Archive for April 2008
Photo ID laws shouldn’t be used for sanctioned intimidation; right to vote should be sacred
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Wed, 04/30/2008 – 8:54am
“As an American, I have the right to vote for my leaders. Millions of men and women died for my right to vote. In other countries, they don’t even get to vote. Voting is a freedom that I shouldn’t take for granted.”
Admittedly, I’m paraphrasing here, but this is the vision that I grew up believing, and thought that we were supposed to believe about the United States. When thousands of 18, 19, and 20-year-olds were dying in Vietnam, the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to 18, was justified since if they were old enough to die for their country, they were old enough to vote.
But after reading about the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to uphold Indiana’s strict photo ID law, I know the first paragraph of this essay never was true. Well, there have been other issues: voters being turned away in Missouri in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, people illegally taken off the rolls in Florida in 2000, intimidation and underhanded tactics, and too many others to mention her.
There are many in this country, and perhaps many who read these pages who honestly wonder what the big deal is with showing photo ID when going to vote. And on paper, I could agree with that sentiment. But the reality is a different story.
Here is the exact wording of the requirements from the Indiana Secretary of State’s office. All 4 criteria must be met:
1. Display your photo
2. Display your name, and the name must conform to your voter registration record. Conform does not mean identical. Below are examples of names that would conform to “Robert John Crew”
* Robert John Crew
* Robert J. Crew
* Robert Crew
* R. John Crew
* R. J. Crew* Bob John Crew
* Bob J. Crew
* Bob Crew
* John Crew
* J. Crew3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election (November 7, 2006)
* Including Military IDs with expiration does of “INDEF”
4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government
One intriguing provision: college IDs that meet the whole criteria are acceptable, provided the institution is an Indiana state school. So if you go to Indiana University or Purdue University, you are fine. If you go to Notre Dame, you’re out of luck.
Then there is this paragraph:
“If you are unable or unwilling to present ID meeting these requirements, you may cast a provisional ballot. If you cast a provisional ballot, you have until noon 10 days after the election to follow up with the county election board and either provide the necessary documentation or affirm one of the law’s exemptions applies to you.”
Well, we’ve seen what happens with provisional ballots, so faith will be a little lacking in that mode. Plus, if you can’t get out easily due to physical health, you then have to go out again in that 10-day period and hope the system works.
Provisions 2 and 3 contain vague notions, with the discretion going to the polling judge. While most polling judges do the honorable thing, we do have a system where a polling judge tells voters that the stylus is actually a pen with invisible ink.
What makes the Indiana law, and other similar laws such as the ones in Florida designed to intimidate registering new voters, a bad thing for democracy is the element of institutionalized intimidation. No matter how pretty and wonderful we make our system, there will always be underhanded tactics to undermine the right to vote. But when the government gets involved and sanctions intimidation, we have that much less democracy in this country. The Supreme Court has sanctioned a decision that assumes you don’t have the right to vote unless you can prove otherwise.
As for the Republicans who have lined up behind these bills, they may not realize that documents can be forged, and that polling judges aren’t going to be experts on what passes for legitimate IDs. What you end up with is legitimate people not voting, and having that approved by the government. All for a bill that addresses an issue that no one can say actually exists, i.e., voter fraud.
We love praising our system as being the best, but a better system lies just to the north: Canada. Elections Canada is set up as a nonpartisan organization that maintains voter rolls. The country has three days — Friday, Saturday and Monday, the 10th, 9th and 7th days before polling day — for advance voting.
And while there are now more stringent voter ID laws in Canada, they have a provision where “an elector may instead take an oath and be vouched for by another elector whose name is on the list of electors for the same polling division.”
In Canada, you have the assumed right to vote, you just have to prove you are you. And the standards are reasonable. But it also helps when you know the voter rolls are maintained in a nonpartisan manner, thereby increasing the integrity of the process.
In Canada, the right to vote is protected much more so than in the United States, even without the new laws. These new laws will only make things worse. And no offense to our Canadian friends, but if we are several steps below Canada in true voting democracy, we have no reason to brag.
McCain, Clinton: Gas taxes aren’t the issue, stop pandering with worthless gimmicks
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 04/29/2008 – 8:57am
I am considering renting a car to drive around Indiana over the weekend. My quest: see the madness of the Obama-Clinton matchup up close and in person. But my friends who have cars give me these sinister warnings: the price of gas is really, really high.
As if I don’t know that.
Yes, gas is expensive in relative terms in the United States. And unlike Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton, I know why gas is expensive, and I don’t even own a car.
It’s not the gas taxes that are the problem.
McCain proves as he wakes up each day that his knowledge of the economy can fit in a thimble with plenty of room to spare. His solution to show how “hip” he is about the economy, even though he owns 8 houses and has easy access to a private jet: let’s cut the gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Now I expect McCain to give us a worthless symbolic gesture that distracts us from the true problem. I almost insist on it. But watching Clinton join in AND criticize Obama for not making it a consensus? Really?
Clinton, unlike McCain, will at least pay for the tax revenue by taxing windfall profits from oil companies. A worthless symbolic gesture to fix a worthless symbolic gesture seems appropriate. To his credit, Obama noted that McCain’s proposal would save motorists only about $25 or $30.
Here in Chicago, we have a beautiful road called Lake Shore Drive. It’s such a beautiful road that it inspired a hit song by Aliotta Haynes and Jeremiah in 1971. The drive has been featured in such classic movies as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Blues Brothers, Risky Business, and When Harry Met Sally.
And right now, there are significant patches that are in lousy shape. Really lousy shape. Like you might wonder if you can still have children kind of lousy shape.
Gas taxes aren’t collected for kicks — they pay to fix roads. And even though we hate road construction, there are employed people who are working out there to fix those roads. If we don’t collect the gas tax, we can’t fix roads or bridges (such as Minneapolis).
George W. Bush fed into this Republican mentality that taxes “are your money” and “you should decide what to spend it on.” No, taxes are money from the people to the government to do the things to make a society run.
I admire the audacity of the MSM and its vision of the economy: it sucks up to cheap gimmicks such as McCain’s and criticizes those who look at the big picture.
What we really could use from the MSM is one of those lovely pie charts that made the USA Today famous. And truly show us a breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. And unlike the actual pie charts in the USA Today, this one would show the cost of a gallon of gas from the unjustified war in Iraq and how much more an unjustified war in Iran would cost.
So when I do make that trip, I will grumble that I will pay more for gasoline than I have before. But I also know that if I were driving in Canada, I would pay more there than here. Same goes for Europe. And I will likely say really nasty things about Bush and Cheney getting us to this point.
But I won’t blame the gas tax. I know the gas tax is there to make sure the roads I am traveling on are in good shape. Because that is what government can do well. Barack Obama gets that, John McCain doesn’t, and Hillary Clinton should know better.
Nash McCabe will go to vote today in Pennsylvania; yet another American voting based on misinformation
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 04/22/2008 – 2:26pm
photo — Jason Cohn for The New York Times
Nash McCabe is going to the polls today in Pennsylvania, and she probably won’t vote for Barack Obama. In itself, this isn’t a big deal: one vote against a candidate running for president is not shocking or even unusual. What is also not unusual about McCabe’s vote today in Pennsylvania: it will be an uninformed one.
If you don’t recognize the name Nash McCabe, she was the video questioner in the ABC debacle debate in Philadelphia. McCabe was also the focus of a previous story in The New York Times from April 4. Gee, I wonder where ABC got the idea to interview her?
In The New York Times story, McCabe is quoted as saying “How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?”
So who is McCabe going to vote for on Tuesday in Pennsylvania? Well, George W. Bush isn’t on the ballot and he wears a flag pin. Who else? Ronald Reagan is dead. Bill Clinton is ineligible. There is always George H.W. Bush: he’s still eligible, though I don’t know if he wears a flag pin.
McCabe can’t vote for Obama because he doesn’t wear a flag pin. And she can’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she doesn’t wear a flag pin. And assuming she’s a registered Democrat, she can’t cross over in Pennsylvania to vote for John McCain. And oh, McCabe can’t vote for McCain because he doesn’t wear a flag pin either.
Ah, I know who she could vote for: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani probably wears a flag pin in his sleep. He would be perfect, the kind of president McCabe wants in the White House. The only problem is that Giuliani is a Republican, and he likely won’t win Pennsylvania.
But McCabe will likely vote against Barack Obama because he is the only candidate that she is aware of that doesn’t wear a flag pin. So unless McCabe doesn’t vote at all today, ironically she will vote for a candidate who doesn’t wear a flag pin.
“How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?” Well, you probably will today.
We all have our reasons for voting for a candidate and quite frankly, against a candidate. Some vote for someone on health care, jobs, education, and energy. Some vote against a candidate because they ski on vacation or they can’t bowl well or having a beer with them sounds like a horrible idea.
So if Nash McCabe wants to vote for someone or against someone because they won’t wear a flag pin, that is her right as an American. But I wonder: Would Nash McCabe really have focused on flag pins if the MSM hadn’t focused on the fact that Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin and ignoring that Clinton and McCain also don’t wear flag pins?
Unfortunately for her, none of the three major candidates agrees with her. If Bob Barr wins the Libertarian nomination, she might have a champion in November. Though I can’t imagine that wearing a flag pin jibes with the Libertarian philosophy.
Now you might think that McCabe’s life is in pretty good shape if her major issue is who wears a flag pin. But The New York Times reported that McCabe is a recently unemployed clerk typist. This report notes that McCabe’s “husband was injured in a coal mining accident 25 years ago and can’t work. Nash has been the breadwinner all these years.”
Wow! That has to be a bad situation. She’s unemployed and her husband can’t work. I’m sure the health care bills are rising, there’s pressure on the mortgage, the rising costs of food and fuel can’t help either. And her prospects of getting a well paying job in that part of Pennsylvania aren’t that high. It’s almost as if she is bitter or something.
Voters make decisions to vote on a number of reasons, some extremely superficial or some not. And that’s fine. But their reasons should be based on the truth. Even if the MSM showed responsibility to be consistent and fair to all the candidates, there will always be misinformation spread in diners, beauty salons, and even the Internet. Some voters voted for George W. Bush in 2004 because they thought Bush was retaliating for 9/11 in Iraq. Some voters are thinking of voting for John McCain because they think he’s pro-choice.
Voters need to have the truth from a reliable, credible source to make as thorough a decision as they can. The MSM could do a lot more to make that a reality. A lot more.
‘First Spouse’ should focus on reducing obesity levels
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 04/18/2008 – 5:40am
There is a prerogative for First Ladies (all women so far) to choose the topic where they will focus their time once their spouse becomes president. Laura Bush has spent her time, has spent her, uh, what has she been doing?
So I am not trying to force an issue for Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, or Cindy McCain to consider, but whomever ends up being the First Spouse should really think about working on reducing obesity levels in the United States.
The Type 2 diabetes numbers and obesity levels are rising. Health care costs are significantly affected. As the cost of food rises, the increase may force families to eat worse instead of better — cheap, processed food isn’t usually the best choice and more expensive, healthier options may be out of range for more and more Americans.
While we may currently have the fittest president ever (body, not mind), the role models for reducing obesity, well, have been, well, we have had celebrities that have lost weight, does that count?
But the three remaining contenders have a background to speak to an audience that may be more likely to listen to them about obesity.
Cindy McCain was caught (or her intern was caught) in a plagiarism scandal when “family recipes” turned out to be lifted from the Food Network Web site.
I suppose we’re all related in a humanist way, but I don’t know how related Cindy McCain is to Giada De Laurentiis or Rachael Ray.
I have thought we were past the point of being obsessed with the recipes of the First Lady, hoping that ended with the distraction of Hillary Clinton and chocolate chip cookies in 1992.
But when I found out that Cindy McCain suffered a stroke in 2004 and was focused on eating well, exercising, and reducing stress, my tone changed a little. Plagiarism is still a bad thing, but this was a golden opportunity to have Cindy talk about the merits of eating better as a society. If she has modified dishes to be healthier, then we would like to know what she is doing.
Bill Clinton, the man known for jogging to McDonald’s in the 1990s, had quadruple bypass surgery in 2004, and no longer jogs to get fast food. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation is a joint initiative of the William J Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association (AHA), and Clinton worked hard to reduce the high-fructose corn syrup laden soft drinks from schools. Already an incredible advocate, Clinton would be am ideal role model about improving the health of this country.
One man in particular who is on board with Clinton’s initiative is fellow former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate himself. I have actually read Huckabee’s diet book, “Quit Digging your Grave with a Knife and Fork,” Huckabee lost 110 pounds after being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
As for Michelle Obama, I’m not aware of any personal health issues in her life. And she is in great shape, as we saw recently on the “Colbert Report.” But as an African-American woman, she might be a better role model for how obesity levels are hitting minority communities. Also as a mother of young children, she can best address the more than 12.5 million American children and adolescents who are overweight.
The role of the First Spouse may have its limits, and we haven’t seen any relevance from the post in the last seven years. But the obesity issue is a major health care and quality of life issue in the United States. And every little bit will help.
Is Greg Gumbel more patriotic than Barack Obama? Patriotism is about what you do, not what you wear
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Thu, 04/17/2008 – 9:43am
non-politician Greg Gumbel and politician Barack Obama
BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel
“Is that a pledge pin on your uniform?” – Animal House, 1978
No offense to Greg Gumbel, but does wearing the flag pin make Gumbel more patriotic than Barack Obama?
Pinned conjures up different images in our society. There was a time when girls were pinned if the boy was serious about the relationship. Getting pinned in a wrestling match is a bad thing.
But does wearing a flag pin make you patriotic? Or perhaps the better question, does not wearing a flag pin make you unpatriotic?
According to that logic, the on-air personnel at CBS Sports are more patriotic than Barack Obama. So Greg Gumbel is more patriotic than Barack Obama.
What??
The geniuses on the ABC News debate last night decided that “patriotism” was a more important topic than health care or how to create more jobs. We had a video question on whether Obama loves the flag.
The flag pin ritual became somewhat relevant after September 11 to “show patriotism.” So we became slaves to a symbol. If we wore the magic symbol, we were patriots. If we didn’t, we weren’t. Why if terrorists wore a flag pin, they couldn’t possibly blow something up, could they?
It was bad enough that politicians started to wear them. Politicians love peer pressure, but when news anchors also started wearing them, it was truly a sad day. It was almost as if they couldn’t report anything bad about the U.S., even if it was true (turns out that actually happened).
The idiocy of the flag pin controversy was captured well by Doonesbury on Sunday.
While we’ve seen fewer and fewer news people wearing the flag pins, one place you can still see them is the coverage on CBS Sports. Okay, let’s see if we can comprehend this. Are the folks at CBS Sports afraid that viewers will be confused over which country they are in? And what if an employee is Canadian, should that person be required/coerced to wear a flag pin?
Leadership is not responding to peer pressure (“You want a shot with that Hillary?”), but show direction that is right, not always popular. Obama took a big gamble by not wearing the flag pin, showed actual leadership in doing the right thing. And his reward: stupid questions about the viability of patriotism.
If patriotism was about what you wore, then Stephen Colbert wrapped in nothing but the U.S. flag would be extremely patriotic. Now he does it as a joke, but the flag pin issue is a dangerous one. False patriotism is dangerous to our democracy, and doesn’t make us any safer or patriotic.
If we are going to define the middle-class, let’s not ask Charles Gibson
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Thu, 04/17/2008 – 7:52am
I missed Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. They aren’t well-schooled in running a debate or asking relevant questions, but Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos made Russert and Matthews look like Jim Lehrer.
Gibson’s lack of awareness on salaries was annoying in New Hampshire way back in January, but his obsession with the capital gains tax was frightening.
Gibson was rather emotional and confrontational on the capital gains tax issue, the only time he was all night. He appeared to stand up for the “100 million who own stock” in this country. However, he seemed to be much more worried about his own investments than the ones of the viewers.
Yes, 100 million Americans own stock, but what does that mean? 401(k)s? S&P 500 funds? Of the 100 million, how many receive significant incomes from stock? In doing the math, 1% of that figure is 1 million people. And if those are the upper echelon (yes, I’m including you, Charlie), can’t they afford a little more?
Gibson hasn’t written a book on economics, but his views on the matter are limited to tunnel vision. Gibson has the impression that if A happens, B will always happen regardless of any other variable. So if the capital gains rate goes up, revenues go down, and vice versa. Always. In logic class, Mr. Gibson, that gets you an F.
A better explanation for why Gibson is clueless can be found here.
Obama had it right: if the secretaries of the hedge fund managers pay a higher rate than their bosses, that needs to be fixed.
And the payroll tax issue. Obama wanted to raise the cap on the payroll tax, currently capped around $97,000. Gibson objected since he said Obama wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.
Let’s think about this for a second. Obama said 6% of Americans make $100,000 or more a year. Now math isn’t my strong suit, but middle usually means middle. If $100,000 marks the elite of the country, and the payroll tax is capped around $97,000, who is really being hurt by this? Unless there are a ton of people specifically making between $97,000 and $99,999, this category is rather select.
I don’t know the extent of Gibson’s support staff (butler, maid, chaffeur, et al), but he desperately needs a reality check.
I do want to thank Gibson for one thing: opening our eyes to what exactly is the middle class? Since the election cry is on middle-class tax cuts or raising taxes on the wealthy, let’s come up with figures (to be adjusted for inflation).
If the middle-class is defined as less than $200,000 or $250,000 and 6% of Americans make $100,000 or more, we need to change the definition. Perhaps we can add a new classification, such as “upper middle-class” and “lower middle-class.” And we could also add “poor, but fed” and “poor, and not so fed.”
This is a third rail topic. Americans don’t like to think they aren’t middle-class, even if they aren’t. But in this economy, reality is more important than perception, even if it makes you feel less wealthy.
It’s April 15: Do you know where John McCain’s tax returns are?
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 04/15/2008 – 9:03am
Well, it’s April 15: Tax Day in the United States. Your taxes are due at midnight tonight (local time). And as George Harrison once sang, “Don’t ask me what I want it for, If you don’t want to pay some more.” And speaking due, a presidential candidate’s past tax returns are long overdue.
Is it Barack Obama? No, he long ago submitted his past tax returns. Is it Hillary Clinton? Well, no. Even Buddhist monks who don’t have access to newspapers or TV know that the media hounded her to release the past tax returns, and had hilarious and mean things to say once they were released.
Is it John McCain? You are absolutely correct. Open up a Budweiser to celebrate. Oh, did we say something that might trouble the senior senator from Arizona?
Well, he has to worry about Mike Huckabee. Wait, he’s the presumptive nominee and has been for some time. Uh, maybe he’s hard at work on this year’s return and doesn’t have time. Oh, all he has to do is just release them. Do we have any more excuses for Senator McCain?
McCain’s campaign said in March he would release them in the next month or so, but it’s not like we’ve seen any significant pressure to do so.
The only thing as startling as the fact that a presumptive presidential candidate nominee hasn’t released his tax returns is the fact that the MSM hasn’t asked for him to do so. On the day Clinton released her tax returns, I was in a conversation in a bar with a producer for a MSM Web site. I asked her why the press hasn’t asked about McCain’s returns. She said all that would happen in due time.
Really? This is the justification for the double standard. And you can rest assured that when the MSM does wake up to the idea, it will sound more like “hey, Senator McCain, you might want to think about, maybe, if you don’t mind and it’s not too much trouble, could you possibly release your tax returns for the past few years, if it’s no big deal, well, you are running for president, not that it’s any of our business, but we would like to know if it’s not too much trouble.”
And when (if) we finally receive those, the scrutiny on McCain’s returns from the MSM will be lighter than a feather resting on a bird’s wing.
There have been stories from the alternative press (yea!) about McCain’s wealth, his 8 houses, his in-laws beer distributor money, and his refusal to release his tax returns. There was McCain referring to Obama as elitist, this from a man in McCain’s position. This is what makes the MSM’s sin even more disturbing. McCain’s hypocrisy would be obvious, except they won’t mention McCain’s wealth.
It would also be nice if John McCain disclosed his tax returns to see how his decision to keep permanent the Bush tax cuts (a reversal for him) would affect him personally.
As distressful as the idea that John McCain, who has no excuses, hasn’t let us see his tax returns for the last few years, can you blame him for not showing them? He went through a whole process of primaries and caucuses, rarely if ever getting a question that might throw him off or show him in less than ideal light. He actually went long past the cycle of primaries and caucuses without a serious inquiry about his tax returns. McCain has had less than 1% of the pressure exerted on Sen. Clinton, and she has already released hers.
We have long established that releasing tax returns is part of running for president, and is absolute for those who are the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party. Obama and Clinton have both released their tax returns, and one of them isn’t going to be the Democratic Party nominee. McCain is the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party. So where are they?
Midnight on April 15 is the deadline for Americans to file their returns. It’s a hard, fast deadline. McCain’s deadline expired a long time ago. It’s beyond time to see the wealth behind the candidate. To not demand that now is a breach of responsibility.
Being elitist isn’t the issue; it’s whether you understand and solve problems
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 04/15/2008 – 5:52am
BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel
Do we want a president that drinks Heineken or Pabst Blue Ribbon? Do you care?
I’ve been dubbing movies onto DVDs lately. “Blue Velvet” happened to come up over the weekend, and I couldn’t help but think of the classic scene where Dennis Hopper’s character (Frank Booth) asks Kyle MacLachlan’s character (Jeffrey Beaumont) what he wanted to drink.
Frank Booth: What kind of beer do you like to drink, neighbor?
Jeffrey Beaumont: Heineken.
Frank Booth: Heineken? F*ck that sh*t! Pabst Blue Ribbon!
The message from David Lynch, the movie’s writer and director, is clear: Heineken is an elitist beer, Pabst Blue Ribbon is the beer of the “common man.” But does a beer choice say much about how a president will lead?
We want a president that is smart, bright, and visionary. And we want a president who bowls and drinks a shot of whiskey. Does any other country put their potential leaders through such humiliation?
I do want a president that understands that people are struggling, even if they never have. I do want a president who knows not only how much milk and gas costs, but also what that means as a percentage of the “common man” income level.
John Edwards is richer than I will ever be, short of winning a major lottery payoff. But he does care about those who economically struggle; the fact that he is rich makes him more sincere, not less.
In an ideal world, I would like to see the major candidates struggle even if it’s for a short time. I tipped my hat to the politicians who last May tried to live off the average food stamps allotment.
Congressmen Tim Ryan (D-OH), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) went one week and lived on $21 worth of food, the average allotment from the food stamps program.
As hard as that sounds, this was last year before the food prices skyrocketed.
I don’t care how much money these representatives have or whether they do indeed use Grey Poupon on their food. I don’t care if they lift their pinkies when they drink their tea while eating finger sandwiches at 4 p.m. As long as you step up when this country needs you, that is what matters.
I don’t care if you bowl a 37. I don’t care if it takes you a few sips to down a shot of whiskey. As long as you step up when this country needs you, that is what matters.
I grew up in a small town. I know how to bowl (highest game ever: 230), shoot pool (I’m not good, but I can do it), and drink a shot – in one gulp. But I buy whole-wheat spaghetti, and the fancier mushrooms, and the high quality potato chips. So what kind of president would I be?
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain — all richer than me, all have probably enjoyed nicer things than I have. They probably have couches and dining room tables that they bought first-hand, instead of mine from a resale shop. But none of that matters.
Want to really impress me? Do what those Congressmen did. Eat for a week on $21, or whatever the current average is for a week of food stamps. And it won’t kill you, we have four Congressmen and millions on food stamps who will testify it can be done.
You can be elitist for all I care as long as you understand what we are dealing with, and you work hard to solve those problems. That is being a true leader.
Clinton and Obama did well, but McCain on American Idol: embarrassing
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 04/11/2008 – 8:06am
It was a short simple speech: each candidate had 30 seconds to ask Americans to give to needy children. It was all part of “Idol Gives Back” as part of FOX’s “American Idol.” Could they do it simply without making it out to be a political stump speech?
Well, you can watch for yourself here.
Hillary Clinton related to the impact made on the ground level. “I’ve had the good fortune of working with many of the groups that will benefit from your generosity.” She also note that “I can tell you that each donation will make a difference.”
She came across as warm, a feature she should show off more often. But she still finds awkward places in sentences to stop and breathe, though: it’s only 30 seconds.
Barack Obama spoke not just as the father of two young girls who are big fans of “American Idol,” but “someone who believes deeply in what tonight’s show is all about.”
Obama noted that “when ordinary people come together, they can do extraordinary things.” and commend American Idol “for the example they are setting and the work they are doing.”
Obama used the hand gestures he uses in speeches. He also came across as warm. I’m sure the use of mentioning his daughter as AI fans came across well.
Both Clinton and Obama really came across well and felt like they understood what the cause was and how best to appeal to people to make a difference.
Then there was John McCain. McCain needs to take some humor lessons from Mike Huckabee. McCain only has 30 seconds, yet he feels he needs to make two jokes. Two jokes.
The first one was kind of clever. “American Idol is like a presidential primary election, except for people who live in Michigan and Florida, their votes actually count.” Okay, not too bad. But chances are that AI fans might have glossed over what that meant.
His plea for help was not warm or very sincere. The person who wrote his ending line to the plea should be fired: “Thank you in advance for all that I’m sure you’ll do.” It sounds bad on paper, but even worse when McCain says it.
His last joke tied in more to American Idol: “As for me, it’s back to work on my new immigration plan. Watch your back, Simon.” However, the two jokes felt like he had never seen the program and was trying to desperately to seem cool, in a grandfather sort of way.
Huckabee could have said the exact same words as McCain did, and it would have been better. But the words were stilted, and it felt like McCain had no idea of what was going on. If the candidates had been live, Obama and Clinton would have done even better and McCain would have done worse.
Whether you thought they should have been on, they were supposed to be there to encourage people to be generous. Obama and Clinton gets As while McCain gets a D+. Yea, McCain, Simon would have ripped you to shreds.
Oh, and one nice surprise. A politician in power was also on last night: British PM Gordon Brown. Brown was on with judge (and fellow Brit) Simon Cowell about eradicating malaria in Africa. The prime minister announced that the country would buy 20 meters bed-nets to protect the people in Africa from malaria. Brown urged other countries to match Britain’s commitment. I suppose it’s easier to be on once you have the job, and you have a specific message on a significant world problem.
Debates on broadcast TV are important, but is Katie Couric the best choice?
Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 04/08/2008 – 10:10am
Just when you thought it was safe to watch TV and not see a debate, they’re back.
ABC is scheduling a debate in Philadelphia on April 16. And there are negotiations for a debate on CBS in North Carolina on April 27. Hillary Clinton has agreed to that date; the Obama team hasn’t responded yet. The CBS debated was scheduled for April 19, but that is the first night of Passover, so they wisely changed that date.
If you are asking why the Obama camp would be reluctant to accept the date, well… the previous date was before the Pennsylvania primary. After all, if Obama wins the primary, the race is pretty much over. And why have a debate if the race is over?
Now, if you are on the Clinton side of the glass, you figure even if Obama wins Pennsylvania, your candidate isn’t going to leave, so why not have a debate.
CBS’ alternative date is April 27, to get past Passover and to offer a 90-minute debate following the highly rated “60 Minutes” program.
The exciting part of these debates is that the Obama/Clinton battle returns to broadcast TV. As I have previously written, I was appalled at how few debates were on broadcast TV, especially with a writers strike.
And ABC deserves credit since it is the only network to broadcast a debate over-the-air, the Saturday night debate from New Hampshire all the way back on January 5 (can you remember back that far?). ABC will show the April 16 debate for 8 p.m. Eastern, but will tape-delay it for West Coast viewers.
And while NBC, the last-place network, hasn’t carried any debates over its network, its cable station, MSNBC, has hosted a number of debates. When your ratings stink, and a lot of your investment is in reality shows, a debate or two might actually get better ratings.
The CW, a network that doesn’t get mentioned too often, could have risen up to take a stand, especially since its demographics are young people who are excited about this process. But the CW doesn’t have much of a setup of any kind, much less a news division.
So that leaves CBS. Why has CBS been on the sidelines? Well, it has had some bad luck. CBS had a Democratic Party debate in Los Angeles. However, at the time, the network was negotiating with its news writers in New York, Washington, Chicago, and Los Angeles (completely separate from the Writers Guild strike). The possibility of picket lines from the Writers Guild led the DNC to cancel the December 10 debate. The other issue was that the debate was going to be at CBS Television City, where striking writers were already picketing.
CBS is desperate to get a debate for one main reason: to showcase its struggling anchor Katie Couric. Couric was reportedly host this North Carolina debate with Bob Schieffer, former Evening News anchor and current “Face the Nation” host.
CBS News isn’t in the best shape these days. The network has laid off a number of local TV reporters and anchors. Even though CBS is the prime-time winner, the news department doesn’t get to share in that apparently.
But the setup CBS wanted for the debate was questionable, and it had everything to do with doing a debate as cheap as possible. From The New York Observer:
“Shortly thereafter, during the summer of 2007, CBS News informed the DNC that they wanted to hold the debate inside a studio at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles and-notably-without a live audience.
“According to several sources, that idea didn’t sit well with the DNC. Holding the debate in a closed studio rather than in front of a live audience is seen by those in the business as a classic cost-saving gambit-and one (collateral damage!) that would deny Democratic diehards and donors the opportunity to show up and get crazy for their candidates. The plan was also at odds with the terms already hammered out with the Democratic candidates. Negotiations sputtered. According to sources, at several points over the summer, the debate appeared on the brink of death.”
So it would be good to have a debate on CBS, especially after “60 Minutes.” But I’m not sure how good a debate it can be when the network in question is a) trying to do this on the cheap, and b) doing it with an anchor who has shown in the past to not have much knowledge of politics.
Yes, I speak of Katie Couric. She may have many strengths, but asking questions about politics isn’t one of them. Watching her lack of knowledge on Election Night 2006 was embarrassing. Her interview with Hillary Clinton included questions about her reputation (“Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”) with the boys in high school.
While we have had 20 debates, and only one on broadcast TV, we haven’t had that many substantial questions in the process. Since Couric’s style isn’t to ask those kind of questions when she has had the chance, she isn’t the best person to host a debate, even if she is CBS’s star at $15 million a year.
And this isn’t about Couric’s gender: as I have noted before, Lesley Stahl, who works at CBS News, would be a better pick if gender was crucial. And Bob Schieffer would be a solid pick as well. Democracy needs to be more than “let’s give Katie a chance.” She has had her chances to show off her political knowledge and expertise, and she has neither.
We need debates on broadcast TV, but we need good, informative ones.
Democracy Soup 
