The K.F. Stone Weekly

Where Do We Go From Here?

     Could it be true? 

    Could what be true? 

    Could there only be 120-or-so hours until the final ballots are cast in Hawaii and the 2008 election finally, finally comes to an end? 

   The answer is "yes?"

   Amazing! 

   What's amazing?

   What's amazing?  Well, just think about it: It's taken more than 2 years and $2.4 billion to get to this point.  It's been so long that the names of some of the original cast members are both gone and forgotten; who but a political junkie will remember when Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Clinton were all in the Democratic hunt?  Or how about Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Gilmore, Thompson, Tancredo and Cox? 

   Cox?  Who in the heck is -- or was -- "Cox"?

   John H. Cox was -- and is -- a Chicago-area attorney.  Believe it or not, he was the first Republican to announce his candidacy.  Likewise, he was the first to leave the race.

   It's been an amazing couple of years.  Right from the outset there was the understanding that the 2008 presidential election would be unlike any other; that it was rife with the chance of a historic first.  After all, there was the possibility that January 2009 might see the inauguration of a president who was:

• An African American
• A Mormon
• A Hispanic
• A woman
• A Baptist Preacher
• Older than any other first-term chief executive

   When all the winnowing was completed, we wound up with two major-party candidates who represented a whole bunch of historic firsts and oddities as well:

• First African American to run for president.
• First presidential candidate to be educated -- if but in tiny part -- in a Muslim country.
• First-ever presidential race between two sitting United States Senators
• Largest age gap between two candidates [John McCain is 25 years older than Barack Obama.]
• First time one candidate is easily old enough to be the other candidate's father.
• First time a presidential candidate is young enough to be his running-mate's son [Joe Biden is 19 years older than Barack Obama.]
• First time a vice presidential candidate is young enough to be her running-mate's daughter or even granddaughter [John McCain is 36 years older than Sarah Palin.]
• First time that any nominee -- let alone both -- has an attachment to either Hawaii or Alaska.

    Has this been the dirtiest, least edifying presidential election in American history?  Likely not.  As a rule, American presidential jousts always have been rather long on bombast, bunk and entertainment, and woefully short on character truth and good taste.  And whether it be William Henry Harrison's 1840 campaign where  he provided endless casks of bourbon for thirsty voters,  James G. Blaine's 1884 campaign where he accused opponent Grover Cleveland of having fathered an illegitimate child ["Ma Ma, Where's my Pa, Gone to the White House. Ha Ha Ha!"] or LBJ's notorious 1964 commercial that scared three-quarters of America into believing that Barry Goldwater was just itching to "drop the bomb," there's nothing new under the sun.  Oh, sometimes the lies are a bit more obvious, a tad more frenzied, such as those claiming that Senator Obama is joined at the hip with Osama bin Laden, a second cousin to Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga, or bankrolled by Al Qaeda. All things considered, the Obama campaign has been mostly restrained; Joe Biden has rarely played it as viscerally as Sara Palin.  

   Without question, this has by far been the most expensive presidential race in American history -- roughly $2.4 billion, as noted above. It has also seen one campaign underwritten by an amazing 3,000,000-plus contributors who combined, managed to pour in nearly three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollars.  To my way of thinking, this is the very definition of "public financing."

   So, whichever ticket wins, it will be breaking new ground.  But well beyond the anomalies and trivialities of this about-to-be-concluded race, are the most daunting challenges any administration has ever encountered. To the best of my knowledge, none of America's great economic meltdowns -- including the "Panic of 1837" and "The Crash" of 1929 -- occurred during a time when America was at war. Never before has a president entered the White House saddled with a multi-trillion dollar debt or such a vast disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots."  [For a stark example of this, check out the photos of the house of a McCain/Palin versus an Obama/Biden supporter on the front page of today's New York Times.]  And never before have the American people been so divided in their feelings, responses and understanding of the two major candidates. 

  In traveling and speaking, conversing and communicating with people from all over the country -- and even abroad -- it's become painfully obvious that few people are vanilla when it comes to the candidates -- particularly Obama or Palin.  People either love them and think they're the second coming, or revile them and pray they just crawl back under the rocks whence they came.  Increasingly, these conversations, arguments and debates point to an interesting phenomenon: a large majority of Democrats who speak positively about an Obama presidency versus an even larger majority of Republicans who seem to be much more anti-Obama/Biden than pro-McCain/Palin.  

   Barack Obama is neither the messiah nor the anti-Christ. What he is, is a highly gifted, highly thoughtful, supremely confidant politician who has been breaking barriers all his life.  

  Likewise, John McCain is neither the second coming of Audie Murphey nor a senile old coot.  What he is is an anomaly; a career military man who, despite his background and training, marches to his own drummer and has shown himself to be capable of self-deprecation.

   In short, neither man is as ideal as his biggest fans firmly believe, nor as diabolical as his worst enemies proclaim.

   So, where do we go from here?  Regardless of who is proclaimed victor -- whenever that will come is anybody's guess -- that man will face tasks and challenges which require the intellect of Jefferson, the political instincts of Lincoln, and the teamwork of FDR's New Dealers.  And do remember, all those "promises" and "positions" that the campaigns have been proclaiming these past many months represent political ideals; of what either candidate would do in a perfect world where neither Congress, the Court nor the Citizens have a say. But of course, there is a Congress, there are Courts, and we, the citizens do have a say.  To accomplish anything of importance requires far, far more than mere wishing, hoping or pontificating.

   Do remember that which ever man becomes president he will require a public that is made up of citizens who, after so many years in the political wilderness, can hear that most American of all exhortations: 

    'WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!'

    Will we be true . . .?    

  

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

Whose America?

     

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: "How many people, members of Congress, do you think are in that anti-American crowd you described?"

    REP. MICHELLE BACHMANN: "I would say that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look.  I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-American or anti-American?  I think the people would love to see an expose like that."

    Coming as it does on the heels of Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann's above-referenced, nationally-televised rant on precisely who is or is not pro-American, methinks it none too terribly wise to start off a piece with a quote from Karl Marx.  But heck, whoever said I was all that wise?  And so, casting caution to the wind let us do precisely that. 

    At the beginning of Marx's 1852 work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx notes:
  

   "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice.  He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."  [Note: On the French Revolutionary calendar "Brumaire" was the second month of the year, extending from Oct. 22 to Nov. 20.]

 

   Now, so far as I know, neither Marx nor Hegel ever indicated how they understood or categorized history when it repeated itself for a third, fourth or even fifth time.

    Banality? 

       Stupidity? 

           Lunacy?

               Asininity?      

                  Treachery?

    While Representative Bachmann's recent comments to Chris Matthews about who is and is not "pro-American" may be an example of "history repeating itself," it is by means the stuff of farce.  Rather, her words, her tenor -- her very message -- are a haunting, chilling echo of America's age-old addiction to "Us-Versus-Them."  Make no mistake about it: this addiction, this echoing repetition of all that is worst in the American ethos, is beyond banal; it is stupid and asinine, dangerous, and above all, treacherous.

    Michelle Bachmann -- along with politicians like Governor Palin and North Carolina Representative Robin Hayes -- and conservative columnists and talk-show hosts [read: "entertainers"] like Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glen Beck and Jim Quinn to name but a few -- are merely the latest incarnation of such damnable demagogues as:

• Rep. Lewis Charles Levin, Founder of the 1840s super-patriotic "Know Nothing Party," who proclaimed that all of America's problems were due to the Irish;
  
• A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General and scourge of anarchists everywhere, who saw a "Red under every bed;"
• Rep. Martin Dies, First chairman of HUAC, who believed that the Jews of Hollywood were leading America down the Red-hued path to Perdition,
• Sen. Joe McCarthy -- Need one say more? and      
  
• Sen. John Stennis, The man who "revealed" the dangerous link between the long haired students of Berkeley and the loathsome slave masters of Beijing.       

    Each and every one of these would-be demagogues sought to drive a stake through the heart of America, dividing it between "Us" and "Them."  Each found startlingly simple "black-and-white" answers to a series of highly complex problems and challenges. Each ultimately led a movement whose adherents were far more interested in pointing a finger of blame than in extending a hand of help.

    One again, history is repeating itself.  This time around, Ralph Cramden has been replaced by "Joe the Plumber"  as the personification of a "real American," while "the enemy" -- those who are, in Rep. Bachmann's obnoxious phrase "anti-American" -- are personified by the likes of William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama, Speaker Pelosi and who knows, perhaps even the disinterred bones of Sir Charles Chaplin.  

   And you thought the Blacklist died with Joe McCarthy!

   As the days leading to the presidential campaign dwindle, we have seen a powerful surge amongst those seeking to highlight the "two Americas." The first is a wholesome "real America" where patriotic people work hard, hate taxes, believe that leaving business alone is good, want government to stay the heck out of their lives -- except when it comes to abortion, stem-cell research and same-sex unions -- and believe in God.  In many cases, they want to turn back the clock to a time when women were second-class, unions were illegal, and the "under-classes" knew their place.   

   Then there is the festering "anti-America."  According to this skewed vision, "anti-America" is composed of ultra-Leftists, Liberals and Socialists; traitors who do not believe in God, want to raise taxes, "spread the wealth," nationalize health care and give aid and comfort to all the enemies of freedom.  

    Of late, those addicted to this two-America weltanschauung have become ever more vocal and loopy.  Consider:

• On October 22, columnist Thomas Sowell compared Barack Obama to Hitler, Mao, Jim Jones and all those leaders who rose to power on a message of "change" or due to "inspiring rhetoric and a confidant style" more than "specifics."
• On his October 21 broadcast, commentator Jim Quinn waxed nostalgically that  "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." 
• On his October 20 broadcast, Michael Savage, speaking about Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Obama declared: "The only people who don't seem to vote based on race are white people of European origin."
• During an October 22 campaign appearance in North Carolina, Governor Sarah Palin spoke of "the real America . . . the hardworking, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this country . . . a place where we find kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans."
• During an October 18 campaign rally, North Carolina Representative Robin Hayes told the crowd that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God."  

   This sort of talk -- especially when coupled with Representative Bachmann's comments with which we began -- should scare the living daylights out of us. It should also make us angry, which in turn must make us motivated, energized and resolute.  No one -- and we mean "no one" will ever divide us.  No one has that right, try as they may.
 
   The name of this country is the UNITED States of America.  More than a name, or a haphazard collection of letters, it is a promise, a vision, a goal.  And yes, some Americans have been here longer than others.  Some have greater material wealth than others.  Then again, some are taller, skinnier, better educated, more coordinated or funnier than others.  But we are still the UNITED States of America; the most incredible salad bowl the world has ever known.

    Once again, there is a wind blowing across the land that seeks to divide us, to convince one part of the people that they are more deserving, more moral, more "American" than others.  This goes against every inch of progress we have made together as a UNITED States of America.  As Woody Guthrie famously wrote, "This land was made for you and me."                 

   This is not a partisan political issue.  It does go to the very heart of who we are, and what we were created to be -- an amalgam of disparate people who together can and will be a City on a Hill . . . a beacon of light in an increasingly dusky universe.

   Are you listening Representative Bachmann?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Re-re-re-packaging of John McCain

  

Back in 1969, writer Joe McGinniss published The Selling of the President.  The book offered a then-revolutionary behind-the-scenes look at the careful choreography that went into the marketing and repackaging of presidential candidate Richard Nixon.  McGinniss' thesis was simple: Nixon's handlers -- with equal measures of cynicism and hubris -- treated him and his race for the presidency as just another product or ad campaign. Indeed, the book's original dust jacket had Nixon's jowly countenance emblazoned on a pack of cigarettes.  The Selling turned out to be a groundbreaking work of inestimable importance.  It gave readers a ringside seat at what in retrospect was the first truly "modern" [read: unedifying] presidential race. What I find so amazing rereading the book nearly 40 year later is that two of the key actors in that 1968 "ad campaign" are still at the top of their game in 2008: Roger Ailes and Pat Buchanan.  Buchanan of course, is Rachael Maddow's curmudgeonly conservative counterpart on MSNBC; Roger Ailes is president of the Fox News Channel, the home of über neo-cons Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

      McGinnis hit the jackpot; The Selling sold. It quickly shot up to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, and made its then-26 year old author a staple of what at the time was the "late night talk show circuit." More importantly, McGinniss' work pulled back the curtain and permitted the first unobstructed view of what has become commonplace in American presidential campaigns: a witch's brew of cynicism laced with a generous dollop of hucksterism.  Those who imbibe this noxious potion do so at their own risk.  It's fumes can make the Purple Heart winning grandson of a Jewish immigrant look like a "latte-sipping" coward, and turn a kid from Hawaii by way of Harvard Law into the most confusing of all oxymora: an elitist homeboy.

   Political junkies will quite likely recall that term of yore, "The New Nixon."  Well, as they say,  "The more things change, the more they remain the same."  Seems like every couple of days brings forth a "New and Improved!" John McCain.  From the "Hero," "Maverick" and "Straight Shooter" who once called the Religious Right "agents of intolerance"  and remembered what it was like to be the victim of torture, McCain has been packaged, repackaged and re-repackaged into someone or something that is all but unrecognizable.  But that's the nature of advertising.  One's product must always be changing, must always be "New and Improved!" or else begin losing market share.

   I would hate to estimate how many commercials we watch or hear in an average day, week, month or year. Its got to be in the tens of thousands.  Some stick with us just because we hear or see them so often.  Others enter our daily speech: remember "Where is the beef?" "It's the Real Thing," and  "You Deserve a Break Today"?  Sometimes, the very nature of the product -- Viagra, deodorant or just about any feminine hygiene product -- require lots of verbal misdirection.  And then, there are all those commercials that "prove" that "Nine out of ten experts agree" that Product X or Product Y is the best there is. In recent years, advertisers have even starting bringing up the name of the competition -- announcing to consumers that while "Their Product" Stinks," "Ours is Faaaantastic!"

   As a result of all this commercial bombardment, some consumers have come to believe everything they see or hea,r while others have arrived at the point where they believe virtually nothing. Those in the latter category are of a mind that "If it's being pitched on TV (or radio or the Internet) it's got to be a lie."  And who's to blame them?  It's just the nature of the advertising game: cynical, hucksterish and seeking to make consumers of us all.

   Ah, but we're supposed to be engaged in a serious discussion about electing a leader, not selecting toothpaste.  The problem is, that ever since the days of young Joe McGinniss, our presidents -- indeed, most political leaders -- have generally been advertised in pretty much the same manner -- and often by many of the same people using the same tricks -- as Madison Avenue has been hawking most any other commercial product.  And that means aiming for and bombarding the lowest common denominator, whether it be called "Middle America," "The Silent Majority," "Joe Sixpack" or, as of last night, "Joe the Plumber."

   Because "products" like John McCain are constantly being repackaged; because the "sell" far more often involves exposing what's wrong with the other "product" as opposed to what it is that makes yours superior, we the "consumer" wind up believing that everybody's lying and everything stinks.  If the subject were toothpaste or deodorant we could just shrug it off and say "there you go again."  But this is one heck of a lot more vital; it involves the future of our country . . . indeed, the very future of the world.

   On balance, the Obama campaign's "sell" of their "product" has remained  remarkably consistent.  Yes, they have run lots of so-called "negative" spots. But most reliable polling data tend to show that the American public believes McCain to be running the nastier, more negative campaign. 

   Could it be that people are actually beginning to see that one "product" really is superior to the other?  Could it be that the more the voting public sees or hears John McCain and Sarah Palin, the less they understand who or what they really are?  I think the answer to both questions is "Yes." 

   I think its beginning to dawn on lots of people in the American heartland that despite what has been sold as a "lack of experience," Barack Obama is decidedly more thoughtful, more empathic, more dignified and presidential than John McCain.  Or that while undoubtedly Senator Joe Biden is quite a bit more loquacious than Governor Sarah Palin, he is ready to become president; he has no need of a crash course in "White House 101."

   For those of us who have read Senator Obama's first two books [which unlike those of John McCain, he himself wrote] we recognize that he is the same man with the same energy, vision and intellect he was 5, 10, even 15 years ago.  No one has had to "repackage" him.  Yes, Senator Obama -- like Senator McCain -- is as much a "product" as he is a politician.  For better or for worse, that is the nature of the modern campaign beast.

   But after so many years of "New!" "Improved!" and "Revolutionary!" isn't it nice to know that the "product" we are about to elect is one we can trust; one that won't break down as soon as the warranty expires; one that will perform just the way the advertisers said it would.  

    A couple of brief thoughts about last night's third and final presidential debate:

   Many have written me complaining that Senator Obama didn't go on the attack last night; that he did not "shove Sarah Palin down McCain's throat," or "respond much more vigorously about those who were shouting 'kill him' at a recent Palin rally."  From my point of view, this would not have been presidential.  He remained above the fray, did not take the bait, and emerged the debate winner.

   A rule of thumb in campaign politics is that Democrats run "as far left" as they dare in primaries, then move toward the center for the general.  For Republicans it is quite the opposite: run "as far right" as you dare in the primaries, then move toward the center in the general.  Senator Obama has done this to perfection.  However, Senator McCain has actually been moving even farther to the right in the general.  This is unprecedented, and shows that his political quiver is nearly out of arrows.  All he's got left is his "neo-con" base.

   As for those worrying about the "Bradley Effect," permit me to plant a seed of doubt.  There is also such a thing as a "Reverse Bradley Effect," whereby folks publicly proclaim they are going to vote for the white candidate, and then once in the privacy of the voting booth, vote for the black candidate.  This has happened with quite a bit of regularity over the past decade in such disparate places as Louisiana, Michigan, California and believe it or not, Oklahoma.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Après moi le déluge?

   Might I ask a brief favor? 
   Could you hang with me just a bit and see if I have this right?  First consider the following points:

• Wall Street and nearly every global market worth mentioning have tanked.

• Despite the $800+billion bailout, Wall Street continues its precipitous decline; already, trillions of retirement account dollars have gone up in smoke.
  
• While most Americans are worried about buying groceries or paying the next installment on their home mortgage, the big shots of the failed A.I.G. decided to take $440,000 of their $85 billion payout and spend it on a retreat at the hyper-posh St. Regis Resort and Spa -- a Shangri-La that actually has rooms for visiting oligarchs' dogs and cats starting at $550 a night.
• According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the situation in Afghanistan now is the worst since the U.S.-led invasion of 2001 and the country is in danger of a 'downward spiral' into violence and chaos.
• The War in Iraq continues costing American taxpayers $10 billion a month.
• All of the above are being paid out with borrowed money.
  

                                         AND YET

• Sarah Palin repeatedly accuses Barack Obama of tripping the light fantastic with terrorists.

• John McCain continues misinforming voters that if elected, Barack Obama will -- without preconditions -- sit down with anyone, anywhere and at anytime.
• The McCain-Palin campaign has made sure that more Americans can identify William Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than can name their own senators or Congressional representative. 
• Barack Obama and Joseph Biden are being accused of seeking to foist Socialism on an unsuspecting American public via National Health Care.

   Have I got this right?  Does the second group of points make it seem like the devastating realities presented in the first group of points do not exist? 

  I thought so.  According to what the McCain/Palin camp is saying -- over and over and over -- it would seem that the only things standing between present-day, problem-plagued America and a return to absolute Ozzie and Harriet "normalcy" are Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.  By vastly expanding and turning up the volume of their negative attacks on Senator Obama, McCain/Palin are putting three obvious facts on display for the American voting public:

1. That John McCain is the ultimate cynic; a man who believeshe can capture the White House by catering to what he understands is a terminally-ignorant electorate.

2. That McCain and Palin are far, far more interested in getting elected than in helping solve the nation's most pressing problems.
3. That Wall Street, corporate "fat cats" and "average" millionaires are the Republican Party's primary -- if not sole -- constituency.
   

   With all that is going on in America and the world these days, one must, in all honesty, question the sanity of anyone who wants to be president.  Let's face it; it's a job filled to overflowing with angst and supreme challenge, and completely devoid of privacy or a moment's rest.  The pay isn't even much to speak of; heck, there are at least five baseball players I can name who make in a single week what the president is paid in an entire year.  And talk about the headaches!  Everything you do or say, eat, drink or wear, your every gesture is open to public scrutiny and dissection from a press that just loves to ream steam and dry-clean its leaders.

   And yet, despite all of the above, McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are going at it tooth and jowl precisely for this "right" to be reamed steamed and dry-cleaned.  Ah, but there are indeed some highly significant and obvious differences between the two men, their campaigns, their messages, demeanor and vision for the future.

   First and foremost, it seems clear that Barack Obama has a far more presidential mien than John McCain.  Compare Obama's calming confidence to McCain's frenetic fear mongering.  Contrast the Arizona's senator's impetuous, improvisational "shoot-from-the-hip" manner with his opponent's far more deliberate demeanor.  Yes it is true; by comparison, Senator Obama does occasionally come off as more professor than politician.  But let us pose this question: at this point in our history do we would prefer a president who appeals to our intellect and stresses what positive strides we can make if only we work together, or one who takes aim at our kishkes and warns us that if we don't elect him, America is positively doomed? 

   Having watched the first two presidential "debates," I have been struck by how much Senator Obama has attempted to spell out -- on issues ranging from health care, global warming and the economy to issues of war and peace -- and how much Senator McCain has relied upon the stale line "I know how to . . ."  During their last encounter, Senator McCain went on and on about how he "knows" how to kill Osama bin Laden, "knows" how to solve the economic mess we currently face,and  "knows" how to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Well now, if you "know" all these things, why haven't you at least told President Bush? If you had, your chances of winning the presidency would be likely be quite a bit better than they currently are.

   Then too, nowhere has John McCain really explained where we're going to get the money to balance our unbelievably out-of-whack budget.  This past Tuesday he did make the stark suggestion that today's workers are not going to be receiving as much in the way of Social Security as today's retirees.  It would seem that McCain's economic game plan will merely be a repeat of Bush's: drag as many new taxes out of the middle class so that the upper 1% can maintain their tax cuts.

   The McCain/Palin strategy -- at least this week -- revolves almost exclusively around what they understand to be their base; the hard-right, fundamentalist, "earth-is-flat" wing of the Republican Party.  And unless they come up with a last-minute change of mind, they will continue running an increasingly negative campaign of lies, half-truths and the worst sort of fear. The campaign is now only permitting Governor Palin to speak before hand-picked gatherings of "mad-dog" Republicans or on Fox News, where the questions they pose are like big fat fastballs -- guaranteed to wind up in upper deck.  And things are getting even nastier.  Just a few days ago, the assembled masses at a Palin speech started screaming "TERRORIST! TERRORIST!" when she mentioned Senator Obama.  Before that chant died down at least one member of the mob starting yelling "KILL HIM! KILL HIM!"  When questioned about this, both Palin and McCain claimed not to have heard it. 

  Right.  And Sarah Palin is a Rhodes Scholar.

 For the longest time now, the Republicans have been dancing to a tune played by their corporate underwriters -- far, far more than the Democrats.  They -- Republicans -- have shown a haunting consistency in policies ranging from the War in Iraq to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit program and in such proposals as taxing health benefits and off-shore drilling.  That consistency is perhaps best summed up in the Madame de  Pompadour's old adage "Après moi le déluge" figuratively, "I don't care if there is a disaster, just so long as it comes after I'm gone . . ."  Perhaps this is the greatest single demonstrative difference between Obama and McCain; that Senator Obama is willing to tell today's hard truths for the sake of creating a better, more secure tomorrow, while Senator McCain seeks only to preserve the perquisites of the few at the expense of the many. 

   In the campaign's final days, we can expect the mendacity, negativity and vacuity of the Republican attack to reach even lower lows. We can also expect Obama and the Democrats responding with greater and more pointed ferocity. 

   Let the Republican's live by the "Après moi le déluge" axiom; it is a philosophy totally unsuited to the times.

   For those of us whose concerns extend well beyond today, let us all learn to say En raison de nous, le futur sera lumineux"

  "Because of us, the future shall be bright. . ."

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Vice Presidential Debate: A Serio-Comedy in Two Acts

ACT ONE:
Prolegomena
2:00 p.m. EDT, Oct. 2, 2008

   

    Call it a serio-comedy in the making . . .

     In about seven hours what is undoubtedly the most highly anticipated debate of this or any recent political season will get underway at Washington University in St. Louis.  The prospect for a political meltdown on the part of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin or a case of raging Dentopedeitus -- "Acute Sticking-One's-Foot-In-One's-Mouth Disease" -- by Delaware Senator Joseph Biden -- has both pundits and political geeks salivating like Pavlov's dog.  Don't be surprised if tonight's viewership winds up dwarfing the numbers who tuned in to last week's first Presidential debate.    
  
   For weeks now, commentators and armchair strategists have been predicting everything from a Biden blowout to a Palin pasting.  And despite having screwed on the bravest of brave faces, Republican power brokers are holding their collective breath while reaching for the Courvoisier.  It seems to have dawned on them that no amount of midnight oil burning can ever give Governor Palin the issue-oriented chops, gravitas or demeanor she'll need to go up against Joe Biden, a man who has spent more than half his life in the United States Senate. 

   Predictably, the more the public has seen and heard from Palin, the more sense Gertrude Stein's quip "There is no there there" makes. Having been unable to name a single Supreme Court decision save Roe v. Wade while babbling on about Vladimir Putin "invading" American air space and managing to put six Republican talking points into a single sentence, Palin, frankly speaking, scares the living daylights out of a lot of people.  The thought that this woefully inadequate, self-described "Joe Six-Pack" could be  a single embolus away from the White House is just about the most frightening  thought I've ever had.  While listening to her tortured responses to Katie Couric's questions a couple of days ago, I was reminded of a sarcastic quip made by a frustrated professor at the University of California: "All I'm asking for is a simple comment, not a bloody survey course."

   This by no means implies that Joe Biden is involved in a cakewalk; he certainly is not. He's going to have to carefully navigate the dangerous waters between the Scylla of bombast and Charybdis of overkill. To engage in the former is to turn viewers off; to participate in the latter makes Palin an object of sympathy. Biden will have to keep his responses succinct, and be ever mindful that he really isn't debating Sarah Palin; he's going up against John McCain.  Hopefully, he'll also keep his 50,000 watt smile under control; too many ear-to-ear grins will likely seem like condescension.

   As for Governor Palin, I'm just glad that I don't have to give her advice, for I'm not sure what she can -- or will -- do to hold her own against Senator Biden.  The closer we get to the election, the more amazed I am that Governor Palin is still on the ticket.  That John McCain would even name her to be his running mate in the first place puts a huge question mark in the path of his so-called leadership skills.  Senator Biden will have to imply -- without precisely stating -- this point again and again.


   We'll get back to you after the debate . . .       

  

ACT TWO:
Postmortem
11:30 p.m. EDT, Oct. 2, 2008

   
   OK, we're back. Now comes the time to sift through the evening's detritus and see how Biden and Palin compared to the pre-debate expectations.  For Palin, of course, the bar was so low that that it seemed all she had to do was utter a single declarative sentence in order to be considered a success.  For Biden, his task was far more difficult: to keep it short, sell Obama, attack McCain, and, to the best of his ability, ignore Sarah Palin. After watching Palin's embarrassing performance in the Couric interview, I wondered if perhaps -- just perhaps -- she had tanked it on purpose so that by doing even an average job in the vice presidential debate, she would be looked upon as some kind of genius.

   Giving her her due, Governor Palin wasn't nearly as bad as I thought she would be.  In the same breath however, she was even more frightening than  I believed she could be.  Never mind the fact that like George W., she cannot correctly pronounce the "n-u-c-l-e-a-r," or that she misidentified America's  top military commander in Afghanistan. [General "McKiernan", not McClellan" leads our troops in Afghanistan.  The latter, who led the Army of the Potomac, died in 1885.]  Palin stuck to a rehearsed script that permitted her come off like an eerie synthesis of Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Marlo Thomas.  Where in the Couric interview she was unable to provide correct answers to the questions she had been asked, tonight she simply decided to give answers to questions she had not been asked.  It was obvious that come hell or high water, she was going to stick to the script -- and "the facts" she'd been given, regardless of whatever subject may have been on the table at the time.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if each wink she gave hadn't been written into the margins of the page.

   From her first minute on stage when she asked Senator Biden "can I call you Joe?" to debate's end when she portrayed herself as everybody's next door neighbor [despite the fact that she and her husband are millionaires], Palin came off as far more caricature than candidate.  Nowhere in the characterization was there the slightest hint that Palin and McCain are members of the same party as Bush and Cheney.  Then too, no where did she indicate how or where she and McCain would differ from Bush and Cheney.  On the positive side, she does possess a certain folksy charm and is clearly able to stick to a script.  Yet, despite the fact that seemingly every other word  of her script was "change," nowhere did she present a single issue or instance where she and her running mate would enact it.  Oh yes, at one point she did declare that she wants to expand the power of the vice presidency.  I've gone to bed with more comforting thoughts . . .

   For his part, Joe Biden was . . . well, Joe Biden: smart, passionate, and relentless.  Biden was on point throughout the debate, knowing the facts, understanding history, and comfortable with the challenges of the future. His one gaffe -- if indeed one could call it that -- was when he said the mantra for the pro-oil crowd was "Drill, Drill, Drill."  Palin quickly -- and churlishly -- instructed Biden that it was really "Drill Baby Drill!"  Big deal.

     Biden's most human moment was easily Palin's worst. In his concluding statement, the senator spoke briefly about the difficulties faced by families on Main Street.  At one point he became emotional, obviously remembering the worst time of his life when his wife and daughter were killed, his two sons critically injured in an automobile accident.  Almost immediately, it was Palin's turn to conclude.  Amazingly, the governor was both cold and unfazed; as if all Biden had been speaking about was meat and potatoes.  

    So who won the debate?  Not surprisingly, most Republicans will say it was Palin.  However, by any true measure -- facts, knowledge and experience -- the clear winner was Biden.  Without question, Palin did much better than most people believed she would.  In other words, she didn't trip on her tongue.  But doing better than the lowest of expectations does not a victory make. She may have "beat the spread," but did not win the debate.

    Congratulations Senator Biden.  You may not be as cute or shapely as Governor Palin, you're just the victor and obviously ready to be Vice President of the United States.
    
     

©2008 Kurt F. Stone