have their own agendas any time they open their mouths. Michael J. Fox had a wonderful TV show for a long time based on that one premise. But there should be a line drawn between simple spin or image control and outright falsehoods.

* Well, maybe that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were looking for a warm water port, but that's beside the point.

Case in point: The current (and soon to be former) Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently undergoing impeachment hearings in the Illinois state Senate. He decided to boycott the proceedings, claiming a denial of his due process, and instead is waging the public perception war for his image by making personal appearances on 20/20, Good Morning America, and whatnot. That's his right, and certainly lots of people who have screwed up royally decided to take a similar path. Why admit any wrongdoing, when you can shed a few tears in front of Barbara Walters and get a few sympathetic people on your side? It's as American as apple pie, these days.

However, that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Falsehoods are falsehoods, no matter how they are spun. Getting back to the original comment, doesn't McKinnon think there was a single TV show host who would have loved to bring Bush 43 on the set and present him in a favorable light? His statement is that not a single event like that was possible for the eight years of the Bush administration, and that is impossible to believe. Were the shots of Bush relaxing on his Crawford, TX ranch not enough to humanize the man? What about the stills of Bush riding his mountain bike?

No, the real culprit here is not the fact that too many media choices exist to showcase a candidate's sense of humor. For too long, politics have revolved around the ability to show candidates in more open settings. Think of Bill Clinton appearing on MTV to field the infamous "Boxers or briefs?" question, or of him appearing on The Tonight Show to play the sax for Jay Leno. The real danger is that those fluff pieces can drown out more serious discussions on policy stances or political agendas.

Ask yourself this question: what was the alternative before these media avenues existed? Political machines like Tammany Hall used to pick our candidates for us, didn't they? Behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, they did. Would we really want to head back to that style of process?

No, the real culprits for not knowing enough about a candidate are those spin meisters like McKinnon himself. As access to the candidates improved with radio and television this past century, those candidates best able to work with the new technologies benefited the most. Think of JFK in the first televised debate with Richard Nixon. Anyone listening to that debate thought Nixon won; those watching on TV had a vastly different impression. Heck, think of those candidates (including Obama) now blogging and using the Internet to spur grassroots organizations and fund-raising machines.

But as access has increased, so has the worry (again, on the part of the spin meisters like McKinnon) that their candidate will say or do something stupid while a camera or like device is recording. The only alternative? To severely restrict access to a candidate and heavily script every appearance, every utterance, to make sure the candidate remains on topic and on message, lest any words that could be used in a negative campaign ad be caught on tape.

The same is true in sports, as well. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, at one point of their lives, were happy, confident young men who delighted in telling their own story to the press. As they realized the power (and lucrative nature!) of marketing themselves, they clammed up to the point of only saying the most droll of sound bites. It's also why Jordan never took up a side for a politician, using the old line that "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So, the problem is not that there are too many media outlets "...to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to." The problem is that the candidates' or President's handlers won't allow him (or her) to speak for him- or herself while on the campaign trail or while in office. Just give credit where credit is due. You can't blame mass media for every ill in society, as tempting as that might be.

Best of Luck to the New POTUS

I think he'll need it in the immediate future! Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States (POTUS) today, and plenty of people have already served up their commentary on what his election means for our nation.

I did take the time to watch a live feed of Obama's speech during work today (Shhh! Don't tell my boss), along with several of my coworkers. Perhaps it was just too frigid for the attendees on the vast expanses of the Mall, most of whom had been standing around for hours in the cold, to warm up and applaud at appropriate times during Obama's speech. There seemed to be several instances where he deliberately paused, expecting a reaction from the crowd, only to be met with silence or simply muted clapping. Throughout the speech, there were no real roars of approval except, perhaps, when Obama pledged to get troops out of Iraq in so many words.

What is interesting is this comparison of today's speech to W's last Inaugural speech from 2005, courtesy of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" column in today's WSJ:

First, Obama's speech from today:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West--know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Here is George W. Bush, four years ago today:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The two speeches were not that dissimilar, and gave credence to the same founding principles that are what make America great. In my own humble opinion, Obama's speech was not hugely historic -- definitely not up to the standard set by JFK -- but it served as a reminder that Obama has plenty of challenges facing his administration.

Many people have also commented that words are cheap and that actions, not words, will carry the day. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. It will continue to be very interesting to see just how Obama will govern from the White House, now that he is the POTUS. I continue to have hope in the future, but let's see where the next few months and years take us as a nation.

Most telling will be what the U.S. response is after the next time terrorists attack our interests, be it an attack on U.S. Navy ships like the USS Cole, train bombings like in London or Madrid, or something else equally henious. It's probably not a question of if, but more like when something like that happens, how will Obama respond? Time will tell.

Hollywood's Fascination with Assassins

I watched the movie Smokin' Aces (2006) the other night, and it got me started thinking about all the assassin movies that Hollywood has released recently. It's not just Hollywood, either. The European and Asian filmmakers have a long history of making films about hit men, so let's not forget about that. It could be that part of this uptick in assassin movies has something to do with American popular culture being influenced more and more by Japanese and Chinese culture.

When I did a quick keyword search on just the word assassin on IMDB, the Internet Movie Database (best resource ever!), it returned 445 hits. Some of those line items were empty, which is very curious, but they were missing other key films I consider as assassin movies, such as La Femme Nikita (1990), the Whole Nine Yards (2000), and The Boondock Saints (1999). A keyword search for the terms professional and assassin yielded just 12 hits. Obviously, IMDB doesn't index its movie resources all that effectively, and perhaps they rely on user inputs, which can be notoriously faulty.

Here's a very incomplete listing of recent films on assassins or professional hit men (and women!) that filtered through my consciousness as I thought about this topic:

• In Bruges (2008)
• Pineapple Express (2008); a comedy, yes, but includes hit men
• Wanted (2008)
• Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
  
• Hitman (2007); based on videogame
• No Country for Old Men (2007)
• You Kill Me (2007)
• Smokin' Aces (2006)
• The Matador (2005)
• Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005)
  
• Collateral (2004)
• Usher (2004); comedy about a hit man turned movie theater attendant
• Kill Bill, vols 1 and 2 (2003-04)
• the Bourne trilogy about the amnesiatic hit man (2002-07)
• Assassination Tango (2002)
• The Road to Perdition (2002)
• The Whole Nine Yards (2000)
• The Boondock Saints (1999)
• Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
• The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996); Geena Davis takes a turn as a female Bourne
• Assassins (1995)
• The Professional (1994)
• Pulp Fiction (1994)
• In the Line of Fire (1993)
• Unforgiven (1992)
  
• La Femme Nikita (1990)
• The Eiger Sanction (1975)
  

I would even lump the first Terminator (1984) movie into this list, because yes, Arnold's time-traveling cyborg was sent back to assassinate Sarah Connor. Again, this is a very incomplete list, but there are some important points to keep in mind about these movies.

First and foremost, in the majority of these films, Hollywood shows the hit man in a favorable light and/or makes the assassin the hero/anti-hero. I'm sure Hollywood types love to romanticize the idea of the hit man; it must also generate some edgy tension in terms of making the audience care about a person they really should hate very much -- an assassin who takes a precious human life for nothing more than money. It also doesn't get much easier for a writer to show the classic man vs. man or man vs. self conflicts than by using an assassin, does it? Some of the greatest heroes in Hollywood, like Al Pacino's Michael Corleone in the first Godfather (1972) movie, took turns as killers. Who can forget the line, "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli"?

Not too many of the movies listed above actually make the assassin be the bad guy or antagonist in the storyline. Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire does, as Clint's Secret Service agent tries to keep John Malkovich from assassinating the President. It's hard to tell when Hollywood and other movie producers really started making the anti-hero be the protagonist (obviously, I never went to film school), but La Femme Nikita, The Professional, and Pulp Fiction took that idea and ran with it.

La Femme Nikita always struck me as being a landmark film for several reasons. First, the idea that the French government would take a female punker and turn her into a professional killer was intriguing. The relationship between Nikita and her handler was very complex, and made for a strong storyline. I omitted the Bridget Fonda remake, Point of No Return (1993), from the list above because it was awful in comparison to the original. The writer and director of Nikita, Luc Besson, also wrote and directed The Professional, also called Leon in foreign markets.

Something about The Professional always struck me as being a little bit off. At the end of the movie, no matter how much Besson wanted me to care sincerely about what happened to Jean Reno's character, I just couldn't muster that sadness. After all, Leon was a killer, and a very good one at that. Gary Oldman was definitely the bad guy in the movie, so Leon was supposed to be the father figure for Natalie Portman and so much more. Maybe my own American sensibilities couldn't fathom the purported romance between Leon and the 12 year old Mathilda, or maybe I just didn't want to get that, as objectionable as it is. I've read that European audiences were much more open to that idea, which might change the whole character of the movie. At any rate, I was never sold 100% on The Professional.

The next movie that really portrayed assassins in a favorable light was Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. I'll never forget the review I read at the time that pointed out the relationship between the two assassins played by John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. That relationship was grounded in the dialogue between the two, and Tarantino has always been known for his dialogue.* The assassins played a significant part in the movie, to be sure. But the movie was not just about the two hit men, and there was a little redemption at the end for Samuel L. Jackson's character, which made it easier to stomach. It's probably the best movie I've seen that is not already in my DVD collection at home.

* Forget all the obvious examples from Tarantino movies, such as the opening of Reservoir Dogs (1992), or any lines from True Romance (1993), which he wrote. Those are classics, yes. But for me, the all-time Tarantino quote came from an otherwise forgettable movie called Sleep with Me (1994). If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. I'm not going to cut and paste the whole thing here, but you can read it yourself at IMDB here. If you haven't seen the movie, it's not worth your time to watch it just for the Tarantino performance.

I absolutely loved Grosse Pointe Blank with John Cusack precisely because the killer was so conflicted about his role in society. He continually says that "It's not me" when talking about him fulfilling a contract to kill someone. It's not personal, although the intended victim might not feel the same way. The movie works on so many levels because it does incorporate so much psychology into the storyline, and not just in the scenes with Cusack and Alan Arkin's Dr. Oatman character. When the hit man realizes he can truly never go home again (it's been converted to a Ultimart!), it is a classic scene. It also touches on the entire conflict of whether we allow our jobs or our professional lives to dictate how we are seen in society, of defining who we are as a person. It works on so many levels, not least of which because anyone who has returned for a high school reunion can totally relate.

Given all the examples listed above, I have to say that the "assassin as good guy" plot device is getting a bit tired. In Bruges was artfully done, and the acting was top-notch. The idea that a hit man could be completely conflicted about his career choice, and made even more so because of an unintended victim during a hit on a Catholic priest, was more realistic. In the movie I just watched, Smokin' Aces, one of the German hit men used a dead man's lips (played by Ben Affleck, and how on earth did he keep from laughing while someone else was manipulating his lips and eyelids?!) to request absolution from his victim. It boggles the mind, and was perhaps the deepest part of the movie.

I couldn't help but think that I would have really liked Smokin' Aces much more about 10-15 years ago. I'm sure I've matured in the intervening time, because the overly stylized violence just made me cringe. It was very juvenile in nature, and even though the cast did a very good job with the story, I wouldn't watch it again. That's been true for some of the Guy Ritchie movies, like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). I remember seeing that movie in the theater and being impressed with how the characters' stories all came together. It was entertaining at the time. Later, when watching the movie with my sister and a few others, it seemed to be violence just for the sake of violence, and perhaps I've outgrown that.

At any rate, Hollywood continues to pump out movies about assassins. Given that Tom Cruise's Collateral was well received, and that the Coen Brothers won Oscar gold for No Country for Old Men, I expect that trend to continue. At least until people quit going to see these movies.

Obama's Mandate

I was happy and relieved to see that Barack Obama won in fairly convincing fashion last night, if only to prevent charges of disenfranchisement and another "stolen" election. Here are a few scattershot thoughts, in no apparent order, but I wanted to get them out there:

Obama won a relatively close popular vote by about six percentage points over McCain, but was able to collect a sizable lead in the electoral college by winning key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Virginia.

Almost 119 Million Americans turned out to vote, which is decent until you consider we are now a nation of over 300 Million. In very rough terms, that's still less than 40% of Americans casting a ballot for the next President.

**Edited on 11/6/08** The numbers I can find online still add up to only about 120 Million Americans having cast a ballot on Tuesday. But on The Newshour on PBS last night, they said the total number of votes cast was over 132 Million, and that the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot was something like 60%. Obviously, not all Americans being counted in the 300+ Million number are eligible to vote. The other discrepancy (between 120 and 132 Million) could be explained by news sites' refusal to update their electoral maps with the results from NC and Missouri.

Despite the anecdotal evidence (stories) of young Americans being energized by Obama and turning out to vote, NPR last night said the rate of first-time voters in this election (~10%) basically equalled the rate of first-time voters in the last election (~11%).

Missouri failed to vote for the next President for only the second time (ever? or just in the past 100 years?).

The Redskins once again correctly predicted the next President. Any time they lose their last home game before the election, the incumbent party loses the White House. That was true this year, as the Redskins lost to Pittsburgh 23-6 on Monday night, but was not true in 2004.

It appears that Senators from Arizona, no matter how popular and well-respected they may be in their home state, cannot get elected to our nation's highest office. The sample size is small, though.

My three-year-old son was watching the Today show with my wife this morning, as we tried to educate him about Obama being the next President. He cried out, "No Obama! No Obama!" But really, he just wanted us to change the channel from the news over to Curious George on PBS Kids.

We also enjoyed eating "Bumblebee Pie" yesterday, courtesy of my son. It was nothing more than cornbread to go with our chili-style meal, but it kinda looked like a pie before it was cut, and since we put honey on the cornbread, it suddenly had an association with bumblebees. So be it! I love how kids come up with different names for things!

It also made me think of when my parents renamed an apple turnover-style dessert in honor of Barry Goldwater after his defeat to LBJ in 1964. To this day, I think of that dessert come election time. My mom, as a Democrat, has refused to make it for decades.

A classic fearless prediction I saw in James Taranto's Best of the Web column last week: Obama will not be the first President to appoint an African-American to the post of Secretary of State.

Here is sincerely hoping that Obama's election will turn out to be a real game-changer on the topic of race relations in America. We are not far removed from Jim Crow, segregation, and disenfranchisement, as Obama pointed out in his victory speech last night. Things have changed a lot just since the Civil Rights Act was signed by LBJ in 1964. Let's hope we continue making progress and that this election marks real hope for healing and racial togetherness (unity is too strong a word) in the future. I really don't want a return to the Sixties.

I sincerely hope that Obama will practice what he preached on the campaign trail. That he will be a uniter, not a divider. That he will actually follow steps he himself set forth when he became the President of the Harvard Law Review, and appoint more conservative members to editorial positions than he did his liberal friends. They were upset with him then, but it showed that Obama had principles and wanted to make sure the best people were appointed to the right positions. Too much of politics today has become this: I funded your campaign, so what cherry position do I get in your Cabinet? More simply: What type of access to power can I buy? If Obama truly wants to govern the country according to principle, then he will appoint one or more Republicans (can anyone say Colin Powell?) to his Cabinet.

As a follow-on to that note, it could be that Obama very well understands the age-old principle of, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Obama will also need to rein in members of his own party, members that see the large gains made by House and Senate Democrats, and who will want to drive a very left-leaning agenda simply because they have the votes to do so. Nancy Pelosi, I'm thinking of you!

If Obama wants to be a uniter, and to get away from the partisan politics that have both poisoned the atmosphere in Washington and caused everyday Americans to lose faith in their government as a whole. Let's not forget that the approval ratings for Congress is at all time lows, in the single digits. Something different needs to be done there.

To quote Forrest Gump: "That's about all I have to say about that."

PBS Frontline - The Choice 2008

This is a post I've been chewing on, thinking about how to address, for quite some time. On 14 October, our local PBS station aired the Frontline documentary, The Choice 2008. I mentioned back in early October, when the show was first advertised, that I eagerly anticipated watching the documentary. My wife and I caught the last Frontline documentary in 2004, and it really helped us to make up our minds for whom to vote on the night before the election. Strange, perhaps, but true. Being undecided this year about whom to vote meant we wanted to see the documentary to see if the same would be true this year as well.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. We are both still undecided, and with election day just around the corner, I'm not entirely sure what will sway us at this late date. The problem certainly was not with the Frontline documentary crews, who created an excellent two-hour piece that was as informative as we expected it to be. If you haven't yet seen the documentary, I highly encourage everyone to watch it. The link above allows you to watch the video of the show, either in snippets or in its entirety. The quality of the production certainly was not the issue.

To me, the real problem comes down to simple dissatisfaction with the two candidates. Let me talk about John McCain first, since McCain was the one politician I really wanted to vote for in 2000. Eight years ago, McCain was younger, more energetic, more willing to take on the entrenched special interests on the far right, and more of a campaign finance reform maverick. The Choice captured all of that, and then showed how that version of McCain was destroyed in the 2000 South Carolina primary by Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

Sadly, that defeat in South Carolina transformed McCain into something of a shadow of his former self, something that the Candorville daily comic strip has captured over the past few weeks. The Choice detailed the concessions McCain had to make to become palatable, and thereby electable, to the right-wing base of the Republican party. McCain still wants to be the maverick who castigates members of his own party, and who effectively reaches across the aisle to work on and pass legislation that is important to the future of this country, but the sad fact is that McCain had to bow on bended knee to the right-wing evangelicals who supported George W. Bush if he ever wanted to reach the Presidency. It's sad, sad, sad. I still like McCain as a war veteran and as a person I would trust to do the right thing for the sake of America, but he is no longer the politician he was in 2000.

Which brings me to Obama. The Choice had plenty to say about Obama's background and how he burst onto the national scene by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, which was the first time most Americans (myself included) heard his name. Living in Illinois since 2005, I've personally seen Obama's influence on local and state politics, and he certainly is an incredibly smart and effective politician. There can be no doubt about that. As much as Obama preaches the mantra of creating a unified political landscape (and his 2004 DNC speech was nothing more than his regular election stump speech, Frontline said), he is cagey, crafty, and not averse to doing whatever it takes to get himself elected. He is a fighter, and if people don't recognize that in him, it is only because his personality and charisma are so overpowering.

What I found most interesting about Obama's history, and The Choice primarily focused on his adult life post-graduation from Columbia University, is that he is primarily driven by the pursuit of power. That's the only conclusion I could draw from everything I've seen. When Obama decided to run for the office of President of the Harvard Law Review, it was not because he wanted to pursue an agenda to improve the study of law, or even to alleviate the strife between the conservatives and liberals that engulfed Harvard during his time there. Apparently, it was enough just to be the first African-American to hold the office.

When Obama decided to first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, it was simply to gain the office of Illinois state Senator. The Choice did indicate just one reason for why Obama entered politics: he felt that he could not influence enough people working as a community organizer, the job he held before entering politics. He wants to have his hands on the levers of power. Why does Obama want to have as much influence as possible? The office of POTUS certainly would have the most influence, wouldn't it? Frontline seemed to indicate that Obama wants to help lift poor African-Americans out of poverty, and if you've ever been to the south side of Chicago, that is a laudable goal.

My next question, then, was what really is the best method of reaching people and helping them get out of poverty? Is it the New Deal version of helping people who had been tossed about by market forces beyond their control during the Great Depression? Is it the Great Society of entitlement programs and government-sponsored handouts propagated by LBJ Democrats? Or is the trickle-down economic ideal of Reagonomics the best way of helping people create value in their own communities and take ownership of their lives?

OK, so those three choices are incredibly simplified and each one carries its own baggage with political thinkers from either side of the aisle. What I really thought about was Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Yes, the brilliant basketball player who announced he was HIV-positive way back in 1991. Since his retirement from the NBA, Magic Johnson invested his own personal wealth, time and energy to create self-sustainable businesses in poverty-stricken predominately African-American communities across America. He took his social obligation to his fellow man, and instead of simply lending his name and likeness to a not-for-profit foundation, Magic understood the way of creating substantial change in these communities was to provide jobs, careers, paychecks, educational opportunities, and sustainable businesses. Investing in peoples' lives in this manner really creates the change that so much of America needs these days. He wrote a commentary along these lines for USA Today back in May, and it's well-worth the read.

Coming back to Obama, I know that he did not have the personal wealth of Magic Johnson when he decided to run for Illinois state Senator. I tend to think he's doing pretty well for himself these days, however. For as much grief as McCain has taken for marrying the daughter of a very successful beer distributor in Arizona, and for all the various real estate holdings of the McCain family, Barack and Michelle Obama also own numerous houses or condos. Not as many as the McCains, to be sure, but more than the average American family.

Ah, so who to vote for in two days? As I said before, I still trust McCain would do right for the country, no matter how unpopular a particular decision might be. If that meant touching the "third rail of politics" and creating fundamental change on Social Security and Medicare, I think McCain would find a way to work across the aisle and get it done. With Obama, I can understand why he wants to win the office of POTUS. I know lots of people who are driven to succeed, but their only goal is to be successful. Naked ambition and a desire for power is nothing new in America.

On the other hand, being the first African-American to hold the office would be pretty darn incredible. Obama has been that kind of trailblazer in the past, and he is comfortable in that role. But WHY does he really want to hold the office? Is it so he can engineer a massive redistribution of wealth, as the Republicans charge? Is it just so he can have the most influence possible, so he can drive the national discourse on the issues of race, poverty, and social entitlement programs? Is it just so he can bring U.S. troops home from Iraq?

For all the campaigning, I don't think I can answer that question about Obama. Neither McCain's campaign nor the MSM are helping to clarify these things, either. The MSM isn't really asking the questions of either candidate that would expose their underlying philosophies and explain to the American public why each wants the office of POTUS so badly. It's almost just understood that these two men want the office, and that we don't need to understand why. I'm a person who always wants to know why.

One last addendum, which is slightly off-topic: Living in the state of Illinois, I hate that we live in a very safe state for Obama. I would much rather live in a battleground state, even though that would mean being forced to see all the attack ads on TV ad nauseum. Why? My sister, mother, and brother all had the opportunity to see Obama live, in person, at various political rallies for the candidate. My sister even saw Bruce Springsteen play live on stage, before Obama took the stage. I've never seen the Boss once, and I'd love to see him play live! I'd love to meet McCain and his family, especially Meghan McCain, who has an absolutely wonderful blog that provides an unequalled behind-the-scenes look at the campaign. I would absolutely love to meet them in person! There is something to be said for being able to look a man in the eye, shake his hand, and hear him speak in person. In this election, I never got that chance.

The Darndest Thing

Wouldn't you say this is the darndest thing? MLB and Bud Selig adjusted the start time of a possible game six in the World Series to accommodate a half-hour ad buy from the Obama campaign.

Forget for a minute that not many World Series' have made it to six games recently, as that article pointed out. Also forget that since game five was suspended last night due to rain, they will take an extra day in Philly tonight to determine the outcome of that game. There's more rain in the forecast for tonight, so there's no telling if they will actually play a game six on Thursday this week, even if game six becomes necessary. (And weren't they wishing for the indoor comfort of Tropicana Field last night?!)

What really makes me scratch my head is the fact that Obama still feels the ad buy is necessary, with less than a week to go until polls close. What more could he say to the American people that he hasn't already said through campaign stops, town halls during the primary season, his speech at the DNC, and during the Presidential debates with John McCain? Does Obama feel a little desperation creeping in, even though the MSM already crowned him the presumptive next POTUS?

NPR yesterday spoke with some voters in Missouri, a state that traditionally picks the next POTUS. I think they said that the only time (maybe it was the only time since 1900... ?) that the residents of Missouri didn't vote for the next President was in the 1956 election. Missouri this year is split in pre-election polling, almost exactly 50-50 between McCain and Obama.

It just makes me wonder... even with the issues of the crumbling national economy, the meltdown on Wall Street, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with people's worries about the advancing age of McCain -- even with all of that! -- Obama still hasn't sealed the deal. He still feels the need to make one last pitch to the American populace. Which makes me scratch my head, just a little bit.

Get the Popcorn Ready!

I mentioned this before: the one debate I'm eagerly anticipating is this Thursday's Vice Presidential candidate debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. If I can figure out how to include a countdown clock widget in this post, I'll put it here:



If you saw the first Presidential debate aired last Friday, 26 Sept, you'll know that neither candidate seemed to move the needle much. After the debate was over, Obama apparently picked up some additional support among independents, but by and large (a term I think most people forgot about before this summer's Pixar movie, Wall-E), the people who already support McCain still support McCain, and the people supporting Obama still support Obama. The debate itself was curious on several levels, though.

I thought it interesting that Obama and McCain actually mimicked each other's policy stances on a wide variety of questions, from the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to failing to clearly state where they would cut back on future spending. Neither candidate wanted to play with the hot potato of the $700B bailout package, and yesterday's NO vote showed why. Both candidates want to shake up the cozy Washington Insider environment between lobbyists and lawmakers. Both candidates even tried sliming the other with comparisons to W, at which point Obama laughed out loud when McCain tried to make the case.

It could be that the crowd control rules in place there in Oxford, MS (the audience did a very good job of not rooting for their man, not clapping, applauding, or even laughing at the jokes) prevented the sound bites from delivering a bigger impact on the stage. Both candidates certainly tried hitting their notes, but without a laugh track to confirm a witty rejoinder, it must have seemed like a stand-up comedian in a morgue. Can you imagine Ronny Reagan delivering his "Well, there you go again..." line to Mondale in 1984 to complete silence? I didn't think so.

One of the biggest problems with that debate (and with any future debate between Obama and McCain, for that matter) is that each man can be tarred and feathered with his past votes in the Senate. This is the problem of having all your government service experience in a legislative body instead of in the executive branch. The way legislation is crafted these days, there are typically so many riders and amendments attached to any given bill, there are very strong reasons why a Congressperson would vote against it. In order to vote for any bill, I'm sure they have to hold their noses and accept the bad with the good. So, McCain can claim Obama voted down financial support for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama can claim McCain supported the Bush tax cuts. The bigger picture, that there are many good reasons why each man voted the way he did at the time, gets lost in the debate.

The reverse case in point: Ron Paul always used this quirk of the legislative process to his own advantage. He faithfully received earmark requests from his home district, made sure those earmarks were included in whatever omnibus spending bill was going to be voted on, and then always voted against the bill to keep from sullying his anti-earmark message. He literally had his cake and ate it, too. He could rightfully claim he always voted against wasteful government spending, knowing full well that enough other votes would still pass the bill, directly benefiting his own district.

At any rate, even those filling executive level positions have their own limitations. Ask W about that this week! Our system of checks and balances makes it impossible to pass legislation or to govern independently, which is as it should be. If Congress wants to play political football with the entire country's financial system, so be it. When Warren Buffett says he's worried about the future of our economy without some form of bank bailout package being passed, I think it's time we all sit up and take notice.

And it could be that no past or future debate affects how people plan to vote in November quite as much as the bank crisis last week and this week's failed bank bailout package. The NewsHour on PBS last night interviewed some swing voters in one key battleground state, Florida. Those voters expressed dismay over the economy (an Obama strength, for some reason) and flat-out said they didn't want four more years of the same failed policies (an indictment of W, to be sure, but which also includes McCain). So at this point, the die may be cast in favor of Obama to reach the White House, even if national polls don't confirm that yet.

I always thought that McCain's pick of Palin was the equivalent of a Republican Hail Mary play, on par with Doug Flutie's Boston College upset of Miami in 1984. (Wow, two references to 1984 in the same post! Who would have figured that?!) McCain needed something big, some huge WOW! factor to jazz up the right-wing base of the party, and Palin certainly did that. She grabbed the headlines, made everyone talk about McCain's campaign for weeks on end, and diverted the media attention (for good or bad) from Obama at a critical stage of the race.

However, she still needs to show she can hold her own against a Washington Insider like Biden. Some conservative pundits within the past week apparently are saying she should step down from the ticket and let McCain pick someone better. Obviously, they aren't going to do that. That would clearly be political suicide at this point, with about five weeks to go until the polls open. I partly wonder if, maybe, just maybe, the Republican political machinery isn't working to lower peoples' expectations for Palin in advance of this, her most important event of the campaign.

In politics as in sports, it's always easier to play to win when all the pressure is on the other guy, the front-runner. If Biden does well and "wins" the debate, he can't really win because he was supposed to do well. As the favorite, there's very little upside and a whole lot of downside. If he cracks or lets the pressure of the situation get to him even the tiniest little bit, it could be momentous. The underdog, on the other hand, can go in loose and without fear, since there's really nothing to lose. If Palin can merely come out even in the debate, she wins. No one expects her to out point Biden or show where he's weak on foreign policy. She has a lot more personality, though. If the crowd is not muted this time, watch out for fireworks!

I'm getting my popcorn ready, that's for sure!

Let the Woman Be, eh?

So, people either love her or hate her. The "her" in question is, of course, John McCain's selection for running mate, Sarah Palin. No one has been lukewarm about the announcement, it seems. Democrats have been looking for any reason to discredit the woman, from attacks on her family (I'm glad to see that both Obama and Biden have called for the family attacks to stop), to attacks on her beauty-queen looks, to even digging up ancient footage of when she did the sportscasting for her local news station. You know what? I've seen LOTS of male sportscasters on local TV stations who couldn't hold a candle to her performance captured above.

All I can say is, America is the land of opportunity. She's been handed a tremendous opportunity because John McCain and the Republican Party chose her for some reason in what has to be seen as a make-or-break gamble for the Presidency. So, let's see what she has to say and see how she handles herself during the rest of the campaign.

Personally, I was impressed with her speech yesterday. Perhaps because she has that experience in front of cameras, she showed no hesitation or fear of speaking in front of the raucous crowds at the RNC. She hit her lines, and the only drawback there was that they leaked the best lines during the day yesterday. Punchlines are always heightened when they are unexpected. I was sincerely disappointed that the GOP did not prepare a "Meet Sarah Palin" video the same way the Democrats did for Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (who needed that intro, by the way?), and Barack Obama. Shoot, even John McCain is getting his own video, and most people are already familiar with his story. So, why no video for a person who is a virtual unknown on the national stage?

Perhaps Sarah wanted to perform her own introductions. She certainly didn't hold back from introducing her loving husband, her five children, and her own back story. Good for her, I say.

A recent photo of the Palin family, pre-Trig

I really have only two negatives that I've seen thus far, one of which is offered up by my wife. After Sarah's speech yesterday, she pointed out how Sarah's piled high hair and outfit, while nicer than Hillary's pantsuits, still seemed very small-townish. I have very little to no idea about women's fashions, so when I suggested that Sarah was perhaps cultivating that small town look to demonstrate again that she's not from Washington or the east coast, my wife told me that women would notice and judge her for the clothes she wears and how she wears her hair. To me, if she goes all "Sex and the City" fashionable now, it would seem terribly phony and, most likely, backfire on her. She might be in an unwinnable position there.

My only other comment, and I really don't mean to attack her family in any way, is this: I, personally, am more of a traditionalist when it comes to naming children. My own children are named after relatives, so I probably shouldn't even make this comment. I just wouldn't name my own children Track*, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. To me, those are: something you run in middle school, the home of ESPN, a bad '80s movie, an airplane, and high school math. That's all I'll say about that.

*But good for Track to volunteer for the Army and proudly serve his country in our armed forces! 

I did love the commentators on NPR last night, after she delivered her speech. They talked about how she hit a home run with her delivery and her comportment. What I loved the most, however, was how they picked up on Rudy Guiliani's line about how no one -- NO ONE! -- would ever question a male candidate about his choice to run and whether he could still devote enough time and attention to his family. By questioning Palin's choice, the Democrats effectively ceded initiative on the feminism issue to Republicans, and who ever thought that would happen in their lifetime?

What I especially want to see now -- what I'm dying to see as soon as possible -- is the VP debate. Sure, I'll watch the Presidential candidates face off, just to see what they say head-to-head. But I'll be making popcorn and settling in early to see Sarah vs. Joe Biden. If she can hold her own against a long-time Washington insider, someone who has a long legislative track record and excellent foreign policy credentials; if she can hold her own and not freeze on a question against Biden; if she can make people laugh with an off-the-cuff witty rejoinder during the pressure-packed debate when the hot lights are shining and she has no place to hide, then I will be very impressed. I would feel much better about McCain's choice of running mate if she can perform on that stage.

I think she has already done a very good job of handling the pressure and media scrutiny since the announcement. She had to know the media circus would pounce on her background and start flinging mud against her family, and yet she chose to run anyway. That has to say something about her character. Let's give her a chance and see what she does with it. Isn't that what America is all about?

McCain Gets Younger

So, by now, I'm sure everyone has heard the news about John McCain selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the general election. Ah, but what to make of it?



I'm sure Democrats will be upset that he made the announcement on the same day that Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination in that functional, workmanlike speech in Denver. That, in and of itself, was interesting: gone were the uplifting, flowery words of hope ("Yes, We Can!"), replaced with actual step-by-step planks of what Obama hopes to do once he assumes the Presidency. I know the NY Times talking head didn't like it, but let's be honest. Obama has taken heat for his inexperience and lack of substance, and he really needed to show that he can be serious about running the country. I thought he did a great job, and for the first time, I heard some things from Obama that I really appreciated. I really liked it when he said we should be able to find middle ground on issues like gun control, gay rights, and abortion. Even if it is an agreement to disagree, I like the move to the middle. The far left and the far right have dominated their respective party politics for too long.

Of course, Obama's choice in his VP selection, Joe Biden*, showed that he was also serious about filling the holes in his own resume by picking a running mate with considerable foreign policy chops and a long legislative track record. I was surprised that Obama didn't pick Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sibelius, or some other Governor from a state that could really help him. By picking another Senator from a small population east coast state, I'm not entirely sure Obama helped himself as much as he could have. It will be interesting to see how the general election plays out.

* When I told my mom, who was vacationing in Colorado at the time and had no access to news, about the Joe Biden pick, she was devastated. A die-hard Democrat who has been on the Obama bandwagon for quite a while now, she had no excitement over the naming of Biden to the ticket.

But then McCain announced his VP choice in Sarah Palin. Which really means he is also serious about filling holes in his candidacy. McCain knows he can't really be challenged by Obama on foreign policy issues or on his experience in the Senate. (Yes, that's what Biden is for.) McCain has been taking heat on the age issue, though. If elected, McCain will be the oldest first-time President sworn in to office in the history of the U.S. He's been shown to be out of touch with the Internet and e-mail. His cultural references are older than the Baby Boomers. He really needed to connect with a younger generation, and Palin fits that bill.

By all accounts, Palin is considered a maverick on par with her new running mate. Appointed to a high position by the previous Republican Governor of Alaska, she exposed corruption within her own party. She brings a blue-collar mentality to the ticket, as her husband works on the oil pipelines in Alaska. She also is adamantly pro-life, which should help McCain with the right-wing evangelicals within the Republican party.

It's too early to say whether a McCain-Palin ticket will have the same effect as the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. Already, Geraldine and Hillary have praised the decision to name another woman to a major party Presidential ticket. It would be not a little disingenuous to say that McCain is not deliberately reaching out to the Hillary supporters, all 18 million of them, with his choice in running mate. Politics can be a dirty business, and you gotta do what you gotta do to win. Bill Clinton said words to that effect back in the '90s.

They say that genius usually comes with a tincture of madness. It will be interesting to see if McCain's move is a stroke of genius or the desperation of a madman.

The Hill's Speech

This blog will not be focused just on fantasy football; that would cover ground already well-covered by many other writers much more talented than I. Plus, I have many more passions and interests than pro and college football, and I fully intend to write about whatever strikes my fancy on a given day.

Which brings me to the DNC currently happening in Denver, CO. My first reaction when I learned that the Democrats were holding their convention this week was pure fatigue. My wife and I just finished watching days of Beijing Olympics coverage on NBC for whatever reason (normally, I couldn't be bothered by running, swimming, or gymnastics, but for some reason, this Summer Olympics found its way into our TV viewing schedule. And we were not alone; the ratings numbers even surprised NBC, I think!), and I really didn't want to jump into another week of every night extended TV coverage of a "big event." Couldn't they have given us a week off before starting the national conventions? Oh, and the Republicans REALLY should give us a week off before starting theirs in Minneapolis next week! Talk about viewer fatigue! I know the networks have dead time during the summer they need to fill with programming before starting their fall schedules, but this is rediculous.

Having said that, I was interested in watching the Michelle Obama video and speech. I read someone else say yesterday that they wanted to vote for Michelle's dad for President. Her back story certainly is interesting and compelling, and she delivered a very solid speech in support of her man. She would make a heck of a first lady, if they win the general election.

And then Hillary took the stage yesterday, and I couldn't help but think she's in full image recovery mode. Her speech enabled her to save face within the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that she was sincere in pushing for her supporters to back Obama, but it must have been tough to get so close to the nomination only to come away empty-handed (not even the VP!). She was also able to deliver the quippy one-liners that were sure to be clipped into sound bites by the MSM: "No way, no how... no McCain!" Plus the one about Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities. It almost looked like Bill had given her that one to use during her speech. He certainly seemed to be bursting with pride as she delivered; the Clintons will not go quietly into the night!

I do take exception to some of the comments she made, however. If nothing else, she is setting up Obama to fail if he does ascend to the Presidency. Many of the evils she mentioned (the Halliburtons and Exxons, the companies offshoring their jobs, etc.) are simply easy targets to scapegoat during the current economic downturn. These have been the Democratic drum beat for the past eight years. But NO President has control over rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs, the move to cheaper manufacturing locations, or even the move by many companies to incorporate offshore in Bermuda, where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. None of these things would change under any new administration without significant new laws being passed, and oh by the way, that has to be done by Congress.

Let's review what the President does have control over: some elements of Fiscal Policy, although let's be honest, the annual President's budget generally is DOA when it arrives at Congress every fall. Some amount of Monetary Policy, only insofar as the Pres can appoint a new Chairman of the Fed Reserve, whose policies he then has to live with. Everything else revolves around running the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which only very indirectly impacts the economy as a whole. Sure, FCC and FTC policies have an impact on specific elements of the telecommunications sector, but it's not like the President has a whole lot of levers he can pull to effect change. The next Pres won't even appoint a new Fed Reserve Chairman (confirmed by the Senate, natch) until 2010, when Ben Bernanke's term expires. So for the first half of the next President's term, either McCain or Obama will be stuck with the guy appointed by Bush.

So, for Hillary and Obama to make calls for ending the war in Iraq (seems like the Iraqi PM Maliki is giving them less fodder there, since he is calling for a definitive timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal--independent of actions proposed by the POTUS), universal healthcare (how do you propose to pay for that?!), more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (I guess that could be a possibility, if Honda and Toyota build more plants for small, fuel efficient cars here; again, not something the Pres has any contol over), and whatever else makes up the Democratic Party platform this year seems to me to be nothing more than empty campaign promises. As always.

Not that the Republicans will do any better next week. Are you sure we can't get a week off in between the two conventions?! Talk about viewer fatigue. I just wonder who McCain will tap to be his running mate?