Sarah Palin's Supreme Failure

Chalk this up to another unreal turn in the Sarah Palin Saga. Apparently, we are about to see the mother of all revelations from the Katie Couric interview: that the Republican vice presidential nominee is incapable of commenting on a Supreme Court decision apart from Roe v. Wade. Note: this post has been updated with the release of the video.

Buried on the third page of Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column published yesterday, Kurtz quotes anonymous sources, stating "CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely be embarassing." We likely saw one of them today - Palin walking with Couric, after slamming Joe Biden from the stump on his age and experience, and her later comments about what newspapers she reads. Palin also makes alarming statements about abortion rights for victims of rape and incest. She also speaks of her belief that her friend chose to be gay. You can watch the full video here*:


Watch CBS Videos Online

And apparently, we have yet to see it all.

Sources have told Jonathan Martin, who reports yesterday on his blog, CBS is holding an ace in the hole - footage of Palin failing to give any response at all when asked to comment on a Supreme Court case apart from Roe v. Wade. No verbal acrobatics, no attempts to answer - just silence. Assuming Martin's sources are correct - which I have little doubt they are - I will post this video as soon as it is available. UPDATED: view the video here. Apparently Palin does try and answer the question, after initial silence.


Watch CBS Videos Online

This is perhaps the most damning footage of Sarah Palin yet. If - for whatever, god unknown reason based upon what we've seen - you still had any doubt about whether Palin is capable of running the country, this seals the deal. And I'm not even going to touch her statements about the Constitution protecting the right to privacy immediately after stating Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

To begin with, you cannot be Vice President of the United States of America without being able to recall at least one of the following: Plessy v. Ferguson, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, the Dred Scott case, or even Bush v. Gore. Surely she should be able to discuss one of these in the abstract, about how these cases caused divides and disagreements throughout the United States. But let's give Sarah Palin a break. She doesn't really study "history" or "political theory" or "law" or "civics." She can see Russia from her state, even though she's never bothered to visit the spot where it is visible. She's a maverick. Who needs those journalistic "gotcha" questions anyway?

Well, when you're governor of Alaska, you have to be able to comment on the most important Supreme Court decision ever to directly impact your state - the recently decided Exxon Shipping Co v. Baker, ruled upon on June 25th of this year. You can read the opinion here. The case dealt with punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans and landowners for the spill. A jury had awarded the group $5 billion dollars; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that amount was slashed to $2.5 billion. The United States Supreme Court further lowered that amount to $500 million with this decision - which was seen as a defeat for the people of Alaska impacted by the spill. The Washington Post reports on the case here.

This decision took nearly 20 years, and involved the most disastrous domestic oil spill in North American history - the Exxon Valdez, the impact of which is felt to this day. Studies from the University of North Carolina in 2003 show that the spill is still having dramatic effects on the state's shorelines and wildlife. Parts of the Alaskan tourism industry have yet to recover. And Alaska's fishing industry took dramatic hits.

Sarah Palin is governor of Alaska.

In fact, I'll say it again. Sarah Palin is GOVERNOR OF ALASKA.

Let's put this in perspective: 33,000 litigants is equal to 5% of the population of Alaska (with a total of 626,932 citizens, according to the 2000 census). This is a huge deal there. But if that isn't enough for you?

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports that Todd and Sarah Palin could have been plaintiffs in the case, but missed the February filing deadline. After all, Todd Palin is a lifelong commercial fisherman. It is likely that the Palin family was directly impacted by the spill. The entire article on BLT is worth reading - they go on to report that Sarah Palin commented on the case in June, calling the decision "tragic." Watch one of her responses on the evening news:


You be the judge - does she sound fully informed on the court case at the time it was decided? Does she give substantive responses to these questions? Sarah Palin doesn't once mention any legal principle that would give her cause to criticize the decision. She doesn't offer any insight into the court opinion. In my read, she simply recites the facts, and expounds upon her current relationships with big oil - but that's another discussion. At least she knew enough to answer some basic questions about the case.

And now, not even four months later, Sarah Palin can't comment on ANY case to Katie Couric? Not only can she not comment, she can't muster any response at all? On a question that was even teed up for her - "what other Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?" Nothing? Not the case you vocally disagreed with just a few months ealier? Buehler? Buehler...? (SIDENOTE: this article by Ben Stein is fantastic and highly recommended as an easy to understand summation of the financial crisis)

You can believe one of two things here: 1) Sarah Palin froze up and couldn't recover, feeling under pressure from Couric and became incapable of recalling anything when put on the spot, or 2) Sarah Palin doesn't know enough about any Supreme Court case - and perhaps even how the legal system functions - to discuss why she disagrees with an opinion. And frankly, I don't think it matters which you choose to believe. If Palin can't think on her feet well enough to recall huge legal events in her own state, how can we reasonably expect her to represent our interests to a hostile Congress, or even worse, the rest of the world?

Folks, I'm sorry, but it is not elitist to expect the Vice President of the United States of America to be able to comment on a Supreme Court decision in a softball interview. Not only should she know her history, she should damn well be able to comment on the major affairs of her own state. This was a carefully controlled and orchestrated outing with a handpicked interviewer.

There are no longer any excuses for Sarah Palin. This should not and can not stand.

Sarah Palin should take the advice of Kathleen Parker and step down. She won't, but she should. It would be putting country first.


****

*NOTE: It seems CBS is a bit overloaded on their bandwidth, as the videos don't appear to be loading properly. I checked the CBS website, and they aren't loading properly there either. I assume if you check back later they will be up and running.

Moving the web address...

If you run into problems loading the page in the next day or two, it is likely because I'm trying to move this page over to my own domain name.

In the near future, you'll be able to visit us online at www.wearevotingyes.com - until then, it'll probably be a bit spotty until I get the technical issues worked out.

Thanks for your patience.

"Crawl (for Connelly)"

As a way of introduction on the site, here's a bit of history--in poetic form--between myself and the We Are Voting Yes founder:

"Crawl (for Connelly)"

4 pitchers of Guinness

And he said, "I need 

to expunge some liquid."

He left to pee.

I, sitting alone now,

Took out my notepad

And wrote it down.

[this was originally published by the good folks at The Common-line Project in Seattle]

Soft Complex this Friday with Glasvegas at Rock and Roll Hotel

Well, I'd be silly not to plug my own show here - so might as well.

This Friday, October 3, Soft Complex will play our first show of the year in Washington DC at the Rock and Roll Hotel. We'll be joining Glasvegas and DJ William Alberque. The show begins at 9:30 PM.

Tickets are on sale now - buy them by going here.

Some Glasvegas and Soft Complex press:

"The best Scottish band since Franz Ferdinand sets its sight on America."
http://www.nylonmag.com/?section=article&parid=1917


"If Glasvegas are the most important British breakthrough band of this year, just as MGMT are the most important from America – and the only doubt about that is whether we're talking merely this year, or years – then traditional values of rock'n'roll cool have little to do with it."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/glasvegas-reading-festivalbrlast-shadow-puppets-reading-festival-913647.html


"Soft Complex re-appropriates gloomy Brit-pop without sounding like post-punk trend jumpers."
~Robbie Mackey, CMJ New Music Monthly 144


"For a preview of what may be awaiting retro-pop fans in 2007, try Barcelona (Silverthree), a three-song EP (plus five generally solid remixes) by D.C. alt-dance band Soft Complex...It sounds like the whole of '80s radio recombined into a fluidly sentimental symphony…(A-)"
~Noel Murray, The Onion A.V. Club

Welcome to Joe Riippi.

Just a quick note of welcome to my good friend, Joe Riippi, who will now be posting on occasion. Joe lives up in New York, and I'm sure will be posting on everything from politics to music to literature.

He and I both are unsure of how often we'll post, but he'll crop up on here from time to time.

McCain resumes campaign and heads to Mississippi for the debate

Chalk this up as another inexplicable, unbelievable turn in this presidential race: John McCain has announced he is resuming his campaign and flying to Mississippi for the presidential debate, despite an earlier pledge not to debate if the deal was not done.

UPDATE: Here is the text of the McCain statement:

John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.

In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.

Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure. There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress -- especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

I think this looks terrible for McCain. Most reports coming out of Washington indicate that he did not make any open comments on what he thought of the bill. It directly contradicts most accounts of the proceedings prior to his arrival as being productive and nearing consensus. It is unavoidable to ask whether McCain arriving in Washington amplified partisan concerns - and I think it reasonable to assume it did.

McCain looks unsure of what to do, and it seems as though he is just flying blind, making it up as he goes along. It must have become clear to him when he arrived in Washington how little he could actually contribute to this discussion as a member of the minority party without a clear, fundamental understanding of the market or the current economic crisis. By not being a sitting member of the banking committee, Senator Dodd would have had to play ball with McCain in order to get him involved in the process. Sorry John, that wasn't bloody likely.

I have no idea how he will spin this to his advantage - I'm sure that he will try, but I can't imagine how this comes off as anything but confused and rash behavior. If Obama does well in the debate tonight, I think it might be the beginning of the end of this election. We're already starting to see significant shifts in the polling (note, for example, the fact that Obama is now leading in North Carolina in certain polls), and the poll of polls is widening in favor of Obama.

Sarah Palin interviewed by Katie Couric.

There are no words. Just...no words. I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't seen it myself. Would somebody please tell me when we started being concerned about Russia invading Alaska?


Watch CBS Videos Online

McCain critiques are already cropping up all over the place.

We are already starting to critiques of McCain's move crop up - take Drudge's leak of Letterman:

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."


There is more at Drudge.

Big gambles either lead to big payoffs or big disasters. Stuff like this - when combined with critiques from the National Review and the Senate Majority Leader - doesn't bode very well for John McCain. To be fair, he did get rousing acclaim from Gingrich, and some are saying that this is a bold move that recasts McCain as in control.

The problem is, McCain has spent a lot of his political capital with the media, and that's where this current battle will be won or lost. I don't know that McCain will be able to defend this decision under media scrutiny, especially now that he's burned so many bridges with the press.

There were many reasons why my piece yesterday focused on why Obama should make a move like this, and why I largely glossed over the possibility of McCain doing it. We're already seeing some of them. I'm a bit surprised at how swiftly the critiques of his move have popped up - as I do think on the surface, this is something that appears to be a reasonable thing to do. But I think McCain's big mistake was choosing to "suspend the campaign" and call for the delay of the debate. It makes it look as though he can't do two things at once - when instead, he simply could have kept the campaign going and returned to Washington for a few days. Obama reacted masterfully to this move - and immediately put McCain on the defensive for a move that was meant offensively.

The McCain Move

I'll update this more later, but it does appear that John McCain is going to find himself the subject of pretty intense criticism, based upon the narrative of what happened today leading up to his announcement.

Talking Points Memo details that the Obama campaign reached out to McCain this morning, at approximately 8:30 am, seeking to find common ground and issue a joint statement on the financial crisis. Here is the text of the Obama campaign's statement:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

It seems that after agreeing to issue a joint statement, McCain changed his mind - instead choosing to return to Washington, request a delay in the debate, and issue a challenge to Obama to meet him back in DC to work on the issue. Obama was seeking to make a joint statement privately, without drawing attention from the media, in an effort to build bipartisan consensus. McCain, on the other hand, called a press conference and suspended his campaign. Curious.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out today and tomorrow in the media. No doubt some will champion McCain's move as brave and forward thinking. Others will point to it as a sign of McCain panicking due to today's poll numbers and seeking to avoid a public debate on Friday. These are exactly the types of pitfalls that I talked about yesterday for Obama - and this note from the Obama campaign seems to make it clear that McCain won't avoid them.

My suggestion? Obama should take McCain up on the challenge to return to Washington, but propose that the debate goes on as planned on Friday. Rather than discussing national security, Obama should propose that they focus on the economy exclusively, so the American people can witness their dialogue on the issue. McCain and Obama can have a public, forthright conversation on what they will do in this crisis, and the whole country will get to watch it happen.

McCain suspends his campaign to return to Washington and deal with the economic crisis

Well, it appears John McCain beat Barack Obama to the punch, announcing today that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and work on the economy. On top of it, he has asked to postpone this Friday's debate to focus on the financial crisis. I don't know if that'll happen - but McCain just drew a line in the sand, and gets bonus points for taking the initiative here.

Via Drudge, here is the text of McCain's statement:

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

Obama needs to be very, very careful. As I said yesterday, I think he should have taken this step himself - I'm impressed with McCain's move, but I still doubt that he will be able to command these issues effectively. But I don't see how Obama can object to McCain's proposal. This is a time for him to step up and do his job, and a true test of his ability to lead. If he objects to moving the debate, he appears to put the campaign above country. He now has no choice but to join McCain and duke this out on the economic issues confronting the nation.

Your move, Barack. Time to lead.


UPDATE: As I've thought about this, I think McCain has made a brilliant move, given the news of the day. Check out this article by Michael Tomasky of the Guardian - the Rick Davis issue was about to become a massive problem for McCain. This effectively deflects the inquiries about the issue for the time being.

Barack Obama should return to Washington and lead the Democrats on the financial crisis.

This evening, it appears that the Congress will not simply rubber stamp the Bush administration financial bailout.

Republicans are loathe to accept that by approving the Paulson/Bernanke plan, they'll effectively turn the Bush administration into the largest government since that of Franklin Roosevelt. This type of government expansion goes against fundamental conservative economic and social theory, and against the very platform they adopted this electoral season. The GOP is angry with George W. Bush, and bitter that they have to deal with this kind of problem on the eve of the election - and many see this as a real opportunity to distance themselves from him. Republicans recognize that they likely have to do something, but many will object on principal before eventually going along with some form of the plan.

Democrats, on the other hand, see a real opportunity to stand up to the last days of the Bush administration. Perhaps still bitter at their failings to make inroads on the Iraq war, or with their investigation of the Department of Justice, the financial crisis affords the Democrats a chance to retake control of Congress. By standing up to the Bush White House, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can reclaim some semblance of authority and backbone. And on top of everything, it gives them an opportunity to provide benefits to middle and lower class homeowners (and voters) as additions to a revised bill.

The point being: this is not likely to get resolved as quickly as the Bush administration had hoped. These differences are very much opposed to one another in basic political philosophy - they will take some time and debate to work out appropriately. And accordingly, this provides both presidential candidates the opportunity to lead on the issue.

Despite his attempts to paint his opponent as sluggish, John McCain has responded very poorly to the economic crisis. One need not look further than the opening lines of George Will's most recent column to see that even loyal conservatives are saying the same thing: "Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama."

It doesn't appear as though McCain is comfortable discussing details of the financial situation, regulation of Wall Street, or anything else related to the news of the past week. Take, as one recent example, his defense of Carly Fiorina during today's press conference, just moments after he railed against Wall Street for providing "golden parachutes" to CEOs that ran companies into the ground. Watch it here:



Also note that McCain never actually answers the question, and doesn't give an answer at all in the context of the issues at hand. He relies on her biography and talking points about her to gloss over the fact that Fiorina was fired for mismanagement* and still took home a severance package worth over $40 million. Robert Barnes hits on this over at the Washington Post.

Some Republicans - like Newt Gingrich - think that this crisis provides McCain a chance to make a nuanced, theoretical argument against the Bush administration on traditional Republican values. By opposing the bailout plan, the theory goes, McCain can draw a proverbial line in the sand, distinguishing himself as a change agent in the eyes of the electorate and pushing himself further from the Bush administration. He can stand up against big government and unmitigated presidential authority. But there is one big problem with this idea - McCain isn't comfortable leading on the economy. He can't effectively stand up and speak against the Bush administration because he doesn't have the eloquence or political capital within his own party to do so.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has seized upon this opportunity, providing a glimpse into his plans to deal with the crisis. Obama's first reaction? To craft a two minute campaign commercial speaking to specifics and urging people to look at his entire plan online. Watch it:



Obama seems surprisingly comfortable and confident with these issues, both in his stump speeches and his reactions to questions from reporters on the trail. Contrary to McCain, he seems ready to lead. And for this very reason, I think Barack Obama should return to Washington and lead the Democrats in their negotiations on the economy.

Obama has been given with a very rare opportunity to show the world what he would look like as a leader prior to the election. If Obama were to successfully lead the party through this crisis, firmly taking that responsibility upon his shoulders and proclaiming his ability to lead, he would establish his abilities in the minds of countless voters. That is what so many people wonder about Obama - can he step up and get the job done? Does he have the strength of character to lead in times of crisis? Well, Senator, here is your chance to lay claim to your mantle of a reformer who can bridge party lines and lead us to sensible, pragmatic solutions to real problems.

Is it risky? Of course it is. It steals valuable time from Obama, and opens him to potential criticism for politicizing the issue. He becomes responsible for the success or failure of whatever move Congress eventually approves, at a time when financial uncertainty is dominating all discussions. Nobody knows what is apt to happen tomorrow, next week, or next month - and if Obama or McCain were to step up and lead on the issue, they risk tying themselves to a sinking ship if things don't go as hoped. Finally, the GOP might try and block any effort Obama was a part of in the Senate to score electoral points and keep Obama locked down in the halls of Congress instead of out on the trail. Personally, I don't think that would happen - but it certainly is possible.

The fact remains that both of these men are senators that were elected to serve in Washington, working on legislation exactly like this. In many ways, it is their duty to be there - not out on the campaign trail commenting on it, but without having to take a definitive stance. Right now, we're faced with an issue that can only be solved - and will only be solved - through bipartisan efforts to reach consensus. Clearly, I think Obama's policies, temperament and judgment are better suited to lead us out of this type of crisis than McCain's. But both of these men are the leaders of their respective parties. They owe it to us to demonstrate how they will lead at a time of real crisis.

Both candidates should want to be charge of this situation - it is for circumstances like these that we need the president to act with confidence, authority and responsibility. This is the job that Obama and McCain are campaigning for: the right to lead us. Both of them - but especially Obama, to prove his leadership ability - should step up and attempt to do so, despite the political risks that might accompany such a move.


*UPDATE: I looked a bit further at the details of Fiorina's time at HP. The largest criticism levied against her was the fact that the company lost half of its value in the stock market and incurred heavy job losses. The street responded to her departure from HP by boosting the stock by 7%, and HP went on to become the dominant player in the home computer industry very quickly. Some give Fiorina credit for this turnaround, despite the fact that she had been dismissed. Others credit HP's new leadership. It is impossible to know exactly what the cause of the turnaround was - but the fact remains that Fiorina was dismissed by a Board of Directors that did not agree with the direction or decisions she made as CEO. Some more information on Fiorina can be found here.

Update: Hacker reveals how easy it was to get into Sarah Palin's account

We really are thinking about trusting Sarah Palin with the vice presidency? Seriously?

Via Wired Magazine's blog:

As detailed in the postings, the Palin hack didn't require any real skill. Instead, the hacker simply reset Palin's password using her birthdate, ZIP code and information about where she met her spouse -- the security question on her Yahoo account, which was answered (Wasilla High) by a simple Google search.

The simplicity of the attack, of course, makes it no less illegal.

The hacker said that he read all of the e-mails in the Palin account and found "nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped. All I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family."

The article goes on to describe exactly what the kid was thinking when he did this. I'm sure he'll be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it is worth a read.

My point, however, is this: it was really THIS easy to break into Sarah Palin's email account that she was using for official state business? Seriously?? I don't know ANYTHING about hacking, and I probably could have done this if I was so inclined. Sarah Palin is either reckless, naive, or both.

Chester French needs to hurry up and come to DC.

I have to give complete credit to Kelly for introducing me to Chester French, the duo from Cambridge that Pharrell Williams discovered and has been pushing hard.

Chester French is two Harvard graduates, D.A. and Max, making music that sounds some crazy marriage of the Beatles, Neil Diamond, Motown and hip hop. Yes, that's a bizarre description. Yes, the lead singer looks a bit like Ron Weasley. Yes, the lead singer wears some crazy duds. But they KILL it live (and they cover Daft Punk!):

Chester French performing "She Loves Everybody" in June



Chester French montage of their performance at the Cutting Room



Chester French performing Daft Punk's "Robot Rock" in June



Pharrell Williams on Chester French in the Summer of 2007



Now, their recordings aren't great yet - I wish they had the energy that comes across live. But I'm stoked to see them - and am calling for them to come play a show in Washington DC. They're currently out on tour with Common and NERD. You can view their tour itinerary on their MySpace page, linked here and above.

Memo to John McCain: Spain is located in Europe

Now, Senator McCain, with all of that foreign policy experience you have, I'd like to think that you know something about Spain. But I guess perhaps not.

Take a listen to this interview that John McCain conducted with Radio Caracol Miami, in which the reporter asks him about Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Zapatero is the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE).

A quick history lesson: Zapatero has been leading the Spanish government since March 14, 2004, and he was reelected on March 9, 2008. Granted, the Spanish government is heavily decentralized, which gives Zapatero less influence than if he headed a strong national government - but nevertheless, he still heads a major European nation.

The interview gets good around 2:58 in, where the reporter shifts the discussion from Latin America to Spain. It becomes very clear that McCain is either confused, not listening to the question, or simply unaware of who Zapatero is:



Perhaps McCain has ignored Zapatero because the focal points of his administration within the Spanish government have been rather starkly opposed to many of the things McCain stands for. The hallmarks of his administration have included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, the creation of special courts to deal with violence against women, legalizing gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants (this article from the American Prospect looks into a lot of this). Yowza - no wonder McCain has ignored him.

I would give this one to John McCain on the benefit of the doubt - I'm sure he could answer some detailed questions about Spain if asked, and will be able to do so in the coming days. But this is part of a trend - McCain often confuses different parts and people of the world - add this Spain gaffe to his repeated confusion between Sunni and Shia Muslims and his repeated utterances about the non-existent Czechoslovakia, and you start to see a bit of a pattern.

John McCain should fully release his medical records to the public.

I don't know why John McCain only allowed reporters three hours to look over hundreds and hundreds of pages of his medical records. And why he wouldn't allow them to use email, internet or make copies while they were doing so. I'm all for protecting personal privacy. But this video makes a compelling case as to why McCain needs to allow the public greater access to this information:



For the record, I think all of the major candidates should fully release their medical records for public examination and discussion - including both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, who have not yet done so.

Memo to Sarah Palin: don't use a personal email address as governor

Oh Sarah Palin. We know you're new to national politics and all, but one of the biggest reasons not to use a personal email address while you're governor is internet security. While I'm glad you're using email and seem to have an understanding of the computer age, you really ought to be more careful - there are likely a lot of interested parties who'd like to know who you're emailing and what you've got to say. Since you're not doing too many interviews, people might go to great lengths to learn something about what you might do as vice president, if you're elected.

Which is why it isn't really all that surprising that somebody hacked Sarah Palin's personal email account with Yahoo. Wikileaks has screenshots of many of her email screens, including correspondence specifically related to politics in Alaska. Tsk tsk.

Now, of course it isn't right to hack into anybody's email account. But really, Sarah Palin should have known better - "lipstickpitbull" was a pretty easy password to crack.

All joking aside, this illustrates exactly why elected officials making use of personal email accounts to conduct official business is problematic. Who knows what information Sarah Palin has passed about the Alaskan government through this email address - perhaps information about the oil infrastructure? National guard? Perhaps some eyes only attachments?

At least the account was hacked by a benign group who alerted her to the security breach. What might have happened if they hadn't announced their hack to the world? What else might they have learned about, or learned from, Sarah Palin? What COULD have happened here if this had gone undiscovered? Or even further - what COULD have happened here had this gone undiscovered, and Sarah Palin was elected Vice President of the United States of America? What if, for example, this hack had been performed by Chinese or Iranian intelligence officials, and they just let Sarah Palin go ahead completely unaware that somebody was monitoring her email?

In fact, how do we know that this hasn't happened?

And most importantly, what does this oversight say about her judgment?

This is actually a fairly big deal. I'm certainly not in favor of invading anybody's privacy or stealing information - but it happened, and it illustrates a very serious problem with some of the decisions Sarah Palin has made. And I think the people of Alaska have a right to know exactly what Sarah Palin revealed in that email account.

Sarah Palin is not ready.

Bob Herbert nails it:

For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”

Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.

With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.

***

Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.

The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.

With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?

FactCheck.org calls out McCain/Palin for distorting a FactCheck.org article in a campaign ad.

Does John McCain really think he can keep getting away with distorting the truth?

Via FactCheck.org:

Summary

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "completely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.

Analysis

We don't object to people reprinting our articles. In fact, our copyright policy encourages it. But we've also asked that "the editorial integrity of the article be preserved" and told those who use our items that "you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message."

Less Than Honest

With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Todd Palin was subpoenaed in Troopergate today.

It is not clear yet whether a subpoena will be coming for Sarah Palin as well, but her husband was served today.

I wonder - is this story about to get much more attention? Or will it stay a relative undercurrent until something more concrete comes out?

Sarah Palin's next interview to be with Sean Hannity.

The McCain campaign has announced that for her second formal interview since being nominated as vice president, Sarah Palin will be interviewed by Fox's Sean Hannity.

Seriously? The McCain campaign must feel that the Gibson interview went poorly if Palin is being shuttled off to Sean Hannity land.

How about Meet the Press? Face the Nation? Newshour? Maybe even Diane Rehm? Or with any other media figure that hasn't faced enormous allegations of right-wing bias?

Nah, we'll stick with the guy that once narrated the welcome video for the 2004 Republican National Convention.

John McCain is either ill-informed or a liar.

If you watched the View today, you know that John McCain is either ill-informed, or a liar.

Via the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year.

McCain made the comments as he appeared on the ABC television show "The View" as part of his effort to woo women to his candidacy.

The Arizona senator said the GOP vice presidential nominee would be good for the country because she would reform government, and specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks.

When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."

Note that this is an Associated Press article saying that John McCain "ignored the record." Sorry folks, but if the AP is calling you out on "ignoring the record," you're in big trouble. This is a blatant falsehood.

How do we know? All you need to do is look at one of the multitudes of stories that have been written about Sarah Palin championing earmarks for Alaska while both a mayor and governor.

Even more egregious - McCain HIMSELF criticized the very earmarks Palin was requesting as mayor of Wasilla, singling out elements of her requests that flew in the face of the reforms he sought. Palin has sought $197 million in earmarks THIS YEAR as the governor of Alaska.

UPDATE: Here is video of McCain's appearance.



UPDATE, PART TWO: Here is another video, showing other distortions and untruths that the McCain campaign is advancing in campaign ads.

Who would have thought the National Review would make my day?

Not me. But David Frum did it!

Palin Reviewed

She's under-informed and over-confident.

But there was no "macaca" moment, so she survives.

Those who wish to believe in her will continue to believe in her.

As for the rest - well it's a 6 in 7 chance that McCain makes it to the end of his first term. That's pretty good!

More of Norm MacDonald on Conan.

Norm MacDonald, what happened to you?

You used to be so funny. Please come back and be funny again.




Via the Onion AV Club.

A presidential analogy: the assistant surgeon.

Let us say you need to have major, planned surgery. You go looking for a surgeon. You meet and interview with quite a few, look into their medical backgrounds and qualifications. You whittle it down to two or three possible doctors, at two or three different hospitals.

Then, you look at their degrees, their priorities - perhaps you ask if they have families, kids, husbands, wives, just to know that your doctor understands what is at stake for you. Perhaps your doctor's religious beliefs are important to you as well. You ask for references of past patients and eventually make a decision based on who you trust to perform the surgery flawlessly.

You feel good about your surgeon. You trust him and believe him to be qualified - after all, you've spent a lot of time learning about him prior to making your choice. You've done a thorough, responsible job of choosing the right person to handle such a scary event. But you're not too excited to have surgery. After all, it is a bit unknown what could happen when you go under the knife. But you've got to do it, so you're making due. A few weeks later, you get a call from your newly chosen surgeon, who asks you to come in and see him. Your surgery is still a few weeks away.

Once there, he introduces you to his new, good looking assistant. Your surgeon explains that the assistant will be second in command during your surgery, providing advice, and perhaps taking over at some point during the surgery. He can't say for sure whether that will happen, but it certainly is a possibility.

Your surgeon tells you about the assistant's family, schooling, previous jobs, and hobbies. Your surgeon's assistant really loves waterskiing and archery, and has three kids! He seems like a good guy, somebody you'd watch a game with. Your surgeon also explains that the assistant is really a general practitioner. He hasn't performed the surgery that you're about to undergo - but your surgeon assures you that the assistant is qualified.

So you go home, and look up the assistant. You're able to find some stories and information from past patients that raise some concerns. You call your surgeon, and he still won't let you speak to the assistant. But you want to know - why is the assistant qualified? Would the assistant be able to finish the surgery unassisted if something were to happen to your doctor? What about these stories from the assistant's past that are cropping up in your research? Sure, it is fine and good that this seems like a likable guy - but you've spent all this time finding out about your surgeon, and now there is a possibility somebody else will be conducting the operation. You justifiably want to know more!

But your surgeon says no - begs of your trust, saying that his judgment is sound and there is no reason to question whether or not the assistant is really up to the job. After all, the assistant loves waterskiing and has three kids!! He says you might be able to talk with the assistant at some point, and learn more about him - but he isn't sure when that might happen. Just trust him, the surgeon says.

You have unanswered questions. You're a little concerned for your health and safety. But you are left to wonder about your surgeon, his judgment, and your surgeon's assistant - all while you wait for your major surgery, which is just a few short weeks away.


* * *


Nobody would have major surgery if there was a possibility that a relatively unknown, untrained surgical assistant would take over while you were under the knife. You'd think your surgeon was crazy for even suggesting the possibility, and you'd demand the opportunity to learn as much as you could about that assistant and his qualifications before you went under. Perhaps you'd even find a new surgeon for even suggesting it.

The question I pose with this analogy is this: why do we demand any less of our candidates for President?

I don't identify with my surgeons or doctors. I could not be a surgeon. They know a whole lot about things that I really don't know anything about. I expect my surgeon to be damn good at what he or she does. I don't need to get a drink with my surgeon, or watch the same movies as my surgeon, or listen to the same music as my surgeon, or even have the same values as my surgeon. My surgeon needs to be good at one thing: performing surgery. Beyond that, I don't give a damn.

Being President of the United States is not surgery. It is easier to be a surgeon. Your decisions and judgment as President require enormous knowledge, temperance and teamwork. Your decisions impact countless lives around the planet. Your training, preparation, education, judgment and experiences all matter. It is hard, stressful and demanding, and requires skills and abilities that the vast majority of people do not have. These very qualities can sometimes make it difficult to identify with the people who are actually able to be president - for exactly the same reasons it can be hard to identify with doctors, lawyers or other people in highly skilled, highly educated jobs.

Deal with it. We have to stop electing candidates based upon who we like better and who we identify with. This is a job interview for the most difficult job on the planet. Treat it that way.

Ask hard questions. Find out everything that you can. Don't settle for easy answers, and find out exactly what these people are going to do - then make your decision. We owe it to ourselves to at least treat this job with the same concern and investigation that we use when we need to have surgery, deliver a child, or buy a home or a car.

Oh Jon Stewart.

Sarah Palin must be made available to the public.

As I've thought more in the past few days about the implications of Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket, I've come to more fully believe that the McCain campaign fully intends to control the narrative about her. In my post from a few days ago, I hit on a potential strategy that involved only exposing Palin when absolutely necessary, and keeping the focus on her personal story above that of her professional experience and expertise.

The McCain campaign has put themselves in a commanding position to only put Sarah Palin on the trail when they want or need to do so. When we look at this a bit more carefully, it becomes alarming exactly how they are able to do this. A couple of points:

• It is clear that McCain fully intends to play the gender card as much as possible. We've seen this reflected in the GOP camp's clear play to go to war with the media, calling them sexist for stories about Palin's expertise, family, and qualifications. Now, without any doubt, there have been stories in the media that have been sexist, and likely would not have come up for a male candidate. Questions about Sarah Palin's priorities as a mother are inappropriate, as I just don't see them arising for male candidates - and if they do, they go away very quickly. I'm not excusing or discounting this fact.
  
  BUT - this strategy is one that McCain picked up on from Hillary Clinton. The McCain campaign saw the way the media responded to Clinton and Ferraro's charges of media bias during the Democratic primary, and realized that it made the media self conscious. Accusations of bias are taken seriously by the media, as it goes to the heart of their profession. They clearly intend to do the same thing with Sarah Palin, to delay the media vetting of their candidate. Rest assured, it won't stop it - as the media will battle back eventually. But it buys them time. Simply look at the quote from Rick Davis, as reported by ABC news, stating that Palin would not subject herself to tough questions "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."
  
  This statement assumes a conclusion that the GOP has created - that the media will not currently treat Palin with respect and deference. It is a brilliant circular argument. The GOP began their VP roll out process by accusing the media of a bias that at best only existed tangentially, but will ride it as far and as long as they are able.
  
  
• There are only a few ways that the Obama campaign can respond - and unfortunately for them, none of them put them in a good position. Let us examine:
  
  *They can call for more official campaign debates. I think of this as the "option that isn't an option." The Obama campaign screwed themselves here - if they had agreed to more debates and town hall meetings back when the McCain campaign offered them up, they'd be in a much stronger position to call for Sarah Palin to debate Joe Biden more often. But they didn't. And now they're stuck with what they've got. They just won't be able to effectively compel more official appearances than what is scheduled now
  
  *They can choose to ignore Sarah Palin. By focusing entirely on John McCain at the top of the ticket, they can effectively try and negate her buzz by bringing the issues back around to John McCain's platform and positions, and refocus the campaign on the issues after allowing the initial Palin buzz to subside. This seems to be the tactic embraced by most of the pundits, and thus far, appears to be the Obama campaign's plan of attack. This is a fair strategy - but I think the critical flaw in it is that it does not assist the public in learning anything about Sarah Palin.
  
  *They can go on the offensive on Sarah Palin's record in the media. The campaign must raise substantial, persistent questions on the actions that Sarah Palin has taken as governor and mayor, as well as insist that she take public positions on all of the relevant issues in this election: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, energy independence, health care, social security reform, and on and on and on. These critiques should remain topical - but they cannot go away. The Obama campaign must be the catalyst for the media to keep asking questions. As a part of this, the Obama campaign must not be afraid to criticize the media themselves - force them to do their jobs, even if the McCain camp throws charges of sexism.
  
  Personally, I think this final option is the tactic the Obama campaign must embrace. The Obama campaign has to recognize that John McCain has completely shifted the election - it is no longer about Barack Obama or John McCain, but about Sarah Palin. She is lifting the GOP on personality alone - the base is incredibly enthusiastic about her far right political stances, and moderates and independents are enraptured by the buzz that surrounds her. The longer this is allowed to happen without serious questions being asked about what she actually believes, the more her personal story is allowed to take hold. The more her personal story is allowed to take hold while unchecked by issues, the more attached the public will become. And the more attached the public becomes, the easier it is for the McCain campaign to allege sexism in media coverage and perpetuate the cycle.
  
  The Obama campaign must learn from the tactics that were employed against them. Palin must be forced to answer for her record and associations in the same way that Barack Obama was - and they cannot let potential charges of sexism obscure this goal. And rest assured, if Obama goes on the offensive here, he'll be attacked for it. He'll need his female surrogates - Hillary Clinton at the forefront - to be out and defending him against any charges of sexism or bias. But the only way to create a public outcry for greater transparency and access to Sarah Palin is by raising serious questions about her judgment and ability to lead - it is EXACTLY the question that the GOP has been so effective in raising against Barack Obama.
  
  I may be one of the few Obama supporters that felt that all of the focus on Barack Obama's past associations - be it Reverend Wright, William Ayers, or anything else - was valuable and important to the public discourse. Americans have a right to know who they are electing, no matter what your politics are. The more you know, the more informed a decision you're able to make. If you have the same information that I do and choose to back a different candidate, then so be it. But we should have as much information as possible - and that is true of Sarah Palin, no matter whether you support her or not. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to learn as much about our candidates as possible.
  
  The Obama campaign owes it to the American people to raise enough questions about Sarah Palin that we all demand that they be answered. All Americans, regardless of party, should want to know a potential President of the United States actually believes before we put them in that office.
  

Finally - a personal thought and decision. When I began this blog, I didn't have an intent to use it to a specific aim or purpose. My political affinity is well known to anybody that knows me, but I didn't intend to use this space for outright campaigning or politicking. Well, I've changed my mind, to a certain extent. Andrew Sullivan hit on it this weekend in this post, much of which I agree with.

And while I'm not changing the overall nature of my postings here, I've decided to take an active stance related to Sarah Palin - that I will call for her to be subject to all of the scrutiny that every candidate is subjected to. Personally, I feel that is a decision devoid of politics - of course, some will not view it as such given my own support for the Obama ticket. But I feel as though insisting on transparency and disclosure is nonpartisan. To that end, I will not hesitate to call it as I see it.

ABC News reports on Troopergate

Interesting piece, and worth watching.

The speeches: Barack Obama and John McCain side by side.

I think it may be very useful for people to watch the acceptance speeches, side by side. If you have two hours to kill, you can view both speeches here. I was able to find a video that had the complete Obama speech, but have yet to find one that has the whole McCain speech as one video. If anybody has it, please send along a link and I'll replace the segmented one here with an uninterrupted version.

As you watch, I'd encourage viewers to ask the following questions: what exactly is each man proposing to do as President of the United States of America? What specific policy programs is he suggesting? Does he offer a rationale as to how it can be done, and how it will impact the country? What would a country under this man's leadership actually look like?


Barack Obama



John McCain (in parts)

Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

This was line from a rather striking email that was read aloud on the Diane Rehm show this morning on NPR. Kudos to whomever wrote it.

UPDATE: perhaps this is a new line the Obama campaign is pushing, as it is also featured over at Jonathan Martin's blog as an email from a reader. Or perhaps it is the same e-mailer.

UPDATE PART TWO: some readers are complaining about this as an equation between Obama and Jesus. Let me say very clearly: I AM NOT EQUATING OBAMA AND JESUS. I think this statement just points out the ignorance and hypocrisy the GOP has embraced by insulting all community organizers. That is all this post is meant to illustrate - it is not an equivalency between Obama and Jesus, or Sarah Palin and Pontius Pilate for that matter.

Thoughts on the GOP strategy before John McCain's big speech.

MSNBC just did an interesting piece on the new polling suggesting that Barack Obama and John McCain are tied . This would suggest that the bump he's received in the latest Gallup polls has evaporated, presumably due to the choice of Sarah Palin. This is assuming that the CBS poll is accurate - which we won't know for another few days. Forgive me, but most of this will be paraphrasing their arguments.

Matthews made the point that our current political climate prevents us from being charmed by a candidate. Given the skill levels of these two campaigns, any bump in the polls is immediately answered by such a vehement barrage of attacks from the opponent that the lead evaporates.

This led them to one key conclusion - that Sarah Palin is the latest political phenomena who will rise up in popular opinion, and then be dragged back down by the machine initiated against her. They emphasized that it has never seemed as though any candidate has been able to gain a strong foothold - that the campaigns have an ebb and flow dictated by the media and their attacks on one another.

What is most interesting to me is a realization that the new tug of war is a battle of popularity. That is how John McCain is shaking up the race - by attemting to take the issues off the table and make the campaign about the people. You can see it in every vitriolic personal attack on Barack Obama's personal history and life story. You can see it every time John McCain offers up his tragic personal history as a talking point without offering any real insight as to how it will help him to lead.

McCain realized that his greatest weakness in this election was that he was unable to command the attention of the public. People recognized he was there, but were never completely tuned in to what he was doing. He felt he had to co-opt the attention Obama was getting; ironically, the very attention that McCain used against him. And Sarah Palin was the solution.

Let us be clear: John McCain did not do this because he wanted to "shatter a glass ceiling" or because he wanted to advance women's issues. He did it because it gives him a chance to recapture the spotlight and to once again control this race. And it has worked - for now.

But there is an inherent, uneasy hypocrisy within McCain's play for the media and the public's attention. With no disrespect intended to the record of Sarah Palin or her accomplishments in office, she did not earn her political celebrity. She was given it by John McCain, who decided she could relaunch HIM into the political stratosphere. John McCain had the audacity to attack Obama's "celebrity," which in reality was a base and interest earned by two years of campaigning and a historic primary run against incredibly strong opposition. McCain mocked Obama supporters, dismissing the bulk of them as starry eyed latte liberals addicted to US Weekly and Perez Hilton

And amazingly, that is exactly why John McCain chose Sarah Palin. She became the new cover girl propelled entirely by her story - her handicapped child, her moose hunting, gun-toting professional snowboarder husband, and poor Bristol Palin, who is caught up in a narrative devoted to John McCain's ego. Now we're hearing about Jamie Lynn Spears calling Bristol to offer advice on teenage pregnancy. Right. Jamie Lynn Spears.

John McCain CREATED a celebrity overnight. Barack Obama earned his celebrity through a tough political fight lasting 18+ months.

And - for a time - it may well work. The public will be fascinated with Palin's persona, her strong stump speeches, her charm and sharp wit (let's face it, the lipstick line was golden). She's clearly a shrewd, courageous political talent. But the fact remains that she is here because she is being used as a political tool, chosen to draw the attention away from Barack Obama.

The risk is that the McCain campaign has no way to know how long this will last. Just ask Paris Hilton and Britney Spears about the perils of a fickle public. McCain is appealing to an American fascination with personality, and his great risk is that they tire of Sarah Palin before November. If you believe the MSNBC discussion, the Obama campaign is now likely to attempt to poke holes in the Palin narrative, to negate her impact on the race.

So how does the McCain campaign deal with this? Well, if they're confident that Palin can run the table for 60 days, nailing debates, public appearances and the issues, they put her out on the circuit and get her on the stump as much as possible. But running the table also involves holding the spotlight - Palin not only has to be spot on when it comes to the issues, but she has to remain McCain's anointed celebrity to prevent Obama from retaking the offensive.

But I also think it entirely likely that they do the exact opposite - that they limit Sarah Palin's exposure to the public as much as possible, keeping her narrative under their direct control so that her personal story remains THE main story about her. If they can do that - keep her in the pop culture spotlight while avoiding real opportunities for criticism - then she only has one major hurdle to clear in her debate with Joe Biden.

This may be the Republican strategy. Perhaps it is likely, if you listen to McCain's campaign manager. Perhaps the GOP has decided to make this election about personality, and will largely ignore the real issues - economy, war, health care. Perhaps the party will discuss only two issues outside of the debates - energy and terrorism. Be afraid. And drill. But be afraid! But don't forget to drill.

The GOP may already be showing their hand on this front. If you watched the early coverage of the convention, you were able to see one of the most appalling acts of exploitation I've ever witnessed on television - a video that caused Keith Olbermann to flip out on live TV. Prior to Senator Lindsey Graham's speech, the convention aired a "9/11 Video Tribute," which was essentially a propagandist reminder that we are locked in mortal combat with "those that attacked us on 9/11." It used images that we all remember painfully for solely political purposes. This was not a tribute, a remembrance, an homage - it was an exploitation. And it was wrong. You can view it for yourself below.



Following this, we were told that John McCain would accept the nomination at 9:11 PM local time. Seriously. I couldn't make this up.

With this strategy - drill, fear, drill, fear - Sarah Palin doesn't ever have to say much. She just has to be Sarah Palin, the person - tell her story, tout her family, nail some basic speeches on the issues she knows well and throw out the zinging one liners she seemed to have mastered in her acceptance speech. She has to keep the spotlight pointed firmly at the McCain/Palin ticket - and she can do that without ever giving a tough interview or submitting to a real press conference.

It is a truly cynical, depressing political move - and I hope that is not what the Republican Party is doing. I hope they use every political skill that Sarah Palin has and that she is left to succeed or fail on her own merits. I hope the McCain campaign trusts that Palin can learn the foreign policy, compete on the economy, and convince voters of her ability to lead.

But if they use her simply as a political pawn - a tool to draw attention away from Barack Obama and toward the Republican ticket - it is appalling and disappointing. For the sake of the Republican Party, let us hope this isn't the case.

I believe it is a tactic that would fail. And may destroy the Republican Party as it exists today.

UPDATE: Apparently Sarah Palin is leaving the campaign trail to hole up in Alaska for awhile. This is less than a week after Sarah Palin was announced as the VP choice, and she is already disappearing from public view? Is this indicative of the GOP's control over her image? Are we not going to get a chance to really learn what Sarah Palin is all about?

102 people arrested at the Rage Against the Machine show in Minneapolis

I'm all for rocking out at a Rage Against the Machine show.  They're simply electric.  When I saw them at Lollapalooza this summer, I expected riot police to greet us as we were leaving.  But surprisingly, that wasn't the case - and also surprisingly, there weren't any problems to speak of beyond the crowd crush at the show.

So I'm not terribly surprised there were issues in Minnesota this week.  The Star Tribune has the story:

Even though fans who attended Wednesday's Rage Against the Machine concert were asked not to cause trouble when they left Target Center, scores of people didn't comply with the request.

Trouble did break out on downtown Minneapolis streets and police arrested 102 people who had attended the concert, according to the Joint Information Center which is coordinating security in connection with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

Of those arrested, 87 people were tagged with misdemeanor offenses and released, 13 were booked into the Hennepin County Jail on misdemeanor offenses and subsequently released, and two people were arrested on gross misdemeanor probable cause and were still in jail this morning, a Joint Information Center spokeswoman said.

Roland Martin defends community organizers following Palin's speech.

Good for Roland Martin. Great response, and spot on - Obama/Biden should hammer this point.

My Morning Jacket = The Southern Pink Floyd

I went to see My Morning Jacket last night at D.A.R. Constitution Hall in Washington DC.  Having only seen the band at Lollapalooza a few years ago, I was excited to get a look at them now that they've been on the road as much as they have, and in a smaller (albeit, still large) venue.

Prior to the show, I've thought My Morning Jacket was becoming Pink Floyd with slide guitars.  Beginning with Z and continuing more predominantly with Evil Urges, the band melds some pretty bizarre musicial ideas and influences with very traditional instrumentation and fantastic guitar solo work to make something that simultaneously sounds inventive and familiar.  Check out tracks like "Touch Me I'm Going to Scream (Part 2)" or the trippy, Air sounding outro in "Off the Record" for great examples of this genre bending.  The video above - "Gideon" - is also a great example, from when they were doing shows with full orchestras backing them.  What other band can effectively pull that off?

Now, having seen them, I'm only more convinced that the comparison is apt.  Everything from the mesmerizing lighting (perhaps the best I've seen at D.A.R.) to the It Still Moves era bears adorning the stage screams psychedelia.  The lighting that filled the arch over the stage was just fantastic - more artists should take advantage of this space in the future for production.  

And on top of everything, the band is simply spot on.  Jim James is a great blend of rock star and mystery man, draping himself in stage towels and preaching typical rock star politics from the stage.  He galavants around the stage like a little kid playing tee-ball for the first time: full of energy and excitement, trying to go everywhere at once and having a blast all the while.  Vocally, he's perfect.  As a guitarist, he's versatile and technically excellent.  The entire band is tight and engaging, with impeccable style and presence.  Oh - and they play a two and a half hour set that manages to perfectly straddle their older, country influenced catalogue and their newer, trippier material.

Go see this band.  Check out their records.  They're a rock band in an era without many rock bands, but they're still managing to do something new and fresh.  They're simultaneously a throw back to another time and pushing a creative boundary.  Simply outstanding.

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy caught with hot microphones on MSNBC slamming the Palin pick.

Beautiful.

Campbell Brown takes Tucker Bounds to task over Palin's foreign policy experience.

Kudos to Campbell Brown on this one, taking John McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds to task on Palin's foreign policy experience and the campaign's shift in rhetoric on experience.

There is about a 15% chance John McCain will die before Inauguration Day 2013

Morbid, but factual.  

Via Politico:

The odds of a 72-year-old man living four more years, or one full White House term, are better. But for a man who has lived 72 years and 67 days (McCain’s age on Election Day this year), there is between a 14.2 and 15.1 percent chance of dying before Inauguration Day 2013, according to the Social Security Administration’s 2004 actuarial tables and the authoritative 2001 mortality statistics assembled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.